Sitting of 20 February 1866

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Education nominated (See p. 451).
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Act of Uniformity; Bank Notes (Ireland).
Ordered—Postmaster General*; Turnpike Roads*; Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings; Elective Franchise; Act of Uniformity*; Prosecution Expenses*; Bank Notes (Ireland)*; Church Rates Commutation (No. 2).*
First Reading—Postmaster General* [25]; Fellows of Colleges Declaration* [26]; Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings [27]; Prosecution Expenses* [28]; Bank Notes (Ireland)* [29]; Church Rates Commutation (No. 2)* [30].
Second Reading—Telegraph Act Amendment* [23] [Lords].
Committee—Cattle Plague (re-comm.) [7].
Report—Cattle Plague* [24].
Withdrawn—Church Rates Commutation* [12].

INDIA—THE LAHORE BISHOPRIC BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is the intention of the Government to re-introduce the Lahore Bishopric Bill during the present Session?
  MR. STANSFELD, in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Secretary of State, during the present Session, to re-introduce the Lahore Bishopric Bill.

IRELAND—QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY AND QUEEN'S COLLEGES.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What changes are contemplated in the charter and constitution of the Queen's University and Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and whether it is the intention of the Government fully to inform the House before proceeding with any measure involving a departure from the present system of University Education in that country?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In reply to the Question of my right hon. Friend, I had better perhaps first say—the Question in its terms including the Queen's Colleges along with the Queen's University—that no changes whatever are contemplated in the charter and constitution of the Queen's Colleges. With respect to the changes contemplated in the charter and constitution of the Queen's University, I may best describe them by saying they are such as were indicated and explained towards the close of the last Session of Parliament in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having for their object to qualify persons who have received their education in institutions where a particular or exclusive religion is taught to take degrees in the Queen's University, and likewise to make some arrangements for the purpose of obviating and removing jealousies and securing confidence with respect to those degrees. In reference to the last part of the Question of my right hon. Friend, of course I cannot say that it would be in our power to keep the House informed of those steps severally before proceeding with them, although I am by no means prepared to say that they involve a departure from the present system of University education in Ireland. But I can pledge myself that the charter and the Correspondence will both be presented to this House at the very earliest moment
812
in the power of the Government; and, indeed, with regard to the Correspondence, some of it is already prepared for presentation, and is about to be moved for by an hon. Member.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: Will my right hon. Friend say that the charter of the Queen's University will not be altered without being brought under the notice and knowledge of this House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Immediately that any charter varying from the present shall be issued it will be brought to the knowledge of this House.
MR. LOWE: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the change will take place without this House having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I apprehend that the proceeding, such as I have indicated it, will be in conformity with the universal practice of the executive Government, enabling the responsible Advisers of the Crown to give that advice which they think most for the public interest. They will, upon their own responsibility, make known that advice to the House of Commons, fully admitting the right of the House to call them to account.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: My right hon. Friend has not answered the Question. What I wish to ask is this—has no alteration at the present moment taken place in the charter of the Queen's University? That is done by the Sign Manual of the Sovereign. Has it not been done, will it not he done, without first laying before the House the grounds which the Government have for altering the present system of liberal and united education to one of a sectarian and denominational character?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That alteration has not been effected. With respect to the rest, I must refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I have already given.

NAVY—GREENWICH HOSPITAL ESTATES.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether a Comptroller of the Greenwich Hospital Estates has been appointed; and, if so, by whom was such appointment made, and at what salary or mode of remuneration? If such appointment has been made, to ask the name of the gentleman who has been appointed, and whether he is to be allowed to follow

813
any business or profession, and to ask the like questions as to the appointment of the Solicitor of the Greenwich Hospital Estates?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, the Duke of Somerset and the Admiralty have appointed a gentleman as Comptroller and likewise as solicitor of the Greenwich Hospital Estates. That gentleman has for many years been employed as solicitor. He will be paid by a fixed salary of £500 a year as solicitor, and £500 a year as Comptroller—an office which is not liable to superannuation allowance. The gentleman's name is Lethbridge.
MR. H. B. SHERIDAN: Will he be allowed to follow any business?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: He is to be permitted to follow his own profession.

IRELAND—THE DUBLIN AND LONDONDERRY MAILS.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the alleged irregularities which have occurred during the past six months in the running of the night Mails from Dublin to Londonderry, and what measures have been taken to remedy this evil?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, in reply, that the Inspector of Mails in Dublin had made a Report on the subject, and attended a Board meeting of the Ulster Railway Company, at which he requested the Directors to work their line with greater regularity. Since then the Company had got additional engines, and with the exception of the nights of the 7th of January and 4th of February, when some accidents had occurred, there had been no cause of complaint with regard to the night mails. There was no power to impose any penalties.

THE NEW LAW COURTS.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will state the names of the gentlemen appointed to serve on the Committee for the selection of the Architects who are to compete for the new Law Courts; whether the number of Architects is determined, and who is to have the final decision on the merits of the plans; and, whether he will lay upon the table the proceedings of the Royal Commission?
MR. COWPER: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that by the Courts
814
of Justice Building Act of last year, it was provided that the plans and arrangements of the Courts of Justice should be laid down by the Treasury with the advice and concurrence of such persons as Her Majesty might appoint for that purpose. A Commission, called the Courts of Justice Commission, was appointed, consisting of the Lord Chancellor and of most of the Judges and members of every branch of the legal profession. That Commission carefully considered the steps that ought to be taken in the selection of an architect. They prepared instructions, and came to a resolution that the competitors for the design of the building should be limited to six. The actual selection of these six architects has been confided to a Committee composed by the nomination partly of the Courts of Justice Commission, and partly of the Treasury. The two persons who were nominated by the Courts of Justice Commission, were the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Attorney General, the other persons are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Commissioner of Works, and the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. W. Stirling). This Committee met, and they have selected six architects. The Committee are also to decide on the selection of a design for the erection of the buildings. With regard to the proceedings of the Royal Commission, that Commission has not yet come to any decision as to the time and manner in which they will report those proceedings. Therefore, I am unable to tell when the proceedings will be published.
In answer to an hon. MEMBER,
MR. COWPERsaid, the names of the architects chosen to compete for the plans of the new Courts of Justice were Mr. Scott, Mr. Barry, Mr. Street, Mr. Water-house, Mr. Wyatt, and Mr. Hardwicke.

SOUTH KENSINGTON AND THE BRITISH MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue relative to the vacant ground at South Kensington, and the erection of a building there; and whether any Bill is to be introduced this Session for the removal of any of the collections now forming part of the British Museum?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as I think my hon.

815
Friend will perceive from the Civil Estimates which will very shortly be laid upon the table, is to propose two Votes for the disposal in part of the site at South Kensington, one of which will apply to the reception of certain collections of the British Museum, and the other to the collection of Patents. With respect to the introduction of any Bill this Session for the removal of those collections, that would not come on until we have disposed of the Vote. It must necessarily follow; but until I know how that question has been disposed of, I am not able to speak of the time when the Bill will be introduced.

CONSUMPTION OF CORN AND MEAT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, What amount of information the Government can give respecting the consumption of articles of food, especially corn and meat, at various periods in the present century?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I am afraid, Sir, that any estimate that could be furnished of the quantity of corn and meat consumed either now or in any former period during the present century would be very loose and unsatisfactory. We have the Returns of the importations of foreign corn, and they are reliable; but we have no accounts whatever of the quantity of home-grown corn consumed. Indeed, we have no statistics in this country of the extent of land appropriated to different crops. We are taking a cattle census, and if it be true that one-fourth of the cattle are annually slaughtered, we might estimate the consumption of butchers' meat; but I am informed by the Comptroller of the Corn Returns and others who are acquainted with this subject, that no reliable information is to be had from which to furnish such facts as might be laid before Parliament.

IRELAND—PROCLAMATION OF THE COUNTY OF LOUTH.—QUESTION.
MR. S. B. MILLERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Why the county and city of Armagh have been proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act, without the inland portion of the county of Louth, which adjoins the county Armagh to a large extent, being at the same time proclaimed; and whether there is any intention of proclaiming the
816
county of Louth, or the portion of it above referred to?
MR. SULLIVANsaid, in the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, he could state that it was intended to proclaim the sea-coast of Louth in order to prevent the importation of arms, but no reason existed for ploclaiming the remainder of the county.

ARMY—CONVEYANCE OF TROOP HORSES TO IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. W. R. GOREsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the horses of the Carabineers were moved on their route to Ireland in cattle trucks; and, if so, whether any measures were previously taken to disinfect those trucks from the seeds of the Cattle Plague?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that from information he had received he found that the horses of the Carabineers were not conveyed in cattle trucks. He was informed by the authorities at the Horse Guards that arrangements had been made for the conveyance of troop horses to Ireland in horse boxes, and not in cattle trucks. In consequence of the Question of the hon. Gentleman he had communicated with the authorities of the London and North-Western Railway Company, who had informed him that in case of their having to convey cavalry horses in cattle trucks care would first be taken to disinfect and cleanse them by washing them with chloride of lime, and adopting the necessary precautions in conformity with the circular they had issued to all the managers of their traffic.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AND THE FENIAN CONVICTS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether directions have been sent by the Home Office to Sir Richard Mayne that the twenty men of the Metropolitan Police appointed to guard the Model Prison at Pentonville should be Englishmen, and whether it is true that this duty is to be confined to men of English birth, and that no Irish constable shall be allowed to do duty there?
SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, the hon. Gentleman had privately given him notice of his intention to put a Question to him relative to a statement that had appeared in one of the morning papers. All he (Sir George Grey) could say was, that the paragraph was without founda-

817
tion. No such instructions had been given by him. The twenty men referred to in that paragraph were the men who were permanently stationed at the Caledonian Road Police Station for ordinary duty, and were stationed there long before any Fenian convicts were confined in Pentonville Prison. Directions, however, had been given about a month ago that two of these policemen should patrol round the prison at night. He was unable to say whether the twenty men referred to were of English, Irish, or Scotch birth,

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN—PRINCESS HELENA.
Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
"VICTORIA R.
"Her Majesty relies upon the cordial interest which Her faithful Commons have expressed in the approaching Marriage between The Princess Selena and Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein Sonderbourg-Augustenburg.
"The numerous proofs which the Queen has received of their loyalty to Her Throne, and of their attachment to Her Person and Family, assure Her of their willingness to make such a provision for The Princess Helena, with a view to the proposed Marriage, as may be suitable to the dignity of the Crown.
V. R."

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN—PRINCE ALFRED.
Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
"VICTORIA R.
"Her Majesty being desirous of making competent provision for the honourable support and maintenance of Her second son, Prince Alfred Ernest Albert, on his coming of age, recommends the consideration thereof to Her faithful Commons, and relies upon their attachment to adopt such measures as may be suitable to the occasion.
V. R."
Referred to the Committee on Her Majesty's Message relative to the Princess Helena.
Committee thereupon on Thursday.

MONUMENT TO VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.—NOTICE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will move on Thursday next that the House resolve itself into Committee to consider a humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right honourable Viscount Palmerston, with an inscription expressive of the public admiration and attachment, and of the heavy loss which the country has sustained by his death. I will also move that in the Address we assure Her Majesty that the House will make good the expenses attending the same.
Committee to consider an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the Right honourable Viscount Palmerston, with an inscription expressive of the Public admiration and attachment, and of the heavy loss which the Country has sustained by his death; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, on Thursday.

ARTIZANS AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL.—LEAVE.

  FIRST READING.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS: Sir, I beg earnestly to call the attention of the House to the fact that some kind of legislation, and without further delay, should be adopted with reference to the dwellings of the class that live by labour in our great towns. The condition of these dwellings is becoming every year more disgraceful and dangerous. It is dangerous not merely to those who are without a habitation sufficient for their health and comfort, but it is a danger to those who live near them, and to the community generally, towards whom there is perpetually approaching nearer and nearer the contagion arising from these close dwellings. Every year, within the memory of the present generation, the want has grown greater and more intense. About twenty years ago societies were formed which sought by private enterprize to remedy, or at least to mitigate, the evil. I have not one word to say in depreciation of their motives, or in disparagement of their efforts. On the contrary, I think they are entitled to great credit for their perseverance in

  819
  well doing. Besides these efforts, there have been others by charitable persons. First, by that noble-hearted woman, Miss Burdett Coutts, whose life seems to be devoted to doing good. A gentleman of another country, also, Mr. Peabody, but who has realized a large fortune in this country, has devoted a great portion of it to relieving the wants of the people. A gentleman residing not far from this House, Mr. Gibbs, is entitled to similar praise. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham is a member of one of those societies which do not profess that their sole object is benevolence, but think they can combine charity with speculation. These societies have done much good; but it is impossible for them to accomplish the good which I anticipate will result from the measure I now propose. If I could be made to believe that charity and speculation could grapple with the evil with which we have to contend, I should not waste one moment in proposing a different plan of action. But I very much doubt whether charity and speculation combined can grapple with the evil, and I shall proceed, therefore, to propose a different course. Charity and speculation are but crutches at the best, and I wish to see the artizans of our towns, without obligation to anyone, inhabiting houses worthy the habitation of Christian men. I do mot disparage charity and speculation, but I put it to the House whether that class on whose fidelity, loyalty, and persevering energy we rely for our greatness as a nation, are not entitled to have every facility afforded them, that they may have houses in which they can live with comfort, and in which their children can be brought up with decency. This is not so at present. From personal observation I can say that there are dark places in the metropolis in which the families of the working classes are packed together in a manner repulsive to sight and more repulsive to reflection. I am here to-night to say that if our Exchequer is full, if times are easy with the Treasury, if we can borrow any amount of money we require at 3 per cent, we should not forget the class without whose labour and loyalty these blessings could not be had. We are greatly dependent on the obedience to law, the loyalty, the order, and the sobriety of the working classes. There were times in this country when money could not be had on anything like the terms on which it can I be had now, and if the country be prosperous it is because the people are orderly and loyal, and have faith in the justice of
  820
  this House. There have been the means for more than twenty years for advancing out of the Exchequer sums to those classes who are more fortunate in being the possessors of power in this country. The landed interest have been abundantly helped by loans advanced to them at low interest to drain their estates. Mercantile towns, too, have had large sums lent to them at low interest, repayable, as in the other case, by easy instalments, and they have profited much thereby. Hitherto the working classes have not had any such concessions granted them; and I, in their behalf, now ask that they shall be allowed to share in the joint-stock credit. Will you deny to the working classes a share of the benefit? Will you refuse to lend money for improved dwellings if it can be shown that the security is good? The security which I would suggest is the rates of the district, or borough, or parish, where it is proposed to erect improved dwellings, or to pull down and rebuild. The plan that I suggest is, that wherever the Home Office shall be called upon by any corporate body, or, in default of the corporate body, by twenty ratepayers in any district, it shall direct an inspection to be made of any district where pestilence is supposed to prevail, or where the circumstances of the case from overcrowding have become so grave as to render the dwellings unfit for human habitation. The Home Office can then call upon the local authorities to form an estimate of the expense to be incurred by removing and rebuilding, these estimates are to be published by the Home Office; and then it shall be competent for the Public Loan Commissioners to advance on the security of the rates of the borough, or district, or parish, such sum as will enable the work to be done. I do not prescribe, or attempt to prescribe, or to limit the discretion of the Home Office, but I invoke its aid in this matter, because hitherto the local power and the central power have been placed in antagonism. I do not think we can depend on this need being supplied by permissive legislation. The Bill introduced a few nights ago by the Under Secretary (Mr. Childers) is, in principle, a permissive Bill. That Bill grants loans to municipalities, public companies, and private individuals for the purpose which I have in view; but it does not secure that what I have in view shall he accomplished. It is solely a permissive commercial Bill; whereas the ground of my application is that unless measures be taken to insist on the want being met, the people will be left

  821
  in their misery and helplessness. As a permissive measure, that of the hon. Gentleman is ample; but in large towns, where the want is more greatly felt than anywhere else, no dependence is to be placed in the efficacy of spontaneous action. Experience has proved it is futile to depend upon voluntary effort in a case of this kind. Until we can put a system in operation which does not depend on the ignorance or the selfishness of individuals, we shall never reach the evil. With regard to the question of repayment, we have promising and even flattering statements of the profit that can be made on these buildings. If any think that 6 or 7 per cent may be made by investing their capital in the building of houses for the labouring classes, by all means let them so invest it; for the more that is done the better I shall be satisfied. The Census of 1861 cannot be accurately analyzed with reference to class, but I believe that those who live by daily labour within the bills of mortality number 648,000; whereas the improved accommodation provided during the last twenty-two years by voluntary and charitable efforts, is sufficient for no more than 9,000 persons. If this be the result of charity and speculation combined, are hon. Gentlemen willing to leave for a single year great masses of population to live in a state which nobody will for one moment pretend to say is fit for any subject of the Queen? In many cases one, two, three, four, and even five families are obliged to live in a single room. Births taking place there, deaths taking place there, I am not exaggerating, and I am referring to honest, upright artizans, whose well-being ought to be dear to all. As the inevitable result, there is pestilence; and fever holds its never ending revel there. I could multiply too easily the evils resulting from the system. These places are the wellheads of pauperism—the springs of demoralization, decrepitude, and death; and, until they are dried up, to expect health in the inhabitants is vain. I asked Dr. Rendle, of St. George's, Southwark, how he thought he would be able to grapple with the evil in his parish. The reply was—
  "Of course, any help will be useful; but Alderman Waterlow's, Mr. Peabody's, Lord Townshend's, or any other scheme will be as nothing unless some systematic, legal, and compulsory Act is passed."
  Dr. Bruce, the medical inspector of St. Luke's, says—
  "I speak from personal knowledge, and say that
  822
  in numerous instances the houses of the industrial population are a disgrace to our civilization, and a source of danger to the health of the community. The present state of things is a direct and steady feeder of pauperism,"
  To get rid of them we must get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lend the money. I do not ask for London alone. Liverpool is as anxious for the passing of a compulsory Bill as London. Dr. Trench, head of the sanitary department there, says that something of the kind is indispensable. Glasgow will be only too happy to avail itself of the power asked for. Newcastle-upon-Tyne will be too thankful. I admit that I am bound to show that what I wish for may be granted without loss to the Treasury, for I should be sorry, on the part of the working classes, to come here asking for a dole. I might, indeed, urge that in equity they have a claim even for that, after the sums which have been so liberally, and I do not say unwisely, lavished on more favoured portions of the community. But I waive that, and I undertake to say, that if the Treasury will allow thirty years for repayment, and lend the money at 3½, or even at 4 per cent, it will he faithfully repaid. It may be said that the rates will be damnified; but I deny that, inasmuch as the rental of the improved dwellings will be available to recoup the rates. If, however, there shall unhappily be some loss, no man conversant with the relief of the poor will deny that the ratepayers will be more than compensated by the diminution of pauperism and consequent diminution of poor rate which will be caused by improved dwellings for the people, I may be told that we have no more right to interfere with free competition in the building trade than we have to interfere with it in any other trade. I speak in the presence of great economical authority, and I venture to invoke that authority without the least knowing what the answer will be. I ask also, "Are we to have free trade in fever? Are we to have fever factories created and supported amongst us without stint?" Do the wealthy residents of the West End know from what infected shops or from what fevered hands their furniture, or their clothing comes? It may be asked, "Why not procure cheap trains, and send the workpeople out of town?" But workpeople must he near their work. Ask any employer of labour whether he wishes his workmen to come early to their work, dry and warm, and in good heart, or to come

  823
  from the country perhaps drenched with rain or blanched with cold. All the employers I have spoken with on the subject agree in saying, "Whatever you do let us have our people around us." I indeed met with one exception, but in that case the employer said that he should take his factory out of town. What we have to do is to rectify that economical law by which capital exercises a kind of centripetal force over labour, causing it to flock to great centres of employment, and then neglecting the countervailing precautions which ought to be taken to prevent the mischief thus caused. Dr. Trench, of Liverpool, states, as the result of his inquiries there, that in 52,000 houses the workpeople of that town actually enjoy but one-third of the quantity of cubic feet of air which the law prescribes shall be provided for prisoners in gaols! Surely the working population are better than felons. I hope, and I believe, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the subject a wide, a broad, and statesmanlike consideration. I do not desire to alter one word of the Government Bill; but let us not leave the working classes to the mercy of charity, or to the chance of speculation. Speculators we all know will never do more than choose the sunny spots. But let it not be said to the people, now we have taught them to value education and to read a cheap press, that the House of Commons has not time, or inclination, or money to entertain a subject of this vital importance to their interests.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he seconded the Motion, and would remind the House that this was no new question. The question was one that had been for several years before the country, and whatever view hon. Members might entertain with regard to the Bill about to be introduced, he was sure that there was not one of them who would not admit that the subject was one that demanded their most serious attention. He did not think the question was second to any that could be brought forward for consideration by that House. What was the condition of the people, not only in this great city, but in the other large towns throughout the Kingdom? It must be obvious to everybody that, in point of fact, there was not a sufficient number of habitations provided for the people, and the greater portion of the dwellings in which they did reside were totally unfitted for the purpose. Many benevolent persons had, no doubt, hitherto stepped forward for the purpose of rendering all the assistance in
  824
  their power. A most munificent gift had been made by Mr. Peabody, and that gift he believed had been dealt with in a manner to make it as beneficial as possible. But that was really only as a drop in the ocean and could not effect much. It had, however, effected one good thing—namely, that with respect to the houses that had been built, it had furnished a model for other persons hereafter to follow. With respect to private speculation one thing was clear, and that was that capitalists would not invest their money in property of this description, because as respected ordinary house property the sum that ought to be received by a landlord was no less than 7 per cent profit upon his outlay, and he was not aware that Mr. Waterlow's scheme had ever been supposed to have produced more than 5 per cent. Such being the case, he did not think it at all likely that that improvement which was so desirable in the dwellings of the working classes would be carried out unless some compulsory Act was passed by that House. The proposition made to meet the difficulty was extremely simple. Where certain blocks of houses were discovered to be of a dangerous character, and unfit for habitation, the machinery might be put in force, which, under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, enabled the local authority to take the property, compensating the owners in the usual way, and to fit it for residences for the working classes. The object in view could not, however, be effected unless the Government were to step forward and lend the money for the purpose, and he should appeal to his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, who had already introduced a Bill on the subject, to take the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend into consideration, and to see how far its provisions could be accommodated to the end sought to be attained. He sincerely hoped that the Bill of his hon. Friend would meet with the best consideration from every Member of that House.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to tender his thanks to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens), for having directed the attention of the House to a subject of such interest and importance.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that as the House was anxious to proceed with the Cattle Plague Bill, he should only say a few words with regard to this subject. The Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman differed from the measure of the Government in this respect, that it gave compulsory

  825
  powers to take land, and to obtain money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, whereas the Bill which he (Mr. Childers) introduced gave a voluntary power of borrowing money. He could only say that he would consider the plan by which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to carry out his proposition, and if that plan was feasible it would give him much pleasure to do what the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), wished him to do. At the same time he must say that he saw, on the part of those who had charge of the public purse, difficulties which must be surmounted before the plan could be carried out.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide better Dwellings for Artizans and Labourers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'CULLAGH TORRENS, Mr. LOCKE, and Mr. KINNAIRD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 27.]

ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.—LEAVE.
MR. CLAYsaid, although I have no reason to expect that the permission which I am about to ask will be refused to me, yet, as my proposal involves an entirely new principle, I should be wanting in respect to the House if I did not in this first stage of my Bill explain its principle, and in great part its details. I will endeavour to show my gratitude for the patience which I respectfully ask from hon. Members, by compressing into the smallest possible compass that which it is necessary that I should say. In seeking, then, to extend the elective franchise in cities and boroughs in England and Wales, my proposal in no way interferes with any existing franchise, but it contemplates any man of full age, and not otherwise disqualified, but not having a vote by any other title, shall have the right to demand to be examined. This examination I will hereafter describe. On his passing it to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, acting on the rules which they observe in similar Civil Service examinations, he will receive a certificate. This he will present to his town clerk, or other officer in non-corporate boroughs, charged with analogous duties, and he will be entitled to be placed on the register of electors. The words "full age," mean twenty-one years, but if a Committee of this House should think fit to raise the age to twenty-five years, I should see no objection to the change. As it is necessary to provide against a sort of wandering population of electors, I propose that no man can claim to be examined until he has
826
resided six months in a place. It is easy to increase this term to a year should the House deem it advisable. I consider six months to be sufficient. If the voter leaves the place, he applies to the town clerk for his certificate, and is removed from the register. His title remains good in his new place of abode, but he cannot claim to be registered until after six months' residence. I may here say that I have good reason to believe that no serious mechanical difficulty exists in my scheme. In the year 1859 I served on a Committee to consider the working of the Civil Service Examinations, and one subject of inquiry was, how far it would be practicable to give to every man in the country the right, without nomination, to be examined as to his competence for different situations in the Civil Service. It is clear that such an idea contemplated an immense number of examinations—probably quite as many as would be required by this Bill, and certainly of a much more elaborate character. The gentlemen connected with the Commission, whom we had the advantage of examining, saw no difficulty in the task proposed to them, and Mr. Horace Mann put in a plan by which he proposed to accomplish it. But beyond this I know—not officially, indeed, but privately—that gentlemen connected with this Commission see no serious difficulty in the scheme which I have now the honour of explaining. The examination which I propose is very nearly that which is exacted from the lowest class of outdoor officers in the Customs service—being writing, spelling, and the four first rules of arithmetic, compound as regards money, a matter with which every one has to deal; not as regards weights and measures, this being a speciality of the Customs service. If a man can write and spell, I take his reading for granted; as it is advisable that this examination should be entirely conducted by papers to be examined only by the Civil Service Commissioners, a local examiner being liable to the charge of a party bias. The Commissioners would be bound to examine each candidate within four months of his application. They would, from time to time, as occasion required, appoint in any borough in which there were candidates for examination, an officer whom I will not call an examiner. His duties would be confined to handing to the different candidates sealed papers which he would have received from the Civil Service Commissioners, sealing up and returning to the Commissioners the answers, keeping order in the room in which the candidates

827
would be assembled, and watching that they did not receive any improper assistance. Beyond this, he would probably be required to read three or four easy sentences, which, from his dictation, the candidates would write, as their exercise both in writing and spelling. The expense of these examinations would not be great, and I am assured it would be amply recouped by a fee of 1s., which I propose that each candidate should pay on presenting himself for examination, and a second fee of 1s. 6d, to be paid on the receipt of the certificate. Now this proposal affects, first, the classes who possess the required information, and to whom this examination will be a matter of very little time, and of still less trouble. Very many, as we well know, though it is difficult to calculate their number, in our own class of life, who from accident have no vote—clergymen, members of learned professions, and others; teachers, of whom there are 24,000; next, commercial clerks, of whom there are nearly 60,000, but few of them enjoying the franchise. After these we come to assistants in shops, the majority able to pass the examination which I require of them. As to the numbers of these there are no certain statistics, but I shall not be wrong in putting it as greatly in excess of that of the commercial clerks. As to these two last classes, I may say in passing that I have not questioned any one of them—and I have spoken with many—who has not assured me that this proposal would be received by them as a most acceptable and sufficient boon. But these are the classes which all of us, so to speak, have expressed our willingness to admit to the right of voting, and whose admission we have contemplated by various "fancy franchises," as they have been called in undeserved derision. My proposal would render all these schemes unnecessary. But there is yet another class, who already possess the knowledge which my Bill requires—I mean the most educated of the working men. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, acquainted as he is with the members of mechanics' institutes, and other similar societies, will be the first to admit that these are in no insignificant number. But Members from all parts of this House, and speeches on every hustings, have professed willingness to admit to the franchise the intelligence of the working classes, if any means could be devised of finding it out. I offer this plan, if not as a perfect, at least as the best way of making the selection. My proposal, however, equally concerns those who have little or
828
no education, and who, to obtain a vote, must take no little pains to master the acquired knowledge; and these are, no doubt, the bulk of the working men. I have perhaps as much experience as any one of the demand made on the perseverance of these men—and even of men in a somewhat higher social position, say, the sons of small shopkeepers—in order that they may pass such an examination as I have described. For since the commencement of these examinations I have watched with great interest, and not without knowledge of the men themselves, and of the result of their labour, all the appointments in the Hull Custom House, which, as hon. Members know, is one of the largest in the kingdom. I say, then, with confidence, that though the working man of average intelligence can master this examination if he chooses to do so, he must, for this object, sacrifice to the schoolmaster his leisure hours, few and uneasy as they are, for three or four months at least. When he shall have done this I shall welcome him to the franchise. I shall trust him freely, not for his little smattering of learning, but for his earnestness; for I am fully convinced that the best guarantee we can have that a man will be a sensible and trustworthy voter is his own anxious desire to acquire a vote. I am not fond of the expression "an educational test," as applied, at least, to this Bill. As regards the educated, I look on this examination as a test of social position and trust worthiness—not, indeed, a perfect one—no such test can be perfect—but as being at least as good as the living in a £10 or a £6 house. As regards the uneducated, I look on it as something much better—a test—in this case a perfect test—of honest earnestness. There is a general belief in this House and in the country, which no one entertains more sincerely than myself, that something must be done in the way of extending the elective franchise. There is a desire still more general—that whatever is done may be a settlement of the question. There is a fear on the minds of many that any mere lowering of the property qualification, far from being a settlement of the question, can only make a further step in the same direction more rapid and inevitable. Nor is this fear unreasonable, for as long as we consider property to be the only qualification, it is clear that there is no sure standing-ground until we have reached the lowest symbol of property, whatever that may be. I offer, then, this measure as at least pro raising the condition of permanence; for

829
should it become law, I cannot see that any man in the country, as far as the boroughs of England and Wales are concerned, would have reasonable ground of complaint on the score of exclusion. I will now notice, very shortly, the objections which have been made, in conversation, to my scheme, and which—some of them at least—may be made during its discussion here. I have been reminded that, more than thirty years back, an educational test was a favourite idea with Lord Brougham and other political thinkers of the day, and that it was abandoned as impracticable. And this is true, but these great authorities proposed their test as the basis and sole title to the elective franchise. It was objected to this idea, and the objections prevailed—first, that to obtain a sufficient number of voters the test must be so low—mere writing the name perhaps—that practically it would amount to universal suffrage; secondly, that the conduct of such a vast number of examinations would be so troublesome and so expensive as to be al-most impossible. But these objections, cogent or otherwise—as to which there may be much difference of opinion—do not apply to my proposal. The examinations under my Bill, though doubtless very numerous in the first year or two, would not be, as I have endeavoured to show, in such numbers as to present any very serious difficulty, and as I only propose a new franchise in addition to those which exist, it is not necessary to put the test very low, Again, I have been asked why my Bill does not extend to the counties. Well; it seems to me that, in that which I have proposed, I have gone to the extreme limit to which a private Member of this House should venture, and that it is more fitting that the county franchise should be dealt with by county Members. But beyond this, my plan is not as applicable to the county as to the borough franchise. The inhabitants of all towns have easy and very cheap access to the schoolmaster. Not so with a rural population, who would probably have to go so far—to encounter so much trouble and expense—in order to find the instruction they need, that, as regards them, my plan would be almost inoperative. Not a few have suggested to me that, if one man is to be examined, all should be so. That all should be passed through the same sieve. This idea I wholly dissent from, and conceive that it would be the same mistake, which, to my thinking, we make at present—namely, to recognize but one title to the franchise. We now, with
830
the exception of our freemen, admit no title except property. I wish to establish a second title—intelligence. Let a man pay in some shape for this privilege. If he cannot pay in money let him pay in mind. Under our present system we do not require property to be intelligent. I shall not ask intelligence to be rich. Some tell me that my scheme is almost universal suffrage; others, that it sounds well enough, but that practically it would admit scarce any of the working-men, who would not take the trouble which this Bill imposes on them. In this conflict of opinions I might almost leave the one to answer the other, and flatter myself with the belief that I had hit on a happy medium between the two. I will, however, admit to the first objection, that it is possible enough that in years to come—years which none of us may expect to see—the principle which I seek to introduce, even with a higher test, may lead to something like universal suffrage. But it would be by a slow and safe progress, such as has gradually made our Constitution that which it is—a progress to which our institutions would gradually and safely adapt themselves, much more gradually and safely than to the same result, arrived at in a much shorter time, by a constant lowering of the property qualification, which I take to be inevitable, if you are resolved to retain property as your sole title to a vote. I may be asked, where is the condition of permanence in my scheme? I may be told that my test may be as gradually lowered as a property qualification. I deny it. I see permanence in this. My test is so low that no man would have any ground of complaint on the score of exclusion, which he would not be ashamed to urge. I see permanence in the well-known tendency of examinations rather to become more strict than more easy. More than in either of the foregoing reasons, I see permanence in the double title to a vote. Bach would take care of the other. The householder would oppose any debasement of the educational test. The man who voted in virtue of his certificate would oppose any lowering of the property qualification, and would say, "Let my neighbour take the same trouble which I have taken, and obtain a vote as I have done." But now as to those who allege that practically scarce any of the working men would avail themselves of the advantage which this Bill offers to them. I do not believe that it would be so, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, who knows the working men well, will be as

831
incredulous as I am. I should be very sorry that this objection should turn out to be correct, for I admit that my first wish in making this proposal has been to benefit the working-man. But if this objection should be well-founded, what would it prove? That the working classes have no great anxiety to possess the franchise. That their smarting sense of injustice at being excluded from it—their abiding feeling of injury—has no foundation in fact, and exists only in the imagination of those who profess to speak in their name. Lastly, there are not a few who tell me, Why do anything at all? The country is prosperous and contented. Poll it from one end to the other, and a large majority will be found in favour of leaving things as they are. This may be true. I believe that it is true as regards existing constituencies. But, though a large majority of the country may prefer to leave things as they are, it is impossible to do so. A large party in the country do ask for Parliamentary Reform, and to that party all of us, so to speak, are pledged. It is true that our pledges have been chiefly given when the state of feeling in the country was very different from that which it is now, and when there were practical grievances to be redressed. Still we have given pledges from which we should be ashamed to escape—we have raised hopes which we may well be afraid to disappoint. Our position is this: suppose a dozen men, of whom eleven owe a debt to the twelfth. No doubt a large majority of this body would prefer not to pay. But they must pay, or be dishonoured. Let no man please himself with the belief that it is possible to shuffle this matter off, and let it be forgotten. Rather let him consider in what coin it is most wise and honest to pay a debt from which there is no possible escape. As to the details of my Bill, I shall listen with interest and respect to the suggestions of my friends; but there is one point on which I should be unwilling to give way at all, but as to which any material change would affect the principle of the Bill, and destroy its purpose. I mean any proposal materially to raise the standard which I have suggested. Raise the standard of your examination, carry your arithmetic to fractions, and ask for some knowledge of history, &c., and you will no doubt get a valuable addition to your constituent body; but you will not do that which this Bill proposes to do. You will not take away the ground of complaint on the part of the working classes that they are excluded
832
from the franchise. Expect them to pass an examination which not more than one in 5,000 of them could master, and your proposal is a delusion—almost an insult. If you shut the door so close, you may as well double-lock it at once, and leave the working classes to find their way in by some access more easy, and less safe. I have now, I think, trespassed as long on the patience of the House—a patience for which I am very grateful—as it is at present necessary that I should do. I am aware that the novelty of my proposal may startle the timid, while its moderation may fail to satisfy the rash. But I am myself honestly convinced that it is a wise and safe measure—but that I fear to be charged with presumption, I would say the safest and the wisest. However this may be, I offer it as my contribution to the great discussion of Parliamentary Reform, and with sincere diffidence, but not without hope, I commit it to the consideration of the House.
MR. GREGORY: Sir, whatever may be the judgment of the House with regard to the expediency or the practicability of the Bill of my hon. Friend there can be no difference of opinion upon this point—that this is a question deserving the most serious consideration, and one which well warrants a searching discussion in this House. I respond entirely to the words of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he has expressed an opinion that the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government, so far as they can have formed an opinion up to this moment, should be given in the course of the evening with regard to the proposition of my hon. Friend. The House will bear in mind that this is no effort of mere political dilettantism; that this is not the speech of some new Member anxious to obtain a name for originality and for daring. It is a proposition from a Gentleman who has long been in this House; who represents a large and intelligent constituency; who has himself taken part in almost all the great business of this House for many years; and who has brought to bear upon every question which he has treated an amount of practical good sense and solid judgment which has always obtained for him the attention and respect of the House, Moreover, my hon. Friend has always taken his stand in what I may call the ranks of the most advanced portion of the Liberal party, and therefore no one can throw out the imputation against him that he has made this proposal for the purpose of endeavouring to shelve or

833
stifle this question of Reform. This Bill may be looked upon, as the hon. Gentleman described it, from a two-fold point of view. We may look upon it either with regard to its own intrinsic merits or as an alternative to the Bill which has to be proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I do not hesitate to say that I accept it as a good Bill in itself, and I am bound to say so because, having voted last year against the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), I might possibly be open to the suspicion that in supporting this proposal I am actuated by an endeavour to throw confusion into the Liberal ranks and to impede the Bill to be proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I may, however, state that in the conclusion of my remarks last year upon the Bill of the hon. Member for Leeds I said that although I would oppose that Bill, yet I would say "aye" without misgiving or hesitation to any Bill which would have for its object the enfranchising of those of the working classes whose enfranchisement would be for the benefit of the country. The time has come when I am able to redeem that pledge, for I think that the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend is one that will enfranchise that portion of the working classes whose enfranchisement will be for the benefit of the country. I think the Bill hits precisely that class of workmen alluded to by Earl Russell yesterday in his answer to a Scotch deputation that went to him. He said there was a certain class of intelligent and skilled artizans, each of whom were debarred from the franchise, because he was obliged to live in a house the rental of which was less than £10, inasmuch as he had not the means of taking a larger house and providing, at the same time, for the education of his children. This Bill will admit that man to the suffrage. Not only, therefore, do I advocate it upon that ground, but I advocate it upon the broad ground that it would be advisable and expedient to admit, if they are not already admitted, the élite of the working classes to the suffrage. I entirely agree with some observations made by the noble Lord who proposed the Address to Her Majesty at the opening of this Session. The noble Lord said that—"The greater the number you admit to the suffrage the greater the power you confer upon the decisions of this House." I adopt that expression of the noble Lord, but with certain qualifications, and those qualifications are these:—that those num-
834
bers whom you introduce into the suffrage should either bear with them that interest in the institutions of the country which is derived from property, or that they should bear with them that interest which primâ facie men of intelligence and men of education in the mass may be presumed to take in all questions affecting the State policy of the country. I think my hon. Friend's Bill hits that case precisely, for the existing franchise provides for the property qualification, and the Bill of my hon. Friend provides for the question of education and intelligence. My hon. Friend in the course of his speech has referred to certain difficulties which have been alleged against the Bill, and the most important of these seems to be that one Gentleman says the franchise would be too narrow, while another says it would be too wide. With regard to the charge of its being too narrow, I am quite prepared to go with my hon. Friend, and to say I do not believe that, at the present moment, the adoption of his Bill would admit a very large or at all a preponderating portion of the working classes. I believe my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury if he were in his place would bear out this assertion. Without attempting to compare the standard of English with Irish education, I know that the Secretary for the Treasury is too often obliged to write letters expressing the deep regret with which he announces to myself, or to some other Gentleman, that some young person in whom we have taken an interest has not been successful, notwithstanding many months of preparation, in obtaining the desired appointment of an outdoor officer of Customs. If that be so on the one hand, look on the other at the number of persons—a most valuable class of competent men of business—engineers, lawyers, attorneys, and clerks—every one of whom, if they have not already obtained the franchise, would be admitted to the suffrage according to the scheme of my hon. Friend. And thus you get rid of all those multitudinous and intricate schemes of "fancy franchises" which have been raised within the last few years. On the other hand, there are those who say that in a short time this franchise would be so extensive that it would almost amount to a universal suffrage. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that a very long period indeed must elapse before that takes place: but even if it should come to universal suffrage, all I can say is, "so be it." All I can say is, that if you do come to universal

835
suffrage by this Bill you will have taken the danger out of it, because universal suffrage will then be divided amongst an educated and reflecting body who have been long in training in a course of political education. If we are to be smothered or to be swamped, I had much rather be drowned in a butt of malmsey than in a barrel of swipes. No doubt there are many difficulties connected with the measure which has been called "Chinese," pedantic, coxcombical, with a variety of other uncomplimentary terms. The worst thing I have heard about it, however, is that it is a new thing. I have heard the expression, when my hon. Friend has been passing, "There goes Confucius," meaning by that that my hon. Friend was or would be a lawgiver who would administer this country on the Chinese system, that of literati and competitive examinations. I think the discussion upon this Bill ought not at the present to extend to its machinery, but should be confined to the broad principle of it as to a theory deserving consideration. I think I may quote, and call as advocates for the Bill, all those Gentlemen who have taken the most prominent part in the discussions on Reform. I think I may call my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds himself an advocate for the Bill, for in all his speeches the main point he has alleged has been the amount of instruction possessed by the upper portion of the working classes. He has referred to the extension of mechanics' institutes; to the number of cheap periodicals they take in; to the newspapers exclusively-representing; and to the quantity of literature consumed by the working classes. It is their intelligence and not their wealth that has moved the heart of my hon. Friend. Though perhaps he may naturally prefer his own £6 Bill, comparing it with this Bill, still I think I may quote him as an advocate. There is a gentleman, however, who knows as' much of the working classes as my hon. Friend, who might be described, as I saw a statesman defined in a passage I read in an American paper the other day, as a "stock, lock, and gun barrel Radical." I mean Mr. Holyoake. He wrote a pamphlet last year—a pamphlet in which I found much to disapprove, I am bound to say, but which I may describe as being both spirited and honest. I quoted a passage from it last year, and I will now venture to quote a portion of it again, because there are a great number of Members of this House now who did not bear me read it then, and it is a good
836
thing that will bear repeating. Mr. Holyoake says, with reference to the £6 franchise—
"I know towns where ardent Reformers are afraid of an unqualified suffrage. Good Radicals, the most thorough of their class, have said to me, 'There is a mob in our town (there is in every town), ignorant, selfish, venal, and reckless of principle. Had they voted, our Liberal Members would be unseated at the next election. They would vote against those who seek to raise them.' This is the general feeling in Liberal boroughs. Now there is no plan of a £6 suffrage which selects the worthy and excludes the base. All £6 suffrage is blind, and hence we have Radicals arguing feebly, and fearing much the result of the very measure they plead for. Surely, this is political imbecility."
We might next call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to support the Bill. We all have engraven on our minds the celebrated speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he said—
"If we debar a man from the suffrage, the onus of proof rests on us to show that he is incapacitated by some considerations of personal unfitness or political dangers."
Now, I think this Bill meets that expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a hair. Here you have expressly excluded, by the Bill of my hon. Friend, those two qualities which would most conduce, in my opinion, to "personal unfitness and political dangers," namely, ignorance and guilt. Now, I would go farther than my hon. Friend, and touch upon another point, to which he did not allude, but which I think is a recommendation to the Bill. I think a franchise of this description would have the greatest tendency to check venality and corruption. I am not prepared to say that because a man is able to do a sum in multiplication he would not take a bribe; but I do say that when you have men in the suffrage who can read and write and reflect, and who can canvass among themselves the merits of a candidate—I do say that these men are less likely to be actuated by degrading and venal considerations, and that they would be more likely to return representatives of a higher class to this House, than a constituency formed by a mere lowering of the suffrage. I was travelling only recently with a gentleman from Australia—the Mayor of Melbourne—and he said to me, before I knew of the principle of my hon. Friend's Bill, "We are endeavouring in our Australian colonies, and a great number of enlightened and thoroughly liberal men are working, to establish, if possible, an education franchise in lieu of that almost universal suffrage

837
which has become almost intolerable." Now, I say, if you give your countenance to a measure such as this which we are discussing, and do not throw it lightly on one side, you will add materially to the efforts of those people in Australia. And now let me say a word with regard to Ireland. If you are going to give England a Reform Bill I am convinced you will not deny it to Ireland, and if you brought in a double-barrelled Bill—a Bill for the re-distribution of seats as well as dealing with the franchise—I do not suppose you would refuse a similar Bill to Ireland, where you have a number of small boroughs, composed of less that 150 or 200 voters, many of them notoriously the hot-beds of corruption. You would be, of course, prepared to sweep away a number of these small boroughs, and to add their representatives to great and populous counties, and to the large towns, such as Kingstown and Belfast. I presume you would also have something to do with the franchise. Now, I have heard many a complaint made of the want of independence of thought in some of the constituencies, but I have never heard any man in Ireland, however Radical he might be, try to remedy that want by advocating the lowering of the suffrage. But were yon to give such a suffrage to Ireland as that advocated by my hon. Friend, you would greatly strengthen the intellectual capacities of the constituencies. I will now turn from Australia and from Ireland to that small geographical point in which we on this side of the House are sitting. As for our own position, I cannot look on it with much hopefulness or satisfaction—ominous indications rise around me everywhere; strange whispers reach me from very Liberal mouths of a deep aversion to a £6 franchise, whether it be rating or whether it be rental. We do not know the Government proposal as yet. It may be a very beautiful composition, endowed no doubt with all those charms which the mature experience and the youthful ardour of the Cabinet can confer upon it. But "those whom the Gods love die young"—and I am sorry to say that I have heard on too many occasions that a considerable number of its nurses, if they only get a chance, are prepared to "overlie" and suffocate it. If the Government bring in a single-barrelled Bill, they know very well that they and their Bill will be as dead as Julius Cæsar within a month of its birth; shot down in the rear by your own men. If they bring in a double-
838
barrelled Bill, they know that there are a number of hon. Gentlemen in this House, representatives of the doomed boroughs, who, notwithstanding their political allegiance, are not prepared to march before the Treasury Bench and to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—"Ape Cœsar Imperator! morituri te salutamus." Rely on it, they will die hard, and perhaps a great deal harder than the Bill. Well, then, which is the next process? We go to the country, which is indifferent if not hostile, jogging along in the old rut, in which you have already upset the coach, and what have you to rally round you the intelligence and enthusiasm of the nation? Have you no other standard than that wretched £6 old Aunt Sally, which has been so pelted with mud and battered—now rental and now rating—that it has lost all identity, and no one can tell what to make of it. What we want is something that will hold out to us a prospect of finality—something that will settle the question—something that will rid us of this endless annoyance and interruption of all business—and I think I see some prospect of that in the proposal of my hon. Friend. I met an American gentleman the other day, and he said to me, "This Reform Question of yours is something like an attack of the gravel—it utterly diverts your mind from everything else, and when other business is proposed it becomes a mere excuse and obstacle." I am looking for something which partakes of the quality of permanence, something large and liberal and yet thoroughly safe, something that will touch a stronger and higher chord throughout the country, if you appeal to the country, than this unseemly apologetic ad misericordiam plea of—"We must do something!" I wish for something that will arouse the enthusiasm and intelligence of the country—some measure calculated to elevate the character of the constituencies rather than debase it—and because I think I find these elements and qualities in the Bill of my hon. Friend, I shall give it my cordial support.
LORD ELCHO: Sir, I do not rise to enter into the general question of Reform, as I know that the house is anxious to resume the discussion of the Cattle Plague Bill, but I am anxious to say a few words with reference to the Motion of my hon. Friend, because the measure he proposes is a novelty in this House, though the idea that pervades it has pervaded the writings of great political thinkers. Accustomed as we have been, on the subject of Reform, to

839
denunciatory eloquence—uttered as some think neither rightly nor reasonably—not only in this House, but on the platforms of Birmingham, Manchester, and Rochdale—and used as we are to regard those speeches as the oracular utterances of the advanced Liberal party in this House and the country—it is quite refreshing to find a gentleman of advanced Liberal opinions—and no one can doubt that the hon. Member for Hull is a gentleman of advanced Liberal opinions any more than they can doubt his ability, honesty, and integrity of purpose—instead of denouncing our institutions and abusing his opponents—instead of endeavouring to palm off upon us the £6 franchise as a panacea for all political evils, it is a refreshing change, I say, to find such an authority bringing forward a measure of Reform which makes intelligence and education the passport to the suffrage. In doing this my hon. Friend follows in the wake of Mr. Hare, of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), and other political writers. None of those writers have spoken more strongly against the suffrage being given without some educational test. The hon. Member for Westminster especially insists most strenuously in his writings upon every man obtaining that position in the State to which his acquirements entitled him—that a master of arts should have more influence than the voters proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Such a test as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, I believe that it is one of the arguments which the hon. Gentleman himself urged in its favour—would be in itself a test as to the sincerity of the voter in his desire to obtain the franchise. There are many hon. Gentlemen who are sceptical of the honesty and sincerity of working men upon this point, and the passing of this measure would have the effect of showing whether these objections are well founded or not. My hon. Friend proposes an educational test, instead of the rude principle of franchise we have hitherto had; and it certainly has the advantage that it will give a good educational stimulus to the country. Then, again, it will not increase the anomalies of the present system, for instead of admitting, as the £6 franchise would do, the provident and the improvident alike, it will let in only those who are intelligent, provident, and in earnest. It will meet further that great difficulty, the extension of the franchise to lodgers. Under the present system a Rothschild or a Mill
840
has no voice in the Constitution unless he is a householder. So far for the reasons in favour of this Bill; but there are many serious and varied objections to it. In the first place, it is novel, and, in some respects pedantic, neither of which is a quality much relished in this House, and when they are found combined, the prospects of carrying the Bill are somewhat remote. Again, the measure does away entirely with the property qualification, and establishes for the first time an educational test alone as a title to the franchise. In the next place it abandons the principle of class representation, and adopts that of individual representation. The principle of class representation has been endorsed by a high authority—the hon. Member for Birmingham—who, in a recent speech at Rochdale, said that ours was not a system of individual but of class representation. Again, it will admit a clever man without any character—a burglar, for instance, if unconvicted. Counsellor Caseley, of whom we have heard so much lately, might have passed such an examination; and, therefore, mere intelligence without property or character would admit persons who had no interest in the security of the State. Lastly, I do not think it would necessarily be final. The hon. Gentleman looks to the measure as final, and gives as one reason for his belief that a standard of education once adopted, men would be ashamed to come and ask for it to be lowered. The hon. Gentleman further sees no danger of the standard being lowered, because the tendency of all examinations on those who have passed them is to screw up the test rather than down. The hon. Gentleman, however, does not consider what would take place in this House, although his view may be true as regards those out of doors. Judging by analogy, and reasoning from the past, we should have Members in this House attempting a short cut to distinction, by bringing forward Motions to lower the educational test, just as they now do to lower the borough franchise. One gentleman might move the omission of arithmetic from the examination, and another who had an inveterate hostility to the letter "h," might move that that letter should be cut out of the alphabet of the Civil Service; and we might have some future Member for Leeds, after a walk of two hours through the streets of Leeds, coming to the conclusion that the working classes were so universally wise that they might safely be admitted to the franchise without passing through any examination at all. There-

841
fore I do not see that the doctrine of finality is a necessary result of the measure. If it is put to me whether I could support the Bill in the abstract I should vote against it; but it will have to be considered not in the abstract, but in connection with the Bill to be brought in by Her Majesty's Government. On the nature of that Bill will depend the view I should take of this measure. What that Bill can be no man can tell. Before Parliament met it was announced by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) as a simple measure of enfranchisement, or what is called a "single-barrelled Bill," Then the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson), in his speech to his constituents, announced something of the same kind. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: No, no!] Such was my impression. At another time it was announced as a "double-barrelled Bill;" and the report now is that it is to be two single barrels, and to be loaded with No. 6. Now I believe this £6 franchise which is to be contained in this Bill—whether a whole charge or a half-charge—is a measure fraught with danger to the State; and, as was said by the hon. Member (Mr. Clay) it was a concession of that kind which would lead to further changes until it arrived at the lowest symbol of property, whatever that may be. And therefore if it is put to me whether I would support a £6 franchise or the Bill of the hon. Member, I shall certainly vote for the latter. It is encouraging to find that the hon. Member for Hull, not satisfied with repeating the parrot cry of a"£6 franchise," has cut out for himself a new and untrodden road through the briars and thorns which have so long surrounded this question of Reform.
MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I certainly expected to hear a few words from the Treasury Bench on this subject of basing the franchise on intelligence. Considering what the subject is, it is only due to the House that we should hear some expression of opinion from the Treasury Bench on the proposal of my hon. Friend. I do not think the circumstance that the other side of the House desire to go on at once with the cattle plague is a sufficient excuse for the silence maintained by the Members of the Government. I think, however, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer fell into a little irregularity in the beginning of the evening when he pledged himself beforehand that none of the
842
Motions on the paper should be opposed, for that is a matter which does not rest entirely with the Government. I confess I find it difficult to understand why the Ministry is so exceedingly reluctant to say anything with respect to the Bill. It is impossible to separate the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull from that great question of Reform which Her Majesty's Ministers led us to believe, until we read the Queen's Speech, was the most absorbing, the most overwhelming, the most pressing, and, in fact, the supreme question of the day. I should, therefore, have thought that when the question was brought forward to-day the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and their friends below the gangway, would have shown great alacrity in expressing to the House the opinions which they have expressed out of doors. I can imagine one excuse for their reluctance. It may be that they feel a certain amount of soreness at the conduct of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull. He must be to some extent regarded to-night as an object of envy by Her Majesty's Government, and there may be a pardonable feeling of dissatisfaction at the contrast obvious to the most superficial observer suggested by the difference between my hon. Friend and the Government. My hon. Friend pledged himself, like the Government, to introduce a Reform Bill at the earliest period of the Session, but, unlike the Government, he has kept his pledge. The hon. Member, too, had, like the Government, to base his Bill on statistics, but unlike the Government, he had no paid officers to assist him, and, still more unlike the Government, his statistics are complete. Like the Government, again, he wishes to extend the franchise, but, unlike the Government, he bases his proposed extension on a principle which he can explain and defend—and in that respect he has attained a statesmanship beyond that which Earl Russell has ever attained with his one idea of Reform, which is to give us a House of Commons elected by a mob. I can well understand that the position occupied by my hon. Friend tonight—that of a Reformer pledged to Reform, who, at the earliest moment, redeems his pledge—that of a business-like Reformer who has prepared his Bill, and that of a statesmanlike Reformer who bases it upon a principle, may well excite feelings of embarrassment, accounting for the silence exhibited on the Treasury

843
Bench. But, Sir, if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unwilling to express any opinion on this Bill, I am still more surprised at the silence of the large and comprehensive Reformers below the gangway. How comes it that they have given no response whatever to this proposal to base the franchise on intelligence, though it is what they have been roaring about all their lives. When the hon. Member for Hull resumed his seat, I thought so many of them would be starting up for the honour of seconding the Motion that you, Sir, would have been perplexed which of them to name, instead of which they all remained fixed to their seats. Has their ardour been expended and exhausted during the recess? Or did it receive its quietus on the day the Queen's Speech was delivered? I must say, judging from what we have Been, that there was never so potent an instrument, and one with so magical an effect, as the Queen's Speech, for it mesmerized in a moment all the large and comprehensive Reformers in Her Majesty's dominions. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) was the first to show that he was stunned and silenced. When I was coming down to the House at four o'clock on the day Parliament was opened, I had not had an opportunity of reading the Queen's Speech, but I met a friend of mine who has a seat on this side of the House, and who is a very advanced Reformer. "How have they treated you Gentlemen in the Speech," I asked. He replied, "Very badly indeed; they hare shunted us into a siding." But, he added, "We shan't stand it, and there will be a row." "What do you mean by a row?" I inquired. He replied, "Go down at five o'clock, and just see how the Member for Birmingham will explode." Well, Sir, I came down to hear the Member for Birmingham explode, and there was ft great rush of new Members to witness the explosion; but the Member for Birmingham had not the least idea of exploding. He sat here for two whole nights mute and melancholy, the "observed of all observers." Even when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), with the most benevolent intention of enabling the large and comprehensive Reformers to relieve their feelings, at last got the hon. Member for Birmingham on his legs, he was ready to explode upon Jamaica, he was great on the cattle plague, and he went off at half cock upon Ireland. But on that great question of Reform which
844
had been treated with such contempt in the Queen's Speech, and as to which we were told the whole nation would be clamouring at our doors for a large and comprehensive Bill, he was wholly silent. Although the hon. Member went up to boiling pitch on the other subjects, his temperature as to Reform was so frigid that no stimulant was sufficient to get him up to bloodheat; and as to the other large and comprehensive Reformers they all seemed afraid or ashamed to touch the question. No doubt the hon. Member for Birmingham has his own reasons for avoiding the question; he is an old and wily politician, and has reasons for the course he adopts, which perhaps the other large and comprehensive Reformers have not. There are, however, other Reformers in the House who profess to act upon principle apart from tactics. When, last year we obtained an easy victory over the hon. Member for Leeds we were told that during the last Parliament the advanced Liberal party had eaten so much dirt in the service of the Ministry that they were politically discredited and insolvent. But they said to us, "See what the elections have done—see what has happened at Brighton, at Westminster, and Lambeth—see what young blood has been sent into the House. Reformers un-contaminated, undemoralized by past Parliamentary proceedings; see how they will come out on Reform and redeem the character of Parliament and the country!"We were glad to hear of these valuable accessions to our debates—the reputation of these gentlemen had preceded them to this House—we welcomed them with pride and with pleasure; we knew them to be men of great ability, and believed what we were told of their zeal and sincerity; but still we watch and wait for them to redeem the character of the great Reform party, and others have waited and watched, and with what result? I can very well imagine these gentlemen congregated at the Reform Club around the hon. Member for Birmingham, when one of their admirers comes up and says, "We hear wonderfully little about Reform in this new Parliament. When are you coming out on Reform? Or what are you doing about Reform?" "Oh," says the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), drawing himself up, "I am waiting for statistics." Then the admiring inquirer turns to the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), and says, "What are you doing upon Reform!" "Oh," he

845
replies, "I am helping the hon. Member for Birmingham." Then the inquirer goes to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), and asks, "What are you doing about Reform?" and he answers, "I am helping the hon. Member for Westminster." Then the inquirer goes to the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes), and says, "I suppose you are like the rest of them, and that probably you are helping the Member for Brighton." The hon. Member for Lambeth replies, "Probably I am." Then, going through the club, the inquirer turns to a more candid Reformer, perhaps the senior Member for Brighton (Mr. White), and he asks him the same question, "What are you legislators doing about Reform?" "Oh," he says, "I will tell you what we are doing; we are helping the helpmates of the Member for Birmingham to smother Reform under a fictitious pile of imaginary statistics." These are the philosophical Reformers, who have been sent to this House for the purpose of advancing this great cause of Reform, who have shown their philosophy by the patience with which they have endured the delay of this great question, against which delay others have protested, and forming apparently no very high estimate of the sincerity which this patience exhibits. Of course, those gentlemen who would base the franchise on intelligence do not get much assistance from the hon. Member for Birmingham and those who agree with him. The latter want to go a great deal faster than the former. We know that intelligence is fatal to agitation, that as the schoolmaster advances the agitator recedes, and that an educated multitude no more believes in demagogues than in ghosts. But we do expect from men whose high reputation has given them another position in this House that they should follow Reform with a pure spirit, and, politically speaking, with a higher morality than has distinguished this agitation during the last few years; and it is nothing short of a public calamity when men of their high order lend themselves, as they appear to be doing now, by the indifference they are showing, to the degradation of the Parliament they were intended to adorn.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My right hon. Friend who has just sat down has expressed a hope that he would hear a few words from the Treasury Bench upon this occasion, and that hope of my right hon. Friend shall be gratified, while I can assure him also that those words will
846
be very few. The principal duty in fact which I have now to perform is to render a just tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Clay). That speech, as I thought, was characterized by great force, great ability, and great clearness of statement, as well as by considerable ingenuity in handling a very difficult subject; but it was characterized above all by an evident earnestness and sincerity, and a sense of the serious nature of the position in which he was speaking. For all these qualities I thank my hon. Friend, but especially for the display of those qualities in that portion of his address which related to the moral character of that class whose cause he was more immediately advocating. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down has sought to lead me a little beyond the performance of this duty by the contrast which he has benevolently been pleased to imagine between the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, who has fulfilled all his pledges, and that of Her Majesty's Government, who he thinks already, before they have spoken one word, have contrived to violate all the pledges which they have given. I cannot admit the existence of that mortification which he supposes we must suffer in contemplating the triumphant honesty and integrity of the hon. Member for Hull. I can feel in this instance the satisfaction which the conduct of a good man naturally inspires, but that satisfaction is entirely unalloyed by any sting or reproach of conscience in consequence of anything we have done or not done on the question of Reform. In the speech of Her Majesty it was stated that the Government were engaged in gathering information upon this subject. Our responsibility with respect to that part of the question is very well tested by two considerations:—first, the time at which the Cabinet was formed and the state of public business on the death of Lord Palmerston; and next whether after the tenor of the debates which took place in the year 1860, it was or it was not material and important, with a view to the satisfactory handling of this subject, that an effort should be made to place Parliament and the country in possession of the best and most accurate information which we could command. We came to the conclusion that such an effort was desirable, and if my right hon. Friend thinks fit to challenge our judgment, and says that that was a proceeding intended only for evasion or delay, it is quite competent to him to do so, and we shall be

847
ready to meet him whenever he invites the House to assent to such an opinion. But, if our views were just, our duty was a perfectly simple and disinterested one. We have in accordance with it prosecuted this inquiry. The systematic management and arrangement of a number of particulars with reference to the situation of counties and boroughs, if the Returns are to be rendered worthy of this House and are to present that accuracy and precision of which the subject admits, cannot be accomplished without a considerable lapse of time. Not one moment has been lost, and the announcement of the time when it will be my duty to make a proposal to the House on the subject of Reform has depended and will depend upon the day when we shall be able to produce this information. A very few days only, I hope, will now elapse before I shall be able to state when that day has arrived. But upon the present occasion I have only to say for myself, "my bosom's lord sits lightly on its throne." I have no sins to answer for on my part, or on the part of my Colleagues, as far as any delay hitherto is concerned. With respect to the very mild and modest invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), and the more detailed and elaborate invitation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) who followed him in the debate for some expression of opinion from me, on the part of the Government, in reference to the merits of the proposal of my hon. Friend, I can only say that neither the respect I feel for the one, nor the admiration I entertain of the ability of the other, nor any other motive or consideration, be it what it may, will succeed in extracting from me a single word.
Motion agreed to.
Bill to extend the Elective Franchise for Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CLAY, Mr. GEORGE CLIVE, and Mr. GREGORY.

ACT OF UNIFORMITY.—COMMITTEE.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIE MR. E. P. BOUVERIE moved that the Speaker leave the Chair, with a view to moving in Committee of the whole House for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal certain portions of the Act of Uniformity. He said that the position of this question was now somewhat altered as compared with last year when he had the honour of introducing a Bill on the question. Last year an Act was passed with reference to the subscription of the clergy. That Act re-
848
pealed one of the clauses of the University Clauses Act which required the same declaration to be taken by all clerical persons. The form therefore in which he should now draw his Bill would not be as heretofore, to except the fellows of colleges at the University, but simply to repeal two clauses of the Act of Uniformity, which required the heads of colleges, and heads of colleges alone, to make that declaration. He hoped, under these circumstances, his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Walpole), who had hitherto opposed him, would now be disposed to assist him.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would not oppose the Motion, as it would be desirable they should see the Bill, but he did not suppose that the alteration could recommend it more than the former Bill, or that he could do otherwise than oppose it.
Motion agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal certain portions of the Act of Uniformity.
House resumed.
Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. BOUVERIE and Mr. DUDLEY FORTESCUE.

BANK NOTES (IRELAND).—COMMITTEE.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to make Bank of England notes a legal tender in Ireland, and to authorize banks of issue in Ireland to make their notes payable only at the places in Ireland at which the account of gold and silver coin held by such bankers is taken by the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not desire to deprive the hon. Baronet of the opportunity of stating his views and laying his plans before the House. He agreed with him in thinking that there were certain circumstances in the present state of the law with respect to the circulation in Ireland which, upon the first fair opportunity, might attract the attention of Parliament. But he was bound to say, in order that no misunderstanding might arise with reference to the Government making the subject a matter of deliberation, that in his opinion it would not only be an innovation to make Bank of England notes a legal tender in Ireland, but he conceived there to be very strong and practical objections to a measure of

849
the kind. He only stated this in order that his hon. Friend need not be deceived as to the course which he, on the part of the Government, contemplated pursuing in reference to such a proposal.
Motion agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make Bank of England Notes a legal tender in Ireland, and to authorize Banks of Issue in Ireland to make their Notes payable only at the places in Ireland at which the account of Gold and Silver Coin held by such Bankers is taken by the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes.
House resumed.
Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN and Mr. O'BEIRNE.

CATTLE PLAGUE (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILLS 7, 24, & 32] COMMITTEE.
  [The Bill having been Committed, Recommitted, and Considered as Amended, without having been re-printed, great difficulty has been experienced in following out the Motions for Amendments, particularly those of which no Notice had been given. When a Clause has been agreed to, with or without Amendment, the small figures added refer to the No. of the corresponding Clause in the re-print of the Bill No. 32.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. HUNTproceeded to move a series of new clauses in lieu of Clauses 28 to 34 [Bill 7] struck out in Committee.
  On the first of these clauses (Movement on Railways, Canals, &c),
  MR. HUNTsaid, that he was of opinion that a longer period—namely, to the end of April, might be taken for the restriction in this case than had been thought advisable with regard to the movement of cattle, inasmuch as there were no changes of tenancy affected by it. After the end of April the Government might discontinue the restriction or continue it at their pleasure. He had seen persons interested in the tanning trade, and they were, he believed, perfectly satisfied with the clauses as they now stood, and with the Amendments of which he had given notice. In the first line of the clause, he moved to omit "25th March" in order with the view of inserting "30th April."
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman could be aware of the excessive inconvenience which would be caused throughout the United Kingdom by this clause, both to the home and foreign trade in hides. According to this clause, no raw or untanned hides, horns, or hoofs, could be moved except in covered vehicles or vessels; his object, of course, being to prevent hides being carried in a way or in a state that would spread the infection. The clause, if passed in its present form, would put a stop to one of the most important industries in the country. If beasts were killed some provision must be made for the disposal of the hides. In Leeds, for instance, 900 beasts were killed and 4,000 skins were cured every week, so that upwards of 3,000 hides must be imported to keep up the supply. In Aberdeen some 1,200 beasts a week were killed; but as there was no tanning whatever carried on there, the whole of those hides would be left in Aberdeen literally to rot if this clause were carried. He had been assured that if hides were carried in a covered van, or with a top dressing of charcoal or bark, if in carts, no danger was to be apprehended. English hides were taken to the tan pit wet, and were likely to cause infection; but that was not the case with foreign hides, for they came into the country dry. Some foreign hides were brought in salted, and he believed some danger of infection existed as regarded them.
  MR. HUNTdid not understand that such would be the effect of the clause.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the clause prevented the hides from being moved.
  MR. HUNT: Except in covered vans.
  MR. CRAWFORD: Covered vans only refers to railways.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the next clause he proposed provided that hides, &c., might be carried in any street or highway continuously built on, except it should be necessary in so doing to pass by any place where beasts are kept, provided they are conveyed in a covered vehicle, or are covered with a layer of charcoal or tan.
  MR. CRAWFORDmaintained there was no necessity for the restriction as to foreign hides. He would move at a subsequent stage a proviso which would except raw hides, &c., imported from India, Australia, South Africa, or America.
  MR. HUNTobserved, that he had parted with the gentlemen connected with the tanning trade under the impression that what he intended to propose would satisfy

  851
  them. Between the intentions of his hon. Friend the Member for London (Mr. Crawford) and his own there was no difference—the question was merely as to the words which ought to be used. The Committee would see that he made a distinction between foreign hides and English ones in respect of removal, and for this reason—the English hides travelled wet, which state rendered them more likely to convey infection; but the foreign hides came over dry, with the exception of a certain number which arrived here salted. These latter were not dry, and there appeared to be some risk from them. He was ready to meet the views of the constituents of his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds in respect of sheepskins; and here, again, the question was only one as to the words to be used.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he should certainly object to these restrictions with respect to hides being in operation until the 30th of April, while the restrictions on animals were only in force until the 25th of March. Nothing could show more plainly than this proposal the absurdity of applying the same rule to Northamptonshire and to the metropolis. It was surely preposterous to say that no hides should be moved about within the area of the metropolis until the 30th of April. Let them do as they pleased with respect to infected hides; but why all these tremendous restrictions with respect to the hides of perfectly sound animals? The practice in the metropolis was that on the days when cattle were slaughtered carts went round and took the hides from the slaughtering-houses. The hides were conveyed at once to the tan-yards in Bermondsey, where they were put in pits the very day the beasts were killed, there they were subjected to the influence of well-known disinfecting agencies. Why, his constituents of Bermondsey manufactured no less than 6,000 hides per week, and yet this enormous industry was almost to be paralysed for a most incommensurate purpose. With respect to foreign hides, why not adopt the principle of the Government Bill? Foreign hides came to this country for the purposes of the tan-yards of Bermondsey, and it was quite evident that if this Bill passed into law there would be no oxen in Bermondsey for them to infect.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had no desire to insist on the restriction with respect to hides being extended until the 30th of April. He was content that it should be
  852
  limited in the same way as the restriction with regard to the removal of animals.
  CAPTAIN GRIDLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had introduced a clause allowing hides to be sent by railway without a licence, provided they were carried in covered carts.? This clause would be perfectly inoperative unless a clause was introduced giving permission to persons to send hides along the highways, without a licence, provided that similar precautions were taken. It was no advantage to a man to be allowed to Bend his hides by rail without a licence, if he was compelled to procure a licence before he could send the hides to the station.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that an addition which he proposed to move to the 29th clause would remove the difficulty of which the hon. Gentleman complained. After the words in the 29th clause prohibiting the movement of hides and skins on roads he proposed to add the words—
  "Unless the hides shall be in a covered cart or other covered vehicle, or unless the hides, skins, horns, or hoofs are protected from exposure in an open car by a layer of charcoal."
  CAPTAIN GRIDLEYfeared that the proposed addition to the clause would not be sufficient to allow persons to send hides along the roads without licences.
  MR. BARINGobserved, that according to the wording of the clause as it now stood, neither hare skin, rabbit skin, dog skin, nor any other kind of skin could travel except in a covered van.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the word "animal" was not at present defined in the Interpretation clause; but he intended that it should hear the same meaning as in the Government Bill. He had no objection to the movement of hides along the road provided they were moved under licence, and were sound hides coming from a healthy district.
  CAPTAIN GRIDLEYexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation given, provided the clause was altered accordingly.
  MR. BARINGsaid, it was originally supposed that all hides would carry infection, but Professor Ferguson, of Dublin, discovered a method of preparing sheepskins, which, if adopted, rendered it impossible for them to convey disease. Accordingly, a special Order had been passed to allow skins so prepared to be taken into Ireland; but he did not find among the proposals of the hon. Member any reservation in favour of such skins. The

  853
  clauses, in fact, for which the hon. Member was responsible, hardly afforded sufficient protection against the spread of the cattle plague. The Government measure directed that all diseased animals should be buried in their skins; but provided they were only disinfected, Clause 30 of this Bill gave colour to the supposition that diseased skins might be carried about the country. He, for one, did not attach much importance to licences, believing that, were they so largely given all over the country, some would be improperly issued; but whatever their value, it was certainly unwise to raise any doubt, as to the circumstances under which they might be granted. If it were enacted once for all, as it had already been, that diseased skins must be buried with the animals themselves, there was no need for all these stringent and vexatious provisions as to the removal of skins not tainted by the disease. In Liverpool and other places where, owing to the stoppage of railway traffic, the number of beasts killed would be enormous, Clause 29 would be simply inoperative.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was perfectly ready to adopt any form of words excepting towns from the operation of the clauses condemned by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The movement of skins through continuous lines of streets could do little harm; but in the country the proceeding was attended with great danger. It would be easy to put in words to prevent the construction alluded to by the Under Secretary. He really must express a hope that hon. Members would not indulge their taste for criticism in discussing the clauses of this Bill. He admitted that on ordinary occasions he enjoyed the sport himself—it was sometimes as good as a rat-hunt—and if there were plenty of time he would ask for nothing better. He asked for no quarter for himself; but as time was of so much importance, he hoped that hon. Members would exercise a little forbearance.
  MR. GRAHAMsaid, he felt it due to the hon. Member to express his feeling of the courteous manner in which he wished to meet the views of hon. Members; but this was a point which affected his constituents, and there ought to be an addition to the clause, giving power to an officer of the Customs to certify that hides came from abroad, so as not to bring them within the operation of this clause.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he understood that there had just been a communication re-
  854
  ceived from Leeds, with respect to the clauses on hides, and in order to give the tanners of that town an opportunity of having their views represented he would be glad to postpone these clauses.
  MR. BAINESthanked the hon. Member for the good temper and discretion which he showed in the conduct of this Bill; throughout the debate he seemed to have no desire except for the public good.
  MR. CRAWFORDwished to know if the hon. Member had any objection to exempt from the provisions of the Bill hides from India, South Africa, and Australia?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had already made such a provision in one of the new clauses. His only anxiety was to secure that the hides came from those countries.
  MR. LOCKEasked for a definition of the "Metropolis."
  MR. HUNTsaid, "land continuously built upon" was sufficiently wide, while it excluded growing districts. He begged to move the postponement of the clause.
  Clauses 28 to 34, inclusive, postponed.
  Clause 35 (Lords of the Privy Council the duty of appointing officers to inspect cattle trucks).
  MR. BARINGsuggested that this clause also should be postponed.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEremarked that if all the clauses were postponed they would have to begin the Bill over again.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the clause took the whole responsibility of disinfecting the cattle trucks, platforms, and pens from the railway companies and put it upon the Government, and relieved the companies from the whole expense and placed it on the public. He was not disposed to accept a clause which relieved the companies of all the responsibility and expense. He thought the duty of disinfecting their trucks ought to be imposed on the railway companies, and that the Government should have the power of sending inspectors to see that the railway companies properly performed that duty.
  COLONEL DOUGLAS PENNANTsaid, he thought it was not sufficient that the Government inspector alone should have the power of entering railway stations, in order to see to the disinfecting of the cattle trucks. He had himself seen the trucks which had been employed to convey cattle return filled with straw, the lower trusses of which were saturated with the dung and filth left behind by the cattle. He suggested that

  855
  the local inspector as well as the Government inspector should have power to enter the premises of railway companies and see that the trucks were properly cleansed and disinfected; and that in cases of neglect the companies should be subject to fine.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the clause was faulty as it originally stood, because it would have thrown the expense of cleansing and disinfecting the trucks upon the Government; but in its amended shape it threw the expense on the companies, while at the same time it required the process to be gone through under the superintendence of Government officers. According to the information he had received from all parts of the country, the trucks were very dirty, and not disinfected. The other night the House passed a stringent provision with respect to the transit of cattle by rail; but half the good thus accomplished would be undone if they did not secure the purification of the trucks. A clear period up to the 25th of March was required, during which they should be cleansed and disinfected. That should be done under official supervision. But they must also have some machinery for ascertaining what trucks were in use and where they were. The clause which he proposed to bring up on that subject would prohibit the use of all cattle trucks until they had been disinfected, and would require the companies to make a register of their trucks by number. It also provided that any cattle truck used on a railway should be presumed not to have been cleansed or disinfected until the contrary had been shown by means of the register. That would put the companies to some inconvenience, no doubt; but there was no other mode of securing certainty in that important matter. The companies would state the stations in which the trucks so numbered respectively were standing, the Government officer would see them there, and as soon as they had been disinfected, he would write a certificate stating that such and such trucks at such a place had been disinfected on such a day.
  MR. LOCKE KINGhoped the hon. Gentleman would postpone his clauses till the Committee had had an opportunity of ascertaining their effect.
  MR. HUNTadmitted that, under ordinary circumstances, he might fairly be asked to wait till the Bill had been reprinted; but, considering the urgency of the case, he hoped the Committee would allow him to proceed.
  MR. WYKEHAM-MARTINsuggested
  856
  that it might be well to have every truck that had been used in the conveyance of cattle thoroughly repainted.
  MR. AYRTONasked whether the clause was confined to cattle trucks, or whether it extended to every butcher's premises and every slaughterhouse throughout the kingdom.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought it highly desirable that the slaughterhouses all over the country should be disinfected. As long as the practice of slaughtering was continued, the infection was kept up; for as soon as the matter which held the infection began to dry, the slaughterhouses moistened it again, and the infection was retained. Sheep-dogs or other canine prowlers carried away the offal and lapped the blood, taking back with them to their owners' yards the means of spreading the contagion. He was willing, however, to deal with the slaughterhouses if desired, through a separate clause. It had been suggested that it would be a laborious task for the Government officers to go all over the kingdom to supervise the disinfection of cattle trucks; but an arrangement might be made by the companies by which all the trucks should be collected at certain stations, for the convenience of the Government officers. It was of primary importance that the cleansing and disinfecting should be officially superintended. When these trucks got into such a filthy state, that something must be done to them, they were sometimes shunted on to sidings with pastures closely abutting on them. The railway officials then with shovels or other implements cleared out the trucks, throwing the filth over the fences into the pastures, whereby the cattle there got infected. Then with reference to the cleansing of the railway trucks, he thought it very undesirable that the railway companies should be left to disinfect them after their own fashion; some provision should be made to insure that the proper disinfecting fluid was used; and the whole should be done under the superintendence of an officer appointed by the Government. Some disinfectants, he was told, would damage the woodwork of the railway trucks; and he had been assured that the system which had been recommended by Professor Gamgee was all that could be desired for cheapness and efficiency. He advised that the trucks should be thoroughly scrubbed with boiling water, then allowed to dry, and lastly washed with a solution of common soda or soda ash and water.
  MR. AYRTONpointed out an inconsist-

  857
  ency in the clause, and remarked that it should be made quite clear whether the expense of the superintendence of the disinfecting process should be met by the local authorities or fall on the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Member had complained of the interference of metropolitan Members with the Bill. [Mr. HUNT: No, no!] But that was their duty, and they had, after all, done no more than look after the towns, while the hon. Member had himself only taken the country, with its farms and fields, into consideration,
  LORD BURGHLEYsaid, the most careful inspection of the trucks was necessary, otherwise it was probable that the cleansing of them would be merely confined to a little whitewashing half-way down them, as had been down to some of the trucks on certain railways, leaving them afterwards like whitened sepulchres.
  MR. LIDDELLurged that ample time should be given to the railway companies to effect a thorough disinfection of their trucks, as the operation, to be properly carried out, would occupy a considerable period.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEthought that too much importance could not be placed upon this point by the Government. He confessed he was somewhat startled upon hearing his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) recommend soda and hot water as the best disinfectant. He (Viscount Cranbourne) did not think that such a thing as that would answer the purposes intended. It appeared to him that the best means of disinfection should be first ascertained, and that having been done, the use of them should be rigorously enforced in central places.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Government had been in correspondence with railway companies with reference to the cleansing of their trucks; as to the matter under consideration, he would suggest a clause providing that every railway company or person in the habit of carrying cattle in Great Britain should, before the 25th of March next, thoroughly cleanse and disinfect with lime water or some other efficient means all cattle trucks and cattle pens used by them, and should not place in them any animals before they were so disinfected. He would propose such a clause, because he desired to place the responsibility, in the first instance, upon the railway companies, and not upon the Government, But, at the same time, he would agree to the
  858
  insertion of a special provision of some such character as the following:—
  "That any officer appointed in writing under the President or Vice President of the Board of Trade, or any inspector appointed by a local authority in the district of such an authority, may enter upon the premises of any such company or persons, and inspect all trucks belonging to such company or persons, and require them or him to cleanse and disinfect them in such a manner as he may direct, and any truck which shall be insufficiently cleansed or disinfected," &c.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Bill was meant to be simply a temporary measure, the operation of which would extend only to the 25th of March, before which time the Government would, he hoped, have passed a general measure. There would, under the circumstances, he thought, be no great difficulty in throwing the duty of inspecting the trucks and seeing that they were properly cleansed and disinfected upon Government officers; especially as those trucks would not be much in use for the next month, and might very easily be collected together by the various railway companies at some particular station. The duty of inspection would, in his opinion, be likely to be much more efficiently performed by persons armed with the authority of the Government than if it were confided to local agents who might not be duly qualified for its discharge.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsuggested the postponement of the clause and to bring it up on the Report, as the Committee seemed, as matters stood, to be proceeding very much in the dark.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked, whether the proposed inspection and cleansing were to take place once for all and to be done, or were to be continued? In the latter case, it would be well to consider whether it was desirable to introduce a new principle into our legislation by departing from that laid down in the Local Government Acts, under which the expense of removing a nuisance was levied on those by whom it was caused.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, there was no use in arguing the question after the intimation made by the Secretary of State to the effect that he would bring up a clause dealing with it.
  MR. NEWDEGATEcould not see that hon. Members were precluded by that intimation from making such suggestions as they might deem advisable. He should propose that the words "vessels and there appurtenances" should be added after the word "railways."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the hon. Member for Warwickshire raised a different question from that which was under discussion, and which related to the movement of cattle within Great Britain. He was not aware that the Government had any power over foreign vessels.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that there was a large coasting trade in cattle carried on by steamers belonging to this country; and it was to that class of vessels that he desired particular attention should be paid.
  MR. CARNEGIEexpressed a hope that the railway companies would be made to pay the expense of disinfecting their own cattle trucks.
  MR. ACLAND MR. ACLAND moved that the clause he postponed.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he did not think either the proposition of the Home Secretary or that of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire quite satisfactory; but the Committee might go on discussing them, for he disliked the idea of postponing everything.
  COLONEL DOUGLAS PENNANTstated that one large railway company had issued orders to their officers for the cleansing of their trucks; and that being so, he did not see why other railway companies should not do the same, instead of throwing the expense on the country. He was very much inclined to support the proposition of the Home Secretary.
  Question put, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. Acland.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 86: Majority 10.
  Clause 36 withdrawn.
  Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
  Clause 39 (Penalty for refusing to produce a licence).
  MR. HUNTproposed after the words "any justice," to add the words "parish officer," so as to enable the overseer of a parish, in the absence of any other authority, to require the production of a licence.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsuggested that it would be better to follow the analogy of the Game Act, and enable "any person" to require the production of the licence.
  This Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. [cl. 33.]
  Clause 40 (Penalty for false Declaration) agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Application of Penalties).
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to call the attention of the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) to this clause. No provision was made in it for the application of Penalties in Scotland.
  MR. HUNTunderstood that the Lord Advocate would prepare a clause for Scotland.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE, seeing that the Lord Advocate was not in his place, begged to move the omission of the words "in England," so that the clause might apply equally to England and Scotland.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that as the clause stood half the penalties were to go to the informer. He proposed to insert such words as should make the whole of the penalties payable to the county, as in the Cattle Diseases Bill.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsaid, the great obstacle to enforcing the stoppage of traffic was the difficulty of procuring information. The only hope they had of carrying the Bill into effect was to induce the inhabitants of the country to bring offenders to justice, and the best way of doing so was to appeal to the cupidity of informers, so as to meet any local luke-warmness. He therefore trusted the Committee would not alter the clause.
  MR. CARNEGIEhad been informed that it was found impossible to carry out the Orders of the Privy Council until it was publicly announced that half the penalty would go to the informer.
  Question, That the words "in England" stand part of the clause, put, and negatived.
  Clause further amended by words making one-half the penalty to credit of county rate.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 35.]
  Clauses 42 to 44 agreed to.
  Clause 45 withdrawn.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation clause).
  MR. BARINGproposed, with regard to the word "beast," that the same interpretation should be adopted as in the Cattle Diseases Bill.
  MR. HARDYremarked that the Government measure gave no interpretation respecting footpaths and bridle roads, and that, consequently, there was a great probability of the regulations being, to a certain extent, evaded.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONstated that

  861
  it was highly desirable to stop the traffic on the drove-roads so common in Scotland, over which animals frequently travelled a considerable distance. He therefore proposed that the term "highway" should mean any turnpike, drove, or public road either in England or Scotland,
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the word "beast" had been selected because it was a singular noun; the word "cattle" was plural, and would be inconvenient. The whole Bill was drawn up in the singular number, and if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion were adopted the Bill would not only be ungrammatical, but as unintelligible as he believed the Government Bill was.
  MR. BARINGsaid, their object had been to get the Bill into a working shape. The terms "borough" and "county" were used in the present Bill in a different sense from that in which they were employed in the Government measure. If the two Bills, however, were to work at all, they must work upon the same footing. He did not for one moment wish to interfere with the hon. Member's Bill, but he thought it would greatly save the time of the Committee if the hon. Member would withdraw the clause and bring in a fresh one as far as possible in conformity with the measure introduced by the Government.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the words "borough" and "county" were employed in his Bill in the ordinary sense attaching to those terms, while the Government in their measure had bestowed upon them an artificial meaning. He thought that the author of the Bill might be allowed to put his own interpretation upon the words used in the Bill ["No, no!"], and not be compelled to accept the definition placed upon them by its opponents.
  SIR EDWARD BULLERthought that the word "cattle" might be employed, and that it might be stated in the Bill to mean "cow," "bull," and soon, and to be used to represent both the singular and the plural noun. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire had not hesitated to employ the word in some instances, for he styled the authorities referred to by the Bill as "cattle inspectors" and "cattle officers," not as "beast inspectors" and "beast officers."
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEthought that if the Committee wasted their time over such miserable technicalities the country would hardly give them credit for being actuated by a sincere desire to put a stop to this disease. The word "beast" alone
  862
  appeared calculated to lead to some forty or fifty Amendments, and other words seemed to be likely to lead to similar results.
  MR. ACLANDcontended that there was no intention of impeding the measure; but it was necessary, for the guidance of the magistrates by whom the two Acts were to be put into operation, that they should be brought into uniformity. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire whether it would not be better for him, between then and the following morning, to consult the intelligent officer who was in the habit of assisting the Government in framing their measures, and see if the two Bills could not be brought more into conformity one with the other.
  MR. HUNTwould suggest that the Interpretation clause should be agreed to as it stood, and by the time that the Report was brought up he would see if he could bring the Bill more into harmony with that introduced by the Government—a result which he was very desirous of attaining.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON SIR JAMES FERGUSSON moved to add words in order to include in the term "highway" the drove roads in Scotland.
  Words added.
  Words were then added to the definitions.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 3.]
  Clause 4 struck out.
  Clauses 28 to 34, inclusive, struck out.
  MR. HUNTbrought up a new clause in lieu of Clause 4 (What Beasts to be deemed sound, what diseased)—
  "For the Purposes of this Act, an Animal shall be deemed sound if and when it is not affected with the Cattle Plague, and has not, within Thirty Days, been in contact with any Animal so affected, and has not within Thirty Days, been in or on any Building or Yard or Field where any Animal so affected has been kept, unless that Building or Yard or Field has been effectually cleansed and disinfected at least Thirty Days previous to the Beast being placed in or on the same."
  Clause agreed to. [cl. 4.]
  MR. HUNT MR. HUNT moved after the 35th clause to add a new clause (Restriction on Dogs)—
  "Each Local Authority may from Time to Time order that Dogs be not allowed to go at large, not under the Control of their Owner, or his or her Servant or Servants, in the District of the Local Authority, either absolutely or except in conformity with Conditions prescribed by the Order, and may by any such Order authorize any Constable or Peace Officer or other Person to destroy any Dog going at large in contravention

  863
  of the Order, and may from Time to Time vary, suspend, or revoke any such Order; and every such Order, while in force, shall he sufficient Warrant for any Person acting in pursuance thereof."
  SIR GEORGE GREYasked whether it was intended by the clause that a man should not take out his dogs with him. Would it affect packs of hounds? What did dogs "at large" mean?
  MR. HUNTsaid, by "at large" he meant not tied by a chain or held in a leash.
  MR. KNIGHTproposed to add "without an owner," or "that is not in charge of its owner."
  SIR EDWARD BULLERsaid, that dogs frequently went round to butchers' shops and slaughterhouses, and then to farm-houses.
  After discussion, Amendment to add the words—"not under the control of his owner, or his or her servant or servants"—agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill. [cl. 29.]
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL SIR CHARLES RUSSELL moved to add after Clause 34 a new clause (Restriction on Movement of Sheep, &c). The object he had in view was, as it were, to give a clean bill of health to sheep moving about from one place to another. He had received a letter from the chief manager of a large market with which he had some connection, pointing out the great inconvenience which was now experienced from the total stoppage of that market under the Orders in Council, which were strictly carried into effect in the county where the market town was situated. That market was entirely closed, and would not be opened until some such security as that which he had mentioned was given. According to the clause, no sheep, lamb, &c., could be moved into the district of any local authority without the licence of a justice having jurisdiction within the district, such licence to be obtained upon certain specified conditions.
  VISCOUNT MILTONexpressed his opinion that sheep were likely to carry the disease. Hair and wool were very nearly allied chymically.
  MR. KNIGHTobserved, that it seemed quite certain that sheep did not take the disease.
  MR. DENTremarked that in his county there had been an almost entire restriction of the moving of sheep, and this had been attended with very great inconvenience.
  MR. LIDDELLhoped the clause would be withdrawn. The Committee had not been afforded sufficient time to consider it.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYcould assure the Committee that in his county very, much inconvenience had been felt in consequence of the restriction of the movement of sheep. This had become an important question, because we must make up by mutton for the loss of beef.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that the practical effect of his clause would be to facilitate the moving of sheep and get rid of the inconvenience which hon. Members complained of. His object was simply to prevent the persons from moving sheep which had been in contact with diseased cattle. If his clause was added to the Bill all a drover would have to do was to go with his licence to a justice of the district into which he brought sheep and have that licence backed, which he would have no difficulty in doing if the animals had not been brought from a place where they had been in contact with diseased beasts. He had spoken to a great number of farmers on the subject, and they were all in favour of his clause.
  LORD BURGHLEYadmitted the inconvenience of which so many hon. Members had complained; but he felt bound to support the clause, because he believed that sheep carried the disease about the country.
  MR. GEORGE CORNWALL LEGHsuggested that it was not a question as to whether sheep took the disease or did not take it; but one as to whether they would carry it. He was sure that pigs carried it, for he had suffered from pigs being introduced into a neighbour's yard, which had been previously in an infected place. He thought the clause was necessary.
  MR. HUNTsupported the introduction into the Bill of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Sir Charles Russell). The sheep-pox had broken out very recently in Northamptonshire, and the Government at once issued an Order giving power to local authorities to refuse to allow sheep to be brought without a licence into their districts. In issuing this Order the Government had acted most properly, and the House ought to adopt a similar course by adopting the proposed clause.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that the adoption of the proposed clause would cause the greatest inconvenience in Scotland. Flocks of sheep on their way to Edinburgh, or to England, had often to pass through several

  865
  counties, and the local authorities of any one of these counties might, by refusing a licence, stop the further progress of the flock. That sheep did not carry the infection was proved by an experiment lately tried at Edinburgh, where a number of sheep were kept for a certain time with diseased cattle, and were then placed with sound cattle; not one of the latter took the disease.
  SIR GEORGE GREYopposed the adoption of the clause, which he thought would have some very inconvenient results.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON, in answer to the remarks of the Member For Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), said, that the proposed clause was only intended to be in force until the 25th of March, and that before that time flocks of sheep were never moved from place to place in the Highlands of Scotland.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. AYRTON, in moving that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress, asked the hon. Member for Northamptonshire whether he seriously intended to prohibit the removal of all cattle from the place where they might be landed upon importation? He put that question with especial reference to the circumstances of the metropolis.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was anxious, in the case of seaports other than the port of London, to permit cattle to be moved upon their arrival from the place of landing to the nearest slaughterhouse, a distance which he fixed roughly at 500 yards; but on that point he was anxious to consult the views of representatives of those seaports. The Metropolitan Market, however, was six miles in a straight line from the port of London, and as there was no other sea port similarly situated, he was quite aware that a stand-up fight must take place between the metropolitan Members and himself.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he had received representations from two or three of the largest steampacket companies concerned in bringing foreign cattle to the port of London, and he was persuaded that their interests, and the interests of the consumer, would be greatly interfered with by the Bill.
  MR. HUNThoped the Motion for reporting Progress would not be pressed. There were two or three clauses which he was anxious to propose, giving power to the cattle owner to prevent trespass on his
  866
  land, and providing for the publication of an abstract of the Act.
  SIR GEORGE GREYhoped the hon. Member did not intend to devolve upon him the preparation of the abstract. He suggested that the hon. Member should give notice in writing of the exact terms of his clause affecting the metropolis, and that the Bill should be reported with a view to its being printed, thereby enabling Members to see exactly what they had agreed to.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was willing to adopt the suggestion on the understanding that the Bill would be re-committed only as to the now clauses.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of Mr. HUNT, a clause giving power to the owner of any cattle affected by disease to prevent trespassers entering on his land, after notice, was read a second time pro formâ.
  MR. BARINGsuggested that the clause should be considered as added to the Bill pro formâ, with a view of being re-committed.
  Clause agreed to, pro formâ. [cl. 39.]
  Then the following new clauses were proposed and agreed to, pro formâ, in order to their being printed, and re-committed:—
  Clause—
  24. Power for Cattle-owner to prevent Trespass on his Land.—Clause A.
  25. Publication of Abstract of Act,—Clause B.
  26. Provision as to removal of Beasts brought by Sea.—Clause C.
  27. As to Right to turn out Beasts on Commons.—Clause D.
  28. Diseased Beasts not to be turned out on Commons.—Clause E.
  29. Defining Counties to which certain Parishes belong.—Clause F.
  30. Appointment of general Cattle Inspectors.—Clause G.
  31. Inspection of Cattle Sheds.—Clause H.
  32. Proclamation of Infected Districts.—Clause I.
  33. Relaxation of Prohibition by Local Authority to be approved by Secretary of State after Lady Day.—Clause J.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPEinquired when the House could receive accurate Returns of the number of attacks from the cattle plague during the last and preceding week.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Returns were made, not to the Home Office, but to the Privy Council, and he would make inquiry on the subject.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, that some alarm prevailed in the country, it

  867
  being apprehended that there had been a serious increase above what was known of the progress of the disease.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 24]; re-committed, in respect of the Interpretation Clause, the Clauses added in Committee, and any new Clauses to be proposed, for Thursday.

  POSTMASTER GENERAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH, Bill to enable the Postmaster General to sit in the House of Commons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH and Mr. HADFIELD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 25.]

  TURNPIKE ROADS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WHALLEY, Bill to provide for the maintenance of the Turnpike Roads of England and Wales as Public Highways, and for the discharge of the Debts due thereon by voluntary commutation, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHALLEY and Mr. AYRTON.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Several Lords took the Oath.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Metalliferous Mines* [H.L.] (21); Habitual Offenders (Scotland) (1866)* [H.L.] (22).
Second Reading—Art [H.L.] (15).
Royal Assent—Cattle Diseases.

CATTLE PLAGUE ACT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked the noble Earl the President of the Council, Whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to offer any suggestions to the local authorities for their guidance in framing rules under the Cattle Diseases Act? He feared that without some suggestions from a general authority uniformity could scarcely be expected. He understood that the local authorities would probably be called upon to frame these rules by Saturday, or not later than Monday.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEalso desired to inquire of his noble Friend (Earl Granville) whether the inspectors who had been already appointed would continue to hold office until the local authorities made new appointments, or whether the Act which had received the Royal Assent that day did not put an end to their appointment.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was sorry his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) had not given him notice of his Question, for he was not prepared to give a positive answer to it offhand; but he did not apprehend that the Bill which was now an Act would stop the operation of the Orders in Council till the local authorities gave effect to the provisions of the new Act. With regard to the Question of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough), it was to be remembered that Parliament had taken this matter to a certain extent out of the hands of the Government. Whatever was now done must be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act. At the same time, he was sure his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be glad to give any assistance in his power
804
to the local authorities, and it had been already suggested that instructions should be issued by the Government as to the best modes of disinfection.

CATTLE PLAGUE RETURNS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL STANHOPEwished to call the attention of his noble Friend the President of the Council to the unsatisfactory nature of the information supplied by the Cattle Plague Returns issued by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council; for, while these Returns seemed to announce a diminution at present in the number of cases, in one week 200 inspectors and in another 250 had failed to send in their Returns. The publication of imperfect Returns was calculated to give rise to erroneous impressions, and to hopes that might not be realized. Under these circumstances, it would be well either to make some rule which would secure weekly reports from all the inspectors, or to postpone the publication of the reports for a longer interval than a week.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Returns which were wanting were those from the infected districts in Yorkshire and Cheshire, where the amount of work devolving upon the inspectors was at times so overwhelming as to prevent them, with all the will in the world, from forwarding the Returns in time. He feared that the course suggested by the noble Earl would hardly prove in practice any improvement upon the present system. But the completed Returns, he hoped, would be in their Lordships' hands before the end of the week.

SMALLPOX AMONG SHEEP.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I am afraid my noble Friend must be nearly tired of answering Questions, but I hope he will excuse my putting another to him—more particularly as I have not given any notice of it. But it was not until this morning that I saw a notification, which appeared last night in the Gazette, to the effect that smallpox had broken out among the sheep in Northamptonshire. I trust that measures either have been or will be promptly taken to prevent any sheep from being allowed to leave the district where the disease has shown itself, and also that provision will be made for burying the carcass of any infected animal. I will only further say that we shall have reason to feel

  805
  indebted to the noble Earl if he can lay before us any information in addition to that which has appeared in the morning papers; because, if we have the cattle plague supplemented and aggravated by smallpox among the sheep, there is no knowing to what extent the mischief may prevail.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am sorry to say that, according to the information which has reached me, smallpox appears to have broken out among the sheep in a district of Northamptonshire. Of course, we did not lose a single moment in issuing an Order suitable to the circumstances that have arisen. I am encouraged to hope that the mischief may not prove extensive, because a similar case occurred a few months ago, and by prompt and timely measures the disease was entirely stamped out.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Can the noble Earl state that any information has been received as to the means by which the disease was imported into the district? Has he been able to trace its origin?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The origin of the disease is exceedingly doubtful. I am speaking merely from memory, but the sheep were bought, I think, on the 4th of December, and it was on the 28th of January that the disease showed itself. The disease may possibly have escaped attention during that interval; one of the sheep may have had the disease mildly at first, and it may then have spread from animal to animal during those eight weeks. On that point it is impossible for me to pronounce any opinion; but we have desired the inspector to inquire very closely, and also to ascertain, if possible, whether the sheep came from Holland, or whether they were bought in this country.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTIONS.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, it was rather late to present petitions in reference to a Bill that had received the Royal Assent; two petitions, however, had been intrusted to him having reference to what was called the Cattle Diseases Prevention Bill, but which should properly be called the Cattle Extirpation Bill. The first was from the justices of the peace of the county of Ross, the other from the landed proprietors, tenant-farmers, manufacturers, merchants, and others of Easter Ross, praying that vigorous measures might be taken for stamping out the cat-
806
tle plague—by which they meant the in-discriminate slaughter of every animal—and the indemnification of the owners.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he had not been aware that it was intended to pass the Bill through all its stages so hurriedly, or he should have been present the night before. The House having resolved upon the indiscriminate slaughter of cattle throughout the country, it was of vital importance that the Government should ascertain at the earliest possible moment the amount of stock actually in the country. The Department specially intrusted with that duty was doing its best to procure information upon the point; but the Returns which it was empowered to collect were only voluntary. The Government, therefore, ought to take the first opportunity of obtaining Parliamentary powers compelling Returns to be made of the amount of live stock in the country. He perceived that power had been given to the Privy Council of continuing the slaughter of cattle beyond the period fixed by the Act in the first instance. As there was no saying what advice the Government might receive, or what they might think fit to do, it became of double importance that they should not be acting in the dark. Foreign importation could not be relied upon as a source of supply; and it might turn out, after an enormous number of beasts had been killed, that indiscriminate slaughter would not prove successful. When last this country was visited by the cattle plague 100,000 head of cattle were annihilated without stopping or alleviating the infliction. With the information, however, in their possession as to the actual quantity of stock at present in the country, the Government would know how far it was wise to go; and he therefore suggested that clauses on this subject should be introduced into the Bill at present before the other House of Parliament.
LORD LYTTELTONasked whether it was the fact that all the cattle affected with the disease, and now under treatment, whether by Mr. Worms or any other person, even though they might exhibit promising symptoms, were to be destroyed, or whether power existed anywhere to avert this doom, under a special representation of circumstances.
LORD TAUNTONfully agreed with the noble Duke opposite as to the importance of taking powers to render compulsory the collection of information; and hoped that

807
agriculturists would now be reconciled to this proceeding annually, for, if once adopted, they would find it to be attended with the greatest benefit.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN. MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS HELENA.
Message from The QUEEN—Delivered by The Earl Russell; and read by The Lord Chancellor as follows:—
"VICTORIA R.
"Her Majesty relies upon the cordial Interest which the House of Lords has expressed in the approaching Marriage between The Princess Helena and Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein Sonder-bourg-Augustenburg:
"The numerous Proofs which the Queen has received of their Loyalty to Her Throne, and of their Attachment to Her Person and Family, assure Her of their Willingness to concur in making such a Provision for The Princess Helena, with a view to the proposed Marriage, as may be suitable to the Dignity of the Crown.
V. R."
Ordered, That the said Message be taken into Consideration on Thursday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN. PROVISION FOR PRINCE ALFRED.
Message from The QUEEN—Delivered by The Earl Russell; and read by The Lord Chancellor as follows:—
"VICTORIA R.
"Her Majesty being desirous of making competent Provision for the honourable Support and Maintenance of Her Second Son, Prince Alfred Ernest Albert, on his coming of Age, relies upon the Attachment of the House of Lords to concur in the Adoption of such Measures as may be suitable to the Occasion.
V. R."
Ordered, That the said Message be taken into Consideration on Thursday next.

ART BILL— [BILL 15.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved the second reading of this Bill, the
  808
  object of which is to enable holders of valuable pictures and works of art under trust deeds to lend them if they were so disposed, notwithstanding the restrictions of the trust deeds, to the proposed National Portrait Exhibitions in London and the International Exhibition of Paris to be held next year. The works of art were to be intrusted to the President of the Council for the National Portrait Exhibition, and would be returned, as far as possible, without damage; but the Lord President was not to be personally liable for any loss or any damage any work of art might sustain.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but thought the third clause would require some modification in Committee. The President of the Council was not to be in any way responsible for any damage that might occur to the objects lent for the purposes of exhibition; and, indeed, it would appear by the Bill that no one was answerable. By the third clause trustees or guardians would be permitted to lend any of the works of art in their charge to an exhibition, without being liable for any damage; and the consequence might be the guardian himself, perhaps, having little interest in the work, that, through careless packing or rough carriage, a valuable picture might be injured or destroyed.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYreminded the noble Marquess that the Bill was entirely permissive. It compelled no one to lend their pictures—it only enabled them to do so; and of course none would lend a work of art without being fully aware of the conditions upon which it left their hands. He thought the noble Marquess would agree with him that it was impossible to make any one responsible for damage done to their pictures. Holders could lend or not, as they felt disposed.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, it appeared that the Bill was really for the purpose of enabling the British Museum to lend some of the articles which were in the custody of the Trustees. If the power to lend applied only to the owner he would have no objection; but here they were proposing to lend by the authority of trustees and guardians.
  LORD OVERSTONEthought that the Bill if it passed into law would place

  809
  the Trustees of the British Museum and National Gallery in a very difficult position.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYreplied that if the trustees of national institutions thought there would be danger in lending the works of art it was proposed to borrow, they would of course not lend them.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not understand that the Bill gave general permission to trustees to lend works of art under any circumstances, but only to certain specified exhibitions; and these loans under the immediate sanction and control of the President of the Council—the President of the Council being himself morally, though he was not legally, responsible for the safe custody of the pictures. In making the arrangements for the National Portrait Exhibition to take place this and next year, it had been felt that many most valuable and interesting historical portraits could not be obtained, because the trustees in whose custody they were had no power to lend them; and the Bill, therefore, was to enable the trustees to exercise their own judgment as to whether they would allow the pictures to be exhibited, under the control of the President of the Council, in the two cases named.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the noble Earl had quite correctly stated the object of the Bill, which had reference to the Paris Exhibition and the National Portrait Exhibition only, in which the noble Earl had taken so much interest.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, that if the measure applied only to these two Exhibitions, he entirely approved of it; but there would be considerable objection to allowing the pictures to be lent for exhibition all over the country. If such a power were given, he was afraid the effect would be to prevent persons leaving works of art to the nation.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that it certainly only was intended to apply to the two Exhibitions he had named; but if the wording of the Bill should appear too general, he should be happy to introduce in Committee any words which would make the proper restriction.
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

THE CATTLE DISEASES ACT.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, in giving notice of a Question respecting the Cattle
  810
  Diseases Prevention Act for Thursday evening, said, he was anxious to know, Whether the local authorities which had existed up to the present time under the Orders in Council had now ceased to exist, or whether they would continue until the new local authorities were constituted? For Scotland a new local authority altogether had been invented, and it must take several days before that body could be constituted. He should like to be informed whether the Act of 1848 was still in existence, or superseded, or only in abeyance? Several communications had reached him by post, that morning, from Scotland with respect to the new Act, and but for the haste with which it had been pressed forward these suggestions might have been considered, to the great improvement of the Act.

  METALLIFEROUS MINES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill relating to Metalliferous Mines—Was presented by The Lord KINNAIRD; read 1a. (No. 21.)

  HABITUAL OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) (1866) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the better Prevention of certain Offences in Scotland—Was presented by The Lord ROSSIE; read 1a. (No. 22.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.