Sitting of 22 February 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Princess Helena and Prince Alfred—Messages from Her Majesty; Monument to Viscount Palmerston.
Ordered—Vaccination *.
First Reading—Elective Franchise [31]; Vaccination *[33].
Second Reading—Jamaica Government [17].
Committee—Cattle Plague (re-comm.) [24].
Report— Cattle Plague [32].
Considered as amended— Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks *[5]; Telegraph Act Amendment* [13] [Lords.]

LONDON (CITY) TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL—(by. Order)—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Beading read.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to make a few remarks with respect to this measure, which, though it had been proceeded with in the ordinary course as a Private Bill, was essentially of a public character. He thought, therefore, that the House ought not to treat it as a mere private measure. According to the Standing Orders it was requisite that a person should have a definite and special interest before he could be heard in opposition to a Private Bill. The consequence of this rule was, that while a measure might affect everybody, nobody was in a position to resist it. This Bill, therefore, would, he believed, pass as an unopposed. Bill, for as far as he was aware no person would have the requisite locus standi to oppose it. Besides, this Bill was a very extraordinary one. It contained no less than seven heads, and it proposed that the corporation of the City of London should make regulations for the street traffic of London. There was, besides, a general provision that the corporation might make regulations about anything else which was not included in the seven heads. It further provided that these regulations should have effect within a month after they were made, unless the Secretary of State should disapprove them; but if the Secretary of State once signified his approval, neither he nor any one on the part of the general public would have any power whatever to procure the alteration of the regulations, however much inconvenience they might cause. In addition to all this, there were no fewer than twenty clauses imposing penalties on persons who went into the City and did not conform to those clauses. One offence was driving into the City with a carriage constructed in the manner in which, he believed, nearly all carriages were usually built. Then, again, it was an offence, and would cause the infliction of a penalty, to stand in the street and not cross over with sufficient rapidity, to walk negligently, or to walk or drive in a way which did not meet the approval of a City functionary. The measure, in fact, was a monstrous in-

893
terference with the liberty of the public. Now, the question naturally arose, "If this be necessary in the City, why is it not equally necessary in other parts of London?" He hoped the House would not allow the Bill to pass without some examination and consideration. He would not, however, ask the House to reject it, because some regulations for the traffic of the metropolis, or at least of certain portions of it, were undoubtedly necessary. The course, therefore, which he should propose was the same as was taken last Session when the question was under consideration. The Bill on that subject, it would be remembered, proposed to throw upon the ratepayers the responsibility of indemnifying the promoters of the undertaking, but as the City objected to the proposal, the House referred the Bill to a Committee partly nominated by the House itself, and partly by the Committee of Selection. Furthermore, an Instruction was given to the Committee to examine into that project, with a general regard to the public interests of the metropolis. The proceedings of that Committee were, in the end, extremely satisfactory. He should move, therefore, that after the Bill had been read a second time it should be referred to a Committee of twelve Members, five to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and the remainder by the House, and that there be an Instruction to such Committee to inquire as to the best means of regulating the traffic of the metropolis.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he thought that any opposition to the principle of this Bill would be very unreasonable, for on no subject had there been so many complaints of late as the difficulty of moving in vehicles or on foot through the City. He would not refer to the circumstances out of which that inconvenience had arisen, but he might mention that one cause was the Railway Stations by which the City was surrounded. The City was now actually impassible at some hours of the day. It was true that an Act had been passed for the regulation of the traffic, but some of its provisions had proved to be impracticable, and now, when the City asked Parliament to place further power in their hands, the first thing they met with was opposition. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had proposed that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee of a peculiar character, but he had given no previous notice of his
894
intention to do so. He hoped, however, that if the Bill were now read a second time, those who represented the interests of the City would be allowed a few days to determine whether the course proposed was the proper one. Having said thus much on the Bill, he wished to offer a few remarks on the subject of omnibuses. The fact was, that the Bill was opposed by the omnibus proprietors, whose servants set the public at defiance more than any other class of men. He was driving the other day through the Poultry when a three-horse omnibus drew up across the road in the narrowest part, suspending the traffic in either direction until it suited the driver of the omnibus to move on. Now at present there existed no efficient means of preventing this. The omnibus proprietors also claimed a right to have the trace bar to protrude any distance they pleased beyond the wheel, even over the curbstones of the pavement.
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets was a reasonable one. This was not purely a City question, but one affecting the whole of the metropolis. Nor was it simply a measure relating to omnibuses, as under its provisions no person who drove a two-horse carriage would be allowed, unless the carriage were altered, to take it into the City.
MR. LOCKEsaid, that some of his constituents had represented to him that if a particular clause in this Bill passed, their trade would be entirely put an end to. He believed that under the clause relating to splinter bars no private carriage could go into the City and pull up at a shop without being liable to be taken into custody by a policeman and carried off to the greenyard, or some place of that sort. He hoped that the House would accede to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and allow a Committee, composed of persons who were interested in the question, to take into consideration the traffic, not only of the City, but of the whole metropolis.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, that this Bill was brought in in the interest, not of the City alone, but of the metropolis generally, and therefore the City thought it would receive great consideration from the House. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had asked what diffierence there was between the City and the surrounding districts. The answer was obvious. In the City the streets were narrower

895
and the traffic was greater. London Bridge, for instance, required more regulations than Westminster Bridge.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Select Committee of Twelve Members, of whom five are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection:—Instruction to the Committee to inquire into the best means of regulating the Traffic in the Metropolis.

GRIEVANCES OF INDIAN OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is prepared to state what steps will be taken by Government in consequence of the Report of the Second Commission on the Grievances of Indian Officers?
  MR. STANSFELDreplied that he could only say that the very difficult and complicated matter to which the Question of the noble Lord referred, had met with the earliest and most earnest attention of the Secretary of State; but it was, of course, impossible to state the conclusions at which he had not yet arrived, nor was it even possible to name a day on which such a statement could be made, but he might assure the House that his noble Friend (Earl de Grey) would give his earnest and continuous attention to the subject. The House would not begrudge the time necessary to arrive at a conclusion, considering the importance of coming to one which should, if possible, be final, and put a stop to discussion on a vexed question.

INDIA—SINGAPORE—THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he would now beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is intended to transfer the Straits Settlements from the Indian to the Colonial Department, or whether that project has been definitively abandoned?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the project had not been definitively abandoned, but the Government had not been able to settle the conditions on which it was to be carried into effect. The question of military defence was still under the consideration of the War Department, and, until that had been settled, the question of the charge upon the Imperial Exchequer could not be determined.

EPPING FOREST.—QUESTION.
MR. DOULTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware of inclosures now proceeding in Epping Forest to the extent of many hundred acres, especially near Loughton, Woodford, and Epping; whether he is aware that Lord Cowley has already inclosed nearly 300 acres since the announcement was made of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in reference to open spaces; whether the Crown has any rights over the land so inclosed, or, if not, the rate per acre at which the Crown's forestal rights have been purchased; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps to prevent any further inclosures, pending the introduction and passing of the Bill promised to be introduced early this Session?
MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the reply of the Government to the first Question of the hon. Member is that the Department of Woods is not aware of any inclosures now going on at Epping, except within those portions of the forest the forestal rights of the Crown over which have been purchased by individuals. The Government have no information of what is being done on private property, with which they have no concern. The answer to the second Question is, that it is very probable Lord Cowley may have inclosed a certain number of acres—assuming that his is the property—certain rights in respect to which were purchased by Lord Mornington some years ago. As to the remainder of the Question and the rent per acre, all the particulars were laid before Parliament, I think, in 1864. I believe the forestal rights over particular land in question, if it be the land which I suppose it to be, were purchased at between £4 and £5 per acre. In answer to the last Question, I have to state that, with respect to land, the forestal rights over which have been purchased by private individuals, Government has no intention and no power to interfere. With respect to land, the forestal rights over which have not been purchased, the Government is in this position. Two Committees have inquired into the subject, one in 1863 and the other in 1865. The recommendation of the first Committee was as follows:—
"Two courses presented themselves to the Committee as applicable to the remaining portion of Waltham Forest; one is, to discontinue the sale of the forestal rights of the Crown, vigilantly

897
to maintain those rights without regard to the question of cost for the purpose of preventing all future inclosures, and to preserve the forest in its present extent and wild uninclosed condition. The other course is to obtain the sanction of Parliament for the inclosure of the remaining portion of the forest, to ascertain the rights of the several parties interested, and to make provision, partly by those means and partly by purchase, for securing an adequate portion of the forest for those purposes of health and recreation for which it has been proved to your Committee this forest has from time immemorial been enjoyed by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and the metropolis. Your Committee are of opinion that to employ the forestal rights of the Crown for the purpose of obstructing the process of inclosure to which the lords, commons, and copyholders of the manors comprised within the forest are entitled in common with all other persons similarly situated would not only be a course of doubtful justice, but might, in accordance with the experience of the past, fail in securing the desired object."
The Committee of 1865 took the opposite view, and they said—
"Your Committee entirely concur in the first alternative presented by the Report of 1863, and apply it to all Royal forests within the metropolitan area—namely, 'that the forestal rights of the Crown should be vigilantly maintained, without regard to the question of cost, for the purpose of preventing all future inclosures, and to preserve the forest in its present extent and wild uninclosed condition.'"
Having these two conflicting recommendations, the Government have felt much difficulty in arriving at a decision. The question of the best arrangements for securing the recreation of the people of the metropolis does not primarily concern the Treasury, but I have been in communication with the Home Office and the Metropolitan Board of Works, and I have every hope that something may be done which, without entailing legal expenses on the Department of Woods which is a Revenue Department, may meet the wishes of this House. Meantime, no fresh instructions have been given to that department.
In reply to Mr. SANDFORD,
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the correspondence was not concluded, and it was unusual to lay incomplete correspondence on the table. When the proposal of the Government is before the House, if the hon. Member repeats his Question as to the correspondence, no doubt a satisfactory answer will be given.

WATERWORKS BILLS.—QUESTION.
MR. PERRANDsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If the Secretary of State for the Home De-
898
partment did not, early in the Session of 1864, promise the House that stringent Clauses for the protection of life and property should be immediately drawn up and inserted in all future Waterworks Bills; and whether such Clauses have been drawn up and inserted in Waterworks Acts since passed; if not, the reason why?
MR. MILNER GIBSON, in reply, said, he was not aware of any such promise having been made, but early last Session his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) stated that a draught of a Waterworks Bill was prepared. He introduced the Bill, and it was referred to a Select Committee, whose inquiry closed so late in the Session that no satisfactory legislation could take place. In accordance, however, with the recommendation then made, another Bill had been prepared, and he hoped shortly to introduce it.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HUTTsaid, he wished to ask, Whether the Government propose to introduce any measure to authorize the collection of Agricultural Statistics in Great Britain?
  MR. MILKER GIBSON: It is the intention of the Government to ask for the same Vote as last year for the collection of those statistics.

CATTLE PLAGUE STATISTICS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If the Reports of the Veterinary Department relating to the Cattle Plague can specify in more detail the Returns of the cattle attacked, killed, or died; whether cows, oxen, or calves?
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that up to the present time the Reports had not distinguished between oxen, cows, I and calves. But for the future the duty of sending in those Returns would be intrusted to the local authorities, who would be required to make them to the Privy Council in such form and at such time as they might think fit. He could see no objection, but, on the contrary, great advantage, in adopting the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman,

DISEASES IN SHEEP.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, in view of the Order in Council 4th July, 1865, and also of the Order 19th February, 1866, relating to "sheep-pox or variola ovina," his attention has been given to the Eighth Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs, in which that disorder is termed "scab or variola ovina," the first name implying a disease not uncommon in this country, and very easily cured; and whether he has noticed, in the same Report and page (26), that mention is made of
  "Diseases which are sometimes erroneously supposed to be peculiar to Foreign Cattle, but which in reality have existed in the United Kingdom many years before the importation of Foreign animals commenced."
  MR. H. A. BRUCEreplied, that he had read the Report, and the passage to which the hon. Baronet had refered was this—
  "The sheep affected by scab or variola ovina are rather more than 1 per cent."
  He could not believe, however, that the Commissioners really intended to say that "scab" and "variola ovina" were syno-nymus, as they differed in much the same way as itch and smallpox in the human frame. The opinion expressed in the latter part of the Question was a very safe and very possibly a sound one. But from whatever places they came they were now seated in the country. Whether the rinderpest or the variola ovina was imported or not seemed a matter of little importance. The vital question was, were they contagious, were they likely to spread, and what were the precautions to be taken against them? Precautions had been taken. Out of seventy sheep lately imported from Copenhagen into Northamptonshire eight had the variola ovina, and of a neighbouring flock of eighty-eight ten had died and ten were suffering. The district had been isolated, and, whatever the opinion of the hon. Baronet might be, the general belief was that absolute isolation ought to be enforced.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home De-
  900
  partment, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill into Parliament during the present Session to amend the Law relating to Weights and Measures?
  MR. CHILDERS, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session on the subject. The special object of the Bill would be to transfer to the Department of the Board of Trade all the duties at present imposed by various Acts of Parliament on the Controller General of the Exchequer, and to place on a more satisfactory footing the custody of our standards.
  In reply to Sir ANDREW AGNEW,
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, it would have nothing to do with the coinage.

JAMAICA—MR. GORDON'S TRIAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has reason to believe that the alleged Official Report of Mr. Gordon's trial, which has been published in England, may be received as an authentic copy of the proceedings?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the authentic report of the proceedings on Mr. Gordon's trial, with many other documents, sent by Mr. Eyre to Sir Henry Storks, will form part of the subject-matter of inquiry by the Commission. No copy of those proceedings has reached me, and of course it is not in my power to express any opinion with respect to them.
  MR. BRIGHT: I should like to ask a Question bearing upon this subject, which, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer to-night, perhaps he will answer to-morrow. The question is this—Would he be willing to lay upon the table of the House the Despatches received at the War Department, and at the Admiralty, from officers in those services connected with the recent transactions in Jamaica? I presume they must have arrived in this country; and perhaps the Government and the right hon. Gentleman will have no objection to let the House and the country be fully informed respecting them.
  MR. CARDWELL:—The despatches which I have laid upon the table are those which have passed between me and the Governor of Jamaica. With regard to the Question which the hon. Gentleman has put, it certainly requires notice, and

  901
  as the papers have been sent to other Departments I cannot give an answer.
  MR. BRIGHT: Then I will ask the Question another evening.

CATTLE DISEASES ACT.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to put a Question, of which he had given private notice, and it would be desirable to say a few words first in explanation. The facts were these. He received a letter yesterday morning from an influential constituent asking him to obtain a copy of the Cattle Diseases Act. He was not able, however, to get a copy yesterday; but in The Times of this morning he saw a notice that the Act had been delivered yesterday. He called at the Sale Office to-day, and inquired why he could not get a copy the day before. The answer he got was that the Act had been sold yesterday in such numbers for the private profit of the Queen's printer that they were unable to deliver copies of it that morning, and consequently Members could not obtain them. Now, he begged to ask Her Majesty's Government, Why the public were to be served before Members, and why Members were to be hindered so long from seeing the fruits of their own devices and wranglings; and, secondly, as 40,000 copies of The Times could be delivered before seven o'clock in the morning, why the public and the House of Commons could not be served with copies of the Act on the same day?
  MR. BARINGsaid, he had received the note which the noble Lord addressed to him only a few minutes ago, and therefore he could not answer his questions. All he could say was this. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, immediately after the passing of the Act, desired a letter to be written to the Queen's printer, urging the extreme importance of circulating the Act with the least possible delay among the local authorities all over the country. All the information that he had received was that this Act had been circulated among the local authorities of counties yesterday, and to-day copies would be circulated among the local authorities of boroughs.
  MR. SPEAKER: I can add some information on this subject to that which has just been given. The noble Lord communicated with me since the House met. I sent for the chief officer in the
  902
  Vote Office, and he informed me that he had not received from the Queen's printer any copies of the Act to distribute to Members. The noble Lord states that they have been sold to the public. If that be the case, I should consider that there has been a great omission on the part of the Queen's printer. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), yesterday mentioned to me the great wish which he knew prevailed that this Act should be speedily printed, and at my request the Clerk at the Table wrote immediately to the Clerk of the Parliaments, wishing that he would communicate with the Queen's printer, and inform him that the utmost expedition should be employed in forwarding the printing of that Act. However, it appears that the copies of the Act have not yet been delivered at the Vote Office. Although this House has not an immediate control over the Queen's printer, I think I may venture to say that a communication shall be made to the Clerk of the Parliaments to prevent the recurrence of such a circumstance.
  In reply to Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,
  THE LORD ADVOCATEstated, that although by the ordinary law the Commissioners could not meet without ten day's notice, he intended to move the insertion of a clause in the Bill of the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), which would obviate the inconvenience, and allow the Commissioners to meet immediately.

PRINCESS HELENA AND PRINCE ALFRED.
Messages from Her Majesty considered, in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Messages read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Dodson—You have read from the Chair two Messages from Her Majesty, and separate Resolutions will be proposed with respect to each of those Messages, but the observations I have to make, which I hope will not long detain the Committee, may well include the subject of each Message. The general rules and considerations which apply to Messages of this kind, and the course which the House is invited to take in considering them, are the same in respect to all members of the Royal Family. The House and the public are generally aware of the principles upon which the subject—which in other coun-

903
tries often leads to difficulties—of providing for the Royal Family, is managed among ourselves. As the result of experience it has been found the wisest and simplest course to enter into a negotiation at the accession of each succeeding Sovereign, and the basis of that negotiation is that, whilst the Sovereign surrenders the life interests of the Crown estates, on the other hand a sufficient provision is made by Parliament for the maintenance of the Royal household and establishment. But it is well understood, that although that maintenance includes all that relates to the training of the family, it does not and cannot include that which relates to making competent provision for the members of that family, as they come to adult age and go out into the world. All this devolves upon the Government and Parliament, and they have to consider in each case as it arises what course it may be suitable to take. We have before us now two cases—first, that of the Princess Helena, and second, that of Prince Alfred. The nature of the subject I have to submit to the Committee does not at all require that any reference shall be made to special circumstances connected with the Royal Family. It is, however, a happy recollection, and must give us cheerfulness and satisfaction in the performance of this duty, to consider that the lives of the children of the Royal House have been so full of promise, so full of all that can give grace to youth and excite confident hopes for the happiness of their future lives. But with respect to the Princess Helena, I may venture to say one word beyond what has already fallen from me. Her position has been peculiar. It has been her lot to be the eldest unmarried Princess of the Royal Family during the time which has elapsed since that most crushing of all trials which can sadden human existence has befallen Her Majesty. Under those circumstances, she has been placed in a position which at a singularly early period put to the test all the most important qualities of her character—its strength, its wisdom, and its tenderness. It is but due to the nature of the subject to say that all I now state in Parliament is well known not only to the persons in immediate intercourse with the Royal House but to the public at large. It is well known that during those dark and trying years the Princess Helena, even at her early age, has been alike a stay and a solace to her illustrious mother. As regards the nature of the proposal I
904
have to make in the case of the Princess Helena, it is very simple, for we have only to follow the precedent set in the analagous case of the Princess Alice. About four years ago when the marriage of the Princess Alice was about to take place, a proposal was made to the House, and accepted by the unanimous will and pleasure of the House. It was that we should empower Her Majesty to endow the Princess Alice with an annuity for life, amounting to £6,000 a year, and likewise vote a dower of £30,000 to be given by Her Majesty to the same Princess. These two steps will be precisely repeated on the present occasion. I can, consistently indeed with form, only introduce at this moment the first of the two proposals; that is to say, the Resolution relating to the annuity for life. And I will ask the Committee to resolve that the annual sum of £6,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, to be settled as Her Majesty shall think fit on the Princess Helena Augusta Victoria, and to commence from the date of her marriage with Prince Christian. The dowry will, in the regular course, be taken in Committee of Supply. It will be the first business, and to-morrow, when the Speaker leaves the Chair, it will be my duty to move that a dowry of £30,000 be granted to the Princess Helena. I come now to the subject of the second Message—the arrangement proposed with respect to Prince Alfred, on his coming of age. Nothing strictly analogous to this proposal has been submitted to Parliament for a considerable time; but Her Majesty's Government have considered with what care they could, on what footing it would be right to place the establishment of a young Prince of the United Kingdom on his coming of age, and the result I will submit to the Committee. I ask the Committee to resolve that an annual sum of £15,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to be settled on Prince Alfred Ernest Albert for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the coming of age of His Royal Highness. The annuity to the Princess Helena will date from an event still in the future—that of her marriage; the annuity to Prince Alfred will date from a period that is past, inasmuch as he attained his majority in the last year. The case of a Princess contracting a marriage naturally leads to

905
an arrangement which, according to precedent, should be proposed and considered as a final arrangement. The case of a Prince attaining his majority does not stand precisely on the same position. Circumstances might arise affecting the condition of that Prince, and making it necessary to reconsider the grant to be voted to-night. It might be that he would attain a position of charge and responsibility elsewhere, which might have the effect of rendering him either wholly or partially independent of any provision from the revenues of this country. We feel that the possibility of such an occurrence will be best met, not by any provision of a positive character, but by a simple provision as to the right of the Crown and of the Legislature of the country to consider such a case as equity and policy shall require when the contingency arise. On the other hand, it is desirable that the House should clearly understand that the proposal we now make is a proposal for the due maintenance of the station and establishment of a son of Her Majesty during his unmarried life, and that in the event of the Prince Alfred contracting a marriage, it would be our duty again to submit the subject to the House, and call upon Parliament to make any further provision that the altered circumstances would require, both in regard to an annual allowance and to the contingency of jointure. This explanation, I think, contains nearly all I would say on the subject. As to the amount we propose should be granted to the Prince, I will add only a very few words. I think the amount ought to be considered from two points of view; and that no one can duly estimate it who forgets either of these points of view. If we look at it from the side of Parliament, from the side of those who grant the provision, of those who furnish the funds out of which it is paid, no doubt it is a liberal provision. It is a provision, the granting and accepting of which is made far more easy and satisfactory by its being given, as these provisions have been given by Parliament during the present reign, with general, I may say with unanimous, satisfaction. But, on the other hand, if we look to this provision from the second point of view to which I have referred, it cannot be regarded as immoderate. Considering the station of the receiver, considering how desirable it is, how essential it is, that we grant an income that will secure the independence so essential to the character and
906
dignity of that station, considering the calls that station brings with it, and the heavy expenses in every form that attends it, I think it will be admitted by all classes of the community, that, having regard to the customs of the country, the habits of society, and the fortunes commonly attained and dispensed among various orders of men, that if this be a grant which it is liberal for Parliament to make, so also it is one as moderate as the Crown and Royal Family ought to receive. With these words I place, Sir, in your hands the first Resolution which I beg to move—namely, that an annual income of £6,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to be settled on Her Royal Highness the Princess Helena for life in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit, to commence from the date of the marriage of the Princess with Prince Christian. I have only to say that the terms of the Resolution, according to the established form, are entirely absolute, and that the only conditions that attach to the grant of the annuity are usually, on these occasions, inserted in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolution:—
That the annual sum of Six Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on Her Royal Highness the Princess Helena Augusta Victoria for her life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the Marriage of Her Royal Highness with Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein Sonderbourg-Augustenburg,
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rise to second what I believe to be the judicious and well-considered proposition of the Ministry. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did right in recalling to the recollection of the House, and the country, the conditions under which Her Majesty at her accession relinquished her power over the large estates of the Crown, At the time when the Civil List Act was passed I confess that I had very great doubts as to the policy of that measure, because it occurred to me that when the time arrived that appeals to Parliament by the Crown of this character had to be made, the circumstances under which the original Civil List Act was passed would be forgotten, that Her Majesty would be appealing to a new generation, and the whole character of the Royal claim might be subject to great misinterpretation. Therefore, I think it

907
was most wise and discreet on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to call to the recollection of Parliament the circumstances under which the Civil List Act was originally passed. But I have pleasure always in feeling on occasions like the present that the happy circumstances under which we find ourselves in this country with regard to the Royal Family have baffled all the forebodings that were felt at that moment. The Royal Family have built up their hearth on the principle of domestic affection—a principle which is deeply, and I trust will be for ever, cherished in this country. Therefore, when occasions like the present occur, there is really no embarrassment for the Crown and no difficulty for the Minister. And Her Majesty may be assured that, on this and on all similar occasions, when a claim such as this is made upon her subjects, it only elicits a fresh renewal of respectful affection from a grateful and devoted people.
Resolution put, and agreed to.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved the second Resolution—
That the Annual sum of Fifteen Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on his Royal Highness Prince Alfred Ernest Albert for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the coming of age of His Royal Highness.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIE: With reference to this grant I am not going to make any objection, because I believe I only express the unanimous feeling not only of ourselves, but of our constituents when I say that we are always glad when this House can do anything that contributes to the comfort and happiness of Her Majesty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, however, referred, in vague phraseology, to certain contingencies which may arise in reference to this annuity, and which, I think, were not quite understood or appreciated by the House. My impression is that one of the contingencies to which he referred, although he did not expressly say so, was the circumstance that the principality of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is settled upon Prince Alfred, and that he is at any rate the heir presumptive of that sovereignty. The right hon. Gentleman did not explain the nature of the conditions he proposed to make if that contingency occurred in
908
regard to that principality, but I gathered that he intended that the annuity now to be voted is not at any period absolutely to cease, but that provision is to be made when the contingency arises, so as to give Parliament an opportunity of reconsidering the question. Now, I must say that that is an arrangement which will place Parliament and the House of Commons in a very ungracious position. Although I own it would be more acceptable to the public that the annuity should cease when that contingency arose—and this would be the more reasonable arrangement of the two—yet, if I were asked whether I would prefer such an invidious reservation as that at which the right hon. Gentleman has hinted, or that the annuity should be granted absolutely, I confess I should prefer the absolute grant, and not entail upon our successors in this House the task of deciding whether, upon that contingency, the annuity should continue or cease. I do not know whether I drew the right inference from what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I thought it my duty thus early to express an opinion upon this subject.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask whether this annuity would be alienable? Would it be in the power of the Prince to transfer it, or charge it in any way whatever? Of course, he wished the Prince to have the sole personal enjoyment of the annuity.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, I wish to call his attention to the terms of the Resolution, that the annual sum specified
"Be granted to Her Majesty, to be settled upon his Royal Highness Prince Alfred Ernest Albert, in such manner as Her Majesty may think proper."
The course that has been usually taken by Pariament, and which, I trust, will be taken on the present occasion, is to recognize the function of the parent; and, certainly, if ever there was a case of a Royal Family and of a parent in which we ought to recognize that their station and responsibility, their cares and enjoyments, have done nothing to abate the strength of domestic affection, or deaden the sense of domestic duty, it is the case in which we are now concerned. Therefore, the Resolution rests upon the proper basis when we propose that the annuity shall be settled in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit. But it has been the practice of Her Majesty to call in the aid of her great Council of

909
Parliament in cases where it is thought fit that particular conditions should be inserted in the Bills to be enacted for the purpose of giving effect to the Resolutions. Perhaps I ought to remind my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) that, not in this case only, but that generally in the case of money grants, from the nature of our forms in preliminary Committee, we begin by making our grant in the widest terms, because it is not in the power of this House to make any extension of the Resolutions imposed by the Committee, and that any provision for limitation is always reserved for the subsequent stages of the Bill. In that manner it is proposed to proceed on the present occasion, and to follow the precedents afforded in the cases of the Crown Princess of Prussia and the Princess Alice—especially the latter, because there the analogy extends, even to the sum inserted in the Resolutions. My right hon. Friend suggests that it would be agreeable to the people of this country to provide for an absolute cessation of this annuity in the event of the arrival of a contingency to which he has alluded. I may again say that I would venture to recommend my right hon. Friend to see and to weigh any terms that may be inserted in the Bill before he forms a final judgment upon them. I will at once say that we are not prepared to insert such a clause in the Act, and on this one ground, which, I confess, appears to me to be absolutely conclusive—that it will be impossible to define absolutely all the contingencies on which such a cessation ought to take place, if it is to take place at all, and that nothing could be more inconvenient than to refer to one such contingency, and thereby by implication to exclude every other. On that ground I hope my right hon. Friend will abandon that idea, and with respect to his approval or disapproval, that he will kindly look to the words in the Bill, and then form his judgment upon them.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he thought that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) were entitled to great weight, and he did not think they had been adequately answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It appeared to him that they ought to take one of two courses: either they should give the annuity absolutely and on the understanding that under no circumstances occurring in future should it cease, or else they should provide for the cessation of the
910
annuity in the event of His Royal Highness becoming a foreign Sovereign. If they did not do that he thought they would not only place those who might sit in Parliament when that contingency arose in an invidious position, but would place His Royal Highness himself in an awkward situation. Any hon. Member might rise and propose the cessation of the annuity, and then a discussion would occur, which he thought would be unpleasant both to the House and the Royal Family. His Royal Highness would be placed in a very awkward position in having to defend his annuity after he had become a foreign Sovereign in the event of any one proposing that it should cease. He would, therefore, impress it upon the Government that they should look the question in the face as a matter of business, and decide upon it now, making up their minds when they introduced the Bill whether the annuity should be granted absolutely, or whether it should cease upon the contingency to which he had referred.
Resolution put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morroio.

MONUMENT TO VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.
Monument to Viscount Palmerston considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Dodson—I rise, Sir, for the purpose of placing in your hands the Resolution of which I have given notice—
"That an humble Address 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."
And, Sir, I need hardly say that I anticipate the unanimous assent and approval of the House. It is, indeed, true, and more than this, it is rather a marked feature of our habits, that the occasions on which Parliament has been asked to present addresses or to take other measures contemplating the erection of monuments at the public charge, for the Civil servants of the State, have been very rare. The general rule of

911
England is to leave it to friends and to the impartial estimate of public opinion to determine upon and select those memorials which may be due to the fame, the virtues, and the performances of the dead. But in certain, cases Parliament has thought fit, upon strong grounds, narrowly and well-defined, to depart from its usual reserve, and to make the nation, through the medium of its vote, the organ for expressing its opinion of those who have passed from among us, by means of a public monument. As far, Sir, as I know, there have been within the last 100 years but three of these monuments—three, I mean, as applicable to Civil servants of the State. In the case of Lord Chatham and in that of Mr. Pitt votes of this kind were passed, and they were passed for men who, as historical figures, tower above all their contemporaries. It was done also in the case of Mr. Percival, who, like Lord Chatham and Mr. Pitt, was Prime Minister of this country, who lost his life in the actual discharge of his duty, in a manner to signalize the occasion which naturally drew from Parliament some marked and striking expression of the public feeling. In the case of Mr. Canning there was no public monument. Another method was adopted by the Government and the Parliament of the day for testifying the sentiment which the nation entertained. And now, Sir, we come to the case of Lord Palmerston, and I think there can be little doubt—I believe there can be no doubt in the minds of any who hear me—that the Government have judged wisely, and have but answered the general anticipation, in the proposal which they now make. Lord Palmerston, like the three men whom I have named, was Prime Minister of this country; and although he did not attain to that dignity until what is with most men the declining age of three-score years and ten, yet long before that time he had been one of the most eminent, one of the most famous, of the Civil servants of the State; and after he had attained to it, it was his lot to hold it for a period of nearly ten years—a period longer than that for which it had been held, I think, by any Prime Minister, except two, during a century. But it was not only the time for which he held that high dignity, although that of itself constitutes a marked distinction in the case of Lord Palmerston—it was the general position which he held in the view of the Parliament and the country, the place which he established for him-
912
self in the feelings and the recollections of his countrymen, that have led to the making of this proposal. Sir, on this occasion it would be an entire departure from usage, and from a usage founded upon prudence, if I were to attempt by a single word that I might say to make this tribute the tribute of a Ministry or of a party, instead of being, as it really is and should be, the tribute of a Parliament and a nation. I will refer but to two points which I think were truly national in the career of Lord Palmerston. It was his happy lot as Foreign Minister and as Prime Minister of this country to be closely associated with that remarkable extension of constitutional freedom in Europe which has been among the happy characteristics of the present age. I need not speak of Belgium; I need not speak of the Peninsula; but as to Italy I will venture to say that Lord Palmerston was one of the first and most prophetic of those who in England discerned the growing and gathering destinies of that country; and I believe it would not be extravagant to say that in that kingdom his name may claim a place by the side and on a level with that of her most distinguished patriots. It was the lot of Lord Palmerston to be the Minister who brought to an honourable conclusion a war taxing severely the energies of his country—a war undertaken for no narrow, selfish, or interested purposes, but aiming solely at preventing a breach of those principles which are necessary for the safety, the peace, and the well-being of Europe. It happened, and fortunately happened, that this war was arrested at an early stage—at a stage when the resolution of the country was, as it were, but stirred from its depths, and the resources of the country were perfectly unbroken. The English people were contented to stop in their career, and to receive with entire satisfaction the conclusion of a peace, moderate, wise, and considerate in its terms; and I believe I may say that they were led in no small degree to that favourable view of the negotiations and the termination of the war by the confidence which they reposed in the nobleman then at the head of the Government. But, Sir, there was another topic of life-long interest to Lord Palmerston, most thoroughly national in its character, most vitally associated with English history, which it would be unpardonable not to mention on this occasion. I mean the deep, the unfailing in-

913
terest which, at all times, and in every position, Lord Palmerston exhibited, not by words merely, but by actions, in the fate of the unhappy African race, whose history is for the most part written only in blood and in tears. It is needless to go back upon detail. Happily, as there is nothing more truly brilliant, so there is also nothing more conspicuous and better known in his career than the fact that in every step of negotiation and of policy the mind, the heart, and the voice of Lord Palmerston were ever enlisted on behalf of that long down-trodden, but we trust at length, rising race. While, Sir, I think the House will agree with me that it is desirable to avoid all doubtful ground, I yet presume to say that Lord Palmerston had the reward of his untiring zeal, his immense energy, and his long-continued labours in an amount of public admiration and attachment (to use the language employed in this Address)—I might perhaps substitute for attachment even a still warmer term—I certainly may say in addition to admiration and attachment, in an amount of public trust—such as upon the whole, when we consider its extension throughout the country and its duration over so many years, has surpassed that which has fallen to the lot of any other statesman of our time who has borne office under the Crown. It would be a great-mistake to suppose that this attachment was limited to any class, any party, or any portion of the community. It prevailed in the upper class, among the aristocracy of the land, to whom by blood and by character Lord Palmerston belonged; it pervaded the powerful and intelligent middle class of the country: it descended into the ranks of humble and honest labour. In all of these—nay, I would venture to say, in all of these alike—his character and services were favourably and warmly appreciated, in, I believe, a higher degree and for a longer time than those of any other Civil servant of the Crown. Sir, in this place, too, it is impossible not to cast back a thought on the influence he here exercised. There was connected with that influence something which it would be unpardonable altogether to pass by. All who knew Lord Palmerston knew his genial temper and the courage with which he entered into the debates in this House; his incomparable tact and ingenuity—his command of fence—his delight—his old English delight—in a fair stand-up fight. Yet. notwithstanding the pos-
914
session of these powers, I must say I think there was no man whose inclination and whose habit were more fixed, so far as our discussions were concerned, in avoiding whatever tended to exasperate, and in having recourse to those means by which animosity might be calmed down. He had the power to stir up angry passions, but he chose, like the sea-god in the Æneid, rather to pacify.
"Quos ego—sed motos præstat componere fluctus."
The position of Lord Palmerston in this House was, I may add, not due to any laboured or artificial rhetorical effort-There are, however, many now present who recollect the Session of 1850, and who then learnt to what a height of real and solid excellence the Parliamentary oratory of Lord Palmerston could attain. The occasion to which I refer was a great one. We were all arrayed on one side or the other. I myself was humbly placed in the ranks opposed to him; but I never can forget the sentiments of admiration with which I—not differing from those around me, but merely sharing their opinion—listened to him throughout that long summer night as with unparalleled courage and with extraordinary clearness, force, and felicity of argument he went point by point through the foreign policy of England, that is to say, through the politics of the world, and satisfied the House on the points of controversy which had been raised. Sir, the character of Lord Palmerston as an orator—his character as a statesman—his character as a man, are not to be determined by me. I cannot, however, help adverting to what I always regarded as one of the most remarkable qualities of his speaking, though, perhaps, the words in which I express my idea on the subject may raise a smile, so much may they seem to wear the appearance of a simple matter of course. That which, in my opinion, distinguished Lord Palmerston's speaking from the oratory of other men, that which was its most remarkable characteristic, was the degree in which he said precisely that which he meant to express. I have never seen—I may be wrong, but I do not think I have ever seen that precision of measure—that strict identity between the process of the mind—which is during the address of a public speaker to his audience always in advance—and the terms and accents which the tongue employs for the purpose of conveying his meaaning to their intelli-

915
gence, preserved and maintained so completely as in the case of Lord Palmerston. As I have already said, it is not our manner to endeavour to draw a portrait of a de parted statesman on such occasions as the present; and in this instance it is all too soon to make any such attempt. That is the business of the public opinion of the country, and of those who will hereafter record the transactions of the times in which Lord Palmerston bore so conspicuous and distinguished a part, and of whose history he made himself so essential and in separable a portion. But we have all seen, and we must, I think, desire to record, now that it associates itself not merely with an admiring but somewhat of a tender feeling, the extraordinary courage and the almost unexampled force of will by means of which Lord Palmerston was enabled to undertake for the first time the office of Prime Minister and the leadership of this House at the age of seventy, and to discharge the duties belonging to those arduous positions until he had passed four score years. For my own part, I cannot help saying that I believe they are mistaken who attribute only to the Providential blessing of a good constitution the ability of Lord Palmerston, while out of doors he performed the laborious duties of his high office, to set indoors to younger men the example of indefatigable attention to the public business. I am convinced it was the force of will, the sense of duty, and the determination not to give in, that enabled him to make himself a model for all of us who yet remain to follow him with feeble and unequal steps in the per formance of some of the duties which it fell to his lot to discharge. His was that force of will which did not so much struggle against the infirmities of old age as repel them and keep them at a distance. One other quality there is which Lord Palmerston'possessed which I may mention without the smallest risk of stirring up a single painful emotion, upon which it is most delightful to dwell, and which is the last I shall mention. It is this, that he had a nature incapable of enduring anger or the sentiment of wrath. There may be those who would lead us back to the old philosophical puzzle which many hon. Gentlemen must remember, that as there is no virtue without self-denial, and that as in a perfectly good man there is no self-denial needed to be virtuous, virtue dies at the moment when it attains its perfection. But the true answer to that
916
puzzle in the case of Lord Palmerston is, that this freedom from wrathful sentiment was not the result of painful effort, but the spontaneous fruit of the mind, the noble gift of the original nature—a gift which, beyond all others, it is delightful to observe and to record in those to whom it belongs. It is delightful to remember it in connection with him, who has been taken from us, with whom we are no longer connected except in the endeavour to profit by his example wherever it can lead us in the path of duty and right, and to bestow on his memory that tribute of admiration and affection which it deserves at our hands. On these grounds, Sir, I venture to recommend the Resolution which I have risen to propose to the friendly and, I think I may add, the warm and enthusiastic notice and approval of this House. The rest I leave to the historian, who will hereafter record more fully the deeds of Lord Palmerston, and, above all, to the admiring and affectionate recollection of a proud and grateful nation. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Besolution:—
That an humble Address 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.
MR. DISRAELI: I had hoped, Sir, that this Motion might have been seconded by some one who had the honour of sharing the private friendship of Lord Palmerston, and at the same time his political confidence. But as no one has risen, I cannot without great reluctance permit a proposal of this character to pass in absolute silence in this House, as if we on these Benches did not join in the Address to the Crown and the vote to which we are asked to assent with entire cordiality. Whatever differences of opinion there may be on political questions, the memory of sixty years of public service—always distinguished, sometimes illustrious—cannot be allowed to be cherished merely by an admiring or even a grateful country. It is under such circumstances most fitting and most proper that in the chief sanctuary of the realm there should be some outward and visible sign to preserve the memory of a statesman of whom it may be said that he

917
combined in the highest degree two qualities which we seldom find united—energy and experience. I will not touch upon the personal qualities of the man, In this present Parliament I have already presumed to speak of them; I will only say that they were most engaging. I trust, Sir, that the time may never come when the love of fame shall cease to be the sovereign passion of our public men. But, Sir, I still think that statesman is peculiarly to be envied who, when he leaves us, leaves not merely the memory of great achievements, but also the tender tradition of personal affection and social charm.
Question proposed.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he wished to put in a plea that the monument should be worthy of the great man whom it commemorated, and of the noble pile in which it was to stand. The allegories and monstrosities which pleased our ancestors now palled upon our taste. The present was the time to show that a monument to a great man in Westminster Abbey might be a memorial of the man, and yet not an eye-sore or a disfigurement to the grand building in which it should be placed. Now was the time for the Government to show that the sculptor's art does not consist in allegories, clouds, nymphs, and cupids. Let the work be worthy of the age in which we affect such superiority to our ancestors.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have to make an apology to the House for a strange error on my part. I mentioned three precedents, but I entirely omitted to refer to the precedent of Sir Robert Peel, who is a distinguished example, as he, like Lord Palmerston, had long been Prime Minister of this country.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) who has preceded me, anything which I may say cannot add to the unanimity with which the House is about to vote this monument; but I do think it necessary to express a hope that no unseemly and unreasonable delay may take place in its execution and erection. Twelve or thirteen years ago a monument was voted to the memory of the great Duke of Wellington. Where is that monument, and what security have we that it will ever be erected? I wish to express a hope that we may be informed when that monument will be completed, and that no such unseemly delay will attend the erection of the monument for Lord Palmerston.
Resolution put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

JAMAICA GOVERNMENT BILL— [Bill, 17.]

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I rise to state that it is not my intention to offer any opposition to the plan which the Government has proposed upon this subject. I feel that it must be a subject of very sincere regret to both sides of this House, and I have no doubt whatever that it is a matter of sincere regret to Her Majesty's Government, that we are thus compelled to take what I may call a retrograde step in colonial policy, by repealing, or, at all events, temporarily suspending the free representative Constitution which has been enjoyed by the colony of Jamaica for upwards of 200 years. But, notwithstanding the regret which I feel for the necessity of taking this retrograde step, I think it will not be necessary that we should enter at any length into a discussion either as to the state of Jamaica or the causes which have induced Her Majesty's Government to come to Parliament with this proposal to suspend the Constitution. I think it impossible that any one who is cognizant of the recent history of Jamaica, or who has made himself acquainted with the contents of the Papers which have lately been laid before us, to doubt that the Government have really very little option in adopting the course which they now have done, and asking the House to consent to the measure which they have submitted to our notice. No one can have read those Papers or have reflected on the history of Jamaica without feeling that the state of that colony has been sadly changed by the events of the last few years, by that policy which, whether right or wrong, was adopted by the Imperial Government with regard to the production of sugar in the West India Islands. Whether that policy were wise or unwise it is now too late to consider, but I think there can be no doubt that the effect of that policy has been to involve this island of Jamaica in a state of increasing misfortune and decay, the result of which is that there now remains in the island neither material for a free representative Assembly nor the basis upon which a free representative Assembly could be founded. The proposal which Her Majesty's Government has submitted

  919
  to us is very similar to a proposal submitted to the House by the Government in the year 1839, but one difference is this. In 1839 the island of Jamaica was in a state of great excitement, and great party violence prevailed there in consequence of the emancipation of the slaves. Further—I think unfortunately—that measure was proposed in this House at a time when party spirit ran very high, when political parties were very nearly balanced, and when a great party struggle for the government of the country was in progress. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies was then in Parliament—I think not; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Member at the time, and if I remember aright he was, like myself, one of that very powerful party which, although in fact a minority, was sufficiently strong to put an end to that measure. I frankly confess my belief that it was unfortunate that we arrived at that conclusion. My opinion is, that if the state of politics had allowed that question to be considered in the calm and dispassionate manner in which we consider the present measure, and if that suspension of the Constitution had then been carried, the history of Jamaica during the years which have intervened would in all probability have been less disastrous than they have been. Another respect in which the cases are dissimilar is that in that case a difference had arisen between the Legislature of Jamaica and the Legislature of the mother country, whereas now there is no difference of opinion between the Legislature of Jamaica and the Legislature of the mother country, and Her Majesty's Government are proceeding to suspend the Constitution of Jamaica, not only because in their judgment that suspension is necessary, but because the Jamaica Government itself has abdicated its functions and declared its own incompetence and incapacity to carry on the business of the colony. Under these circumstances, I, for one, can have no doubt that it is my duty as a Member of this House to give my support to Her Majesty's Government in the proposal which they have made; and with regard to that part of the proposal which relates to the manner in which the Government of Jamaica is to be conducted during the three years in which the Constitution is to be suspended, I think that is a point which we ought to leave to the discretion of Her Majesty's Ministers. It
  920
  will be at once the course the most prudent and the most acceptable to the colony. I therefore give my cordial support to the proposal which Her Majesty's Government have made. There is one other point to which I will venture for a moment to request the attention of the House. I am most anxious that this occasion should not be taken advantage of by Gentlemen on either side of the House [cheers] to initiate a discussion upon recent events in Jamaica. I am glad to hear those cheers; they strengthen me in the hope that I may appeal to the good feeling of Gentlemen on both sides of the House, whatever may be the impression produced upon their minds, to acquiesce in the strong opinion I express that at this moment, while a solemn inquiry is being conducted by a Royal Commission into the unfortunate occurrences at Jamaica, and the conduct of the civil and military authorities there, any discussion of these matters would be premature, and that we are bound in fairness, in honour, and in justice, to suspend our judgments, with regard to the merits or demerits of the conduct of those concerned, until the decision of the Commission is in our hands. I hope I may be met in the spirit in which I speak by the Secretary of State if I strongly deprecate, above all, anything like prejudging the conduct of the parties concerned on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman because I am disposed to believe that a very erroneous impression widely prevails with regard to the manner in which Governor Eyre has been treated by the Ministry. I believe there is a wide impression that, by suspending Governor Eyre, the Government have prejudged and condemned him, and that his suspension was a penal suspension. In justice to the Government, I am bound to say that I, for one, never shared that opinion. I believe, on the contrary, that the Government intended to treat Governor Eyre with perfect fairness. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in suspending Governor Eyre from his official functions, had no intention to prejudge him or to express any opinion one way or the other with regard to his conduct. His suspension was nothing more than an indispensable consequence of an official investigation by a Royal Commission, during whose inquiries it was impossible he could discharge the duties of Governor. It was to facilitate this inquiry that he was sus-

  921
  pended, and it was not the intention of the Government to prejudge or condemn him. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have no hesitation in confirming that view.
  MR. HADFIFLDsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether it was true, as was stated on the authority of a Member of the late Jamaica House of Assembly, that the population of the island—about equal to that of Sheffield—was taxed to the amount of £45,000 per year for the maintenance of an ecclesiastical establishment to which not more than one-eighth of the people belong. If the statement were true, he asked from the Government an explanation of their intentions for the future. Was this canker on the prosperity of the island to continue? Was £45,000, or any sum, to be exacted from the people to support a Church to which they did not belong? If so, the island would never be happy. This state of things was worse even than that which existed in Ireland, for in Ireland the Established Church was maintained by the property of the country, whereas in Jamaica it was supported out of taxes levied for that purpose. It was impossible to expect the great majority of the people of Jamaica to submit to a tax so unfairly proportioned,
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, that every one who took an interest in the affairs of Jamaica must feel thankful to the Colonial Secretary for bringing in this Bill. There were great differences of opinion in re-gard to the unhappy event in the island, but he was glad that all parties were now disposed to hold their judgments in abeyance until the report of the Commission was received. The late Assembly of Jamaica was a body which really commanded the respect of no one, and therefore no one regretted its abolition. During the thirty years of its existence it had grossly mismanaged the affairs of the island, and it had failed to introduce any measures adapted to the state of society as changed by negro emancipation. The only good law the Assembly passed was that by which it abolished itself. The Bill now before the House simply affirmed what the Assembly had done. While he heartily approved the Bill, he must say that the period of three years was too short to make an experiment upon the island. He hoped the Bill would not be so limited. Jamaica required, among
  922
  other changes, a strong Government in order to restore order among the excitable population. The country also needed independent Judges and magistrates, who would be able to administer justice with impartiality. Ample provision, too, must be made for the education of the people. At present great ignorance prevailed in the island. Some time would necessarily elapse before a good Government would be appreciated and the excited feelings of the country allayed. When there should be a good and firm Government, and when justice should be impartially administered to them, and an interest be manifested in their welfare by the authorities, the past unfortunate proceedings would soon vanish from their memory. While, however, there remained evidences of discontent and disorder in the island, capital would never flow to it and commerce would decline.
  COLONEL EDWARDSstated that he had, in common with other Members of the House, received a very extraordinary epistle from one of its Members, a Gentleman whose acquaintance he had never had the honour of making, and to whom he had never spoken. Whether it was Parliamentary to characterize the conduct of the hon. Member by the phrase an "unwarrantable liberty," he did not know, but would, if the Speaker should intimate that it was not, apply a more mitigated expression to it. He would take the liberty of reading the letter which had been addressed to him by the hon. Member for Surrey—
  "At the Conservative dinner at Leeds you attacked those who had denounced the doings in Jamaica in very strong terms. I hope you will not shrink from making the same charges in the House of Commons face to face with us. Your speech will, I believe, be alluded to."
  In the first place, he would tell the hon. Member for Surrey that he was not one of those who were in the habit of saying things behind a man's back that he would not say to his face, and in the House of Commons too. He was not one to shrink from his duty. Now, as he had been challenged to repeat what he had said at Leeds, the House would allow him a few minutes while he read an extract from the speech which had so much galled the hon. Member. It ran thus—
  "He wished to make one or two observations with regard to the Jamaica question. Was there ever anything in this world so disreputable as the conduct of certain parties? Let them take the facts as they stood. An insurrection, planned years ago, broke out before all the plans were

  923
  matured. He thanked God that it did, and it showed that there was a Providence which overlooked us all, and no doubt the premature outbreak of that insurrection was a means to an end. The intention of half-a-million of negroes was to massacre the 15,000 white men in the island, and to take possession of the soil to the exclusion of its rightful proprietors. Fortunately, before these plans were matured, the plot exploded, and they had to thank Governor Eyre for the prompt and energetic manner in which he crushed that rebellion. He hanged its ringleaders, and what then followed? By the return mail thanks and congratulations were sent out from Lord Russell and the Colonial Minister, who appreciated the services of Governor Eyre, and also the services of the army generally. Immediately this was known there was a great howl in Exeter Hall among the Baptists and philanthropists. Mr. Bright denounced the Government of Jamaica and everybody connected with its policy, and said it was wrong altogether. But the fact was that had it not been for Governor Eyre's promptitude in the way in which he dealt with those atrocious murderers, who had already sacrificed the lives of numbers of our countrymen, the whole white population of that island would have ceased to exist months ago. Lord Russell, feeling the iron hand of Mr. Bright, trembled in his shoes, and wrote out at once to suspend Governor Eyre, that a Commission would issue forthwith, thus punishing him prematurely, and the troops, instead of receiving honour from the Crown, had to abide the result of the inquiry. Was there ever such a miserable piece of administration? Was there ever such gross injustice done, not merely to Governor Eyre, but to the gallant troops under his command? If the troops of the British Isles—if the troops under the command of Her Majesty—were to receive no thanks from the weak, impotent, degraded Government, where were they to look? Where would the country find troops to serve her, or Governors to protect her colonies, if they were thus treated?"
  Having read the words he had uttered at the meeting held at Leeds, he must thank the hon. Member for the honour he had thus conferred upon him in bringing his name before the House of Commons; because he thus obtained the opportunity of making the world aware of what were the notions of one Member, at all events, respecting the atrocities committed in Jamaica, and the conduct of the Government towards the Governor of that island. His speech at Leeds was certainly an after-dinner effusion, and, therefore, it would not, perhaps, go far beyond the precincts of the town; but now, in consequence of the interference of the hon. Member for Surrey, he was able, by means of the press, to place his views before the country. If, however, the House of Commons were to be called upon to listen to what had occurred at public meetings throughout the country, its time would be wasted and the interests of the nation altogether Colonel Edwards
  924
  neglected. He therefore hoped the conduct which the hon. Member for Surrey had pursued would be generally discouraged by the House. He did not retract a single syllable he had uttered in his speech at Leeds. His impression at the time he made it was that it was entirely correct from beginning to end, and that impression had since become a conviction, and neither the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey, nor those of any other Member, would change his views untill he had seen the Report of the Royal Commission.
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I am glad-notwithstanding the little episode to which we have just listened—it appears to be the opinion of the House that we are acting wisely in avoiding discussion with reference to the late proceedings in Jamaica. In answering the appeal made by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington) that we should proceed with the Bill without reference to the general question, it is only necessary I should say, that as has been most handsomely admitted by my right hon. Friend, the course we have been compelled to take was, upon the whole, the only course open to us. I have great pleasure in stating that the construction he has put upon that course, in regard to the motives of the Government, is the true and right construction. Nothing was further from our intention than in the smallest degree to prejudge the case on either side; and I am bound to say that I can conceive no conduct more unworthy than ours would have been if we had sent the Governor before the Royal Commission with any prejudgment expressed by us with regard to any portion of his conduct. Perhaps I may be permitted to read the concluding paragraph of the despatch in which I conveyed to Governor Eyre the views of Her Majesty's Government. In the early portion of the despatch we stated that an inquiry must take place; and that, if it was to be conducted fully and impartially, it must be conducted by independent persons who had themselves taken no part in the proceedings. If we consider the safety of the colony, it was manifest that that safety might be endangered by an inquiry injudiciously conducted. If we consider the efficiency of the inquiry, and the confidence which it ought to inspire in the general community, whether in Jamaica or in this country, it is manifest that it must be conducted by independent persons. The Government rightly thought that it was impossible to hold the Governor responsible

  925
  for the safety of the colony, and, at the same time, to subject him to a searching inquiry with regard to the measures he had adopted in repressing the outbreak which had already taken place. Whether, therefore, we considered the safety of the colony, the efficiency of the inquiry, or the position of the Governor himself, we felt that it was our duty to direct that the inquiry should be conducted by independent persons. Well, then, Sir, I will read the passage, in order that I may show the feeling entertained by the Government on this subject. It is as follows:—
  "In conclusion, I will only repeat on the part of Her Majesty's Government that, while we feel it to be our imperative duty to institute this inquiry, we desire by every means in our power to guard against in any way prejudging its result. Our earnest hope is that the result will he to satisfy us on the points on which it is necessary for us to be satisfied, and at the same time to exhibit the conduct of those whose duty has compelled them to take part in those proceedings, and to whom the suppression of the outbreak is due, in a light consistent with their position and character, and especially, in your own case, with that high character for courage and humanity for which you have always been distinguished."
  I trust that these views of Her Majesty's Government will be a conclusive proof that the credit which the right hon. Gentleman so handsomely gave us for the motives which influenced us was not undeserved. With respect to the measure now before us, I have little more to add except to express my obligations to the House for the candid manner in which the proposal has been received. It is, no doubt, a matter of great regret to both sides of the House that a popular form of Government which has existed for 200 years should come to a conclusion, and that we should be compelled to substitute for it the form of Government now proposed. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those who have traced the history of Jamaica from 1839 to this time may well doubt whether it would not have been for the benefit of the colony that the step which we now propose had been taken before. There is no doubt that Jamaica, from its natural advantages,—from its soil, from the splendour of its climate, and its great suitability for all tropical productions, was once by far the most flourishing and valuable of our West Indian possessions. At the time of emancipation it received the larger part of the money voted for that object, and in exports, population, and wealth it was then nearly equal to all our other West Indian pos-
  926
  sessions taken together. From that period it has afforded a melancholy example of declension and decay. It is now agreed by its own Legislature that the time has arrived for a change in the form of its Government. That Legislature has made a proposal which Parliament is about to sanction, and therefore, with the concurrence of this House and of the Legislature of Jamaica, we are about to institute this experiment. The hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Hadfield) has asked me what we are about to do with the ecclesiastical establishments of Jamaica. My answer is that we are now about to establish a form of Government, and that our first duty will be to consider what the institutions of the island are, and to endeavour to bring them into a working form most likely to promote the prosperity of the island. I am sure my hon. Friend will see that nothing would be more premature or ill-advised than to make declarations on the subject to which he has referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Crum-Ewing) has said that the success of this measure will depend on its being temporary or permanent, and in that to a great extent I agree. I have not the least reason to suppose that the House will determine, at the expiration of three years, the period proposed to restore the former Legislature of Jamaica. But in our present state of imperfect information during the pendency of an inquiry, it is much more natural that we should avail ourselves of the elasticity of the power of modifying our proceedings by Orders in Council. At the time this Bill shall expire, the House may have the subject before it more fully and in a more perfect shape. I do not at all anticipate that at the expiration of that time we shall recur to the ancient Constitution of Jamaica. The House will probably continue the present Bill. We think that a form of Government which is preferred in Trinidad, Ceylon, and the Mauritius is most likely to promote the prosperity of Jamaica. I have again to thank the House for the kind manner in which they have received this measure.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that no one could feel more then he did the wisdom of the advice that no allusion should be made at this period to the events which had taken place in Jamaica; and therefore, in the few remarks which he was about to make, he would be careful not to say a single word upon the subject. Of the composition of the Commission there could be no question.

  927
  Sir Henry Storks was one of the best men that could be chosen, and each of the other members was, he believed, equally well qualified for a duty which was likely to tax all their ability and resolution. Nothing could be more true than the remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and other hon. Members, that the Constitution of Jamaica had been the great barrier to her prosperity. The frequent elections which took place turned away the people from habits of industry to political excitement. Valuable time was wasted in the House of Assembly in undignified squabbles with the Legislative Council, in abortive measures, and in jobs of every kind The right hon. Baronet had referred to the crisis of 1839. Again in 1849, on a question of the reduction of salaries, the House of Assembly refused to perform its duties, and the effect was that the rum duties were lost to the amount of £50,000. In 1853 the taxes were not collected, and the duties not levied for nearly six months, and by that £177,000 was lost, and a permanent debt of £130,000 was incurred, the matter resulting, as was said, in a handsome profit to some of the members through whom the crisis had come about. The Constitution of 1854 was an attempt to have responsible and representative Government without party. It was entirely unworkable, but no doubt the object aimed at was the right one, because in a case like Jamaica party strife became a conflict of races. Jamaica was rapidly returning into its original wilderness, and, under the circumstances, it was clear that a change was necessary. It was to be hoped that when some time had passed away they would find, instead of the ruin that was impending, returning prosperity, because he felt certain that the form of Government which now prevailed in Trinidad, and which was about to be applied to Jamaica, was the only one fitted to the circumstances of that community.
  MR. LAMONTsaid, he was intimately acquainted with the West India Islands, and he felt convinced that the Government which existed in Trinidad—consisting of a Governor and a Council of nominated men—was infinitely preferable to that absurd burlesque of the British Constitution which existed in times past, but was now perishing in Jamaica.
  MR. BUXTONsaid he should not remark on the singular and strange part which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel
  928
  Edwards) opposite took in replying to the letter addressed to him; nor should he reply to his remarks or go into any discussion on the question. He entirely agreed that it would be far better to suspend judgment for a few weeks until the report of the Royal Commission had been received. He only wished to say, in regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as applied to himself and those with whom he acted, that they would not cause him or any one else an instant's pain. He confessed, however, that the tremendous and sweeping charges which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made against the whole negro race of the island, while he (Mr. Buxton) and his friends had been accused day by day of prejudging the case against Governor Eyre, had stung him and all who took a deep interest in the welfare of that race. He firmly believed that the negroes would be proved innocent of any such deep diabolical design as a conspiracy to murder the white population of the island. If the discussion had gone on, he should have been rejoiced to lay before the House what he considered overwhelming proof that no such idea had ever been entertained by the negroes.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL. [BILLS 7, 24, 32.]

  COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).
  [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 (on re-commitment).
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 25 (Publication of Abstract of Act). Clause B.
  MR. ACLANDopposed the clause as being most dangerous.
  MR. HUNTconsented to its omission.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 26 (Provision as to removal of Beasts brought by Sea), Clause C agreed to [cl. 40.]
  Clause 27 (As to right to turn out Beasts on Commons). Clause D.
  MR. ACLANDobjected to the adoption of this clause. It would give full liberty to persons to move cattle freely across moors and other open places.
  MR. MITFORDsaid, that if the clause was not adopted the result would ruin some hundred small farmers in his district. These persons sent their cattle to graze on commons, and if the clause were rejected they would be ruined.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that he had not introduced the clause, nor did he give it his approval.
  Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 144: Majority 129.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 28 (Diseased Beasts not to be turned out on Commons). Clause E.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWproposed to add at the end of the clause the following words:—
  "Any person wilfully driving, or allowing any cattle under his charge to be driven, or to stray into any field sufficiently fenced without the consent of the owner or occupier thereof, shall, on conviction before two justices of the peace, be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding thirty days, and the cattle may be slaughtered by order of the said justices if they so think fit."
  MR. BARINGtrusted that his hon. Friend would withdraw the addition, and allow it to come up on the Report.
  MR. HUNThoped they would have no clauses proposed on the Report, and entreated the Committee to dispose that evening of all the matters in dispute, in order that when they came to the Report there might be nothing left to be done but to make such verbal alterations as would render the language of the Bill clear.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he felt bound to oppose the insertion of the proposed words unless they were brought forward for discussion upon the Report. Penalties like that of thirty days' hard labour could not be imposed upon persons without due consideration.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he would consent to withdraw his Amendment for the present, and bring it up again on the Report. It was very essential that the malpractices of drovers should be prevented by proper punishment.
  MR. HUNTexplained that when he ex-
  930
  pressed the hope that there would be no new clauses on the Report, he did not mean to refer to the Amendments desired by the Scotch Members, who, he understood, had met that day and agreed as to what was necessary to make the Bill applicable to Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he hoped to have the clauses applicable to Scotland ready for delivery that night.
  MR. BARINGsaid, a number of Amendments and new clauses had been put upon the paper only that morning, to which he had not been able to give more than a casual and imperfect consideration. He must, therefore, distinctly reserve, on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, his right to raise any question on the Report.
  MR. HUNTmust say he trusted that the way in which they had received at the hands of his hon. Friend, during the passage of the Government Bill through Committee, several clauses which were in manuscript only would form some sort of precedent for the spirit in which his own clauses would be received by the Committee.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEthought that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew) was very important. There was a case within his own knowledge where a drover had bought some cattle which proved to be diseased, and turned these beasts into a field on a farm without the occupier's permission. The consequence was, that the cattle on the farm had become infected, and the farmer had suffered a severe loss. Such acts required to be stopped by severe punishments.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONalso argued that a penalty of a much more stringent character than a fine of £5 was absolutely necessary to protect stock-owners against such serious crimes.
  MR. HUNTsuggested, that the object in view might be attained by adding to the end of the 28th clause words to the effect that any person wilfully driving or allowing any beast under his charge to be driven or to stray into any field that was sufficiently fenced, without the consent of the owner, should be deemed to have moved such beast in contravention of the Act. In that way the offender would be brought under the general penalties of the Bill.
  Amendment withdrawn; the words added, as moved by Mr. Hunt; and clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 41.]
  Clause 29 (Defining Counties to which certain parishes belong). Clause E.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Appointment of general Cattle Inspectors).
  MR. BARINGobjected to the clause in its present form.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 31 (Inspection of Cattle Sheds). Clause H.
  MR. AYRTONdrew attention to the fact that the clause made no provision for the payment of the inspectors to be appointed under it.
  MR. M'LARENsaid the clause was very-important. Of 1,100 cows in the city of Edinburgh 600 had died of the cattle plague, which had spread with amazing rapidity in consequence of the imperfect accommodation provided in that city. He hoped that the power given by this clause to the magistrates to remedy the state of things to which he had referred would not be taken away. There was no difficulty whatever in reference to the payment of the inspectors, as the officers at present in the employ of the magistrates would be able to fulfil the duties imposed by the clause, or in case of any difficulty the magistrates themselves might act as inspectors.
  MR. CUMMING-BRTJCEhoped the clause would be allowed to remain in the Bill.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEregarded the clause as the most valuable part of the whole Bill. He hoped that in future sanatory regulations with respect to cattle would be more strictly enforced.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had merely wished to point out the fact that the clause did not state how the inspectors were to be remunerated. He might also remark that in many towns there were no persons who answered to the description of magistrates of boroughs, except the police magistrates, within whose functions the appointment of cattle inspectors could scarcely be intended to come.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthought no difficulty would arise as to the payment of the inspectors to be appointed under this clause. In his opinion the scope of the clause might be extended with advantage; for if cow-sheds and large dairies were prohibited in large towns it would be a good step.
  MR. LEEMANsuggested that the local authorities, for the purposes of this clause,
  932
  should be deemed to be the local Boards of Health or the town councils in place of the magistrates of boroughs, and that such local authorities should have the power to pay the expenses to be incurred under this clause out of the borough rate.
  SIR GEORGE GREYthought it a pity to waste time in discussing a clause of this character when the Bill was only to be in force until the 24th of March. If the existing large dairies in towns were to be done away with during the suspension of the cattle traffic, what was to become of the cows? The subject might be worth consideration with the view to permanent legislation, but it should not be dealt with in a temporary Bill like that now before the House.
  Clause agreed to. [cl. 45.]
  Clauses 32 and 33 struck out.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation).
  On the Motion of Mr. HUNT, the first paragraph of the clause defining the term "beast," was struck out.
  Further Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Appointment of general Cattle Inspectors) amended, and agreed to. [cl 44.]
  MR. HUNTsaid, the discussion of the clause he was now about to move would probably occupy more time than any other clause which had been taken into consideration during the evening. This clause related to imported beasts; and the principle upon which it was based was that imported beasts should, if possible, be slaughtered at the place of landing, or, if that were wholly impossible from the circumstances of any port, that they should be taken to the nearest slaughterhouse, there to be slaughtered, or to lairs adjacent, where they should remain until they were slaughtered; and that under no circumstances whatever should they be taken to any market or fair. That was the principle on which he had endeavoured to frame the clause. He had originally proposed that there should be a power of moving cattle to a distance "not exceeding 500 yards" from the port. At that' time, however, he was unable to say whether that would be a sufficient distance in the case of all the ports; but he had since taken care to ascertain the circumstances of every port in reference to this matter. As far as he knew, the clause he had put on the paper must be amended in certain

  933
  respects in order to suit the convenience of some of those ports, though at the same time it was not his intention to infringe the principle which he had laid down in preparing the clause. The alterations he had to propose would give certain relaxations with regard to several ports, but except in the case of two of them the distance would not be extended beyond a mile. The clause he should propose was in these terms—
  "Any live beast landed from a vessel at any port, if sound, may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be moved on a highway to a slaughterhouse, or to any lair, yard, or building adjacent to a slaughterhouse near the place of landing for slaughter; but this enactment shall not authorize the moving of any beast on a highway in any case beyond the district of the local authority within whose district is the port of landing, or for a greater distance than one mile even within those limits."
  He believed those words would satisfy the requirements of all the seaport towns, with two exceptions, Leith and Bristol. Leith was rather more than three miles from the slaughterhouses at Edinburgh; but the whole of the road along which cattle would go to it from the port of Leith was wholly separated either by wharf warehouses or market gardens from any places where beasts were kept. That, therefore, was an exceptional case. Then came the case of the port of Bristol. Now, there was no licensed slaughterhouse, nor any yard or lair, adjacent to that port, within the jurisdiction of the mayor and corporation of Bristol. The place of landing was about two miles and a half from the licensed slaughterhouses of that city. He was informed that all these slaughterhouses lay very near together, and that there were yards adjoining them in which animals could be kept until they were slaughtered. The route to the slaughterhouse was through quays and streets, and he believed there was no beast known to be kept in any place abutting upon the road along which the animals would have to pass. It seemed to him that the port of Bristol might fairly be made an exception to the general rule. He would not deal with the case of Liverpool, as his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) would bring forward the case of that port. He would be prepared to deal with that case when it arose, and he should advocate adherence to the general principle he had laid down. He came now, however, to the much-vexed question as to the port of London,
  934
  and he must repeat what he had said the other day, that he did not intend, if he could help it, to make an exception in the case of London. The London market was the central market for the supply of meat to all parts of the country. At the present time—and the regulation would continue till the 24th of March—no beast within the meaning of the Act would be able to enter the London market except the few beasts which were kept within a six-mile radius of that market—and there were, in fact, none, or next to none, within that radius. He confessed this was a strong proposition; but he hoped the Committee would think the circumstances of the case warranted it. They had stopped the use of all cattle-trucks until they had been cleansed, and they had stopped the transit of cattle by railway—and this they had done, in order to insure against spreading the infection. Now the London market was the centre and focus of infection. Indeed, those who had inquired into the matter were thoroughly satisfied that the disease was carried into the provinces from the Metropolitan Market, though the provinces had returned the favour by sending it back again to the London market until the passing of the Act which had just received the Royal Assent, The consequence had been that nearly all the lairs in the immediate neighbourhood of the Loudon market were infected. The metropolitan Members might be sceptical as to his theories on infection, but they were based upon the opinions and observations of those who had studied the subject. Now, it was a generally admitted fact that the chance of infection was nowhere greater than when the animals were placed upon infected ground. If, however, no new animals were put into such lairs, and no fresh moisture admitted, the place became more or less desiccated and disinfected. If that were so, he had made out a strong case for the disuse for a time of the Metropolitan Market and the lairs connected with it. He would now proceed to another point, and here he confessed he felt strongly the necessity of what he should propose. By the Bill which had just received the Royal Assent, no British beast could enter the Metropolitan Market, unless uninfected and from within a six-mile radius. The plague had carried off all the beasts within that radius except milch cows, and they were very few; and he was told that nearly the whole of the lairs in the market

  935
  and in its neighbourhood were infected, and therefore that cattle put into those lairs would run the highest possible amount of risk. But were they to admit foreign beasts into the London market when British beasts were excluded? If it could be shown that there was a necessity for doing so, his case was gone. He did not wish to give the British dealer a single advantage over the foreign dealer, but he was bound to protect the former against the latter. Unless his Bill were carried in its entirety, the foreign beasts would gain such an enormous advantage, that the foreign dealer would really have a monopoly of the market. He had no fear of the London market not being supplied with dead meat, and he would, moreover, encourage the bringing of dead meat from abroad. He would further encourage the importation of live beasts from abroad and from Ireland; but he would have them slaughtered at the port at which they were landed, allowing them to travel such a distance as might be consistent with safety, and giving them no advantage over English beasts which could be avoided. If it were necessary that beasts should be slaughtered at the Metropolitan Market, there was an end of his case, and he admitted the seriousness of the proposition he was making. Within the last few days he had made a personal examination of the neighbourhood of the wharves where imported cattle were landed. The port of London had four wharves specially applied to that purpose. Dublin-wharf, near the Tower, was the highest up the river, and was a very small one. Newcastle-wharf was a small one and little business was done at it. The wharf at which most cattle were landed was Brown's-wharf, Poplar, and then there was the Brunswick-wharf at Blackwall. Upon the quay of the last-named wharf, there was what seemed to him to be a very large building in which cattle not passed by the inspectors were slaughtered. The evidence taken by the Commission showed that the meshes of the inspectors' nets were very wide, and that many infected animals slipped through them, as, owing to the pressure of business, it was impossible that complete examination could be made in the allotted time. Many infected animals, therefore, got into the London market. He saw one at Brunswick-wharf that was being dressed, and it was so decidedly unhealthy that it could not have been passed as a sound one even by one of
  936
  the metropolitan Members, who were better judges of men than they were of beasts. The building, however, was large enough to give great accommodation for slaughtering beasts. At Brown's-wharf he was informed there was considerable accommodation for the slaughter of beasts. A few days ago he received a communication from a gentleman named Odams, representing that he was manager of, and principal shareholder in, a company called the Wharfing and Warehousing Company, which had extensive premises immediately contiguous to the Victoria Docks. Mr. Odams let him have a plan of the premises, which were built for the petroleum trade, and if the Committee would allow him he would exhibit it just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had once shown the House certain articles manufactured out of a new material. [The hon. Gentleman here held up the plan to the view of the Committee.] The wharf where those premises were was from 500 to 800 yards below the place where most beasts were now landed. There were sixteen sheds now on the premises, ten of them 150 feet long by 30 wide, and six the same length by 60 feet wide. Three of those larger sheds were open at one side, and were exceedingly well ventilated, the roof being to some extent open in order to allow the fumes of the petroleum to escape. These three sheds were admirably adapted for the reception of the animals, and for judging them before they were slaughtered. There were on the other side three more sheds 150 feet long by 60 wide, which would be available for dead meat to hang by the carcass or joint until sent away. He would no doubt be asked, were they high enough for the purpose? Experience was the best test. He had the height of the beam in Brunswick-wharf, from which he saw the ox suspended measured, and the carcass did not touch the ground. He had himself measured the buildings which he now recommended as a fit place for slaughterhouses, and found that the same height could be obtained there. He would admit that at the present moment there were no beams fixed, but there were piers strengthening the brick-work at every ten feet, and from each pier beams could be placed. The beams which he saw used at Brunswick-wharf were movable, and similar ones might be obtained from any timber merchant's yard at thirty-six hours' notice. So much for the capabilities of the

  937
  place inside; but how about getting the beasts there? That, he admitted, was the weak part of the case. The landing-place had been constructed only for the reception of barrels and casks, and in its present state beasts could not be safely landed there. But Mr. Odams said that if the place were used for slaughtering animals during the month of March, and if he was properly remunerated, he would be prepared at the end of a week to have stages up so that beasts could be landed there. Whether that could be done or not he would not say, for he was no judge; but he believed Mr. Odams would undertake that they could. It might be said now, "Oh! here is the Member for Northamptonshire got hold of by a man who wants to turn his premises to account." But he told Mr. Odams that he must be excused if he took his statement with reserve, and should wish to have it confirmed by some person in the trade. Mr. Odams said that was perfectly reasonable, and he should be furnished with the confirmation he desired. Accordingly, he had received a letter from Mr. Odams giving the authority of Mr. Baker for what he had said. He did not himself know Mr. Baker, but he was informed by one of the largest West End butchers that Mr. Baker was one of the most extensive slaughtermen and Government contractors that we had. In that letter Mr. Odams said that Mr. Baker, after comparing these premises with his own at Deptford, where his beasts were slaughtered, was of opinion that there was ample room on the premises for all the foreign cattle that would come into London up to July, and that there would be quite sufficient time to provide for the summer requirements. Now, the next question was, supposing those premises to be put to the use he proposed, would there be conveniences for getting away the meat? The time occupied in travelling by water from the premises in question to Woolwich Arsenal was only ten minutes; and this was a great point in connection with the supply of the victualling yards there. A more important point was the conveyance of meat to other parts of the country. There was abutting upon the premises, or within three or four yards of them, a line called the Old North Woolwich line, now in the hands of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and up to it were tramways, though of a different gauge, laid for the conveyance of goods. The London dead-meat market was not in direct communication with the premises, and at present dead meat could not be
  938
  conveyed thence by rail to any point nearer than a mile of Newgate Market; but if permanent foreign cattle markets were contemplated, a line could be constructed through the sheds he had mentioned from the Old North Woolwich line, and that this could be extended in the other direction so as to reach the dead-meat market. Some weeks ago the Secretary for the Home Department was kind enough to say to him, "Granting you can supply London with dead meat, it does not follow that you can provide for the great inland towns." His plan, however, would show that those great towns could receive meat directly from Mr. Odam's premises, for the North Woolwich line communicated with the Great Northern, the Midland, the North-Western, and the Great Western Railways. It was possible that hon. Members representing metropolitan constituencies might say, "You have got a Member of Parliament to exercise his very poor judgment on the matter, and you have a greatly interested owner of premises, and a Government contractor, who would like to have the meat near the Deptford victualling yard which he supplies." If, however, he were to advance nothing further in support of his case, he confessed that it might be open to that objection; but he was going to cite the admission of two hostile witnesses who came to combat the scheme proposed. Their names were very well known through their having given evidence before the Cattle Plague Commissioners. Messrs. Honck and Hicks were two of the largest consignees of foreign cattle in London, and they therefore might be considered to represent the trade. They stated that great inconvenience would be entailed by slaughtering all the cattle at the port. He produced to them his scheme, and asked if they were acquainted with Mr. Odam's premises. They replied, "Oh, yes, we know them well; but we hope we shall not be driven to slaughter the cattle there." He then asked, "Do you mean to say there is no accommodation for slaughtering there?" They said, "Oh, yes; if it comes to that, there is accommodation." These were statements from persons whe would do all in their power to prevent the adoption of the scheme he had laid before the Committee. He then asked what was their objection, and they replied, "It will put us to great inconvenience if we have to remove the dead meat from these premises to the market in London." He said, "Why so? You can go by railway within a mile of the market." "Yes,"

  939
  they said, "but the customers who have usually attended in the London market will not be so ready to meet us at the place you have named, and, in consequence, the price of our meat will be depreciated." He then asked what would be the effect upon the trade of the Amendment carried the other day with regard to the prohibition of the movement of cattle by rail; but they did not give him an answer. He, however, learnt by the expression of their countenances that that Amendment would be very advantageous to them if they should succeed in getting foreign cattle to the port of London. It was perfectly obvious that if they secured the exclusive use of the market of London the value of their property would be very much enhanced. He told them he thought they had no right to complain. He (Mr. Hunt) said it would be an enormous advantage to the public if these premises and the land around could be secured as a permanent foreign cattle market. He believed that the greater part of the disease that affected our herds was derived through the medium of foreign cattle, and was of opinion that foreign fat cattle ought never to leave the port of London alive, and that all foreign store cattle in the port of London ought to be inspected and quarantined. If that was desirable he could not conceive any place better adapted to such purposes than the premises he had named. The land comprised an area of twenty-five acres. A great part of it was swampy and wanted filling up with ballast to make a standing place for beasts, but with some outlay of money he could not conceive that any place could be more adapted for the purpose. It was bounded on the south by the river, on the west by the Victoria Docks, on the east by a watercourse running through Plaistow Marshes, and on the north by the Old North Woolwich line. It was completely isolated, therefore, from all places where cattle not intended for immediate slaughter were kept by farmers or others. There was room there for slaughtering the animals, for dressing the meat and hanging it up till removal, for preparing the hides, hoofs, and horns; and there were facilities for carrying away the meat and those portions of the beasts which were not used as human food. This sounded like a magnificent scheme; and hon. Members might, perhaps, say that Mr. Odams had got hold of him, and that he had shown himself very ready to listen to that gentleman's recommendation of the premises; but he could assure them that Mr. Odams was a
  940
  perfect stranger to him. He knew nothing about him or his company; but certainly it did appear to him that the proposal was one worthy of consideration. He asked Mr. Odams whether he had communicated with the Government, and he replied that he had done so. He said that as long ago as October he had communicated with the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and that, lately, he had communicated with the Under Secretary of State; adding that his letters had been acknowledged, but that no further notice had been taken of the matter. He had no doubt the Government had caused inquiries to be made, and the premises to be inspected by trustworthy persons; and if they had done so, what they would lay before the Committee would be a great guide in the matter. He must apologize to the Committee for having trespassed so long upon their attention; but the matter was an important and difficult one, and he was anxious to point out a way of getting out of the difficulty. If they were able to prevent foreign cattle landing in London from obtaining an advantage over their own, and keeping up the infection, a great step would be gained. He had put this information before the Committee, and he hoped they would support him in the views he had stated.
  Moved, in place of former Clause 15 to insert,
  "Any live beast landed from a vessel at any port, if sound, may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be moved on a highway to a slaughterhouse, or a lair or building adjoining thereto, for slaughter; but this enactment shall not authorize the moving of a beast on a highway in any case for a greater distance than one mile, or beyond the limits of the district of the local authority within whose district is the port of landing, save that beasts landed at the port of Leith may be moved by the direct route thence to the public slaughterhouse in Edinburgh for immediate slaughter."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.
  On Question, "That the clause be added to the Bill,"
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), as well as one or two friends who were supporting him, appeared to be very jealous of any one knowing anything about the cattle plague. He (Mr. Ayrton) never had pretended to any special knowledge of the subject. He had intervened once or twice on the general principles of legislation, and he thought that on each occasion of his intervention the hon. Member admitted he

  941
  was wrong, or else made a correction exactly in the sense he had suggested. He was going to intervene now because the hon. Member was not only dealing with the cattle plague in the country, but was plaguing them with the cattle disease in town. The elaborate speech just delivered by the hon. Member went to show that he felt the question to be a difficult one, and that he entertained very great doubt of what he was doing. [Mr. HUNT: No!] Well, the hon. Gentleman ought to entertain very great doubt of it. He would now call the attention of the Committee to the present position of the question, both as regarded London and other large towns. The fundamental error with which the hon. Gentleman began and ended was the supposition that the foreigner would get a great advantage if this protective clause were not carried. According to the present law cattle imported into any port could not be moved except by sea from the port into which they had been brought; but, practically, there was a very large area of England into which foreign cattle could be imported. London was not the only town of cattle import. The inland towns would derive a benefit from the regulation preventing imported cattle from being conveyed inland, because they would not have the competition of cattle coming in by sea. It was clear that there was no possibility of contaminating cattle in the country by those brought into seaport towns; and, therefore, the former were sufficiently protected. But the hon. Gentleman objected to imported cattle being moved to a distance of six miles for slaughter. He would, however, remind him that, by one of the exceptions already objected, home cattle could be carried about the country to a distance of six miles for the purpose of slaughter; there was no objection to bringing an animal a distance of six miles for breeding purposes; and calves could be moved twenty miles from the cow. This being so, the first thing which would occur to one was, that imported cattle might be moved to a distance of six miles for slaughter; but this was what the hon. Member for Northampton objected to. The hon. Gentleman wanted to have a quarantine of twenty-five days established in the Metropolitan Cattle Market. He presumed the hon. Member and his friends regarded that market as an Augean stable, which it would take twenty-five days to clean. Nothing could be more ridiculous. Such was the condition in which the Me-
  942
  tropolitan Cattle Market was kept, that he believed it to be one of the cleanest places to be found in the metropolis. ["Hear!'] The hon. Gentleman who cried "hear!" must not know that market. The first question to be considered was this—what was the nature of the London cattle trade? The sales in the Metropolitan Cattle Market amounted to something like 7,000 or 8,000 head of cattle, and yet the metropolis was suffering from a scarcity in the meat supply. He believed that the metropolis and other large towns had a right to expect freedom in the importation of cattle brought by sea for the purpose of affording some alleviation of the embarrassments to which the prohibition of the movement of cattle in the interior of the country would necessarily give rise, and the importation by sea, large as it was at the present moment, must inevitably increase as soon as the inland supplies fall off, or were altogether withdrawn. A trade of such magnitude necessitated preparations upon a corresponding scale. Landing-places, markets, slaughterhouse—all should be proportioned to the extent of the traffic; and it was not to be supposed that an established industry like that of the meat supply to London was all in one day to be overturned and re-created. The hon. Member said he had only seen four places where cattle were actually imported into the metropolis; but some strange confusion appeared to exist in his mind between the metropolis and the port of London. The port of London began at Gravesend, and ended at Staines; and the arrangements for the supply of cattle throughout that district would, of necessity, be somewhat complicated. But confining their attention to the metropolis, the hon. Member it seemed had got a project which enabled him utterly to disregard and supersede the course of the trade for years past. The hon. Member had met some old man or old woman who had given him a plan and project. The hon. Member, in his capacity of projector, became therefore one of those dangerous and often deceptive persons against whom it was necessary to be upon one's guard. He had occupied three quarters of an hour in going through the details of his project, just as any projector would do in a Committee-room upstairs, endeavouring to persuade hon. Members that he had got a good project which would benefit everybody but the inventor himself. Unfortunately, the hon. Member wished to back up

  943
  his project with what amounted to compulsory legislation, imposing however a severe tax and great inconvenience upon a large branch of industry for the benefit of this Mr. Odham. What guarantee was there that, if everybody were compelled to go to his place, he would give it to the metropolis at a reasonable price? The hon. Member for Northamptonshire was not authorized to negotiate on his behalf. [Mr. HUNT: You have got power under the Act to take lands.] The hon. Member, if he entered into that question, would get into great difficulties. Mr. Odham's land, moreover, lay not in the metropolis, but in Essex. Of course, everybody between Gravesend and London could point to a great many acres of land and say, "These are at the disposal of the metropolis, to carry on all the industry which is now carried on in London." But before the House could legislate upon the subject, possession of the land must first be acquired, and an Act passed regulating the tolls. It must be seen, moreover, that everybody obtained the same right of use and access upon proper and recognized conditions. The hon. Member put nothing in effect more than a sheet of paper before the House, and were they to proceed upon the mere scheme of a projector, anxious to turn his land to account? He had land which he could not use, petroleum casks without any oil in them; and he said to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, "Bring my sheds and my petroleum casks before the House and I will undertake to supply all the wants of the metropolis." Even in connection with the Cattle Plague Bill, this was hardly a proposition that ought to have been brought before the House. Into the conversations held with Messrs. Honks and Hicks he would not enter. Many conversations had been preserved, both of the living and the dead, but conversations more uninteresting than those held by the hon. Member he had never heard. He should be sorry if the task of annotation fell to his lot, for certainly they were anything but instructive. All those Gentlemen, of course, held particular opinions and views; but he was not there to deal with private theories. What he looked at was the general benefit and the interests of great and established branches of industry. The hon. Member would not let cattle be driven six miles through the metropolis; but he would let them be driven six miles to a slaughterhouse in the country, though the dan-
  944
  ger there was infinitely greater. What could possibly be infected in London except the cowhouses? and these were screened from the thoroughfares through which the animals should pass. [Mr. HUNT: We in the country are not allowed to drive cattle to market.] Yes; but to the slaughterhouse it was perfectly legitimate to drive them along narrow lanes separated only by a hedge from other animals grazing in the field. To conduct the meat trade of the metropolis, it was absolutely necessary that the beasts imported should be brought to market. It was idle to suppose that all the butchers of the metropolis would go down to the water-side and wait for animals to be landed there, buy them, have them slaughtered on the spot, and then wait the arrival and debarkation of fresh ones. Business could never be conducted on such principles as that. The cattle must be regularly brought to a place where buyers could see them, and where buyers could assemble; and in close proximity to which were regularly licensed slaughterhouses. A single animal sufficing for the consumption of a village might be slaughtered almost anywhere, but it was different with a great meat trade like that of London. Arrangements could never be made in the way suggested for slaughtering thousands of cattle from week to week, and he was prepared to go the length of saying not only that cattle imported should have free access to market, but that they should remain free within the limits of the metropolis. How else were the dairies to be restocked? This was a very serious question, for the price of milk already had gone up 25 per cent, and persons ought to be encouraged to restock their dairies at the earliest moment. The reproductive power of the 16,000 dairy cows in London in a short time would replace all the cattle destroyed by the plague. Was it to be laid down broadly that in the metropolis there was no longer to be any breeding of cattle? In the manufacture of beer millions of quarters of malt were consumed in London. After the manufacture of the beer there was, of course, a great quantity of grains, which was excellent cattle food, and the result was that cows could be maintained cheaper in London than in any other part of the kingdom. If the proposed clause was adopted, the people of London should look to Northamptonshire for milk, and everybody knew what wretched

  945
  stuff Northamptonshire milk was. The London milk dealers complained that the Northamptonshire farmers watered the milk before they sent it to London, thus depriving the dealers of their just rights and privileges. The milk from the London cows was, on the contrary, very good, because cows in London dairies were well fed and well cared for. He could see no reason whatever that could justify the House in ruining the London dairy proprietors for the benefit of the Northamptonshire farmers. He strongly objected to the representatives of inland counties endeavouring to introduce into the Bill clauses calculated to serve their own constituencies and to injure the cattle trade of large seaport towns. If the clause now before the House was adopted, its effect would be of most serious inconvenience to all the inhabitants, and positive ruin to many of those engaged in the London cattle trade.
  MR. PACKEsaid, that it was true that the passing of the clause might injure some private interests, but they were not there to consider private interests, but were there to see what they could do to check the progress of the cattle plague. They all knew that the disease had been first imported into this country from abroad, and there was no better way of checking the spread of the disease than the adoption of the clause now before them, which would effectually prevent diseased cattle coming into the country from abroad. It was impossible by the adoption of any precaution to discover whether animals coming from abroad were sound or not. He had known cases in which the very best judges of cattle bought animals as sound which afterwards turned out to have been suffering from the plague at the time of their purchase into the country. Whether that interfered with the trade or not they knew very well that the safety of our whole herds depended upon it, and the farmers and graziers of the country were perfectly alive to that, and would do anything to prevent the importation of the disease into the country. Unless they did something to check the passage of the disease through the country they would do very little good at all.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the hon. Member who had just addressed the House spoke of the opponents of the clause as persons who supported private interests. He did not see how the interests of the three million of people who inhabited the
  946
  metropolis could be called private interests. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) prudently made Bristol one of the proposed exceptions to the working of the clause. He did this because he knew that there was a great cattle trade between Ireland and Bristol, and he hoped that by excepting Bristol from the working of the clause he would obtain the support of the Irish Members. Now he (Mr. Crawford) told the Irish Members that, if the clause was adopted, it would entirely destroy any trade in cattle now existing between Ireland and London. He feared, from the arguments on which the hon. Member for Northamptonshire based his views with reference to the importation of foreign cattle, that that gentleman was returning to the doctrine of protection. It was well known that the Jews, many of whom lived in the east of London, could not eat the flesh of animals unless it were dressed in accordance with their customs. He apprehended it would not be possible to set up an establishment in the proposed slaughtering place to suit them; but if this were not done, and the clause were carried, he thought it would be little less than tyranny. He trusted the Committee would deal with the matter in a liberal spirit, and not permit the importation of meat to be restricted in such a way as to deal harshly with any one class.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPEfeared the last speaker had totally misapprehended the motive of those whom he opposed. They had no desire to stop the importation of live cattle to London. On the contrary, they wished to have as much foreign meat as possible, provided it could be brought without fear of infecting the cattle of this country afresh. The hon. Members for the metropolis seemed to consider the interests of the metropolis the major point, and the stoppage of the cattle plague the minor point. But that House had to consider, not whether or not they should stop the importation of foreign cattle, but what means they could devise to prevent the propagation of the disease. With respect to the first point, he believed they were agreed that the nearer the meat was brought to the consumer the easier the offal could be conveyed away, and the nearer a place for the disposal of the hides was to the market the better. The site in the neighbourhood of the Victoria Docks answered all these requirements most admirably. Near the large tract of land spoken of—and it was of little value—

  947
  they had the Blackwall Railway and the North London Railway; and by these the meat could be taken to Newgate or White-chapel with remarkable ease. He had been told that two-thirds of the meat imported to London was consumed by the people living in the East End; and yet some hon. Gentlemen proposed to send the cattle six miles from the landing place, and, having there slaughtered the beasts, to carry the carcases back to Whitechapel. It would not do to dispose of the question by saying it was only for three weeks. As long as the rinderpest lasted the restrictions proposed would have to be continued, and it was a delusion to think the rinderpest would end in three weeks. Then with regard to the disposal of the offal. Within 400 yards of the Victoria Docks' site was a large manure factory which used up the blood and offal of 2,500 animals weekly. How much better would it be to remove the offal to this factory than to carry it through the heart of London to Bermondsey from Islington or the many little slaughterhouses in the City! He was told that the hides went to Bermondsey. If they took the foreign beasts to Copenhagen Fields, what was to become of the hides? Why, carts must be got to take them to Bermondsey, whereas if the cattle were slaughtered on the banks of the Thames the hides might be placed on barges and taken to Bermondsey close to the manufactories. He submitted he had proved his case. He thought he had never heard two gentlemen endeavour to do more mischief to their constituents than the two metropolitan Members who had addressed the House to-night. In spite of all the care of the inspectors, some diseased animals might slip through. They would, at all events, come over now and then with infected animals, and would carry with them the germs of the disease. Then what would become of the calves of these cows? They were to be sent into the country to be taken care of, and there was great danger that they would propagate the disease. The sheep, too, were to go back to the country again. There were instances of sheep carrying the infection; they were to go into the same market with the cattle; and there was cause for apprehension that the sheep would take the infection into the country with them. His hon. Friend and those who supported him did not wish to do anything either directly or indirectly to prejudice the admission of live cattle into the port of
  948
  London, or to hinder the best and largest supply of meat for the metropolis.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he had an Amendment to propose by way of rider to the clause.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would not be competent for the hon. Member to propose it at the present stage.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he would postpone the Amendment until the proper moment. He wished, however, to explain that the port with which he was connected was peculiarly situated. The cattle market of Liverpool was in the jurisdiction of the county magistrates, being about 1,000 yards from the boundaries of the borough. The way from the point of landing was more a street than a highway, being lined with houses almost continuously. From the market, within the jurisdiction of the county magistrates, the cattle were brought back again within the jurisdiction of the local authorities, and were there slaughtered. That there was no danger from the free use of the cattle market might be inferred from the fact that the county magistrates, on the 29th of January, passed a resolution, permitting cattle to come within their jurisdiction to be sold, and returned to town for slaughter. He knew how difficult it was to make out a case for exception, but he based his appeal to the Committee upon the peculiar position of the trade, which would inevitably centre in Liverpool as soon as the present Bill passed. Liverpool must become the centre of supply of dead meat for the large manufacturing towns of Lancashire and the depot of the meat-producing districts of the north of England and Ireland. On these grounds he trusted that the Committee would not object to add a third exception to the two already admitted in the Bill.
  MR. BARINGpointed out that the great difficulties attending the clause were demonstrated by the fact that it had been four times modified, and that the hon. Mover had intimated a probability that coming telegrams might show the necessity of still farther alterations. He acquitted the hon. Gentleman opposite who raised this question of any intention to raise the question of protection. He did not believe that any man would divide the interest of England and Ireland in this matter, and the effect of the clause was to throw the same obstructions in the way of the cattle trade with Ireland and foreign countries. Looking at the clause, he should say that it was both unnecessary and im-

  949
  practicable. The pith of it was, that all beasts imported should go no further than one mile from the place of landing, and at the end of that mile they must be slaughtered. Now, in the Bill passed the other day on that subject it was enacted that all cattle brought by sea to any town or place should not be allowed to leave such town or place alive. Where, then, was the necessity for the present clause? Why, it rather weakened the effect of the clause which was already law, because it would cease to operate, together with the whole of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, on the 25th of March, whereas the Government measure would continue in operation till the 15th of April next. It was said that certain conveniences for the disposal of cattle would be erected below Blackwall, and that was the only suggestion which the hon. Member had to offer to explain how the cattle landed at the port of London could be killed within a mile of the spot of landing. The carrying out of the clause would be impracticable in the port of London, and intelligence might soon reach them that it would be equally impracticable in twenty or thirty other ports in the kingdom. Why should not beasts be allowed to be taken through the streets—of London, for instance—or Liverpool? Let them act in that matter like sensible men, dealing with infected places strictly, but not imposing vexatious or harassing restrictions without sufficient cause. The hon. Member wished to have Islington market thoroughly cleansed; but, if the clause passed, it would by no means secure that object, for the market would be still open for sheep and pigs. No animal could now leave the metropolis alive, and therefore it was impossible the plague could be spread by means of that market. The supply of beasts to this great metropolis was already affected to a serious extent by the stoppage of cattle transit by rail, and he was sure the Committee would, after all, feel that it was a question of some importance how more than 3,000,000 people were to be fed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would not object to the second reading of the clause, but meant immediately afterwards to move an Amendment in it. If they did not pass the clause, there could be no movement of cattle at all in the streets of London. ["No!"] He maintained that, having already passed one Bill allowing such movement, if they now passed another Bill saying there was to be no such movement
  950
  they would thereby repeal the provisions in the previous Act. It was necessary, therefore, now to pass some clause making exceptions to the general enactment; and, the hon. Member's clause being one of a sweeping character, he would propose an Amendment to modify it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "highway," in line 3, to the word "that," in line 12, in order to insert the words—
  "Within the limits of the metropolis or any borough, as defined by 'The Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866,' subject to the provisions of Clause 17 of that Act, and"—(Mr. Ayrton,)—instead thereof.
  MR. DALGLISHwished the port of Glasgow to be excepted.
  MR. AYBTONsaid, that Glasgow would be dealt with as favourably by his proposal as any other large town.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked, whether the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets meant, in speaking of the limits of the metropolis, to take in a radius of twelve miles from the General Post Office?
  MR. AYRTONreplied that he meant the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, not the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 156: Majority 54.
  On Motion of Mr. GRAVES, Proviso—
  "Provided also, that nothing herein contained shall interfere with the moving of sound beasts from the Docks of Liverpool to the Stanley Market and to the lairs on the road to the same, and back from the market to the borough for immediate slaughter, all such beasts being moved with a licence from the local authority,"
  added to the clause.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, we should be in constant danger of having the plague renewed throughout the country, even though we should be so fortunate as to get rid of it for the present, unless some means were taken to prevent the intermixture in the markets adjoining the various ports of the cattle driven to them for sale with those imported from abroad. The danger of such intermixture was especially great now, owing to the ramifications of Continental railways extending in those districts in which the disease

  951
  seemed regularly established. He wished, under these circumstances, to learn from the Government whether their attention would be directed to the subject with the view of introducing some permanent measure, which might contain provisions calculated to prevent this danger.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the law gave power to prevent the importation of cattle from any country in which the disease was known to exist. He could not at the present moment pledge the Government to bring in a permanent measure on this subject which should come into operation on the 25th of March next, though they might make some proposal for regulating the movement of cattle whether infected or not. He thought he might add that the House was hardly spending its time very usefully in legislating for so short a period.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman so far as to admit that there had been a considerable waste of time that evening in discussing very trifling matters; but he warned him that he was losing a most valuable opportunity if he did not undertake to introduce such a measure as would guard this country against the recurrence of the cattle plague. In Prussia a perpetual war was maintained against the disease from one end of the year to the other; and now that railways brought us into constant communication with Hungary and other places which seemed to be permanent seats of the disease, it was absolutely necessary that the system of traffic in foreign cattle should be placed on a satisfactory footing, with a view to ward off, as far as possible, future danger.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, he thought it most imperative that some steps should be taken to secure an inspection of vessels engaged in cattle traffic between this and foreign countries, particularly with a view of securing a free circulation of air through all parts of the vessel, plenty of room, and a sufficiency of provender. No cattle, moreover, ought to be allowed on deck. If he saw no sign from the Government of a desire to attain this object he should be disposed to blame them, and to charge the President of the Board of Trade with a remissness of duty.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill. [cl. 12.]
  MR. BAINESsaid, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had had nume-
  952
  rous conferences with gentlemen engaged largely in the trade of hides and skins in the borough which he (Mr. Baines) had the honour to represent, as well as in other places; and he must say that the hon. Gentleman had not only met them in a most liberal manner, but the entire series of clauses now added to the Bill were entirely satisfactory to them.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause (Disinfection and disposal of carcases and skins,)—(Mr. Graves,)—added to the Bill.
  Clause (Issue and Renewal of orders and regulations of Council,)—(Viscount Cranbourne,)—added to the Bill.
  Clause (Inspection of cowhouses and cattle-sheds in boroughs,)—{Mr. M'La-ren,)—added to the Bill.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEproposed to add at end of this clause a section placing the inspection of cowhouses, &c, and cattle-sheds in burghs and populous places in Scotland under the Commissioners appointed under the "Police and Improvement Scotland Act."
  Motion agreed to: Section added to the clause.
  Clause (Duration of Act).
  "This Act shall be in force from the first until the twenty-fourth day of March 1866, both inclusive, and no longer."
  Brought up; read the first and second time.
  On Question, "That the clause be added to the Bill,"
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEwas afraid when the Bill reached the other House with such a clause it would appear they had almost spent much of their time in vain. He hoped something would be done to make the Bill rather more worthy of all the pains they had taken with it.
  MR. ACLANDthought they had been utterly wasting their time if the Bill was only to continue in operation for three weeks. He had to-day received from several quarters the strongest expressions of opinion that some system should be adopted permanently to regulate cattle traffic in England. The Government had turned their attention to this point, but they were completely stopped by the course which had been taken on the other side.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he could understand the disappointment of hon. Gentlemen op-

  953
  posite. He had been most strongly urged to limit the Act to the 25th of March. It certainly appeared to him to be the sense of the Committee that the Act should be temporary and that the Government should, between the present time and the 25th of March, give their attention to the subject and then bring in a Bill either continuing some of its provisions or substituting others for them.
  MR. BARINGunderstood his hon. Friend opposite to hold the opinion that the necessities of farmers were such that it was essential that stock should move about the country as early as the 25th of March, and he proposed clauses carrying out that view, He had expected from his hon. Friend something more definite as to what degree of relaxation was necessary for the farming interest after the 25th of March.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had brought in a Bill which was to continue in operation up to a certain time, and in the interval he hoped the Government would give their consideration to the subject. Between this and the 25th of March it would be quite possible to bring in a Bill to continue the provisions of this Act, or to improve upon them.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the time of the House would probably be otherwise occupied, and hon. Gentlemen must trust to Orders in Council to continue any of the provisions of this Act.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEhoped the Bill would be restricted to the 25th of March, and that the Government would in the meantime give the subject their attention. He was perfectly willing that power should be given to the Government to continue some of the provisions of the Bill; or, if that was not done, a short continuance Act might be introduced for the purpose.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he doubted whether by the 24th of March the Bill could be carried out, and in some parts of the country the exceptions contained in the measure would be fatal to its whole object. In districts where there might be a great deal of infection, those on the spot should have the power of abolishing all the exceptions.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that the public would be disappointed if all the provisions of this Bill, which had been so carefully considered, should come to an end on the 24th of March. The subject was one which ought to be taken up and dealt with by the Home Office.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he saw great difficulty in making any rule applicable to all the various circumstances of different parts of the country, and he considered it best to lay down some general rules, and leave it to the local authorities to adapt them to the different parts of the country.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that as far as he knew, it was the unanimous opinion of Scotch Members that the clause should be adopted.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the hon. Member was rather mistaken on that point.
  Question put, "That the clause be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 73: Majority 23.
  New clause (Licence, how to be obtained)—{Mr. Hunt,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYthought the clause gave too much power to parish officers. He was of opinion that it would be better to fix upon some particular officer in each parish, and charge him with the responsibility.
  MR. ACLANDthought it would be better to require no confirmation whatever of the statement of the owners.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he should have no objection to add the words, "Parish officers being ratepayers to a certain extent or being owners of cattle."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the plan adopted in Northumberland had worked well. There the declaration of the owner was countersigned by two tenant-farmers living in the neighbourhood, who certified that they themselves had seen the cattle and the premises where they were, that they were healthy, and that there was no disease within five miles of the place.
  MR. HUNTthought a plan which required neighbouring farmers to go on to premises to inspect cattle would be objectionable, as being likely to propagate infection.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that some substantial person should be made responsible for the granting of these certificates, for the door would be open to gross fraud if the power were vested in any parish officer.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the system of elected overseers had worked well in Devonshire, which, however, might not be on all fours with other counties. He believed the best plan was

  955
  to have certificates given by persons elected by farmers, and confirmed as far as might be by magistrates. The next best thing would be to leave the matter in the hands of the magistrates. If a man were elected for a totally different purpose, there was no security whatever, and the principle of popular election was not brought into play. He was sorry that the proposal to appoint overseers had been withdrawn.
  SIR GEORGE GREYthought the local authorities should be at liberty to take the course which they thought most efficient.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsuggested that the local authorities should appoint the parish officers.
  MR. HUNTaccepted the suggestion, which was about the only one he had heard from the other side of the House.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that in many townships there was only one occupier who could be the parish officer, and that person might possibly be interested in the cattle in question. He proposed an alteration in the clause in conformity with the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney)—namely, to leave the appointment of "person or persons" to sign the certificate to the local authorities.
  The clause was amended by substituting the words "such person or persons as shall be appointed by the local authority."
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to, and added to the Bill.[cl. 13.]
  New Clause (Disinfection of cattle pens and trucks of Railway Companies,)—(Sir George Grey,)—agreed to, and added to the Bill.[cl. 28 N.]
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, clauses, adapting the provision of the Bill to Scotland, brought up, and agreed to.
  New Clause (Duration of Act,)—(Mr. Hunt,)—directing that this Act shall have the same duration as "The Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866,"brought up, and agreed to.
  New Schedule added.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow; and to be printed. [BILL 32.]

  VACCINATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Vaccination, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Mr. BAKING.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 33.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock. Sir Stafford Northcote

MINUTES.
The Right hon. Sir Charles Wood, baronet, G.C.B., having been created Viscount Halifax—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords Took the Oath.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Sale of Land by Auction [H.L.] (2); Art [H.L.] (15).
Report— Art (25).

SALE OF LAND BY AUCTION BILL.

  COMMITTEE. (No. 2. 2a.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the said Bill read.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, this Bill had been introduced for the purpose chiefly of putting an end to the conflict between law and equity, law holding that every appointment of a puffer vitiated the sale, whereas equity, on the contrary, recognized the now almost universal practice of appointing a puffer, so far as this was necessary, to prevent the estate from being sacrificed. The Bill did not introduce any novelty—it was intended rather to con-

  881
  form the strict letter of the law to the existing practice, and to give protection, as far as possible, both to the owner and bona fide bidder. It therefore provided that the conditions should be read before the sale; it provided that if it was declared in the conditions that the sale was "without reserve," no "puffer" should be allowed; but, if not, a puffer was permitted; but if the biddings did not reach the reserve price, the auctioneer was to declare that the land had been bought in on account of the owner. The Court of Chancery was expressly exempted from the operation of the Act.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, that although no one could doubt the importance of the measure under consideration, yet he was of opinion that it did not go far enough, and that it ought to extend to personal property. He had intended to explain his objection in detail, before their Lordships went into Committee, to the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill, but he had been prevented by his occupations from doing so, and he had therefore given notice of the Amendments he should propose. No one could doubt the great importance of the object of the Bill, The conflict between law and equity ought to be put an end to, and one uniform system should prevail. But he was at a loss to understand why this measure was confined to sales of landed estates. He ventured to say that not one reason could be advanced in support of this Bill with reference to sales of land by auction which could not be advanced with far greater force in support of a similar Bill respecting sales of personal property. The number of sales of the latter description was far greater, and the property more valuable. Sales of pictures, ships, reversionary interest in stocks, large quantities of goods in bulk, and sales of plant and machinery were continually occurring and realized a very large amount. But the law regulating both classes of sale at present was the same; and it would be a matter for regret if the law were altered in one and not in the other. It had become his duty, quite recently, to order the sale in the Court of Chancery of a large factory, with the machinery; and it was sold in two lots, one the freehold of the factory, and the other the plant and machinery. If the Bill under consideration passed into law, their Lordships would observe that the freehold of the factory would be sold in accordance with one
  882
  law, and the plant and machinery under another. It might be said that if the principle laid down by his noble and learned Friend were extended to personal property it would bring in all cases of the sale of books, furniture, and stocks, including mock auctions; but if the object of their Lordships was to prevent persons from being deluded into giving a higher price than the articles were worth, there were no cases in which the interposition of the Legislature were more required than in sales by auction of personal property. In case of sales of land the buyers generally employed an agent to bid on their behalf, and this arrangement was attended by this benefit—that an agent was never carried away by his feelings to give a higher price than the property was worth, but acted merely upon the instructions which were given him. In other cases, however, buyers were continually influenced by their feelings. It was a common thing in sales of farming stock to hold a luncheon before the sale, and the bidders were consequently often in a state of semi-intoxication. That was a great evil, and one which ought undoubtedly to be got rid of. The Bill, therefore, only dealt piecemeal with a subject which ought to be, and might be, treated as a whole; and he therefore suggested to his noble and learned Friend that he should postpone the Committee upon the Bill, as they were as yet at the commencement of the Session, and, after framing it anew to meet the necessities of these cases, to proceed with it again at a later period. Another serious objection to the measure was that it had the appearance of class legislation. The upper classes were those most interested in sales of land by auction, and while laying down principles for the protection of their interests, they appeared to be neglecting those of the remainder of the community. He did not, however, intend to take any further step to stop the Bill, and would leave the matter in the hands of his noble and learned Friend. He had, if persevered in, given notice of some Amendments on the Bill as at present framed. It had been found by long experience that in sales by auction by order of the Court of Chancery the auctioneer ought to be allowed as little latitude as possible. An auctioneer should not be permitted to make a declaration, but ought to be compelled to state everything in writing. A person frequently came into Court with ten or fifteen wit-

  883
  nesses, who swore in their evidence that the auctioneer had not made the particular statement in question; that they were in the room the whole time of auction, and that if he had stated it they must have heard it. The auctioneer, on the other hand, would bring two or three persons who swore that they heard the statement made; and the decision that the Court was consequently compelled to arrive at was that the declaration had been made but that it had been made in such a manner as not to be audible to one-half of those present. He wished, there fore, to have all these matters printed upon the particulars of the sale. He did not understand from the Bill before their Lordships whether his noble and learned Friend intended the omission to read the conditions of sale on the part of the auctioneer to constitute invalidity in the sale; if he did it would create a new source of litigation; if he did not the clause would be complied with or not, at the pleasure of the auctioneer. His noble and learned Friend's measure also provided that property knocked down to the puffer bidding in contravention of the law should be sold to the last bonâ fide bidder, supposing he were willing to complete the purchase. But there would, no doubt, be conflicting evidence as to the last bonâ fide bidder, and, moreover, as property was constantly sold by trustees, if the last bonâ, fide bidder was allowed, to take the property on account of an error by the agent employed to bid, it might be sold very much below its value. What he wished was that there should be an opportunity, by the reserved price given to the auctioneer, to prevent the accidental error of a person employed to bid destroying the property. The only other suggestion he had to make was that a clause should be introduced putting an end to the practice of the Court of Chancery opening biddings after the property had been knocked down to a bonâ, fide bidder at a sum equal to or higher than the re served price. The practice had been condemned by Lord Eldon, the present Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill, and many other authorities. The only two Amendments he had to propose affecting the scope of the Bill were, first, that the declaration proposed to be made by an auctioneer should be put upon the particulars of sale; and, secondly, that the bonâ fide bidder should not be allowed by the mistake of
  884
  the agent to get possession of property at very much less than its real value.
  House in Committee.
  Certain Amendments having been made,
  Lord ROMILLYproposed an Amendment to Clause 8 (Rule respecting open Sales).
  After a short discussion,
  Amendment agreed to.
  Whereupon,
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the Amendment which had been accepted by their Lordships was entirely at variance with the principles on which the Bill was founded, and he should decline to proceed further with the measure.
  EARL STANHOPEtrusted they might still have the benefit of legislation on the subject, notwithstanding that the noble and learned Lord had somewhat hastily, as he thought, thrown up the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved, that before the Bill went into Committee, his noble and learned Friend had stated some objections to the principle of the Bill. It did not go far enough, and applied only to auctions of landed property. No one had more experience on this subject than his noble and learned Friend as Master of the Rolls. He therefore hoped his noble and learned Friend would introduce a measure to embrace the objects he had indicated.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, if this Committee were adjourned for a short period, he would endeavour to frame clauses with that view.
  House resumed.

ART BILL—(No. 15.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Power to lend Works of Art for public exhibition).
  LORD TAUNTON, referring to the wording of the side note, said, it would appear that the Bill was intended to have a general application.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Bill only applied to works of art lent to two Exhibitions—the Exhibitions of Historical Portraits, which it was proposed to have in London this year and next, and the Paris Exhibition next year.
  EARL GREYsaid, that he thought it was rather a strong measure for Parliament to authorize the trustees of minors

  885
  and idiots to send valuable pictures out of the country.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, a great number of pictures had been sent to the last Paris Exhibition, and he had not heard of any of them being damaged.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that a picture by Turner belonging to the National Gallery which had been removed for exhibition elsewhere, had been returned damaged by rubbing, though not very seriously; and another picture by the same artist had been returned with the canvas actually broken. He felt very strongly the danger of sending pictures of great value away from the places where they were deposited, and he thought that trustees would more efficiently discharge their duty by affording to the public every reasonable facility of access for seeing them.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Definition of Owner for the time being).
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that this clause contained a principle of serious importance, started for the first time, and which he thought was highly objectionable. By this clause the national works of art might be sent to the Paris Exhibition; but there was such a rage for exhibitions now in every part of the globe, that if they once allowed works of art to leave this country, although only to Paris, that might be a precedent under which they might be sent anywhere, not only in Europe, but even across the Atlantic. Their Lordships ought to be very careful not to admit such a principle as this; and he would certainly, if the House divided on the subject, support the omission of the words of the Preamble extending the power to lend to the Universal Exhibition at Paris in 1867.
  THE EARL OF DERBYremarked, that if these words were left out altogether its omission would defeat the object of the Bill, which he did not suppose his noble Friend (the Duke of Marlborough) to intend.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHdrew attention to the fact that this objection was the same as that raised on the second reading of the Bill; and was, in fact, an objection to the whole measure.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that his object was not to prevent any work of art from being lent by trustees in this country; but simply to make such alterations as should have the effect of
  886
  preventing trustees from sending works of art out of the country. If he consented now to pass the clause, he would, on the third reading, propose an addition to the clause, which would have that effect.
  LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEsaid, that in removing pictures the principal danger to be encountered was in the packing and unpacking, and many accidents occurred in consequence of inexperience and unskilfulness in conducting those two operations. Of course, a great deal of judgment and discretion must be exercised by those who had the selection of the pictures for removal, as many pictures, from old age and other circumstances, could not be exposed to the risk and danger of travelling. He thought it would be undesirable to extend the power now sought to the case of all trustees of private property, and that it would be better to limit it to those who had the charge of public property. He wished all success to the great undertaking which it was intended to carry out in this country in the present year; but he thought that it would be an ungracious and churlish feeling to deny to the Emperor of the French the gratification of seeing some of the chef d'eeuvres of English art in the Great Exhibition to be opened next year in Paris, especially considering the liberality and generosity with which the Emperor had frequently sent pictures to exhibitions in this country.
  EARL GREYhoped that the noble Duke would not press his Amendment. France and other foreign countries had acted very well in respect of our exhibitions, and it would be a bad return on our part to say that pictures from our public galleries might not be sent to the French Exhibition.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHdoubted whether any foreign Government ever had sent its pictures here. He thought Parliament would be putting the trustees of our public galleries in an invidious position if it invested them with a power which it might not be judicious of them to exercise.
  LORD TAUNTONconcurred with his noble Friend (Earl Grey) in thinking that we should not be acting very courteously towards France if a limitation were inserted which would prevent trustees from lending pictures for the Great Exhibition of 1867.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he did not recollect any case in which any ancient works of art had been sent from abroad to our exhibitions. Modern pic-

  887
  tures had been sent, the private property of foreign sovereigns, or belonging to the artists themselves, and the country was grateful for the loan of those pictures; but, as a matter of history and of fact, he did not recollect any pictures being sent from the Louvre, Florence, Milan, or any of the other places containing the art treasures of Europe to this country for exhibition.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the noble Earl was mistaken. To the last Great Exhibition in London works of art were sent by the Government of France, by the Belgian Government, and, he believed, by other Governments. These works were modern, no doubt, but they were very valuable.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYbelieved it would be found that the works alluded to by the noble Lord were from private collections.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought not.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthen moved an Amendment to leave out words of the clause which gave the power of loan to the trustees of married women, and of persons labouring under incapacities; and thus confining the power to the trustees of public institutions and to tenants for life.
  After a short discussion, Amendment agreed, to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  Preamble read.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH moved to omit the words "and to contribute British works of ancient art to the Universal Exhibition at Paris in 1867."
  THE EARL OF DERBYappealed to the noble Duke not to press the Amendment, on the ground that it would be ungracious to refuse the trustees of our public institutions power to send their pictures to France, while we were permitting them to lend to our own portrait exhibitions in London.
  EARL RUSSELLalso urged the noble Duke not to persevere with his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that he should be sorry to do anything ungracious or discourteous towards a country with which we are on such friendly terms as we were with France. He would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.
  Preamble agreed, to.
  Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 25.)

CATTLE DISEASES ACT—THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, pursuant to notice, asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the Local Authorities established under the Orders in Council still exist and will continue until the new local authorities, under the Cattle Diseases Act, are constituted? His Question meant, in other words, whether the Act which received the Royal Assent on Tuesday last abrogated the powers of the local authorities created under the Orders in Council issued by virtue of the Act of 1848. The agricultural world was in a state of the greatest uncertainty on these points. In Scotland considerable time must elapse before the new authorities could be constituted. First, ten days' notice was required; and then, after the Commissioners of Supply met, they had to nominate a number of their body, and the names thus nominated must be sent to the lord-lieutenant, wherever he may happen to be, for approval. The lord-lieutenant then had to find out in the best way he could who were the tenant-farmers to be nominated by him to join this irresponsible body—irresponsible they were, because when once appointed they could not be removed. After the lord-lieutenant had nominated the tenant - farmers not one could be removed, however inefficient and incapable he might be found. Nor was there any power given in the Act to fill up vacancies that might occur from time to time. Never was there a public body so constituted, nor an Act of Parliament so loosely drawn. He had also to ask, whether the Act of 1848, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 105, has been repealed by the Act passed this Session, or whether it was only in abeyance; and, if so, what portions of the same Act could be put in force? There was the greatest confusion on this subject both in England and Scotland.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwould first remind his noble Friend opposite that, although bound to support the Government measure, he had been quite willing to accept the Amendment of his noble Friend, retaining the local authorities as originally constituted. He apprehended that the old local authority, established under the Orders in Council, was by no means extinguished until the new body actually came into existence; and with regard to the interval of time which

889
must elapse, he pointed to the words in the first line of Clause 5 "as soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act." With regard to the continued validity of the orders of the old local authority, the 32nd clause of the Act provides that they
"Shall, so far as consistent with this Act, remain in full force until they are revoked or have expired by lapse of time."
The 11 & 12 Vict. certainly was not repealed by the late Act, and only three days ago an Order in Council had been issued under its provision with regard to the outbreak of smallpox among sheep. In one respect, however, there would be a serious interregnum under the recent Act if measures were not taken by the Government before the 1st of March. The Act passed the other day gave full powers as to slaughtering and disinfection, but contained no provisions in reference to matters such as excluding town manure from districts previously healthy. The Bill as originally drawn by the Government contained provisions on all those points; but it was cut in two in the other House, and the first half had been passed by their Lordships without alteration. If the second portion should be sent up to that House in time to be passed before the 1st of March, no difficulty need arise, as the Government, of course, could introduce clauses upon the point. If not, it would be necessary to renew the Order in Council; and he believed public opinion was fast tending towards the conclusion that it was by these after all that the difficulty could best be met.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, only a week now intervened before the 1st of March, the period to which reference had been made by the noble Duke. He thought it most important that some intimation should be given at once by the Government to traders and farmers, as to whether the markets would probably be open at the time named in the first instance, or whether they were to look forward to the renewal of restrictions for a limited time. He hoped the measure which it was stated was about to be submitted to them would be in a shape intelligible to all, and not form such a specimen of crude legislation as that which they had recently been led to adopt, and which must give rise to extreme difficulties all over the country. Thinking, then, that those interested in the disposition of cattle should be relieved
890
at once from the uncertainty in which they were at present placed with regard to the course they had to pursue during the next few days, he strongly urged Her Majesty's Government to take the subject of his remarks into their early and serious consideration.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSEconcurred with the noble Duke as to the importance of the subject he had introduced to their Lordships' notice, and hoped the Government would consider whether the Orders in Council should not be renewed.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHremarked that it would not do to continue the Orders in Council for too long a period, or the new Acts of Parliament would only be in force for a few days. Even if the Cattle Plague Bill passed the House of Commons tonight, and their Lordships sat on Saturday, it would be inexpedient, in his opinion, with so little notice, to consider so important a measure until Monday. Then, as Amendments would doubtless be made by their Lordships, it would have to be sent back to the Commons, and thus it could not receive the Royal Assent before Wednesday. But the sittings of the quarter sessions were fixed for Monday, and many of their Lordships would think it their duty to attend them. In that case it would be inconvenient for them to attend to consider the Bill on Monday; and he therefore thought they would come better prepared if the Government were to fix Tuesday for the Cattle Plague Bill, and continue the Orders in Council in operation for four or five days.
LORD REDESDALEalso counselled delay. It was impossible fairly to consider the Bill in so short a time as he feared the Government would propose. It was imperatively necessary that the whole subject should be dealt with calmly and deliberately, even if it lessened the period of its duration by some days. It certainly should not be introduced before Tuesday, as their Lordships would not otherwise have time to go over it in as careful a manner as it deserved.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought the Bill demanded their best attention, so that when it became law it should not be found to contain the inconsistencies which he was sure the Cattle Diseases Bill would. At the same time, he was sorry to see the matter postponed.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, it was of the utmost importance that the provisions of the next Bill should be dis-

891
cussed quietly and calmly, and he trusted that the House would he afforded the opportunity of fully considering them.
LORD POLWARTHhoped it would be distinctly stated whether the Orders in Council would be renewed.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the most serious attention of the Government was being given to the whole subject, and every care would be taken against any difficulty arising between the period for the expiration of the old Orders in Council and that for the new ones coming into operation.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHremarked that if the Bill were delayed beyond the 1st of March it would be necessary that some measure should be adopted by the Government to bridge over the intervening period.

HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS HELENA.
Her Majesty's most gracious Message of Tuesday last considered (according to Order): Then an humble Address of Thanks and Concurrence Ordered Nemine Dissentiente to be presented to Her Majesty thereupon: The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by The Lords with White Staves.

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE ALFRED ERNEST ALBERT.
Her Majesty's most gracious Message of Tuesday last considered (according to Order): Then an humble Address of Thanks and Concurrence Ordered Nemine Dissentiente to be presented to Her Majesty thereupon: The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by The Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.