Sitting of 13 July 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Trades Unions (Protection of Funds)* [216].
First Reading—Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment* [214].
Committee—Report—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (No. 2) (re-comm.) [103–212]; Valuation of Property (Metropolis) (re-comm.)* [100]; Parochial Schools (Scotland)* [164–215].
Report—Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2)* [173–213].
Third Reading—Insolvent Debtors and Bankruptcy Repeal* [180], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

CLEARING VESSELS AT THE CUSTOM HOUSE.—QUESTION.
MR. GRAVESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, If the Treasury now possesses the power to authorize the substitution of the owner or agent for the shipmaster in clearing a vessel at the Custom House; and, if not, whether it would be possible to obtain, this Session, the necessary legal powers for dispensing with the attendance of the captain of the Custom House?
MR. AYRTONreplied that the Question was engaging the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that some provision would be made with regard to it in a Bill relating to foreign wines which had been introduced into the House, and which would shortly be printed.

METROPOLIS—ST. PANCRAS WORK-HOUSE.—QUESTION.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it is the intention of the Poor Law Board to institute an inquiry into the death of Mary Allen, who lately died in St. Pancras Workhouse, under circumstances which caused an inquest to be held, as reported in "The Times" of July 7th; and, whether the Poor Law Board intend to hasten the furnishing of the new parish Infirmary at Highgate?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, in reply, that it was the intention of the Poor Law Board to institute an inquiry into the subject referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend. With regard to the second part of the Question, he might say that the hastening of the new parish Infirmary at Highgate must depend rather upon the action of the contractor who had undertaken the works, and of the guardians. The Poor Law Board had issued all the orders and had approved of the plans, and the building was now in progress. With that the action of the Poor Law Board was at an end.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (No. 2) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (No. 2) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 90 (CLAUSE D. Application of balance unappropriated).
  SIR EDWARD BULLERrose to call attention to a case which had occurred in the Union of Market Drayton, in Staffordshire, in which compensation had been disallowed by the quarter sessions, on the ground that the inspector, Mr. Duff, by whose order cattle had been slaughtered, was, owing to some technical informality, not legally appointed, and that between the 20th of February and the 4th of March, 1866, there was no legal power committed to any inspector to order the slaughter of cattle. Those, he said, whose cattle had been slaughtered had surrendered them freely in obedience to the orders of a person whom they had every reason to believe had been duly appointed inspector, and he trusted that, under those circumstances, a mere legal informality would not be allowed to stand in the way of doing that which was simply an act of justice. There was at present in the possession of the quarter sessions the sum of £1,300, being the surplus of the amount collected to pay compensation for cattle slaughtered. It was objected that this £1,300 was the property of the rate-payers, and ought to be restored to them; but he could not admit that view, or that his Amendment would open the door to fraudulent applications. He had been particularly careful to guard against the latter danger. It was also said that it would be establishing a bad precedent, and that it was ex post facto legislation; but, on the contrary, he thought the worst principle they could establish was that when persons sacrificed their property for the public benefit, the House should not keep faith with them. With the purpose of carrying out the views he had expressed, he proposed, as an Amendment, to leave out in page 21, line 34, after the word "fit," all the words to the end of the clause, for the purpose of inserting the following words:—
  1756
  "Dispose of such balance, or any part thereof, as follows:—(1.) They may apply such balance, or any part thereof, in compensation for cattle slaughtered by direction of an inspector between the twentieth day of February and the fifteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, in order to prevent the spread of cattle plague (for which cattle no compensation has been paid by any insurance office or company), although such inspector may, in relation to such slaughter, have acted outside the district for which he had been appointed inspector. (2.) They may carry such balance, or any part thereof, to the credit of the ordinary account of the local rate, to be applied for any of the purposes for which the local rate, when levied under any Act other than an Act repealed by this Act, is applicable."
  SIR SMITH CHILD, in supporting the Amendment, said, the farmers who had given up their cattle to be slaughtered believed that they were acting in strict obdience to the law, and therefore if some technical difficulty had been experienced in the way of granting that compensation, it was only reasonable that the local authorities should be enabled to compensate these persons for their losses out of the funds to which they had contributed. They did not ask that a new rate should be levied for the purpose, and if the Amendment was passed it would do no wrong to any one, but would do justice to those persons.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had placed an Amendment on the Notice Paper which, he thought, better explained the point at issue. It was as follows:—
  "(1.) They may apply any part of such balance in compensation for cattle slaughtered between the passing of the Act twenty-ninth and thirtieth Victoria, chapter two, February twentieth, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and the appointment of Inspectors under that Act, by direction of a person whom the owner of such cattle had reasonable ground to believe to be the authorized Inspector for the execution of the Act."
  In this case the farmers were induced to put their cattle to death in obedience to the directions of a man whom they had every reason to believe to be an authorized inspector to carry the Act of Parliament into execution. The question was whether that House ought not, in justice to cure the blot, if there were any blot in the law.
  MR. M'COMBIEsaid, Aberdeenshire was exactly in the same position as the district now alluded to, and if the Amendment were carried he must put in a claim for Aberdeenshire.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose the Amendment. The effect of the particular clause in the Bill under consideration was that when there was an unappropriated balance of the fund raised for compensation, it should be returned to the ratepayers, and he did not see how the Committee would adopt any other enactment. There was no legal claim for the slaughter of these cattle, as they were killed by an inspector not authorized to kill by the Act of Parliament. He had received a letter from the chairman of the petty sessions, now chairman of quarter sessions, before which the case was considered, and after stating the particulars, the writer observed that the Amendment, if passed, would give an undue advantage to those persons whose cattle were killed by Mr. Duff over those whose cattle were killed by others before the Act of 1866 came into operation, and would cause great dissatisfaction among the rate-payers. With regard to this particular case he did not deny that it was a case of hardship, but it was only one among a vast number of other cases of hardship. Before the passing of the Act of 1866, a great number of cattle were slaughtered, amounting in value to something like £100,000 and if it were once admitted that there was a bonâ fide claim for compensation for cattle killed, not in accordance with the conditions of that Act, he did not know where they could stop.
  COLONEL DYOTT, as one of the ratepayers of Staffordshire, said, that he not only thought it fair that this Amendment should be carried, but he should think it very unfair if it were not. The whole mistake appeared to arise from the inspector being appointed to inspect Market Drayton Union instead of certain petty sessional divisions; but that mattered not to the owners of the cattle, who believed that their cattle were slaughtered according to law, and who had, therefore, a right to expect compensation.
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, there were quite as many hard cases by cattle being allowed to die, as by cattle being killed, and if exceptions were to be made in one county it would be well to consider claims from all parts of the country at the same time.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that as a matter of justice there could be no reason for ex-
  1758
  tending this favour to this limited class of persons while it was denied to others in the same situation whose cattle were destroyed previous to the date fixed in the Amendment.
  MR. CAWLEYconsidered that the Amendment should be adopted.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that there was a clear distinction between the two dates mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if they put these words into the Bill they could not in consistency oppose the claim of all those parties whose cattle were killed by order of quasi authorities prior to the passing of the Act of 1866. To do that would involve, according to one calculation which had been made, a cost of £100,000; and if it was desirable to pay this large compensation it should be done by special legislation and not by interfering with the provisions of the present Act.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, the clause only applied in cases where there was an unappropriated balance, and this made all the difference.
  SIR EDWARD BULLERsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment and adopt that of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley). He had no affection for the words of his own Amendment; they were supplied to him by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERrose to explain. He must not be held responsible for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. He simply allowed the Government draftsman to draw the Amendment, in order that the discussion might be taken upon words ranged in proper legal form.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 21, line 34, after the word "fit," to insert the words "apply any part of such balance in compensation for cattle slaughtered between the passing of the Act twenty-ninth and thirtieth Victoria, chapter two, February twentieth, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and the appointment of Inspectors under that Act, by direction of a person whom the owner of such cattle had reasonable ground to believe to be the authorized Inspector for the execution of the Act."—(Sir Charles Adderley.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 80: Majority 17.
  MAJOR WALKERmoved, at the end of the Amendment last carried to add—"Or they may return such balance to the original contributors." Where a fund was raised for a special purpose, it was desirable that the money should be returned to the original contributors. His Amendment only gave permission to the local authorities, if they thought it desirable and convenient, to return the balance to the contributors.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if the local authorities tried to put the Amendment in force they would be defeated by the circumstances of the case. The rate-payers might very fairly be considered the representatives of the contributors of three or four years ago.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 91 omitted.
  Clauses 92 to 95, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 96 (Mortgage of rates in certain cases. 1866 (I.) s. 22).
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, this clause raised the whole question of rate-paying, and he would, therefore, move that it be omitted. It was much to be regretted that the House had legislated on this subject before they had thoroughly discussed the principles of the Bill. The arrangements respecting the prevention of the spread of disease had indeed been carefully discussed; but, unfortunately, there had been no debate on the principle by which money was to be raised for compensation. The Bill, of 1866, originally contained a provision that all boroughs in England and Scotland should be exempt from the payment of county compensation, and that principle was a just one, inasmuch as boroughs were consumers and not producers of cattle; but the justice of the principle was lost sight of in the progress of the Bill through Parliament, and a clause was inserted providing that boroughs, having a court of quarter sessions, should only be obliged to compensate for animals slaughtered within their own areas, but that boroughs which had no quarter sessions should be liable to pay compensation for any cattle which might be slaughtered within the county. That was a most absurd distinction, which was founded upon no principle, and it was perpetuated in the Bill now before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman
  1760
  made this difference between the old Acts and the present Bill, that he proposed that compensation should never exceed a rate of 9d. in the pound, and that when it reached that amount a rate in aid should be granted. Cheshire, which the cattle plague visited more severely than any other county, lost 38,000 cattle, for which no compensation was paid, and subsequently to the passing of the Act, it lost 25,000 cattle, which were compulsorily slaughtered to prevent the spread of the disease. It was estimated at the time of the cattle plague that the fortunate holders of healthy cattle received a profit of £35,000,000 sterling by the increased value given to their cattle. They were the parties, therefore, who ought to have paid for the slaughter of the cattle that were killed to keep them in health. But it appeared that several counties in England paid no compensation whatever. The sum paid for compensation in all the counties in England was £630,000, of which no less than £249,000 was contributed by Cheshire alone. These figures were given in a Parliamentary Return, dated 7th of June, 1869, which also showed that six counties paid no compensation at all; that seventeen paid less than 1d. in the pound, ten less than 3d., and five less than 4d.; that six paid 6d., one 7½d., and one (Lincoln) 9½d. The boroughs in Cheshire having quarter sessions, exclusive of Chester, paid £1,835, whereas Salford, which lost only five cows, but which had no quarter sessions, paid £1,985, or more than all those boroughs put together. In like manner Preston, which lost two cows, had to pay £1,195, while Halifax, which lost none, had to pay £867. He might enumerate many other instances to show the unequal incidence of the law. His own borough, Stockport, or that part of it which was in Cheshire, was heavily taxed, and in addition it was estimated that the borough—assuming each inhabitant consumed ¾lb. of animal food in a week, which was very moderate—paid a tax of £13,000 on the enhanced price of food. During the time of the cotton famine Stockport had suffered great distress, and it had to borrow £64,000, while now it was proposed to saddle it with the payment of a large sum per annum for a period of thirty years for the purposes of compensation. Oldham, which had no quarter sessions,

  1761
  paid seventy times, and Salford, which had none, paid 100 times as much, as all the boroughs in England that had quarter sessions—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that they were discussing Clause 96, which had relation to the mortgaging of rates, and he did not see the relevancy of the hon. Gentleman's present remarks to that clause.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, this question was not discussed on the second reading; but he distinctly reserved to himself the right of discussing the question in Committee, and he now claimed that right.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then it is my duty distinctly to inform the hon. Gentleman that he cannot discuss the principle of the Bill on Clause 96.
  MR. J. B. SMITH: Then I beg to move the omission of the clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he regretted that his hon. Friend was precluded by the forms of the House from giving expression to the views on the subject which he wished to lay before the Committee. If his hon. Friend's intention was to replace the local rate by a national rate, he did not think he would be in Order in making that proposal, inasmuch as the House had already asserted the principle of a local rate. Having assented to a local rate, he imagined that the Committee generally would be in favour of the principle of a rate-in-aid, and this clause was merely intended to give effect to that principle.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he wished that, instead of a limited area, as proposed, the whole of the unions of England should be called on to contribute to the payment of compensation.
  EARL GROSVENORsaid, he should like to know whether the Committee were precluded from dealing with the question of the propriety of having a national rate in discussing the clause under consideration?
  THE CHAIRMANreplied in the affirmative. The clause related simply to the mortgage of local rates in certain cases.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONprotested against the principle of the adoption of a national rate for the purpose of giving compensation for local losses. Each county ought, he thought, to be left to take care of itself.
  MR. J. B. SMITH: Am I debarred
  1762
  from taking any other course than merely moving that the clause be negatived?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can either move that the clause be amended, or that it be negatived, with the view, if he thinks fit, of introducing new clauses on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 97 agreed to.
  Clause 98 (Half-yearly accounts of compensation, 1867, s. 37).
  MR. CAWLEY MR. CAWLEY moved the omission of the words "in compensation for animals slaughtered," in order to insert the words "for the purposes of this Act," and with a view to the further omission of the words which made the accounts half-yearly instead of annual. He said his object was to equalize to some extent the objectionable part of the measure. As the Bill was drawn the rate-in-aid would not come into operation until 9d. in the pound was required. The Amendment he proposed had a twofold object: first, to make the rate-in-aid apply to the general expenses of the Act, as well as to the compensation for slaughtered cattle; and, second, to make it yearly instead of half-yearly. As the Bill stood, if one locality lost to the extent of 6d. in the pound in one half-year, and then succeeded in stamping out the disease, they would only have to pay 4½d. themselves, and they would raise the other 1½d. by a rate-in-aid; whereas another locality which lost 8d. in the pound, but which had the loss spread over a whole year, losing at the rate of 4d. in each six months, would have to pay the whole amount themselves, and would get no relief at all in the shape of a rate-in-aid.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment, so far as it sought to make the rate-in-aid available for all the purposes of the Act, as well as for compensation. He thought it was not advisable to make a rate-in-aid available for less than 9d. in the pound; and it would not be right to allow one locality to appeal to another for aid if the rate were only 3d. in the pound. As to the proposal to make the accounts annual, instead of half-yearly, he had no objection to accept that, on the understanding that if there were any sound objection to it on the part of the framers of the measure he should be at

  1763
  liberty to revert to the original provision on the Report of the Bill.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, it was dangerous to legislate on the assumption that we should never have a 9d. rate. Had not the right hon. Gentleman himself spoken of a plague even more malignant than the cattle plague; and what would be our position if that visited us?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, on re-consideration, must decline to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Cawley). The whole clause related merely to compensations.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 99 (Application to Poor Law Board by local authority for audit, 1867, s. 38).
  MR. CAWLEY MR. CAWLEY moved, in line 21, to leave out "the rate of nine pence," and insert "three pence." He should be glad if some modification could be made in the amount of the rate.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 100 agreed to.
  Clause 101 (Power for Poor Law Board to make order of contribution, 1867, s. 40).
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he objected altogether to the principle of a rate-in-aid. The owners of cattle should provide against accidents by insuring their property, just as the owners of horses and ships were obliged to do. But if any rate-in-aid was to be imposed it should be a rate on the whole country, or on the Poor Law Union as in Ireland.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought this clause very much depended on what was done with Clause 7. He considered the principle of a rate-in-aid very objectionable, and that it required great care on the part of the Committee. If a call was to be made upon any other district it ought to be made on a wider area.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would be quite prepared to deal with Clause 7 when they came to it. In the meanwhile he might say that the definition of the word "borough," which would be adopted by the Government, would be "any municipal borough, or any borough having its own police."
  MR. HIBBERTobserved that it was quite different to give power to the Poor
  1764
  Law Board to levy a rate-in-aid for cattle plague and for distress under the Poor Law Act. In the former case the cattle plague might extend so far as to render the adjoining district worse next year than that in the aid of which it had to contribute, whereas in the latter case distress under the law of Elizabeth was not at all likely to extend in that way.
  COLONEL DYOTTsaid, he thought it would be better to give the power to issue orders to the Privy Council instead of the Poor Law Board. It was so in other parts of the Bill.
  COLONEL SYKESwas of opinion that cattle ought to be insured by their owners.
  MR. CHADWICKsaid, he thought this the most important clause of the Bill. A great deal depended on what meaning was attached to the words "adjoining districts." They might comprise four, five, or six counties. It would be better to postpone the clause, or to adopt the same rule as in Ireland.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the debate on the question whether there should be a rate-in-aid or not had very unexpectedly arisen. He did not wish to prevent that question from being fully considered, but it had taken him rather by surprise, because no Amendment had been put on the Paper on the subject. He trusted that the Committee would allow the remaining clause to be taken now, so that the question of the rate-in-aid might be discussed on the Report.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it worthy of consideration in the meantime whether the Privy Council was not the proper authority to act in the case. The Poor Law authorities had no connection with the local authorities of county or city districts, but only with the Poor Law Unions.
  MR. DENTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, consider whether if a rate-in-aid were adopted it should not be collected from the larger area of the whole of the country.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the rate-in-aid in Ireland extended over the whole of the country, and was not contingent upon its being more than 9d. in the pound. Before the Report he would consider the whole question of the rate-in-aid, and also the suggestion relative to the Privy Council.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 102 to 121, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 122 (Appointment of local authority in counties).
  MR. MILLER MR. MILLER moved, in page 30, line 2, leave out from "appointed," to "shall," line 6, and insert—
  "In every county the tenants of agricultural subjects valued in the valuation roll in force for the time at fifty pounds, or upwards, and the proprietors of agricultural subjects valued in such valuation roll at fifty pounds and under one hundred pounds, and farming their own land, shall meet immediately after said meeting of Commissioners of Supply, and nominate a number of tenants of agricultural subjects valued in the valuation roll aforesaid at one hundred pounds or upwards, equal in number with the number nominated by the Commissioners of Supply, to act on the County Board; and the clerk shall give the requisite notice for such meeting as he does for the meeting of the Commissioners of Supply, and shall report to the meeting the number of persons nominated by said Commissioners of Supply and the clerk."
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, as the Lord Lieutenant of a Scotch county, begged to say that he had no objection to the Amendment.
  MR. DYCE NICOLsaid, he thought it would be highly desirable to obtain the advice and co-operation of the tenant-farmers in carrying out the objects which this measure sought to attain. He had grave doubts, however, whether such advice and co-operation could be attained by the machinery proposed in the Amendment.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, there would be considerable difficulty in carrying out the Amendment without additional machinery.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, that in the part of Scotland with which he was chiefly connected the principle on which this Amendment was based had been fully considered, and had been generally, if not unanimously, approved. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there could be no objection to the object of this clause, which the hon. Member (Mr. Miller) proposed to insert, which was to give representation to the local tenantry. The only objection was to the machinery, and he would suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment, and bring up the clause on the Report, during which time they could consider how the object which the hon. Member had in view could best be carried out.
  MR. MILLERsaid, he had no objection to act upon that suggestion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the object of the Government was to frame the Bill so that it should be as acceptable as possible to those who would have to work it.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, there was no objection to the Amendment, provided the £100 qualification was adhered to, as persons below that qualification were not persons whom it would be desirable to have in such a body.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 123 to 128, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Definition of boroughs and other places, 1866 (I.) s. 3).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Bill had been brought forward for two main objects—first, to put the foreign trade in a better position, and secondly to prevent, as far as possible, certain other diseases, besides cattle plague, and more especially home diseases, among cattle. It had not originally been their intention to make any alteration in the existing law with regard to the area of compensation or the mode of levying it, but when it was thought desirable that that should be a permanent Consolidation Bill, the objections to the present Act naturally assumed new force. There had been differences in our past legislation with regard to the definition of the words "local authorities." When the Act of 1866 had been introduced, every municipal borough was considered to be a borough; but, while the Bill was under discussion, an alteration was made which confined the application of the word to the comparatively few boroughs in which quarter sessions were held, leaving other boroughs, whether they happened to have corporations or not, to be dealt with as parts of counties. The result of that change had been great inequalities of taxation for the purposes of providing compensation for the slaughter of cattle, as between one kind of borough and another. Such inequalities would, he believed, never arise again, because he did not think it likely that the large sums hitherto paid would have to be paid in future, and that, as he had said before, instead of being a matter of pounds it would be a matter of pence. There could be no doubt at the same time that in

  1767
  places such as Birkenhead and Stock-port, which had to pay large sums in the shape of compensation, the law had been found to press very heavily. In considering the propriety of making a change in that law the Government had to take into account the suggestions which had been made by several hon. Members, the first of which was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) who had suggested that all boroughs should be abolished for the purposes of the Bill, while the area of rating should be the whole county. Then came the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) which was to restore the Bill to the state in which the first Act upon that subject stood, and to allow every municipal borough to be considered a borough. Next, there was the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) framed with a view to meet the peculiar position of that town, which, though a Parliamentary borough was neither a quarter sessions borough nor a municipal borough. They had before them also the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) to substitute for local rates a general cattle insurance; and there afterwards came the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) to re-place local rates by a national rate. Now, taking the last proposition first, he had to observe that in the opinion of the Government it was very desirable that the local authorities should have all the stimulus to economy and personal exertion which generally accompanied local responsibility. The question they had, then, to consider was, whether they should leave the Bill as it stood, or whether they should adopt some such proposal as that of the hon. Member for Oldham, and have no borough at all, or as that of the hon. Member for Stockton, and allow every municipal borough to be considered a borough under the Bill. There was this practical objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, that it would be a very difficult and almost unknown proceeding to levy a county rate on boroughs that had for a long time had quarter sessions. The chief point to be kept in view was the efficiency of the Act, and, as the Committee was aware, municipal boroughs, especially those which were of any importance, and had not quarter sessions,
  1768
  generally speaking had police of their own. To have a double jurisdiction in the case of such a force was almost always attended with failure, and if the Act was to be worked efficiently, it would be better, he thought, that the carrying out of its provisions should be in trusted to the police of those boroughs rather than to the police of the county. As to places which had not turned themselves into corporations, they could hardly expect to obtain the advantages without undertaking the burdens of a corporation. But the object of the Act was to get the most efficient working, and therefore he should be inclined to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Laird) in addition to that of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). The result would be that every municipal corporation would be considered a borough for the purposes of this Act, together with every other place which was of sufficient importance and size to maintain a police force of its own.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was satisfied, on the whole, with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and would not press the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  MR. CHARLEYthanked the right hon. Gentleman for adopting the Amendment of which he had originally given notice.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be unanimously adopted.
  MR. READsaid, the practical effect of the Amendment would be to take almost every borough out of the counties. He apprehended, however, that in the years to come the compensation to be given would be small, and therefore he had no objection to the proposal. In point of principle, however, he strongly differed, for it was surely for the benefit of the towns that foreign cattle should be imported, and foreign cattle brought the cattle plague here, and yet in future the towns would pay next to nothing for stamping it out. Its introduction was not an act of Providence, it was an act of man; and if it ever came again the whole responsibility would rest upon the Privy Council.
  MR. DODDS MR. DODDS moved to omit the words "and which is not assessed to the county rate of any county by the justices of that county."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LAIRD MR. LAIRD moved to insert the words "or which is a town or lace having its own police independent of the county."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER moved the insertion of the following new clauses:—

  (Record respecting slaughter.)

  (General Expenses.)

  (Validity of rates under Act.)

  And, on behalf of the Lord Advocate, two new clauses:—

  (Purchase under Provisional order.)

  (Rate-in-aid.)

  Clauses agreed to.
  MR. M'COMBIE MR. M'COMBIE moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following clause:—
  (Appointment of inspectors general.)
  "The Privy Council shall appoint and keep appointed, after the passing of this Act, one or more inspectors general for England and Scotland separately, whose duty it shall be to see that the provisions of this Act, and all such Orders as the Privy Council may from time to time issue in virtue of the powers vested in them by this Act, are properly carried out by the local authorities; and such inspectors general shall make such reports to the Privy Council as the Privy Council from time to time require."
  The hon. Member said that he had had great experience in the working of the cattle plague regulations, having been chairman of the Aberdeenshire Rinderpest Association for nine months, and he was satisfied that it was absolutely necessary, for the efficient working of the Act, that an Inspector General should be appointed for Scotland. In Aberdeenshire the defended themselves by "stamping out" the disease immediately, wherever it appeared; but it was allowed to take its course in some neighbouring counties, and, as a consequence, all of the valuable herds in Forfarshire were almost entirely swept away; scarcely a beast was left alive. This was a great national loss. They were the finest herds of polled Angus in Britain, and they could not be replaced. At least, it would take many a long year before that was possible. Now, if there had been an Inspector General for Scotland, this loss might have been avoided. Without an Inspector General for Scotland, the people were helpless; for the police and the veterinary surgeons had very little weight where counties, or their local authorities were obstinate, or would not enforce the Act. He considered such an Inspector General abso-
  1770
  lutely necessary; for it would be impossible for one living in London to do justice to Scotland, as it would be at least a week before he could reach Scotland after he got intimation of his presence being required, and it would be impossible for him to remain there for any length of time.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the clause. The Privy Council would endeavour to carry out the object which he had in view. It was not desirable to have one Inspector for England and a separate one for Scotland, because the evidence and documents upon which the Inspector would have to rely, in dealing with the cattle plague, were all sent to the Privy Council Office, and would not be easily accessible to the Inspector in Scotland. When the Act became law, he promised to give the subject his serious consideration, with the view of carrying out the object of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, that what was wanted was a permanent official for Scotland, who would be responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act.
  COLONEL SYKESremarked that the object of the proposed clause was to have a person on the spot, to whom application could be made in ease the carrying out of the Act was neglected.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERstated that the Act, as it stood, gave the necessary power to have the Act properly and efficiently administered both in England and Scotland.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. READsaid, he had intended to move, after Clause 60, the following clause:—
  (Mode of carriage of animals to be subject to Privy Council directions.)
  "Every vessel, steamboat, and railway shall provide such space and ventilation for each animal carried by them, and also shall undertake to forward such animal to the place to which it is consigned in such reasonable time and in such manner as the Privy Council may from time to time direct;"
  but if the Vice President of the Council promised to take up the matter he would not persevere with his intention. He held, however, that it was essentially necessary that something of this sort should be done, as steamboats were very fruitful causes of cattle disease.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that since the interesting debate on last Friday in reference to the clauses accepted by the railway companies, he had been looking more closely into the state of the cattle traffic by steamboats, and he had a Report on the subject drawn up by Professor Simmons, which he hoped would be in the hands of Members by Thursday or Friday morning. He thought that Report would convince the House that it would be hardly possible to pass a Bill of this kind without taking some power in reference to the cattle traffic by steamboats. He could only say that it was a difficult matter to determine how the evil complained of in connection with the steamboat traffic was to be stopped; but it was only justice to the owners of steamboats to say that he had no reason to suppose that they wished to expose the animals to unnecessary suffering, or to do anything which might propagate disease. They would be ready no doubt to avail themselves of any assistance which the Government might offer for making better regulations. He was not now in a position to propose any clause for the purpose in Committee; but he would give notice to-day or to-morrow of a short alteration in one of the clauses, giving power to the Privy Council to deal with the matter, and this alteration he would submit for consideration in bringing up the Report of the Bill.
  MR. WINGFIELD BAKER MR. WINGFIELD BAKER moved, after Clause 61, to insert the following clause:—
  (Cleansing and disinfecting farm buildings.)
  "Every local authority may, upon assent being first obtained by it of the Privy Council, require every occupier of any farm buildings in any way used for keeping, feeding, or rearing of animals, thoroughly to cleanse, ventilate, and disinfect the same in such manner as such local authority may from time to time direct."
  He thought it a most desirable object.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was sorry he could not adopt the clause. They had already in the Schedule adopted stringent regulations for inspecting infected places, and they must be careful not to discredit the Act by over interference.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. READ MR. READ moved a new clause after Clause 62—
  (Railway Companies to provide water in cattle lairs, &c.)
  "Every Railway Company shall make provisions for a proper supply of water in all cattle
  1772
  lairs and sheep-pens at their stations, and shall make such provisions for watering cattle in transit as the Privy Council may from time to time direct."
  He thought the present system of conveying cattle by railroad was a cruelty and a disgrace, crowded as they too often were into a truck without any covering. He believed it would be perfectly easy to water cattle in transit, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the clause he had proposed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that after the clause which had been passed, the proposed clause was not wanted. He regretted that the hon. Member was not present on Friday, when the question was discussed; but he had already taken powers with regard to the watering of cattle at railway stations.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the proposed clause to be inserted. It would be no hardship on railway companies if they were bound to provide a supply of water at stations at which, animals were embarked, and he should also like to see coverings provided for the trucks.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed, because it was weak as compared with the clause that had been passed on this subject. It would be well not to overdo the thing, or public opinion, which was now in favour of legislation in favour of the animals, might undergo a change.
  MR. READsaid, he would withdraw the clause, but trusted that the railway companies would have water troughs not only at their large stations, but at every station at which cattle were put into trucks.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. M'LAGAN MR. M'LAGAN moved the following clause:—
  (Cattle imported from Ireland.)
  "From and after the passing of this Act, it shall be illegal to land any cattle at any port or place in Great Britain from any port or place in Ireland, unless such cattle have been examined at the port or place of embarkation in Ireland, and certified as not being affected with any contagious disease by an inspector duly appointed for that purpose by the Lord Lieutenant General and General Governor of Ireland, and unless such cattle so imported from Ireland shall be accompanied to Great Britain with such a certificate of health as aforesaid; which certificate, with the Schedule attached thereto, is to be handed by the captain of the importing vessel, or by his agent, or by the agent of the owner, to the officer of Her Majesty's Customs appointed to receive the

  1773
  same, before the cattle to which it relates are allowed to be landed at or in any port or place in Great Britain."
  He believed that if this prevented diseased cattle leaving Ireland it would have the effect of diminishing disease in Ireland, for it would lead to the slaughter of diseased cattle at once. The clause, therefore, would be beneficial to Ireland as well as to England.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must appeal to the Committee. He should be sorry to check discussion on these matters; but unless they got the Bill through Committee that day, he did not know, in the present state of Public Business, when they should be able to accomplish that object; he trusted, therefore, that the Bill would be allowed to go through Committee that day, and any discussion which it might be thought desirable to have in reference to any point might be raised on the Report. It was not right to make regulations in an English Bill respecting what might happen in Ireland. Although they had taken no powers to regulate anything that was done in Ireland, they had taken very strong powers to check disease.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PELL MR. PELL moved the following clause:
  (Return of cases of disease among imported foreign animals.)
  "There shall be published once in every month, in the London Gazette, a return of the number of foreign animals imported into Great Britain which, upon inspection on landing within the last preceding month, have been found to be suffering from any infectious or contagious disorder, specifying the nature of the disorder, the port of entry at which, and the country from which such animals have arrived."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would communicate with the Customs, but he did not apprehend there would be any difficulty in furnishing the Returns.
  Clause agreed to.
  Schedules 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
  Schedule 7,
  DR. BREWER DR. BREWER moved, after line 29, insert—
  "Cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and slaughtered under the provisions of this Act, shall not be sold in the fresh state, but only after being submitted to salting; and carcasses of animals slain with this disease sold for consumption in a fresh state shall subject the seller to the penalties provided for the infringement of the provisions of this Act. The offal of cattle
  1774
  affected with pleuro-pneumonia shall be treated with quick lime or other disinfectant. Other cattle in the same field or premises shall be placed under the supervision of the local authority, and subjected to such preventive measures to arrest the spread of the contagion as shall be directed by the Privy Council."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that this was a measure for checking disease in cattle, and not one for checking disease in men. The Nuisances Removal Act would, he believed, suffice to meet the case referred to in the Amendment.
  DR. BREWERsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, and re-introduce it on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]

MALTA.—RESOLUTION.
MR. R. TORRENSrose to call the attention of the House to the Petition of certain Inhabitants of Malta, praying for amendment of anomalies in the constitution of that Island, and to move the Resolution of which he had given notice. The hon. Member said it was not his wish to diminish our military power in that island, and he believed that his Motion would have the effect of strengthening our military position there. The policy of this country had for some years been to encourage self-government and independence in her colonies; but so long as Malta was above the level of the Mediterranean it must continue to be a British fortress, and have a special claim on the consideration of Parliament. The number of inhabitants was about 150,000, and the restoration of good-will and loyalty amongst them would be equivalent to a reserve force of 10,000 men. When, in 1798, they drove out the French, and placed themselves under the protection of England, a distinct pledge was given, but it had not been fulfilled, that their ancient institutions should be preserved, and that they should possess all the advantages accruing under the British Constitution. For many years previously to 1838 the Government of Malta was a military despotism. In 1838 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the

1775
state of affairs in the island, the object of the Commission having been stated in a despatch written by Earl Grey to Mr. More O'Ferrall, who was at that time Governor of Malta. Under the direction of Lord Grey, in 1847, the civil government of the island was separated from the military command; and about two years afterwards a kind of Constitution was devised, giving the Maltese a Government consisting of eight elected members, and ten nominated by the Crown. This body proved too cumbrous for an Executive Government, and as a representative institution it was a sham. In 1859, the offices of Civil Governor and Commander of the Forces were re-united, the reason assigned being that, in the event of a war, the power of the Civil Governor would otherwise be superseded. He was far from saying that military or naval men were incapable of being good Governors; but military training and command had a tendency to prevent the development of those qualities which were essential to good governorship. The people of Malta for the last ten years had lived simply under a military despotism, with a constant interference from Downing Street, warning the Governors to abstain from over-riding the will of the people by their official majorities. That, however, was not a desirable state of things. The people of Malta had petitioned against the grievances under which they laboured, alleging that while their neighbours enjoyed full political privileges and liberty, they had to put up with a sham Constitution. He urged that there should be no more shams and no more half-measures for Malta, and that if they were to have representative institutions they should have them honestly and fully. He recommended that the Congresso Popolare should be restored; but he cautioned the Minister for Foreign Affairs against granting Parliamentary government to so small a number as the people of Malta in the shape of an Executive Council, dependent on the will of a Legislative Assembly, especially as that system had not worked well in Australia. It would be a good thing, however, to have an Executive Council to aid the Governor in the administration of the island, the Crown retaining the constitutional privilege of initiating all money Bills and all appropriations. If those suggestions were
1776
adopted he believed strength and stability would be retained to the Government of Malta, and if the Congresso Popolare were restored all the existing discontent that had been excited in the island by the mismanagement, and he was afraid he must add the breach of faith, of this country would at once disappear, and the people would become happy and contented. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
MR. O'REILLY-DEASEseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient, in accordance with pledges given in the name of the Sovereign, to restore to the people of Malta, with such modifications as present circumstances may require, their ancient representative institution, the 'Congresso Popolare;' to re-establish the 'Executive Council' as a distinct body, aiding the Governor in administering the Civil Affairs of the Island; and, reverting to the policy abandoned in 1859, to sever the office of 'Civil Governor' from that of Commander of the Forces.'"—(Mr. Robert Torrens.)
MR. MONSELLsaid, it was true that the Maltese were among the most loyal and well-conducted of Her Majesty's subjects; and if they had any grievances it was perfectly right that they should be fairly considered by the House; but he denied that there had been any breach of faith, as alleged by the hon. Gentleman, in regard to the abolition of their ancient institutions, and particularly of the Congresso Popolare. The article of capitulation, signed at the time when England took possession of Malta, stated that the inhabitants should be treated with justice and humanity, and should enjoy the full benefit of the law; but there was no specific reference made to any particular institution; and in the proclamation of the General who then represented the Sovereign of this country we merely undertook to protect the Maltese, and secure them in the full possession of their religion, their property, and their liberty. With regard to the question whether the Maltese now had any grievances to complain of, he would ask hon. Gentlemen to compare the present condition of the island with its condition at the period when the Constitution, which the hon. Gentleman denounced as a "sham," and as resulting in a system of military despotism, was founded. He ad-

1777
mitted that before that period the Maltese had serious grievances, and in a Petition which they presented to the Crown before the grant of that Constitution they stated that their then existing government was of the most absolute and irresponsible description; they also complained of a profligate expenditure of the public money, of the prevalence of venality in the Government Offices, and of a fearful insecurity for life, liberty, and property. Contrasting that with the Petition which the hon. Gentleman had presented from the Maltese, containing no allegation of any specific grievances, with the exception of two small sums which they said were spent without the consent of the elected members of the Council, it must, he thought, be acknowledged that the Constitution which the hon. Gentleman had decried had been productive of enormous benefits to the Maltese people. Notwithstanding that there had been a considerable emigration from Malta, its population had increased from 125,000 in 1850 to 140,000 in 1866, while the revenue, without any increase of taxation, had risen from £129,000 a year to £162,000. The imports, in 1852 amounted, to £553,000; and, in 1868, to 1,222,000. The tonnage of vessels entered and cleared, exclusive of the coasting trade, was 1,064,000 tons in 1852; and, in 1865, it was 2,871,182 tons, and owing to the steps taken by Mr. More O'Ferrall for establing of granaries and providing for the landing of grain, with the view of making Malta the great corn depot in the Mediterranean, there had been a large development of that branch of its trade. In the Petition presented to the Crown in 1846, one of the principal and best-founded complaints was the absence of any provision for education. In 1850, there were only twenty-one public schools, with 3,332 pupils; but, in 1868, there were sixty-six public schools, with 7,200 pupils, besides 130 private schools, which gave an adequate amount of education to the population of the island. The land revenues and the rents from land belonging to the Government, which, in 1850, yielded only £28,000 a year, now yielded £39,000, owing to the increase in the value of property in Malta. The expenditure on roads and public works, in 1850, was £26,000, and, in 1861, it was £42,000. Charities, hospitals, Universities, and lyceums had also,
1778
during the same period, been developed and increased, to a remarkable extent. These results had been obtained under the Constitution which the hon. Gentleman so strongly denounced, and it must be admitted that, as far as they went, they were most satisfactory. All the countries in the neighbourhood of Malta viewed the condition of the Maltese with envy, and longed to have their laws as justly administered, and their material and intellectual interests as well cared for. In the Petition presented from Malta by the hon. Gentleman it was alleged that the Council was of too military a character. That Council consisted of eight elected and ten official members. A Petition presented in the year 1864 contained a statement similar to that made in the Petition recently laid on the table, to the effect that the Constitution of the country did not give the people of Malta sufficient control over their local government; but that Petition had received an answer from the late Duke of Newcastle, which had been considered perfectly satisfactory by those whom it immediately concerned. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think the Government of Malta was a kind of military despotism; but he did not appear to be aware that, for a considerable time, there had been only two cases of interference in the local affairs of Malta by the Governor without the consent of the elected members of the Council; and, without defending anything of that kind, he said they were cases of the most trivial and minute kind. Still, the present Government would, as far as they could, prevent the repetition of such instances, their desire being that in the local affairs of Malta the will of the elected members should be in almost everything supreme. With regard to the Governor it would, he admitted, be an unjust thing to appoint any man who was not deemed likely to govern the civil affairs of the inhabitants well. The present Governor was a most distinguished officer, who performed his duties most admirably; and his term of office would continue for three or four years more. His hon. Friend was not very specific in his allegations, but dealt rather in an accumulation of strong epithets; but he could say, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that if his hon. Friend, or anybody else, should bring forward any specific grievance

1779
under which, the people of Malta laboured, it would meet with the serious consideration of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office. There was a vast number of officials in Malta, the immense majority of whom were Maltese, and his advice to his hon. Friend would be to inquire whether Malta was not over-administered, and whether he could not devise a scheme by which he could get rid of some of the bureaux, and introduce economy in that respect. At present the question of emigration was under consideration, and he should feel obliged if his hon. Friend would assist in any way in improving the condition of a people than whom there were no more loyal subjects of the Crown.
MR. R. TORRENS, in reply, said, that what he had referred to was the proclamation of General Cameron, which contained these words—"His Majesty grants you full protection and the enjoyment of all your ancient rights." That included a Legislative Council elected by the people, and it was to that his remark was directed. He believed that, after the statement of his right hon. Friend, there would be very little use in his pressing the Motion to a division. But he was convinced that the decision of his right hon. Friend upon that subject would be received with great regret in the island, where the grievance of being left without popular representation was deeply felt.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHINA (TREATY OF TIEN-TSIN).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  COLONEL SYKES: I think it necessary, Sir, to call the attention of the House, in the interests of the commercial community trading with China, to the present state of our relations with China in reference to the revision of the Treaty of Tien-tsin of 1858. Those relations may be expressed in a very few words—namely, that there is not any permanent security for the persons or property of foreigners in China. British merchants and missionaries even in treaty ports and in other places are exposed to personal outrage, to robbery and attempted assassination, without obtaining redress, unless by military demonstration or by military operations; and that the obligations of the Treaty of Tien-tsin of 1858 are still unfulfilled.
  1780
  This may seem a sweeping assertion, but I shall be able to prove—not from hearsay or newspaper reports, but from Parliamentary documents—that the statement is founded on facts, and that this mischievous and unsatisfactory state of affairs is the necessary and inevitable result of the weakness—indeed, impotency—of the Central Government of China. A few preliminary remarks on the constitution of the Government of China will assist to explain my views. Although of great antiquity, its origin being referable to 265 of the Christian era, no less than twenty-two dynasties have risen and disappeared since that date; two, three, or more contemporary rival Emperors have contested the supremacy, each change being accompanied by anarchy; rebellion has succeeded rebellion, but up to 1646 the Chinese contests had been confined to themselves, with one exception; but in that year they were invaded by foreigners—the Mantchow Tartars, of whom is the present Imperial family. The resistance of the Chinese was desperate, and at Canton alone 100,000 persons were put to death; and the feeling of hostility to their foreign rulers gave rise to the secret Triad Societies, which, by their intrigues and lawlessness, created constant terror in society. The Tartars endeavour to hold their own by garrisoning some of the great cities by troops of the Eight Banners, but the Tartar troops are always separated from the people of the cities by walls, as is the case at Pekin itself. But the country at large is under abortive military control, as is manifested in the constant rebellions co-existent in the provinces, and sometimes menacing the capital itself. Sir Harry Parkes, on the 24th of March, 1862, stated, at a meeting of the Geographical Society of London—"that he recollected some years ago a memorial to the Emperor, in which it was stated that ten rebellions were going on at the same time in different parts of the Empire." Mr. J. B. Robertson, in his letter to Consul Medhurst, February 13, 1869, speaking of the weakness of the Central Government, says—
  "Now this might prove a serious embarrassment to a weak Government like that of China, which has to confront rebellion on occasion of every deficient harvest or overflow of the banks of the Yellow River."
  Mr. K. H. Holl, writing from Tien-tsin, April 28, 1868, says—"The rebels are

  1781
  burning villages in the neighbourhood of Tien-tsin." Mr. Burlinghame, the Ambassador from China to the Governments of Europe, had personal and painful experience of their presence by his detention on his journey from Pekin to Tientsin, from which he was only released by the blue-jackets of Her Majesty's gunboat Dove. The Imperial Customs Commissioner, Mr. Fitzroy, in his Re-port, March 15, 1867, from Shanghai, to the Imperial Superintendent of Customs, Mr. Hart, uses the following language:—
  "Periodically during the winter the Nien-fei, who have existed from the time of the Ming dynasty, scour the neighbouring provinces, upon which they levy black mail. They are not to he despised, and if the Imperial Government does not display more than its usual energy, they may (the Nien-fei), at no distant day become formidable successors to the Taepings."
  To these Taepings it is not necessary, with the information before the House, to say more than they maintained their rebellion for thirteen years, established their government at Nankin, and would have extended it to Pekin, as our Ambassador, Sir Frederick Bruce, states, had not the British interfered and slaughtered them at the very time the British and French troops were marching upon Pekin. But testimony to existing rebellion in Shensi, or elsewhere, is given by a recent proclamation affixed to the walls of Shanghai, raising the war tax—which had existed from the date of the Taeping rebellion—30 per cent; and these new rebels are not designated, as of old, the Nien-fei, but, as a separate class, are called the Wei. These rebellions sufficiently testify to the weakness of the Central Government, but the proofs extend much further. One source of weakness is described by Sir Ruther-ford Alcock in his despatch to Lord Stanley, October 1, 1867, in which he says—
  "The want of money for the payment of their armies is a main cause of continuous insurrection; whole divisions thus go over to swell the ranks of those who make all government impossible."
  With respect to provincial government the Viceroys of the eighteen provinces are appointed by the Central Government, which, however, takes little notice of their acts. They obtain their offices through intrigue or money and they are left to squeeze the people as far as they dare. The Central Government occasionally sends an edict terminating
  1782
  with the usual formula—"Tremble and obey." If it suits the interests of the Viceroy he obeys; if not, he quietly puts it aside and the Central Government rarely has power to enforce obedience. A man of vigour like Pseng-kwo-fan, however, occasionally establishes a temporary despotism in his viceroyalty, but he dare not proceed beyond certain lengths, owing to the constitution of society in China from the division of the people into "clans" like the Scottish Highlanders. The people of each clan have a common surname, have a community of interest, and when acting together they paralyze the authority of the Provincial Toutai or Prefects, and even at times that of the Viceroys. For years past the power of the Viceroy of Canton has been paralyzed by clannish feuds. The great Taeping rebellion originated in the neighbourhood of Canton with the clan whose surname was "Hung." There has been a chronic hostility between the Hakkas and Puntis of the province of Canton, which successive Viceroys have been helpless to put down. At this moment there is an illustration of this clannish power about thirty miles from Macao. The Hong Kong Daily Press of March 23, 1869, says—
  "The outbreak in the south of this province, which for some time has been going on, appears to be assuming alarming proportions. The clan Chiang of over 10,000 men are the belligerents, and are opposed by other combined clans. The Viceroy of Canton, two months ago, sent a force to quell the disturbance but failed."
  At Katshan, near Canton, a new tax was laid upon the people some years ago, who rose, drove the Mandarin authorities away, and the Viceroy was obliged to remove the tax. In the Cockchafer affair, eighteen villages near Swatow had long been in a turbulent and in- subordinate state, and beyond the control of the Toutai, and the reducing them to order and obedience by Commodore Jones' squadron, with considerable loss of life, so far from being offensive to the Central Government no complaint was made of our interference, nor that an appeal for redress had not been previously made to the Central Government which, no doubt, together with the provincial authority, were thankful that we had done that for them which they could not do for themselves. The fortified town of Choo-chi on the Han River near Swatow defied the Toutai or Pre-

  1783
  feet of Swatow, and plundered boats coming down the river, and fired into the provision boat of Her Majesty's gunboat Bustard. Lieutenant Johnstone demanding redress, was candidly told by the Prefect that he had no power over Choo-chi; but if the gunboat would assist him he would try to reduce the place. The assistance was given, but failed, until the arrival of the Drake, when the combined operations of the two gunboats succeeded. Choo-chi was taken and found full of plundered property, grain, rice, sugar, &c. &c. This helplessness was not confined to the Toutai of Swatow, but extended to the Toutai of the great provincial city of Chao-chow-foo, who had been equally unable to repress the piratical operations of the people of Sinlao and other villages on the banks of the river Han to the injury of British trade. At Banca, in Formosa, the Mandarin had no power to redress a series of outrages on British subjects of so serious a character that Consul Holt on the 14th of October, 1868, wrote to Sir Rutherford Alcock that—
  "All remonstrances had been in vain; in fact, our very lives are now threatened by people whose recent course of action has been so atrocious as to prove that the will is not wanting to murder us."
  In fact Messrs. O'Kerr and Bird were not only robbed but nearly murdered. Mr. Holt attributed these outrages to hostile "clans," which had a monopoly of the camphor trade, and the Mandarin authorities either dared not or could not control them. Mr. Holt sent to Foo-chow for a gunboat—the Janus—and the American Consul in the gunboat Aroostook also came over. This demonstration alone insured immediate redress, as reported on the 27th October, 1868. The outrages at Tamsui similarly originated in the camphor monopoly, and the Presbyterian missionaries had nothing whatever to do with it. Had the Mandarin authorities possessed the power or the will to give redress for the robbery of Mr. Pickering's camphor and his attempted assassination, and that of Mr. Hardie, the lamentable loss of life that occurred would have been avoided, as was the case at Banca, by Mr. Holt's firmness and tact. Another instance of the impotency of the local authority is exhibited in the case of the Rev. Mr. Wolfe, who had purchased
  1784
  a piece of land for a sanitarium at Sharp Peak Island, near Foo-chow-foo, in January, 1869, with the consent of the authorities of Foo-chow-foo. A native gentleman, however, induced the villagers to drive away Mr. Wolfe's people and seize his building materials; and the presence of the gunboat Janus was necessary to insure the treaty rights of Mr. Wolfe, and enforce the authority of the Mandarin at Foo-chow. Even the case of the Algerine, Lieutenant Domville, off Namou harbour, testifies to the helplessness of the sea-board authorities, not only to put down piracy, but smuggling. Lieutenant Domville was accompanied by a Mandarin, and entrapped into the belief that he was to attack pirate junks off the harbour, in which he was confirmed by the junks refusing to show their papers and firing upon him, and it was not until he had captured one of them that he found they were supplied with papers from Hong-Kong, and were, in fact, notwithstanding their papers, opium smugglers, which the Mandarin, as a Chinese authority, would have been entitled legally to seize in case he had the power; but neither he nor any Chinese Mandarin along the whole coast of China have the power to enforce the law, as the so-called merchant junks are heavily armed, defy the authorities, and do not scruple, when free from British observation, to exercise their power for piratical purposes. A writer in the North China journals says—
  "But for the British fleet on the coasts of China—if that fleet were withdrawn the Mandarins would be driven by pirates from the seaboard within three months."
  In the taking of Ning-po from the Taepings, the Parliamentary Papers say that Captain Roderick Dew availed himself of the services of the pirate fleet under Apak. These instances of helplessness of the seaboard authorities could be greatly multiplied, of which I have numerous records, were I to go farther back in time.
  In the case of the outrages upon missionaries, however, I fear the Mandarins, and Literati or expectants for office, and gentry are the instigators of the ruffian mobs. There are not any people on the face of the earth, of any religious persuasion, who are more tolerant than the Buddhists; they are free from all the exclusiveness of caste; they do not attempt to make con-

  1785
  verts; and their readiness to adopt the religious opinions of Christians is manifested by the hundreds of thousands of Taepings who adopted the Bible and New Testament, and established presses to multiply copies of our sacred books. In Burmah and Ceylon they live in harmony with the missionaries, and the missionaries equally do so in China, where the people are not incited by the authorities against them. The China Mission at Amoy and Swatow have sent to me, for some years past, their Annual Report, and the thirteenth is now in my hand. I learn from it that the earlier persecutions have ceased, and that the Mission, in 1868, had eleven stations, some of them in provincial cities, and that as the missionaries passed through villages from one station to the other the people stopped them to hear the doctrine, as they called it. Even in the great provincial city Chin-chow, the seat of the Literati, the chapel, which had been destroyed at their instigation, had been re-built, and not since molested. From the Foo city Chaou-chow, Dr. George Smith writes, on the 20th of March, 1868—
  "I have now been here ten days, and you will be glad to learn in peace and comfort, undisturbed and unmolested. A great change has come over the people here both in their feelings and conduct since I was last in the place. I made two attempts last year to re-visit this city, but on both the acting Consul prevented my coming. This time, that I have come, no obstacle has been thrown in my way by Consul or Mandarins, but I have made this visit just in the same way as going to any other town of the department. Moreover, I have had no police or other officials to escort me, nor any need for them. I have had daily meetings with the people, who have come in groups varying from twenty to eighty, and have behaved quite orderly and respectfully, and, after listening and discussing for a while, have afterwards gone away quietly. On asking them to disperse, when wishing to stop from speaking, they have been quite submissive; hence there has been no pressure of undue excitement, but all has gone on smoothly and pleasantly."
  Even in the affair at Yang-chow the hostility against missionaries did not originate with the people, but with the Literati; the authorities, if not encouraging, at least conniving at the outrages upon them. Redress having been obtained by Consul Medhurst, with the aid of the naval authorities, the missionaries have been quietly reinstated in their house, the populace ceasing to manifest hostility, the Mandarins no longer daring to incite them. Sir Rutherford Alcock, in the China Paper, No. 3, says—
  1786
  "With respect to the feeling against missionaries in China—it is certainly not actively hostile, unless they are worked upon by interested authorities into believing monstrous stories that the eyes of children are scooped out, converts poisoned, &c., &c. The outrages at Chef-foo and Taiwan and Tamsui in Formosa originated in this manner."
  On the 24th of April, 1868, Mr. Jamie-son reports from Taiwan that a Roman Catholic and Protestant church, had been destroyed about six miles from Taiwan. Mr. Jamieson, appealing for redress, was told by the magistrate that he was helpless; but that everybody believed that poison was given to Chinese to induce them to become converts, and the Consul must investigate the matter. At Chef-foo, the Rev. Mr. Laughter's agent hired a house as a shop, two miles from Afoo, but intended it for a chapel. This fraud was very properly resented, but Mr. Alabaster, on the 9th of May, 1868, induced the villagers to atone. In short, in every instance the hostile action of the people is traceable, not to a spontaneous movement, but to the incitement of interested officials. In respect to foreigners, not missionaries, the published travels in the disturbed province of Szecheun of Mr. Cooper, those of Mr. Ellis to the Yellow River, of Mr. Tarrant from Ningpo to Shanghai, and the testimony of excursionists from the sea ports on shooting parties, and that of the Basil missionaries in the South of China, on every occasion speak of the civility of the villagers. Canton, which in former times prohibited the entrance of foreigners, now locates them in houses in the city; and Consul Robertson has a mansion and park within the walls. I have now fully proved that the difficulties in our relations with China originate not in the hostility of the people, but in the hostility of the central and provincial authorities.
  I come now to the commercial aspect of our relations. The foreign trade with China, as detailed in the Report of the Imperial Commissioner of Customs, Mr. Hart, for five years, was as follows—this was sent by Sir Rutherford Alcock, from Pekin, 7th April, 1869, and has become a Parliamentary Paper:—

  Years.

  Imports.

  Exports.

  Total.

  1864

  51,293,578

  54,006,509

  105,300,087

  1865

  61,844,158

  60,054,634

  121,899,792

  1866

  74,563,674

  56,161,807

  130,725,481

  1867

  69,329,741

  57,895,713

  127,225,454

  1868

  71,121,213

  69,114,733

  140,235,945

  Total

  328,152,364

  297,233,396

  The above figures represent taels which have a variable English value, according to the rate of exchange, from 6s. 2d. to 6s. 8d. I prefer considering the tael at its book value of 6s. 8d., or three to the pound sterling. This would make the sterling value of the imports, in 1868, £23,707,071; the exports, £23,038,244; total trade, £46,745,315; the balance for 1868 being in favour of England £668,827, and for the five years of taels 30,910,168, or £10,306,389. Of this great trade the proportion that England alone contributed in 1868 was—England direct, 66,519,679 taels, or 47 per cent; Hong Kong, 24,642,974; and India, 26,362,615; total, 117,525,268, or 83·8 per cent, leaving only 16·2 per cent for all the other foreign nations put together; the next greatest trader to ourselves with China being the Americans, to the total value, in 1868, of 7,416,069 taels, or 5·3 per cent only of the whole trade. The total duties collected by Mr. Hart and his European subordinates of the Imperial Customs, in 1868, was 9,425,656 taels, the foreign portion of which amounted to 8,002,751 taels; and as the British proportion of this 83·8 per cent was 6,706,365 taels, or £2,235,455; and add to this 2½ per cent transit duties, £1,117,727, in 1868, England alone contributed to the Chinese Imperial Exchequer £3,353,782. But this was not the total cost to England for the maintenance of British trade in China. The Estimates of 1869–70 inform the public that the Envoy Extraordinary has £6,000 per annum, and the Secretary of Legation and Chinese Secretary £1,200 per annum. Two second Secretaries £900 per annum; twelve Consuls £12,700; five Vice Consuls £3,350; eleven Interpreters, £6,200; twenty Assistants, £6,900; Student Interpreters and Linguists, £6,100; Temporary Allowances at Shanghai and elsewhere, £2,600. Total for Consular Service, £40,450. Add to this the cost of the Supreme Court for China and Japan—Judge, £3,500 per annum; Deputy Judge, £1,200, and Law Clerks, &c.: total, £7,637; and wages to gaolers, constables, boatmen, &c, for China, Japan, and Siam, the charge for each not teing distinguished, £9,100. Legation Guards at Pekin, £977; Consular travelling, £2,500; Rent of Buildings, £8,200; Church Establishment in China, £3,000; Contingencies, £5,000; and the
  1788
  total for China, with two or three small exceptions for Japan and Siam, is £88,764. But a very formidable charge is for buildings and land, the Estimate for which in Class I of the Civil Service Estimates, is £179,382, of which £80,000 has been expended. The mercantile public in China, in Memorials to Sir Rutherford Alcock, on the expected revision of the Treaty of Tientsin state that this trade would have been much further developed, had the obligations of the Treaty of Tien-tsin been fulfilled, and they are unanimous in urging, that the right of inland residence and the payment of the transit duty of 2½ per cent be made, not to the central, but to the provincial authorities; to save trade from the payment of double duties as at present. They speak in strong terms of the advantages which would occur not only to China, politically and socially, but to trade. They recommend an extension of the number of the trading ports, and the working of mines. The Treaty of Tien-tsin guarantees the right of inland travel and residence by Articles IX., XII., a guarantee not fulfilled during ten years—and the payment of 2½ per cent in a lump sum to cover all transit charges. Sir Rutherford Alcock doubts whether this was intended to cover provincial duties; but Lord Elgin, in the most express terms, provided that 2½ per cent should cover those duties, as is shown in his despatch to the Foreign Office, dated 12th July, 1858. In compliance with the following Instructions from Lord Clarendon, 20th April, 1857, to Lord Elgin, on inland residence, he says—
  "It would, however, be very desirable, at all events, to obtain an engagement that British merchants should be allowed to purchase, either directly or through their agents, the produce of China at the place of its growth, and that no duties except, perhaps, road tolls, should be payable on such articles on their passage to the coast for embarkation."
  To insure these rights, Lord Clarendon further adds—
  "But your Excellency will be careful, in any engagements which you can induce the Chinese Government to accede to, to provide for unrestricted access to the interior of the cities which may be open to our trade. A permission actually to reside within the cities is of no less importance; but the facility of coming and going, and dealing directly with any Chinese trader who may dwell within the city walls, would not only enable the foreign merchant to carry on his trade with more advantage, but would also tend to fa-

  1789
  miliarize the natives of China with the persons and habits of foreigners, and thus promote still more extended intercourse with the country."
  All these conditions were embodied in Articles IX., XII., and XXVIII., of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, June 26, 1858, and were binding on the Chinese Government, and have never been fulfilled to this day; and it is a mistake to suppose they are capable of revision in any new treaty without our consent—the provisions for revision being confirmed by Article XXVII. Lord Elgin reported having carried out Lord Clarendon's instructions in these words—
  "The principal commercial advantages conceded to British subjects by the Chinese Government in this treaty are the opening to trade of certain ports, among which I would specify that of Newchwang in the North, and those which are opened by it in the Yangtsze river, Formosa, and Hainan, as the most important. Permission to British subjects to travel in the country for purposes of trade under a system of passports, and the settlement of the vexed question of the trausit duties.
  "This last mentioned subject presented considerable difficulty. As duties of octroi are levied universally in China on native as well as on foreign products, and as canals and roads are kept up at the expense of the Government, it seemed to be unreasonable to require that articles, whether of foreign or native production, by the simple process of passing into the hands of foreigners, should become entitled to the use of canals and roads toll free; and should, moreover, be relieved altogether from charges to which they would be liable if the property of natives.
  "On the other hand, experience has taught us the inconvenience of leaving the amount of duties payable under the head of transit duties altogether undetermined. By requiring the rates of transit duty to be published at each port, and by acquiring for the British subject the right to commute the said duties for a payment of 2½ per cent on the value of his goods—or rather, to speak more correctly, for the payment of a specific duty calculated at that rate—I hope that I have provided for the latter as effectual a guarantee against undue exactions on this head, as can be obtained without an entire subversion of the financial system of China."
  Plainly, therefore, Lord Elgin was aware of local duties, and contemplated that the 2½ per cent should cover them; anticipating, of course, that it would be paid to the provincial authorities, but instead of this it has been taken as a lump sum at the several ports, and sent to Pekin, and the wants of the provincial authorities have compelled them to exact transit duties a second time, increasing the cost to the consumer and consequent diminution of consumption. These exactions increase the price of tea; in many cases, between the place of
  1790
  production and the export port, 50 per cent. The Chamber of Commerce, in its memorial to Sir Rutherford Alcock, states, that in consequence of the exactions, a bale of goods cannot penetrate 100 miles into the interior; and the exactions on silk treble the amount of the export duty. Consul Winchester writes officially, Shanghai, 7th May, 1868—
  "The local and transit dues collected on tea amount, as far as our experience goes, to fully 50 per cent on the first cost, and it is amusing to see a correspondence being carried on by the Chambers of Commerce as to the propriety of reducing tea export duty by 2½ per cent while these heavy inland charges continue to be levied ad libitum. These bring in nothing to the Imperial Treasury."
  And he gives instances of the arbitrary local charges, diverting cargoes of tea from the direct line to the ports to avoid them. Consul Hughes, of Kiukiang, confirms this; and adds that, owing to the venality of the Mandarins and violations of treaty stipulations "the foreign merchant is placed at a great disadvantage." The remedy it appears to me is very simple—that is, not to pay the duties in lump sum to the Customs authorities at the ports, but to pay duty at each barrier as the goods progress in the interior: the owner of the merchandize or his agent, according to treaty accompanying his goods. Maps of the barriers exist in every province with their respective tariffs. It is absurd as at present that as much transit duty should be paid for carrying a bale of goods ten miles as for 100. With respect to residence in the interior, travellers can now go into the country furnished with passports from their respective Consuls; but a curious oversight with respect to the idioms of the Chinese language has exposed such travellers to slights from the provincial authorities. In the translation of the English Treaty of Tien-tsin into Chinese, British subjects are designated Min-Jin, which in the Chinese idiom means "plebeian or fellow," or person of no position, instead of Shang-Jin, trading man, Shinsze, gentleman, or simply Jin-a-man. No correction of the terms used in the treaty has been made, and the words are, therefore, adopted in the passes granted, no doubt to the amusement of the provincial authorities; but these passes do not authorize the merchant to reside in the provinces, or accompany his goods, to his personal

  1791
  damage and loss, and to the limitation of British trade. Owing to the misconduct of runaway seamen, who have occasionally got command of lorchas, it has most unjustly been attempted to fix unworthy conduct on the mercantile community, but the records of the British Supreme Court bear testimony to the paucity of cases involving mercantile character.
  I have now made good my statements in the opening of my address, that British subjects have been subjected to personal outrage, plunder, and attempted assassination, and that redress has only been obtained by military demonstrations or military operations. Sir Rutherford Alcock now telegraphs to say that all is tranquil, and the best understanding exists with the Central Government. This tranquillity however, is plainly owing to redress for wrongs having been obtained without the aid of the Central Government. The chief cause being the weakness of Central Government, it remains to be asked, what is the line of conduct to be pursued in our relations with the Central Government of China and provincial authorities for the future? Lord Clarendon dictates this line of conduct in the following despatch to Sir Rutherford Alcock:—
  "Foreign Office, April 26th, 1869.
  "Sir,—I have received your despatch dated 5th of February, 1869, respecting the late occurrence at Taiwan in Formosa.
  "The instructions which I have addressed to you within the last four months, and as regards Formosa more particularly, my despatch, February 23rd, 1869, will have fully explained to you the views of Her Majesty's Government on the general question raised in this able despatch, and the particular incidents referred to in it.
  "You will lose no opportunity of pressing on the Chinese Government, with special reference to my correspondence with Mr. Burlingham—of which copies have been sent to you—that Her Majesty's Government look to it, and it alone, for redress of wrongs of any kind, and under any circumstances, done to British subjects, and earnestly trust that they will not look in vain. They hold the Government at Pekin alone responsible for the observance of treaties which are contracted with it alone, and they look to it to enforce on the local authorities a full observance of them.
  "CLARENDON."
  Nothing can be more just or statesmanlike than the principles enunciated in this despatch. It is in thorough accordance with the obligations of International Law. But the intercourse between nations implies a power as well as will to fulfil mutual obligations. Has the
  1792
  Central Government at Pekin that power? We ourselves distrust it by withdrawing British subjects from the control of the judicial courts in China, which we could not do in Europe. But we have painful experience of the inability or want of will of the Central Government to fulfil its engagements. Our Ambassadors—Lord Elgin, Sir Frederick Bruce, and Sir Rutherford Alcock—have equally testified to this. According to Sir Rutherford Alcock, references to Pekin to redress grievances would simply be to "beat the air." On the 5th of June, 1863, Sir Frederick Bruce addressed the following despatch to Prince Kung:—
  "I am greatly dissatisfied with the general disregard of treaty provisions manifested at the ports, contrary to the policy and the custom of the British Government. I, on my own responsibility, authorized the interference of Her Majesty's forces in the Taeping rebellion, thereby averting the destruction of the Imperial authority, and I had hoped some attempt would be made to organize a competent executive; but these expectations have not been realized, and at several of the ports the treaty is daily broken; and the Central Government, if not unwilling, shows itself unable to enforce a better order of things. The orders sent by the Foreign Board are not carried out, either because the local authorities do not stand in awe of the Foreign Board, or because they do not believe that the Board issues them in earnest."
  Have matters improved since June, 1863? On the contrary, Sir Rutherford Alcock, in his letter to Lord Stanley, 5th February, 1869, says—
  "Hitherto the course of affairs has been only too truly described by the memoralists from the ports. When any wrong or injustice is suffered by a foreigner for which there is no appeal to a public court of justice, and a written code of laws—if the Chinese local authorities are not moved, as is too often the ease, by the Consul's representation, the only resource is a reference to the Minister at Pekin, and then commences an interminable series of references backwards and forwards, a succession of correspondence on both sides between the ports and the capital, and no final solution is ever arrived at. It may safely be affirmed that such is the common experience of all foreign representatives. I am assured there is no one of these who cannot point to numerous cases which have been so treated for a succession of years, despite their best efforts."
  But this is not the only expression of opinion of Sir Rutherford Alcock. In a despatch to Consul Medhurst, at Shanghai, of March last, replying to an application of Dr. Macgowan on the subject of railways and telegraphs in China, his Excellency says, writing from Pekin to Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Shanghai—

  1793
  "You may inform Dr. Macgowan that there is no argument in favour of telegraphy referred to in his letter, which has not been repeatedly and earnestly pressed upon the attention of the Ministers of Tsung-li-Yamén; and no objection to it on the part of the Chinese that has not been met in the way he would indicate, by my Colleagues and myself. You may also add, that the desire for progress, which the Chinese Mission, now in Europe, assured Dr. Macgowan's countrymen was so ardent and general with the rulers in China, there is no evidence here. If any hopes are built upon its existence therefore I fear there is nothing but disappointment in store for those who indulge in them. Projectors of telegraphic lines, railroads, and other plans for the sudden development of the resources of this country are but losing their time, while the Government here shows no disposition to entertain their projects. I think it is in the interest of all who are so occupied that they should know the truth, than to be deluded by false hopes, and expectation of changes which are still far in the distance."
  These are strong words, and, coming from a diplomatist, whose sources of information are necessarily the best, seem conclusive against the statements made in America and Europe by Mr. Burling-ham and the Chinese Mission, that the Chinese Government is anxious to enter into the comity of nations. I should explain that this extract is taken from a reply by Sir Rutherford to an American gentleman much interested in telegraphy, who had addressed him through the British Consul, and his Excellency says—
  "You may tell Dr. Macgowan that of the desire for progress which the Chinese Mission, now in Europe, assured his countrymen was so ardent and general with the rulers of China, there is no evidence here."
  Now, in the face of the testimony which I have adduced from our own Ambassadors and our Consuls and merchants of experience in China, is it likely to lead to practical results; or is it safe or even just to British subjects to appeal to the Central Government, or to its provincial officers, over whom it has only a nominal control? In truth, the Central Government is a gorgeous mockery, to be likened to Nebuchadnezzar's golden image, with feet of clay, and it would collapse to-morrow but for the contributions to its Pekin Treasury of more than £3,000,000 sterling annual customs duties; 83·8 per cent of the sum collected being from British trade, including £1,100,000 transit duties, improperly collected at the treaty ports, and, like the customs duties, sent to Pekin. Finally, considering that the present dynasty of Tartars was saved
  1794
  from expulsion by our slaughtering our would-be-friends—the Taepings—considering that, at the expense of the taxpayers of England, we prevent the coasts of China from being under the control of pirate fleets—considering that we contribute to the Pekin Treasury millions sterling annually, we are entitled to the gratitude of the Pekin Government; and we owe it to the interests of British commerce to insist upon the fulfilment of the Articles of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, with respect to inland residence and transit duties. I beg to move for the Papers.
  MR. LIDDELL, in seconding the Motion, said, that the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member, involving, as it did, a large and lucrative trade, was of considerable importance at the present moment when our relations with China, as defined by the Treaty of Tientsin were about to undergo revision. The Papers moved for could not fail to be interesting, inasmuch as all Chinese correspondence was eminently sensational. A succession of Papers had already been laid before that House, containing details of armed landings, bombardments, military occupations, and other acts of war, which were of a very interesting, although, perhaps, of rather an alarming nature, and it had been very satisfactory after reading them to hear our Foreign Minister in the House of Lords state, in April last, that there was not the slightest cause for anxiety upon the subject, inasmuch as our relations with China had never been on a more satisfactory footing than they were at the present moment. The language and the tone our Foreign Minister had held in condemning the transactions to which he referred deserved the approval and the support of the country; because it was clear that if we desired to continue our present peaceful relations with China we must adopt some new system of diplomacy with regard to that country. He rejoiced to think that a new era was about to commence in our dealings with a community with whom we carried on a gigantic trade. They had had six distinct narratives of transactions, which had occurred in less than nine months, of differences with the local authorities, and in no case except one had they been settled without recourse to arms, and that, too, in a time of peace. He hoped that those who were to per-

  1795
  form the task of revising our treaty relations with China would not forget that the existing Treaty of Tien-tsin had been exacted from that country by fear and under the pressure of force, and that, therefore, it was only just that they should not insist too rigorously and absolutely upon all its stipulations. He was satisfied that concessions to Chinese interests, and, perhaps, on some unimportant points, even to Chinese prejudices, would promote the general interests of trade. It had been said that in dealing with Oriental nations it was unwise to make concessions; but he thought that justice could never be misplaced or conciliation mistaken, and if reasonable concessions on our part were accompanied by a firm, a determined, and even perhaps a peremptory demand for the strict fulfilment of treaty stipulations affecting our trade, no misunderstanding would be likely to arise as to our motives. He trusted that they might be able to establish a system which would prevent exactions by the Mandarins, and thus reconcile the governed class to the governing, and at the same time secure to the native trader that freedom which was so important to him and to us. Our peculiar position in China ought not to be forgotten. England was only one among the nations who were struggling for the greatest of prizes—an industrial trade in the interior of China. He was not going to flatter the United States of America, but the United States of America were entitled to our admiration and imitation in their intercourse with China, and they had invariably shown a conciliation, a prudence, and a conception of Chinese feelings which fully entitled them to any authority or influence they undoubtedly possessed over that nation. It was therefore important that we should observe International Law instead of violating those rights by which our policy in China had been marked. America, in consequence of the special protection which her trade received in China, and by virtue of the special treaty she had recently concluded with that Court, was bound, by all obligations of honour, to protect China in the observance of international rights. It was a dangerous thing for England in her transactions with China to violate international rights, and if America proved true to herself, she would maintain her compact with China,
  1796
  and if we wished to avoid awkward relations in that distant part of the world, we should treat China as we treated other nations. Without wishing in any degree to cast blame upon our Consuls or our naval officers in China, the difficulties of whose position he recognized, he condemned that system of diplomacy which always had recourse to force for the redress of any injury done to British subjects in China, instead of making proper application to the Court of Pekin on the matter. He, therefore, highly approved the principles lately laid down by Lord Clarendon for the guidance of our Consuls in China, by which, in future, any resort to force was not to be permitted excepting under circumstances in which life and property were in imminent peril; and our agents were instructed invariably to address remonstrances to the proper quarter—namely, the Central Government in Pekin. On the other hand, Lord Clarendon stated that the observance of treaty rights and a friendly reception to British subjects resident there were to be exacted from China. Those wise precepts would, he trusted, continue to be faithfully enforced by the Foreign Office. In conclusion, the prospect opened out to our trade in China was almost unlimited, and he sincerely hoped that the opportunity now offered us for placing that important trade on a peaceful, and, therefore, a permanent footing, would not be thrown away.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of the Memorial of the Chamber of Commerce at Shanghai to Sir Rutherford Alcock, and his Reply to the Memorial addressed to Consul Medhurst, dated the 23rd day of March last:
  And, of all Correspondence of the Foreign Office with Sir Rutherford Alcock on the subject of the renewal of the Treaty of Tien-tsin.''—(Colonel Sykes.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Chinese Government had never admitted that it was responsible for outrages committed in Formosa in as high a degree as for those committed elsewhere; nor, indeed, was it really any more responsible for them than we were for the outrages perpetrated by the Maories in the north island of New Zealand. In regard to the revision of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, the two main points insisted upon by

  1797
  the Chinese Chambers of Commerce in the treaty ports were, residence in the interior of China, and the affirmation of the transit duties clause. There were difficulties involved in the question of the transit dues, as Lord Elgin, writing to Lord Clarendon, after the treaty was made, himself recognized. Those duties were imposed on the goods of both natives and foreigners; and, it should be remembered, that the roads and canals in China were kept up by the Government. But it had not been shown that the transit dues clause had been generally, or even in any case, broken. The Chinese authorities had always drawn a distinction between transit dues and special taxes levied at certain places after the goods reached those places. As to the other point, of residence in the interior, the matter was by no means so clear as his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) would make it. He had stated before, and would venture to repeat now, that the right of residence was not asserted in any treaty; and Lord Russell, in a despatch on the subject, used these words—"that the specification of the right to reside in the treaty ports implied the exclusion of the right of residence in other towns." He would not go into the question that certain persons resided in various parts of the interior, because the Chinese themselves drew a distinction between residence as a matter of privilege and as a matter of right. The London Missionary Society had laid it down that their missionaries should never claim residence in the interior as a right, but ask it as a favour. It would not be wise for Her Majesty's Government to demand this right for the future, for it would imply that "extra territoriality" should be given up, and agents should be placed in every town throughout that vast Empire. The Chinese had conceded the dues; they had stated their readiness not only to revive the tariff, but to provide bonded warehouses, to make the draw-backs payable in ready money, to open new ports, to put forth a proclamation enforcing the transit clauses, and that the right of lodging shall be conceded to all foreigners passing through the country with passports, which was a very important point. In short, the Chinese were prepared to grant everything consistent with the safety of their country, and Sir Rutherford Alcock had said that every-
  1798
  thing had been granted which could be granted at the moment, and that it would be worse than a waste of time to postpone the revision of the treaty, for all was obtained that we could with justice hope to gain.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) had suggested a policy to be followed in our treaties with the Chinese Government from which he must express his entire dissent. His hon. and gallant Friend assumed throughout that it was necessary to deal with the Chinese Government and nation in an exceptional manner in consequence of the weakness of what he termed the Central Government. But let the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the position of that Government and of the Chinese nation. Within the last thirty years the Chinese Government had to sustain three great wars. Two foreign armies had landed in China and marched to Pekin, and the palace of the Emperor had been sacked. The country had, in consequence, been more or less in a disturbed state. Was it to be wondered at, under these circumstances, that the Government should not possess all the power and concentration that was to be desired, and that its authority was not obeyed like one that had not undergone such vicissitudes? What was the policy recommended by his hon. and gallant Friend? Not to strengthen the Government in any way, but to proceed, on all occasions whenever there was any real or supposed wrong done to a British subject, to take the law into our own hands and delegate the operations necessary to recover compensation, or to enforce what we considered a right, to the naval and military officers stationed in that country. Was that a wise or a just policy? Why it was our interest to strengthen in every way the Central Government, and on that point he had heard with pleasure the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Liddell) with regard to the views of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Lord Clarendon had always, so far as he was informed, maintained the same policy, and it was only that very day, in looking over a file of China Papers, that he came upon a very curious fact which illustrated the views entertained by Lord Clarendon some fifteen or twenty years ago. He would not read the case to which he referred, because the opinion of the

  1799
  then Law Officers of the Crown, the present Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Lord Westbury, would illustrate what those views were. Having been consulted with reference to the opinions of a gentleman who filled the office of Acting Attorney General of Hong Kong, they said—
  "We do not agree in the conclusion of the Acting Attorney General that the Chinese are to be considered as beyond the pale of civilized nations."
  It was because Lord Clarendon did not agree with the opinion of the Acting Attorney General of Hong Kong, that the Chinese were to be considered as beyond the pale of civilized nations, that the case to which he (Mr. Otway) referred came to be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown in England. If our conduct was not to be regulated by customs which governed our relations with civilized nations, it was impossible for our dealings with China to continue on a satisfactory footing. Reference had been made to our trade with China, which, by the Board of Trade Returns, appeared to amount to some £40,000,000 per annum. What would interfere with that trade? Anything like warlike operations would do so, and his hon. and gallant Friend advocated a policy which must lead sooner or later to war. That gunboat policy must, however, some day cease. The Chinese nation in course of time would possess gunboats of its own—in fact, they were now manufacturing and purchasing them—and did his hon. and gallant Friend think that his policy could be successful in the face of a nation so numerous, when that nation possessed the means of self-defence? The hon. and. gallant Gentleman had forgotten to allude to the fact that there were four or five other European nations possessing treaty rights with China, and in our arrangements for the revision of the treaty we must consider not only how we ourselves would act, but what might be the possible action of those other powers? If England demanded that her citizens should have power to reside under exceptional circumstances, in China, with ex-territorial rights, all the other nations having treaty rights would demand the same thing, and they would have inextricable confusion, tending to the disorganization of the Empire. He was aware that his hon. and gallant Friend, who was in the habit of speaking of
  1800
  "his friends the Taepings," wished to see the Empire disorganized; but that was not the view taken by Her Majesty's Government and by those interested in the Chinese trade. There was no hesitation on the part of the Chinese Government to allow missionaries or any other men to reside in China, if they would conform to Chinese laws and customs; but what nation would concede claims put forward which no one in this country acquainted with China attempted to justify but the hon. and gallant Member? The hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to the uncomplimentary term of "Min-Jin" or "fellow" applied to Englishmen on their passports when travelling in the country, but really he did not attach any importance to that. He read that day an interesting journal by Mr. Alabaster, who had travelled hundreds of miles into the interior of China, in which he stated that wherever he went, although never molested, he was sometimes called, "His Excellency the Devil." Such things must be expected in a nation as strange and as exclusive in character as the Chinese. Two important points, however, had been raised with reference to the Treaty of Tien-tsin—internal residence and transit duties. He (Mr. Otway) was prepared to allow that it was originally intended that goods should be allowed to penetrate into the interior of China with no further charge than that of the 2½ per cent ad valorem duty; but the Chinese authorities were compelled to make a change in consequence of the discovery that Chinese traders were fraudulently obtaining certificates from English merchants, and were by such means carrying on operations to the prejudice of their own countrymen. No doubt these matters were the subject of very serious consideration. When the time arrived last year for the Government to write and claim a revision of the treaty, they had first of all made themselves acquainted with the opinions of the mercantile classes in England, of Mr. Burlinghame, the gentleman who now represented China in Europe, and of some high English officials in the East. All these opinions concurred in recommending that every reform introduced by European nations into a vast Empire like that of China must be of a very gradual kind, because it was obviously necessary for the Chinese to comprehend the advantages of such

  1801
  appliances as the telegraph and steam before they could be induced to adopt them. Nor should it be forgotten that with regard to railroads they wore of less importance in China than in any other country, because the water communication there was the most vast and perfect in the world, and it was no light matter suddenly to deprive the many thousands of persons of the means of living which they gained by it. Another reason for deprecating haste was that the Chinese Government was at present in a state of transition. The young Emperor would in four years' time attain his majority, the same period determined the treaties with European Powers, and the wiser course would be to wait until the new order of things was established before steps were taken to secure any extension or alteration of treaty rights. In the meantime our relations with that country were gradually improving. There had been, and there always would be, outrages of the character referred to; and such outrages did not occur in China alone; it might happen even to hon. Members to be stopped or robbed before reaching their homes when they left that House. The matter had been fully considered by Lord Clarendon, and Her Majesty's Government had determined upon adopting the policy which had been already enunciated in the House. That policy was, in all cases in which British subjects were wronged, to look to the Central Government for redress, to make that Government responsible, and to abstain altogether from those acts which would relieve the Central Government of responsibility, and throw it upon the minor officials in the provinces. There was every desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to consult the wishes of the mercantile community in China and at home; but the Government were satisfied that the best course was to make demands gradually, and to wait for the expiration of the treaties with the other Powers, and the majority of the Emperor, when, perhaps, we might be able to give a greater development to trade. There was no objection to produce the Papers asked for; in fact, they had already appeared in the Shanghai Gazette, but those referring to negotiations that were in progress could not be given.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE TAX.—RESOLUTION.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that in bringing forward his Motion for a repeal of the tax on inhabited houses at that late hour, he would not detain the House with any lengthened remarks, but he wished to show its mischievous effects. He undertook to show that it limited small houses in the size and number of their rooms; that it interfered with the erection of and restricted the mode and manner of construction of blocks of buildings which were specially designed for the working classes; and that it caused great waste of habitable dwelling accommodation and an increase of police surveillance and expense. Large merchants, manufacturers, and warehousemen almost wholly escaped having it levied on their business premises, while it was levied on the premises of those in a smaller way of business and of professional men. The tax pressed most heavily upon the poorest of the population in our large towns, and most lightly upon the rich and wealthy, decreasing in force as income increased. The history of the house tax was somewhat singular; in 1802 the house tax and the window duty were considerably increased, and most minute regulations and restrictions were enacted. These taxes were constantly attacked, and an agitation for their repeal was carried on for many years, until, in 1834, the house tax was unconditionally repealed, and all the restrictions connected with it abolished. The agitation for the repeal of the window duty was continued and increased in force every year, and when, in 1851, there being a considerable surplus in the Revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Charles Wood) brought forward the Budget, and instead of making a clean sweep of the window duty proposed to reduce it and place it on a most objectionable footing, the dissatisfaction was so great that he was compelled to withdraw his Budget and bring forward another, in which he abolished the window duty but re-imposed the house tax at a lesser rate than the old tax and revived all the injurious regulations and restrictions of 1802. In the metropolis great care was taken to avoid building houses of £20 annual value; to keep them below that value the builder refrained from putting a room over the

1803
washhouse, and from building rooms so large as he otherwise might, although the extra accommodation would be greatly appreciated by the working classes, who would gladly pay a small additional rent for it. But that additional rent would render the house liable to the charge of 15 s. a year, and, therefore, improvement in houses stopped at a certain point below £20, until the higher annual value of about £30 was reached. Then with regard to blocks of buildings, the blocks built by Miss Burdett Coutts; by the Peabody trustees, and by several joint stock companies established for providing improved dwellings for the working classes and others, were so constructed as to be liable to the house tax of 9d. in the pound per annum. In the buildings which had been erected by Sir Sydney Waterlow, the tax had been avoided by building the houses without a front door, and having an open staircase. But the increase of such open staircases would require extra police watching; and, though he believed Colonel Henderson had been asked whether these staircases, in some instances, might form a portion of the policemen's beats, he doubted whether the adoption of such a plan would be advisable. The tax, too, involved a great waste of habitable dwelling, because in many cases the upper rooms over offices and warehouses which are now vacant would be inhabited but for the fact that such occupation would involve the exaction of this tax. In one instance a Member of that House had permitted one of his old servants to occupy the upper rooms of his warehouse in one of the northern cities free of rent, but upon being charged £37 10 s. per annum for this duty, being 9d. in the pound on a rental of £1,000 a year, he was obliged to withdraw the permission he had granted. The large merchants had their goods stored in the dock warehouses, and these did not come under the charge for house duty; the large manufacturers, brewers, builders and distillers had managers living in houses adjoining their premises, which premises were free from house duty. Now, what was the case with respect to the small manufacturers, watch makers, jewellers, cabinet makers, and others who used part of their houses for business purposes or had workshops attached to them? Many who lived in Clerkenwell and other parts of the me-
1804
tropolis and elsewhere, had to pay the 9d. duty, not only for the rooms in which they lived, but for the whole of their premises. The tax also pressed unduly upon professional men—such as surgeons, schoolmasters, and artists, who used their houses for professional purposes. But, above all, the most severe pressure was felt by the poorer classes of the population. There were large old houses let out in rooms at rents of from 2s. 6d. to 1s. 6d. a week. These houses were liable to pay the tax of 9d., whilst large blocks of new buildings, like those of Sir Sydney Waterlow, were free from the tax. If the tax were regarded as a superior kind of income tax it would be found that it failed, because its pressure decreased in proportion to the largeness of a man's income. It was, moreover, not only unjust and unequal, but it stood in the way of the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes. This was the more important because if they desired that the working classes should have better lodging, they must lighten the taxation upon it, as they had done in the case of the food and clothing of the poor. When the great number of charges already existing upon this kind of property were considered, it would, he thought, be acknowledged that the first opportunity ought to be taken to secure the remission of this tax, because it was based upon principles now out of date, and because it was the result of a compromise assented to for the purpose of getting rid of the window tax. He might quote the opinions of many eminent men in favour of the object of his Motion. He would content himself with citing one. On the question of the repeal of the window duties and the imposition of the house tax, in 1851, the present Prime Minister said—
"He objected to it because it was the re-introduction, without the slightest qualification, of those great anomalies in the imposition of the tax which, he would venture to say, were the sole cause of its abolition in 1834. He alluded to the inequality of its incidence upon the mansions of the great as compared with mansions of a medium character—with houses for the middle classes and houses used for the purposes of business. He had not heard this objection maintained on the present occasion on the principle, he supposed that people did not like to look a gift horse in the mouth, because the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) though proposing a house tax proposed at the same time to remove the window tax and the objections to the former imposts were therefore

1805
allowed to pass in silence. But he for one could not regard the house tax as resting on a secure foundation which re-introduced those very objectionable features which had once before been the cause of the abolition of the tax.—[3 Hansard, cxvii. 1447.]
He thought he need say nothing more to show that the tax ought to undergo revision and be abolished at the very first opportunity. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
MR. CRAWFORDseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the House Tax ought to be abolished because it imposes injurious and unnecessary restrictions upon the erection of dwellings for the Working Classes, and because the Tax presses very unequally upon different classes of the community, and falls most heavily upon persons of moderate income."—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not acquiesce in the general scope of the advice given to the House by the hon. Gentleman, whose arguments were chiefly founded on the devices employed for the evasion of this tax. The question was not what mischief might be done by evading the tax, but whether the tax might be imposed fairly, properly, and equitably. It was not fair to charge the tax with all the tricks that might be resorted to in order to evade it. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman were not so much against the tax itself as against the evading of the tax. The tax only fell upon houses of £20 a year, and it was 9d. in the pound in the case of an inhabited house, and 6d. in the case of a shop. There was a partial exemption in the case of shops, and an entire exemption in the case of houses under the value of £20 a year. It was inevitable that such an arrangement should have its effect on architecture, and lead to the building of houses of the stunted appearance referred to by his hon. Friend, but that was an argument against the exemption of houses under £20 a year rather than one against the tax. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to Sir Sydney Waterlow and his company having evaded the tax by having no front door, and putting up an open staircase. Again, that was an argument not against the tax, but against the ingenuity of those who evaded it; and though, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman would not go this length, he thought a legitimate inference from his speech was that the
1806
Government ought to consider whether it would not be well to abolish the exemptions. His hon. Friend was, perhaps, right in complaining that this tax did not bear the same proportion to the value of the house as the window tax had done, because, with all its faults, the latter did fall most heavily on sumptuous mansions; but that would be an argument for such a change as would increase the rate of taxation in proportion to the size and style of the house. Those two points his hon. Friend had succeeded in establishing, but that they were arguments against the tax he could not admit. Mr. M'Culloch, in speaking on this subject, said that taxes laid on houses in proportion to the rent paid for them would be pretty nearly in proportion to the ability of the person to pay those taxes, and Mr. Mill said that a house tax justly proportionate to the value of the house, was one of the fairest of all taxes. To say that there were objections to this tax was only to say it was a tax. In law, when a plea in abatement was objected to, the person objecting was expected to suggest a better plea. If the hon. Gentleman wanted him to take off a tax that yielded £1,000,000, he ought to suggest a mode of raising that amount by less objectionable means. He must observe that he did not think it would be wise to have all our taxes too uniform. He was afraid that in the desire for simplicity, which more or less beset all Chancellors of the Exchequer, they were rather too apt, to use a vulgar proverb, to put their eggs into too few baskets, and therefore he thought the fact of the house tax being a diversity in our taxation was something in its favour. Another ground on which this tax might be advocated was that, as a rule, though not always, it ultimately fell on the proprietor. It might be said that if this were so the proprietor would levy it in his rent. As persons must inhabit houses, the demand for them could not be contracted; but the proprietor who did not want to let his houses stand empty, must submit to accept such rents for them as were fixed by general competition. This tax was not very large, very heavy, or very severely felt. He thought, therefore, it would be a pity to do away with it, particularly as we could not abandon the idea of in some way taxing such property for Imperial purposes. Under

1807
these circumstances, he hoped the House would not agree to the Resolution of his hon. Friend.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, it would be difficult to convince the people of the metropolis, and the other large towns of the kingdom, that the rate fell upon the owners, and not upon the occupiers, and it must not be forgotten that there was a large increase of population, which, by requiring more house accommodation, prevented the lowering of the rents in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the high authorities quoted in favour of a house tax, they had most carefully guarded their approval by a proviso that the tax must be fairly, equitably, and justly assessed. The present house tax was unfairly, unequally, and unjustly levied, and it fell upon a class of people upon whom it was never intended to fall. As to the suggestion that something better should be pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in place of the house tax, he begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the country was looking forward to a large surplus next year, and the abolition of this tax would be regarded as a fair appropriation of a portion of that surplus.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CATTLE PLAGUE (CHESHIRE).

  RESOLUTION.
  EARL GROSVENOR, in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the distress occasioned by the Cattle Plague to the Ratepayers of the county of Chester entitles them to the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to some remission of the heavy debt incurred for the amount of compensation"—
  said, that he would have to go back as far as the year 1865. There could be no doubt that it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to stamp out the disease the moment it was found to exist in the metropolis, and had the Government of the day only done its duty, the disease would never have reached the county of Cheshire. Owing to the course pursued by the Government, however, the disease did reach that county, and before the passing of the Act, in 1866, no less than 38,000 head of cattle had been slaughtered under the authority of the Privy Council, for which no compen-
  1808
  sation had been made, the owners not even being permitted to realize the £2 per head, which was the value of the hides, horns, and hoofs, while they were obliged to bury the carcasses six feet below the ground, which was a very difficult and expensive matter in Cheshire, where the soil was a stiff clay. He might mention that during the debate upon the Act of 1866 the right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Poor Law Board expressed an opinion that hunting ought to be put a stop to, as being calculated to spread the disease. In Cheshire, however, they had not the heart to hunt, and therefore there was no necessity for putting a stop to it in that county. Since the passing of the Act of 1866, the county had borrowed the sum of £270,000 from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at 3¼ per cent interest, to be re-paid by instalments spread over thirty years. £14,000 would be due in November of the present year, £28,000 was payable next year, £28,000 in the following year, and £14,000 per annum for the following twenty-five years. Besides that a sum of £30,000 had been raised by public subscription to relieve those who had suffered by the slaughter of the 38,000 head of cattle before the passing of the Act, £25,000 of which. was subscribed by the inhabitants of the county, and principally by those landlords who had suffered so severely by the loss of their cattle. Deputations from the county had waited upon Members of the last and the present Government, and they had invariably been met with expressions of sympathy; but he asked from the House on that occasion not only sympathy, but consideration. The case of Cheshire was this—their cattle had been killed, not for the good of that county merely, but for the good of the country at large, and therefore the loss thereby sustained should be borne by the nation generally, and not left to rest upon the inhabitants of that unfortunate county solely. On the Motion for the first reading of the Act of 1866, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, the then Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) said that—
  "The principle on which his (Mr. Banks Stanhope's) proposal was founded, I believe, is perfectly sound—namely, that the losses occasioned by the slaughter of diseased animals, and the expenses requisite for carrying into effect the provisions of the law for checking the disease, ought to be borne, to a certain extent, by the

  1809
  whole community, because the whole consuming and producing population are interested in checking the disease; but that a special burden may be fairly thrown upon those on whom the loss primarily and immediately falls. He proposed, therefore—and in principle it is what we recommend—that in counties the county rate should furnish part of the fund out of which the compensation should come, and in boroughs, the borough rate; that the proportion in which the burden should fall on these funds should be two-thirds, and that the remaining one-third should be borne by the cattle owners."—[3 Hansard, clxxxi., 379.]
  In the course of the debate on the second reading the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "The object of this Bill is not to compensate for what persons have lost, but for what they have lost by the direct agency of the Government, in taking possession of and destroying their property for the public good, and for the public good alone. Is that a new principle? If it is necessary to destroy houses to fortify a town, or to destroy any other property for a public purpose, there is no civilized Government in the world that does not compensate the person whose property is taken."—[Ibid. 484.]
  Again—
  "In my opinion, it is out of the funds of the entire country that compensation ought to come."—[Ibid. 485.]
  He was perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman was not in Office when he made those observations, but he thought he might claim the support of the right hon. Baronet and of the right hon. Gentleman for the Motion he was about to make. He would quote a few figures to show that the case of Cheshire was an exceptional one. It appeared from a Parliamentary Return of June, 1869, that the total amount of compensation for loss of cattle slaughtered and expenses incurred in England and Wales, was £830,363, of which Cheshire had paid 32 per cent, or £266,502. The same Return showed that, after excepting the counties of Cheshire and Cumberland—which latter county had borrowed £26,900, and had levied a cattle rate of 6d. in the pound—fourteen counties had paid no compensation whatever, sixteen had paid less than 1d. in the pound, eight less than 1½d., five less than 4d., two less than 6d., five less than 7½d., and Lincoln and parts of Lindsay 9½d. He thought these figures worthy of the consideration of that House. The annual return of the burden that this county would have to bear would be felt as a great grievance by the consumers of beef, butter, and milk, and princi-
  1810
  pally by the poorer inhabitants of the boroughs. A Petition he held in his hand from the borough of Congleton, in the county of Chester, stated that the factory operatives in that town would suffer very severely by that tax. They did not ask for the remission of the whole burden which had been cast upon them, but thought they had some title to a remission of part of it. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. E. C. EGERTON, in seconding the Motion, said, this was an exceptional case, which required an exceptional remedy. Cheshire had suffered more from the cattle plague than any other county in the kingdom. No county was now liable to pay more than 9d. in the pound; but the rate, if levied in Cheshire, would be 3s. They did not ask for sympathy, but the House of Commons had committed an injustice; the cattle in this case had been slaughtered for the public good, and he thought it was only fair that something should be done for the rate-payers of Cheshire.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the distress occasioned by the Cattle Plague to the Ratepayers of the county of Chester entitles them to the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to some remission of the heavy debt incurred for the amount of compensation."—(Earl Grosvenor.)
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, that representing a county which had suffered more severely even than Cheshire in proportion to the number of its cattle, and having himself been a great sufferer, he felt much sympathy with Cheshire, but he could not support this Motion. He had proposed what he still thought would have been the fairest plan—namely, that the compensation should be thrown in the first instance on the Consolidated Fund, and that the Government should recoup itself by levying a rate on cattle over the whole country, his theory being that the owners of cattle in the distant parts gained more by the suppression of disease than those districts where the rinderpest was raging, However, Parliament had decided that those who lost most should pay most. If this Resolution were carried, he should ask, on behalf of Forfarshire—and other Members would, no doubt, ask on behalf of other parts of the country—that Parliament should give com-

  1811
  pensation for all the losses which had occurred there. But such a proposal would never be carried, and, therefore, he could not see his way to allow part of the burden of Cheshire to fall upon his constituents in addition to their losses.
  MR. J. TOLLEMACHEsaid, the people of Cheshire did not, as the hon. Member said, ask to be compensated for all the losses they had sustained. They were quite ready to bear the full extent of the loss which had been borne by any other county. They did not object to bear a 9d. rate. But Cheshire had lost from 70,000 to 80,000 cattle, valued at £800,000, and inasmuch as the House had declared that no county should sustain a loss of more than 9d., that rule should extend to Cheshire. The Act of 1866 was passed a great deal too late for Cheshire. The cattle there were doomed when the Act came into operation, and no benefit arose to the county from it. Under these circumstance, he hoped that the House would do justice to Cheshire, and not allow such an enormous burden to fall upon that county.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he could quite understand that many persons might feel this to be a very exceptional Motion. At the same time, this was a very exceptional case. A great calamity fell upon the country, and a larger share was borne by one particular part of the country than by any other. Was the Government of the day wholly free from blame in the matter?—because that was a consideration which weighed on his mind in deciding this question. The cattle plague was known to be coming here in the middle of the year. The Government of the day were pressed to act, or to call Parliament together if they did not choose to take upon themselves the responsibility of acting. The experience of a similar outbreak a hundred years back told them that there was only one thing to be done—namely, to kill. They commenced acting with a feeble hand, and with a still feebler mind had scarcely commenced acting before they withdrew the Orders which would have stamped out the disease and prevented much of the loss which fell upon the country. If ever, then, there was a case in which the Government might depart from the strict rules which ought to guide them generally, this was such a case. If in the early part of the autumn the Govern-
  1812
  ment had put in force, or called on Parliament to put in force, the measures which were enacted in February, no one could doubt that this calamity, serious as it would have been, would not have fallen anything like so heavily upon this unfortunate county. He therefore thought that the Motion was entitled to favourable consideration, and that the Government would do well to act on the side of kindness, instead of standing upon strict rules.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he regretted the calamity which had fallen upon the people of Cheshire, and if it were possible to benefit them by a mere remission—that is, by letting them off from some burden without putting it on other people's shoulders, he should be glad to do so. But he must beg the House to consider seriously not only the particular case, but the very large, important, and far-reaching principle which the case involved, and which it would for the first time establish. This was a matter not to be discussed in a spirit of anything but the calmest, coolest reason and reflection. By indulging compassion the House might be doing great mischief, unless they examined the principle on which they acted, and were prepared to defend it, not upon the ground of an exceptional case, but of constitutional principle and precedent. The Motion itself was an evasion of Parliamentary practice. It was the rule of the House that private Members should not propose to increase the burdens of the people; but it seemed that this could be done indirectly in the form adopted by the noble Earl—that of a general Resolution expressing a wish that the Government should increase them. This itself was a very serious step, because it was a direct infraction of the rule which' alone was a protection of the public purse in this country—namely, that increased expenditure should only be proposed to the House by those Departments which were responsible for expenditure. The first evasion of principle which the noble Earl invited the House to make was to coerce the Government, in whom the Constitution placed the control of the expenditure of the country, to incur an expenditure which they were not of themselves willing to incur. The proposition presented itself in the most objectionable form

  1813
  conceivable. The county of Chester had borrowed from Government about £260,000, of which it had paid neither principal nor interest; but in November next the first instalment was to be paid, and now the persons who had borrowed the money asked the House to put a stress on the Government in order that they might be relieved from the obligation they had deliberately incurred. That was a transaction which could not be justified in private life, and in respect to public life he asked anyone to point out a single precedent for it in the annals of Parliament. [An hon. MEMBER: Ireland!] Well, he asked, was there any precedent in respect to Ireland, of that House by a vote forcing the Government to remit a loan? but even if such a precedent could be adduced he denied that a precedent with respect to Ireland was binding on them. Everybody knew that numerous things were done for Ireland which no persons dreamt of asking for themselves. In this country the police were partly paid out of the Consolidated Fund; but in Ireland the whole of the expense of the police was paid out of the Consolidated Fund, because it was an Irish affair. But what he wanted was a precedent of the House of Commons forcing, after deliberate debate, the Government to remit a loan to Ireland which the Irish Members and people had deliberately contracted. It was, then, a perilous proceeding to wrest the control of the expenditure from those who were responsible for it, and to transfer it to those who were not responsible; and he had a right to demand some precedent to be produced before they departed from the ways of their forefathers. How was it that Cheshire borrowed the money in question? In 1866, different plans were suggested to compensate those whose cattle were killed on account of the plague, and the plan adopted happened to be the one which he had advocated. The noble Earl had read a portion of a speech of his, in which he expressed an opinion that in the abstract this burden should fall on the Consolidated Fund; but he went on to say that though that might be abstractedly the merit of the case, yet it would be too dangerous to make compensations out of the general funds of the country, as such a course would take away all motives in the different localities for the inhabitants
  1814
  to do everything in their power to abolish the disease. He at that time added that he thought that such were the overpowering advantages of giving to localities every inducement to use their utmost exertions to put down the disease, that the expense ought to be paid by certain circumscribed districts. The House adopted his view, and it was under the Act of Parliament which was then passed that this money was borrowed and spent, and before they could take the burden off Cheshire and spread it over other counties, which had also greatly suffered, they must repeal that Act of Parliament, and pass a fresh Act. That was a serious course of proceeding, for which he was entitled to ask for a precedent. The Members for Cheshire and the people of that county had been willing to borrow £260,000 under the law, and that law ought to be maintained until the money was returned. If it was not maintained a most fatal blow would be struck at a system which was found most useful in enabling assistance to be afforded by the Government to individuals. The proper way of looking at this matter was not as a remission but as a grant. If the House would not have voted a grant, it would, under the name of a remission, be doing the same thing, and much worse, because the money was borrowed from Government under the understanding that it was to be re-paid; and when the first instalment was about to become due, then a pressure was put on the Government and Parliament to cancel the debt. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) spoke of this as being an exceptional case and constituting an extraordinary burden; but the question was, were the resources of Cheshire so bad as not to be able to meet the burden. The rateable income of Cheshire was £2,295,000, and the amount of the debt was £266,502, or about 11 per cent on the rateable income. Nothing had yet been demanded in re-payment, but in one or two years £28,000 would have to be re-paid, and £14,000 a year for a limited time after that period. He was sorry that Cheshire should have to bear such a burden, but it did not appear to be so great that, in order to get rid of it, much valuable principles and good faith should be trampled under foot, and that an attempt should be made to impose the burden in defiance of the Act of Parlia-

  1815
  ment, on other people. He did not wish to reproach the unfortunate when things in Cheshire made it very subject to cattle disease, and it was likely never to escape. But when they were asked to put this burden on a portion of the people at large, particularly on those who had already suffered heavily from the cattle disease, he must be allowed to read a few lines from the Report of an Inspector under the Cattle Plague Department of the Privy Council. The date of the Report was February 9, 1866, after the disease had been in Cheshire about four months. The Inspector stated that he had visited the undermentioned places in the vicinity of Chester, Upton, Whitby, Pulford, Nantwich, Poole, and other places, and his attention was directed to several instances of positive nuisance arising from dead carcasses. In all cases he had ascertained that the Order in Council relating to disinfection and burial had not been carried out. In some instances, a want of ordinary care and caution had been manifested in the burial of carcasses in porous soil, and near the source of water supplies. Disinfectants were rarely applied to carcasses or manure, and healthy animals were commonly herded with the sick and dying. So far as his observation extended, a lamentable apathy appeared to prevail among the owners of stock. Not only were the Orders in Council ignored, but ordinary precautions which common sense would dictate were neglected. In the face of these difficulties the police, under the orders of the chief constable, had exerted themselves with praiseworthy activity. Under these circumstances, the Inspector added, he had addressed a communication to the chief constable, directing attention to the facts, and suggesting remedies for the existing evils. When they were called to make an order cancelling this debt at the request of those who had deliberately incurred it, he thought they ought to have some answer or explanation to such a statement as that. The object of the Act was to make those persons in the immediate neighbourhood of the disease anxious and eager in checking it, and the effect of the present Motion would be necessarily to frustrate the whole Act, which would then become a dead letter. They were asked virtually to break down the rules which regulated the expenditure of the public money. They were next
  1816
  asked to bring the power of the House of Commons to bear on the Government to induce them to cancel a portion of debt which had been deliberately incurred. They were also asked to repeal the Act which imposed the charge, and cast it on the shoulders of persons who had not had the opportunity which Cheshire had to some extent neglected of checking the disease. In conclusion he would say the words he had formerly used on this subject were that—
  "It is absolutely necessary that the money which we expend should be most carefully expended—more carefully than any other, because it may become a double prodigality. If people are careless and remiss, they will first of all slaughter cattle which ought not to be slaughtered, and then pay for them. Therefore, you require a check upon them, and what check so good as that those who order the slaughter should feel that they themselves will have to pay for it."—[3 Hansard, clxxxi. 620.]
  That statement was made on the 16th of February, 1866. He was very sorry to have so invidious a duty to perform. It was very desirable not to be wanting in sympathy, but it was still more desirable to maintain the great constitutional principles on which that House had always acted.
  MR. W. EGERTONsaid, the people of Cheshire considered that in this matter they laboured under a grievance and an injustice which was not the less felt because the county was wealthy. They had been told that the Act had not been properly carried out; but the only proof of that was an extract from an Inspector's Report, dated before the Act was in operation. The loan was forced upon Chester in 1866, in order to keep faith with those whose cattle were slaughtered under the Act. The distress of the county was so great that it was impossible at that time to levy a rate. It was an injustice to have to pay what they ought to pay whether the county was rich or poor. It was a great hardship to call on the towns to levy the rate for the repayment of the loan. Many cattle were carelessly slaughtered and buried; but that arose from the great loss, with the limited number of men on the farms to put the Act into operation to prevent the spread of the disease. The Act was passed so hurriedly that the rate-payers of Cheshire had no power of protesting against it.
  COLONEL AMCOTTSopposed the Motion. Lincoln had raised £94,000 by

  1817
  rates for the destruction of cattle, and if an allowance was to be made to one county it ought to be made to another.
  MR. CHADWICKsupported the Motion. The injury was exceptional, and it was the duty of the House to consider it.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that this was an exceptional case, in which a rate-in-aid ought to be granted from the Consolidated Fund. The losses in Cheshire were so great as compared with Lincolnshire that the latter county had no claim on the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. MELLY, on the part of the consumer, protested against any remission being made to Chester. He opposed the Motion.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the answer given to his right hon. Friend had been that a loan had been forced upon Cheshire at £3 5s. per cent. If so it had not been forced by the Government, which could not afford to lend money at £3 5s. per cent. [Mr. J. B. SMITH: It is £3 10 s.] No loan of that amount either had been forced upon Cheshire by the Government. It appeared, however, that the inhabitants of a single county, who now came to Parliament for a further grant of public money, had to meet an addition of 1½d. in the pound to the taxation of the county extending over a period of thirty years. But then it was said that it was not a question whether the county was rich or poor, but that the charge was unjust. If it was a question of justice, every county in England and Scotland was entitled to make the same demand, for the circumstances of each county were precisely the same, as far as Parliament was concerned. He denied that it was the duty of the Government to prevent people's cattle from falling ill; and it would have been well if the example of Aberdeenshire had been generally followed elsewhere. He deeply regretted the burden which rested upon Cheshire, but, heavy as it was, it was not to be compared with that which had fallen upon Lancashire during the cotton famine, from causes quite as independent of its own control. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the Report of an Inspector to show that there had been negligence on the part of the farmers in regard to the spread of the disease, and then proceeded to meet the argument that this was an exceptional case. It was, he admitted, a very exceptional
  1818
  case, but exceptional in a very different sense from that in which the plea was urged by the noble Earl (Earl Grosvenor). At this moment the rates of Cheshire were supplemented in a very peculiar manner—namely by a tax levied from the consumers of salt throughout the country. The tolls on the Weaver navigation derived from the commodity of salt amounted, in ordinary years, to £20,000 per annum, and this year, owing to exceptional circumstances, they had fallen to £12,000, or within £2,000 of the amount of the loan which Cheshire had to pay on an average of years. He congratulated Cheshire on the possession of that valuable resource, which seemed as if it had been intended to meet this very exigency.
  MR. LAYARD, as representing Birkenhead, which would have upwards of £40,000 of the debt to pay, protested against the injustice of asking Cheshire to bear the whole burden of the loss. They asked nothing for Cheshire except that it should not be asked to pay for cattle destroyed after the Act was passed, by order of the Government and for the national good.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 126: Majority 41.

PACKET AND TELEGRAPH CONTRACTS

  RESOLUTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON moved that the first Resolution of the House of the 24th of July, 1860—
  "That in all Contracts extending over a period of years, and creating a public charge, actual or prospective, entered into by the Government for the Conveyance of Mails by Sea, or for the purpose of Telegraphic Communications beyond Sea, there should be inserted the condition that the Contract shall not be binding until it has been laid upon the Table of the House of Commons for one Month without disapproval, unless, previous to the lapse of that period, it has been approved of by a Resolution of the House,"
  be read and rescinded; and in lieu thereof, that it be resolved—
  "That in all Contracts extending over a period of years and creating a public charge actual or prospective, entered into by the Government for the Conveyance of Mails by Sea, or for the purpose of Telegraphic Communications beyond Sea, there should be inserted the condition that the Contract shall not be binding until it has been approved of by a Resolution of the House."
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the said Resolution, and the Resolutions of the House of the 24th July 1860, be Standing Orders of this House.

  METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Bill "to amend 'The Metropolitan Building Act, 1855,'" presented, and read the first time. [Bill 214.]

  TRADES UNIONS (PROTECTION OF FUNDS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Bill to protect the Funds of Trades Unions from embezzlement and misappropriation, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary BRUCE and Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 216.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Queen Anne's Bounty* (185); Sunday and Ragged Schools* (188).
Second Reading—Education of Children [88], negatived; Bishops Resignation (171); Charity Commissioners (170); Special Bails (166); Assessed Rates (174); Poor Law Board Provisional Orders Confirmation* (142).
Committee—Court of Common Pleas (County Palatine of Lancaster)* (79–186); Municipal Franchise* (125–187); Diplomatic Salaries, &c. * (128).
Report—New Parishes and Church Building Acts Amendment* (184).
Withdrawn—Infant Life Preservation (89).

PORTADOWN INQUEST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERsaid, he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Dufferin) to the adjournment by the coroner of this inquiry for three or four weeks—namely, till the 3rd of August. The inquest was on the body of a man who was shot down by the police, they having fired, as he understood, by the order of the sub-inspector of the district. It was most important that the inquiry should be a continuous one, and should be brought to a close as soon as possible; for in the meantime the influence and authority of the sub-inspector would be very much weakened. He would suggest his temporary transfer to a post of equal rank in another part of the country in the event of the Government being unable to direct the speedy resumption of the inquiry. The coroner's reason for the adjournment was his having to attend Assizes in another district, but three or four days would surely have been sufficient for this purpose.
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, the Government had been informed of the adjournment with great surprise and regret; but it was entirely within the discretion of the coroner to adjourn for any period he might think proper, and they had no power to interfere. The noble Duke's suggestion as to the temporary removal of the officer was open to the obvious objection that it would naturally be regarded both by him and by the public as somewhat prejudging the case.

EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
(The Marquess Townshend.)
EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.

  (NO. 88.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its principle was that of compulsory education, which he was persuaded was essential to any efficient measure on this subject. As to the religious difficulty, it would be best met by giving secular instruction in day schools, leaving it to the ministers of all denominations to provide by Sunday Schools or otherwise for that religious teaching which should form an important part of education. His proposal was that wherever free schools existed within reach of the parents they should be required to send their children for at least twelve hours' teaching a week. This would not interfere with the employment of children of ten or twelve years of age, whose earnings might be important to their parents, while it would in most cases lead to children being allowed to remain at school the greater part of the day. Compulsory education was already the law of the land with reference to children employed in factories and workshops, and there could be no objection to extending the principle to those who were in a more disadvantageous position. Parents were bound to provide proper food and clothing for their children's bodies; surely, therefore, the law ought to require them to provide for their minds.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess Townshend.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he thought no one could doubt the excellence of his noble Friend's object, but it was doubtful whether this Bill would further it. The Government had promised their serious attention to the whole question of public education, and he appealed to his noble Friend and to all desiring the spread of education whether it was well to deal with the question piecemeal, especially with that most difficult part of it, the mode of securing the attendance of children at school. It would be improper for him now to state the opinion of the Government on the question of popular education, and as at this period of the Session

  1739
  no practical result could be expected, he trusted that his noble Friend would not press the measure.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day three months.

INFANT LIFE PRESERVATION BILL.
(The Marquess Townshend.)
INFANT LIFE PRESERVATION BILL.

  (NO. 89.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHENDexplained that the Bill was directed against "baby farming." It was notorious that in many cases infants were intrusted to persons whose wish was that the children's lives might come to a speedy end, and whose character was such that, but for the lowness of their terms, they would not be vested with so important a trust. Instances were but too common in which infants thus perished from neglect or ill-treatment, and his proposal, therefore, was that every person taking charge of them should be licensed by a magistrate, and should be required to give security for the proper discharge of her duties.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he regarded the Bill as a most extraordinary one, since it would make it unlawful for any person, including, therefore, the mother, to take charge of any child under five years of age for the purpose of nursing without having previously obtained the authorization of a justice of the peace. He would advise the noble Marquess to subject these very numerous Bills to some more careful scrutiny before he submitted them to the consideration of the House.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the Bill was calculated to defeat the object of the noble Marquess, for, if carried into effect, there would soon, probably, be no infant life to preserve. It would moreover, require all nurses in hospitals and workhouses to be licensed. He hoped the noble Marquess would remodel the Bill before he again brought it forward.
  EARL STANHOPE: Perhaps the noble Marquess would not object to this
  1740
  Amendment of his Bill—"That no woman shall nurse a child without the authority of her husband or the license of a magistrate." That would simplify matters very much; the husband's authority could be obtained without trouble.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHENDsaid, that the Bill would only apply to children placed out to nurse. After the way in which the Bill had been received it would be useless for him to press it.
  Order for Second Reading discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

BISHOPS RESIGNATION BILL—(No. 171.)
(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
BISHOPS RESIGNATION BILL—(No. 171.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, this Bill consisted of two parts. One part had reference to the resignation of Bishops, and the other was to amend the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 62, which provided that in the case of the mental incapacity of a Bishop a Commission should issue in order to supply proper superintendence of the diocese. The first part of the Bill met the difficulty which had been experienced in former attempts in the same direction, by providing that in case of the resignation of a Bishop the revenues of the see should be applied for the benefit at once of the retiring Bishop and of his coadjutor. It had been found impossible to provide any income for a retiring Bishop from any other source, and although inconvenience might arise from dividing the revenues of the see during the time when there was both a retired Bishop and a Bishop exercising jurisdiction, yet that inconvenience was not so great as that arising from the present state of things, there being at present no provision for the resignation of a Bishop. With regard to the second part of the Bill, he had followed as nearly as possible the precedent of the 6 & 7 Vict., which gave compulsory powers in cases of mental incapacity. Their Lordships were aware that under that Act a Commission might be issued in the case of a Bishop who was mentally incapacitated from discharging his duties, and that on the Report of that Commission another Bishop holding a see in England or Wales was appointed

  1741
  to administer the diocese. Provision was made in that Act that one-fifth part of the revenue should be paid to the assisting Bishop with which to meet his additional expenses; but the difficulty still remained of laying on one who had already enough to do in his own diocese, additional duties in the entire charge of another diocese. In this Bill it was proposed to meet that difficulty by providing that, instead of a Bishop already charged with a see in England or Wales, a Bishop-coadjutor, with right of succession, should be appointed. Provision was made to secure his payment and his right of succession to the see when it became vacant in various clauses, which, no doubt, their Lordships would carefully consider in Committee. The evil which the Bill was intended to remedy was one that had often been complained of, and the inconvenience arising from which had been felt by none more than by those who were charged with the administration of the several dioceses.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  EARL NELSONsaid, he regretted the necessity, for such he feared it was, of limiting the income of a Bishop who would have to perform the entire duties of a diocese. In dioceses which were too large for the Bishops to visit their clergy, it was essential that they should have large incomes in order to be able to entertain their clergy, otherwise they would not see them at all; and he should have been glad if an arrangement could have been made for reviving some of the suppressed canonries, or for reserving some of the existing ones as a provision for retiring Bishops. He feared, however, that there was little chance of this being done. Residence in the cathedral city being very essential under the present management of large dioceses, he regretted that the Bill proposed to leave the episcopal residence to the retiring Bishop. This was, no doubt, designed as a kindness to him; but it was very desirable that his successor, having all the duties of the diocese, should also have the house, and he hoped this would be done, even should some larger sum be consequently allowed to the retiring Prelate. It being clear that a mentally incapacitated Bishop was less able to perform his duties than one who volun-
  1742
  tarily resigned, he could not see why the former should have a much larger income than the latter, nor why a coadjutor Bishop, who would have exactly the same duties as the successor to a retiring Bishop, should only have two-thirds of the income. Another anomaly in the Bill was that whereas a Bishop's capacity was to be determined by three judges—the Archbishop and two of the Bishops of the province—two Bishops only were, in the case of an Archbishop, to state in writing whether they considered him incapacitated. It was proposed, too, that his coadjutor should be nominated by the Crown from among the Bishops of his province; but, as he understood the Bill, the Bishop so nominated would retain the charge of his present diocese as well as that of the archbishopric. He thought the Bill might be amended as regarded some of its details.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he thought the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) could not have read the Bill very closely. It was not necessary that the house should be occupied by the Bishop resigning, and this would be left to arrangement. He admitted the inconvenience which had been pointed out with regard to income; but a Bishop subjected to compulsory retirement was entitled to some consideration. If he retained the house he incurred a large expense, while, on the other hand, the coadjutor, beside the prospect of succession, would have the power of choosing a residence adapted to his means. As to Archbishops, they were rather better protected than the noble Earl supposed, for the only difference in their case was the substitution of another Bishop to take the place of the Archbishop, and constitute a court of three persons. He believed that on examination the Bill would be found the best practicable remedy for the sad condition of things which was at present unprovided for.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he thought the Bill made very fair provision for retiring Bishops, but he doubted whether it went far enough. A provision should be made to meet the case of Bishops who, from their advanced period of life, though not mentally incapacitated, were incapable of performing their duties.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he must remind the noble Duke that it

  1743
  would be difficult to determine the particular point at which physical infirmity would justify the enforcement of a coadjutor. In such cases a Bishop could take his choice as to retiring, whereas in cases of mental incapacity he could not decide for himself. There might, in the lapse of centuries, be an occasional case which the Bill would not meet, but on the whole he believed it would be found sufficient.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he hoped the right rev. Bench would agree on the adoption of an Amendment in the 3rd clause, which would make the same provisions apply to physical as to mental incapacity, for the public would expect that this should be secured.
  THE BISHOP OP GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLadmitted that the noble Duke's (the Duke of Somerset's) suggestion was deserving of consideration. It was difficult, however, to draw a line between that degree of infirmity which caused the loss of a Bishop's services to a diocese and that in which the presiding power of the mind might remain, though accompanied by physical weakness.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was grateful to the right rev. Bench for having taken up a question of such urgency and importance, and he felt that it was a rather ungracious task to criticize the provisions of the Bill; but it was desirable before going into Committee to point out how it would strike lay Members of the House, and persons outside. The Bill proposed that a coadjutor Bishop should be appointed in certain cases, and should have an income of at least £2,000 a year from the see. Now, he would have to bear the whole burden and responsibility, and though Parliament would wish to deal tenderly with the retiring Bishop, it was not desirable that there should be so unsatisfactory a contrast between his position and that of the coadjutor as would exist under provisions of the Bill, which assigned to the retiring Bishop not less than £2,000 a year, besides all the temporalities and other emoluments, and, in certain cases, the episcopal palace. He would, moreover, have the power of initiating this state of things, for unless the incapacitated Bishop desired to retire, this part of the Bill could not come into force. In the case of a Bishop not taking the initiative the Bill shadowed
  1744
  out rather than detailed the course which was to be adopted, and pointed to the establishment of some tribunal the constitution and functions of which were not explained. Such a court would hardly be a satisfactory one, unless it contained a lay and legal element, competent to determine with precision the difficult question of mental capacity. One of the anomalies of the Bill was that in the case of an Archbishop the tribunal would not be the same. It might be greatly to the interest of the Church that an Archbishop should retire, but the Bill merely proposed the appointment of one of the Bishops of his province as coadjutor.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYasked the noble Earl to refer to clause 11.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he understood that clause to provide that a Bishop-coadjutor might be appointed in the case of an Archbishop being incapacitated, and that where an Archbishop's capacity was in question there should be substituted for him such Bishop of his province as Her Majesty might appoint. This seemed to him consistent with his statement that a Bishop of the province might be appointed the Archbishop's coadjutor.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYexplained that the substitution of a Bishop of the province for the Archbishop was not for the purpose of acting as coadjutor, but for the purpose of sitting on the Commission, it being obvious that an Archbishop could not sit on the Commission by which his own lunacy was to be tried. When the Archbishop had been ascertained to be a lunatic, another person, and not one of the Bishops of the province, would be appointed to act as his coadjutor.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONaccepted this explanation as removing an objection which he was about to offer, but thought the terms of the clause were open to the construction he had put upon it. His criticisms were not conceived in a hostile spirit, but it was important, especially at this late period of the Session, that the details of the Bill should be carefully considered, and that ambiguities should be removed.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKremarked that while an incapacitated Bishop would be relieved from all his other duties, the Bill would continue to him the privilege of sitting in this House. The explana-

  1745
  tion given by the most rev. Prelate of the 11th clause raised some other objections to that clause, because from that explanation it would follow that the person to be appointed to assist the Archbishop need not necessarily be a Bishop at all.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he thought it was undesirable that the burden of the retiring allowance of a Bishop who was incapacitated should be thrown upon his successor. There was no doubt that, if not at the present moment, at least eventually, the episcopal property in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be much more than sufficient to provide all the regular episcopal incomes, and, therefore, he thought such retiring allowances would form a legitimate charge, to be placed either wholly or in part upon those surplus funds. With regard to Bishops retiring on account of age, as in the case of the Civil Service, he thought there ought to be some limit as to the age at which applications to retire should be entertained—say, only from sixty-five or seventy years. With respect to the provision for investigating cases of alleged lunacy against a Bishop, it would, in his opinion, be much better that, as a Bishop was a public officer, on a representation being made to Her Majesty, Her Majesty should direct the Lunacy Commissioners, who were men of legal and medical experience, to conduct a formal inquiry and ascertain whether the alleged infirmity really existed. The part of Clause 11 which related to Archbishops and their coadjutors required some consideration. The coadjutor who was to be appointed was not only to discharge the ordinary duties of the Archbishop—that was to say, to carry on the discipline of the archdiocese of Canterbury or York; but, although a new man and just appointed, and being incapacitated from sitting in Parliament, he was to have power to institute legal inquiries, not only against priests, but against other Bishops of the province; for example, he might be allowed to prosecute the Bishops of London, Durham, or Winchester, who might have occupied their sees for ten or twenty years. It was difficult to say, in the case of the incapacity of the Archbishop, how his metropolitical functions were to be discharged; but it would not be proper to place those metropolitical functions in the hands of his junior and temporary successor.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he wished to make a suggestion in regard to the amendment of the Bill. The 3rd clause pointed out the steps by which a coadjutor Bishop was to be appointed. Their Lordships' attention had been already called to the fact that it applied merely to the case of mental incapacity; and it was obvious that if the Bill became law in its present form it would be entirely inoperative to reach some of the cases which had occurred under their own observation, as to which certainly a strong public feeling had been expressed that there ought to be some legislation. There was another objection to the clause as it now stood. It contemplated proceedings of a somewhat judicial character; and there was this great anomaly, that the Archbishop, who was to be the principal Judge, was also the person who put the whole judicial proceeding in motion. The Archbishop was to be, he would not say the prosecutor, but the mover in setting the inquiry on foot. That was open to grave objection, and what he would suggest was that a great improvement of the Bill might be effected by providing that upon a representation being made to the Archbishop, emanating from the Dean and Chapter, who were the guardians of the spiritualities, the Archbishop should then call to his aid the two Bishops, as the clause provided, and should hold an inquiry. He would suggest that the clause should go further, and enact that upon the Dean and Chapter undertaking to prove a degree of physical infirmity sufficient permanently to incapacitate the Bishop from the discharge of his duties an inquiry should take place, and in the event of the Archbishop being satisfied of the truth of the representation he should have power to appoint a coadjutor. The case of infirmity of an Archbishop was a matter of great difficulty, and great caution ought to be exercised in providing for the discharge of the duties of the office. It would, in his opinion, be very objectionable to devolve the performance of the functions of an incapacitated Archbishop upon a coadjutor, who from the necessity of the case was not likely to have the experience that was required in a person appointed to such an office. It would be far better to provide for the actual resignation of the most reverend Prelate, the revenues of the sees being large enough to provide a retiring pen-

  1747
  sion for the Archbishop, and a sufficient income for his successor.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he wished to call attention to one or two points which appeared to have been overlooked. Sometimes a man might for two or three years be subject to a slight infirmity, and a report might be made upon him according to the Bill; but when he recovered, what was to be his position, and what was to be the position of the see with two Bishops? Again, if some infirmity should happen to the coadjutor, what was to be done?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that several of the difficulties which had been suggested were worthy of consideration, but most of them were met by the fact that this was in every respect a voluntary Bill. It was not intended to effect by any compulsory procedure whatever the resignation of any Bishop. If a man was absolutely incapable of having a will, evidence as to his supposed mental incapacity was to be submitted to one of the Secretaries of State—he supposed the Home Secretary—and then it remained for the Crown to make or not to make the appointment of a coadjutor as it should think fit. Under such circumstances there could not be any contemplation of doubtful cases, or such as involved serious difficulty in investigation. The Bill had for its object simply to provide for the discharge of necessary duties, in the one ease at the desire of the Bishop, and in the other where there was a clear and undoubted case of mental incapacity. That object seemed to him very desirable, and he had no doubt that their Lordships might make this in Committee a valuable measure.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that the various suggestions which their Lordships had made should be taken into serious consideration before the Bill went into Committee. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) had mentioned that the Dean and Chapter, being regarded as the guardians of the spiritualities, were the proper persons to make the representation. But the Dean and Chapter were not to be regarded as the guardians of the spiritualities except in the case of Archbishops' sees. The Archbishop was the guardian of the spiritualities in other cases, and therefore this Bill, as regarded incapacity, followed the prece-
  1748
  dent of chap. 62 of the 6th and 7th of the Queen. He himself thought there was an incongruity in a Bishop appointed coadjutor exercising metropolitical jurisdiction, and a provision to remedy that would be introduced in Committee. He trusted that it was only the first part of the Bill that would really have to be put into operation, and he would take that opportunity of saying that he could not but believe that as soon as the Houses of Parliament should have provided proper means to enable Bishops afflicted with physical infirmities to retire there would be no hesitation on the part of the persons incapacitated from availing themselves of the arrangements which should be made. From the correspondence which he had had with the right rev. Prelates who were so afflicted, he knew that their position was very painful to themselves, and he could not but believe that they would be very thankful to their Lordships and the other House of Parliament if they should put it within their reach to do what he was sure they were very anxious to do—namely, to commit their sees to more vigorous hands.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
CHARITY COMMISSIONERS BILL.

  (NO. 170.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to remove some difficulties which had occurred in the administration of charitable trusts, in consequence of certain formalities which were required to be observed, and which, while not serving any useful purpose, gave rise from time to time to serious inconvenience, the omission of them having thrown a doubt on the validity of orders which the Commissioners had made. The Bill in all the earlier parts of it dealt with the removal of difficulties of that description, and gave the Commissioners powers to discharge their own orders on the discovery of any irregularity in them. The 9th clause empowered the Commissioners to

  1749
  authorize those administering any charity to employ competent persons to frame a scheme or make inquiries under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 to 1869, and to pay those so employed. The 10th clause provided that a petition to the Court of Chancery under the 8th section of the Charitable Trusts Act—1860—must be presented in all cases by the same persons only as the existing law provided in the case of charities of which the annual income did not exceed £50—namely, the Attorney General and the trustees managing a trust. It might be a question for discussion in Committee whether a simple majority instead of two-thirds of the trustees administering a charity should be able to decide on the sale or exchange of any property held by them in trust. Other clauses facilitated the placing of charities under the Commissioners, for the jealousy with which these functionaries were originally regarded had recently disappeared, and all classes, including the representatives of Dissenting bodies, were anxious to avail themselves of the services of the Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYwas understood to recommend some slight Amendment of Clause 9.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SPECIAL BAILS BILL—(No. 166.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SPECIAL BAILS BILL—(No. 166.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had had considerable inquiry made into the matter, and he was satisfied that it was necessary a Bill of this kind should be passed. It had not been introduced into the other House by the Government, but the able Master of the Court of Exchequer had been requested to examine it carefully, and he reported that the grievance sought to be redressed was a real one. By an Act of Charles II., and another of William III., no person was allowed to be appointed to take special bail in the country who was an attorney or a solicitor. This might be proper at one time, but now, in consequence of changes in the
  1750
  law, the cases of special bail were so few that it was not worth any person's while to take the office who was not an attorney or solicitor, and no one was appointed; so that in the few cases where special bail was required persons were put to the inconvenience of coming up to London for the purpose. The Bill empowered anyone authorized to administer an oath, whether he was a solicitor or not, provided he were not interested in the matter, to take special bail.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

ASSESSED RATES BILL—(No. 174.)
(The Lord Privy Seal)
ASSESSED RATES BILL—(No. 174.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was rendered necessary by the great inconvenience which had resulted from the abolition of composition for rates by a clause in the Representation of the People Act of 1867. Some idea might be formed of the inconvenience occasioned when it was stated that in nine boroughs 87,500 summonses for non-payment of rates had been issued. Before the Act passed composition was in force in no fewer than 171 boroughs, and the operation of the Act was felt to be a great hardship by the occupiers of small tenements, who paid rent weekly, because they were called upon to pay in advance a rate which exceeded in amount the rent due, while they were liable to be turned out at a week's notice. Under this Bill an occupier would not be called upon to pay a rate exceeding in amount the rent due to the landlord, and it was provided that they might deduct the rate so paid from the rent. The main object of the Bill was to reverse what was done by the clause in the Reform Act in depriving a large number of persons of the Parliamentary franchise. The Bill repealed the Small Tenements Act, and made composition possible throughout the country upon terms which were prescribed. In one case the occupier might pay the rate and deduct it from the landlord's rent; in a second the landlord would agree with the overseers, and would pay the rates; in which

  1751
  case he would get an allowance of 5 per cent; and in a third, the vestry might impose upon owners the obligation of paying the rates, and allow them a deduction of 15 per cent. In short, the Bill restored the power of compounding, and enabled it to be made universal throughout the country.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Privy Seal)
  LORD DENMANwas understood to say it had been represented to him that in the north-west part of England owners of property rated for their tenants had coerced them in voting.
  EARL GREYsaid, he did not wish to offer any opposition to the Bill, but could not allow the second reading to pass without pointing out that the necessity for introducing it afforded a striking example of the inconvenience and mischief which arose from political parties pursuing a course for a temporary object. Two years ago, when this subject occupied attention, they were told that the security for the due exercise of the franchise was to be the personal payment of rates by those to whom it was granted. It was this that was to make the new extension of the franchise perfectly safe. In the discussion of the Reform Bill it was found that difficulties arose in applying this principle, and Parliament, in order to get rid of them, proceeded at once, without discussion and without consideration, to cut the Gordian knot by simply resolving that the whole system of compounding for rates should be put an end to. The then Government proposed this, and the Opposition, not to be left behind, said—"This is all we want; we approve entirely of what you propose to do—abolish compounding." It was in vain that persons from London and various parts of the country waited upon the then Leaders of the Opposition, as they had previously waited on Ministers, and pointed out to them the ill consequences which would result from such a measure. They were told—"Perhaps inconvenience may arise, but the political object for which the change is proposed is so important that we cannot resist the abolition of the compound-householder." When the Bill came up to this House he ventured to oppose the clause for the abolition of compounding, but his Motion for omitting it was resisted both by the Government and the
  1752
  Opposition. The inconvenience that had resulted from this change in the law of rating, thus recklessly made for a political object, had proved as he anticipated so great that, after much inquiry and consideration, it was now found necessary to restore compounding in some form; and this Bill was brought before them for that purpose. The result will be that when it is passed the imagined security of personal rating for the due exercise of the franchise will disappear altogether, and we shall have an extended franchise without any check of the kind. The inconvenience which arose from the abolition of compounding, exactly as he expected, had proved so intolerable—so great had been the hardship inflicted upon the smaller class of occupiers—that it was quite impossible to allow matters to remain as they were. An inquiry was consequently held, and they now came by a roundabout and inconvenient method to the old system, though the mode in which it was restored had made it less convenient than it was previously. Practical experience of the personal payment of rates had shown that the whole thing was a mockery and a delusion. Both parties had advocated it; the change was made purely for party and political purposes, and those purposes having been served they were now obliged to return to the old system.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he felt really bound to condole with his noble Friend (Earl Grey) at his finding no opportunity for objecting to this Bill. He should, however, be pleased if his noble Friend would be accurate in his statement of facts, because it was well known that Mr. Gladstone, then the Leader of the Opposition, opposed, in the strongest possible manner, the clause putting an end to compounding. In that opposition he did not receive the support which he might have expected; and. the inference that he (Earl Granville) drew from this was that it would be better for parties who were agreed in the main to act together than for small sections to unite with other parties in order to secure some particular object.
  EARL GREYwas understood to maintain the correctness of his own version.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SCOTCH SALMON FISHERY ACT, 1862.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ABINGER, in asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether they intended to introduce any Bill to further amend the Scotch Salmon Fishery Act of 1862?—said that, though the clauses of that Act were good, the Act itself was inoperative, owing to the absence of proper inspection and adequate means of carrying out its provisions.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYreplied that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send two inspectors into Scotland in the autumn to inquire into the subject. The inspectors would, of course, prepare a Report, and by that Report the course of Her Majesty's Government would be guided. Until that Report had been furnished it would be impossible for the Government to say whether they would introduce any legislation upon the subject; and if they did, whether it would assume the form of a comprehensive measure, embracing the whole of Scotland, or whether exceptional provisions would be introduced with regard to certain rivers.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne, for the augmentation of the maintenance of the poor Clergy, to grant superannuation allowances to officers and clerks employed in their service—Was presented by The LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 185.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.