Sitting of 14 March 1876

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Referees on Private Bills, The O'Conor Don disch., Mr. Butt added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—Resolution [March 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Marine Mutiny*.
Ordered—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) * [106].
Committee—Report—Manchester Post Office (re-comm.) * [100].

PARLIAMENT—EAST SUFFOLK ELECTION.—QUESTION.
MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a correspondence published in the "Suffolk Chronicle" of March 7th, between Lord John Hervey and the Lord Lieutenant of the county (the Earl of Stradbroke), arising out of a complaint made by the former that he had seen a magistrate for the county taking an active part in mobbing, pelting, and attempting to hustle out of the Exchange Mr. Easton (at that time a candidate for the representation of East Suffolk) and his friends, in a manner which might easily have led to a serious breach of the peace; whether he remarked the following passage in the letter of the Lord Lieutenant, dated February 26th:—
"The Conservatives were annoyed at finding themselves opposed by a Berkshire attorney who, it is supposed, is still land agent to Sir F. Goldsmid, and whose father was land agent to the Duke of Wellington, and received from his Grace a pension till he died, instead of meeting in open battle a representative of the Waveney interest, or of some great landed proprietor. The result of the late contest never admitted of a doubt; and it is pretty well known who paid Mr. Easton's expenses;"
and, if the letter is authentic, whether the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It is certainly wonderful the amount of things to which my attention is supposed to be called. Though I have no objection to answer a Question which is fairly put, I have the strongest objection to answer a Question which only represents half the case. As the hon. Member has thought fit to call the attention of the House and
2010
the country to the last paragraph of a certain letter, I cannot help saying that it is a pity he did not call the attention of the House and the country to the former paragraph of the same letter. The Lord Lieutenant, in writing to Lord John Hervey—and writing in the first instance more in the character of a friend than as the Lord Lieutenant writing to a person who had complained to him—says—
"No doubt it would have boon wise if Major Whitbread had endeavoured to appease the excited feelings of the company. You accuse him of encouraging them. He replies that he pushed and was pushed against, and that you also had pushed. I have in the course of my life been placed in the same disagreeable position, and if a man is pushed down he may be dangerously trampled upon."
He then expresses a view which I am bound to say I think is a very sound one. He says—"Surely, under these circumstances, it would be best to forget the whole transaction." Having thus dealt with the case complained of, the last paragraph might have been treated as irrelevant to the subject, and as coming from an old gentleman who had long known the person who had written to him, and who replied in a friendly spirit.

BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.—QUESTION.
SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he proposes this Session to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to the enlargement or alteration of the boundaries of Municipal Boroughs, with the view of enabling them to be enlarged or altered for all purposes by Provisional Order, subject to confirmation by Parliament, in the same manner that the boundaries of certain urban sanitary districts may now be extended or altered?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government to deal with this question with the view of enabling the boundaries to be enlarged or altered by Provisional Orders. There was a great difference between enlarging the boundaries of urban sanitary districts and enlarging the boundaries of municipal boroughs. The boundaries of municipal boroughs were settled by a regular Commission, and they must take care that they did

2011
not interfere with, the Parliamentary-representation of the boroughs simply by Provisional Order.

THE SUEZ CANAL.—QUESTION,
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the negotiations between Colonel Stokes and M. de Lesseps relative to the future management of the Suez Canal have arrived at the stage at which they can be communicated to Parliament; and, whether, before any arrangement is finally concluded on the subject, Parliament will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon; and whether such opportunity will be given to the House before the proposals are laid before the general meeting of the shareholders of the Canal?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the Question was not, on the face of it, perfectly clear as to what negotiations the hon. Member referred to; but he concluded that he referred to the arrangements for the representation of British interests upon the Canal Company. He did not think it was advantageous that the details of such negotiations and arrangements should be made the subject of discussion in Parliament before they were laid before the shareholders.

CRIMINAL LAW—WIFE DESERTION—CASE OF GEORGE WARRINGTON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that at the Salford Hundred Sessions lately held George Warrington, a clerk, thirty-three years of age, was ordered to be flogged for leaving his wife and children chargeable to the Salford Union; and, whether the sentence has been carried into effect; and, if not, whether he will direct it to be commuted?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, it was quite true that the person in question was brought before the Quarter Sessions, charged with deserting his wife and children, and as an "incorrigible rogue." He had been several times convicted for other matters, and four times within the last three years had been sentenced, for neglecting his wife and children, to one month, to two
  2012
  months, again to one month, and, lastly, to four months' imprisonment. He was, therefore, sentenced at Quarter Sessions as an incorrigible rogue and vagabond. It was right to state that on his last conviction one of the magistrates had actually made a place for him, and given him fair wages for his work. Shortly after he left his work, and committed the offence for which he had been convicted. The magistrate who tried him was a barrister of long standing, of the highest character, and of very great experience.

BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION (IRELAND),—QUESTION.
MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government will be prepared to introduce into the Irish Judicature Bill or the Civil Bill Courts Bill this Session provisions to meet the wants of the commercial community of the north of Ireland of a Local Bankruptcy Jurisdiction?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The Lord Chancellor of Ireland and I have this afternoon received two important deputations from Belfast, and both with regard to local bankruptcy jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor informed those deputations that, having regard to the importance and number of the Irish legal measures already introduced by the Government, or shortly to be introduced; to the difficulties of instituting those local jurisdictions; and to the fact that other amendments in the Bankruptcy Law had been suggested, the Government did not feel in a position to deal with this matter during the present Session.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAIMED DISTRICTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return setting forth the Counties or other Districts of Ireland which lay under the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant on the 1st day of March last, and specifying those which remained subject to proclamation on the first instant?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The hon. Member will find in Return No. 231 of the Session of 1874 information showing the districts in Ireland proclaimed at that time. Since March 1, 1875, the ordinary proclamations have been revoked in the counties of Carlow, Wexford, Kildare, Wicklow, parts of Fermanagh and Down, and the special proclamations which were in force in Meath, Westmeath, parts of Cavan and Clare, expired on the 1st of June last, with the expiry of that portion of the old Peace Preservation Act which empowered them to be issued.

THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. BELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Commission appointed to inquire into the propriety of altering the Bankruptcy Laws have presented a Report, and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose taking in reference to this question?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, no Commission had been appointed to inquire into the propriety of altering the Bankruptcy Laws. A small Departmental Committee had been appointed by the Lord Chancellor to inquire into certain points in those laws, and a Bill to carry out the views of that Committee would be introduced as soon as the progress of Public Business would permit.

THE ROYAL STYLE AND TITLE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the policy of changing the style and title of the Crown, in the manner recommended by Her Majesty's Government, has been submitted for consideration and advice to the Governor General of India in Council or to the Council of India, so far as such change may affect both the subjects within Her Majesty's territories in India, and also the rights, dignity, and honour of the Native Princes of India as guaranteed to them by the Proclamation of November 1st, 1858?
  MR. DISRAELI: "So far as such change," as the hon. and learned Gentleman terms what we call an addition to the title of Her Majesty, "may affect both the subjects within Her Majesty's territories in India, and also the rights,
  2014
  dignity, and honour of the Native Princes of India as guaranteed to them by the Proclamation of November 1st, 1858," I have to state that it has not been found necessary to submit that question "for consideration and advice to the Governor General of India in Council or to the Council of India," because Her Majesty's Ministers are convinced that the addition to Her Majesty's title which the hon. and learned Gentleman calls "change" does not in the least affect "the subjects within Her Majesty' sterritories in India" nor "the rights, dignity, and honour of the Native Princes of India as guaranteed to them by the Proclamation of November 1st, 1858."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTgave Notice that he would to-morrow move an Address to the Crown, praying that a list might be communicated to that House of the Native Princes of India with whom Her Majesty had Treaties now in force.

JAPAN AND COREA—DISPUTE BETWEEN COREA AND JAPAN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Japan has declared war against the tributary kingdom of Corea; and, whether any telegrams have been received by the Foreign Office from which the attitude of China towards Japan may be judged?
  MR. BOURKE: I have observed in The Times one or two telegrams on this subject, and yesterday a telegram purporting to be dated from St. Petersburg on the 10th month. That telegram said—
  "According to information derived from Government circles, war broke out the day before yesterday between Japan and Corea. Japan declared war, and the Corean ports are said to be blockaded by the Japanese fleet."
  Now, "the day before yesterday" was the 8th, and according to a telegram which has been received at the Foreign Office from Her Majesty's Legation in Japan, dated the 8th, we hear that negotiations between Japan and Corea were concluded, and a Treaty was signed on February 27 which had been ratified by the King of Corea—so that the information we possess is exactly the reverse

  2015
  of that contained in the telegram to The Times. These are the facts as we receive them, and of course I do not give an opinion as to which telegram is correct, although I hope that the official information we have is substantially true. With regard to the last Question, in respect of the attitude of China, I may say that we have a telegram from Pekin, and we hear that a Japanese mission had arrived at Pekin on the subject of Corea, and that the Chinese Government had informed the mission that they did not intend to take any part in the dispute between Corea and Japan.

ARMY—GARRISON OF DUBLIN—TYPHOID FEVER.—QUESTION.
MR. CLIVEasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether it is true that there are many cases of typhoid fever in the Garrison of Dublin; and, if so, whether any and what barracks in that city are free from the said fever?
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: The returns I have received from Dublin show that there have been six cases of typhoid fever in Dublin barracks. There is one case in the Pigeon House Barracks, four at Beggar's Bush, and one at Island Bridge Barracks—in all six cases. I know of no other case of fever in the garrison of Dublin.

IRISH ANTE-UNION STATUTES.

  QUESTION.
  MR LAWasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill this Session for the revision of the Ante-Union Statutes of Ireland?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET): It is the intention of the Government, as soon as conveniently may be, to effect the revision of the Irish Ante-Union statutes; but, having regard to other more important legal Bills which we have already on hand, I cannot yet undertake to say that we shall during the present Session introduce such a measure as my right hon. and learned Friend suggests.

EQUITY COURTS (IRELAND)—LORD JUSTICE CHRISTIAN.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. LAWasked the indulgence of the House while he made an explanation
  2016
  with respect to a statement made by the Prime Minister on the previous evening as to the part which he (Mr. Law) had taken with reference to the appointment of a second Judge in the Landed Estates Court in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said that the Government had appointed a second Judge in that Court owing to a very strong expression of opinion in that House, and that he (Mr. Law) and his hon. Fiend the Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had both spoken in favour of the adoption of that course. So far as he was concerned, that statement was not correct, for he had taken no part whatever in the discussions on the subject save this, that when during the debate on the second reading of the Irish Judicature Bill in July, 1874, reflections were made on the late Government for not appointing a second Judge of the Landed Estates Court he (Mr. Law) had stated, as was the fact, that they had not appointed a second Judge because they had been informed by the surviving Judge that no such appointment was necessary. Now, he did not think that by any stretch of imagination this observation could be regarded as putting any pressure on the Government to appoint a second Judge. The only connection, indeed, which he could be said to have had with the matter was that on the 8th of July, 1874, when he was informed that the Government had determined to make the appointment, he announced it to be his intention to place a Notice on the Paper to amend the Bill then under discussion by transferring to the Landed Estates Court certain business connected with the office of the Receiver Master. It was a mistake to suppose that he had ever tendered such advice as that attributed to him by the right hon. Gentleman, and he was desirous of relieving himself from the charge of inconsistency which such a statement involved.
  MR DISRAELI: Perhaps the House will allow me, without formally moving the adjournment, to say a few words, and to give my authority for the statement which I made. I was under the impression that we were urged by several Gentlemen, some of whom sat opposite, to revive the second Judgeship in the Landed Estates Court, and I did mention the name of the hon. Member for

  2017
  Cork (Mr. Downing). The Bill passed the House of Lords with only one Judge; but when it had been read a second time in this House and was in Committee Mr. Downing gave Notice of an Amendment to the effect that there should be a second Judge. The right hon. and learned Member for Londonderry who has just addressed the House gave Notice that in case that Amendment were carried he should propose that the jurisdiction of the Receiver at the same time the proposal of the right hon. and learned Member. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Kirk), were also in favour of that change, and I considered that I was justified in making the statement I did when I observed that the hon. Member for Cork proposed an absolute Amendment to the effect I have stated, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the late Attorney General for Ireland, contingently upon that Amendment being adopted, gave Notice of a proposal which could not be carried out unless a second Judge were appointed.
  DR. WARDgave Notice that he would put a Question to the Government as to whether it was true that Judge Flanagan, who for some time was the sole Judge of the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, had stated that one Judge was sufficient to discharge the duties of the Court, and that he himself was quite equal to their performance.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would further ask whether that statement on the part of the Judge was not accompanied by the suggestion that his salary should be increased by £1,000 a-year.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. CLARE READ, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act Committee, 1873, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the general orders and regulations for the stoppage of
  2018
  disease should cease to be varying or permissive, and should be uniform throughout Great Britain and Ireland,"
  said, it would be in the recollection of those hon. Members who had a seat in the House during the last Parliament, that in the year 1873 he moved for a Committee, and that by the courtesy and support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that Committee was granted. He (Mr. Bead) had nothing to do with the nomination of that Committee. As usual, it was appointed by the Whips on both sides of the House, and he found himself in rather a hopeless minority. But there were two very important Resolutions which were passed unanimously by that Committee. There were only two, and those were to his mind of great moment. They were, first—
  "That an endeavour should be made to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia by the slaughter of diseased cattle, and that the owners should be compensated for their loss,"
  and the other was—
  "That the orders for the stopping of disease should cease to be varying and permissive, and should be uniform throughout Great Britain and Ireland."
  Now, no sooner was the Report of that Committee published, than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford issued an order for the slaughtering of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia in Great Britain, and the compensation of the owners of half their value. He had said, on a previous occasion, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had acted in a "great hurry." He had since been given to understand that that expression had caused pain to the right hon. Gentleman. This being so he desired to withdraw those words, and he would say instead the order was issued without full consideration. There were four recommendations upon this point made by the Committee; but of these the right hon. Gentleman adopted only one. One recommendation was that the slaughtering should be universal; but as would be seen Ireland was omitted from the order. The next was that compensation should be extended to three-fourths of the loss. The other was that animals should be isolated for two months instead of one month. Well, he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying that

  2019
  it was his intention to remedy these deficiencies if he had remained in office. But shortly afterwards that Government went out and the present Ministry assumed power, and great was the delight of the English farmers when they knew that the Duke of Richmond was to be President of the Council. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, very great was the delight of the farmers, because they knew his Grace was a practical agriculturist, a man of unusual good sound common sense, and a politician of a high order. But things seemed to go on in the same way after the change of Ministry. In the month of May it was considered necessary that a friendly deputation should wait upon his Grace and impress upon him the necessity of carrying out some of the recommendations of the Committee. He (Mr. Read) made one of that deputation, and urged upon his Grace that the slaughter for pleuro-pneumonia should be. extended to Ireland, or if that could not be done, that the order in force in Great Britain should be rescinded. They were told, however, that it was almost impossible to do what they wished. There was the spectre of the emaciated Irish cow, which seemed to frighten the' Council and was held up to frighten them. They, however did not see the spectre in that light. The result was that constant Petitions were sent up to the Privy Council asking them to ex-tend the order or to rescind it. Amongst others, two were sent from the quarter sessions in Norfolk, and an eminent veterinary surgeon, Mr. William Chambers, from the Privy Council at Dublin, was appointed to investigate the matter. He made a Report which went to show that their complaint had not been groundless. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had asked in the House for Mr. Chambers Report, and he was told that he could not have it unless he also wished to order a Report which had been made by the Chief of the Dublin Veterinary Department. In the Report referred to, Professor Ferguson said there was really no pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland of any consequence, and that as regarded the disease in Norfolk, it was engendered in consequence of cattle being housed in the winter, and kept in boxes and strawyards. Now, Professor Ferguson, he believed, held the opinion that pleuro-pneumonia originated spontaneously, and he had also advised that
  2020
  when foot-and-mouth disease broke out in a herd that was just ready for market, the best thing to do was to keep the animals at home that were actually diseased, and send the others to the next market. And what did that mean but most probably sending them to England? On the first day of the Session, he (Mr. Clare Read) laid upon the Table of the House a Resolution, which was to the effect that this slaughtering order should be extended to Ireland or rescinded. A very few days after that Notice was put upon the Paper, the Duke of Richmond, in "anotherplace," stated that the request would be granted. He (Mr. Read) therefore had to withdraw that Resolution and he did it with a great deal of pleasure, and he was only sorry that it took two years to produce such an effect upon his Grace. The Government sought to accomplish this with a small Bill of 12 clauses, which one would have thought could have passed in March, 1874, as well as in March, 1876. He (Mr. Read) had then to alter the Motion which stood in his name, and it was to the effect that there should be uniformity of regulations throughout the United Kingdom. There were three sorts of orders issued by the Privy Council, and he only wished to interfere with one. As far as regarded their local and foreign orders, he had no desire to say anything against them at the present moment, and if they wanted to issue special orders he should be very glad to trust them with even greater powers. If, for instance, a new disease should break out in "Wiltshire—and it was within the bounds of possibility for such a thing to take place—they should have powers to issue stringent orders for the stoppage of that disease; and, again, if a cattle plague were to be introduced into Hull, they should have powers to issue an order stopping fairs and markets in the East Riding of Yorkshire, without applying to the whole of the county. They were told that this was the Irish difficulty again, that somehow always cropped up, but here it seemed to be more imaginary than real. The Irish Cattle Defence Association had passed the following resolution:—
  "That it is most desirable that the regulations with regard to contagious diseases in animals should he uniform in Great Britain and Ireland."
  He presumed, therefore, that this matter

  2021
  would not be looked upon as an Irish difficulty, and that his Motion would have the support of the Irish Members opposite. His opinion would always be considered that of a narrow-minded farmer, and that he was peculiarly prejudiced in this matter: he would, therefore, refrain from giving his own views, but would quote those of wider and greater authority. A few days ago an eminent veterinary surgeon connected with the Royal Engineers, Mr. Fleming, read at the Society of Arts a most exhaustive paper upon contagious diseases amongst cattle, and this was what he said—
  "We require a more energetic, responsible, enlightened, and efficient central administration. There should he no permissive legislation for the control of contagious diseases by local authorities, who often have no interest in their exclusion and suppression, but more frequently have every inducement to wink at their existence, in order that they may obtain credit for keeping down county rates and filling their markets. Whatever measures may be necessary should be universally applied throughout Great Britain and Ireland, and, if possible, with more vigour to those parts which export."
  What had the Privy Council done to carry out this recommendation of the Committee of 1873? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford at once adopted the recommendations and rescinded the orders then in force; but the Duke of Richmond, in 1874, re-enacted them, because considerable pressure was put upon him by owners of stock. The reason that was given in the Report of the Veterinary Department was, he thought, singularly illogical. It was said that it was in consequence of the general prevalence of the disease that they issued the orders. It might be useful on the first outbreak of a conflagration to bring out a garden engine, or to use it to smother the dying embers; but it would be powerless when the fire was at its height. So when the whole country was reeking with infection, and when there were not only thousands, but tens of thousands of local outbreaks, it was absolutely ridiculous to suppose that these permissive orders would have the effect of stamping out the disease. When asked by the Monmouthshire Chamber of Agriculture to make some more stringent regulations, the answer given by the Privy Council was in entire forgetfulness of the fact that they had disregarded the recommendations
  2022
  referred to, and that they had re-enacted orders that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had rescinded. He would quote from a scientific record, which said the policy of the Veterinary Department "was vacillating, timid, half-hearted, timeserving, and contradictory," and he might add that he endorsed that view. Further, he would add that the Veterinary Department seemed to imagine that they could extirpate disease as easily as the Turnpike Act Continuance Committee could abolish a turnpike trust. Speaking of the Act of 1869, Mr. James Howard, in a sound and most useful practical paper read last month at the Farmers' Club, said—
  "Its great defect was that it left too much power in the hands of the Privy Council Department. At all events, I am sure you will concur with me that the powers given under the Act have not been as wisely used as they might have been, or as Parliament had a right to expect."
  Mr. Howard continued thus—
  "The present Government would seem to have left themselves completely in the hands of their intractable and incompetent permanent officials."
  Now, in the Committee they had strong evidence from the officials of the Department that they had at least one article of faith, which was faith in inspection;—inspection to discover diseases which everybody admitted had an uncertain period of incubation, varying from a few days to several months. On this matter, Mr. Fleming said—
  "I have no faith in port inspection for the detection of contagious diseases, and am convinced that it is a fallacy. It is impossible for any Inspector to detect diseases in a latent form, or to discover if apparently healthy animals have herded with those which were sick; and unless he can do this, in a very many instances his services must be worse than useless."
  Since the Report of the Committee it might be asked what had the Veterinary Department done to enlighten them and to stop the spread of the disease? Why, in their last Report they published an experiment made outside the office by a veterinary surgeon, not an official, upon inoculation for pleuro-pneumonia. He fancied he had read that months previously in a veterinary journal. The Professor came to the remarkable conclusion that inoculation was "dubious," and so he thought were a great many

  2023
  things that were issued from that Department. In a special Order issued from the Department the authorities throughout the kingdom were told how they might detect the incubation of the disease by the application of the thermometer. But in 1865 Professor Gamgee had written to The Times making this matter quite clear. Well, if this was all they could tell them 10 years after that letter had appeared in The Times on the subject, he might answer by saying it was impracticable, for the reason that whatever they might be able to do in a London dairy where the cows were as docile as pet lambs, it would be more difficult to carry out this scientific examination under other circumstances. He would like to see some Members of the Council go into a marsh where there were a lot of wild Irish cattle, or even into a straw yard with some lively shorthorns, to apply this scientific test. He admitted that they had been fairly successful in keeping out the cattle plague, and he mentioned it with much pleasure. From 1842, when foreign cattle were first admitted into the country, up to 1865, they had had only one outbreak, and since then—within the last 10 years—they had had only one other visitation. In 1865 there was a Cattle Plague Commission appointed. It was not selected with any idea of balancing parties, but seemed to be chosen for the purpose of ascertaining truth. There were on that Committee the right hon. Members for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) and Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), and a large number of scientific men, well versed in the practice of medicine and the pathology of diseases. And he could well remember the storm of indignation with which their first Report was received. Some people called the Commissioners barbarous and unscientific, and contended that the disease had originated from the filth and the want of sanitary precautions in the London cow-houses. The cattle plague was stamped out by listening to the recommendations, pleuro-pneumonia was almost got rid of, and for 18 months they exterminated foot-and-mouth disease—it was not until foreign sheep were turned out of the Metropolitan Market suffering from that malady that there was a return of it in the country. The second Report of the Commission was one which, if it had been attended to
  2024
  at the time, would, he was convinced, have led to their now having a clean bill of health. The second Report was that—
  "Mere inspection is an imperfect defence. There is, in fact, but one class of precautions likely to be effectual: to restrict importations absolutely to a certain number of ports, to cause all fat cattle to be slaughtered there, and all store cattle to undergo a period of quarantine."
  This was not a resolution passed by a Chamber of Agriculture or a Farmers' Club, but by the Royal Commissioners, the great body of whom were scientific and learned men. The Select Committee of 1873 learned from the evidence of officials that they depended very much for their information as to cattle diseases in other countries upon official correspondence. With regard to cattle plague this was easy enough, because as any one who read the foreign newspapers would know that the regulations in different districts were published, but let them come nearer home and see what information the Veterinary Department received with regard to these two diseases—pleuro-pneumonia and the foot-and-mouth. Take Belgium and Holland. Everyone but the Privy Council knew that the foot-and-mouth disease was rampant in those countries during the year 1874—not a word of this reached the Department, and yet we had imported 342 cases from Belgium and 418 from Holland. Pleuro-pneumonia was rife in the latter country, and there were annually no fewer than from 2,000 to 6,000 cases in 1,500,000 head of cattle. Belgium and Holland were only separated by a road or a ditch, and yet no Report was furnished to this country as to any pleuro-pneumonia existing in Belgium. Germany was in a better position and was well informed, and had prohibited cattle imported from Holland, Belgium, and Luxemburg. What he wanted to ask the House was this—was it fair, was it right to the agriculturists of the kingdom, that if they were going to make a costly experiment—a harassing experiment also he should call it, for the extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia—was it just to them to neglect to take reasonable precautions against the re-introduction of the disease into the country? What were the precautions and the protection now adopted? Simply this; a

  2025
  detention of 12 hours to find out a disease that veterinary surgeons told them was in incubation from three weeks to two months. It was impossible, therefore, that the disease could be detected in the time allowed, except by the merest accident. He had moved in the Committee, that if this experiment was to be tried, all those countries where pleuro-pneu-monia was in existence should be scheduled; but he was defeated by a majority of one. If necessary, in the ease of Dutch cows, he considered that they should be quarantined 28 days, and inoculated. The best London dairies always adopted that plan, they never thought of taking them into the stalls without they had been quarantined and inoculated. Therefore, he would say, it would be no hardship if this course he advocated were made general and compulsory. Then with regard to store stock, it was well known that very few stores found their way into this country, unless they were starved out on the Continent. On the Committee they had before them some evidence as to the percentage of the foreign supply. Some years ago he made a sort of random shot—a rough guess that it was not more than 5 per cent. The Veterinary Department, in 1871, made a calculation that brought it to 14½ per cent, but he saw that last year they had reduced it to 10 per cent; but he much preferred the more accurate calculation made by Mr. John Algernon Clarke. That gentleman had said that the percentage of live meat introduced into the country was 5 per cent, that of dead meat 12 per cent, and the home production of meat 83 per cent. And yet for the sake of this 5 per cent, the 83 per cent that was produced at home was constantly in danger. The supply of foreign cattle was mainly to London, and he would ask the House to consider what were the regulations in force in the metropolis. When the Deptford Market was opened, the tolls at Islington were doubled. Deptford, though a most excellent market, had no railroad accommodation, and it must be almost impossible that the cattle slaughtered there could be sent into the provinces and manufacturing towns without some extra cost and considerable delay. And then with regard to the foreign trade; most people knew what the regulations were—that if one animal from an unscheduled country happened
  2026
  to be diseased, the whole of that cargo was to be sent to Deptford Market, so that when the cattle had been landed on the North side of the river, and one was found diseased, the whole had to be re-shipped and sent to Deptford, and this was a matter of serious complaint. Mr. G. A. Robinson, who was a large dealer in cattle, and likewise a considerable shipowner, had said that in the case of even Spanish and Portuguese cattle it would be better if they went direct to Deptford. If any hon. Gentleman would go into the Metropolitan Market at Islington, any Monday, they would see whole lots of foreign stock which were there bought by butchers from Deptford. These cattle had been landed on the North side of the Thames, and were detained there 12 hours in most uncomfortable lairs. They then had to walk, or were sent by rail to the Metropolitan Market, and after being there some time, they were put into lairs, and taken back through the crowded streets of the metropolis to Deptford Market, within half-a-mile, in all probability, of the place where they were landed. With regard to the carriage of dead meat, it was very desirable, indeed, that every facility should be given for its extension, both on sanitary grounds and in the cause of humanity. If Aberdeen could furnish a supply at a distance of 540 miles, there was no part of England from which meat could not be sent to the metropolis; and he was happy to say the supply was increasing. During the cattle plague restrictions it was generally supposed that some of the Midland Counties would be starved; but they were never better supplied than at that time, and he had heard from Mr. Odams that from his wharf dead carcases were forwarded to Manchester at less cost than live animals. Once more he would quote Mr. Fleming—
  "Animals fit for immediate slaughter should, if they must he carried alive to our shores, be killed at the port of debarkation. There need be little difficulty in this. No country in the world is better situated for the carrying out of such a proposal. With numerous excellent ports studded in most favourable situations all round our coasts, and railways traversing the country in every direction, there is no reason whatever why the present inconvenient, and only too often very cruel system, of conveying ship-exhausted and perhaps diseased cattle long distances in railway trucks all over the land, and at a great risk to home stock, should be continued. To abolish it should tend to cheapen flesh.

  2027
  from foreign sources, diminish the chances of introducing fresh supplies of contagion, and would certainly prove most humane and economical."
  The Bill which was passed last year gave new life to the slaughter-houses in London. Thirty years ago slaughter-houses were condemned by a Bill passed through Parliament by Sir Robert Peel; but a Committee, of which Dr. Brewer was Chairman, was appointed, and they reported that slaughter-houses were most healthy and pleasant places. The result was a Bill was passed for the continuance of these slaughter-houses, whilst in almost every other country, and in some of our provincial towns, they had been abolished. With regard to the regulations for the extinction of pleuro-pneu-nomia, they were not in the first place yet extended to Ireland, though they were to be shortly. Then the isolation of suspected stock was not increased to two months as the Committee had recommended. Further, the compensation for slaughter, which was one-half of the full value, had not been extended to three-quarters of the loss, as the Committee had stated should be the case. With regard to this he might say that some people might contend that three-fourths was too much, but considering that the regulations would be more stringent, and that the cattle would be isolated for two months instead of one, he thought they would find that the compensation would not be too heavy. They should not only pay the absolute loss, but should offer inducements to stockowners to endeavour to give the earliest notice of the outbreak, and so put a stop to disease. He thought another inducement would be to allow the salvage of some of the best beasts slaughtered. A man should be allowed to make as much as he could out of a good beast, and the meat was not unwholesome in the slightest degree during the first stages of pleuro-pneumonia. The disease was then nothing more nor less than inflammation of the lungs, and did not extend to any other portion of the bullock. When the foot-and-mouth disease became much advanced—and this was frequently the case with cattle slaughtered in London—it was believed the condition of the meat to be worse than pleuro-pneumonia if the animal was at once killed. With regard to the compensation and salvage, he would give a
  2028
  few statistics from his own county—namely, Norfolk. In 1874 there were 892 cases of pleuro-pneumonia, and the compensation paid was £4,838, whilst the salvage amounted to £6,675. In 1875 the number of cases was 446, the compensation amounted to £2,282, and the salvage to £3,100. This gave a total amount of salvage of close upon £10,000. They had taken the precaution to have the meat thoroughly examined by gentlemen who were expert in the use of the microscope, by learned doctors and men who had great experience as sanitary Inspectors, and they all pronounced the meat to be perfectly sound and good. But as to the salvage, that he thought was a question which might be very well left to the local authorities because, in his opinion, it had nothing whatever to do with the spread of the disease. The veterinary Professors told us that as soon as the breath was out of a bullock all infection was stayed—therefore, he did not see the use of burying the carcase. The result of the one-sided experiment that they had tried for two years and nine months was not, on the whole, unsatisfactory—for we had admitted over 600,000 cattle from Ireland, where the experiment had not been tried, in 1874—the number affected was 7,740, and last year was 5,860. The Privy Council seemed astonished at a rise of nearly 1,000 in the number between 1873 and 1874; but he was astonished that the number was not larger. Last year the number of cases reported in Ireland was stated to be 281, and he was almost positive that next year the cases in Dublin alone would amount to that number, and throughout Ireland to ten times as many. He had reason to believe that Phoenix Park was hardly ever free from this disease of pleuro-pneumonia. When he was there he noticed the quarantine ground, which they in Norfolk would call a pit-hole. The healthy animals pushed their noses through the fences and sniffed the breath of the sickly beasts, and no doubt in that way communicated the disease. Since this state of things had been noted by the Earl of Kimberley, a second wire fence had been put up some distance from the old fence, and he hoped that was but the beginning of better regulations in Ireland. The hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) had said that he was wrong in supposing that

  2029
  there was much pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland, and he believed there was very little in the South of that country. The cattle that went to the south-western portion of England were shipped from that part of Ireland; but he thought he was right in saying that in the South of Ireland, particularly in Cork, there had been many years ago a considerable outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia. It had been stayed by the slaughter of the diseased animals and the inocculation of those that herded with them; and he would submit to the authorities in Ireland that the excellent experiment which had proved so successful should be tried now. To show the ease with which the disease could be communicated to this country, he would point out that if a bullock in Ireland happened to have pleuro-pneumonia there and was knocked on the head very little injury would arise; but if they shipped it, and the animal was put on board with 300 or 400 others which had to breathe the vitiated air for a number of hours, it was possible that the one animal would spread the disease amongst at least 100 more, and consequently when they came to England the disease might break out in 20 or 30 different places. He had been told that he was an enemy to the Irish farmer. Well, he was not aware that he was, and he certainly did not wish to be. The Cattle Defence Association in Ireland he found had adopted his views entirely, and he would say more to prove that he was not an enemy to the Irish farmer—namely, that in Norfolk they imported from 30,000 to 50,000 store stock during the year, and if that importation was to cease, during the spring months a great many towns in the country would be half starved, and Norfolk farmers would be ruined. He only wished that Ireland might be treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom. If Ireland could show a clean bill of health and her cattle were inspected at the ports of embarkation, he would send them straight away to their destination in England. That was what he had said before, and he hoped Irish Members would not think that he was so wild and unjust to the interests of their country as some had endeavoured to make out. With regard to the difference in the spread of infection by animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia and those suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, it was said that
  2030
  pleuro-pneumonia could only be spread by actual contact, but with regard to the other disease that it could be conveyed by a great many means. It required only a short hatching time it was true; but with regard to the idea that it was an epidemic, was spontaneous and came in the air, he would say that he did not believe that it was any more indigenous to this country than cholera or yellow fever. It was a contagious disorder and therefore was a preventible one. Mr. Fleming said—
  "These maladies are 'exotic' or foreign to our soil, and are, or have been, introduced from countries where they are more or less prevalent. They cannot be developed here by any combination of circumstances or conditions, but depend solely for their maintenance on their contagious properties."
  Then they would ask, "Why don't you try to prevent it?" He feared the country would not stand very stringent regulations. They ought to, and no doubt they would before very long; but at the present time they would not agree to a total stoppage of the fairs and markets, which was the only way to get rid of it. With the existing regulations they had now the maximum of restriction and the minimum of benefit. The hon. Member then proceeded to remark upon the difficulties in the way of putting an end to the disease, offered by the complicated rules, stating that he knew a gentleman who had a farm in three counties, and who had three separate and distinct rules for three different parts of that farm. He was certain these diseases did not originate here; but was also sure of this—that dirt and starvation and foul air, dirty trucks, bad lairs, and overcrowded steamers very much contributed to develop and spread these distempers. Take the case of an Irish fair. They went there and saw healthy, blooming cattle. The beasts stood there all day; were driven hurriedly to the station in the evening; had to stay there in the lairs or pens in all probability for hours, and then were put into trucks which were most likely very far from being clean, and they were then sent to Dublin, the lairs in which they were put being covered with slush and mud for the most part. And here he would say that the lairs ought to be surrounded with sheds properly pitched and carefully cleansed. The animals were then put in the hold of the ship, the ventilation of which must

  2031
  be, from the nature of the case, bad. They were landed at Liverpool, pushed into the train, and sent away, perhaps to Norfolk, and turned into a damp marsh before being brought to market next day. Now, in his opinion, cattle should be rested for the purpose of being fed and watered when landed in England. But on this proposition in the Committee he had only the support of the hon. Member for Leicestershire in what he thought a most humane and reasonable restriction. He was very glad to find that the recommendation of the Committee as to having travelling Inspectors had at last been adopted by the Government. So far these officials had performed their duties effectually and satisfactorily, though he was not aware they did them any better for having been officers in the Army. Proceedings had been instituted against the London and North Western Railway. They had had the General Steam Navigation Company before the Lord Mayor, who had inflicted a considerable fine upon them for a breach of the regulations. Two Companies in Ireland had been warned, and throughout the whole of England the lairs, trucks, and landing places were in a much better state, owing to the exertions of these officials, than they were a few months ago. He wished these travelling Inspectors would do something more. He should like them to come to our fairs and markets, and to see that the local authorities did their duty. If there was not something of this sort, he was afraid that no steps they had taken would be effectual towards the object they desired. The Duke of Richmond, speaking at Chichester, had said that one thing that militated against his (Mr. Bead's) views with respect to Ireland, was the fact that they had so few veterinary surgeons. He found that in England there were 1,700 cattle Inspectors, of which number only 370 were veterinary surgeons. Therefore, he thought if they were to offer greater inducements in Ireland than 10s. a-day, and prevent instant dismissal at the hands of the head of the Department, if he deemed himself offended, the state of things would be materially improved, and veterinary surgeons attracted to Ireland. The Duke of Richmond also mentioned with satisfaction the 400 local authorities in Great Britain, with which he had to deal. He (Mr. Read) contended that this was a
  2032
  great source of weakness. The Committee had thought so too, and had suggested that it was desirable that there should be a fusion of these local authorities in one county Board. He was not aware, however, that any steps had been taken to carry out that important recommendation. Now, with regard to what had been said by certain hon. Members—that the farmers in what they were asking sought to revive protection—he wished to repudiate it most entirely and distinctly, for they regarded protection as dead as Queen Anne. It was the cotton spinner rather than the clodhopper, who would be finding fault with free trade. The cotton spinners complained of an import duty of 5 per cent being put on their goods by the Legislature of India; but how would the Manchester manufacturer like to have a tax of 60 per cent—as in the case of the malt duty—put on their goods when they left their warehouses for home consumption? Why, the farmers were exposed to the competition of the whole world, and they cheerfully accepted it. They had now to contend with growing wheat against the furthermost parts of the earth; but they could hold their own in the production of meat, milk, and butter, and more than hold their own, if their stock were healthy. He would say with regard to Australian meat, that he never heard a farmer complain of that, unless perhaps when asked to eat it. He regarded with satisfaction the importation of American fresh meat, because unless they could go to a cheaper market than New York, that importation could not be a commercial success, and it did dispose of the nonsense that was talked about the transport of dead meat. The last quotation with which he would trouble the House had reference to this very matter, and the views were expressed by a sound Liberal, or, as he had been called, a "thundering Radical." Mr. Howard said—
  "There are few subjects of which I can claim as much knowledge as Mr. Bright; but I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, who is both a political and personal friend, would be the first to acknowledge that upon agricultural and rural subjects, upon the views and the opinions of the agriculturists of England, I have a right to claim as full a knowledge, and even a more intimate acquaintance. I will, therefore, say I deeply regretted that Mr. Bright was tempted to write upon a subject of which he confessed he had but an imperfect knowledge. The other day I saw in a Manchester paper the report of a speech

  2033
  expressing similar views by another friend of mine, Mr. P. Rylands, which was far more offensive than Mr. Bright's letter, because more dogmatical and denunciative. I was sorry to find such a man descanting upon a topic he really knew nothing about."
  This was really no Party question. It belonged to no class, but was a subject of national interest. We were a meat eating nation, and be was perfectly sure of this—that although the loss from these diseases fell, in the first instance, on the farmer, it ultimately recoiled, with increased pressure, on the consumer. Unfortunately, however, when it hit the farmer it too frequently hit a needy man, and very often had the effect of ruining him; for in his case the stock were not so well kept as those of his richer neighbours, and consequently had less chance of withstanding the ravages of the disease; and he had less opportunity also to isolate and protect his stock. He was somewhat inclined to endorse the recommendation to the Duke of Richmond, which had been made that day, that our cattle dealers should take out a licence. He had not the slightest idea when he rose that he should be obliged to occupy so much of the time of the House, and he had to apologize for the great length to which his remarks had extended; but the matter was one of a very complicated nature, and it was also one of great importance. He might also say that he had always found that when a practical man made either a few observations or a great many to that House, they were attentively listened to, whatever the subject might be or however dull the remarks; and further, when a Member really and sincerely believed what he stated, the House was still more tolerant to him. He could also assert that he had, through evil and good report, maintained the opinions he had enunciated that day. What he wanted to see was an alteration in the uncertainty of the regulations on the subject of cattle diseases. No one could be expected to be wise or perhaps sane who talked so much about bullocks; and therefore he supposed that he was unwise, and it might be insane. But this idea applied with cumulative force to the Veterinary Department, and he had no hesitation in saying that the policy of that Department had been unscientific, unpractical, and opposed to reason and common sense. They must get rid of
  2034
  these half-and-half measures, and they must also do away with the idea of making any compromise with these fell diseases. They must insist on having throughout Great Britain and Ireland one treatment and one set of regulations; and as far as regarded the principle of restriction, they must try and prevent the local authorities of England and Scotland from carrying out the Orders in Council at their own whim and caprice. He trusted, therefore, that the House would back him up in this matter by adopting the Resolution he now had the honour to move.
  MR. BEACH, as representing the Central Chamber of Agriculture, rose to second the Motion, but after the exhaustive speech of his hon. Friend it would not be necessary for him to detain the House at any length on the subject. He was, however, anxious to express the deep sense of the injury which had been inflicted by the prevalence of these contagious diseases. It was almost impossible to realize how serious were the losses which owners of stock had sustained. This was not really a matter which affected the farmers only. Their interests and those of the consumers were identical in this matter. If the consumers relied on the amount of meat brought from abroad as the great source of supply in England it might be futile to ask for stringent regulations at home; but it had been demonstrated that the percentage received from abroad formed a small proportion of the meat consumed in England, and a great part of that was dead meat, and therefore unaffected by any disease. The farmers, therefore, were entitled to ask the consumers to join them in asking for measures which would materially increase the amount of the home supply. The various diseases to which cattle were subject had hitherto been dealt with separately. There was little or no difference of opinion as to meeting the cattle plague; but there were different ideas with respect to pleuro-pneumonia. That, however, had made great ravages, and in Hampshire it had even attacked the swine. It was at one time thought that the disease would not attack swine, but most serious losses had been lately sustained amongst those animals. He was glad to find that pleuro-pneumonia was about to be dealt with in Ireland, and be hoped the measures taken would have

  2035
  a salutary effect. But there was another disease from which the farmers suffered greatly—'the foot-and-mouth disease. It could not be called a fatal disease, because most of the animals recovered; but it did an infinity of harm—very much more than was generally supposed. There were cases in which the disease was not fully developed, and its existence was, if possible, concealed; and yet harm was done, because the conversion of cattle into fat stock was delayed for months. It also interfered greatly with the breeding of animals. This year, for instance, in Hampshire the lambing season had been remarkably bad, and the increase much less than the average, which was very much in consequence of the foot-and-mouth disease prevalent in that county. It was true the Committee of 1873 decided that the foot-and-mouth disease need not be dealt with in the same peremptory manner as pleuro-pneumonia; but they said it was impossible to extirpate it without stringent regulations, and they thought it unwise to enact them. That was scarcely a legitimate conclusion. Whatever regulations were adopted they ought to be uniformly enforced throughout the country, for the permissive system had proved a failure. If isolation and prohibition of movement should be adopted the local authorities must act on the same principle, and on the same lines. Inspection hitherto had not been entirely effective. A veterinary surgeon might come and inspect certain stock and find no disease in them. He most likely would be a competent man, but at some stages it was impossible to detect the disease. The stock might thus go to a fair with a certificate of freedom from disease, be purchased and taken home, and then the disease might break out. The seller would be irresponsible for the misfortune which had befallen the purchaser, who would have no remedy. The present regulations were harassing and vexatious without being effective. He hoped that uniform regulations might be drawn up, and that they would have the effect of checking the disease and increasing the meat supply of the country. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the general orders and regulations for the stoppage
  2036
  of Contagious Diseases among Stock should cease to be varying or permissive, and should be uniform throughout Great Britain and Ireland. "—(Mr. Clare Read.)
  MR. O'CONORsaid, that the hon. Member for South Norfolk, in the early portion of his speech, had claimed the votes of Irish Members in favour of his Resolution. Speaking individually as an Irish Member, he could assure his hon. Friend he had no objection to his Motion; and although he appeared there in the character of the Mover of an Amendment, that Amendment was in no way hostile to the spirit or substance of the Motion. Indeed, he thoroughly agreed with the Motion of his hon. Friend, and for three reasons. Firstly, because it was in accordance with one of the Resolutions of the Committee of 1873, of which he (Mr. O'Conor) was a Member; secondly, in consequence of its having been adopted by the Irish Cattle Defence Association; and thirdly, because it appeared to him to be consistent with common sense, and was, in itself, perfectly just and reasonable. It must be admitted that restrictions of any kind on any trade were things to be deprecated unless great good sprung from them. He did not think anyone would maintain that a system of restrictions was good which was left to the caprice of local authorities in every part of the country, and which, therefore, might be put in force in one district and not in another. As far, therefore, as the Resolution of his hon. Friend went, he was quite prepared to support it. He agreed to a very great extent with the remarks made by his hon. Friend, who, whenever he spoke out openly on matters of this kind, would always secure the attention of the House. There was one point, however, on which his hon. Friend had not spoken out very clearly to-night, and respecting which he was equally reticent during the discussion which took place in the Committee, and that was as to what he would really propose to do in regard to the foot-and-mouth disease. It was to that subject his (Mr. O'Conor's) Amendment chiefly referred. A great part of his hon. Friend's speech had been devoted to pleuro-pneumonia. On that subject his hon. Friend knew his own mind and had let no opportunity pass of expressing his opinion. During the whole of the Recess he had kept up an agitation upon that question, and

  2037
  many of them upon both sides of the House regretted that in consequence of that agitation his hon. Friend, instead of now sitting on the Treasury Bench, occupied a seat below the Gangway; but he might congratulate him on the fact that although as a Minister he was unable to accomplish what he desired, still by taking the steps of sacrificing himself and placing himself outside the pale of the privileged individuals, he had at last the satisfaction of seeing conceded that for which he had contended. There was a Bill pending before the House upon the question of the compulsory slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia. It would be out of Order for him to discuss the Bill now; but he hoped the Government would give early and ample opportunity for its discussion. His hon. Friend (Mr. Read) had succeeded in compelling the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Committee in regard to pleuro-pneumonia, and to-night he had gone a step further and asked the House to affirm a Resolution in favour of uniform regulation. He (Mr. O'Conor) would ask the House to go still one step further, and adopt the Resolutions of the Committee of 1873 in their entirety, as well as those referring to the foot-and-mouth disease, as those relating to pleuro-pneumonia. The Committee devoted great attention to that subject, and called a large number of witnesses from all parts of the Kingdom, and ultimately they came to this conclusion—
  "They recommend that the Privy Council should cease to issue Orders for the checking of this disease, but that Section 57 of the English Act, which makes the exposure of animals affected with contagious diseases an offence, should continue to apply to the foot-and-mouth disease."
  Those were the Resolutions which in the terms of his Amendment he asked the House to affirm. The Resolutions of the Committee went on to say that—
  "The owners should he relieved from the necessity of giving notice to the police of the existence of this disease among their stock."
  That latter clause was not in the original draft of the Committee's Report; it was introduced and supported by the hon. Member for South Norfolk, whose vote, therefore, he might fairly claim on this occasion. As, however, it would require an Act of Parliament to carry the latter
  2038
  clause into action, he was prepared to drop that, and to stand by the resolution which was carried unanimously, with only one dissentient, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), who merely dissented because the resolution did not go far enough. The resolutions of the Committee were adopted by the Government of the time, and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), who was at the time Vice President of the Council, took steps to carry them out. Orders were given for the slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia all over England, but it was found almost impossible to extend the Orders to Ireland. The resolution in regard to foot-and-mouth disease was at once put in force, and the Privy Council ceased to issue Orders respecting it. That state of things went on from 1873 until about the middle of 1874. In the interval there had been a change of Ministry, but there had been no alteration in regard to the state of the cattle diseases. When, shortly after, the new Government came into office, however, a different policy was adopted. The recommendations of the Committee were entirely set aside, and things went back to what they were before the appointment of the Committee. A debate on the subject, which did not receive so much attention as it deserved, was raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), and in the debate there was not a single allegation made to show that the carrying out of the policy recommended by the Committee had been injurious to the farmers of England. It was not pretended that the discontinuance of Orders on the subject had in any way increased the foot-and-mouth disease. Indeed, it appeared that the only reason for a change of policy was that there had been a change of Ministry. The Privy Council Orders were put in force again by the new Government, and what had been the result? Had they had the effect of checking the disease in any way? Why, last year there was as virulent an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease as they had ever before. They had those Orders in force during the great outbreak of 1872, and again during the great outbreak of 1875, and yet they failed in any way to stop it, and therefore they must be driven to the conclusion that those Orders were, to a great extent, useless. Those who had sat

  2039
  on the Committee in 1873 knew very well why the Orders were of little use. It was proved before the Committee to he the opinion of the most experienced persons belonging to the Veterinary Department, that nothing short of the most extreme measures could be successful in any way in checking the foot-and-mouth disease. That disease was so easily propagated—not only by the animals themselves, but by anybody or anything which had been in contact with them—that it was utterly hopeless to expect that those slight restrictions and exceptions here and there could in any way check the disease; in fact, it was evident that if they wished to put it down they must have recourse to far more extreme measures. Was his hon. Friend prepared or not to apply to the foot-and-mouth disease the severe restrictions which were applied to pleuro-pneumonia. He could understand Gentlemen coming forward and saying—"This foot-and-mouth disease is spreading so much that we are prepared to sacrifice anything to get rid of it once for all, and we are quite prepared to go under the pleuro-pneumonia regulation." That would be a fair and legitimate position to take up; but he did complain that Gentlemen who would not go to that extent were at the same time anxious to adopt means which the most scientific authorities declared to be useless and ineffectual, but what at the same time did serious injury to the trade. A great deal had been said about the Irish import trade, and he had frequently heard speeches in that House which sounded rather hostile to the trade. It had been often asserted that but for the Irish imports England would be free from disease, and that the Privy Council Order would be sufficient to stamp out the disease in England if it were not brought in from Ireland as fast as it was got rid of. In consequence of that assertion he was anxious, when the Committee sat in 1873, to see by evidence how far it could be borne out. He was astonished at the sort of evidence adduced. Farmers came forward and said—"We purchased a number of Irish cattle in the market; we took them home, and after a short interval the foot-and-mouth disease broke out among them." They seemed to argue that because the beasts came from Ireland the disease must have come from there also; but they could not tell the Committee
  2040
  how long the cattle had been in England, where they had stayed, or what sort of cattle they had been in contact with. It was quite probable that the foot-and-mouth disease had been existing in the neighbourhood to which the farmers took the cattle, and it was most natural to suppose, therefore, that the cattle sent away perfectly healthy from Ireland, and brought into this country, where the disease was already existing, caught the disease here and did not bring it with them. He did not mean to say that Ireland never had sent any foot-and-mouth disease into England. That would be absurd, because if they had any outbreak in either country it was sure to find its way into the other. The constant communication going on between the two countries rendered it perfectly impossible for them to prevent such a contagious disease from spreading to both. Perhaps England suffered more than Ireland, because she imported more cattle from Ireland than she sent there; but it did not follow that because England did not often send cattle to Ireland that she never sent any disease there, especially the foot-and-mouth disease, which might be conveyed not only by cattle, but by persons who had attended on them, and in many other ways. It was perfectly idle to suppose they could by any system, however strict, prevent the carrying of this disease from one country to the other. The conclusion to which they might justly come was summed up in a paragraph proposed to be added to the Report of the Committee of 1873, as follows—
  "Very many complaints have been made to your Committee by English and Scotch farmers as to Irish imports having caused an increase of pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, but the Committee are of opinion that those complaints had been much exaggerated, and that the spread of the disease has been reciprocal."
  He thought that really conveyed the truth of the case, and that so far as the spread of this disease was concerned, one country had no right to reproach the other, for when the complaint existed at all it was pretty certain to find its way from one country to the other. Before leaving the subject he would like to say a word as to why the Irish took such considerable interest in this question. It was not a subject to look at

  2041
  entirely from an Irish point of view. It was a question affecting every consumer of meat in the Kingdom. It had this special aspect for Ireland that in that country the lands, which were formerly tilled, had been developing more and more into pasture or grazing lands. Therefore everyone, from the highest to the lowest, from the owner of the largest estate down to the smallest occupier, had to a great extent an interest in this cattle trade, and anything which tended to interfere with it must he serious injury to all classes of the community. It could not, therefore, be wondered at that if proceedings occurred which had the effect of very seriously injuring the trade and imperilling its existence all parties in Ireland should be alarmed, and, as it were, rush to the rescue. Under the Privy Council regulations cases of great hardship had occurred, the case known as "the Silloth case" being a remarkable instance in point, and so long as the regulations were in force there was no guarantee that similar cases of hardship would not again occur. The result of such proceedings must of necessity be to discourage, if not to stop altogether, the export of store cattle from Ireland. No man would be so foolish as to send a quantity of cattle to England if he knew that on their arrival they might be detained there for days or sent back. He might have done all he could to make his cattle proof against disease, he might see them marked perfectly sound, and yet after wards when they landed in England they might be detained because some beasts in another herd in the same ship, with which he had nothing to do, were found to be diseased. If that was to be done no person would have courage enough to run the risk of sending his cattle to England under such circumstances, and they could not be surprised, therefore, at the commotion which had been caused by the Silloth case. He had no desire, however, to base the Irish case against restriction upon what happened at Silloth. Though he agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Read) as to the uselessness of inspection, the Irish traders were most willing to submit to it. For the satisfaction of the English people they were quite willing to have a most rigid inspection at the ports; but they did complain that there should be that system of
  2042
  double inspection, not only at the ports where they were put on board ship, but also after they had crossed the water. The English and Scotch traders could remove their cattle for any distance without any such double inspection, and, therefore, the arrangement was very unfair to Ireland. "With respect to the question of inspection, they ought to take the opinion of those who had had great experience on the subject. Well, Professor Williams was of opinion that a smaller amount of inspection at the port of embarkation would do more good than a larger amount at the point of debarkation. Even the Chief Secretary of Ireland himself in 1874 had admitted that the proper place for inspection was at the port of embarkation. He contended that this was a vital question to the people of Ireland, because the poor farmers would be greatly oppressed by any serious stoppage of the trade. He did not wish to press the question from a local, but from an Imperial point of view. The whole country was interested in the supply of meat, and was also consequently interested in putting an end to restrictions which did no good, but limited the supply. That this was not a purely Irish matter was proved by the fact that his Amendment would be seconded by a Scotch Member, and also by the circumstance that all he asked the House to do was to confirm the decision of the Committee which sat in 1873, and on which all classes of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, were fairly represented. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment, to add—
  "And that it is further desirable that the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1873, in relation to foot-and-mouth disease, should he carried into effect."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Read) that this was a difficult and intricate subject, and this the hon. Member had illustrated by his speech, for he had confined his remarks principally to points on which there was little difference of opinion, and to which he presumed Government would accede, but had failed to express any opinion on the much disputed question as to the best mode of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. Before offering his opinion, he desired to congratulate the hon. Member on the success which had at last

  2043
  attended his efforts to have the mode of dealing with pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland assimilated to what had been carried out in Great Britain for the last two years. He regretted the Government required the pressure of his retirement before bringing in the Bill now before the House for the compulsory slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. If, as the hon. Member stated, the farmers in England were delighted that the Duke of Richmond, as a practical agriculturist, had been appointed to the control of the Veterinary Department, he was afraid experience had not justified their expectations either in regard to the Veterinary Department or to dealing with the question of agricultural improvements. What the country had to complain of was, that the experience of the former Government and the recommendation of the Cattle Disease Committee, founded on the experience of the previous seven years, had been lost, and that the new authority had to learn everything over again at the expense of the country and much to the annoyance and loss of farmers. He hoped they had now again reached the point at which they had arrived when the late Government left office. What had been the policy pursued in regard to cattle disease? After the cattle plague had been successfully dealt with under the provisions made by Parliament, it was presumed that foot-and-mouth disease might be successfully dealt with in a similar manner. But the experience of many witnesses examined by the Committee showed very clearly that the contagion of foot-and-mouth disease was of so subtle and insidious a nature that any regulations which could be enforced were wholly inadequate to prevent the spread of the disease. The facts before and since confirmed this conclusion. In a good many counties the regulations and restrictions had been vigorously enforced in 1872, and yet the disease spread all over the country. The restrictions were removed in 1873, and the disease decreased so that the local authorities in 1874 reported that foot-and-mouth disease then existed to only a small extent. In 1874 the Duke of Richmond gave power to local authorities to impose restrictions, and again in 1875 these powers were extended. Nevertheless, foot-and-mouth
  2044
  disease had during last year spread more widely, he believed, than ever before. He did not say that restrictions caused the disease, but the facts showed that they were powerless to prevent it. In these circumstances they could not avoid the conclusion arrived at by the Committee, that any restrictions which would be submitted to would fail to check the disease. It was easy to impose restrictions; but, in point of fact, existing restrictions were in many counties a dead letter, whilst in others much annoyance had been caused without beneficial results to farmers who, in the multiplicity of rules imposed, withdrawn, and re-imposed, were at a loss to know what they might or might not do. Very few persons indeed, he believed, could at present say in some counties what was the law without careful reference and collation of the various Orders issued. The Order to inform the police of the existence of foot-and mouth disease was of no value, because nothing followed on the information except that the police informed the local authority, who were not called upon even to publish the information. Restrictions had failed, and what was now to be done? For himself, he, after a good many years' experience and observation, had come to the conclusion that the quicker the disease overran the country the more likely was the disease to become milder in type, fewer animals to be affected, and the disease soonest to expend itself. ["Oh, oh!"] That was the experience in epidemics, and he had no hesitation in saying that if a farmer got foot-and-mouth disease in his stock, and could not effectually isolate the animals affected, his most judicious policy was to have the disease overrun his whole herd as quickly as possible. He knew several cases in which this policy had been successfully adopted, and he recommended the practice of some who had had the longest experience of the disease, among others of one who had experience of this disease frequently since its first introduction into this country in 1834. If the disease lingered in a county for six months, a farmer who could exercise vigilance and care for two or three months might be unable to continue his self-imposed restriction for six months, and the risk of contagion was rather in proportion to the length of time over which the disease lasted in a district

  2045
  than to the number of infected farms. He thought it should remain a punishable offence to expose in a market or public place, or drive along a highway, animals labouring under disease, but beyond that he did not see it was of use to impose restrictions, which were the source of much annoyance, and had failed to give any corresponding advantage. It appeared to him that this administration of the Cattle Diseases Acts in England offered a strong argument in favour of the Motion to have elective Boards for county administration. At present the Acts were administered by the magistrates, few of whom were practically acquainted with the subject, and did not know what could or could not be carried into effect. The farmers who were practically acqainted with the subject, if charged with the administration of the Act, would, after some experience, see what it was possible to do by legislation, and instead of embarrassing the Central Government with representations for legislation which could not be practically enforced, would find that they must rely more on their own care, vigilance, and prudence, which he believed would be found more effectual in dealing with this disease than anything legislation could do. Many, no doubt, suffered by the recklessness of others, and it was extremely desirable such persons should be punished; but experience showed that legislation had proved unequal to do so without punishing innocent persons quite as frequently as the really guilty. He seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end of the Question, the words "and that it is further desirable that the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1873, in relation to foot and mouth disease, should he carried into effect."—(Mr. O'Conor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not pretend to the bucolic experience of the hon. Member who had spoken on this Motion, but having had some official experience in dealing with the question he should be glad of an opportunity to say a few words respecting it. He regretted that any Government should lose the services of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bead); but it was well that the
  2046
  tenant farmers could now rely upon his speaking for them upon a question in which they were so much interested. He felt surprised that the hon. Member should have complained that the late Government had issued certain orders in a hurry relating to the spread of cattle disease, when he (Mr. Forster) had only acted in accordance with the Resolutions of the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman himself was a Member. In carrying out all the recommendations of the Committee he could do without legislation, he certainly lost notime that could be avoided. These questions of cattle diseases were very difficult and complicated. On the one hand, the object was to check the spread of disease; on the other hand, you had to avoid unnecessary interference with the food of the country. Altogether, it was one of the most difficult jobs with which any Government had to deal. As to the complaints against the permanent officials of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, these, in his opinion, were very much, if not entirely, without foundation. The work of the officials was difficult, and he did not believe that men would be found who, upon the whole, would do it better. There were four diseases with which we had to cope—cattle plague, sheep-pox, pleuro-pneumonia, and foot-and-mouth disease. Even the hon. Member for South Norfolk did not suggest much change in Government action respecting the first two diseases. Partly owing to Government action, indeed, there was no sheep-pox or cattle plague in the country, and had not been for some time. Practically, we had to deal with pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease; and he had come to the conclusion that, wherever these two diseases originally came from, they were now English diseases, and completely naturalized here. This being so, we had to consider what could be done to check or extirpate them. He thought that by means of severe, stringent, continuous efforts we might get rid of pleuro-pneumonia. This was so fatal a disease that public opinion would support the Government in taking strong action with a view to stamp it out. He entirely agreed, therefore, with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman as far as pleuro-pneumonia was concerned. Moreover, he was of opinion that we ought to have constant

  2047
  and uniform action throughout the country; that it ought to be uniform both in England and Ireland; and that considering the frequent communication between the two countries, it was almost absurd to have regulations in one country which did not exist in the other. This uniformity of treatment was as necessary in the interests of the Irish stock feeder as of the English farmer. There was really nothing like competition between the two. On the contrary, his hon. Friend (Mr. Read) and many others imported Irish store cattle for the purpose of feeding and fattening them, and would suffer if the supply were checked. The Committee which sat upon this subject made three proposals with regard to pleuro-pneumonia. The first was that slaughter should be compulsory. He issued an order to that effect as soon as he could, and he supposed that slaughter was compulsory now. The next proposal of the Committee was that compensation should be made on a principle different from that laid down in the Cattle Plague Act—namely, on the actual loss to the farmer, instead of on the value of the animal at the time of its slaughter, as from calculation the latter principle had been found to give an insufficient compensation. Why he did not issue an order to that effect was because as he read the Act, it did not give him power to do so. His noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) and the Duke of Richmond had, however, read the Act in a different way, but he did not doubt that the order in itself was a prudent one. Another recommendation was with regard to pleuro-pneumonia—namely, that the isolation should be for two months instead of 30 days. He could not issue an order to carry that out, because to do so would require an alteration of the Act. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to explain why an Act had not been passed for that purpose. With regard to foot-and-mouth disease, there were certain regulations in the Act of 1869 which provided that animals affected should not be exposed in market or taken along the highway; but there was also power given to the Privy Council to issue special regulations for the stoppage and prevention of any infectious disease mentioned in the Act. There was a foot-and-mouth outbreak not long after he became Vice President, and, there being
  2048
  a good many complaints, they first issued rather peremptory general orders throughout the country, but there were great objections to them, and the Department was obliged to discontinue them. Permissive orders were then issued, and these were in force more or less until the Committee sat in 1873. Almost every Member of that Committee was of opinion that there was no middle course between, no restriction, except that of not allowing diseased animals to be exposed in the market or to be taken along the highway—and very stringent restrictions indeed. It was perfectly clear, however, that the farming interest generally would not bear those severe restrictions. The time of isolation to be effectual would be quite six weeks, and it appeared much more likely to be three months, and there would be such an outcry against that as would render it impossible. The Committee, therefore, recommended that there should be none of those stringent restrictions in future; and he must ask his noble Friend to explain why the Government had not only not acted upon that recommendation, but had undone it, and undone it in the worst possible way—namely, by renewing the permissive orders. As to placing England and Ireland in the same position with regard to this question, he would not say anything about that, because the Government had a Bill before the House for dealing with the subject. In justification to the late Government and to himself, he must, however, state that, if they had not become private Members in 1874, they would certainly have brought in a Bill themselves. He was very much surprised that when a Bill relating to cattle diseases in Ireland had been passed in 1874 the clause which was necessary to give this power was not included. However, it was a difficult question, and probably the Government wanted to feel their way and obtain information, and having now obtained it they brought in a Bill. During this debate no allusion had been made to the question which had been raised by the metropolitan consumers, several of whom had waited upon the Duke of Richmond, and also by representatives of artizans, who protested against the regulation which required that when only one animal in a cargo was affected with foot-and-mouth disease the whole

  2049
  should be sent to Deptford. His noble Friend would have to decide between two modes of dealing with Deptford. They would either have to remove the restrictions with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and not to cause any cargo to be sent to Deptford because of the illness of one or two animals, or they would have to require that all the foreign animals imported to London should go there. He was not prepared himself to take this last step, though he had come to the conclusion that there was no middle course between the two. If the hon. Member for South Norfolk went to a division he should vote with him, and if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor) went to a division he would vote with him. The one carried out one recommendation of the Committee, and the other another recommendation. But, perhaps, the Government would make a division unnecessary by adopting the Resolution. He could not sit down without expressing the great pleasure he felt at what had been done in the Department since he left it, by adopting a more efficient inspection of the transit of animals by railway, and also of their import by sea. Both with a view to the health of the animals and the prevention of cruelty to them, inspection was quite necessary; and he was glad his noble Friend had been enabled to carry out a more efficient system than he had been enabled to enforce while he was in the Department.
  MR. KAVANAGHsaid, with regard to the proposal to make the regulations uniform throughout Great Britain and Ireland, that it was necessary to inquire what those regulations were. In England there were regulations as to foot-and-mouth disease, which he should be sorry to see extended to Ireland, and therefore, before making them uniform for the whole Kingdom, it would be necessary to make them reasonable. That being his opinion, he could not accept the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read), unless it were coupled with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor)—namely,
  "That the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1873, in relation to foot-and-mouth disease, should he carried into effect."
  In his opinion, it was perfectly useless to attempt to put an end to foot-and-mouth disease by restrictions. The more
  2050
  fully he had inquired into the subject the more he was convinced that the attempt would be hopeless; but even if there were any hope, he believed those restrictions would be so intolerable that the cure would be, in fact, worse than the disease. It was for that reason that he dissented from the recommendation of the Committee of 1873. He would rather the foot-and-mouth disease were struck out of the Act altogether, but he might, perhaps, be unreasonable in wishing to go so far. With regard to pleuro-pneumonia, he believed it was quite possible to stamp it out; and he had endeavoured to impress upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland the importance of extending compulsory slaughter to Ireland, and he was glad the right hon. Baronet had seen his way to bring in a Bill on the subject. There was only another thing to be done, and that was, to make the regulations as regarded foot-and-mouth disease uniform between the two countries—not by imposing on Ireland the restrictions which existed in England, but by applying the rules which existed in Ireland to England. He was not quite certain what rules did exist in Ireland; but he knew that in England the local authorities dealt with the question in very different ways, some being too strict and others too lax; and as long as a system of that kind was continued it was utterly hopeless to expect it to produce any great advantage. In Ireland whatever restrictions existed were uniform, and so far England might take a leaf out of her book.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, that foot-and-mouth disease was most insidious and dangerous, and had a most injurious effect in enhancing the prices of meat, butter, cheese, and milk. Last Autumn, for example, on one farm of 100 acres foot-and-mouth disease broke out in a flock of 320 ewes, the result being that instead of having 400 lambs, which would be the produce of an ordinary year, if there were 200 lambs left alive it would be the utmost that could be calculated upon. In the month of October, on the same farm, out of 36 dairy cows, 32 were down with foot-and-mouth disease, and their milk had to be thrown away. Again, on the same farm, he himself had seen 24 bullocks who, owing to the foot-and-mouth disease, deteriorated at least £3 a-head in the course of two months. Many

  2051
  instances of the same kind could be adduced showing the great loss to the farmers and to the community at large by the ravages of this disease, and he therefore urged the Government to adopt stringent measures, and to make them universal in order to check the spread of the disease. He advocated the appointment of efficient Inspectors, and not the police, and expressed his opinion that the country would support the Government in spending more money to provide a competent staff of officers.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I feel deeply indebted to the hon. Member for South Norfolk for the trouble he has taken in bringing before the country the importance of dealing with these diseases; and I beg also to express my thorough concurrence in what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kings-cote) with regard to the foot-and-mouth disease. My own experience in the course of the last year has been rather severe with regard to that complaint. It has been spoken of as not fatal, and it is not fatal to the same extent as pleuro-pneumonia; still, the loss it inflicts by actual death is considerable. In cases with which I am acquainted it has amounted to as much as 5 and 6 per cent. But there is another circumstance connected with this disease which ought to be carefully considered. In many instances, after the disease has subsided, it leaves secondary symptoms of another disease—congestion of the lungs—and of a type which is perfectly well known to become hereditary. Another fact is known, and this is, that a disease of the lungs has been spreading among the highest and purest bred short-horned stock in this country. I am very much inclined to connect these two facts one with the other, for within my personal knowledge animals which have been severely affected by foot-and-mouth disease, but did not actually die of it, were left suffering from lung disease. I am inclined, therefore, to connect that fact with the spread of lung disease amongst the highest bred stock in this country. These facts are sufficient, I think, to show the House that when we are dealing by legislation or Governmental Orders with the other diseases, it would be extremely rash to neglect the foot-and-mouth disease altogether. I cannot, however, put into more eloquent
  2052
  or appropriate language the expression of the loss entailed on the consumer by this disease in the course which it ran during the last year, than has been uttered by the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire, by raising the price of meat. I am certain that his statement with respect to his own county, and the losses inflicted by it, could be fully borne out by reference to the losses it has inflicted in the midland counties; and I concur with the hon. and gallant Member when he says that it is simply ridiculous to have so great a variety of administration as exists in this matter. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) sits below me. My county of Warwickshire is separated from Leicestershire only by the Watling Street old Roman road. We adopted certain preventive restrictions in Warwickshire; but the same restrictions were not enforced in Leicestershire, and without mentioning names I may state the effect of a conversation which last summer occurred between a Leicestershire farmer and a Warwickshire farmer. The latter asked—"When you get the foot-and-mouth disease, what do you do?" "Oh," said the Leicestershire farmer—"I am a grazier. I keep my sick stock at home, and send the sound stock at once to market." Now, of course, if there is any possibility of restricting this disease by preventing diseased cattle from being sent to market, the system adopted by this Leicestershire farmer must be calculated to spread the disease, which we in Warwickshire subjected ourselves to severe restrictions to prevent. Let me now notice for one moment what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) with reference to the London market. The right hon. Gentleman says that the importations of foreign cattle, though small, affect materially the price of food consumed by the operative classes in London. But, I would ask, can the price of food in London be independent of the price of food throughout the country? And if the importations of diseased cattle from abroad have the effect, as they undoubtedly have, of enhancing the price of food throughout the country, surely it is but a narrow view to believe that such importations will not similarly affect the London market? I have for years held that the importation of foreign

  2053
  cattle for London ought to be limited to Deptford, or some one port on the Thames, where the most efficient system of provision for cattle and for the inspection might be carried out; because, unless you do this, and your restrictions are consistently enforced, they become absolutely absurd. Let the House suppose that the disease is discovered in one or more animals of a cargo when they reach London; the authorities have then to send them back to Deptford, after the disease has been discovered, and probably disseminated, in this great centre, from which it is almost certain to be spread throughout the country. I believe that no restriction could be more wholesome or effectual than limiting the ports of debarkation, and providing for the proper care of cattle, and for their adequate inspection at the ports of debarkation. The hon. Member for the county of Sligo (Mr. O'Conor) must forgive me when I call his attention to this fact. He complains of the inspection of Irish cattle on their debarkation upon our shores in England; but does not the hon. Member perceive this—does he not perceive that, in their transit in a vessel by sea, there is much greater danger of contagion than under any other circumstances to which the animals could be exposed? Is it not reasonable, then, that after the stock have been brought across the Channel in a vessel, they should be inspected on landing in England from Ireland, for the same reasons and in the same manner as if they had been imported from some foreign country? I hold that it is the character of the transit, and the peculiar exposure to contagion it entails, which justifies the restriction; and I am obliged to tell the hon. Member plainly that though we in the midland counties have not the slightest wish to prevent the importation of Irish cattle—for the importation is very important to us—we are perfectly sensible that, probably owing to their exposure to contagion in transit by vessels, we do receive more disease through the ports of debarkation from Ireland than from any other parts of the country. I trust, then, that the House will not retreat before the difficulty which the foot-and-mouth disease presents by casting aside the precautions which prudence dictates, because there is this fact to be borne in mind, Whilst
  2054
  it is quite right to have uniform protection against so fatal a disease as pleuro-pneumonia, yet pleuro-pneumonia is a disease which is diminishing in the United Kingdom; whilst, on the other hand, the foot-and-mouth disease is extending year by year. There have been few years during which the foot-and-mouth disease was more prevalent than the last; and I observe that several hon. Members who have spoken on the subject in this debate take all their data from the Reports of Committees which sat in previous years, and that none of them appear to have rested their opinion upon the experience of last year with regard to the foot-and-mouth disease until the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire rose in his place, and adduced facts which ought to convince the House that this foot-and-mouth disease is a growing and wide-spreading evil that ought to be grappled with. I concur thoroughly in the Resolution which has been proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk; but I regret that I cannot concur in the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Sligo, for I am convinced of this—that any Government which is rash enough to cast aside the means of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease would incur a very heavy responsibility. I own that it is a difficult question; that it is difficult to convince the public that, by imposing restrictions against the spread of disease, you are providing for the cheapness of food; that it is difficult to deal with importers, who do not suffer from the effects of disease among the store cattle which they bring here, as those must who find this disease spreading throughout their herds and extending to their fat stock; and that it is difficult to persuade the mere grazier who buys and sells stock, keeping them only during the summer months, and has none to care for during the winter, that the heavy losses entailed on the breeders of cattle, whose entire stock is exposed to the ravages of disease throughout the whole year, render restrictions necessary. I know that all this is very difficult. At the same time, I believe that such discussions as we have had to-night are needed to enlighten the country upon this subject, and I hope may induce this House to arm Her Majesty's Government with power to deal adequately with diseases

  2055
  which are rapidly becoming a national evil.
  MR. COLMANsaid, that the city which he had the honour to represent (Norwich) was very intimately connected with this question. It was one of the largest stock markets in the Kingdom, situated in the centre of an agricultural district, and he believed that the city authorities had cordially co-operated with the county authorities in carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. He had received several communications from friends of his own in Norfolk who were interested in agriculture, and some of whom were politically opposed to the hon. Member for South Norfolk, desiring him to support the Motion of his hon. Friend. When he entered the House that night he imagined that the Motion would meet with great opposition from many of the Members sitting on his own side of the House, because out-of-doors it had unfortunately been supposed that the interest of the producers of meat and of the consumers were not identical. But he had found that the opponents of the Motion were conspicuous by their absence and under these circumstances he hoped that the Motion would be passed without the opposition which, in the first instance, he had anticipated. No one could have seen the critical position in which the agricultural interest had been placed without sympathizing with those who represented it. He was disposed to think at one time that they had the remedy in their own hands, and that if they kept clear of the sources from which the disease was likely to be produced they would keep their farms and cattle free. But experience showed that they were powerless unless strong and uniform restrictions were enforced. For that reason, he desired to support the Motion of his hon. Friend, for he knew that under the present mode of carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they might have in the county of Norfolk one set of recommendations carried out, and in the county of Suffolk regulations of an entirely different character. He believed that there was a great and general desire that the Government should adopt a uniform system in reference to the cattle disease. He did not think it necessary to go through the arguments which had been adduced in the course of the debate, because he believed they had been all on one side,
  2056
  and that there had been very little attempt to argue on the part of those who objected to the Motion. He preferred to name one or two cases which had been brought under his knowledge. He held in his hand a letter received last night from a gentleman stating that he had farmed about 550 acres; that in 1872 the foot-and-mouth disease was very prevalent, and that in consequence he had 300 sheep and 100 head of cattle down with it. He lost all the summer grazing, and afterwards the lung disease broke out. The result was that he sustained a money loss of £500 in the year 1872. The writer went on further to say that during the past year the disease had broken out again, and that he had lost 15 beasts, which were valued by the local committee at £215 10 s. He had received a letter from another agriculturist in his own neighbourhood, who stated that there was a large market for store cattle in his locality, and that it was a common occurrence for one or two animals to be left while the rest were taken to the market, by which means the disease had been perpetuated just in the manner referred to by the hon. Member for South Norfolk. In many instances cattle were brought into districts where no disease existed, and spread the disease to healthy herds, which then took a much longer time to graze, and the meaning of that was, that they consumed provender which might have been devoted to the production of good food, but which, under the circumstances, was literally wasted in being supplied to these diseased cattle, and not only entailed loss upon the agriculturists but upon the community generally. He sincerely hoped that the Motion would be adopted by the House. It was not a question which affected the producer of meat only, but it applied also to the consumer. In the annual Report issued by The Economist there was a striking reference to the increase in the price of butchers' meat. In five years subsequent to 1850 the price of meat rose 8 per cent but during the last five years, as compared with 1850, it had risen 45 per cent. But how was it with regard to the price of corn? In the first five years after 1850 the price fell 13 percent, and taking the average of the last five years, it was still 5 per cent below what it was in the year 1850. Hon. Members who thought that further restrictions were

  2057
  not necessary in the present position of the cattle trade, and the price of meat, had only to contrast these two results. In the one case corn was at a low price, while in the other butchers' meat, with these unsatisfactory restrictions, had risen nearly 50 per cent. Under these circumstances, he gave his cordial support to the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  SIR JOHN SCOURFIELDsupported the Motion, and in doing so wished to call attention to a local grievance. A cargo of pigs arrived at Haverfordwest from Ireland, with a clean bill of health, but they were obliged, at the expense of the country, to keep them in quarantine, to the ill-will of everybody concerned. The Irish did not like their animals to be stopped; the local authorities, the railway people, the farmers, and everybody wished them to go, but they had, notwithstanding, to be kept for a certain time. The difficulties by which the subject was surrounded were very great; because the public, while they looked for that plentiful supply of meat which resulted from the free importation of cattle, objected to those restrictions by which immunity from the spread of disease was secured. The Department of the Government concerned in this matter ought to issue more clear, distinct, and definite instructions than had yet been received by the local authorities. When they applied to the Department, they always received most polite replies, but no instructions for their guidance.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, that there were great difficulties in the way of the Government in dealing with the question; and the present debate had not done much to obviate those difficulties. No two speeches had agreed as regarded the remedial measures to be adopted; and science was baffled completely as to how the disease was transmitted. He would mention three cases which had come under his own observation to show the difficulty of tracing foot-and-mouth disease in its origin. In one case the cows were kept in the byre through the winter and were never out of the house, but in April the foot-and-mouth disease appeared amongst them. There was very little in the whole county, and none within 10 miles. In the second case, two flocks of sheep were separated by a narrow pathway six feet wide, and on either side a wall of net. Except that the shepherds were different persons
  2058
  there was no further difference in their treatment in any respect, and yet every sheep in one flock took the disease, and not a single sheep in the other flock had it. In the third instance the disease was carried from one side of the River Dee to the other, not by hares or rabbits but by crows. With respect to the expense of carrying out inspection that would depend upon how it was done. In the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright there were four veterinary surgeons appointed in 1869 and 1870, at a cost to the country of £338, and during the period the disease, instead of diminishing, rather increased. In 1870, 1871, and 1872 the same means were employed, at a cost of £593, but after that it was not deemed necessary to employ veterinary surgeons, and from 1872 to the present time the only inspecting force which had been used was the police force, at a cost to the county of about £20. The law, however, was in a most unsatisfactory state. In Wigtownshire there was a regulation which might be beneficially extended to other counties. It was to the effect that animals infected with the foot-and-mouth disease should not be removed from a farm, or taken on or across any public road which passed through the same. He was Chairman of a local Board, and they were most anxious to keep their district uncon-taminated and isolated from other parts of the county, and they were so successful that up to the middle of September last they had not a single case amongst the 10,000 dairy cows that were there. But 800 lambs were brought from Argyllshire by sea, landed at Stranraer, and distributed amongst several farms. From that moment the disease was rife; but there was no mode of obtaining redress. The Act of 1869 gave them no power to prosecute. The 123rd section provided that—
  "In the event of any person refusing or delaying to comply with the order of a local authority, the local authority may give information thereof, to the Procurator Fiscal of the county or burgh, who may apply to the sheriff for a warrant to carry such order into effect, and such warrant may he executed by the officers of court in the usual way."
  Thus the power of the local authority was limited by this clause, and the matter left to the discretion of the Procurator Fiscal. When under the Summary Procedure Act of 1864 they sought

  2059
  redress from the farmer resident in Dumfriesshire who sent the lambs, the Procurator Fiscal there refused to prosecute, and applications to the Duke of Argyll as Lord Lieutenant led to no result whatever. There was now an Inspector at Stranraer, whose duty it was to inspect the cattle imported there from Ireland. One night the steamer came in, and among the cattle on board was an animal in the last stage of foot-and-mouth disease. Nobody claimed it, and the animal was stopped from being removed, but the rest of the cargo were sent on by railway, and nobody could tell the extent to which the disease might be spread by their means. What was wanted, therefore, was a remedial clause enabling the local authority to prosecute under the Act of 1869 in such cases. [The hon. Member read a draft clause which he thought would meet the case.] Nobody but those who had had experience of the subject knew the value of prompt action in the case of an outbreak of disease. There could be no doubt that animals killed immediately on the outbreak of disease were, as far as food was concerned, as good as perfectly healthy stock. He called upon the Government to accept the hon. Member's (Mr. Read's) Motion, and make the law as far as possible uniform.
  MR. TURNORsuggested that Article 36 of the Order of Council of June, 1875, should be made compulsory throughout the Kingdom. If this were done, the district affected could be closed up in the case of the foot-and-mouth disease. The advantage of proceeding under this Order was, that it dealt not only with infected animals, but with animals in contact with them. There should also be Inspectors to go through the fairs and markets, and these Inspectors should be responsible to the Privy Council, and their salaries paid, in whole or in part, out of Imperial funds. If these two precautions were adopted, we should go far to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease in this country. Any regulations which should be adopted ought to be, not permissive, but uniform and compulsory, and his hon. Friend had his entire concurrence in his Motion.
  CAPTAIN NOLANremarked that the question involved was a very serious one, because it was no exaggeration to say that if the cattle trade of Ireland was seriously interfered with the whole population would be more or less ruined.
  2060
  The cattle traders of Ireland had no objection to submit to the same regulations as England; but there was an idea abroad that there was an ulterior object in view. In the county he had the honour to represent in the West of Ireland two or three fairs were held, and he had an opportunity of gathering the views of the dealers. Their idea was that if English farmers simply wanted to stamp out disease they were willing to submit to any amount of inspection, although, of course, they did not like it; but they were dreadfully afraid the restrictions would be made use of to their disadvantage, and that the English farmers wanted to start a trade union system against the Irish farmers. He might be accepted as a fair witness on the subject, for he had done his best to ascertain the feelings of as many of the people as he had come in contact with. He did not say that the English farmers were doing anything they had not a right to do, and possibly the Irish farmers would do the same under similar circumstances. Of course, if the English farmers could keep back one-half or one-third of the supply, they would naturally produce increased prices of meat to their own advantage. He did not mean to say the Irish particularly cared about what the price of meat was in England so long as they themselves were fairly dealt with. It would be for the consumers ultimately to decide between them, and say whether there was not a wish on the part of the English farmers to keep the Irish competition out. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read) had certainly let slip some remarks which rather savoured of that disposition. If they were going to hamper Ireland with special restrictions the result must be to place her traders at a disadvantage. Of course, it was perfectly right to inspect the Irish cattle before they were sent to England, and there would be no objection to representatives of the English farmers attending to see that the animals were sound on embarkation, for he could assure the House there was no wish on the part of the Irish to send diseased cattle to England. But the system of instituting a second inspection after the cattle had arrived in England was objectionable. It would be like subjecting English cattle to a second inspection when they were removed from one part of England to another. In regard to

  2061
  pleuro-pneumonia they in Ireland were willing to submit to any regulations which were in force in England; but foot-and-mouth disease was a different thing, for which the restrictions could not be so easily justified. It was an insidious disease, and they had failed to stop it even in England notwithstanding their regulations. He thought it would be sufficient if they rested on the Act of 1869, which was a very good Act; but if they had certain rules in England and Scotland and they insisted upon applying those rules in Ireland—plus, others, and very stringent ones—he thought Ireland might fairly object. If the English farmers formed a kind of trades union against us, the Irish farmers must entirely go in for the removal of all restrictions. He did not wish to take up that position; but if the English farmers insisted upon pursuing their present course they might be driven to it.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON, in answer to the Question which had been asked, why the Government had rescinded the Orders of 1873, said that a deputation from the Royal Agricultural Society which had waited on the Lord President had urged that step to be taken, and that he had himself forwarded a memorial from the Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture to the same effect. Those Orders had not had a fair trial, because they were not made compulsory. All the agriculturists examined before the Select Committee were in favour of stringent restrictions in reference to foot-and-mouth disease. Several of the local Scotch authorities were not in favour of abolishing all these regulations, though that course had been advocated by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). The Orders in Council were of no use unless they were carried out uniformly throughout the whole country. Farmers were very much alarmed at the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease last year. Never had there been so concentrated a form of the disease as then appeared. But there had been no Report yet from the Veterinary Department respecting that outbreak. He hoped his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) would take care that the Report would be placed on the Table so as to enable them to discuss the subject before the end of the Session. At present they did not know to what extent foot-and-mouth disease had prevailed during
  2062
  the last. 12 months. To be really useful the Report from the Veterinary Department should be laid on the Table before Easter. He would oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor), but would cordially support the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read).
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTexpressed his surprise at the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan). The great object of Members on both sides was to keep Ireland free from disease, because this country could not possibly do without the importation of Irish cattle. Nothing, therefore, could be more fallacious than to say that the farmers and inhabitants of the United Kingdom were not anxious that Irish cattle should be imported as fully and as freely as possible. Their great object was to allow free importation from any part of the world, provided the cattle imported were free from disease. The House was evidently agreed on the point that, so far as the cattle plague, the sheep pox, and pleuro-pneumonia were concerned, England, Ireland, and Scotland ought to be placed absolutely under the same regulations. The only divergence of opinion had been in reference to the foot-and-mouth disease, which was a disease more difficult to deal with than any other, for the recurrence of the foot-and-mouth disease in the same animal made it predisposed to it, and every additional attack was more severe than the one preceding it; or a kind of lung disease ensued, which was as fatal as pleuro-pneumonia. The consequences were very serious in the effect produced upon animals for breeding purposes, both cattle and sheep. The price of meat was undoubtedly high, and he should be glad to see it reduced; but he did not think it would be reduced by the Government allowing so free an importation of cattle as would admit also of the importation of disease. Too stringent regulations might harass trade and do mischief; but when the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said he thought they should allow the disease to go rampant in the belief that by its spread it would get small by degrees and beautifully less, and in time altogether disappear, it appeared to him that there could not be a greater fallacy. One of the most fatal

  2063
  places for the spread of foot-and-mouth disease was Islington Market, where cattle came from all parts of the counties as well as from foreign countries. Although the number of store cattle might not be very great, still many-were sent to that market, and a large number of calves, and all these cattle went to the same place for water, whether infected or not; and then they were sent from Islington to all parts of the country. It was remarkable that since that practice had been allowed foot-and-mouth disease had increased. It would be altogether imprudent to permit a disease of this kind to spread unchecked all over England; and he ventured to affirm that if foreign cattle were sent to Deptford, and not to Islington, the foreign cattle would materially increase, and there would not be this perpetual demand for fresh regulations. The debate which his hon. Friend (Mr. Read) had initiated would greatly assist the Government, because the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council would have the advantage of hearing the views of hon. Members upon the question. It was necessary to stop the foot-and-mouth disease at the fountain head. An Inspector from the Privy Council had visited the Chichester Market, and, after two successive days' careful inspection, said that he had never in his life seen a lot of cattle so free from disease. But what happened? Two days afterwards, there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease amongst those very cattle that had been sold at the market. That showed the necessity of inspection at the places where the cattle came from. The Government ought to insist upon those places being properly inspected and proper lairs for the cattle before they were embarked. Speaking of Ireland, what could be so disgraceful as the North Wall at Dublin: the holds of ships, and railway trucks, in which the cattle were conveyed should have better accommodation than was now provided. These and other measures within their power he hoped the Government would adopt; and depend upon it, if strict regulations were uniformly applied just where they were required, this disease among cattle might be prevented from spreading over the country.
  MR. PELLsaid, that while many hon. Members had advocated severer
  2064
  measures for the prevention of foot-and-mouth disease, no one had stated what those measures ought to be. In his opinion, there was no middle course to take. If they stopped short of killing he did not think that any restrictions in the way of quarantine, or sending Inspectors here and there to examine farmers' stock, would be of any avail whatever in checking the foot-and-mouth disease, and compulsory slaughter for this complaint was out of the question. He was jealous of any further regulations until the existing law was better obeyed. Various orders had been issued in different districts, and various experiments had been tried; but no hon. Member had attempted to advise the Government to adopt any particular course. Notwithstanding the enforcement of strict measures had been recommended, no one had ventured to say what those measures ought to be. He had no confidence in veterinary science, or indeed in doctoring cattle generally. Care ought to be taken that the poor animals should be moved about as little as possible while suffering, and that they should have water and fresh air during their long and painful journeys, and that when landed they should be sent to the market as quickly as possible. He should be only too glad if the Government could put a check on that which was not only troublesome and painful, but a disease which cost the farmers a vast amount of money.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHgave his hearty support to the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. They were all fond of meat, and their object should be to make meat cheap, but instead of that they were making it dear. We had not only opened our ports for the admission of cattle but for the diseases brought by these cattle. With respect to the foot-and-mouth disease, it had been proposed that the cattle should be allowed to run wild. That might be a very good plan if they were not liable to a second attack; but it was known that they might be attacked any number of times and were very much weakened by every attack, and the result was that we were gradually obtaining a weakened race of cattle.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUunderstood that the Government had agreed to concede all that the hon. Member for South Norfolk had asked for—that the

  2065
  regulations with respect to the cattle disease should be uniform and compulsory not only in the United Kingdom but also in Ireland. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member seemed to point to compulsory slaughter, and two years ago he (Lord Robert Montagu) brought in a Bill to effect that object. He did not say that he was now against what was then proposed; but he had seen many arguments on the other side. The chief argument used against compulsory slaughter was that it would raise the price of meat; but he would tell the House of a common fact with which he became acquainted when he was at the Privy Council Office. It was this—At the commencement of the cattle plague the farmers of England, struck with terror, sent all their cattle to the Metropolitan Market. It was a panic like what was seen sometimes in the City; but what was the effect upon the market? Butchers instantly raised the price of meat, and their excuse was because of the cattle plague! Two years afterwards when the plague had died out the farmers retained their stock, and the butchers again raised their price because the stock was not sent to market. The farmers had suffered greatly, whilst the butchers had profited to the extent of about 284 per cent. He thought that disposed of the chief argument with regard to slaughtering cattle at the ports. He regretted that the Government had not known their mind before. They lost the hon. Member for South Norfolk, who was a valuable Member of the Government, because they did not see that he was right; but now they saw this, and that they were wrong. Having acted in this way towards the hon. Member, who was the representative of the farmers in the House, he asked what would the Government do next? Would they turn to the labourers and enfranchise them? The regulations which were made to put down the cattle plague were intended to prevent contagion and contact, and those regulations had succeeded in their object. But as, he believed, only three in 1,000 animals affected with the foot-and-mouth disease died of it, it was contended that, not being so deadly in its nature as the plague, the same precautions against contact ought not to be taken. The farmers of England, however, desired to see certain regulations carried out for
  2066
  the prevention of the foot-and-mouth disease. In Ireland, of course, the farmers too knew their own business—as a Home Rule Member, they would scarcely thank him if he said otherwise—and had a right to express their wishes as to any regulations that might be proposed. They had no right to impose on the farmers of England their regulations, and he thought that each country ought to have its own regulations. As to free importation throughout the land, he looked upon it as impossible, in consequence of those local differences which must be observed. No hard-and-fast rule, in short, could be laid down in the matter, and great latitude must be left to the Privy Council.
  MR. STORERsaid, that it seemed to be allowed on all hands that the subject was difficult, and certainly the discussion had been full of anomalies; but he did not think there could be any greater anomaly than a Home Rule Member sitting on the Conservative side of the House and voting with the other. He agreed with the hon. Member for South Norfolk as to the great necessity of uniformity of action; and although neither the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) nor any other speaker had satisfactorily explained the proper mode of dealing with the foot-and-mouth disease, they all seemed to agree in the wisdom of at once attacking the chief foci of the disease—namely, the fairs and markets and the ports of debarkation. He was glad to hear, on the authority of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu), who must be in the confidence of the Government, that they had agreed to grant all the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Norfolk asked. Now that they had driven the hon. Member like the scapegoat into the wilderness, bearing the official sins of the Government on his head, there would be for them a time of repentance, and he was glad to hear they were about to return to right principles in this matter of dealing with cattle diseases, and, above all, to uniformity of action.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor), which was necessary as an interpretation of the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. That Amendment

  2067
  was backed by the authority of a Select Committee composed of men who knew their business, and who took great pains in investigating the subject. It had also now got the great authority of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), whose speech would be read with gratitude by every person in Ireland connected with the cattle trade. For the purpose of preventing the foot-and mouth disease, attempts at isolation were, he believed, useless, and when the Irish farmers sought to have the recommendations of the Committee of 1873 carried they were acting in perfect good faith.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) had caught something of the temper of his adopted country. He remembered hearing that in former times some of the gallant men belonging to the Sister Isle were rather fond of trailing their coats behind them and daring people to tread on them, in order to get up a quarrel. That custom no longer prevailed in Ireland; but it seemed to him that the noble Lord was trying the same trick for his adopted country, and asking his former Party to tread on the tail of his coat. For his own part, he was not going to fall into the trap which the noble Lord had laid for them. The question was far too important to be treated in a jesting spirit or in a light manner, and he rejoiced that this evening it had been treated, not only as a very grave and serious question, but also as a very difficult one. All who had joined in the discussion agreed that we must face the difficulty, and all expressed a hope that as time went on Her Majesty's Government would deal with it properly. If the subject were regarded from the farmers' point of view, its importance could not be overrated. He was anxious that none of the farmers in the United Kingdom should think Her Majesty's Government underrated their sufferings from the various diseases which of late years had ravaged their flocks and herds. Every one must feel the deepest sympathy and compassion for our farmers if he had seen their beautiful flocks—the pride sometimes of many generations and part of the glory of the United Kingdom—suffering from these loathsome diseases. It was true that many of the diseases had not been in the long run very fatal, and some Members
  2068
  had spoken of the foot-and-mouth disease as if it were a very slight thing. Still he, for one, could not forget what it must be for a farmer, and particularly a small tenant, to see the daily wasting of his stock. It was no slight matter to find the supply of milk suddenly disappear, to find that butter was no longer forthcoming for the market, and to find that when they expected an increase in their flocks and herds the increase was still-born or did not appear at all. It was no slight thing to have the vigour taken away from the animals to which they might have trusted for reproducing their herds. On the part of himself and his Colleagues he begged to express the warmest feelings of sympathy for the farmers of this country in the very grievous sufferings they had undergone. That suffering if it had occurred during the last three years would have fallen on the farmers when they were likewise suffering from very bad times. In England at any rate there had been little margin of profit, and considering that, in addition, they had the devastation of these infectious and contagious diseases, he did not wonder at the farmers appealing in large numbers to their Representatives and to Her Majesty's Government, to see whether the Government could not, wisely and safely, give them some relief. But, secondly, he must look at the question from another point of view, that of the consumer. They all rejoiced that of late years the working people of this country had been able to consume a great deal more meat than previously. In our great towns we now had great fresh-meat consuming populations. He rejoiced that it should be so; but anything which affected the meat supply of these large communities was of the gravest importance. So that any one with responsibility in this matter must feel, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) remarked earlier in the evening, that he was touching a very delicate subject if it affected, or was supposed to affect, in any way the supply of meat. No doubt whatever tended to diminish the flocks and herds would be felt, sooner or later, by the consumer. Still it was most important that we should keep distinctly in view that in any act of the Privy Council with regard to food supply, artificial means were not used to affect the price of food. The position and duty,

  2069
  therefore, of the Privy Council were obvious—they must carry out whatever was done in a perfectly impartial manner between the consumer and the producer. He would now make a few remarks on the interesting speech of the hon. Member for South Norfolk, to whom, if they wished for instruction on this subject, they must look. Speaking for the Ministry generally and for himself he could not but express the regret they felt that he no longer sat beside them as the valued Colleague of the last two years. That chapter was now closed he was afraid, and he would therefore make a few remarks on his hon. Friend's speech. It was based mainly on the importance of securing uniformity in the various Orders and regulations relating to the stoppage of disease. Having spoken of quarantine and isolation of stock, and other matters of importance, he referred to the number of foreign cattle imported, and he appeared at one moment to speak slightingly of the foreign supply. He (Viscount Sandon) therefore felt bound to refer to the figures, which showed that the foreign supply was of importance, as half of it was slaughtered in London for the supply of the great metropolis. There were last year 200,000 cattle and 756,000 sheep imported, and more than half remained in the metropolis. These figures were small indeed in comparison with the flocks and herds of England; but as bearing on the meat supply of London they were of considerable importance. Then his hon. Friend asked why sundry recommendations of the Select Committee had not been carried into execution. One of these had reference to the compensation which the Committee recommended should be extended to three-fourths of the loss of the animal. Well, steps had been taken to raise the compensation to three-fourths of the value, the Department having found it almost impossible to work out what the Committee recommended as to the three-fourths of the loss. Then there came the question of the isolation for two months instead of one month. To effect that change fresh legislation would be requisite, and merely for the sake of such a change it would be considerable risk for the Government to bring in a Bill. Again, the fusion of the local authorities was a large question, which would lead to fresh legislation. He now came back to his hon.
  2070
  Friend's contention that uniformity of the rules and regulations was the great desideratum. He had no hesitation in saying that the Government were completely of opinion that uniformity was an object not only most excellent in itself, but one at which we must aim steadily and perseveringly. Moreover, the Government had already taken steps to effect uniformity. There were two classes of Orders—one relating to severe disorders and the other relating to foot-and-mouth disease. As soon as the Irish Bill had passed they would, in fact, have secured uniformity with regard to severe diseases all over the United Kingdom. This, surely, was a pledge that the Government were most anxious to advance as much as possible the principle of uniformity. When the present Government assumed office in 1874 they were brought face to face with the recommendations of the Select Committee. As to the foot-and-mouth disease, the Committee spoke with very great doubt. They said the opinions on the subject were exceedingly various and conflicting, both as regarded the amount of loss and the measures which had been adopted to meet it; and they further said their conviction was that the only mode of stamping out the disease would be to use the cattle plague regulations. The Committee said that the enforcement of such regulations for foot-and-mouth disease would require a numerous staff of Inspectors, and an amount of supervision by the Central authority which would excite much local opposition and such an interference in the trade in animals as would much affect prices, and would induce, not only the consumer, but the producer, to think that the remedy would be worse than the disease. This was the position of things in 1874, and the Lord President then carefully considered the whole subject of cattle regulations, coming to the conclusion that large changes, especially with reference to Ireland, would probably be needed. He felt, however, that the more he considered the subject the more care was required in dealing with it, and the more time was required for consulting authorities both in Ireland and in England. Meanwhile, numerous deputations waited upon the Lord President, both from the Royal Agricultural Society and from English counties, expressing anxiety that the former regulations as

  2071
  to foot-and-mouth disease should be re-enacted. The feeling seemed to be so widely spread that the Lord President felt bound to allow once more the use of the regulations, especially as he could not hope for a year or two to carry out the larger changes which might be necessary. That there was a considerable wish throughout the country for these Orders was shown by the fact that in 41 English counties out of the 58, and in 21 Scotch counties out of the 34, regulations had been passed owing to these Orders in Council. It was felt to be of great importance to assimilate the Irish law to that of England respecting these cattle disorders. The Lord President had also been arranging with the Irish authorities for a more perfect inspection at the Irish ports of the cattle leaving those ports, and it was hoped that if these arrangements were made, much of the inspection on the English side might be relaxed, which would be a great gain to the parties. Then a new set of Inspectors had been appointed—five travelling Inspectors, whose duty it was to go up and down the country and see that the orders under the Act were properly carried out. The happiest results had followed from the appointment of these Inspectors; and if the Government found that they were not numerous enough for the work, they would apply to Parliament for an increase of the staff, being thoroughly determined that that part of the work should be efficiently done. One part of the duty of these Inspectors was a prosecution of the railway companies and shipowners who had broken the law, and to scatter warnings among the great carriers of the country. Lastly, on the list of remedial measures, arrangements had been concluded with the Board of Trade by which all ships would be inspected by that Board which carried cattle. Thus there would be a fresh security for these vessels being in a proper condition. As the hon. Member (Mr. Read) had said, nothing contributed more to disease than dirt, and the manner he had indicated would be to secure not only cleanliness, but the humane treatment of the stock imported. Such were the steps taken by the Government. As to the future, they proposed to watch carefully during the next few months the changes hitherto made. If, through these changes, the foot-and-mouth disease were diminished, the way
  2072
  might then become clear for the abrogation of the existing Order. This was one alternative. The other was to make the Orders in Council much more stringent. There had been a remarkable diversity of opinion on this point to-night. Almost every one wished for uniformity in the regulations, but there was great difference of opinion as to what those regulations should be. Under these circumstances, the Government believed that it would be the wisest course, while accepting the principle of uniformity, to endeavour to attain it by the mildest means. He hoped the House would be willing that the Government should wait and watch. He would beg the House to remember that all this machinery of inspection, and going into people's yards and fields and telling them that they must not move their flocks and herds, was in itself a very vexatious and undesirable state of things. The system was one which we all disliked, and we submitted to it only as a precaution against greater evils. But the system was not only vexatious, it was also costly, and we ought to keep this object in view; instead of increasing, we should diminish interference with the agricultural population. The Government had, as he had shown, taken some considerable steps forward; they were most anxious to prevent the spread of disease; but they felt that they must keep this in view, that any unnecessary interference either with the meat supply of the people or with the farmer in his daily pursuits would be a great evil. He begged the House to accept the assurance of the Government that they were as warmly in favour of uniformity as any hon. Member, and that they thought conflicting orders in different parts of the country would, if persevered in, become absolutely intolerable, and could not be contemplated as a permanent arrangement. He asked the House to remember the various opinions which had been expressed to-night as to what should be done, land to accept the assurance of the Government that they were most earnest in the matter. The Lord President of the Council was constantly watching over this most difficult subject. He asked the House, then, not to tie the hands of the Government by either of the Resolutions on the Paper, but to allow them to go on with the great changes they had commenced, and

  2073
  in time to propose regulations which would be satisfactory to the House.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, after the satisfactory statement of the noble Lord that the Government accepted the principle of uniformity he would not be justified in asking the House to divide. He was very glad to hear that the Government had accepted that principle, and he would merely remark that all they had done to carry it out had been done since November last.
  MR. PARNELLobjected to the withdrawal of the Amendment, as he considered the noble Lord's speech unsatisfactory.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave,withdrawn.

SAINT VINCENT (TREATMENT OF COOLIES).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. ERRINGTONrose to call attention to certain abuses in the treatment of Coolies in the island of Saint Vincent, West Indies, and to move—
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence which may have passed from the 1st day of August 1875 to the present date, between the Governor of the Windward Islands, the Lieutenant Governor of Saint Vincent, and the Colonial Office, relative to alleged abuses in treatment of Coolies in Saint Vincent."
  The hon. Gentleman observed, that the regulations with regard to the Coolie traffic at St. Vincent were not so stringent as in other colonies, and that the administration of these regulations was also of an unsatisfactory character. What was required was a complete system of inspection, accompanied by careful statistics regularly published. This was done in the Island of Trinidad. There was not even a Return of the number of Coolies in the Island of St. Vincent. He had, however, ascertained, from private sources, that there were between 1,800 and 2,000 of them, scattered over 26 estates. There was one Emigration Agent in the whole colony, and he had to discharge also the duty of Inspector of Schools, 60 in number. In Trinidad there were several Emigration Agents, sub-agents, and assistants, resident in different parts of that Island. Then, the inspections in St. Vincent were almost
  2074
  of a purely formal character, and when they did take place, which was not often, the owners of the estates knew beforehand of the intended visits of the Inspector. There were only two or three interpreters for the whole of the Island, and not one in two of the most important police districts, containing some 800 Coolies. With regard to the Coolie laws, he was astonished to find that copies of the Acts could not be obtained because they were out of print, which was the first step towards the law which those Acts embodied becoming a dead letter. Then the costs and fees in the Law Courts pressed heavily on the Coolies, though formerly both they and the masters had been exempt from paying costs and fees. The administration of the Coolie law was practically in the hands of the Clerk of the Court. There were great anomalies in the administration of Coolie law by the three justices, and the constitution of the Executive Council was most unsatisfactory. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman who represented the Colonial Office in that House would be able to assure them that this matter would not be overlooked; that inquiries would be made and instructions issued, of the nature of which the House would be duly informed. As to the Papers he would not press for them, if the hon. Gentleman thought their production inexpedient; but many, very many, persons in this country who took the deepest interest in the Coolie question would be perfectly satisfied if they knew that the matter had the attention of the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Office (the Earl of Carnarvon), whose policy commanded in so singular a manner the approbation and approval of the country.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, in seconding the Motion, said, that other colonies, like St. Vincent, received Coolies with the understanding that when their term of service was completed they would become freemen. He believed that that bargain was not always carried out, because the administration of the law in those colonies was almost entirely in the hands of the planters and merchants. The Coolie question was a most important one. The system under which it was regulated in the tea districts in India which imported Coolies ought to be also practised in these Crown colonies, in order to secure a pure administration of

  2075
  justice. That was to say, the administrative officers and the traders should have no connection with the planting interest.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence which may have passed from the 1st day of August 1875 to the present date, between the Governor of the Windward Islands, the Lieutenant Governor of Saint Vincent, and the Colonial Office, relative to alleged abuses in treatment of Coolies in Saint Vincent."—(Mr. Errington.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERadmitted that the subject was one of importance and had been ably introduced by the hon. Member. It had been stated that some system in reference to Coolie labour would have to be settled, and that the existing system should not be encouraged any further. Without saying that the whole system was properly regulated, he might say that in this Island it was upon a sound system. There were 35,000 souls upon the Island, of whom 2,400 were Europeans, 24,000 were Africans, who were not devoted adherents to manual labour. The population of the Island was not, therefore, capable of developing its resources; but he agreed that the importation of Coolies should be strictly watched. As to the want of adequate inspection, the Coolie population was under 1,500, and there was an Emigration Agent, who was a very efficient officer. As to the fees in the Courts, they were merely nominal, and did not deter any person from bringing his case into Court. The death-rate amongst Coolies according to the last accounts was very low, and the Emigration Agents reported that the condition of that class was generally good, tolerable evidence that they were not subjected to the deplorable ill-treatment which the hon. Gentleman supposed. He might add that none of the gentlemen to whom reference was made were planters, and that it was a mistake to suppose that the administration of justice was entirely in the hands of persons of that class. As to the Papers mentioned, he had no objection to their production; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman would find that they bore out his case.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought, from his knowledge of this Island, that the Coolie system would require
  2076
  careful and constant watchfulness on the part of the Foreign Office.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, I have to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law in regard to Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland. For a very considerable period my attention has been given to this subject. It is one attended with numerous difficulties, and I am not sanguine enough to suppose that all of these difficulties will be obviated by the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce. Assessments for building and repairing churches and manses have been imposed in Scotland ever since the Reformation. The incidence of the assessment has been varied at different times, but about the end of last century it had come to rest upon the land as, distinguished from any other kind of property. Its apportionment on the land was regulated in each parish by the valued rent—i.e., the old valuation made for the purpose of the land tax, and which is still the basis of that tax. Since 1800, however, partly in consequence of certain decisions of the Court of Session, and still more in consequence of the passing of the Valuation Act of 1854, the church and manse assessments have, in a large number of parishes, come gradually to be imposed, not on the land according to the valued rent, but on all heritable subjects, including houses, manufactories, and railways, according to the real rental as shown by the valuation roll. One of the results of this has been that the feuars—that is to say, the owners of small pieces of land generally occupied by houses—have come unexpectedly to be subject to assessment, although they were not so previously. The amount of the assessment laid on these feuars has been generally very small—so small, indeed, as to be in many cases not worth collecting; but the putting them occasionally in force has been sufficient to create and to keep up a considerable amount of dissatisfaction against these assessments. This, I need scarcely say, has not been diminished where sectarian feelings have

  2077
  come into play, as, of course, they are apt to do in a country in which, religious divisions exist to so great an extent as in Scotland. I desire, however, at once to say that, in the proposals which I am about to make—whilst I am far from undervaluing the conscientious scruples of Dissenters—I cannot admit that, except in the case of the churches and manses of Dissenting ministers—which I think should be exempted—there is any sufficient reason for legislation in regard to the assessments, which are a burden on land. What I propose to do is to restore, as far as possible, the basis of assessment which existed before the change introduced by the decision and the statute which I have already referred to. The Bill provides—
  "1st, That in those parishes and cases in which the valued rental is now the basis of ecclesiastical assessment it shall continue to he so.
  "2nd, That in all other parishes and cases these assessments shall he imposed on the land alone according to its yearly value, exclusive of the buildings on it, no assessment being imposed on any subject where such yearly value is under £4.
  "3rd, That for the purpose of ascertaining this yearly value of the land, exclusive of the buildings on it, the assessors under the Valuation Acts will be required to estimate the same, and enter it in a column to be added, for that purpose, to the existing valuation rolls."
  2078
  The effect of this provision, which will relieve the feuars' houses, &c, will be in some parishes to increase the burden upon the owners of agricultural land; and, in order to lighten that burden, I propose to enable the ecclesiastical assessments to be spread over a period of 20 years instead of 10 years, as is now competent. I cannot, indeed, expect that these proposals will be satisfactory to every one. I can only say that they are the result of very careful consideration on the part of the Government, and I have also had the benefit of the advice of many of my hon. Friends from Scotland who sit near me.
  Bill to amend the Law in regard to Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland, ordered to he brought in by The LORD Advocate, Mr. Secretary CROSS, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 106.]

  MARINE MUTINY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Bill for the Regulation of Her Majesty's Royal Marine Forces while on shore, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. HUNT, and Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Patents for Inventions (15).
Report—Crossed Cheques* (27).
Third Reading—Appellate Jurisdiction (23); Epping Forest* (24), and passed.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.

  (NO. 15.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that the Petition he had just presented raised two points in connection with this measure. The poorer class of inventors considered that the fees which they had to pay were too high; and he must say that it seemed reasonable that the fees should be reduced, so that every facility should be given to the application of those who were desirous of obtaining patents. The other objection to the existing system was that the specifications of patents were not sufficiently circulated. He understood that free libraries and other institutions had found considerable difficulty in getting copies of the specifications. As regarded the question of patents he believed that the whole matter lay between two issues—either that there should be no patents at all, or else that every facility should be given to the poorer class of inventors for obtaining them. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord would give some attention to the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was obliged to the noble Earl for drawing his attention to the matter: he was, however, at a loss to understand

  1945
  the foundation of the complaint that there was any difficulty in obtaining copies of specifications—an objection of which he had never heard before. He had been led to believe that if there was any error it was the other way. He had understood that there was no Department that had given so great facilities to the public as the Commissioners for Patents in reference to obtaining information in reference to specifications. Not only was there a central Library of Specifications where they were open for inspection without fee, but they had been printed from the earliest time, and could be obtained for a very small sum of money. In addition, copies were sent to various depôts throughout the country, where they could be purchased at a very low price. As to the question of fees imposed for obtaining patents, that was in one sense more for the House of Commons than for their Lordships. The Royal Commission examined the question, and they were unanimously of opinion that the fees should not be reduced; and a Committee of the House of Commons reported, by a majority of 8 to 3, against reduction. Therefore, he had not proposed any reduction in his present Bill. It should be borne in mind that the grant of a patent was the grant of a monopoly which might very seriously interfere with the trade of the country; and that it should not therefore be granted lightly. One of the best checks against the granting of patents for matters that might be frivolous or useless was the establishment of sufficient fees. The payment of fees was at present arranged in a very sensible manner; for the stamp payable on first obtaining the patent was small, and the larger fees were payable only on the expiration of the third and seventh years; so that the inventor would have time to consider whether it would be worth his while to pay the larger fee or not. He did not think that the fees at present charged upon inventions could be reduced without serious danger to the interests of trade.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that he thought the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had done well in omitting from the present Bill the provision for the appointment of Experts contained in the Bill of last year. As to the omission of the clause providing for two classes of patents—
  1946
  one for seven and the other for 14 years—he doubted whether it was so advisable. He thought that with respect to that proposition it might have been better for the noble and learned Lord to have acted on first impulses.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.

  (NO. 23.) THIRD READING.
  Bill read the third time (according to Order).
  LORD REDESDALEcongratulated their Lordships on the fact that the Bill had reached this stage without opposition. Looking back to the legislation of 1873 and to what occurred in 1874 and 1875 in reference to this subject, he thought that the change of opinion which had led to this Bill was very complimentary to the manner in which their Lordships had exercised Appellate Jurisdiction.
  Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDIA—THE INDIAN TARIFF.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXrose and said: It is with great regret that I have felt it to be my duty to call the attention of your Lordships to the Papers laid on the Table by the Secretary of State for India on the subject of the Indian tariff, more especially because I am afraid that from accidental circumstances the question may assume the appearance of a Party question. Noble Lords who have been at the India Office in this country during late Administrations naturally sit on this side of the House; but it so happens that other noble Lords who have filled with distinction the highest offices in India, and who have formed their opinions from personal knowledge of the country, and who, I am happy to say, agree with me, also sit on the same side.
  I have always considered Indian questions to be far above all Party views. When my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I discussed Indian matters

  1947
  in the House of Commons together, I bear willing testimony to the fact that the noble Earl was careful to do so without any reference to Party considerations, and I trust the noble Earl will readily bear similar testimony in reference to my own mode of treating these subjects.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Hear, hear:
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The question to-night is not a question between the two sides of the House. It is a question between the line of conduct hitherto happily pursued in reference to the Government in India and Indian interests, and a totally different line of conduct, which these Papers seem to indicate that it is the intention of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India to pursue.
  When, many years ago, I first became Minister for India, the unanimous opinion of statesmen of all Parties, as tersely expressed by Lord Macaulay, was that India ought to be governed for Indian interests and as much as possible in India. Indeed, I consider that proposition so nearly self-evident that it does not need much argument to support it. There was a time when the interests of our Colonies were made subordinate to those of the Mother Country. We have grown wiser; we have established in the Colonies independent domestic Legislatures which govern the Colonies in the interests and in accordance with the wishes of the Colonies themselves. The circumstances of India make it impossible that an independent local Legislature should be established in India; but the same principle of government is no less applicable to India than to the Colonies. The Colonies are able to protect themselves through their own Legislatures, and as the people of India have not a domestic Legislature to protect them, I have always held it to be the duty of the Secretary of State for India to protect their interests against any pressure in this country for English interests.
  I object to the policy of my noble Friend because he has departed from the old recognized policy, and, against the views of the Government in India and of the people in India, has given directions for the abandonment of a a considerable and increasing source of revenue, and, further, that in giving those directions my noble Friend has adopted a tone in his despatches little
  1948
  calculated to promote good feeling and harmony between the Government of India and the India Office, or to induce the people of India to acquiesce in our rule with that willingness which hitherto they have generally manifested.
  I will take the two questions in order. To any one acquainted with India I need hardly say that the subject which has always caused most anxiety is the financial state of the country. The financial state of England is sometimes a source of anxiety, but I do not hesitate to say that in India it must be a constant source of the greatest anxiety. Why is that so? First, the expenditure of India is almost sure to increase more rapidly than the income; next, part of the revenue is very precarious; and, lastly, it is almost impossible to levy a new tax. A large portion of the income of India is derived from the land revenue, which is not a tax in the ordinary sense of the term. It is rent settled in perpetuity, or for terms of 30 years, and must rise very slowly, as, indeed, is the case with the other sources of income.
  Now, as to the expenditure. The Mutiny almost doubled the debt. Of late years a system has been introduced of borrowing largely for public works. If those works should prove reproductive—should the receipts from them be sufficient to pay the interest on the capital—there would be no increase of the public burdens on account of those works; but as far as my experience goes the reproductiveness of those works is both doubtful and slow. The first use to which any surplus should be applied is that of keeping down the public debt. In other respects the expenditure must increase considerably. The whole cost of living in India has risen. We are now improving the condition of the British Army. That improvement must be extended to the troops serving in India, and the cost of so extending it and of improving the barracks must be borne by India. The cost of the Civil administration must increase in like manner. We know what the Civil Service Estimates are coming to in this country; but the necessity for improvements causing greater expense in that service must be much more pressing in a country like India. The expense of the police and the gaols is perpetually increasing. Within the last few months, I might almost say, another source of increased

  1949
  expense to India has grown up in consequence of the diminution in the value of silver. I am afraid that this must result in a very large increase of the public expenditure. The revenue is raised in silver rupees, but the same nominal amount will not be of the same real value, and it may be necessary to raise the salaries of the public servants in India. There can, however, be no question as to the effect on the remittances to England. Nearly £15,000,000 is paid in England by the Government of India. The means of payment will be raised in depreciated silver—the payment must be made in gold. A larger amount of silver will therefore be required, and I cannot put the not improbable addition to the charge on the revenues of India from this cause at less than £1,500,000 or £2,000,000. In this state of things, surely common sense would suggest that, whatever sources of revenue there are, they ought to be preserved unless they were in themselves very objectionable. My noble Friend the Secretary of State denounces the duty on cotton goods as protective and oppressive, and has been reading lectures on political economy to the Government of India, who were free traders long before we were. Let us see how far these duties are protective. Before the Mutiny the ruling rate of duty on articles imported into India was 5 per cent. At the time of the Mutiny, when the Government was in great want of money, that duty was raised to 10 per cent; but in 1861, which was as soon as circumstances admitted of the alteration, the duty on cotton goods was reduced to 5 per cent. while the duty on all other goods imported was continued at 10 per cent. With this reduction and a lower valuation no complaint was heard of protection. It is quite true that circumstances have changed since then, and that in 1873 a steam mill for the manufacture of cotton goods was sot up in Bombay. The number of mills in India has increased up to the present time, and the lower description of goods made in India may have to some extent excluded the same sort of goods made in Manchester, on which the 5 per cent duty is paid. There is, however, another cause operating against the Manchester goods. It is certain that some of the cotton goods sent out to India are of a much inferior description to those manufactured in India, In the
  1950
  former, the quantity of gypsum sent from Leicestershire for the purpose, and introduced with the cotton, is very considerable; whilst a Mr. Robinson, a cotton spinner at Glasgow, who was sent over to visit the Indian mills, reports that from 10 to 20 per cent more cotton than is usual is put into the goods made there. In 1872, 75 per cent of this description of goods sent to Shanghai were unsaleable. This being the case, it is not surprising that a preference is given in India to goods manufactured there over those imported from Manchester. It is very doubtful, therefore, whether the duty on Manchester goods really acts as a protective duty, and, indeed, the noble Marquess himself in his despatch of July says that as against the Lancashire manufacturers the effect of the 5 per cent duty is insignificant. But whatever the amount of protection may be, the imposition of an equivalent excise duty on the goods manufactured in the steam mills of India would remove all cause of complaint against the import duty. Is the duty oppressive on the people of India? It is difficult to prove any tax to be a good thing in itself, but as revenue must be raised, the only practicable course is to choose the least objectionable tax. It is also a maxim of taxation that if you have to raise a considerable sum of money, you must levy it on as large a number of people as possible, and, of course, upon something which they consume. Now, as regards taxation, the people of India are certainly in a very happy condition, because as a people they pay as little taxes as can well be conceived if there is to be taxation at all. The great mass of them—in round numbers 200,000,000—pay no taxes except the import duty on cotton goods and the tax on salt. In this country the man who does not pay duty on one thing pays it on another. The man who does not drink spirits drinks beer or smokes tobacco; but in India there is no item on which the people ever pay duty, except on the cotton goods imported and salt. If their condition improves, they get gold or silver coins, which they manufacture into gold and silver ornaments, but there is no duty on gold and silver. I believe that this tax in the shape of the import duty has been borne willingly by the people, and a duty of £800,000 levied on 200,000,000 of people can scarcely be

  1951
  regarded as oppressive. Indeed, the best witness against the duty being either protective or oppressive is the noble Marquess himself. Having committed himself more than a year ago to the people of Lancashire and denounced this duty, he has declaimed in his despatches against protection, and in favour of the settled free-trade policy of this country; but when he comes to apply these principles to practise, his good sound sense comes into play, and he says, in his despatch of July 15, 1875—
  "If it were true that this duty is the means of excluding English competition, and thereby raising the price of a necessary of life to the vast mass of Indian consumers, it is unnecessary for me to remark that it would be open to economical objections of the gravest kind. I do not attribute to it any such effect."
  Nothing can be more conclusive. It is not protective because it does not exclude English competition; it is not oppressive because it does not raise the price of a necessary of life. On these grounds, therefore, there does not appear to be any good reason for repealing the tax; and the Government of India taking the same view of it as is stated by the noble Marquess, did not, in dealing with the tariff, make any change in this duty, stating, at the same time, that if it was shown to act as a protective duty, it might be necessary to impose an equivalent excise duty on indigenous mills. They abolished the export duties on many articles of Indian produce, of which the noble Marquess has approved; they lowered the valuation of cotton goods, and reduced the import duty on various articles, and thereby brought the ruling rate of duty on general imports down to the old normal rate of 5 per cent. What is the financial result of what has been done? The total loss of revenue by the reductions is £308,000; of which £173,000 was the loss on exports and £88,000 on the reduced valuation of cotton goods. Those two items make £261,000, of both of which the noble Marquess approves, and which sum, taken from the £308,000, reduces the loss by the decrease of the import duties to £47,000, which the Indian Government, judging from the experience of the reduction in 1864, hope soon to recover.
  The Government of India say that they could not spare the amount of revenue derived from the duty on cotton goods; that any substitute was more objectionable;
  1952
  that if it was shown to be protective, the remedy was an internal excise duty, and that it was not felt to be an oppressive tax on the people of India. My noble Friend however thinks that this duty on cotton goods ought to be entirely removed. He has expressed that opinion to the people of Lancashire and he expressed it to the Governor General of India, and repeated the order for its repeal in a despatch dated the 11th of November, 1875. The most extravagant Free-trader could scarcely have used stronger language than my noble Friend used in a despatch in reference to applying to India the recognized policy of England, and after some qualifying words as to guarding the finances of India, concluded in the following words:—
  "The entire removal of the duty should, however, not he adjourned for an indefinite period, but provisions should be made for it within a fixed term of years."
  My noble Friend has written a Minute to explain what he has written in a despatch, saying that he only ordered the repeal of the duty when the revenue of India could spare it, and that he had not said anything of a new tax. This, however, is inconsistent with the words of the despatch which went to India. If the removal of the duty depends on the condition of the revenue of India, it must be at an indefinite period, for even my noble Friend cannot foresee the time when the progress of revenue will enable the Government to take off the duty. It is, according to the noble Lord's orders, to be taken off, not at an indefinite period, but in a fixed and no very long term of years. As I read the order conveyed in the despatch it amounts to this—revenue or no revenue, the Indian Government must make provision for the repeal of the tax within two or three years. Well, if there is no surplus to supply the place of that duty, of course, there must be another tax. What else can the Indian Government have understood by the instructions sent them from the India Office? There is no qualification in the despatches to India. The noble Marquess denounced the duty to deputations here; in the despatch of July he declared that it could not be permanent; in November, that it must be repealed in a fixed term of years. I can put no other meaning on

  1953
  his words. One other reason my noble Friend has assigned for the repeal of the duty on cotton goods. Having clearly expressed his opinion that it was neither protective nor oppressive, he says, in his despatch of July, that there is a political reason why it should not be permanent—namely, lest it should raise a feeling of animosity on both sides by putting the interests of England in antagonism with those of India. Now, I should like to know how a feeling of antagonism is to be raised by this duty. There can be no feeling of antagonism entertained by the people of India on account of it, because they are contented with it. On the other hand, as the noble Marquess has stated that it has not the effect of excluding British manufactured goods from India, why should it raise any feeling of antagonism in the minds of the people of this country, or even of the manufacturers of Lancashire? I am afraid that what my noble Friend has done by his despatch is far more likely to produce a feeling of antagonism than a retention of the duty. How stands the case? The Government of India, the commercial community of India, and the people of India are of opinion that it is for the interest of India that the duty should be maintained, rather than that another tax should be imposed. My noble Friend is of opinion that provision should be made for the repeal of the duty within a definite time. In fact there is the opinion of the Government, the mercantile community, and the people of India on the one side, and the opinion of the Secretary of State for India and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on the other. I do not see how antagonism can be more strongly marked. I will not use any words of my own to describe such a state of matters. I will quote the words of Mr. Laing on this subject, addressed some years ago to a committee of gentlemen at Manchester, who urged the repeal of these duties. Mr. Laing was a thorough Free-trader, he had been Finance Minister of India, and understood the financial state of India, and he had reduced the duties on cotton goods in 1861 from 10 to 5 percent. Mr. Laing afterwards came home to this country, knowing the state of India and of its finances thoroughly, and he went to Manchester and had an interview with a body established there to promote the entire repeal of those duties. After he
  1954
  left Manchester Mr. Laing addressed a letter to that body, in which he says—
  "The import duty is scarcely felt at all, while the direct taxes involved an inevitable amount of oppression, extortion, evasion, alarm, and discontent which made them intensely unpopular. If India is to be retained in peaceful and loyal allegiance to the British Crown, these matters must he looked upon in an Indian as well as an English point of view, and the interests, the wishes, and the feelings of 150,000,000 of inhabitants must be the primary consideration in deciding how to raise the necessary revenue. I believe the Indian Government and the whole Indian community would oppose it, and I cannot for a moment imagine that any Secretary of State would think of sending an order to India for a purely English object, overruling in such a manner the unanimous wish of India. If he did, he would deserve to be impeached, for it is perfectly evident that he would be a far more formidable enemy to the British Crown than Ferozeshah or Nana Sahib."
  I turn now to the other branch of the subject. My noble Friend opposite has not only ordered the Government of India to do that of which they and the whole Indian community disapprove, but he has given orders and treated the Government of India in a way which I must say is not calculated to promote harmonious feelings between the two Governments, or to reconcile the people of India to our rule. In his first despatch the noble Marquess directs that drafts of Bills, with their objects and reasons, should be transmitted to him by the Indian Government for his consideration. I have no objection to the purport of this despatch. In July, 1863, the Government of India itself passed a resolution, directing that drafts of all Bills to be submitted to the Governor General's Council, with their objects and reasons, should be transmitted to the Secretary of State; and in December, 1863, I expressed my entire approval of the course then adopted, and desired that it should be continued. I cannot say that every Bill, whether of little or of much importance, was so transmitted; but I have no doubt that the practice has been continued by the Indian Government in pursuance of its own wish and intention. My noble Friend, however, appears to have found out in about a month after he came into office that they did not do what they had always done before. Surely it would have been enough simply to desire them to revert to the usual practice. Instead of that the noble Marquess sent the most peremptory orders, extending the rule

  1955
  even to Amendments that were proposed to be made in Bills by the Council of the Governor General. Some liberty was however left to the Governor General, and he, was not required, in an urgent, ease, to send the Bill home. Of the urgency he was left himself to judge, and surely this was no unreasonable liberty to leave to a person in so high and responsible a position as the Governor General of India.
  Lord Northbrook, availing himself of that permission, passed the Tariff Bill at Simla. I admit at once that, as a general rule, this is an objectionable proceeding, except under special circumstances.
  Let us see then if the circumstances were such in this case as to justify the proceeding. The noble Marquess has found fault with Lord Northbrook for having so done upon two grounds. The first ground is, that he had acted without the advice and knowledge of persons possessing other than official experience, and that it was exceedingly desirable to have the assistance of mercantile councillors in such a matter, who, as the noble Marquess seems to think, are only to be found at Calcutta. If, however, we examine the circumstances under which the measure was taken, we shall find that this objection actually amounts to very little. How did the question originate? The Government of India, in order to carry out some views expressed to them by my noble Friend as to the valuation of goods, appointed a Tariff Committee, and the measure which was ultimately passed was passed, in fact, upon the recommendation of that Committee, which consisted of men as competent to represent the views of the whole commercial community of India as any men well could be. The Committee included, with others, two Members of the Legislative Council, one of them a merchant, the collector of Customs at Calcutta, and the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce in Bengal. The Chambers of Commerce at Madras and Bombay did not think it worth while to send one of their members, but communicated their views fully in writing. The Committee agreed unanimously except upon some details as to the amount of duties, and the Tariff Bill embodied their recommendations. The Governor General's Council comprised 16 members; 10 were actually present, and 12 had expressed their approval
  1956
  of the proposal. Though the Council did not sit at Calcutta, it had before it the opinions of the non-official Members, and it also had in a shape, far better than it could have had them from the outside opinion of Calcutta, the views of the whole commercial community of India as represented in that Committee, and since confirmed by the unanimous assent of the people of India. The other ground of blame was that the urgency of the case was not such as to justify the course which was taken; but the truth is that the stagnation of trade, in consequence of the uncertainty as to the intentions of the Government, and urgently represented by memorials from Calcutta, and the necessity of dealing with the valuation, were grounds enough for the proceeding; and the Government of India further remark—in which my recollection confirms them—that it never has been the practice to send home from India Bills on the subject of duties to be levied in that country. I think, therefore, that there is no foundation for blaming the proceedings of the Government of India.
  Having disposed of the two grounds on which the noble Marquess has blamed the Government of India, I come to the general directions which he has given.
  Nobody can have a stronger opinion than I have of the necessity of the fullest and most unreserved communication between the Government at home and that in India. It is essential to the harmonious working of the Government of India. But I confess to having a strong opinion in favour of its being mainly carried on by unofficial correspondence. Views are in this way more easily and fully developed, differences are more easily adjusted than in formal despatches. When the Secretary of State, with his Advisers here, and the Governor General, with his Advisers in India, have come to an agreement, then a public despatch should record the decision. It is most undesirable that controversies between two Departments should be carried on in public despatches, and that differences which disappear in the end should meanwhile have been brought before the public. It lowers the authority of the Government, and that should be especially avoided in India. During the time when I was Secretary of State, and Lord Canning was Governor General, most of the great

  1957
  measures of re-organization after the Mutiny were passed, some in Parliament, some in the Governor General's Council in India. On looking over my correspondence with Lord Canning at the time, I find that Lord Canning communicated his opinion on my measures, and I communicated my opinion on his measures in the most open manner, and the result was a complete understanding and agreement between us.
  The noble Marquess's despatch of November requires that even in the case of an emergency the Governor General should in the first instance communicate with the Secretary of State by telegraph. It is almost impossible that the Governor General should be able to state in a telegraphic despatch all the circumstances and all the reasons for the conduct he proposes to pursue; and any instructions which the Secretary of State may give to the Governor General as to the course he should pursue on the receipt of such a despatch would most probably be founded on imperfect information. A more dangerous course I can hardly imagine, even if, in all cases, it should be possible.
  Taking the two despatches together, and the tone in which they are couched, they seem to me to reduce the Governor General to the position of a mere tool of the Secretary of State, and instead of a general superintendence of the government of India, to transfer the administration of Indian legislation from the Government of India to the Secretary of State in Council. I do not question the power of the Secretary of State to do so: he must in the ultimate resort be supreme, and nobody has stated more highly than I have done the power of the Secretary of State. I did not obtrude such opinion on the Government of India; they asked me what I considered my power to be, and I could not decline to answer them. The question arose out of a very exceptional case. In 1864 a Bill was introduced into the Indian Legislative Council by a Civil servant, not himself a lawyer, to amend an admirable penal code which had been framed by a Commission composed of very able men and accomplished jurists in this country, who had devoted their time and labour, without fee or reward, to the framing of that Code and other legal measures for the benefit of India. It was a question of general
  1958
  law, and not one in which local Indian knowledge was of much avail. Some of the Members of the Commission remonstrated against their work being so altered, and, thinking them perfectly right, I wrote to the Government of India, desiring them to consult the Judges of India on the subject, and to send to me the opinion of the Judges, together with their own, that I might communicate with the authors of the Code; and suggesting that, in the meantime, they should suspend their legislation on the subject. The Government of India took that opportunity of raising the question—what was the power of the Secretary of State? In reply, I told them that I conceived that the Executive Government of India was as completely under the control of the Secretary of State as it had been under the old Court of Directors, and that it was bound to obey any directions given by him. But I added—
  "I have always abstained, however, from giving any direction upon such subjects; I have confined myself to suggesting the course which I thought desirable; and it seems to me that this is a course altogether unobjectionable. Your despatch refers to the power of the Secretary of State to disallow any Act passed by the Governor General's Council when assembled for purposes of legislation; but surely it is more courteous, and more calculated to maintain the character and dignity of the Council, that the Secretary of State should suggest to the Executive Government to suspend, and even to withdraw a Bill, than leaving them to proceed without any intimation of his opinion that he should ultimately disallow it. In the course which I have taken on this and on former occasions I have always been anxious that the communications between the Home Government and the Government of India should be so conducted as to insure the most harmonious action between them. It is obviously most conducive to a good understanding that extreme claims should not be put forward on one side or extreme rights enforced on the other; and I cannot entertain a doubt but that with an earnest desire on the part of the various bodies among whom the different parts of the Government of India are distributed to maintain harmonious action, the well-being of that vast and important Empire may best be promoted."
  I do not think that I could have written in a tone more courteous or more calculated to promote harmonious action between the Government at home and the Government in India. I grieve to say that I cannot think the tone of the noble Marquess's despatches calculated to promote such harmonious action. I confess that on reading them, a painful

  1959
  question arose in my mind as to the effect which would have been produced by them on some of the great men who have ruled India. Our Empire there has been formed and maintained by distinguished statesmen, who never shrank from responsibility in times of difficulty and danger. Without going further back, what would have been the effect on Lord Dalhousie, Lord Canning, or Lord Elgin, three men who had been Cabinet Ministers here, and had shown themselves in India and elsewhere fully capable of government? What would have been the effect on my noble Friend behind me (Lord Lawrence), to whose resolution and energy we owed the safety of Upper India, and the capture of Delhi, which was the turning point of the Mutiny?
  I say nothing of Lord Northbrook. He is a personal friend of mine. I do not know what his opinion may be, for I have not heard a word from him on the subject. Fortunately for himself he had resigned before he received the despatch of November; but I can hardly doubt of his being glad to escape from so humiliating a position.
  Again, what a discouragement such a proceeding must be to such men as ought to be sent out to govern our Indian Empire? Men of high position and character would shrink from exposing themselves to such treatment.
  But beyond even this, it could not but have a most prejudicial effect in lowering the position of the Governor General in the eyes of the Princes and people in India, and in teaching them to look to England and not to the Government in India. We must never forget the anomalous character of our Empire in India, where a few thousand Europeans rule more than 200,000,000 of the Natives of the country. Upon the whole the people look up to our officers as their friends and protectors; but it is most essential to maintain the character of those officers and especially of their head, the Governor General, the impersonation of British rule in India.
  Here the people look up to the complex machine which constitutes the Government, but to the Oriental mind of the Native the Government is the person whom he sees. His fear, or reverence, or love, is to the person. If the Ruler is discredited, the influences which produce loyalty and cheerful
  1960
  obedience are weakened. If he is known to be powerful, and believed to be kindly disposed, he is cheerfully obeyed, and looked up to with a kind of superstitious reverence.
  In one instance, I acted without previous communication with Lord Canning. I increased by a few thousand pounds the allowance to some native Princes. Lord Canning, who was not a vain man, or tenacious of his position, thought that I had impaired the authority of the Governor General. He recorded a public Minute, of which I will read a short extract—
  "I am convinced that to hold India well in hand the influence of the Governor General ought to be increased, and not diminished in the eyes of the natives, and that weakness will result to the Government of India by attracting their attention and their hopes from. India to England."
  In private he wrote more strongly and told me that I had shaken the authority of the Governor General in the eyes of the people of India.
  If he thought the evil effect so great in a very small matter, what would he have said on the receipt of such despatches as the noble Marquess has now addressed to the Governor General, and which will be known through all India?
  I have no fear for our Government in India—our military power has been shown in the Mutiny—but we ought to neglect nothing which tends to keep up our visible supremacy, and to maintain that mixed feeling of awe, reverence, and affection for the Representative of the Sovereign of England, which may go far to render unnecessary any recourse to extreme measures in India.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Viscount has called in question the two despatches of the 11th of November and of the 31st of March, 1874, issued by the India Office, and also the policy and the points of procedure indicated by those despatches. I think it would be convenient if I were to follow his example in taking them in a separate form; and therefore, putting aside for the moment all those comments upon my conduct with which I will deal hereafter, and the conduct of the Governor General in Council, I will deal simply with the policy of the Indian tariff, which was called in question by the despatch of the 11th of November last, The noble Viscount has very judiciously

  1961
  avoided dealing with one of the most important matters relating to this subject. He tells us that we have condemned the policy of the Governor General in too severe terms; and that that policy was based upon the Report of a Committee representing all the commercial communities of India:—and in proof of that assertion he cites in his favour the authority of the collectors of Customs at the out-ports. I never heard before that the collectors of Customs were the representatives of the commercial communities of India. But the noble Viscount has entirely omitted to notice one enactment of the Governor General of vast importance, and which, if it stood alone, must have called for the disallowance of the India Office, it having been universally disapproved by every voice that has spoken in India, and in behalf of which I have not heard one voice raised in England. Among the measures which the Governor General passed was one imposing a 5 per cent duty upon raw foreign cottons—in order, as he said, to protect Manchester from the possible competition of Indian mills with regard to the finer cotton goods. I venture, on behalf of the Manchester manufacturers, of whom the noble Viscount appears to have so poor an opinion and in depreciation of whom he appears to have devoted so large a portion of his speech, to say that they do not want that protection. To adopt such a system would be to reverse the entire policy of this country, and would be an attempt to abandon the principle which has been carried into effect by almost every foreign country of late years. I say that that course was adopted without the sanction or the advice of the mercantile community; and it remains a glaring instance of the gross impolicy of legislation on subjects of this character in violation of all the usages by which the Legislative Council of India has been guided. Had it been proposed at Calcutta instead of at Simla, it never would have been passed into a law. The noble Viscount having judiciously evaded the question of imposing duties on raw cotton, proceeded to deal with the duties upon cotton goods. And here I must complain that he has been most persistently setting up his own adversary for the purpose of knocking him down. He has urged that it is very wrong to adopt a course that will result in a deficiency in
  1962
  the Indian finances; that it is very dangerous to impose new taxes on the population of India. He entirely ignores the fact that we never hinted at new taxes, and that in the most earnest language we have warned the Government of India against any conduct that would involve the Indian finances in a deficiency. On this point I must be allowed to read my own words, and I will ask your Lordships whether they do not clearly sustain what I say as to the subject of avoiding a deficiency. In my first despatch, I say—
  "These considerations will I doubt not commend themselves to your Excellency's mind the policy of removing at as early a period as the state of your finances permits this subject of dangerous contention."
  And in my second despatch, I say—
  "This abolition should be gradual, and, in deciding upon the mode in which it should be effected, the period which will be necessary for its completion and the accompanying measures which may be requisite, the paramount importance of guarding the Indian Treasury from financial embarrassment must be borne in mind."
  Is it possible to state in stronger language than I have done the importance of guarding the Indian Treasury from exposure to financial deficiencies? The noble Viscount has laid down as a maxim of State that you should keep every tax you can hold. But what have his friends been doing? The most striking part in the sudden change in the tariff was flashed upon us, to our surprise, on the 5th of August by a telegram stating that £400,000 of taxes had been repealed. The noble Viscount has accused me of intending to levy another new tax. I can only say that no such intention either exists or has existed, and that to assume any such intention on the part of either the Government or myself is perfectly gratuitous on the part, either of the noble Viscount or any other person who expresses an opinion on the subject. If any other tax had been suggested in lieu of the cotton duty, I should have expressed my strong objection to it; but no such suggestion is made in either of the despatches which are now under consideration. Reference has been made to the dissent of Sir Erskine Perry; and on that subject I can only say that I was not aware of the existence of such dissent until my attention was called to it by the Under Secretary, and I then,

  1963
  following custom and precedent, entered a Minute of the dissent in the usual record. In proposing to deal with the cotton duties we warned the Government against running into a deficiency, but we gave no hint of raising a new tax. It may be asked how the cotton duties are to be removed in the course of a series of years?—and in answer to that question I would say that for many years past the revenue of India has been rising. Since the noble Viscount left the India Office, for instance, the revenue has risen to the extent of about £5,000,000, or £500,000 a-year. I find from Lord Northbrook's account of the various surpluses that in 1871–2 the surplus was £3,000,000; in 1872–3 it was £1,700,000; and in 1873–4 it was £2,071,000; in 1874–5 it was£ l,800,000. It is obvious, therefore, that, with a rising revenue and a fair allowance of time, a tax like that on cotton can be abolished without either creating embarrassment or rendering it necessary to levy any new taxes. We have, therefore, pointed out to the Indian Government our views of the manner in which their surplus revenues should be applied, our opinion being that the application should be in the direction of reducing or abolishing those taxes to which, on fair and reasonable grounds, the strongest objections could be made. What, then, is the objection to the tax? And in answering this question I must take exception to the way in which the noble Viscount has quoted from me. He imputes to me a statement that the effect of the 5 per cent tax is insignificant. What I actually said was that, in presence of other circumstances affecting the trade, it was an exaggeration on the part of the Lancashire manufacturers to imagine that the falling off in their trade was mainly due to the 5 per cent duty. If the noble Viscount had quoted another passage in my despatch, he would have seen that I asserted in very distinct terms that the tax was on general principles liable to objection as impeding the import of an article of first necessity, and as tending to operate as a protective duty in favour of a native manufacture. Notwithstanding this, the noble Viscount has informed your Lordships that I described the tax as not being a protective duty—and I can only say that if an adversary's despatches are to be dealt with in this way, he can
  1964
  be made to say absolutely anything. I must say, further, that I am not a little surprised to find this protective duty defended by noble Lords on the other side of the House. It is surprising to find the interests of English manufacturers treated as matters of small account; but I am the more surprised to find the noble Lords who so treat the matter desiring that no steps should be taken to check India, which at some unknown period was the Apostle of Free Trade, when she wanders in the direction of Protection. The noble Viscount repeated over and over again that he was expressing the opinion of the people of India:—but I should like to know how he has ascertained that opinion. The fact is, that the vast majority of the population of India are politically dumb, and that what my noble Friend describes as the opinion of the people of India is simply the opinion of the Bombay millowners, who are strongly in favour of a protective duty. The Bengal Chamber of Commerce, which may be taken as a fair representation of Anglo-Indian thought among the mercantile community, have declared themselves opposed to Protection, and have stated that they would gladly see the time when the state of the finances would allow of the total abolition of the import duty on cotton goods. I do not know what the result of a plébiscite would be, because it would not be easy to convey to the minds of Indian peasants refined principles of economic science; but I have no doubt as to what the result would be if it could possibly be made clear to such persons that the effect of the tax is to increase the cost of their few necessaries of life. It has been suggested that the tax on salt should have been chosen as the one to be partially remitted: but on that subject there is much to be said. The total income derived from the tax on salt is so large that a remission to the extent of £800,000 would not benefit the consumers to any appreciable extent; and, further, the duty on salt is not protective, by reason of the fact that it is the same whether the salt be imported or produced in the country. On these grounds, therefore, it has been thought that the import duty on cotton is the one which should be remitted or reduced. Thus far—although I will not consent to look upon Lancashire interests with the

  1965
  contempt with which they are regarded at the other side, although I cannot admit that in dealing with an Empire we are entitled to disregard the interests of any portion of that Empire—although, to my mind the Empire is one, and if any part of it suffers every part must suffer, and equal justice must be meted out to all—still I think that this is more an Indian than a Lancashire question, and that it is the Hindoo, the first necessities of whose life you will make cheaper, and not the Lancashire manufacturer, whom you will principally benefit by a remission of this duty. But is there no greater—no more Imperial reason? What has been the course of your diplomacy? Are not your diplomatists everywhere struggling with tariffs—every where maintaining a difficult and unequal fight? The only weapon we have to use is that we have tried the system, and that we have found it to answer; that it has given to us prosperity, and that we heartily confide in it. But if foreign Courts are able to say, "You come to us with an untrue pretence. When the popular feeling is in favour of Free Trade you undoubtedly adopt it; but when you are not so certain of that result—when, in fact, your condition is like ours—then you, like us, maintain protective tariffs." Would not that inevitably destroy our moral authority and weight when we urged on the removal of those protective and prohibitory tariffs which do so much to check the prosperity of producing countries? My Lords, this consideration has led me to feel that those are wrong who treat this as merely a local question. To say that it ought to be left to merely Indian authorities is, in my opinion, a mistake. It is an Imperial question of high importance, and ought to be dealt with on Imperial grounds. The noble Viscount referred, my Lords, to another reason which is urged in my despatch, which I dealt with at length there, but will dismiss briefly here. I could not help being impressed with the rapid growth of those mercantile communities in India—and in all I did I may say I spoke for myself and my Council too; for in this policy we were unanimous.—could not help feeling that if those communities increased with the rapidity which appeared to be probable, and if they grew up strongly attached to protective duties, which duties the manufacturing
  1966
  communities of England would be bound by their interests as well as by their economic faith to resist to the uttermost—then there was reason to apprehend that when those small communities became great, a difference of opinion would arise among men of white race which might lead to danger. I believe there is no object of more importance in the eyes of the Indian statesman than the removal of grounds of difference and contention between the White rulers and those vast millions of subject races, who, while they are united, will undoubtedly submit to us, but whose allegiance may be doubtful if the ruling English race were riven in two by some deep and dangerous difference on policy. If ever there is a danger to the English rule in India—a subject upon which some friends of the noble Viscount appear to dwell with more satisfaction than he does—if ever there is such a danger, you may depend upon it it will not be from any resistance from the subject races, but from divisions in the race which rules. On this ground, my Lords, I felt that it was important while it was yet time—while the communities in India were yet young—to remove from them a cause of division, which, if once swept away, they will be the first to appreciate, but which if left might cause them to grow up with perverted views. And now we are, on the ground on which I and my Council unanimously in July last agreed, to recommend to the Government of India, that at the earliest opportunity consistently with the state of their finances those duties should be swept away. And now, my Lords, for the question of procedure—the circumstances under which the despatch of the 11th of November was written. As your Lordships know, the Government of India had been instructed in March, 1874, to send home to us information of any important and non-urgent Bill which they intended to introduce. I will not now stop to ask whether that instruction was a wise one or not. It is sufficient that it was received without protest by the Government of India, and whether wise or not they were bound to act upon it. Well, what happened in August was this—The Government of India knew what the policy of the Government was, for it had been announced on several occasions. The ordinary

  1967
  practice was for the Budget to be brought forward in March or April in Calcutta. For that there are two reasons. Parliament has thought fit to entrust the legislation of India to the Government of India, joined to certain additional Members, who are selected for that purpose; and it is provided that half of these must be non-official—the clear intention of Parliament being that the Government of India should have a large amount of non-official assistance and advice in dealing with questions in reference to which they could not be expected to have had experience themselves. Of course these men live in Calcutta. Simla is a mere excursion ground—a shooting lodge of the Government of India. I mean to say it is not a recognized home of Government. We have never recognized Simla other than as merely a residence of the Governor General of India—a small place, lofty and inaccessible. It is two long days journey from Calcutta. If not actually foreign territory, it is surrounded by foreign territory. Well, the Budget statement had been drawn up at Calcutta; and when it had been published the Government went to Simla. We had no idea that any intention to remove taxation or to revise the tariff was at hand. My noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) was on the eve of making his statement to Parliament as to the Budget arrangements as they existed. We had conveyed no orders to the Government of India on the subject of taxes, because we trusted to the instruction that all legislation which was non-urgent and important should be communicated to us. Well, early in August, without the slightest intimation, public or private, to us or to the people of India, that such a thing was in contemplation, the Legislative Council was assembled; all the non-official members being naturally absent; the Standing Orders were suspended, and on the same day the new tariff was read a first, a second, and a third time, and passed into law. Now, the noble Viscount has been pleased to condemn the language in which I spoke of that Act; but is it possible to conceive anything more unseemly, or more calculated to bring the Government of India into contempt—is it possible to conceive anything more likely cause a general distrust than such legislation? It is said that this tariff
  1968
  was an urgent matter, because the Bengal Chamber of Commerce had said that their interests were suffering from the revision of the tariff being delayed. Well, I will read what the Bengal Chamber of Commerce said, in order to show how wholly without foundation that assertion is. They say—
  "The Committee considered it necessary to advert to the passing of the Tariff Act, an Act which so extensively affects the non-official community at Simla, where the non-official members of Council could not make their voices heard; and they learnt with regret that their repeated applications for a revision of tariff values, which needed no new legislative measure, but could have been effected by a simple notification of the Governor General, had been construed into acquiescence of a procedure which not only nullified any representative character the Legislative Council may possess, but which was also at variance with the rules for the conduct of business in the Council laid down by the Governor General in February, 1873."
  Now, my Lords, the noble Viscount used strong language as to the phraseology of my despatch. It is impossible to dispute with the noble Viscount upon a question of style; but I commend those who care to solve such a controversy to read my despatch in comparison with some despatches which were published at the same time as my noble Friend's own. But I will say this with respect to the language of those despatches—I do not wish to put away from myself any responsibility—I am responsible for them; but I appeal to the opinion of experts. The Council of India, if they know anything, know the language of official letters. They have passed their lives in writing them and receiving them, and it is perfectly impossible that anything which they have carefully considered should escape their notice if it was a breach of official propriety. Those despatches were considered by them in the ordinary deliberate manner. They were examined by the proper Committee of the Council, who suggested such alterations as they thought fit. They were considered sentence after sentence in the Council, and never from the time they were drafted to the time they were sent to India did I hear it suggested that they were in the least degree uncivil or unseemly in manner. The question of style is no doubt of some importance. The noble Viscount may have been accustomed to use such sweet and delicate language that no other style can

  1969
  be borne by him. I have, however, heard whispers of what used to be said at the Council table of Lord Canning when the noble Viscount's despatches arrived. I will not, however, rake tip old stories of that kind. What I want to insist upon is that these despatches passed before those who were quite competent to correct them if they were wrong, but that no suggestion of the necessity of any alteration was made by them. I wish to know whether you are really going to lay down the principle that whatever the Governor General of India does the Secretary of State is not to blame him? If the Secretary of State is only to write an official echo to all that the Governor General says—if he is to approve all that he does—then you are laying an undue burden on the finances of India by maintaining the India Office at all. It would be much better to enact that the Governor General is a Sovereign and independent Power, and that he is to do precisely what he thinks fit; and then he might keep some representative at this Court and inform my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary what measures he has adopted. You must have either one theory or the other. You cannot have the doctrine that the Secretary of State controls the Governor General unless you at the same time admit that the Secretary of State may blame him when he is wrong. Of course it is done at some risk when the Governor General is the political friend of those who sit on the other side of the House. Now, my Lords, I have been further blamed by the noble Viscount, not only for reproving the Governor General without cause, but also for sending that despatch of March, 1874, which directs that all measures brought before the Legislative Council shall be sent home to the Secretary of State for India to be examined. I do not think that your Lordships or the public know the precise state of things which made that direction necessary, and out of which it arose. The present legislature of India is imperfect and fragmentary. Originally an India Law Commission was appointed, whose duty it was, sitting in England, to prepare a body of substantial law, which was afterwards sent to the Governor General and the Legislative Council to enact. Of course the existence of this body reduced the functions of the Legislative
  1970
  Council to very humble dimensions. The new Indian law was prepared by the India Law Commissioners in England, and only matters of minor importance were dealt with by the Legislative Council of India. From the first, however, these two halves of the legislative machine could not go on harmoniously, and there was always a difficulty in inducing the Legislative Council to enact the law sent out to them. That difficulty occurred in the time of the noble Viscount himself, and then the prerogative of the Secretary of State in regard to legislation was laid down in language so strong and stringent that anything I have said could not go so far. What says the noble Viscount?—
  "The action of the Government in this country, in respect to what is called a Government Bill, is perfectly well known and recognized. It is introduced with the authority of the Government, is carried on, or postponed, or withdrawn on the responsibility of the Government, and the action of the Government in this country in respect to a Bill introduced by any Member of Parliament is guided by the same rule. I apprehend that the action of the Government of India must be considered in precisely the same light, and that the control of the Secretary of State extends to this, as to every other action of that Government."
  Now, the noble Viscount made a great deal of the fact that he never used this power; but I do not understand the use of an abstract power which is never to be employed. I do not say it should be frequently used, but the mere assertion of a power that is never to be employed appears to lead to an idle termination. But although the noble Viscount did not use the power, his Colleague the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) shortly afterwards did so. When the noble Duke was in office the same difficulty arose. The India Law Commission prepared a body of law which was sent out to the Legislative Council, and which they were requested to pass. But the Legislative Council had something to say for themselves. It was a very formidable law that was sent out, because it raised again that old question of the Indigo riots, which had always inspired the Government of India with apprehension. That Government said that these provisions were dangerous, and sent them back. What did the noble Duke say—
  "You will receive back the chapter from me in the shape in which I think it desirable it should be finally passed into law, and (unless in

  1971
  case of strong unforeseen objection arising in your mind, which I will not anticipate, but which must then he dealt with according to your discretion as circumstance may require) I shall expect that the measure will be introduced by you into the Council when assembled for making laws and regulations, and discussed there in the stages and according to the forms usual in like cases. And while under consideration by the Council, I shall further expect that you will employ all the usual and legitimate means to secure its passing as a Government measure."
  Now, it is impossible to be more peremptory than that. Well, the Government of India resisted. They sent a fierce rejoinder, in which they said—
  "It is enough to say, as to such a course, that it would reduce us to the alternative of either publicly stating that the Bill was introduced, not on our responsibility, but in obedience to your positive orders, or else of defending it by arguments which we did not believe to he sound. Either course would be totally inconsistent with our position as a Government."
  The India Law Commissioners resigned. They declined to be made the shuttlecock between two such ferocious battledores. But the noble Duke was not satisfied with that. Although the champion retreated, he delivered a passing volley at the enemy. He said—
  "Neither can I admit that it makes any real difference in the case, if the directions issued by the Imperial Government relate to what may be termed legislative as distinguished from executive affairs. It may he quite as essential, in order to carry into effect the views of the Imperial Government as to the well-being of Her Majesty's Indian dominions, that a certain measure should he passed into a law as that a certain act described in common language as executive should he performed. But if it were, indeed, the case, as your argument would represent it to he, that the power of the Imperial Government were limited to the mere interposition of a veto on Acts passed in India, then the Government of the Queen, although it could resist the passing of an injurious law, would be helpless to secure legislative sanction for any measures, however essential it might deem them to be for the welfare or safety of Her Indian Empire."
  The India Law Commission resigned, as I have said, in the middle of this conflict, and the matter was hung up for a considerable time. There was a new Governor General and a new Law Member of Council. But when I came into office I found that a part of the Indian Legislature had disappeared, and there seemed to be no means of influencing from England the legislation of India, except by the peremptory measures indicated in the despatches of the noble Viscount and the noble Duke. In the
  1972
  time of the India Law Commission there was a constant communication between that Commission and the Secretary of State, and every measure was subjected to careful examination in England. But that state of things passed away, and that which Parliament had never contemplated was taking place, and the Indian Legislative Council was left in a state which practically amounted to entire independence of England. I then made a suggestion which was, I think, a moderate one, and certainly far less peremptory than the action of the noble Viscount and the noble Duke. I requested the Government of India, before they introduced a measure, to send it home first, in order that they might hear what suggestions I had to make upon it. In that there was no dictation; I did not indicate an intention to force them to accept any measure; I merely desired that I might know what it was, and that I might offer any suggestions which the experience of my Council, or which English and Imperial considerations might make it necessary to suggest. If, indeed, I had used that power for the purpose of ordering them to pass measures which had been arranged in the India Office, that would have been undoubtedly undertaking in England the legislation of India; but nothing of the kind was ever done or intended. It was only intended we should have an opportunity of offering our suggestions on any particular part of a law before that law was passed and was sent home for disavowal or approval. In the interests of scientific legislation that course was a wise one, because the wise habit of the Government of India had been to pass laws in large blocks as codes; and, of course, if it had become necessary to veto any code when it was sent home the practice of codifying must have been given up. It is not only no encroachment on the power of the Government of India, but it is a much more simple, courteous, and dignified course to have the opportunity of pointing out to the Government of India what portions of a law you might object to, than to wait until it is passed, placed on the statute book, proclaimed in India—and then when it comes home to disavow it. Surely that way of waiting and then disavowing is a mode of bringing the Government of India into contempt, and of bringing into sharp relief the superiority and the

  1973
  supremacy claimed by the Home Government. If there is any doubt whether I was right or wrong I may remove it by reading a few words from an authority the noble Viscount will recognize. On the 31st of March, 1865, Sir Charles Wood wrote—
  "Your despatch refers to the power of the Secretary of State to disallow any Act passed by the Governor General's Council when assembled for purposes of legislation, but surely it is more courteous, and more calculated to maintain the character and dignity of the Council, that the Secretary of State should suggest to the Executive Government to suspend, and even to withdraw a Bill, than leaving them to proceed without any intimation of his opinion that he should ultimately disallow it."
  This is what the noble Viscount said in 1865; this is what I am blamed for, and called all the names the Parliamentary vocabulary permits, because I did it in 1874. I believe the noble Viscount is perfectly right; it is the only mode in which collision between the two Governments can be avoided. I am sensible of the difficulty and delicacy of the problem we have to solve in adjusting what must be the supreme power of the Government of England to the requirements, position, and dignity of the Governor General of India; but that adjustment is not to be found in abdicating the power of the Government of England. You cannot, as some people have essayed to do, set up a parody of the Home Rule cry in India; you cannot treat the Legislative Council of nominees with the kind of respect with which it is said we shall some day have to treat an assembly which is to meet on College Green. But language so strange has been held in respect to this matter, and indications of a Home Rule cry are so strong, that I will venture to read a few words written by one who is now dead, but who was closely identified with the East India Company, Mr. John Stuart Mill—
  "From the necessity of the case its power must be exercised by delegation, but the governing country has not the moral right to delegate its power without reserving its control. It cannot discharge its conscience of the responsibility for the good government of India, and charge that responsibility on the consciences of its delegates. It cannot hand over its sacred trust to a few despots, armed with the whole power of the stronger country, but carrying with them no more than they themselves choose of its wisdom or its good purposes."
  And in a previous part of the same Minute Mr. Mill said—
  1974
  "There are several modes of governing a dependency. The governing country, by its constituted authorities, may itself govern the dependency through agents responsible to it, and bound to obey its instructions. Or, it may allow the dependency to govern itself, under such conditions and with such reservations as may seem to be required either by the circumstances of the dependency, or by the policy of the Empire. In some cases the former of these systems-of government is necessary or desirable, in. others the latter, in others some combination between the two; the Government being shared in various proportions between the representatives of the governing country and the representatives of the governed. These, however, are not the only modes in which a dependency may be governed; there is a third mode; but this third seems to be the very ideal of badness, the one among all imaginable arrangements of the matter in question which no circumstances could justify, or could render otherwise than preposterous—viz., that the governing country should neither retain the government in its own hands nor resign it, or any part of it, to the people of the dependency, but should make it over to a small number of individuals sent out from the governing country, to be exercised at their discretion, under no control or responsibility except the power of recall."
  These are wise words which deserve to be remembered at this time. You cannot, if you will, dissociate responsibility from power. If you complain of anything in one of our colonies which has constitutional government, my noble Friend will answer he has no responsibility, because you have handed over to the colonies the decision of their own affairs. But suppose I in this House or my noble Friend the Under Secretary in the other were to make a similar answer when the Government of India was called in question, we should be laughed to scorn. Neither House would ever accept such a reply as a conclusive answer. Both Houses would say—"You are responsible for what the Governor General of India does." Take this question of the cotton duties. If we had not repealed them, if we had not touched them, but had allowed the Government of India to have its own way, and had sent out a polite echo of the Governor General's despatch—which, according to the noble Viscount, appears to be the first duty of the India Office—we should have been met with a Motion in the House of Commons declaring that it was desirable to repeal the cotton duties in India. We could not have resisted a Motion we think right; it would have been passed by a large majority; and you would have been brought face to face with the fact that the

  1975
  supreme power is here. Responsibility necessarily lies upon the Queen's Government, because they are in the presence of Parliament, and where you have responsibility you must concede power. I do not find the adjustment of this question in any diminution of the power which must be accorded to the Queen's Government in England; I rather find it in the practice of constant and abundant communication. The noble Viscount says private communication is better than public; I am not fastidious on that head; but there must be communication of some kind, so that every measure may be examined in the light of English as well as Indian experience; and the communications need not be public until the two Governments have by explanations arrived at views on which they are able to act in common. That I believe to be the real secret of the successful government of India. But for this end it is absolutely necessary that the Indian Government should not spring surprises on the Home Government. It must not wait till the Home Government has avowed its policy, and then without giving notice, without sending even a telegraphic intimation, without an hour's delay, and in a single day, pass a legislative measure which sets that policy at naught. If such things as that are done, the machinery must be thrown out of gear. I wrote that despatch, and I adhere to it, because I believe that in it lies the principle upon which the successful government of India depends—constant communication on the part of the Government of India to the Home Government of. all that they intend to do. That is the secret on which the harmonious action of the two depends. If you adhere to that principle—if the Governor General gives to the Home Government the fullest notice of all the Indian Government intends to do, either in its executive or legislative capacity, you may be quite certain that, on the one hand, all Indian interests will be fully represented, and, on the other hand, English opinion will be fully heard, and all Imperial considerations, such as were present in the case before us, will be properly borne in mind; and then you may be confident you will solve, quietly and in harmony, without friction or collision, the difficult problem of reconciling the supremacy of the Home Government
  1976
  with the dignity and authority of those who serve it abroad.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down (the Marquess of Salisbury) can hardly be said, I think, to have made a conciliatory speech. The noble Marquess has said one thing which tomorrow morning he will regret having said. My noble Friend near me (Viscount Halifax) disavowed any personal or Party feeling in the speech he made, and surely it would have been in accordance with the usual courtesy of Parliament to have accepted a declaration of that kind, considering the long connection my noble Friend has had with Indian affairs, and that he represented the India Office for many years in the other House of Parliament. I never heard it suggested that in regard to the affairs of India he ever said a single word that was coloured by Party or personal feeling, and I must say it was unworthy of the noble Marquess to have cast at him the taunt that it was because Lord Northbrook was a member of our Party he had been influenced to make the speech he has made tonight. For myself, I can say, so far as any personal feeling is concerned in regard to Lord Northbrook, I do not know of any. If he did not accept the despatch so much complained of as a very gentle and amiable expression of opinion, at least, I know nothing to the contrary; he has not communicated one word to his political Friends. As a matter of fact, his intended resignation was known long before that despatch was written, and therefore neither personally nor officially has Lord Northbrook anything to do with the complaint which has been made on this occasion of the conduct of my noble Friend. Will he allow me to disavow any personal or Party feeling? I believe I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships since the dissolution of the late Government only upon two subjects. On one of them I was a hearty and strenuous supporter of the measure which Her Majesty's present Government proposed; and on the other occasion, last Session, I do not think anyone can say I acted the part of an unfriendly critic. It is with the deepest personal regret I take any part in animadverting on the conduct of the noble Marquess. During the many years in which I have watched the progress

  1977
  of Parliamentary discussion on. Indian affairs, I have come to the conclusion that in nine cases out of ten Parliamentary animadversion on the conduct of the India Office is generally connected with some job, or some crotchet, or some political interest. But, my Lords, in saying this I refer to cases when attacks are made on the Indian Government acting conjointly in both its branches. When the India Office itself scolds and taunts the Government of India, and takes up against it the tone and attitude of Parliamentary opposition—then, I do not say the presumption is against the India Office, but, at least, it will not be denied that the action of the Secretary of State then becomes a legitimate subject of Parliamentary discussion. My noble Friend first of all referred to what is most important—the constitutional question as regards the power of the Secretary of State. I do not think that the despatch of the noble Marquess of March, 1874, was conceived in terms objectionable to the Government of India, and it laid down a rule that may be of great use in the conduct of his Department. In fact, as my noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) explained, it was merely enforcing a rule that was volunteered by the Indian Government many years ago, and which was practically to a large extent acted upon during the time I was in office, and, I believe, also under other Secretaries of State. I believe it was a wise rule, and that, on the whole, it will operate for the benefit of the Government both at home and in India. But I must complain of the noble Marquess when he quoted my noble Friend and myself as to the doctrine we had laid down relating to the power of the Governor General in respect to legislation. The noble Marquess read from the despatches of my noble Friend and myself, but he took care not to read the passages which throw a wholly different light on the doctrine that we laid down. Let me explain the particular occasion on which those two despatches were written, and also the occasion on which that Minute by Mr. John Stuart Mill was written which has been quoted by the noble Marquess. It was a case in which a great and powerful body of jurists had been appointed in this country to draw up a substantive code of Law and of Procedure for the Indian Empire. That was a work which could only be
  1978
  done here, and which could not be done in India;—the materials for it were there wanting. If such a code was to be adopted at all, it must first be passed at home. That was the occasion on which both of the despatches were written, and it had reference to the abstract power of the Secretary of State in such an extreme and peculiar a case as that. But I did not lay down the doctrine without qualification. The words I used were these—
  "I need hardly say that I am speaking of a question of abstract right—not of a question of ordinary procedure."
  And again—
  "Such power and control as are hero claimed for the Secretary of State must, indeed, be used with great deliberation and on the rarest occasions."
  Now, our complaint is that a power which ought to be exercised on the rarest occasions, the noble Marquess has set up as one that ought to be exercised in the ordinary course of business. [The Marquess of SALISBURY expressed dissent.] It is all very well for the noble Marquess to repudiate it; but he has sent out two despatches, the one interpreting the other, under which it will become the rule, as may almost be said, for the initiative of legislation to be transferred from Calcutta to Downing Street. I complain that under those despatches the doctrine will be established that the initiative of legislation, which Parliament certainly intended to place in India, shall be transferred to the Secretary of State, and that nothing can be done in the ordinary course of business in India without previous authority from Downing Street. That we hold to be a most dangerous doctrine; and, moreover, we hold that if it were possible to single out a case in which the danger of that doctrine should be more clearly exposed than in another, it is the case in which the noble Marquess has exercised that power on the present occasion. I refer first to the directing and then to the scolding despatch; and I reiterate my noble Friend's expression of opinion, that if you push this power of the Secretary of State to the length of taking away from the Government of India the usual initiative in all legislative matters, you will emasculate it and deprive it of that character which has constituted its great value in our system of Imperial government. Hitherto India has been a nursery of great men—of

  1979
  men who had the power to "take occasion by the hand"—and it is India which has made men great who never would have been great except for those opportunities which the noble Marquess intends to extinguish. A still more important consideration to remember is, that the initiative which you destroy there you will not really be able to assume here; it will be destroyed altogether. It is physically and morally impossible that this initiative can be exercised with effect from Downing Street. You will simply smite the Government of India with impotence; for this power, I repeat, is not one that can be exercised here. And look at the effect of this policy in another point of view. The Legislature of India sits in the presence of a vast community—not quite so politically dumb as the noble Marquess supposes, but now represented by a powerful, a free, and I am afraid I must say a licentious Press. No action of the Government escapes the most hostile criticism, the most jealous watchfulness; and I know as a fact that it is one of the most common and popular imputations on the Government of India in regard to any measure that is unpopular with that Press, to say that they are acting as mere puppets of the Government at home, and with a view not to Indian but to English interests.
  Now, I ask the House to look at the perfect example of all the theoretical evils of this new course which is given by the particular policy adopted by the noble Marquess. In the first place, the subject on which the noble Marquess issues an order is the subject of taxation. If there is one subject more than another on which it is desirable, and I think absolutely essential, that the initiative should be left in India it is the subject of taxation. It has never been the custom for the Indian Government to send home their Tariff Bills to the Secretary of State for previous consideration; and if the people of India are to have ground to suspect that the Government at home is to order from time to time, as various interests may fill Downing Street with deputations, remissions of taxation in India and the imposition of the new taxes which those remissions may render necessary, the evils and dangers of your Administration will be aggravated tenfold. I happened to have a difference
  1980
  of opinion with Lord Northbrook before I left the India Office on a question of taxation. I need not go into its details, but I differed from him as to the conclusions to which I knew he was about to come on a question of taxation. I represented to him in a full despatch or letter all the arguments which occurred to my mind against the course that I believed he was likely to take; and after placing all the arguments before him, left the final decision to him, saying "The Viceroy is the man who has his hand on the pulse of India. Do what you may think to be best after considering all the arguments of the case, and I will support you." I maintain that to be the course which in reference to taxation ought on all accounts to be taken by the Secretary of State. But, in the second place, look at the particular order that was given by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess singles out a particular tax, and says—"You are to expend the first surplus you have in the repeal or the gradual extinction of that particular tax." Now, my Lords, it may be laid down as a maxim, which I think will be assented to by every reasonable man, that when you are dealing with taxation you must never deal with individual taxes, without considering them in relation to the whole system of taxation of which they form a part. No man in his senses would say of a particular tax—"You must devote every shilling you have to spare to the repeal of that tax," without looking to other taxes, to which, perhaps, there is the same or greater objection in a political and economical point of view, and which may be practically pressing much more hardly on the people. And yet this is the step taken by the noble Marquess when he issues an absolute order on the subject of taxation which ought to have been left to the Government of India. And then, in the third place, not only does the noble Marquess order the repeal of a particular tax, but it appears that when he does so he admits that the objections to it are certainly exaggerated and might be altogether delusive. The noble Marquess complained of the noble Viscount behind me (Viscount Halifax) for having misquoted his despatch on this point—and I am not surprised that he should seek to invalidate that quotation, because there is a

  1981
  wonderful difference between the despatch and the language we heard tonight. In the despatch, the noble Marquess virtually says to the Government of India—"You are to repeal the tax on the importation of Manchester goods, although the objection to it is to a great extent a delusion." But in his speech to-night he has adopted and fathered all the exaggerations and delusions which he had himself exposed. Such are the exigencies of debate. I will read to the House the passage in the despatch of the noble Marquess, in which he confesses that the objection to the cotton duties is founded on delusion. In the third paragraph of the despatch, the noble Marquess enumerates the natural causes in operation which are giving and will probably secure to the Indian manufacturer a monopoly in a certain class of fabrics, and then in the fourth paragraph he proceeds thus—"In the presence of influences so powerful, the effect of the 5 per cent duty is probably insignificant." And again, in the fifth paragraph, he says—
  "If it were true that this duty is the means of excluding English competition, and thereby raising the price of a necessary of life to the vast mass of Indian consumers, it is unnecessary for me to remark that it would he open to economical objections of the gravest kind. I do not attribute to it any such effect."
  Here is the distinct confession of the noble Marquess that he was ordering a great sacrifice of revenue for the sake of an objection which he admits to be founded on delusion. Nor is this a mere casual admission. It is the result and conclusion of a careful argument. If the noble Marquess and his successors are to take into their hands the initiative in legislation and taxation for India, I ask him, and I ask the House, are these the principles upon which his Budget is to be constructed?
  But this is not all. When Lord North-brook, after consulting with his Executive Council at Simla, in which all the interests of India had been represented, came to consider the Indian Tariff, he found a series of export duties on articles in which India had no monopoly. The noble Marquess is a tremendous convert to the most abstract doctrines in political economy, and I presume he will admit that there may be politico-economical objections to such duties. The political and economical objections to export
  1982
  duties on articles in which India has no monopoly are at least as valid as the objection to an import duty which practically had no protective effect whatever. But yet the noble Marquess does not give even a choice to the Indian Government to get rid of these export duties. He does not only a highly impolitic thing; he reverses the advice which previous Secretaries of State had given to the Government of India. I pointed out to Lord Northbrook that the export duties would require the earliest attention of the Indian Government, whenever they had the power of remitting taxation. Let us consider for a moment what these export duties actually were, and remember that, if the noble Marquess had been obeyed, these are duties which would have been now left on the people of India. First of all, there was the export duty on cotton goods—that is to say, the native weavers of India had a duty upon them limiting their trade and preventing them from exporting to other countries. There was an export duty upon dressed hides of Indian cattle, to the discouragement of the agricultural interest of India. And here let me say that if there is one interest more than another which we ought to free from such injurious imposts it is the agriculture of India, on which the great mass of its people depend, and on which we levy, I fear, an oppressive land tax. Again, there was a very heavy duty upon another valuable class of Indian agricultural produce—namely, oil seeds, thus weighting India in her competition with other countries. There was also an export duty upon grain. I understand there was also a very considerable duty on sugar, and this in the form of one of the most abominable inventions that could be named—namely, an inland revenue upon the transit of sugar, one of the primary necessaries of life.
  The noble Marquess speaks of this Tariff Bill as having come down upon him like a clap of thunder; but, at any rate, along with the thunder there was a flash of lightning which lightened the noble Marquess, and made him see for the first time that there were at least some taxes which it was the prior duty of the Government of India to repeal, rather than to devote the first shilling they had to spare on the repeal of the duty on Manchester goods. The noble Marquess said in the despatch he wrote

  1983
  about the Tariff Bill, that the provisions which diminished the burden of export duties appeared to him to be judicious. Well, then, I say that is a self-condemnation of his previous order, because if that order had been obeyed not one of these export duties could have been repealed. Surely the noble Marquess must admit that this was a strong argument for allowing free action to the Government of India. But this is not all. There were other import duties which pressed more heavily than the cotton duties upon the people of India. The objections to them were no delusions. There were import duties on about 50 articles in the Tariff which were still subject to 7½ per cent duty, and the Government of India stated distinctly that there had been a diminution in the revenue on those articles in the four previous years of £90,000. These duties not only reduced the trade, but diminished the revenue of the country. The objections then which I bring against the policy of the noble Marquess in exercising the new power which he has assumed to exercise are these. I object, in the first place, that he gave an order with regard to taxation which I think is most impolitic; secondly, that he singled out of our extensive system of taxation one single tax, and kept that alone in view; thirdly, that he excluded from the Governor General of India—or, at all events, he would have done so had his despatch arrived in time—the consideration of the comparative claims of other taxes to remission; and, lastly, that he excluded the consideration of those claims in favour of another tax, the objections to which he himself admits are, to a large extent, delusive. If these are not solid and rational objections to the course adopted by the noble Marquess, I cannot conceive any that could be stronger against any given course of fiscal policy.
  As to the remarks of the noble Marquess with reference to the place of legislation, I object altogether to his statement that the location of the Indian Government at Simla during certain times of the year has never been recognized by the Home Government. So far from that being the case, during the five years that I was in office Lord Mayo was in the constant habit of performing the most important functions of his Government and of passing the most important
  1984
  laws at Simla. On this subject, I may mention a curious fact. When I first came into office the Council of India was full of men of great distinction, who, although advanced in years, were magnificent specimens of humanity, and were remarkable for the remaining vigour of their physical and mental powers. I could not but observe that one of the strongest feelings which they entertained was an antipathy to Simla. I remember it being urged in Council that the Government should be prohibited from spending so much time at Simla. It was in vain that they were reminded of the advantages that railways afforded, and of the benefits to health that resulted from accommodating ourselves to the modern system. In reply, I was told that Lord Hastings used to spend his whole time in Calcutta, always transacting business in full uniform, even in the hottest weather, an example which excited the utmost admiration and approval of some of my older friends. I resisted this tendency as far as I was able, and I reminded them that we really could not expect that the Government of India would refrain from recruiting their health and saving their lives by resorting to a more congenial climate during the great heats of summer. Indeed, Lord Mayo looked forward to the. time of his going to Simla as a time specially favourable for the consideration of the gravest questions—as a time when he could give more undivided attention to subjects of legislation and government, than in the hurry, pressure, and stifling atmosphere of Calcutta. Therefore, I say that it will be an unwise policy to prohibit the Government of India from occasionally transacting its business at Simla. I admit that the re was one occasion, and one only, on which I was obliged to complain of the conduct of Lord Mayo in passing a measure at Simla, an Act affecting a change in the law relating to the succession of Hindoo property; and I did so, because I thought it was wrong to pass such a measure of that kind when no native Councillor was present. As the noble Marquess has dwelt upon this point, I will, with the permission of the House, read the following passage in my letter to Lord Mayo of May 4, 1871, which is as follows:—
  "There is one matter connected with this Act which has attracted a good deal of attention here—namely, that an Act of this kind, affecting so

  1985
  nearly the interests and feelings of the Hindoo population, should have been passed at Simla, when few or none of the native Members were or could he present. Their presence might have made no difference. But I cannot think it wise to expose the legislative action of the Government to such invidious remarks. I think that in general, unless in cases of urgency, measures affecting the Native laws and customs ought to he discussed and decided when the Legislative Council is sitting at Calcutta."
  That instruction, however, was confined to laws affecting Native customs and usages, which I thought should not be altered at Simla. But as regards this particular question now before the House, the noble Marquess, however unintentionally, has misrepresented to the public and to Parliament the whole material facts as regards Lord Northbrook's legislation at Simla. I was astonished to hear the noble Marquess state that he had received no information, either public or private, that a revision of the Indian Tariff was in contemplation. It is evident from the Papers that are before the House that a revision of the Indian Tariff, with a view to re-classification, was ordered to be made from home. That revision was also demanded by the commercial community of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras with a view to re-valuation, and I cannot conceive how their demand did not come to the knowledge of the noble Marquess. Is it possible that the noble Marquess was not aware that Lord Northbrook had appointed a Committee to consider the re-classification and the re-valuation of the Tariff of India, and that the members of that Committee were at the same time directed to consider whether they could advise any of those taxes to be remitted? The noble Marquess may have forgotten the fact; but from documents which were in the India Office he must have had ample opportunity of becoming acquainted with it. Then the noble Marquess said that Lord Northbrook must have acted at Simla without adequate advice of his Council. The noble Marquess, however, has given an entirely erroneous account of what occurred at Simla. I understood the noble Marquess to say that this revision and re-classification of the Indian Tariff was done without the knowledge of the commercial men of India; whereas the truth is, that the whole commercial community of India were carefully consulted by the Committee which was appointed to deal with the
  1986
  question, and in the constitution of that Committee itself the Chambers of Commerce were directly represented. I heard with astonishment the noble Marquess refer to-night to the commercial men of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras as not fair representatives of the Indian commercial community, but only of "certain outports." Surely it must be admitted that they are the representatives of the greatest centres of Indian commercial industry. Under these circumstances, I ask whether it is fair that the noble Marquess should hold out to Parliament and to the country that Lord Northbrook acted in this manner without due consultation with the commercial community of India? As to the constitution of the Council at Simla, of which the noble Marquess has complained, out of the 16 Members of which the Council consists 10 were actually present, while two more who had been Members of the Committee appointed to consider the Tariff were informally present—leaving only four absentees, of whom two were Native Rayahs, who only take an active part in Native affairs. There is not the smallest reason to suppose that the action taken by Lord Northbrook was not fully approved by his Council, even by the only four members who were not actually present. Quite the contrary. In taking the step he did Lord Northbrook stated—and no man is more accurate in his facts—that although enlarging somewhat the recommendations of the Committee, he was proceeding exactly in the direction and line of the policy they laid down. The statements that have been made to-night with reference to Lord North-brook's conduct in this matter are therefore entirely inaccurate.
  Now, my Lords, I cannot help asking myself what is the secret of this extraordinary course which the noble Marquess has thought fit to take? There must he something behind all this. It cannot be supposed that the getting rid of a mere delusion on the part of the cotton interest at home is a matter of such vast importance as to render it necessary to destroy the initiative power of the Government of India and to violate every principle upon which fiscal legislation ought to be conducted. I am not going to deal in any inuendoes upon this subject; but I will tell the noble Marquess and the House what I believe to be the explanation of this singular course

  1987
  of conduct, and of all this irritation towards the Governor General of India. Last year the noble Marquess was entertained at Manchester, and on a platform in that city he made a speech which, if it did not absolutely commit him to this course of policy, placed him in a very awkward position if the policy was not adopted. Being entirely ignorant of everything going on in India—not having heard a word from Lord North-brook, and not knowing that there was any difference of opinion between the noble Marquess and him, I was told by a friend of my own, in the course of last autumn, that a state of tension had arisen between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India. I said I was very sorry to hear this; but, I added—"When the Secretary of State for India goes on the stump in the provinces, it is not very likely that the Viceroy will be able to shape his policy according to the dictates of the speeches that may be made. I cannot conceive anything more liable to place the Secretary of State and the Viceroy in a false position." The friend who told me of this was a friend rather of the Secretary of State than of the Viceroy, and he told me he thought Lord Northbrook's conduct had been quite enough to raise feelings of irritation in the mind of the Secretary of State. I said—"Do you really mean that the Viceroy of India, in considering the taxes which are pressing most hardly upon the industry of a people poor with a poverty of which we have no conception, is to shape his policy, not according to his own views of what is demanded by Indian finance—not even according to official despatches—but according to platform speeches delivered by the Secretary of State for India in provincial town halls, speaking in an unofficial capacity, and which the Viceroy may see for the first time in the columns of The Times? "He said he thought it was very hard that a policy dictated or announced by the noble Marquess opposite should be immediately contradicted by Lord North-brook. But this language, which astonished and even horrified me at the time, is very much supported by certain remarks which fell from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State to-night. He said Lord Northbrook was aware of the policy of the Government. But I would like to ask how he could possibly have had any knowledge of the subject?
  1988
  Your despatch is dated July 15, and it could not possibly have reached Simla before the 5th of August. I should like to know whether Lord Northbrook was to gather your policy from the columns of The Times and from reports of speeches delivered at Manchester? Further, let me remark that the course pursued by the noble Marquess affords an admirable opportunity to the Indian Press, which is always liable to be licentious. I hope the noble Marquess will not believe me capable of suggesting that he had any political object in going to Manchester. I do not for one moment suppose that he would sacrifice the interests of the people of India to any political considerations in this country; but Manchester is the head-quarters of one of the great political schools in this country, and I would ask the noble Marquess whether he thinks he could go there and make speeches without the Indian Press saying that he had pledged himself to the policy of the cotton interest, and would insist upon the Viceroy accepting that policy, apart altogether from the interest of the Indian people, in the remission or retention of import and export duties? I cannot conceive a more dangerous weapon than this to place in the hands of the Indian Opposition, which is ubiquitous over the whole face of the country. And now I must advert for a moment to another subject. I do not know that newspaper reports of the proceedings at deputations to Her Majesty's Ministers are always correct.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the report of the particular deputation to which the noble Duke was about to refer was incorrect.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I am very glad to hear that statement. If it is offensive to speak of the Government of India in the manner ascribed to the noble Marquess in the report I hold in my hand, it is still more offensive so to speak not to, but at, them in the presence of persons urging their own interests in possible opposition to those of the people of India. It certainly went forth that the noble Marquess spoke of the Government of India "obeying" his orders, and so conveying an insinuation that at some period Lord Northbrook had disobeyed them. I am glad, as I said, to know that the report is in this respect inaccurate; for I cannot conceive any public man of high principle and legitimate independence

  1989
  continuing in the office of Viceroy of India after such language was addressed to, or, rather, spoken of him, to a deputation which waited upon a Secretary of State. There is only one other subject on which I wish to say a few words. The noble Marquess and his Colleagues have chosen Lord Lytton for the Viceroyalty of India. Lord Lytton is a man of great ability, of very high accomplishments, and, as I am told by everybody who knows him, of the greatest possible charm of personal character. He is already a distinguished, and I trust he will return an illustrious man—the illustrious son of an illustrious father. But there is one circumstance connected with Lord Lytton's education which seems to me not unconnected with the debate we are now conducting. Lord Lytton's early education has been that of a diplomat, and that is a profession in which the first duty of a public official is to represent accurately and faithfully, without exaggeration and without diminution, the Minister and the Government whom he represents. He is to be the alter ego of the Minister at home—and it requires great talent to do this under varying conditions. I am not disparaging that great profession or its duties. But, my Lords, this is not the position of the Viceroy of India. He is not to be the mere supple instrument—the mere echo and duplicate of the Minister at home. It will be his first duty to consider the benefit and the interest of the people of India from an independent point of view; and, although the new Viceroy may serve a somewhat imperious master, I cannot doubt that even the noble Marquess the Secretary of State will, in his calmer moments, support the independent opinions which it will be Lord Lytton's duty to give him in regard to questions of taxation. I rejoiced to see that before Lord Lytton went out he took an opportunity of explaining to the public, in a most able diplomatic speech, that he had not had direct orders to repeal the tax on cotton goods, unless it could be afforded by the revenue. This is well: but it is not enough. You have not bound him to repeal this tax unless it. can be afforded. But have you left him free not only to consider whether he could afford it, but whether there are not other taxes still standing with prior claims to remission? Have you left Lord Lytton power to consider, for
  1990
  example, whether the Salt Tax, which tells so severely upon the people of India, may not be reduced, or have you bound him—as you tried to bind Lord North-brook—and, I am happy to say, without success—to spend his first sixpence—no matter how much more grievous other taxes may be—on this Manchester delusion? Soon after I came into office I was called upon to consider the incidence of the Salt Tax, and was shocked by the evidence brought before me, which showed that at least in certain parts of India the tax was most oppressive upon the poorest of the people, and levied upon one of the very first necessaries of life. I therefore ask the Government—Have you left Lord Lytton free to deal with that tax? My Lords, all I can say is, whether the noble Marquess answers the question or not, that I trust Lord Lytton will assert his indisputable right as the holder of the greatest office in the Empire of the Queen to deal with this question from an independent point of view, and sure I am that even if he is not supported by the noble Marquess he will be supported by the English people.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Duke who has just sat down commenced his speech by making a charge against my noble Friend the Secretary of State. He accused my noble Friend of having said it was just possible that in bringing these charges against the Indian Government, those who brought them might not be uninfluenced by the consideration that the late Governor General of India was a political friend of those who sat on the Opposition side of the House. I do not stop to consider whether that charge was or was not well founded; but this I will say, that if it was as well founded as the noble Duke supposed it to be, he has repaid the accusation with Indian interest; for he has made two charges against my noble Friend and Her Majesty's Government the most odious, I will venture to say, that I have ever heard broached within these walls. The last is one the echoes of which have scarcely died away. If the noble Duke's words have any meaning—and he rarely speaks without a very decided meaning—they charge the Government with having appointed Lord Lytton Governor General of India, not from any considerations as to his fitness for the office, but because they thought that the habit of obedience to

  1991
  orders derived from his previous and early training as a diplomatist would naturally fit him to be the alter ego of the Secretary of State as Governor of India. My Lords, the last accusation of the noble Duke was quite upon a par with the first. The noble Duke said he had discovered the secret of what he terms the irritation of the Secretary of State for India and of the despatches which have been addressed to the Government of India, and the discovery made by the noble Duke is this—that the Secretary of State—charged with the responsibility of the Government of India charged with the duty of forming and expressing his unbiassed opinion as to the measures which he considers most desirable for the welfare of India—on this occasion did not act on principles of that kind, but addressed despatches to Lord Northbrook, in order, to use the noble Duke's words, "to extricate himself from the false position in which he had placed himself by a speech made in Manchester." And, my Lords, the noble Duke himself gave the best test of the odiousness of that charge, for he related to your Lordships a conversation which he says he lately had with a friend of his who had made a somewhat similar suggestion as to the conduct of Lord North-brook as Governor General. The noble Duke says he addressed to his friend these words—"Do you mean to say that Lord Northbrook, charged with the duty of considering what course of taxation or remission of taxation is best for the interests of India, would be regulated not by what he considers to be really for the benefit of India, but by a wish to square his policy by that of the Secretary of State at home?" If that was an odious charge to make with regard to Lord Northbrook, I wonder what the noble Duke thinks his suggestion means—that my noble Friend regulated his policy in order to extricate himself from a false position in which, as the noble Duke contends, my noble Friend had placed himself by a speech at Manchester?
  Now, my Lords, I do not rise to continue the discussion upon the question of finance—I am quite content to leave that as my noble Friend has left it; and I must say I do not wish to enter upon the subject of the particular mode in which this particular Act of legislation for India was passed
  1992
  at Simla—not because I have any difficulty in referring, as the noble Duke thinks, to Simla—I am quite content to acquiesce in his views of the advantage of Simla as a place of recreation and health for those who are charged with the transaction of important duties in India. I do not understand that my noble Friend said anything more than that it was not a place to pass legislative Acts which directly and largely interested the public mind at Calcutta, and as to which the opinion of the officials at Calcutta would be extremely beneficial; and, indeed, I gather from the noble Duke that he had himself given to Lord Mayo directions of precisely the same kind. But this I say, that I think no person who has heard the narrative of what occurred at Simla would desire to see it repeated. It is a proceeding which I look upon with the deepest regret. I am sure it was adopted inadvertently by Lord Northbrook; and I own I was surprised to hear a public man who himself has been Secretary of State, in his place in your Lordships' House justifying the course which was taken with regard to that Act. The noble Viscount who began the discussion (Viscount Halifax) did not take that course—I understood that he regretted and deprecated the mode in which the Act was passed.
  Now, my Lords, I come to what I think is of more importance, and as to which I must join issue with the noble Duke. But, fortunately, I may narrow the issue by an admission of the noble Duke himself, because he frankly and fairly said he did not object to any of the principles contained in the despatch of the 31st of March, 1874, or to the language in which it was expressed. Well, if your Lordships will take that admission at the outset, I think you will have little difficulty in answering the other question which has been raised. What did that despatch treat of? Your Lordships heard the noble Duke say over and over again that the policy of my noble Friend had entirely deprived the Government of India of the initiative in legislation—that it has changed that initiative and taken it away from India. I altogether demur to that conclusion from the despatch. I understand it to do exactly the very opposite. It calls upon the Governor General in Council to initiate the measures which he thinks

  1993
  desirable, carefully to consider them, and send them home to the Secretary of State in the form in which he thinks them most desirable. Is that initiating legislation at home? I should term it in the clearest way initiating legislation in India, according to what the Government in India sees to be best for the necessities of India. But what are to be the exceptions? There are two—the one as to cases of legislative measures which are of trifling importance; the other as to cases of moderate importance which are not urgent. Now let me consider how important it was that that course should be taken. I cannot conceive anything more inconvenient, more undesirable, more calculated to produce evil results than this—that a measure should be presented by the Governor General in Council to the Legislative Council, that it should be publicly discussed and occupy the public mind in India, should pass through its stages without any communication with the Secretary of State, and should then be sent home to the Secretary of State as a measure already passed, and as to which the only alternative he has is to allow it to take its course or to disallow it by his veto. Nothing is more calculated to create mischief, and in many cases even scandal, than a proceeding of that kind. But those evil consequences are avoided by the policy of that despatch. And there is another evil it avoids—namely, that of a great number of subjects and provisions being tied together in one legislative measure and coming home to the Secretary of State as a whole, so that, if the Secretary of State should approve nine out of ten of these, he must disallow all in order to reject the one he disapproves, or he must accept that which he disapproves to save the other nine. But it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further; for I find that in a despatch of the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax), dated March 31, 1865, he expressly approves a like policy—
  "It is," said Sir Charles Wood, "more courteous and more calculated to maintain the dignity of the Council that the Secretary of State should suggest to the Executive Government that they should suspend, and even withdraw a Bill, than leave them without any intimation of his opinion that he should afterwards disallow it."
  The policy, therefore, recommended is, that a Bill intended to be passed should
  1994
  be sent home to the Secretary of State and laid before him, so that he should not be driven to the ridiculous alternative of allowing it or disallowing it after it has passed. But how did Lord Northbrook's Council view it? Did they regard it as an entire and serious innovation—a course of policy which could not be approved, and which would change the initiative of legislation? On the contrary, they entirely approved of it.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I referred to the second despatch.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Duke referred to the second despatch, and I will come to that; but we must first understand the policy which was inaugurated by the first despatch. As I have said, the reply of the Governor General in Council approved of the policy of the despatch. They saw no difficulty, they said, in carrying out the wishes of the Secretary of State. Your Lordships then have a despatch which is perfectly clear as to the course which it proposes to the Government of India. It is a course which does not shift the initiative of legislation, and which relieves the Secretary of State from the painful position of vetoing a measure which had already passed, but of which he had only learnt by hearsay. It saves him from that painful alternative.
  Now, my Lords, let me next proceed to that second despatch which the noble Duke was anxious I should consider. There were two exceptions made in the first despatch of my noble Friend—one in the case of measures of trifling importance and the other of cases of urgent importance. Now, was the measure of trifling importance? No one has suggested that it was. Was it one of urgency? Or was it to come under that exception of which we have now heard—namely, because it was a measure of taxation? What is the proof that it was a measure of urgency? I can find none in the statement of the Governor General, except the assertion that if the measure, being one of fiscal taxation, were known at home, there was no security that it would be kept secret. Now, it appears to me that if there is one class of measures more than another as to which it ought to be known when they are first proposed whether they will meet with a veto from the Home Government, it is a measure of taxation. Observe the circumstances of the case. You are launching

  1995
  in Calcutta a measure which may revolutionize the whole system of your trade and commercial policy. The merchants there must be entitled to assume that, when such a scheme is once put forward by the Governor General in Council, it will pass into a law. They would make their arrangements in accordance with that legislation; and they would be justly aggrieved if, after it had been published in India, it should receive when it came home the veto of the Home Government, and should not, after all, pass into law. You are, therefore, reduced to this dilemma, and you must take your choice of two alternatives. You must either say that on a matter of taxation the Governor General in Council is supreme and that the Home Government has no voice at all; or else that the opinion of the Secretary of State must be expressed at an early stage and before the plan is promulgated, and not at the latest moment. The question lies in a nutshell, and I am amazed that it can be gravely maintained that a measure altering the whole fiscal duties of a country may be proposed, may be agitated and allowed to pass in India, and that afterwards no real veto shall be exercised by the Government at home on the measure. You can establish no more dangerous proposal for the government of India, nor one, perhaps, more palatable to a Secretary of State. For these doctrines of the noble Duke strip the Secretary for India of all responsibility to Parliament. We will suppose that the Governor General in India proposes a measure on taxation to which objections are entertained, the force of which is admitted by public men at home. What is the position of the Secretary of State for India? He may have the most serious objections to the measure; but the matter threads its way at Simla or Calcutta, it obtains the consent of four or six Members of the Council, and it becomes law. Both Houses of Parliament may be known to disapprove the new policy, for it may be a reversal of all the principles which the country has adopted in its legislation. Is the Secretary of State to say that the Home Government had strong objections to it, but that it had passed through all its stages in India. Is he to say—"I have been told by those who preceded me in office that the initiative must begin in India, and that
  1996
  I must not interfere, and must not even ask that a taxing Bill must first be sent home to me for my knowledge and approval?" The Secretary of State may feel that there were the greatest objections to such a Bill; but is he to say that when he came to consider the enormous inconveniences of reversing the policy upon which the Government of India had been acting for the last 10 months, he had thought it better to sacrifice the policy which was dear to this country and give way to that which had been done abroad? Was he to tell Parliament—"Although I am the responsible Minister of the Crown for India, I have no responsibility at all, but you must apply to the Governor General of India?" Yet that was the doctrine of the noble Duke, and if he were right it was impossible that the Secretary of State could govern India as a Minister responsible to Parliament.
  LORD LAWRENCEsaid, that when he was Governor General of India he received from the Secretary of State great assistance in legislative and administrative matters, and that at a time when the communications of the Secretary of State on fiscal matters always came as suggestions and not as positive instructions. When there was a division of opinion the views of the Secretary of State had their full influence upon the Legislative Council; but when the Council had come to a determination upon any question, he could not call to mind any case in which the Governor General in Council adopted a policy of which the Council did not as a body approve. The real question was, which was the better system; and after giving due weight to the authorities, he was inclined to think that it was better to allow the Governor General and the Legislative Council to pass a law, and to leave to the Secretary of State the power of interposing his veto. He said unhesitatingly that if he had been placed in the position of Lord Northbrook he should have refused to repeal the import duties under the circumstances of the case—the Viceroy could not carry out instructions which he totally disapproved without being disgraced in the eyes of his colleagues and before the whole country; and it would be impossible for him honourably to remain in his place under the circumstances. The

  1997
  course of legislation prescribed by the Secretary of State to do nothing with the draft of a Bill until you received instructions from home was one which would practically place the initiative in all legislation in the hands of the Secretary of State, and take it out of the hands of the Indian authorities. He did not recollect a single instance when Governor General even in the discussion of a change in the tariff in which this course had been adopted, or suggested. He admitted that it would in itself be a great evil if a Bill which had been formally passed in India should be vetoed by the Secretary of State; but nevertheless it would be a lesser evil to run the danger of that veto than it would be to force the Governor General to wait for the consent of the Home Government before he could initiate or forward legislation. He admitted that the language of the despatch was somewhat severe; but he was not thin-skinned, and if he had been in Lord Northbrook's place he would not have taken displeasure at its language and tone so much as at the instructions that were embodied in it. The last two lines seemed to bind up the Governor General in the most absolute and complete manner to get rid of these import duties on cotton; and there could not be a doubt it would be most impolitic to do so altogether, because they were a valuable and elastic source of revenue. And besides, so far from being obnoxious to the people of India, they would probably rather quadruple than abolish them, because they believed that the import of English goods had in many instances destroyed those of Native manufacture. The import duties were raised largely by Mr. Wilson to meet the financial difficulties which followed the Mutiny, and gradually lowered as the financial difficulties were got over; and the very fact that they had been so reduced showed that there was no disposition to keep them up beyond what the necessities of the case required. It might be that the revenue of India was increasing, but the expenditure was increasing pari passu; and while there was no margin of income over expenditure, it was unwise to get rid of import duties which were not oppressive or vexatious to those upon whom they fell. If the people of India were consulted he believed they would say almost with one voice—"Maintain
  1998
  the import duties, and for God's sake keep away from us direct taxes!" The expenditure on public works in India had been reduced; and yet, taking into consideration all the sources of revenue on the one hand, and all the heads of expenditure, ordinary and extraordinary, on the other, there was a large deficit. They knew, moreover, that at this moment the loss on exchange against the Government of India was something like £1,800,000 per annum. Some of the Departments also were now more or less undermanned, and more or less underpaid. Was that, he asked, a state of things in which they should propose to get rid of the import duties? He was not one of those who would blindly follow even the wishes of the people of India; but he thought that what the people of India liked in this matter was exactly what seemed to him to be the right and proper policy to pursue.
  LORD WINMARLEIGH, having represented for many years in the other House of Parliament the county of Lancaster, where those duties possessed an especial interest, desired to make a few remarks. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had unjustly accused his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India of "stumping down to Manchester to find a policy;" but, for his part, he hoped the time would never come when a Minister in this country would think it beneath his dignity to go down to a great centre of manufacturing industry in order to learn what were the real interests of the principal centres of our manufacturing wealth.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I did not use the expression "stumping for a policy," although I spoke of the noble Marquess being "on the stump at Manrchester."
  LORD WINMALEIGHsaid, that expression gave an utterly untrue idea of what he knew was his noble Friend's endeavour to ascertain the feelings of the people of Lancashire. Moreover, never in all his experience had an explanation given by a Minister to a deputation been more misrepresented than had been his noble Friend's statement to the deputation which he had introduced to him at the India Office. His noble Friend, while he said he made the repeal of the duty a main point in his recommendations to the Government of

  1999
  India, yet gave his hearers to understand, in the most open manner, that this would only be done subject to its not interfering with the financial arrangements of India. Taking the explanation given of the matter by his noble Friend, he hoped that eventually it would not interfere with the financial policy of that country. His noble Friend had distinctly stated that what he relied on was the increasing revenue of India, which might enable him at some future time to recommend the remission of the import duty. He was astonished to hear the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) twit his noble Friend with now being and ardent advocate of free trade; but surely it was more surprising to find the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Halifax) devoting a considerable part of his speech in arguing that a duty of 5 per cent was of no importance whatever to the commercial transactions which it affected. He thought he remembered the noble Viscount in former times being associated with those who fought hard for the removal of an impost of 2 per cent, on the ground that it had a serious effect upon the commerce of the country. It was urged that this was a fight between the Secretary of State with the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on the one side, and the Government and people of India on the other; but from his knowledge of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce he could say that no statement was more contrary to the fact than that the Chamber was desirous of seeing anything done that could be detrimental to the best interests of India. With regard to the duty now in question, there were some very peculiar reasons why it should be looked upon with some suspicion by everybody engaged in the cotton manufacture of Lancashire. In England the price of labour had greatly increased; whereas in India there was no restriction on the hours of labour, and labour there was cheap to an almost incredible degree compared with labour in this country. Then India produced cotton in the immediate neighbourhood of their factories, which enabled them to compete on advantageous conditions with the manufactures of this country. The manufacturers of Bombay were carrying away some of our most valuable operatives to superintend the factories there, which were increasing.
  2000
  The manufacturers of Lancashire were not afraid of competing with the manufacturers of India; all they wanted was a fair field and no favour. They objected to being overweighted in the competition with which they had to contend. On the part of the county of Lancaster he begged to tender to the noble Marquess thanks for the expression of his intention with regard to the duty on cotton imported into India, and for the interest he had taken in the prosperity of that country.
  EARL GREYsaid, in the course of the debate some of the most material facts on which their judgment ought to be founded seemed to be admitted on both sides of the House. He understood that even the noble Marquess did not deny that it was of the greatest importance to maintain the revenue of India—that India was a country in which taxation was a matter of extreme difficulty, that many public works were urgently required in India, and that money for those purposes was wanting in the public Treasury. He believed also that his noble Friend had not attempted to deny that part of the revenue of India was extremely precarious, and was exposed to the risk that either an increasing cultivation of poppies in China, or a change in the taste of the Chinese as to opium, might destroy that important branch of revenue which was derived from opium. "Was it wise, then, to give up the tax on cotton goods which produced so large a sum in proportion to the total revenue of India as between £800,000 and £900,000? for that was the simple point. The noble Marquess objected to this tax on the ground that it operated as a protective duty, and pointed out that the burden of a protective duty was not to be measured by the amount it brought into the Treasury. That was true—the burden of a tax was to be measured by the way in which the whole produce of the article taxed was raised in price, and not only that which was imported. That was a principle of political economy which he would be the last person to contest, but what they had to consider was whether it really applied to the question before them. Could it be made out that this duty upon cotton imported into India did practically produce bad effects and raise the price of home-made cottons in India as well as of imported

  2001
  cotton? There was an important fact bearing upon this question which he believed was not disputed—that practically there was very little competition between Indian cotton and English cotton of any one particular kind. The Indian cotton manufactures were mainly confined to a low quality of cotton, which England sent only to a very small extent to the Indian market. The Indian cotton goods of this low quality could only be raised in price by the tax imposed upon English manufactures, if the latter met them in the market or were only kept out of it by the duty. But this was not the case. The proportion of English goods of the lower kinds imported was so small as to have but very little effect upon the Indian cotton trade, and he believed it was admitted that even if there were no duty it was not likely that English goods of this particular description would take the place of those produced in India. On the other hand, the finer cottons consumed in India were almost entirely imported, so that the duty levied upon them yielded a large income to the Treasury without being open to the objection that it imposed a further burden on the consumer by raising the price of goods produced at home. If this were so, the duty must be regarded as an unobjectionable one so far as the interests of India were considered, and in this case the arguments of the manufacturers of Lancashire as affecting their interests should have very little weight, because the subject could be considered entirely from an Indian point of view. He would ask any of the noble Lords who had listened to this debate whether there was the slightest reasonable doubt that those duties which Lord Northbrook had repealed were not the first that ought to have been remitted? He was convinced that the policy of Lord Northbrook was sounder than that of the noble Marquess. He could not sit down without expressing his entire concurrence in the opinion of those who sat around him—that, whatever objection might be taken to the policy of Lord Northbrook, it was a great mistake to overrule it in the high-handed manner that the noble Marquess had thought fit to adopt. In his opinion, the action of the noble Marquess in this case was unwise, and was calculated to do infinite mischief. The speech of the late Governor
  2002
  General of India (Lord Lawrence) upon this point was most conclusive; and he had shown the great danger of treating the Governor General of India with too high a hand. Nothing would be more calculated to imperil our supremacy in India than to allow it to be supposed that the Governor General, instead of being an independent authority, was a mere repeating instrument of those who held the reins at home. The Governor General should receive a large measure of support from home, for he had better means of forming an opinion on the spot than the Government at home could possibly have; and he might be influenced by circumstances which it would be impossible to communicate by letter, still less by telegram. It was all very well for the Secretary of State to lay down certain rules and principles of policy that were to guide the Governor General in his conduct; but the method of carrying out those rules and principles should be left to him entirely. He could not help thinking that the state of things which he so much regretted had its origin in the Manchester speech, by delivering which his noble Friend committed the India Office to the remission of a particular tax before opportunity had been afforded for a full discussion of the matter by the Indian Government and for consultation between the authorities at home and those in India. This was a new and a dangerous practice, and one which was likely to render the work of government more difficult than there was any necessity for it to be. He objected also to the practice which had grown up of exposing the inner machinery of government to the public eye. If this was to continue and spread, it also would increase the difficulty of governing the Empire and its Dependencies with the energy which was necessary for the public good.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the discussion had come to be one in which certain noble Lords recommended a particular tax for remission and certain other noble Lords differed from their view. He should pass over this branch of the question and make a few remarks in reference to the light which the debate had thrown upon the delicate, and at the same time conflicting, relations which existed between the Imperial Government at home and the Government

  2003
  in India. In this connection it was impossible not to ask what was the real control exercised by the Secretary of State, and whether it was for the advantage of India that the control should be so exercised. He had heard with regret statements to the effect that the control had been exercised with reference to questions of detail and in a vexatious manner; and his regret had been due mainly to the fact that the speech of his noble Friend the Secretary of State had shown that nothing was further from his intention than to act in such a spirit. The object in view was to control the legislative rather than the executive department of the Government, as was shown earlier in the debate by that noble Lord who had occupied the position of Viceroy, and by checking legislation in its earlier stages to prevent the adoption of Acts which would have to be revoked. As his noble Friend had pointed out, a Law Commission was appointed during the period in which the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) who had raised the discussion was Secretary of State for India, and it was a fact that the Commission—the Indian Law Commission—which sat in England had more communication with the Imperial than with the Indian Government, and actually prepared the draft of a Bill which subsequently occupied the attention of Parliament. Subsequently there was no longer any proper channel of communication between the law-making power for India and the Secretary of State. In fact, his noble Friend as Secretary of State in 1876 was in a worse position as regarded his knowledge of Indian legislation than was the Secretary of State in 1867, for he was in total ignorance of the legislation which was prepared for India. Under these circumstances, the Imperial Government was placed in a wholly new position. The Secretary of State was vested with a control, and that control he was bound to exercise. As to the Governor General, he occupied a position of more importance than many of the crowned Heads of Europe, and anything which interfered with his proper dignity would be a dangerous and impolitic act. In former times the Governor General occupied a far more independent position than a holder of the office could do at present. Then India was remote from England and communication rare: now England and India
  2004
  were brought into close relations; and it was the duty of the Secretary of State to find out how far he could bring English feeling and English opinion to bear upon India, while at the same time maintaining untouched and secure the great fabric of our Eastern Empire. If the Secretary of State did not exercise those functions he abdicated his duty and was untrue to all parties interested. It was of first and prime importance that they should have undivided counsels—that the Government at home and in India should act as one undivided authority. But then it might be said that disagreement might arise. That must be so in the nature of things. But how was that disagreement to be got over? In one of two ways. The one was by the process adopted in the despatches of the noble Viscount who introduced the debate and by the noble Duke, of giving orders and commands to carry out such and such measures; the other was by the process adopted by his noble Friend by communication with the Governor General, by endeavouring to adjust matters so as to arrive at a common conclusion. By which of those two modes was friction and disagreement most likely to be avoided? Surely, by that of his noble Friend. His noble Friend who had been Governor General of India (Lord Lawrence) claimed practical independence for the Governor General in Legislative Council, as contradistinguished from the Executive Council. To him that appeared to be a very unreasonable distinction. It was in matters of legislation that the Secretary of State had not only a right, but was bound to express his opinion. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the Legislative Council consisted of two elements—the official and the non-official, the latter of which was necessarily independent; and if the claim were allowed, the actual governing power would pass into the hands of the Governor General in Legislative Council. Nothing could be more foreign to the idea of Parliament. When the Constitution of India was re-cast it would be useful to consider what the practice in our Crown Colonies was. He saw every week a greater disposition on the part of Colonial Legislative Councils to accrete to themselves fresh powers, and the abler those bodies, the greater their desire to obtain those powers. In the case of the

  2005
  Crown Colonies the practice was this—the Governor sent to the Secretary of State his suggestions as to what he desired, and the Secretary of State issued his instructions, and sometimes sent out drafts of the proposed measure. If in Council the Bill underwent modifications, they were reserved for the consideration of the Secretary of State, and they were not adopted without his sanction. All those Councils were composed—as was the Indian Legislative Council—of the official and the non-official element, and in every case the official element was in the majority for this reason—that the power of the Crown might be maintained. In the Crown Colonies the Crown had retained the power of legislation and action by means of Orders in Council. The precedents were, therefore, on the side of his noble Friend's contention. Whether in India or in the Crown Colonies, and in every case except those of responsible Governments, the Crown must be the governing principle, and until the day of responsible government came for India she must be governed on the same principles as every other part of Her Majesty's dominions—namely, under the authority of the Crown.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid he had heard no sufficient answer to the arguments advanced on that side of the House with regard to the financial policy of the noble Marquess; nor any real defence of the course adopted by him in pressing for the abolition of these duties in preference to any others. He thought, indeed, it would be admitted that the grounds on which the noble Marquess had proceeded had been torn into shreds by the various speakers in this debate, and that the only answer given by the noble Marquess was that it was good policy to insist on the abolition of this particular tax, to which he himself admitted he could not attribute a protective character. The noble Marquess asserted that his noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) had written a despatch claiming the right of the Secretary of State to an absolute despotism over the Governor General, and that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had written in a similar sense. But, on the other hand, both his noble Friends had pointed out how seldom this power was to be used, how little it was to be strained, and how harmonious ought to be the relation between the Governor General and the Home Government.
  2006
  No one knew this better than the noble Marquess two years ago, as might be found in his despatches, where, while he asserted the responsibility of the Secretary of State to the fullest extent, he maintained also the desirability of treating the Governor General with respect. But he (Earl Granville) defied any impartial person to sum up this debate without admitting that, while noble Lords opposite agreed as to the authority the Governor General ought to exercise, the noble Marquess had strained the power of the Home Government to the fullest extent, and that he had not acted in a manner to maintain the dignity of that office or encourage a feeling of due responsibility in the Viceroy of India. He thought that some little explanation was due as to sending out Sir Lewis Mallet to India, because it seemed as if the Government were treating the Viceroy rather too much like the Khedive when Mr. Cave was sent to Egypt to put the finances in a satisfactory state. He believed that the effect of this debate would be to convince the public that the Government had commenced a policy of strict and exclusive government from home, which would be most injurious to India. Already a general opinion prevailed in India that the Governor General was no longer the high functionary he had hitherto been esteemed, but that he was to be in future under the immediate and constant direction of the Government at home. He quite agreed as to the merit of the noble Lord who had just been sent out (Lord Lytton); and no doubt, if this policy was to be continued, we might get young men of great ability and charming manners to go to India as Governors; but he was quite sure we should not get men of really high position in this country—men of experience who had formed opinions for themselves on Indian questions—if they were to go out with the feeling that no responsibility and no discretion was to be left to them; and with a younger man, however clever, we should destroy his power of making himself useful, inasmuch as we should take from him the feeling of decision and responsibility which ought to be called into play at times of emergency and in crises when it was impossible to meet the difficulties of the situation by despatches, or even by telegrams, from home.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the noble Earl reminded him of the Chorus in a Greek play, when he so frequently rose to say that none of the arguments put forward on his own side had been answered by the other. The arguments of the Opposition tonight recalled those which were used by the defenders of the protective system in this country, and it was interesting to hear them resuscitated and affirmed by those who had formerly answered them. In saying that a great deal must be left to the Governor General of India, that India must be governed according to Indian views, and that those in India were the only judges of what was good and proper for that country, it seemed to him that great injustice was done to the distinguished body of men who formed the Council of the Secretary of State. He could hardly reconcile the statements of the noble Lord who had been Governor General of India as to the course adopted now by the Secretary of State with what occurred when the noble Lord was Governor General, and when the noble Viscount, who was then Secretary of State, attempted what appeared to be a more direct interference with the freedom of the Indian Government than that now complained of—he referred to a despatch conveying a request that the consideration of a certain Bill might be postponed by the Governor General in Council; which request the noble Lord had accepted as a suggestion, and not as a positive requirement which might lead to embarrassment in the Council in the conduct of legislation. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) could not conceive anything more despotic—to use a word which had been employed in that discussion—than the rule laid down and the course taken by the noble Viscount opposite himself on the occasion referred to in that despatch. No doubt the noble Viscount felt that he was justified in so doing; but he quite concurred in the observation made by several' speakers that night to the effect that if a veto was to be put on any Act of the Government of India, it would be far better that it should be done before that Act had been passed and had come home to this country. The veto would assume a much milder form in the earlier stages of the proceeding than it would do if the Secretary of State had to exercise a really despotic power by putting an end to a Bill that had
  2008
  been passed by the Indian Council. He believed, therefore, that the course which had been pursued by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India was a constitutional course, and far less arbitrary than the one which had been adopted by the noble Viscount and the noble Duke opposite.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXmade a few observations in reply which were not heard.

VIVISECTION—LEGISLATION.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, that he need not trouble their Lordships with more than a few words in asking the Question of which he had given Notice. He asked this Question because he knew that a large number of persons felt very strongly, as he himself did, on the subject of Vivisection. They fully appreciated the successful effort made by the Royal Commission to present their Report as early as possible, with a view to immediate legislation on the subject, and they hoped that the Government would deal with the question in the same spirit, by bringing in a Bill with the least possible delay. He begged to ask the Lord President, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to bring in a Bill this Session to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into this subject had sat for a considerable time and taken a great amount of evidence. The Government did not in any way underrate either the importance of the evidence taken before the Commission or the very able and clear manner in which the whole question had been gone into and reported upon. He was sorry that he could not do more than give his noble Friend the assurance that the matter was under the consideration of the Government, and he was unable to say when any legislation would be attempted in regard to it.
  House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.