Sitting of 19 July 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Prison Officers [Superannuation]*.
First Reading—Foreign Jurisdiction* [267].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [204]—R. P.; Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland)* [237]—R. P.
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) *[251].
The House met at Two of the clock

QUESTIONS.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—COAL-LADEN SHIPS.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps the Board of Trade have taken to bring to the notice of their officers and of the trade, the recommendations of the Royal Commission with respect to combustion and explosion in coal laden ships; what number of casualties arising from these causes have, since the Report of the Commission, been investigated by the Board of Trade; and, what has been the result of those investigations?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the Board of Trade have brought the recommendations of the Royal Commission from time to time under the attention of Lloyd's and the Liverpool Underwriter's Association, and have also taken steps to hold inquiries in such cases as they thought desirable, and to procure the attendance of Inspectors of Mines as witnesses. They have also obtained from the Customs a record of the particulars of coals forming the cargo of vessels clearing outwards. We have specially directed the attention of our officers in the various districts to the leading recommendations of the Royal Commission, which we have re-printed for the purpose. We have also thought it right to issue a placard, giving a summary of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and to post that placard in all the ports of the Kingdom. Seven casualties arising from this cause have been actually investigated by the
  1968
  Board of Trade since the Report of the Royal Commission; and I regret to say that the loss of life which these investigations have revealed, appears in most instances to have been caused by a culpable disregard of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this grave subject will have my most careful attention, with a view to see whether any further steps can be taken without unduly interfering with the proper responsibilities of ship-owners and under writers. I cannot but add that I think the right hon. Gentleman has done a public service by again calling attention to the dangers to which life and property are subject by disregard of the valuable and simple recommendations of the Royal Commission.

  TOBACCO DUTIES ACTS, 1830—THE CULTIVATION OF TOBACCO IN IRE- LAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would consider the desirability of allowing small farmers in Ireland to grow tobacco, which appeared to be a crop likely to repay culture?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, this is a question which has been several times considered. There was an inquiry before a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1830, and it was in consequence of the Report of that Committee that the Act was passed which prohibits the growth of tobacco in Ireland. The growth in Great Britain has been prohibited since the time of Charles II. The question was under consideration again, once in 1865, and again in 1870, and the conclusion has always been the same—that it would be impossible, if tobacco is to be maintained as a source of revenue, to allow its growth in the United Kingdom. Excise supervision would seriously interfere with the operations of the grower, and it has also been shown that the amount of duty on the produce of an acre of land, if tobacco is to be taxed as at present, would be so very large that the cultivation of it would be rendered impracticable. It was estimated on the last occasion that an acre would yield 1,500 1bs. of tobacco, and the duty would be £262, exclusive of the

  1969
  cost of supervision, so that it would hardly be considered a crop that could be cultivated by a small farmer.

POST-OFFICE—MONEY ORDER DE- PARTMENT—BOY CLERKS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the fact that there are 32 "boy clerks" over twenty years of age in the Money Order Department of the General Post Office, the greater number of whom have served from four to five years; and, if so, why they have not been promoted to be ordinary clerks, as in other departments of the General Post Office, in which boy clerks have been promoted after a service seldom exceeding two years; and, whether it is the case that one of the regulations under which they entered the service stated that they would be promoted to the class of established clerks as vacancies occurred, or on attaining the age of nineteen years, provided their conduct had been satisfactory during the period of probationary service as boy clerks?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, of the boy clerks in the Money Order Office 23 are above 20 years of age, of whom the greater number have served from four to five years. The cause of delay in promoting them is that Treasury authority for the charges which would make possible the promotion of more than a few has not yet been received, and it was not considered expedient by the promotion of some to anticipate the carrying out of the general scheme. One of the regulations under which the boy clerks entered the Service is as follows:—
  "They will not be retained as boy clerks after attaining the age of 19; but they will, if qualified, be promoted as vacancies occur to situations in the classes above."
  Had that regulation been strictly enforced, many of the boy clerks to whom the hon. Baronet refers would not now be in the Service, inasmuch as the vacancies were not enough to admit of the promotion of more than a few on their attaining the age of 19; but on their asking to be allowed to remain as boy clerks in the hope of obtaining promo-
  1970
  tion when the revision should be carried out, the regulation was relaxed in their favour.

  MINES REGULATION ACT, 1872— CLAUSE 32.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a Report in the "Wigan Observer" of the 13th instant, of the trial of a colliery proprietor and his manager, who has a mine at Whiston, near Prescot, for breaches of "The Mines Regulation Act, 1872;" and whether, considering the evidence given by the inspector of the district as to the state of the colliery, which he described as "in a very bad state," and that the "gas could be removed by ventilation," he would put in force the thirty-second Clause of "The Mines Regulation Act, 1872?"
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that both the owner and manager of the colliery had been fined for breaches of the Mines Regulation Act; and it was a question whether the certificate of the manager should be taken away from him, or, rather, whether an inquiry should take place as to whether he should hold it or not. The matter was at the present moment under his consideration, and he was only waiting for further information from the Inspector before coming to a decision.

CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OF- FENCES) BILL.—BURGLARS WITH HOUSEBREAKING IMPLEMENTS— DEFINITION OF "NIGHT."

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering that another winter must elapse before the codification of the Criminal Law, and that the long nights of winter are especially in London the burglars' season, he will bring in a short Act changing the time during which it is penal to carry housebreaking instruments from the present definition of "night"—namely, the hours between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., which omits a large portion of the winter night, to the definition of between sunset and sunrise?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER),in reply, said, that it

  1971
  was not considered expedient in statutes relating to crimes to define the day as between the setting and the rising of the sun. It was so originally defined, but that had been altered, and therefore his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not be prepared to introduce such a measure as that suggested.
  MAJOR NOLAN,in consequence of the Answer, gave Notice that he should ask why the definition spoken of had been introduced into the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Acts?

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE MEDI- TERRANEAN FLEET—DETENTION OF BRITISH SEAMEN.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can give the House any further information as to the seizure as prisoners of two Officers of H.M.S. "Swiftsure," and as to the Russians having fired on men-of-war's boats on two occasions; whether Admiral Horn by demanded explanations from the Russian Commander in Chief General Todleben; and, whether satisfaction has been given?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I am not able, in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, to give any further information as to the seizure of the two officers of H. M. S. Swiftsure. All the information which the Admiralty possesses is, that these officers landed in a skiff, that they were detained, and that they subsequently rejoined their ship; but Admiral Horn by telegraphed to me late last night to this effect—
  "The flag captain of the ship has returned from San Stefano, where he had a satisfactory personal interview with General Todleben. The General stated verbally that he had received no account of the occurrence. He extremely regretted what had taken place, and he promised to send an officer to the Gulf of Saros for the purpose of making inquiries. He felt sure that the officers commanding the district must be ignorant of what had taken place."
  When I receive a further Report, I will communicate it to the House.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUgave Notice, that on Monday he would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in case of satisfaction not being speedily made by the Russians for the insult to the British flag, he will order Admiral Horn by to make reprisals, and to hold them until reparation has been made; and would also ask Mr. Chan-
  1972
  cellor of the Exchequer, whether Russian troops now occupy parts of Turkish territory other than those where they have a right to be in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano or the Treaty of Berlin; and if so, for what reason they remain there; and, whether any representations have been made to induce them to withdraw from the territories of an allied sovereign in a time of peace, where their presence presents frequent occasions of dispute or war?

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CON- GRESS OF BERLIN AND ANGLO- TURKISH CONVENTION.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Question of which I gave him private Notice yesterday. I wish to ask him, Whether it is the intention of the Government to make any statement in this House with reference to the proceedings of the Congress at Berlin or the Convention concluded between Great Britain and Turkey; and, if so, will he state what day?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I desire—the Government desire—to consult the convenience of the House. Undoubtedly, some opportunity ought to be afforded for some discussion upon the proceedings at Berlin and also upon the Convention with Turkey. I am not aware whether it is probable that any Motion upon the subject will be brought forward by any Member of the House; but if it should be the intention of the noble Lord, or anyone else, when the Papers are in their hands, to challenge the conduct of the Government in respect to these proceedings, probably it would be the most convenient course that we should await such a Motion; but if not, I should then propose to take an opportunity, and as early an opportunity as may be convenient, of calling the attention of the House to the subject, and giving an opportunity of any question being put or any explanation being asked for that would refer to anything that might be beyond what would be contained in any preliminary statement. The noble Lord asks on what day the statement will be made? That will depend on the course taken by others. If the matter rested simply with Her Majesty's Government, I think we ought to wait until, at all

  1973
  events, the Papers are in the hands of the House—the Protocols and other Papers—and, probably, it would be hardly possible, or not very convenient, to bring the matter forward next week. I should think that, perhaps, the Monday of the following week might be set aside for the statement; but, as to that, I should like to hear from the noble Lord, and there may be an opportunity of coming to some arrangement in the course of the day with him on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, from the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I gather that it is not the intention of the Government themselves to bring these matters before the House within any conveniently short time; and, considering the advanced period of the Session at which we have arrived, I think it would be convenient that the attention of the House should be called to the subject with as little delay as possible. I certainly did desire to wait until the Protocols were in the possession of the House; but after what has occurred in "another place," it appears to me that there are already sufficient materials in the hands of the House supplying ample matter for discussion of the subject. I beg, therefore, to give Notice that I shall on an early day call the attention of the House to the Papers which have been presented, and move the following Resolutions:—
  "That, whilst this House has learned with satisfaction that the troubles which have arisen in the East of Europe have been terminated by the Treaty of Berlin without a further recourse to arms, and rejoices in the extension of the liberty and self-government of some of the populations of European Turkey, this House regrets:—
  ''That it has not been found practicable to deal in a satisfactory manner with the claims of the Kingdom of Greece, and of the Greek subjects of the Porte.
  "That by the assumption under the Anglo-Turkish Convention of a sole guarantee of the integrity of the remaining territories of Turkey in Asia, the Military liabilities of this Country have been unnecessarily extended.
  "That the undefined engagements entered into by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the better administration of those Provinces have imposed heavy responsibilities on the State, whilst no sufficient means have been indicated for securing their fulfilment.
  "And that such engagements have been entered into, and responsibilities incurred, without the previous knowledge of Parliament."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL— [Lords].— [BILL 204.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  Foot-and-mouth Disease.
  Clause 22 (Declaration of infected place in foot-and-mouth disease by local authority).
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 3, after the word "place," to insert the words "not being a fair, or marketplace, or wharf."—(Mr. Synan.)
  Question proposed, ''That those words be there inserted."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded the Committee that they had reported Progress on Thursday, after a discussion had arisen on the construction of the clause at present under notice, and its bearing upon the sub-section of Clause 26, and also of the doubt that had arisen as to the proper interpretation of the powers of the Inspector, under Clause 22, in regard to such places as fairs, markets, and wharves, referred to in the other clauses. He had carefully gone through the clause in consultation with those who had charge of the Veterinary Department under the Act already in existence, and in consultation also with the learned gentleman who had drawn up the clauses of the Bill, and he desired now to make a suggestion to the Committee, that whilst the Committee was certainly not to give the unlimited power suggested under the sub-section, it would probably be best guarded against, not by inserting words which would hamper the Inspector in carrying out the instructions laid down in Clause 26, but by a reference at the end of this clause, which would make it practically subservient, or rather entirely and directly subservient, to Clause 26. For the carrying out of this proposal, he would propose, that in Clause 22, page 9, after line 36—that was at the end of the clause—they should add to the paragraph the following words—

  1975
  "This section shall, not with standing anything therein contained, be construed and have effect, subject to the subsequent section in this Act contained, where by the Privy Council are required to make, by Order, provision respecting the case of animals found to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease while exposed for sale or exhibited in a market, fair, sale-yard, or place of exhibition, and in other circumstances specified in the same section, and generally while being on land or in a place other than land, or a place in the possession or occupation, or under the control, of the owner of the animals."
  This reference would embrace the Amendment he proposed to move on Clause 26, and would embrace the alteration of the sub-section, and would refer to the beginning and ending paragraphs of that clause. In this way it would become distinctly clear on the face of Clause 22 that it was governed entirely by the provisions laid down in Clause 26. This, he believed, would get over the difficulty whether Clause 26 would override the provisions of Clause 22. There was a further question referred to him yesterday, which he was asked to consider with the Officers of the Department in charge of this particular measure, and that was in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) asked as to the terms in which the sub-sections of Clause 26 would be enacted. Now, of course, it was impossible, as he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had stated at the time, to place before Parliament the actual words of this future governing sub-section; but he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to go so far as to say that he wished to be informed of the actual terms of the section, but rather that he wished to know what was in the mind of the Privy Council with regard to their conduct of this particular class of cases. He was now able to state to the Committee generally what those terms would be. Before he read the words of the Memorandum which would govern the formation of the clause, he should like to call the attention of the Committee to the difficulties that must arise in dealing with this particular class of cases. Now, in the first instance, there was no question that there were enormous difficulties in dealing with the cases of fairs, especially fairs of any considerable size. They could not—and he gathered that this was the general feeling of the Committee, and what was suggested by many speakers yesterday—they could not practically declare a mar-
  1976
  ket or fair to be an infected place; they could not possibly go to the extent of even dealing with a large portion of that market or fair as an infected place; and they would find endless difficulties in this clause arising from the subsequent sub-section. Take the case of a train of animals which was stopped at some place in order to water the animals, and it was then discovered that in one of the railway trucks there was an animal affected with foot-and-mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia. It was certainly not possible in such a case of transit to deal with the whole train of animals, and there were many other cases in which there was similar difficulty in dealing generally with markets, or fairs, or animals in transit. What he thought the country might fairly expect, and what ought to satisfy the country in dealing with the case, was that where the presumption was that in a fair or market there were infected animals, the Inspector should not be expected to declare the place infected, but that he should be instructed to seize and detain animals suffering from disease, and remove them at once, in a similar manner to that which was provided under the 7th clause—he thought—of the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster). He would remove them to a convenient place of detention, either for treatment, or for slaughter, if it became necessary. They would be sent there for such a time as the local authority or the Privy Council considered expedient, subject, of course, to the general provisions of the Act in regard to slaughter; but if, in any particular case, the Inspector had reason to believe that other animals had been exposed to the infection by having been herded with, or in contact with, the diseased animals, he would have power to deal with them as if they were diseased animals—that was to say, that he could take them away and keep them under inspection or supervision until they either developed the disease, or he could pronounce them sound. If necessary, they would be subject to the general provisions of the Act in regard to slaughter. In the case of all other animals, except those dealt with in this manner by the Inspector, they would be free to move in the market as if the disease had not been discovered. Then, again, if any portion of the site of

  1977
  the market or fair in which the disease was found to be existing was capable of being severed from the rest of the market or fair, the local authority would have power to cause the same to be severed, and cleansed, and disinfected, in the manner prescribed by Privy Council, before other animals were admitted therein. If a portion of the site so severed was, in the judgment of the Privy Council, or of the local authority, capable of being declared a separate place, they would have power so to declare it, and to make rules that would apply to wharves, lairs, and other places. This was a general outline of the conditions on which the Privy Council was prepared to draw up provisions affecting the treatment of animals under Clause 26, and taking into consideration the Amendment he had suggested previously, distinctly referring to Clause 26 as the governing clause of Clause 22, limited as it must be by the regulations of the Privy Council with regard to these fairs, markets, and wharves, and enabling the Inspector, the local authority, and the Privy Council, to deal as far as possible with cases of disease, when they were discovered to exist in markets or fairs. He thought the Committee would see, that by the adoption of these Amendments, they would get rid of the difficulties that were suggested in the course of the discussion yesterday, especially by the Irish Members. There would be no danger of injuring the trade in connection with the large assemblage of animals which took place in the Irish fairs, nor would there be any immediate danger of the disease being likely to spread in consequence of the powers of the Inspector being taken away from the fairs and markets altogether. He hoped these propositions would satisfy the Committee that the question had been carefully considered by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. That Department was prepared to carry out the Bill, if it became an Act, with a full intention of, as far as possible, protecting the country against the spread of disease, and, at the same time, of giving an assurance to those who were entrusted with the trade of the country, that these precautions would not be carried too far, so as to interfere needlessly with the trade.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas much obliged to the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-
  1978
  Ibbetson) for the endeavours he had made to meet the objections raised last night in regard to the clause, both as regarded the legal difficulty and the far more important question of policy. The legal difficulty of the clashing of Clause 22 with Clause 26 would be removed by some such words as the hon. Baronet proposed to add to Clause 22. In regard to the much more important question, he certainly felt that they really could not proceed with this clause without knowing how the Government meant to deal with disease when they discovered it in the markets or on the wharves. In order to solve the difficulty, the hon. Baronet had put to the very able Head of the Veterinary Department the question as to the way in which he would propose to deal with the definition of "a place" within the meaning of the Bill? Now, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not know that a much more difficult question could be put to Professor Brown, and he thought that Professor Brown, on his part, had given about as good an answer as it was possible for him to give. He believed the Committee upstairs, or any hon. Gentleman who had investigated the matter, would agree with him, that it was a very difficult thing the Head of the Department had to determine—a difficulty very much greater than the case of the cattle plague. With regard to foot-and-mouth disease, it was very nearly, if not quite, as infectious as cattle plague; but it was nothing like so dangerous or so destructive; and, consequently, what Professor Brown had to consider was, what he could do towards stamping out the disease that would not be worse than the disease itself. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was prepared to admit, and had always believed, that so stringent a regulation as stopping the fairs and markets, or isolating them, or declaring them infected places, would not be borne by the trade or the public; and he had no doubt that Professor Brown, knowing that, felt it impossible to recommend a stronger measure. But, then, Professor Brown had to consider also what he could recommend, and he had probably recommended as effective a measure as could be adopted, short of stopping the market or fair. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not blame the Government for the course they were taking. If they intended to take any measure at all for stamping out the disease they would be

  1979
  obliged to interfere with, the markets and fairs to some extent, and he did not think it would be possible for them to interfere with them to a greater extent than was now proposed. He hoped that those hon. Members who cared about the matter would not be led away by false hopes in the matter. If they would look back to the advice given by Professor Brown and Professor Simonds—the two best authorities on the subject, both from scientific knowledge and practical experience in putting the Acts into operation—they would find that those gentlemen had never swerved from the belief that if they were to stamp out these exceedingly infectious diseases, which did not go merely by touch, but got into the atmosphere around, they must take the same steps that they took in regard to the cattle plague, merely substituting isolation for compulsory slaughter. What was now proposed was very far short of that. As he had already said, he did not blame the Government for that. When Professor Brown was once asked what would be done in the case of a stringent measure being adopted? he said he thought that such an Act would be obstructive, and would prove inefficient. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought the Government, in this instance, had avoided, as far as possible, introducing a provision that would be obstructive, but he did not believe that any one who understood the matter would for a moment suppose that the Government could be certain that their measure would be effective. He did not wish to charge the Government with putting in force regulations that would involve great inconvenience, but they would undoubtedly involve some inconvenience; and he must be allowed to say that those who believed the regulations would not be sufficient, would have to approach the other parts of the Bill, which related to the foreign importation, differently from what they would have approached them if the Government were prepared to take the measures which, to his mind, were necessary, if they desired to stamp out the disease. He did not advise the Government to do that, and he repeated, that if they did, the remedy would be worse than the disease. Perhaps he would not be out of Order if he were to say how he thought they would stand, supposing
  1980
  these foot-and-mouth clauses were agreed to very much as the Government proposed them—how they would stand in regard to the disease generally. It was impossible to consider the home clauses without bearing in mind the foreign clauses, because they must always recollect that, by the arguments of the Government—by the Report drawn up by the Secretary to the Treasury himself, to which the Committee agreed, and on which all this legislation was based—the foreign legislation was hung on to the home legislation, and it was stated that new foreign regulations could not be carried out without efficient home regulations. The foreign regulations had been changed, and changed very much for the better, since the Bill was drawn up; but the Bill, with the Amendments, of which Notice had been given by the Government, would come to this—At the present moment the Privy Council had absolute discretion with regard to the admission of foreign animals; but they had established a custom and rules on which they exercised that discretion. One of those rules was this—and it was a very severe rule—that if a cargo of cattle came from the Continent, and one animal had the foot-and-mouth disease, all the animals should be slaughtered. That was the present rule; and, perhaps, he might be again allowed to repeat the challenge he had made once or twice, and which he believed had never been responded to, that since that regulation had been enforced, he did not think a single case could be brought forward in which there was a reasonable ground for belief that the foot-and-mouth disease had been introduced by foreign importation. What was it that the Government proposed to do now? They proposed still to leave a discretion to the Privy Council. He did not call in question on which side the presumption was. The presumption was, he thought, and it ought to be, in favour of Free Trade; but when the rule began ostensibly with more exceptions than observances, the rule itself did not amount to much. The rule proposed that there should be a certain discretion, accorded by Parliamentary instructions, and those Parliamentary instructions were, first, that the law of the country should be against disease; and, secondly, that there should be an endeavour made by the country to prevent the importation of

  1981
  disease. Hitherto the Privy Council had made their regulations solely in accordance with the cattle plague. That was the principle on which he, when in Office, thought it his duty to act, and it was the principle on which the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, up to this time, had acted. He believed he was right in saying that the importation from no country had been prohibited; that no country had been scheduled; and that in no case had it been declared that the cattle of any particular country were not to come in at all, or slaughtered at the port of landing, for any disease but cattle plague. The countries scheduled last year were scheduled on account of cattle plague. The Government now proposed to make this great change—They said that they gave to the Privy Council almost compulsory duties, and they were to act according to the prevalence of the diseases—meaning pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. With regard to pleuro-pneumonia, after carefully thinking of the matter, he was himself prepared to make what he considered to be a great concession, which was, that if the Privy Council believed that pleuro-pneumonia was prevalent in any country, he would admit that there should be a regulation for slaughtering animals from that country at the port of landing. He hoped his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would feel that this was not saying a little. He was not at all sure that he would be able to carry other hon. Members with him. That had not been possible hitherto; but he thought there was going to be a real attempt to get rid of pleuro-pneumonia out of the country. At any rate, there was to be an infected district, as well as an infected place. It was in no respect an easy disease to deal with, it was not so infectious, but it was a disease from which there was more danger of foreign import, because it took a long time to develop. When they came to deal with the question of foot-and-mouth disease, he hoped the Committee would consider that they had home regulations to study, which he did not think would be of much service. They might try them, but he did not believe they would be very effectual, and if they tried to make them sufficiently stringent, they would be pulled up by the fact that they were too stringent. For dealing
  1982
  effectively with this disease, power ought to be given to stop markets. Under the provisions introduced by the Secretary to the Treasury, they would not be able to stop markets. The movement of cattle over large areas should also be prevented. Under the clause, the movement of cattle over large areas could not be prevented. Foot-and-mouth disease developed very quickly—experts put the period as varying from 40 hours to three days; and, therefore, it was in that respect an easier disease to deal with than pleuro-pneumonia. In regard to the latter disease, he believed the Government had done all that they could do; and as to the foreign trade, he thought the Privy Council ought to be satisfied with an assurance from the exporting country that it had done its utmost in regard to the inspection and detention of animals before leaving the port of embarkation.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdesired to reply at once to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, especially to his assumption that the home regulations would prove insufficient. Now, the home regulations at present in existence differed in many respects in themselves; and one object of the Bill was to bring about an uniformity of action where now there was a difference of action. A controlling power was to be given to the Privy Council which had never before been enforced—a power more severe, too, than even the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. His right hon. Friend asserted that the regulations would not be equal to stopping disease in fairs and markets; but it ought to be remembered that what the Government proposed to do was to attack the disease in the homesteads, and by uniformity of action endeavour to stamp it out. If the regulations in this respect were properly carried out—and no one had yet suggested that they would not be—the possibility of fairs and markets becoming centres of disease would perforce be greatly diminished. Now, although the powers of the Privy Council over markets and fairs were somewhat limited by the clause he had proposed, it ought not to be forgotten that the old authority of that body was re-enacted, by which the Council would be enabled to regulate the movements of cattle, and—if it were necessary for the public interest—to close any fair or market, He main-

  1983
  tained that the Bill was an attempt—an honest attempt—on the part of the Government to attack the disease at its very root—namely, the homesteads of the country; and, in his opinion, the powers which were to be created, strengthened by the re-enactment of the existing law, would be quite sufficient to deal with the possibility of any distribution of disease by markets or fairs. With regard to the difference in the treatment of home and foreign cattle, the Government had before stated the ground on which the distinction was based. It was simply this—that they had not the same control over or knowledge of the trading going on on the Continent as of that at home. At home, the Privy Council was the eye that was to supervise. It would be the centre of all information relating to the out break of disease, and having a perfect knowledge of what was happening, it would be able to exercise its powers of control with effect. But what would the Privy Council be able to do in regard to foreign countries? They might receive some general information as to what was going on there; but they had no Inspectors of their own who could keep them advised of the state of affairs in a particular district, as at home. It was because of the absence of the means of obtaining information equivalent to that supplied in England that made it indispensable, if they really aimed at stamping out the disease, that some restrictions should be applied to the foreign trade which it was not necessary should be enforced against the home trade. Under the alterations proposed by the Government, those restrictions were limited to the lowest possible degree of stringency; they would not inflict any interference with the importation of healthy cattle from abroad, whilst they would give the authorities efficient means of checking the introduction of disease.
  MR. EVANS,though agreeing with very much that had fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), could not conceal from himself that the question of foot-and-mouth disease was surrounded by many difficulties. That disease had prevailed extensively in the district of his constituency; and he had no hesitation in saying that far greater loss had been sustained than by what was by some considered to be the more formidable—pleuro-pneumonia. It was
  1984
  true that the cattle generally recovered from foot-and-mouth disease; but they were always very reduced in condition, and consequently in value. He entirely agreed that it was not reasonable to expect that very severe restrictions could be enforced in regard to foreign trade, if people at home were not ready to suffer some inconvenience and trouble for the purpose of stamping out the disease. He believed that by the Bill uniformity of action would be secured, and he counselled the Government that they must not permit their Inspectors to be too tender in enforcing the regulations or to give way to pressure; for if too much relaxation of the restrictions were permitted, foot-and-mouth disease would certainly crop up in unexpected quarters, and the result which they all so much desired to obtain would be unaccomplished. What he was particularly anxious to see was, that not only should the Privy Council secure ample powers under the Bill, but that they should show plenty of backbone in putting them into force.
  MR. KAVANAGHdesired only to say that he was as convinced as ever that it was an absurdity—if he might use the word—to think it possible that foot-and-mouth disease could be stamped out by any regulations; but as his constituents would prefer to have the Bill as it was to having no Bill at all, he should not stand in the way of the progress of the measure, and would withdraw the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that as the alteration to the clause brought up by the Secretary to the Treasury at the eleventh hour sufficiently met his objections, he had no hesitation in withdrawing his Amendment; but he wished to point out that those alterations would require to be applied also to Clauses 16 and 17, and also to Clause 23. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON assented.] Well, then, having arrived at that satisfactory conclusion, the Bill, he thought, ought to be allowed to proceed. Their object should be to give a fair consideration to the measure, and to try to make the provisions it laid down uniform and consistent, devised as they were in the interests both of producer and consumer. A great obstacle had been removed by the concessions of the Government—an obstacle which some hon. Gentleman desired to make a

  1985
  bone of contention between Irish Members and hon. Members opposite. In reference to the argument that foreign and home cattle should be placed on the same footing, he was bound to say he did not agree with it. If foreign countries would enforce the regulations defined in the Bill now before the Committee, and would take steps for stamping out disease, then there could be no objection to their being placed on a footing with England; but, until they did that, the argument could not apply.
  MR. NEWDEGATEremarked, that whilst these concessions had been claimed in the interests of Irish fairs and markets, it was a fact that in England——
  MR. SYNAN,interposing, said, he expressly stated in his argument that the provisions of the Bill, as they originally stood, affected English, as well as Irish, fairs and markets.
  MR. NEWDEGATEcontended that it was a fact that in England the local authorities had the power of suspending fairs and markets, and that power he did not wish to see taken away by any action of the Privy Council. If it was to be interfered with at all, he would desire that it should be in the direction of strengthening rather than relaxing the power. He saw very plainly that the Privy Council was exposed far more than the local authorities to pressure from importers and Irish Members; and therefore it was that he desired to enter a distinct protest against the local authorities being deprived, either by the action of the Privy Council, or in any other way, of the power they now possessed of suspending fairs and markets, Now, the Secretary to the Treasury had described the English homesteads as being the source of the disease; whereas, as they all knew, it came from the fairs and markets, to which it was introduced in the first instance from the ports. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had quoted the opinion of Professor Simonds and Professor Brown, to the effect that they did not believe the agriculturists and the public would submit to additional restrictions; but he begged to remind him that that evidence was given before the beginning of the movement of last year, which had since taken form and substance, and which
  1986
  had led to a distinct and authoritative statement in that House that the agriculturists of England and Scotland were willing to submit to further restrictions. The evidence, therefore, was given in reference to a state of things totally different to that which now existed.
  MAJOR NOLANbelieved that no better mode could have been devised for meeting the difficulty that had arisen than that provided by the clause introduced by the Secretary to the Treasury; but he pointed out that owing to the manner in which the Bill was drawn, fields and sheds were placed on a same level with fairs and markets. He thought that the Privy Council should be given the power to draw a distinction between the two classes of places.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained that the Privy Council would carry out Orders on that subject which would not be permissive, but obligatory on it. Those Orders must be made at once by the Privy Council on the passing of that Bill, and therefore they would be in existence before the measure came into force. In order to clear up any doubt caused by the manner in which the Bill was originally drafted, he intended to introduce at the end of Clause 22, a paragraph which would absolutely refer the powers of that clause to Clause 26. The operation of Clause 26 would then entirely govern Clause 22, and the effect would be to deprive the local authorities from dealing with fairs and markets in any other way than that laid down in Clause 26.
  MR. ANDERSONcontended that as the Bill stood, it was perfectly clear that the local authority had power to close markets and fairs.
  [Whilst the hon. Member was speaking from the fourth bench below the Gangway, the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) walked from the Clerk's Table down the floor of the House to his seat on the front bench. Exception being taken to this act by loud cries of " Order!"]
  MR. SULLIVANappealed to the Chairman, whether he was not in Order in passing down the floor of the House whilst an hon. Member was addressing the Committee from the fourth bench. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] The Chairman was the proper authority to cry "Order!" if he had transgressed the Rules.
  THE CHAIRMANruled, that according to the universal practice of the House, the hon. and learned Member for Louth was perfectly in Order.
  MR. ANDERSON,continuing, said, the sole ground on which the Committee were justified in agreeing to such severe restrictions on the foreign trade was the statement universally made that all parties in this country were willing to submit to any amount of restriction necessary to stamp out disease at home. But the moment this declaration was actually put to the test, hon. Members were found crying out against it. The Government gave in to the Irish Members who made a strong protest against the stopping of their fairs and markets, and now, in the matter of foot-and-mouth disease, all power was to be taken from the local authority. The effect of such concession was that one hon. Member had already asked the Government to go back on the Bill, and make the same arrangements with regard to pleuro-pneumonia. It was clear the restrictions which the Bill attempted to impose on the home trade would not be submitted to, and it was equally clear that if fairs and markets were not restricted, the Bill could not be made effective to stamp out disease, whether pleuro-pneumonia, which incubated for a long period even up to 56 days, or foot-and-mouth disease, which incubated for a shorter time. Fairs and markets, if not dealt with promptly—and they could only be dealt with promptly by the local authority—would undoubtedly become hotbeds of disease. Then the question arose—If they gave way with regard to home trade restrictions, what restrictions were to be placed on the foreign trade? It was clear they would have to be modified also.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYagreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that the proposed amended clause, instead of leading to increased stringency, would operate with increased laxity. If the local authorities were not to have the power of controlling the fairs and markets in their own districts, they would be deprived of a great power for dealing with disease and preventing its spread. The local authority was surely the best judge whether it was practicable to stop a market or fair within its own jurisdiction. How was the Privy Council to ascertain what would be the effect of every country
  1988
  market? Was the Privy Council going to make inquiry in regard to each market all over the country, to see whether it were possible to stop it or not? The step the Government had taken was decidedly a retrograde step.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINcould not even now understand what the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) anticipated would be the effect of the amended clause. He would like to know whether he believed that in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in any district, fairs and markets would be stopped. He had yielded to opposition in the House of Commons, and it was to be assumed that similar representations would have their effect upon him afterwards, and that neither fairs nor markets would be stopped for foot-and-mouth disease. If that were so, the discussion on the Bill had arrived at a most critical stage. The Bill was more than else a foot-and-mouth disease Bill. It had been represented to Parliament that foot-and-mouth disease involved greater injury and loss to farmers than ever cattle plague, and that a real and efficient attempt was going to be made to stop it. All the evidence laid before the Select Committee showed that no efforts to check it could be effectual which did not involve the stoppage of fairs and markets where the disease prevailed. That was not stated in any doubtful way at all. Professor Simonds said it was absolutely necessary to do this, and Professor Brown said that to make any arrangement which would not include this, would be ridiculous, and dishonest to foreign countries on whom we imposed restrictions. Were the Committee going to pass a dishonest Bill? The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) gave evidence before the Committee that, in all cases where foot-and-mouth disease was general, fairs and markets should be stopped for a time. The case of his own market at Norwich was mentioned, and his opinion that it ought to be closed was not shaken. What was the use of the Committee passing the Bill, when it was perfectly evident that it was not going to stop fairs and markets, or to make a serious attempt to deal with foot-and-mouth disease in this country, although it imposed new restrictions upon the foreign trade. In some respects the Bill would now be less efficient than ex-

  1989
  isting legislation, under which a whole cargo of animals from Ireland were detained at Silloth on account of foot-and-mouth disease. It was urged that the Government had at least secured uniformity; but he said that they had done nothing of the sort. An extraordinarily wide discretionary power was, throughout the Bill, reserved both to the local authority and the Privy Council. According to the 22nd clause, the Inspector had first to declare what was an infected place; but it only became an infected place under the Act, subject to the determination and declaration of the local authority, who "may, if they think fit, declare an infected place." He had the greatest respect for local authorities; but when there were so many and variously-thinking local authorities to deal with, it was ridiculous and absurd to say that by intrusting them with this wide discretion, uniformity of legislation could be secured. He would certainly vote against the clause as amended.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he had himself put Amendments on the Paper on the subject of fairs and markets. Foot-and-mouth disease must be dealt stringently with, or the Bill would be of no use. But if the Government were prepared to grant foot-and-mouth districts, and to consider such Amendments as he proposed, they might be able to deal effectively with the disease.
  MR. CLARE READunderstood the proposal of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to apply to exceptional and unexpected development of disease in a fair after the fair had begun. In that case it was impossible to apply foot-and-mouth rules; but he hoped that in Ireland the same rules would be put in force, and that when a district was grievously affected with foot-and-mouth disease, there would be power, on the part of the Privy Council, to prevent fairs being held.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out, that by the plan of the Bill, there was no district for foot-and-mouth disease; and asked whether there was any attempt on the part of the Government to stop fairs and markets for foot-and-mouth disease?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that, doubt having arisen whether the operation of Clause 26 would override or not the action of the Under Secretary of State on Clause 22, he pro-
  1990
  posed to make it quite clear that the action of the Privy Council in Clause 26 was the direct action of the local authority and of the Inspector under Clause 22. These clauses, as had been justly said, were intended to deal with sudden outbreaks in fairs and markets. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) forgot the powers existing at present under his own Act in case of disease breaking out in any particular district. That existing law was here reproduced.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Committee appeared to be much in the position that it occupied the other evening in regard to another subject. They did not know really what was going to be done under the Bill with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. The Bill did not say whether fairs and markets were to be stopped. It was useless to answer that the Act of 1869 did not say so. That Act did not deal with the prevalence of disease in foreign countries. If foot-and-mouth disease broke out all round the city of York, did the Government intend to stop the market? It was useless taking up time discussing regulations until this was known.
  MR. GORSTcalled the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 30, Sub-section 19, which enabled the Privy Council to make regulations for prohibiting markets and fairs.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that what the Committee wanted to know was whether the Government intended to use that power?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, everything depended upon whether the disease was prevalent or not; and, therefore, it was thought wise to leave the discretion with the Privy Council. Were they to define what prevalence was, it would be within the knowledge of their Inspectors whether, in any district, the prevalence of disease justified extreme measures. If the Bill laid down that fairs and markets were to be stopped, the Privy Council would have the same to do as now—to decide what constituted prevalence—and thus to use their discretion as to the stopping of a fair or market. As they could not define the prevalence in the Bill, something must be left to the discretion of the Veterinary Department, in whom they could safely trust. Not withstanding what the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had said, there would

  1991
  be uniformity under the Bill. The hon. Member did not seem to have studied the question so deeply as he might have done, for he had not even realized the fact that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) did not belong to the Veterinary Department; and that, therefore, his action now would have nothing to do with the action of the Veterinary Department hereafter in these cases. Neither was he connected with the Privy Council, nor had he anything to do with the Orders issued from that Department, and he was only acting as the Member of the Government in charge of the Bill.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, it was hardly fair for hon. Members to lead the Committee to believe that the Irish Members were anxious to have fairs and markets where there was disease. They yielded to no hon. Members of the Committee in their desire to stamp out disease, because it was their interest to stamp it out. But they wanted to prevent any local authority who might have the power, coming to a fair and breaking it up, because one beast might be attacked out of 3,000 or 4,000. In cases where there were opposition fair-grounds in one district, the owner of them might, if he were bad enough to do it, send a diseased beast into one of the others' fields, where the local authorities would pounce upon it. It was monstrous to suppose that Irish Members wanted fairs in districts where disease was. They wanted to prevent fairs being broken up from the vindictiveness, ignorance, or neglect, of any local authority.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury's objection to something he had said was hardly worthy of him. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was perfectly aware that the hon. Baronet was not connected with the Privy Council, and he was really referring through him, as the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to the Representatives of the Government. As the hon. Baronet had just stated that it was impossible to define in an Act of Parliament what constituted prevalency of disease, he begged to ask how, in these circumstances, the word prevalent was used in the Schedule, which said that animals from the countries therein named might be admitted when disease was not "prevalent" therein.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the question was, whether there was in this
  1992
  Bill as now proposed, any more compulsion on the Privy Council to act more stringently than there was under the present law, or whether there was any more compulsion on local authorities to act more stringently than the Privy Council could require them to do at present?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CLARE READmoved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 7, after "place," to insert—
  "And also on the occupier or occupiers of any lands or buildings contiguous thereto, as he shall consider necessary."
  Such an Amendment he held to be essential, in order to deal effectually with foot-and-mouth disease. He hoped, therefore, it would be allowed to pass.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONpointed out that at present the Inspector had the power to serve the notice on any one of those on whom he thought necessary to serve it in the neighbourhood. He had agreed to bring up words on Report which would oblige the posting of a public notice in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). This, with the discretion of the Inspector, would amply carry out the object desired.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought the Amendment, making as it did a discretionary power an obligatory duty on the part of the Inspector, was a reasonable one, and he hoped the words would be inserted.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 18, to leave out from "and," to the end of the clause, and insert—
  "And shall prescribe that the area, within a radius of not less than one mile from the infected place, shall become, and be, an inspected district."
  He thought that the adoption of this Amendment was absolutely necessary, if, by the Bill, it was meant to impose greater stringency in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. Although he was not a Member of the Select Committee of last year, he sat with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and his hon. Friend the Mem-

  1993
  ber for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) upon the Committee which, sat in 1873. Upon that occasion they inquired very carefully into the practicability of suppressing altogether foot-and-mouth disease; and he and his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk differed from the conclusions which the other Members of the Committee came to. The great majority of the Committee were of opinion that no steps which could be taken would be really effectual in stamping out disease, or that, at least, to adopt such measures as would be necessary to effect that object would be a greater grievance and calamity than the disease itself. But it occurred to him then, and he still held to the opinion, that when foot-and-mouth disease became restricted within narrow limits, or had almost disappeared in the country, it would be possible, within a certain limited area, to impose such stringent regulations as would prevent the disease spreading outside that area. He moved an Amendment embodying his views to the Report of the Committee; but he only received the support of his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), voted against him. What had taken place since that time? The circumstances which he anticipated, and which, he might say, were anticipated also by almost all the skilled witnesses, had arisen. The foot-and-mouth disease, he was happy to believe, had now been confined within very narrow limits, and it did seem to him—and this was one of the reasons why he had supported the measure of the Government—that if stringent measures were enforced within the limited areas within which foot-and-mouth disease now existed, it might be confined to those areas, and finally exterminated. At the same time, the other principle which he supported in the Bill—namely, that there should be no importation of store cattle from abroad, and that all fat cattle should be slaughtered at the port of debarkation, would prevent the re-introduction of disease from foreign countries. These were the general grounds upon which he had supported the second reading of the Bill. He believed that if these principles were
  1994
  carried into effect they would be of great service to the country; that if they did not altogether exterminate foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia, they would reduce those diseases with in very small limits, indeed; and that would be attended with as great an advantage to the consumers of beef throughout the country as to the owners of cattle. The Government had not yet committed themselves to the definite proposals with respect to foreign animals, and he was not altogether without hope, after the many changes which had taken place, that they might still return to their first love, and adhere to the broad general principle which was embodied in the Bill as introduced into that House. And now he wished to carry out, with regard to home cattle, corresponding restrictions, which should have these effects which he anticipated would flow from the restrictions in regard to foreign cattle. It was very clear that if they were going to deal effectually with foot-and-mouth disease, they must prescribe a certain area within which the attempt must be made to confine the disease when it was first discovered to exist there. There was no doubt that the carrying out of such a stringent regulation would be inconvenient to the owners of animals within the prescribed area; but such inconvenience was, he submitted, inevitable, if they were to cope effectually with the disease.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 18, to leave out from the first word "and," to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "shall prescribe that the area, within a radius of not less than, one mile from the infected place, shall become and be an infected district."—(Mr. James Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'declare accordingly' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GOLDNEYdesired to give one practical illustration against the theory of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). There was in his neighbourhood a very large market, where large sales of cattle took place. One of the largest owners of cattle whom he knew, and whose name he could give to the hon. Member for Forfarshire, if necessary, was in the habit of going to this market and buying once a fortnight some 20 or 30 beasts. Knowing that they might have foot-and-mouth

  1995
  disease, and that it was sure to develop itself in a short time, he adopted the precaution of confining them for a fortnight to one particular part of his farm, and for a longer period if the disease developed itself at all. Carrying on that system for a period of two years and upwards, he had never detected a single instance in which foot-and-mouth disease had been communicated to the other portion of his herd, numbering 200 or 300 beasts. If the Committee adopted the Amendment, and declared that two or three miles around that farm should be an infected district, they would put a stop, unnecessarily, to all operations, which would be a great detriment, not only to the individual himself, but to the whole district and community in general.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELremarked, that he approached the consideration of the Amendment from a somewhat different point of view from that of his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Goldney). It was a very important Amendment, because the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) proposed to declare a district instead of a place. He wished to quote a case, which he had verified, as against the one referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It occurred at Tenby. In October, 1871, 10 cows there were infected with foot-and-mouth disease. Inquiries were set on foot as to how the contagion had reached them, and it was apparently impossible to ascertain the medium through which the disease had come. But it was ascertained, upon inquiry, that some rams had come through Bristol, from Ireland, and had lain in a field in which the cows were. It was not certain that the rams were affected with disease, but it was certain that the 10 cows took the disease. At a considerable distance from the mainland was an island, and, on the 7th of the same month, the Inspector reported that there were 15 cases of disease upon it; and it was an absolute fact that no animal of any description, except a dog, could by contact have communicated the disease. The argument he deduced from this was that if they attempted to go outside the immediate place where foot-and-mouth disease existed—which he wished them to deal with very stringently—and to make a district, they would get into all sorts of difficulties.
  MR. PEASEsaid, they could hardly intrust the local authority with the power of declaring a district; but that as they had done in the case of pleuro-pneumonia, so they must do, also, in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, and leave it to the Privy Council to declare the district. With respect to the case cited by his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Peel), to show that foot-and-mouth disease might break out, and that it required no animal to carry it to a herd, he would take his own experience. Two years ago, his own cows got foot-and-mouth disease from a neighbouring farm, to which it had been brought from Ireland. The disease spread to a third farm. There was no reason why those three farms should not be made a district, so that the disease might be confined to them, and not be allowed to spread through the country. He agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury, that if they grappled honestly with disease in the homesteads, it might not be necessary to have recourse to districts. But he would leave it in the discretion of the Privy Council to say where a district should begin and end. Let him remind the Committee of what had happened in the case of Denmark. There, instead of maintaining the various regulations which they once had for foot-and-mouth disease, cattle plague, and pleuro-pneumonia, they amalgamated them in the year 1875 into one class of regulations affecting all these diseases, and the result had been that they succeeded in stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, with the exception of one case which occurred on one farm.
  MR. RYLANDSthought the Committee were now in a very difficult and critical position with regard to the Bill. The Amendment which they were now considering really enabled them to determine whether or not they would attempt to deal with foot-and-mouth disease in this country in a manner which was at all likely to stamp it out. The question was one of very great and material importance, and one in which the country was being led to take a considerable amount of interest, because he would remind the Committee that the only raison d'etre of this Bill was that the Government were proposing to adopt some stringent measures, with a view to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease. He

  1997
  put aside the question of rinderpest and pleuro-pneumonia, as to which he did not complain of the arrangements made in the Bill. But hon. Gentlemen knew quite as well as he did that the main object of the Bill was to deal with foot-and-mouth disease, in order, if possible, to enable the Privy Council to lay down such an uniform and regular system as would lead to the stamping out of the disease. But how was that object met? No doubt, the clause with which they were now dealing—Clause 22—did something in that direction. It was quite clear that, viewed in connection with Clause 26, there would be a power in the Privy Council, if they thought fit, to take very stringent measures indeed with regard to this disease. But what did they find? That the more they discussed this clause, the greater was the disposition which they observed on the part of the Government to water down these restrictions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were becoming more and more disinclined to carry out the restrictions which alone were necessary to stamp out the disease. His hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had proposed an Amendment which had been described as absurd and impracticable; but the original Bill, as introduced in "another place," contained a similar provision, although it was not contained in the present Bill. Moreover, they were in possession of the views of the Privy Council on this subject—that was to say, they knew the opinions entertained by their permanent officials in the Veterinary Department with regard to it. Judging from the statements recorded in the Report of the Privy Council, these gentlemen looked upon the proposals now in the Bill as very inefficient to attain the object in view. His object in alluding to this matter was this—the country Party had put a strong pressure upon the Government to induce them to shut out the foreign supply, with a view to get rid of foot-and-mouth disease. They had persuaded the Government to bring in a Bill, which as originally framed would, to a very great extent, have stamped out the trade in live animals imported into this country. Its provisions had, no doubt, been very materially altered. Considerable concessions had been made, and the Bill now occupied a very different position. But what he contended
  1998
  was that unless the Government were prepared to adopt measures which would stamp out foot-and-mouth disease in this country, they would be called upon to make still further concessions with regard to the import of foreign cattle. He would, therefore, press upon the Committee that they should consider favourably the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he understood that the Amendment proposed to extend the place which at present was left to the discretion of the local authority, and to fix the area at a radius of one mile from the infected spot. Now, the discussion had already been before the Committee, and the arguments which had been raised against the proposal on a former occasion must still be fresh in the minds of hon. Members. Those arguments relied mostly upon the impossibility of carrying out such a provision as that in crowded districts, and he had himself pointed out its impractibility in such a town as London. Let them take the radius of one mile in London, and see what an extent that covered. He believed that the Committee had already come to a decision adverse to that method of dealing with the case, and he hoped they would continue to maintain that opinion.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that if the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) was desirous of making the Bill really an effectual one for stamping out disease, he would tell him how he could do so. Let him persuade the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). Now, that Amendment did this—it gave power to the Privy Council to declare a district, and that advantage would be obvious at once. Let them take the case of 10 or 12 farms scattered about. Foot-and-mouth disease might break out in one of those farms, and, instead of drawing a circle of exactly a mile round it, you put it in the power of the Privy Council to say—"We will make the whole of these farms into a district, and stop the disease in it." He attached great importance to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham, and hoped that the Committee would accept it.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he would advise the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham. The great value of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire was that it made it compulsory upon the local authority to extend the limit of an infected place. Whatever the local authorities had the power to do should be compulsory upon them. He thought, at present, they were far too lax in imposing the rules laid down by the Privy Council.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that now the Committee appeared to him to have realized the difficulty of dealing with the subject. If the law were made sufficiently stringent to carry out its object, he should be only too glad to see it enforced; but it appeared that the public would not submit to such stringency. But if the law was not sufficiently stringent, it was of no use whatever. He had, personally, always objected to the Bill, because he thought it was impracticable; but he thought they ought to give it a fair chance, and the Bill having got so far, he thought they ought to give it every possible facility for becoming law. Under the circumstances, if they wished to carry the Bill, there was only one possible way of doing so, and that was to leave it to the Privy Council to decide the details. It was perfectly absurd to talk of a mile radius—as in the case of Southwark, where there were a number of dairies on the other side of the river, and the limit would include a great part of the City.
  SIR, ANDREW LUSKsaid, he should be glad to know whether hon. Members wished to pass the Bill or not. He considered the Amendment to be a frivolous one, and one entirely contrary to common sense. It was not an Amendment which a farmer's friend would impose.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was afraid he must ask his hon. Friends to allow himself and his constituents to settle the question. He did not speak without experience. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), when he said that nothing but cattle plague restrictions relating to slaughter would prove effectual in exterminating disease. Now, the Amendment was said
  2000
  to be ridiculous, but he had had a good deal to do with exterminating cattle disease in Aberdeen. They laid down, in all cases where cattle plague appeared, that the area within a mile of the spot should be an infected place, into which no cattle should be allowed to come, and from which none should be allowed to go. There was a certain exception made in the case of public highways and railways. Now, what was there impracticable in preventing any movement of dairy in London, within the radius of a mile? All he was desirous of was having some area within which there must be isolation. His objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) was that it was entirely permissive. The entire Bill would be at the discretion of the Privy Council or of the local authority, and if not at the discretion of those two, it would be at that of the Inspector. He wished the House to declare that, under certain circumstances, it should be imperative to have isolated places in the case of foot-and-mouth disease. If the Committee should indicate to the Privy Council that they were unwilling there should be isolated places at all, were they to expect that the Privy Council would declare those places isolated under the power given to them? The Privy Council had power to regulate what was going to take place within an infected place, and they would have power to modify the restrictions to such an extent as to make them no very excessive hardship or annoyance to anyone. But he wanted to know this—if they were going to have the slaughter of all animals from abroad, were they prepared to submit to severe regulations at home? What they complained of was that in Scotland they were carrying out such regulations under the existing Act, and under the authority which the Privy Council had granted to the local authority, while the same powers were not exercised with vigilance in England.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 272: Majority 239.—(Div. List, No. 228.)
  MR. PEASEsaid, that having already spoken on the clause, he should not trouble the Committee further concerning it, save to say that if the Amend-

  2001
  ment he was about to move was accepted, he had placed on the Paper new clauses, which would prevent any markets or fairs being held in such districts as would be affected by his present proposal without the consent of the Privy Council, and would so prevent any animals being moved. This, he thought, would provide more efficient means than was afforded by the Bill for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. He would, therefore, move in page 9, line 36, after "thereon," to insert the following sub-section:—
  "10. The Privy Council may, at any time, if they think fit, on any evidence satisfactory to them, by Order, declare any district wherein a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease is situate, to be a district infected with foot-and-mouth disease, and may from time to time, if they think fit, by Order, extend the limits of such district."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,said, as he understood the sub-section proposed, it would have the effect of applying the same regulations to pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease as far as the action of the Privy Council was concerned. With regard to the use of the word "district" in the Schedule to the Bill, he admitted that possibly some ambiguity might arise; and if the Committee thought it would, in certain circumstances, be better to substitute the word "area" for "district," he should have no objection to that being done. At the same time, he must say that where the word "district" alone was used, it meant the district under the control of a local authority, where the word "infected" preceded the word "district," there came in the discretion in the Privy Council to extend or contract the boundaries. This, he thought, would meet all the necessities of the case.
  MR. SYNANsaid, there were several objections to this Amendment, the first of which was as to the meaning of the word "district," in reference to which no attempt at a definition had been made. He could understand the clause if it left the Privy Council to define the districts; but it did nothing of the sort. It assumed that the "districts" were well defined at present, and gave power to the Privy Council to declare any or all of them ''infected'' at any time. As far as he could see, the only definition of a district contained in the Schedule in-
  2002
  cluded the whole county in which any particular infected place might be situate. If he was right in this interpretation of the Schedule, it came to this—that in the case of one infected farm in a county, it would be the duty of the authorities to declare the whole county infected, and to prevent the movement of any cattle within such county, without giving a power to the Privy Council to limit the restriction to one particular town-land, or to any other area which might seem most convenient and expedient as far as the production of food was concerned. Unless the hon. Member for South Durham chose to define narrowly what he meant by the word "district," he (Mr. Synan) could not support the proposal before the Committee.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had forgotten when, addressing the Committee a short time before, to ask the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) not to press his sub-section in the words in which it had been drawn. The Government was perfectly willing to accept the principle of the Amendment, and would bring up on the Report a proposal which would carry it into effect.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought all that was wished might be attained by applying the same regulations to cattle disease, to pleuro-pneumonia, and to foot-and-mouth disease. At the present time there was no power given to the Privy Council, or to any other authority, to define what a district was. There was power given to increase a district, without power to define it. He had no doubt that if the Secretary to the Treasury took the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), having stated that he accepted its principle, he would be able so to frame the clause as to bring it back to the form in which it was when it was moved in the House of Lords.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay) solely because he thought the proposal now before the Committee would better attain the object at which he aimed. As a Scotch Member, he must be allowed to protest against the assumption that he spoke for the whole of the Scottish agricultural classes, and practically for the whole of the Members representing the

  2003
  agricultural constituencies. As a proof that the hon. Member was wrong in his assumption, it might be mentioned that, as far as he (Lord Elcho) could see, no single Member for a Scotch agricultural constituency voted for the proposal of the hon. Member.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONsuggested to the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) and the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, that they might save trouble and cause the Act to work more satisfactorily, by attaching the sub-section proposed to Clause 23, to which it more closely referred.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Henry Jackson) that he had accepted the principle of the sub-section, and that the necessary alterations in the draft of the Bill would be made to meet the altered state of things. In making these alterations, it might be found advisable to act upon the suggestion of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought words should be added to the clause similar to those included in Clause 16, in order to give the authorities similar powers in relation to pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease.
  MR. SYNANcomplained that there was no definition of the word "district," and that, therefore, it would have no meaning, either in Clause 16, or in the one under consideration. He, therefore, thought it would not be possible to carry out the principle of the proposal of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), unless words were introduced to define the meaning of the word district.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved, in page 9, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
  "This section, notwithstanding anything therein contained, is to be construed and have effect, subject to the subsequent section in this Act contained, whereby the Privy Council are required to make by Order provisions respecting the case of animals supposed to be infected while exposed for sale, or exposed in a market, fair, sale-yard, or place of exhibition, and the other circumstances specified in the same section, and, generally while being on land, or in a place other than land, which shall be a place in the possession or occupation or under the control of the owner of the animal,"
  2004
  He was sorry the proposal was not in the hands of hon. Members in print; but he had brought it down at the earliest possible moment, as a consequence of what passed on the previous evening.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, whether it was intended to introduce similar words in Clause 16, with regard to pleuro-pneumonia?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid he must oppose the proposal of the hon. Baronet, on the ground that it would stultify the acceptance by the Government of the principle contained in the sub-section to Clause 22, which had recently been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease).
  MR. GREGORYadmitted that there was some inconvenience in discussing an important proposal, which was not in the hands of hon. Members in print; but he thought the Committee should take this to a considerable extent upon the faith of the draftsman, who had, to the best of his ability, embodied the basis of the understanding arrived at by the Committee on the previous day. He could not see much in the objection of the hon. Member for Birmingham to the proposal of the Government. What it was proposed to do was to give the Privy Council authority, on its being reported to them by the local authorities that they considered a particular district to be infected, to declare it an infected district. There would be no hindrance to the power of the Privy Council to deal with fairs and markets. He was, he must confess, sorry that the Amendment had been brought forward at all; because it appeared to him that there was in reality no difficulty as to the construction of the clause as it stood, which he thought was perfectly consistent with the rest of the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdid not know whether the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) to Clause 24. If they did, the nature of the proposal now under the consideration of the Committee would be materially altered. The whole difficulty arose out of the objections which had been raised by the Irish Members. It was impossible, therefore, to look without considerable suspicion on a proposal which would mitigate the severity of the clause, and, in that way, satisfy those hon. Members who were in favour

  2005
  of letting fairs and markets alone. Mr. James Howard, who was a great authority on the subject, stated in his evidence before the Committee upstairs, that nearly all foot-and-mouth disease originated with cattle which were brought from fairs or markets. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had quoted one part of the evidence of Professor Brown, with reference to the question; but there was another part of it which was even still stronger. Professor Brown was asked what measures he would propose with regard to internal restrictions as to foot-and-mouth disease; and his answer was that he would prevent the holding of fairs and markets, except under the authority of the Privy Council upon a licence, which should be given only under special circumstances. In answer to a further question, Professor Brown expanded that view; and it was, therefore, he thought, clear, from the testimony of the highest authorities, that there was the greatest possible danger as to the spread of the disease connected with fairs and markets, and that it was desirable the Committee should look with great suspicion in all matters of the kind upon the concessions which were made to the wishes of the Irish Members, inasmuch as their operation would be to relax the provisions of the Bill.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould only repeat what he had said before, that he was prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), and that he would introduce into the clause all such Amendments as might be necessary to put it back into its proper form. The objection which was taken by the Irish Members was urged against the discretion which was given to the local authorities, and the necessity that that discretion should be controlled in some way, as he believed it would be by the powers vested in the Privy Council by Clause 26. That, however, in no way interfered with the present arrangement.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that what he understood the hon. Baronet to mean was that words should be introduced into the Bill providing that no sale of cattle should be held in a district infected with foot-and-mouth disease, except by licence from the Privy Council. If the
  2006
  Government were prepared to give the assurance, he saw no difficulty in accepting the words proposed, which, however, might require some alteration, on the understanding that fairs and markets were to be dealt with in the same way for foot-and-mouth disease as for pleuro-pneumonia.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONthought it would be better for the Secretary to the Treasury to withdraw the Amendment, and bring up words to the same effect when the Committee came to Clause 26. He had followed the discussion attentively, and he must confess he found it exceedingly difficult to form an opinion as to the effect of the Amendment. It was not easy to say whether it meant that nothing should be done by the local authority without the consent of the Privy Council, or whether, the local authority having made one Order and the Privy Council another, the Order of the Privy Council was to prevail.
  MR. SYNANhoped the Committee and the Government would keep faith with him, for it was on that understanding that he had consented to withdraw his Amendment. He had asked the Government not to act upon the recommendation of those who, all along, had opposed the Bill, and whose object it was to defeat it; and if the present Amendment were brought forward with the view of obtaining their support, he certainly should divide the Committee against it. He could, however, scarcely suppose that the Government would act contrary to the promises which they made when he withdrew his Amendment, which proposed to meet the difficulty of pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease springing up suddenly at a fair or market.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Committee would adopt the Amendment without further discussion. It had been carefully considered by the draftsman of the Bill, and would carry out practically what the Committee, at an earlier stage of its proceedings, seemed to think was desirable. It was simply proposed that in the case of any sudden outbreak of disease, the local authorities should be restrained by the Privy Council, and should receive instructions from the Privy Council as to the mode of dealing with such disease. The Amendment would not interfere with the action of the Privy Council as

  2007
  to the regulation of fairs and markets, which might be held within an infected district. He could not see, he might add, how there could be any practical objection to it; for neither the Irish Members nor anyone else could be desirous that a fair or market should be held in an infected district, and disease distributed in that way throughout the country. What, in his opinion, the Amendment would really effect would be to limit the powers of the local authority by previous instructions from the Privy Council as to the mode of dealing with sudden outbreaks of disease at fairs or markets.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked, whether the 3rd Schedule would include foot-and-mouth disease?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was prepared to adopt the principle sanctioned by the Committee, and to restore the clause relating to foot-and-mouth disease to the same condition as that relating to pleuro-pneumonia. It would, of course, be for the draftsman to consider whether the Schedule would apply to both, or whether identical terms should be inserted in a separate Schedule with regard to foot-and-mouth disease.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was satisfied, if it was intended that the same regulations should be made applicable to both diseases.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he wished to make a few observations before the clause was agreed to. The Irish Members were placed in a somewhat difficult position in consequence of the action of the Government in connection with the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr.Pease). The Government did not accept that Amendment, but undertook to bring up words at a future time to give it effect. Without knowing the extent to which those words would go, he should not like to say that he would be prepared to adopt them. That the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham was a very important one, there could be no question. It appeared to be a reversal of the decision
  2008
  at which the House of Lords had arrived, after very long and careful investigation. That being so, he did not think the mode of passing the Amendment now proposed was at all satisfactory. It should not, he thought, be agreed merely on what was called a general understanding, without knowing the exact form in which it would be inserted in the Bill. Before, therefore, the clause under discussion was adopted by the Committee, he desired to guard himself individually against being supposed to adopt the proposal of the Government with respect to that particular Amendment, or being in any way pledged to the Amendment in a subsequent clause, of which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had given Notice.
  MR. SYNANalso wished to say that he held himself perfectly free, as he believed did the Irish Members generally, with respect to the Amendment, until he saw the precise words by which the Secretary to the Treasury proposed to give it effect.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Declaration or extension of infected place in foot-and-mouth disease by Privy Council).
  MR. SYNANmoved the insertion, in page 9, line 42, sub-section 2, after the word "fit," of the words "on sufficient and satisfactory evidence." His object was to provide that the Privy Council should issue Orders for the declaration or extension of infected places only on evidence which should appear to them to be satisfactory and sufficient.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment, if the hon. Member would only adopt the words of the previous subsection, so that they might be in harmony.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made, in page 9, line 42, by inserting after the word "fit," the words "on any evidence satisfactory to them."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Rules for foot-and-mouth disease).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it would be well to postpone the clause until the Committee were in possession

  2009
  of the precise words by which his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury proposed to give effect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdid not think there was the slightest necessity for postponing the clause. There were two Schedules, one of which applied to foot-and-mouth disease and the other to pleuro-pneumonia. They differed at the present moment, but he should see that they were made to agree. That being so, he hoped the Committee would at once agree to the clause.
  Clause agreed, to.
  Clause 25 (Declaration of freedom from foot-and-mouth disease), verbally amended, and agreed to.

  Exceptional Powers for transit and other cases.
  Clause 26 (Privy Council to provide for pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease during transit, and in other cases).
  MR. E. S. HOWARD,who had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 10, line 22, after "expedient," to insert "subject and according to the provisions of this Act," said, that so long as the Government made a distinction between animals brought from different foreign countries, he thought it right that there should also be a distinction in respect of animals coming from Ireland; because that country was, in his opinion, as dangerous as any foreign country in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. But as the Government had now given way in respect to foreign countries, and had given the Privy Council a discretion to admit or to refuse admittance to the cattle coming from such countries, they would also have a discretion with respect to Irish cattle. He, therefore, should not move the Amendment; but would only express a hope that the Government would see that that uniformity of legislation upon which so much stress had been laid would be carried out.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, the following Amendments were made:—In page 10, line 42, at end of line, add—
  2010
  "And with regard to animals being or having been in the same shed or stable, herd or flock, or in contact with animals so found;"
  in page 11, line 3, leave out "with regard to those places;" and in line 5, leave out "such," and after "order," insert "under this section."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  Infected Places and Districts generally.
  Clause 27 (General provisions respecting declaration of infected places and districts) agreed to.

  Slaughter in Disease, and Compensation generally.
  Clause 28 (Power for Privy Council to provide for slaughter in other diseases).
  MR. O'SULLIVAN (for Mr. BIGGAR)moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, to leave out line 12, and insert "money voted by Parliament." He did not see why compensation under that clause should not be assessed in the same way as under Clause 15.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Committee had already come to a decision as to the manner in which compensation should be provided in the case of cattle plague, where the Privy Council acted by their own Inspector and directed the slaughter of animals; but as in the cases of pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, the cattle were in charge of the local authority, he thought the Committee would do well to adhere to its decision. In point of fact, the opinion of the Committee had already been taken upon the question raised.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was not aware that the decision of the Committee had been taken upon the matter, or he should not have moved the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONobserved, that he ought to have stated that the division was taken on the pleuro-pneumonia clause, which was exactly the same as the foot-and-mouth clause with regard to compensation.
  MR. CHAPLINapproved of the Amendment, and did not think that the question had been decided.
  MR. SYNANobserved, that if his hon. Friend had been in his place when the Amendment proposing that compensation for pleuro-pneumonia should be paid out of funds provided by the

  2011
  Treasury had been moved, he must have seen that there was no chance of passing the present Amendment. The proposal with regard to pleuro-pneumonia received no support from either side of the House, although a much stronger case was made than that with regard to the present Amendment. For his part, he was ready to support the present Amendment and to vote for it; but after what had passed, it appeared to him that it would be a waste of time to take a division upon it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to,
  Clause 29 (General provisions relative to slaughter and compensation).
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY,who had an Amendment upon the Paper, in page 12, line 21, after "shall," to leave out to the end of sub-section, and insert—
  "Be disposed of as the Privy Council or local authority may direct, and, if sold, an accurate account of the proceeds thereof shall be rendered to the Privy Council or local authority, as the case may be, by the owner of such animal,"
  said, that his Amendment depended upon a previous Amendment which had been negatived; and, therefore, it would not be proper to move the present Amendment.
  Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) was not in his place to move the Amendment which stood in his name, he would venture to bring it before the Committee. To his knowledge, it was drawn by the solicitor to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and represented the views of that body; he should, therefore, like to hear the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to it. There was fear that carcases would be buried in commons and uninclosed lands, and the hon. and gallant Member for Truro thought it possible that that might take place on the commons managed by the Metropolitan Board. He would suggest that the matter would be placed on certain footing, if the Amendment forbidding the burial of carcases in commons or uninclosed lands was carried. He would, therefore,
  2012
  move in page 12, line 37, to leave out "or any common or uninclosed land."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONquite agreed with what he understood were the views of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro, that there might be some uncertainty on the words of the clause as they stood. But he would wish to point out that the local authority who would have the control of the Metropolitan commons was the Metropolitan Board itself. Therefore, nothing could be done in this matter without their authority or instructions. He had no wish, however, to maintain his opinion against that of the hon. and gallant Baronet; but he was bound to say that in certain cases it might be very convenient for the local authority to have power thus to dispose of carcases.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINdrew attention to the fact that commons were not always under the control of a local authority.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I accept the Amendment.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was going to suggest that a further Amendment should be made, by adding, after "common and uninclosed land," the words "except with the permission of the Privy Council."
  MR. GREGORYsuggested that it would be better to give power to inter carcases to the local authority of any common or uninclosed land with the consent of the Privy Council. That, he thought, would avoid any difficulty.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that perhaps that was another instance of what he had already observed to the Committee, that it would be advisable to have allowed him to bring up these Amendments on Report. He would take that course, and would frame a clause which would carry out the object the hon. Baronet had in view, making it necessary that the assent of the Privy Council should be obtained to any burial in commons or uninclosed lands.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONproposed to add, as a 5th section, these words—
  "If the owner of an animal slaughtered under this Act by Order of the Privy Council, or of a local authority, has an insurance on the animal, the amount of the compensation awarded to him under this Act may be deducted by the insurers from the amount of the money payable under

  2013
  the insurance before they make any payment in respect thereof."
  This was the re-enactment of the existing law.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he did not see any necessity at all for the Amendment. There was no reason why an assurance company should have the benefit, when a person was relieved out of rates. The local authorities should rather have the benefit of the assurance, to the extent of their loss, than the assurance company should obtain an advantage. It was true that the provision altogether was hardly necessary, because few assurances were now effected on animals; but if it were considered necessary to have such a clause, he thought the Privy Council or the local authority should get the benefit of the assurance to the extent of the compensation which they had paid to the owner of the animals slaughtered.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONpointed out that the object of his Amendment was simply to prevent the owner of an animal being paid twice over—once by the assurance company and again by the local authority.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHAPLINmoved to insert the following sub-section, after Subsection 5:—
  "5a. It shall be lawful for the Privy Council from time to time by Order, on special grounds stated in such Order, to except any animals or classes of animals from the provisions of this Act, limiting the amount of compensation to be paid in cases of compulsory slaughter where the animal when slaughtered is not actually affected with disease, and further, by Order to prescribe the limits of compensation, or to direct the amount of compensation to be ascertained by arbitration or otherwise as they think fit."
  He said, that the object of his Amendment was to prevent the possible perpetration of what would be a great injustice upon the owners of certain animals. The Committee was aware that the maximum limit of compensation was fixed at £40; but the Committee was also acquainted with the fact that there were in the country certain very valuable herds which were kept exclusively for the purpose of improving the breed of cattle. These herds were not a mere source of amusement or profit to their owners; but it was upon their maintenance that the quality of the cattle in
  2014
  the country was entirely due. Under the Bill, it was perfectly possible that not only the animals affected by the diseases included in the operation of the Bill might be slaughtered, but also numbers of animals in the district infected though totally unaffected themselves. The owners of animals worth from £4,000 to £5,000 were in this position—that if those animals were directed to be slaughtered, they would only receive £40 each in respect of them. His Amendment did not propose to make it obligatory on the part of the Privy Council to give the compensation in all cases; but only to make it lawful for them in extreme cases to have ascertained by arbitration what would be a fair compensation to the owners of such stock. The Committee would see that there was a great injustice involved in the Bill as it now stood, and it was in the hope of remedying it that he begged to move the Amendment which he had read.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought that the insertion of the sub-section proposed would be a violation of the general understanding which existed in this country and in others, with regard to compensation to be paid by Government. It was always usual, in the cases of compulsory taking of animals, to fix a limit to the amount of compensation to be paid by the State. For instance, in some foreign countries, with regard to the compulsory use of horses, it was a well-known fact that the owner of the animals had to register them for a kind of conscription. That system existed in France and Germany, and was being introduced into nearly all foreign countries. For the use of the horses, a maximum price to be paid was fixed, and was, no doubt, in many cases productive of great hardship. Doubtless, it was, to a certain extent, hard to give the same compensation to the owner of a valuable animal as to that of an inferior one; but the regulation had been found necessary in order to prevent robbery of the State.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas sorry that he could not consent to the introduction of the sub-section. No one sympathized more than he with the losses inflicted upon agriculturists; but in considering the question, he did not think that it would be fair to tax the ratepayer for what would really be a fancy price. It was impossible that

  2015
  one of those animals, even allowing for a certain amount of increased value on account of breeding, could be worth the amount which was given for it. The country would, therefore, be taxed to pay a fictitious value. Moreover, every Act which contained similar provisions as to compensation had a clause fixing the maximum limit, and he did not think it would be wise for the Committee to accede to the Amendment.
  MR. MURPHYcontended that it would be easy for owners, out of the large profits created by animals of the class they were considering, to become their own insurers, and so recoup any losses they might sustain by the action of the Bill.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcould not at all subscribe to the view expressed by the Secretary to the Treasury, that the values of those animals constituted fancy prices. It might be said that £7,000 was a fancy price; but the term could not be properly applied to a value of £600 or £700. It was the case that foreigners came to this country and bought the animals to take abroad; and, under those circumstances, it was a great injustice to the breeders to limit them to a compensation of £40. He thought that the Privy Council should have powers in special cases to go considerably beyond the amount laid down by the Bill. He should vote for the Amendment.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEmaintained, that in the case of horses, bulls, and cows, it was difficult to determine between a high value and a fancy value, and he did not see how the Amendment would meet the case.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that those animals were kept in a very great degree to maintain the state of excellency for which the country was so celebrated. The question was as to whether the true line had been drawn by the Bill, and his Amendment left the matter entirely within the discretion of the Privy Council; but as the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Kingscote), who was an eminent breeder of valuable cattle, did not think the Amendment a practicable one, it would be difficult for him (Mr. Chaplin) to press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GREGORYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 13, line 6, after the word
  2016
  "withhold," to insert the words "either wholly or partially."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that in view of the stringent regulation which required the slaughter of a whole cargo of cattle, the clause appeared to point to a very large amount of compensation. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would have to look into that matter.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that he would consider the point to which his attention had been called.
  MR. DODSONinquired, whether compensation would be given in the case of a person omitting to give notice of disease?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that in such case compensation would be withheld.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought it important that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) should carefully see that the omission to give notice was a good defence to a claim for compensation. He was not sure that it was; but as the hon. Baronet had accepted the principle that no compensation should be allowed where no notice was given, he would not raise that question.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcould not see why they should be asked to pass the two last lines of the clause without explanation. He knew of no case at the present time of compensation being given for foreign animals. He could understand the words if they applied, say, to animals returning from exhibition abroad.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought the clause proceeded upon the assumption of the animals being store cattle, and that it was a provision whereby the importers of foreign stock were to bear the responsibility, provided it was shown that the animals were diseased on landing.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that if a person imported a number of animals with the knowledge that they were diseased, he would not be able to claim compensation; and the Privy Council were, by the wording of the clause, empowered to withhold compensation in such case.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  Disease and Movements generally.
  Clause 30 (Power for Privy Council to make orders for prevention or checking of disease, and other purposes).
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he had proposed to leave out lines 16, 17, and 18, in order to insert a clause making it a statutory liability for an owner to give notice of disease, but would do this on Report, if necessary. His second Amendment was rendered necessary, because the slaughter-house to which the local authorities would, perhaps, direct a diseased animal to be sent might be at a distance of three or four miles from the place where the animal was lying. He, therefore, trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would tell the Committee that the Privy Council would issue Orders to the effect contemplated by his Amendment. He begged to move the omission of the lines he had referred to in page 13, in order to insert, after line 20, the words—
  "Provided, That any animal permitted by any such general order to be removed out of an infected place for the purpose of immediate slaughter shall be so removed only in a covered truck or other properly constructed vehicle."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the subject was one that should, undoubtedly, engage the attention of the Privy Council, and would be provided for by the Rules to be drawn up by them. He thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Clare Read) would, therefore, do wisely in not inserting the proposed clause in the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PRISON OFFICERS [SUPERANNUATION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Prisons Acts of 1877, so far as regards the Apportionment of Superannuation Allowances between the Treasury and the Local Authority.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Police (Expenses) Act Continuance* (165); Corrib (Galway) River* (166).
Second Reading—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) (157).
Committee—Local Government Provisional Order (Darenth Valley) * (152).
Committee—Report—Charitable Trusts * (150).
Select Committee—Report—Epping Forest*.
Report—Epping Forest * (144–164); County of Hertford * (154).

ISLAND OF CYPRUS—SLAVERY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which I have given him private Notice. At once, let me tender the noble Marquess my acknowledgment for the suggestion he gave me when I spoke on this Question. I am sorry to say, however, that in none of the geographical authorities to which he referred me was I able to obtain the desired information. I can quite understand the Government not knowing much about the Island of Cyprus. I find, on referring to the Encyclopœdia Britannica, that there are only 15 lines which refer to the state of the Island, and there is no information with regard to the particular Question which I have asked the noble Marquess to answer—Whether he can give a more detailed answer than that which was given by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), in the absence of the noble Marquess, with respect to the very important question of slavery, as to what extent it prevails in the Island, and what arrangements Her Majesty's Government have agreed to make in the matter?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I regret that in this matter I have no official information to tender to the noble Earl. Sir Garnet Wolseley, the newly-appointed Governor, has not yet arrived in the Island; and has, therefore, not had any opportunity of studying the condition and institutions of the Island. As soon as we receive the information, we shall be happy to communicate it. Of course, when we hear from Sir Garnet Wolseley, we shall take such decision as may appear to us proper. Considering the result of the noble Earl's researches, I shall not refer him to any other authorities. My noble Friend the late Viceroy of India (the Earl of Northbrook) has offered us advice upon which, I own, I think it will be wise to act in this instance; and that is, that we should, before acting in any manner with reference to a distant part of our administration, consult the authorities upon

  1949
  the spot. That is a doctrine which my noble Friend maintains, and wisely maintains, and it is certainly one to which Her Majesty's Government will adhere in all matters connected with the Island which has lately come under their administration.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLunderstood that the Island of Cyprus was now not a protected territory, but a Crown Colony, that the flag of England was flying there, and that a Governor had been appointed by the Crown. Now, he apprehended that the noble Marquess did not mean to say that, as that was the case, slavery could possibly exist within the territory?
  LORD LILFORDasked for their Lordships' indulgence, while he made a few remarks upon the condition of Cyprus, where he had spent some time. It appeared to him that there was a vast amount of misconception and misunderstanding abroad upon the subject. He was in the Island during the months of April and May, 1875, his object being principally scientific. He had no lack of facilities for inquiring into the real condition of things. The main objection, so far as he knew, to the Island of Cyprus, in a commercial and military point of view, was that it had no harbours; and then it was stated that the insalubrity of its climate was very great. As to the first of these considerations, it was certainly true that, with the exception of Famagousta, which was very fairly protected, there was no harbour, or, rather, roadstead, of importance in the Island. Another of the best known and most used was Larnaka, which, however, was an open roadstead exposed to the Southeast winds. The was another point on the same coast of the same character, but rather better, perhaps, which might be made into a fairly convenient harbour, if a breakwater were erected. But there, again, they were met by the same objection—it was exposed to South-easterly winds. In his opinion, the place that ought to be made into a harbour, and that at once, was Famagousta, which was on the East coast of the Island. There was a harbour there already, though largely filled up, which was amply protected from the most troublesome winds. The silting could be removed, and the harbour made very practicable. In order to protect it, a mole, now ruined, had been erected.
  1950
  The anchorage was very good for small vessels, in from three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half fathoms of water, and troops could be easily landed with the aid of steam launches. A fair anchorage was easily found for large vessels. He had considerable opportunity of forming a judgment upon the point of insalubrity, and he, and those who accompanied him. formed one by no means unfavourable. His pursuit in the Island led him to seek the marshes, of which, with very few exceptions, there was nothing worthy of the name. As to the insalubrity of the climate, he wished to refer their Lordships to a Report by Mr. Consul Laing, who said—"The Island is not unhealthy, but demands simplicity in diet, and temperance in habits." Could anything more be said for any place in the world? He (Lord Lilford) had visited almost all the large Islands in the Mediterranean, and he had found none of them more agreeable than Cyprus—an opinion in which he believed he was borne out by such statistics as existed upon the subject. Cyprus was, at least, more healthy than Sardinia or Corsica, and certainly than Sicily. The want of water in Cyprus was much spoken of; but there was really not want of water, though there was certainly a great absence of means of utilizing it. Wells existed there in great abundance. It was only money and enterprize that were required in Cyprus; and, in his opinion, its acquisition, putting aside political and military considerations altogether, was one of the wisest and best acts done by any Minister in this country for a good while.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 157.)
  (The Lord President.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it dealt with the management of the roads and bridges in Scotland; and, although the clauses numbered 125, its object might be very briefly stated. It would not be necessary for him to go through all the clauses, and he should content himself with directing attention to some of the

  1951
  more salient points. In Scotland, there was no obligation at common law to make or maintain the roads and bridges. The roads in Scotland were of two descriptions—statute-labour and turnpike roads. The first were orginally made to meet local wants, and they were made by the personal service of the inhabitants of the parish. After a time, that personal service was found to be inconvenient, and it was commuted for a parish rate, upon which were placed the making and maintenance of the roads. The turnpike roads were under Local Acts in different parts of the country. They were originally the great arteries of intercommunication, throughout the country, and they practically carried all the through traffic in Scotland at one time, just as they formerly did in England. They were the avenues of communication between very distant parts of the country, and that fixed their general characte ras opposed to the local—the statute-labour roads—which were of a strictly local character, constituting the means of intercommunication in the parish. The turnpike roads were not maintained by assessment, but by tolls taken upon them. The introduction and growth of the railway system in Scotland, as in England, entirely altered the condition of the traffic, diverting it to itself from the turnpike and statute-labour roads. There was, consequently, not that difference now that existed formerly between these two denominations of roads, because the turnpike road had virtually become a local means of carrying on traffic. In many instances, to his own knowledge, the traffic that formerly went on turnpike roads, yielding tolls out of which these roads were maintained, had left them to such an extent for the railways, that, at last, the tolls were insufficient to pay the salary of the toll-keeper or keep the toll-house in a proper state of repair. Hence it was that, by the Bill which their Lordships were now asked to read a second time, tolls were abolished and statute-labour and turnpike roads were combined, and were to be supported throughout that part of the country by rates, the roads going through the county outside the burghs being supported by rates levied on the land, and all the roads and streets of the burghs being supported by the local authorities of such burghs out of rates levied within them. Many
  1952
  places had already got Private Acts of Parliament abolishing tolls, and there the roads were maintained by an assessment on land, one-half being paid by the landowner, and the other by the tenant. There were counties that had got Bills to apply this system when the debts upon their roads were extinguished; and there were other counties, as Dumfries and Forfar, that had got Private Acts taking power to avail themselves of similar provisions to those in the Bill when they thought fit, the power taken under these two Bills being permissive. Out of the 32 counties in Scotland, 18 were already provided for in this way, and did not require to be dealt with by the Bill. Fourteen, therefore, remained untouched by any legislation of that kind. The 18 counties that were now under Private Acts of Parliament were chiefly agricultural and pastoral counties, not counties in the centre of Scotland. It was necessary that something should be done in the question which the Bill attempted to solve. No satisfactory action had hitherto been taken in this matter, and no measure passed. Besides, the Turnpike Acts would expire at no very distant period. It was, therefore, advisable that something should be determined upon without further delay. So long ago as 1859, a Royal Commission was appointed by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the whole subject, and they reported in favour of abolishing tolls, of the placing of the cost of roads on rates chargeable on real property, and of the intrusting of them to the management of the road trustees in counties, and of the municipal authorities in burghs, where they had already charge of the streets. The present Bill, like the Bill of last Session, was framed with the view of giving practical effect to the recommendations of that Commission. The Commission did not deal with the important point connected with the counties of Lanark and Renfrew, and he thought he was justified in saying that it was in consequence of their not having made any proposal on that subject that it had been found impossible to carry out their recommendations to their full extent, that being really the difficult question that had to be solved; because, as he had shown their Lordships, with 18 counties in Scotland no difficulty had arisen, as they had all

  1953
  brought in private Acts, which in all the counties with which he was acquainted, were working satisfactorily. The difficulty was, no doubt, a great one, of adjusting the liability between the towns and the counties, because the county roads in the immediate vicinity of the towns suffered much greater wear-and-tear than those roads which were further in the country, where the traffic was not so great. The proposal of the Bill of 1877, which did not find favour in Parliament, was to give powers to the Secretary of State to proceed by Provisional Order in arranging some of these matters; but the counties which would have been affected by these Provisional Orders objected to that course of proceeding, and suggested that it would be far better that this matter should not be dealt with by the Secretary of State, but by clauses in a Bill; and accordingly his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department deputed a gentleman last autumn to go down to Glasgow and make inquiries there, so as to furnish the Secretary of State with such information as would enable him to deal with this part of the subject in a Bill which he had it in contemplation to introduce to Parliament. In consequence of the Report which was made to the Secretary of State, a clause to which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) most particularly objected—he was not aware that the noble Earl called in question any other—was inserted in the Bill, the clause being that which now stood as Clause 89. He believed he was right in saying that there was a general feeling in this part of Scotland—he might almost say a unanimous feeling; but, at any rate, a general feeling—that some such measure was very desirable, and that it would be a serious misfortune if this measure was not passed during the present Session of Parliament; because there were in the Bill such provisions as would put an end to the unsatisfactory state of things which had existed for so many years, and which several successive Governments had endeavoured to deal with, though hitherto unsuccessfully. There would be grievous disappointment, in fact, if the Bill did not pass. He was bound to say, however, that the City of Glasgow did not approve of the 89th clause in the Bill. He regretted that
  1954
  very much, because they all knew what a very important City Glasgow was, they all knew what a public-spirited Corporation it possessed, and how great an interest they took in all public buildings and works connected with the improvement of the City. Therefore, he repeated he was sorry that they were not altogether satisfied with the proposal of the 89th clause. There was now a provision in that clause, however, by which at the end of five years there might be a revision of the sum paid annually by Glasgow towards the maintenance of the county roads, and this, it was hoped, might satisfy the City. The Bill proposed to continue in force all the existing turnpike and statute labour roads until June, 1883, and, on that date, if the provisions of this Bill had not been accepted voluntarily, it should then take effect compulsorily on those counties which had not accepted it. The abolition of tolls, of statute labour, and of what was known as causeway mail, was also provided for in the Bill. Then the management of the roads, whether turnpike or statute labour, was placed under the management, in counties, of road trustees, and in burghs, of the local authority. And there was a clause which provided for the constitution of a new road authority, primarily the county road trustees, but including the Commissioners of Supply, and representatives of the ratepayers of each parish, selected according to numbers. Then, as the road trustees, if taken as a whole, would be a rather large and numerous body, power was given them to appoint, out of their number, a smaller number, to carry out some of the provisions of the Bill. The trustees were to divide the county into convenient districts, and the management of the roads in each of these was given to a district committee named by the trustees. The county road trust was to conduct the general business, but they had no power of imposing assessments for the purposes of the Act, that power being retained in the hands of the larger body of trustees. The assessments for the repairs of the highways were to be paid, half by the owners, and half by the occupiers of the lands and heritages in each district. Under the powers given by the 58th section, for the construction of new roads and bridges, the cost of these would fall entirely upon the owners, because they would have

  1955
  the sole voice in deciding whether these roads should be constructed. Then there were some provisions, which had been very carefully considered, relating to the valuation and allocation between counties and burghs of the road debts. He did not think there were any other provisions to which he need call their Lordships' attention. He had, as shortly as he could, stated the main provisions of the Bill. He would ask their Lordships to give it a second reading, and wait to hear what the noble Earl had to say in objection to it, in order to reply to any arguments he might make use of.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, who had given Notice to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, under Standing Order, No. 96, said, he was exceeding unwilling to impede the progress of a Bill which he believed the people of Scotland would welcome as a great boon; and if he thought for a moment that it would retard the accomplishment of that object, or reduce the value of that boon in any respect, he, for one, would not be found to make the proposal he was about to submit. But he believed the general principle which the noble Duke had stated, was hardly the principle applicable to the whole Bill; and he had come to plead on behalf of a great constituency in Scotland, that it might not be excepted from that principle. There was also a minor case, which was a very hard case, and which was not included in the Bill, and which he submitted rather ad misericordiam to the consideration of the Government. It was the case of the burgh of Linlithgow. It was a very peculiar case. Linlithgow was originally a small village surrounded by Royal Palaces and bearing some resemblance to Windsor; and there many of Her Majesty's Predecessors had been born. In the time of the Commonwealth the burgh of Linlithgow met with extremely rough treatment at the hands of the soldiers of Cromwell, and at the time of the Restoration it, in fact, had entirely disappeared. It was thought that some endeavour ought to be made to compensate it, and, accordingly, it was resolved to purchase a bridge a mile beyond the burgh, from the Earl of Linlithgow, at a price which was then a considerable
  1956
  sum in Scotland, and present it to the town. The burgh was confirmed in the possession to the bridge by an Act of the Parliament of Scotland in 1685, with the view of securing a small income to it. That was the sole income the burgh of Linlithgow had to rely upon. If Parliament now took it away under this Bill, as he feared they were about to do, they would put an end to one of the most ancient Royal burghs by rendering it bankrupt. That was a small case. The next case he had to lay before their Lordships was a case of equal hardship, but of considerably greater magnitude. The date on which the Government laid this Bill on the Table of Parliament was the 18th January, and a few days afterwards it was read a second time. By the provisions of the Bill, the counties of Lanark and Renfrew were divided into three wards—the Lower Ward, the Middle Ward, and the Upper Ward. On the 20th March the Lord Advocate gave Notice to the Committee of an Amendment by the clause which now stood as the 89th clause in this Bill. That 89th clause utterly removed the restrictions of the three wards as regarded Glasgow, making Glasgow belong to the entire district, and imposing a sum of £12,500 a-year upon Glasgow for the maintenance of the county roads, imposing also upon Glasgow a considerable proportion of the debt of these two counties. In short, Glasgow was treated most disadvantageously under this Bill. His case did not compel him to pronounce any opinion on its assessment, but he would point out that an assessment of this kind, imposing a capital sum of £330,000 on Glasgow, was not imposed without some reason or cause being shown, and, as had been stated by the noble Duke, some reason was put forward; because a Mr. Smith, a gentleman of great ability connected with the Home Office, was sent down to Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and Glasgow, to make inquiries. He met repeatedly with the Gentlemen representing the City and the counties, but these Gentlemen never had an opportunity of confronting each other or cross-examining each other. Fortified by these interviews, Mr. Smith returned to London, drew up a Report which satisfied the Home Secretary, but which had never been laid on the Table of Parliament and which Glasgow had

  1957
  never seen. He (the Earl of Rosebery) thought Glasgow had a right to demand a little more public, deliberate, and free inquiry, before it was called upon to pay £320,000 or £330,000. The contribution was so excessive, that it almost resembled the sum that might be levied on Glasgow in case of capture by a foreign enemy. That it should be levied in consequence of a Report which Glasgow had never seen, and which the Members of either House of Parliament had not seen, was an extrordinary thing. There was this further element to take into consideration that the merits of this case could not be clearly explained without a map. Some of the roads for which Glasgow was called upon to pay were 40 miles from the City, and considerably nearer Edinburgh than Glasgow, and it was hard that this should be done on private Reports, without Glasgow being able to state their case before a Committee of their Lordships' House. Instead of the City being called upon to prove its claim for immunity from this assessment, imposed on it by the Government, the burden of proof lay upon the Government itself. The Government had brought in a Highways Bill for England. Into that Bill they had introduced a clause by which no borough with a separate court of quarter sessions was called upon to pay rates for the support of the county roads. Not even the Metropolis was called upon to make such a contribution; and it did seem hard, that if in England even the Metropolis was to be exempted from contributing to make good the wear-and-tear of roads in its immediate vicinity, in Scotland Glasgow should be called upon to pay such an extraordinary amount in respect of the roads not all in its neighbourhood. The noble Duke had administered consolation of a very dubious kind to Glasgow. He had said that if Glasgow found the sum large, in five years it might come to Parliament under the provisions of this Bill and argue its case; but by that time Glasgow would have paid an enormous sum towards the debt and maintenance of the county roads, simply for the purpose of enabling this Bill to pass without the slight delay that would be necessary if their Lordships granted the inquiry that was asked. If ever a case demanded the consideration of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, not merely on
  1958
  account of Glasgow, but on account of the reputation of Her Majesty's Government, that was the case in question. The case was so strong in favour of an inquiry, that it was worth while asking what were the objections that could be urged against it. The first objection was that it would delay the Bill. But the Corporation of Glasgow were confident that if a Committee were appointed, their case could be presented at a day's notice. If there was no further opposition before the Select Committee than that of Glasgow to the clauses of the Bill, the hearing and consideration of the matter would not delay the Bill more than a few days. This trifling delay would really facilitate the measure. Then the Home Secretary had complained that there had been no notice till the last moment of any objections by Glasgow to this proposal, and he also complained that the City of Glasgow had been guilty of laches in respect of this Bill. The application of the word was so far removed from what he (the Earl of Rosebery) had always understood to be its meaning, that he was induced to consult a dictionary to find out if the word had not a considerably different interpretation from that which he had always attached to it. He could not find it in his Johnson, but in the last edition he came across it with the rendering "inexcusable delay," which was the meaning he had always attributed to it. But "inexcusable delay" was so extraordinary a charge to make against Glasgow, that he would give their Lordships some account of the interviews and efforts by which it had sought to influence the Home Office and Parliament. Glasgow sent first a deputation to London on the 15th February, who saw Mr. Smith and Mr. Nicholson in the Lord Advocate's room, and afterwards met Mr. Assheton Cross, to whom the Lord Provost stated their views. On the 25th February, the views of the Corporation were again communicated to the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate. Thereafter two meetings took place between their representatives and the Lord Advocate. On the 28th March, Dr. Cameron, one of the Members for the City, gave Notice of Amendments to remove this grievance. On the 27th of the subsequent month, Mr. Ramsay also gave Notice of Amendments to remove the injustice of the

  1959
  clause as affecting Glasgow. On the 3rd of June a deputation from the Corporation had an interview with the Lord Advocate and intimated their intention of opposing the clause. On the 20th of June, the Members for the City of Glasgow divided the House of Commons on the 89th clause of the Government Bill. On the 24th of June, the two Liberal Members gave Notice that they would divide the House on the third reading. On the 25th, the Corporation addressed a letter to the Home Secretary again remonstrating with him, on the injustice of his proposals. On the 27th, Mr. Anderson, one of the Members for the City, gave a further Notice that on the Order for the Consideration of the Bill he would move that the Order be discharged; and on the same day the three Members joined together, Liberals and Conservatives alike, in again remonstrating. These were the laches of the City of Glasgow in regard to this Bill. All he could say was that if laches meant constant importunity, repeated remonstrance, and pertinacious protestation against the clause affecting Glasgow, he could then understand the Lord Advocate or the Home Secretary in a spirit of weariness not unmixed with remorse, using the expression. He had no more to say. The proposal for a Committee seemed to him so absolutely irresistible and fair that hardly a doubt could remain on their Lordships' minds as to the justice of it. He heard it stated that the noble Duke intended to resist the Petition. He himself could not believe it. He could not believe that the Government would damage their reputation for candour and fair dealing with so large a portion of the people of Scotland, and, where the concession was so easy and simple, and where the effects would be so prompt and lasting, would refuse to the second City of the Empire, the small boon of a Select Committee. He moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee in order that Glasgow might be heard by counsel in regard to this clause.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, the second reading would have to be put and carried before this Motion for a Select Committee could be made.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that before the second reading was put, he must say he could not understand how the noble Duke could state
  1960
  that there was nearly an unanimous feeling in favour of the Bill, remembering the fact that two county Members and one burgh Member from Ayrshire—three Conservatives—had divided the House of Commons against the second reading of this Bill. At present the roads of the county of Ayrshire were kept up by tolls. They were excellent roads, and no possible complaint could be made respecting them. By this Bill there would ultimately be a charge upon the land, half on the tenants and half on the owners, of nearly 1s. in the pound. The farmers and landlords of Ayrshire were, therefore, unanimous in their desire that the Bill should not be passed, wishing to be left as they were now with excellent roads. As the noble Earl had appealed for consideration for the City of Glasgow, he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) would make a similar appeal for the county of Ayr. There was a circumstance that might have some weight with the Government. At the last Election three Conservatives were returned from that county. Its valuation was nearly a third of that of Glasgow, that was nearly £1,000,000, and it was a most important county. The landowners and farmers were deeply interested. They disliked very much that their taxes should be increased, thinking it a great hardship that a Conservative Government which they had supported, should place such a burden upon them as would be done by this Bill. These Conservatives would certainly not be so anxious to move so unitedly together in support of Her Majesty's Government, if so little attention was to be paid to their demands. He hoped the noble Duke would consider the circumstances of the large and important county of Ayr, which returned three Members at the last Election, though with some difficulty, to support the present Government. Was it reasonable, when there was no evil in that county which this measure would remedy, and when the roads were in excellent order, to impose upon the population a heavy tax for roads? He had heard from several noble Lords that it had been found that taking off the tolls in England had not been of any advantage in the way of improving the roads, and he trusted that at least the experiment would not be forced upon places in Scotland where there was no need for it.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read 2a," put, and agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONdisclaimed altogether the idea that there was any political feeling in this matter. After the period to which they sat last night discussing matters of a political character, he thought they should have been content that day to deal with the roads and bridges of Scotland, free from all political considerations, and to show that, at all events, there were some measures which they might consider in forgetfulness of the fact that there were opposite sides in the House, and that their only aim was to do the best in their judgment for the part of the country calling for such legislation. He should, therefore, not touch upon the allusion, the very pointed allusion, which the noble Lord (Lord Oran more and Browne) had made to the political character of the representation of Ayrshire, further than to say he was sorry to hear that it was with difficulty three Members were returned at the last Election to support the Government, and that he hoped, notwithstanding the noble Lord's prophecy, the same result would be attained more easily at the next Election. He would now confine himself to the proposal of the noble Earl opposite. He had always fanoied there was a good case for the Bill, but he certainly did not know the case was so good till the noble Earl favoured him with quotations from the somewhat large volume he had alluded to during his speech in favour of the reference to a Select Committee. He had no idea that the case of Glasgow had been so unceasingly before the authorities until the noble Earl had given so many dates. He was quite aware that the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Advocate had thoroughly considered the matter; but he really was not aware previously, that the case of the City of Glasgow had occupied their attention so assiduously from January up to the last days of June of the present year. He could, therefore, take it from the noble Earl's own lips that the case of Glasgow had been thoroughly considered by Her Majesty's Government. Was not that a
  1962
  full answer to the demand for a Select Committee? The noble Earl had also stated that he wished the same measure applied to Scotland as was proposed to be applied to England in the matter of roads and bridges. He thought they would get into some confusion unless, when dealing with Scotch roads and bridges, they confined themselves to Scotch considerations, and dealt with them in the light of Scotch requirements and Scotch law, because it did not at all follow that what would be a good principle to adopt in England would be equally or even at all applicable to Scotland. The system regulating roads and bridges in Scotland was in many respects different from the system in this country. The noble Earl had anticipated an objection which would naturally suggest itself against referring this Bill to a Select Committee—namely, that it would practically shelve the Bill for the present Session. The noble Earl said the proposed Committee might be appointed at one day's notice, and that they might within another day hear the case of the City of Glasgow, so that at the expiration of two days the whole thing might again be before their Lordships. The noble Earl had talked very much about fair play and fair dealing with the towns and counties. But where would be the fair play of dealing with the great questions which the Bill attempted to settle in that hasty manner? Would it be considered reasonable that persons affected by the Bill should get only six hours' notice of the appointment of a Committee in which their interests might be vitally affected? If they were to have the Committee, fair notice should be given to all persons affected by the measure, so that they might have a sufficient opportunity of being heard on the various clauses, as well as upon the particular clause to which the noble Earl would direct the labours of his Committee. Suppose the Committee was appointed, and that they dealt with the 89th clause in the manner suggested by the noble Earl, could it be said that the persons who felt aggrieved by this unsettlement of an arrangement should not be heard? The very reason why the Bill of 1877 did not find favour with those in Scotland to whom it was to apply was because some such clause as the 89th was not inserted in it. Let them appoint a Select Committee and

  1963
  get this clause struck out. What then? The discontent of 1877 would be repeated, and the Bill would not pass through Parliament. The noble Earl said the question wanted investigation, and then answered his own argument, for he had not only told them how much the Secretary of State for the Home Department had considered it during the present year, but he had also reminded them that a gentleman of great experience went down to Glasgow, where he spent a considerable time hearing all parties interested, among them 12 representatives of the City of Glasgow—the Lord Provost, the Town Clerk, the City Architect, the late Lord Provost, and others—all of whom stated the views they entertained. He thought he was fairly entitled to say that the Commissioner who went down to Glasgow was fully in possession of the views of the people of Glasgow. The noble Lord said that the principle of the clause making Glasgow contributory to the amount annually of £12,500 was one that ought not to be adopted, and that the award was excessive. As for the principle, the noble Earl's own clients admitted it, and if he mistook not when the proposal in the clause was before the House of Commons, it was met by the suggestion that they should do what in Scotland was called take a ''slump sum" instead—namely £100,000. If that were so, the principle that these parties ought not to pay towards the roads in question was given up, so that the question became one of amount.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYfeared that the noble Duke had misapprehended him. He did not say that Glasgow ought not to be contributory, but that it was hard that it should be called upon to pay for what it did not get.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONdid not see how it was harder for Glasgow to contribute in the manner prescribed in the Bill than to contribute £100,000 down. It came to the same thing. He wanted to know why it was only recently that the noble Earl had discovered that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee? Why did not the idea strike him, and those who thought with him when the measure was passing through the other House of Parliament? It could not be said that they had not plenty of time for forming and developing this idea. The proposal

  1964
  of Her Majesty's Government contained in the 89th clause was in the possession of those who represented the City of Glasgow on the 15th of February. In Committee the Lord Advocate proposed the insertion of the clause, and it was no doubt then opposed, but up to that time not a word was said as to the Bill being sent to a Select Committee. Upon a division the clause was carried by a majority, and afterwards there was a proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] But was that the time for such a proceeding? He found, at any rate, that there was a considerable majority against so referring it, and he had taken the trouble to inquire how the Division List was constituted as regarded Scotch Members. For referring the Bill to a Select Committee there were 15 Scotch Members and against 23, showing a majority of 8 Members against the reference to a Select Committee. What, then, was the feeling of the burghs affected by this clause? Around Glasgow there were nine burghs concerned in its operation. He held in his hand a document which showed that they were by no means unanimous in approving this suggestion. The document ran as follows:—
  "At a meeting of the suburban burghs held in the Religious Institution Rooms, Glasgow, on Monday, 1st July, 1878, present representing Patrick—Bailie Kennedy, Mr. White, and Mr. Colquhoun; Hillhead—Provost Cowan, Bailie Paton, and Mr. A. C. Wilson; Maryhill-—Provost Robertson, Bailie Murray, and Mr. Foules; Growanhill—Provost Smith, and Mr. J. M. Robertson; Crosshill—Provost Browne. Provost Cowan was elected to the chair, with power to sign the minutes, and Mr. M'Gowan was continued as clerk to the meeting. The minute of meeting of June was read and approved of. Mr. M'Gowan stated that this meeting had been called for the purpose of considering the following Motion, of which Notice had been given by Mr. Anderson, on the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill:—'To move that the order be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with an instruction to hear parties on whom exceptional local rates maybe imposed by new Clause 86, by themselves, their counsel, or agents against such exceptional rate.' "
  This meeting, after fully considering the matter, came to the following resolution:—
  "That the course proposed by Mr. Anderson's Motion was objectionable, and ought to be opposed for the following reasons:—First, that the discussion of the question at issue has already extended over a lengthened period, and that the

  1965
  Town Council of Glasgow and others who were interested had opportunity, of which they availed themselves, of fully stating their views to Mr. Commissioner Smith, upon whose recommendation Clause 89 is based, and that the inquiry proposed would not throw any additional light upon the subject; second, that these recommendations have given more general satisfaction as a broad settlement of the question than any other scheme hitherto suggested; third, that it would be inexpedient in the public interest to keep the matter longer in suspense; fourth, that the proposed inquiry would necessarily be a protracted one, and attended by great and increasing expense to all parties interested which would fall exceptionally hard upon these burghs. The meeting instructed Mr. M'Gowan to forward a copy of this minute by the first mail of to-day to Sir Edward Colebrooke, Sir Windham Anstruther, Colonel Mure, and Grahame and Wardlaw.—Signed Henry Conway, chairman."
  He believed that, notwithstanding the statement of the noble Earl, the clause found favour with the majority of those who would be affected by it, as the entire measure found favour generally throughout Scotland, and he trusted their Lordships would not agree to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, nothing was more undesirable than that questions of this nature should be decided by Party considerations. He, therefore, fully concurred in the appeal made to them by the noble Duke; but he should add that the value of the appeal was some what diminished, when it was followed by an invitation to reject the Amendment of the noble Earl, and so to do something towards an end against which the appeal was directed. No doubt, the noble Duke had the power to have his advice carried out. The noble Duke had, curiously enough, not said a word about the merits of the scheme laid down in the 89th clause. Glasgow appeared to be in exceptional circumstances under the Bill, and it seemed to him unfair that that City should suffer a grave pecuniary loss—and that, too, without being heard—because there had been some delay about taking the course now urged upon the House by the noble Earl. He very much doubted whether it was at all usual for a Government to meet a proposal of this kind in the manner suggested by the Lord President.
  LORD BLANTYRE,in view of the fact that the 89th clause was the outcome of much and careful consideration, hoped the Government would adhere to it. If it were sent to a Select Committee,
  1966
  they ran the chance of having a finding different from that arrived at after previous Inquiries, and that would be very inconvenient. Besides, any Inquiry that could now be tried would simply go over ground already often traversed. In its present form, the Bill was easily understood and workable, and he hoped nothing would be done to delay its passing into law or to complicate it.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEwished to remind their Lordships that this Bill could not, being a public Bill, be referred to a Select Committee under their Standing Orders. A local opposed Bill could be so referred, but this was not a local Bill. Besides, it was not the custom of the House to interfere with a money Bill sent up from the other House, and the 89th clause was one most distinctly dealing with money, since it declared that the City of Glasgow and certain burghs should jointly contribute an annual sum towards the cost of maintaining the roads, highways, and bridges within the counties of Lanark and Renfrew. He was not at all sure that the other House would not consider it a matter of Privilege if this clause were altered, though, no doubt, there was occasionally a difficulty to know what was Privilege and what was not, the other House sometimes interpreting the matter stringently and sometimes indulgently.
  The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, three courses were before them in regard to this clause, which laid a burden upon Glasgow and the populous burghs surrounding it. They might leave the Bill as it was, which would not suit the purpose of the noble Earl; the charge upon Glasgow might be increased, which would increase the taxation upon Glasgow; or it might be diminished, in which case they would simply be throwing a greater burden upon other places. How their Lordships could deal with a matter of that kind, without running counter to the Privileges of "another place," he could not see.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Two o'clock.