Sitting of 22 July 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Haddington District of Burghs, v. Sir Henry Robert Ferguson Davie, baronet, Manor of Northstead.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Indian Native Troops (Transport and Employment Abroad), appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Intermediate Education (Ireland) *.
Resolution [July 19] reported—Ordered—First Reading—Prison (Officers' Superannuation) * [269].
Ordered—First Reading—Arranmore Polling District (Ireland) * [270]; Locomotives on Highways (Scotland) * [271].
First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) * [268].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [204]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland) * [237].
Third Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * [245]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * [251]; Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) * [227], and passed.

NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS.

  EASTERN AFFAIRS—THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON'S RESOLUTIONS.
  DR. KENEALYgave Notice that he would move, as an Amendment to the Resolutions of the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs—
  "That this House is satisfied with the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries at the Berlin Congress, and now feels called upon to condemn the agitation which encouraged Russia into an attack upon the Ottoman Empire, thereby seriously interfering with the balance of power in Europe and the interests of peace and commerce throughout the world."
  MR. PLUNKETgave Notice that he would move an Amendment to the Resolutions of the noble Lord the Member
  2050
  for the Radnor Boroughs, to leave out all after the word "That," in order to insert the words—
  "An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for communicating to this House the Treaty of Berlin, the Protocols of the Congress of Berlin, and the Convention between Great Britain and Turkey; assuring Her Majesty that this House has learnt with deep satisfaction the termination of the late unhappy War, and the conclusion of a Treaty between the Great Powers of Europe; and expressing an earnest hope that the arrangements made and sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government may, under the blessing of Providence, avail to preserve Peace, to ameliorate the condition of large populations in the East, and to maintain the interests of this Empire."

  NOTICE OF QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDS: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government are in possession of information, confirmatory or otherwise, of a statement which has appeared in a recent letter of the Correspondent of the "Daily News," to the effect that—
  "At the Grand Council held on Monday, the Sultan announced that ho only signed the Anglo-Turkish Treaty on the condition that the reforms should be subsequently defined, and that an annex to the Treaty states that the reforms in which England should aid in the execution must be in conformity with his sovereign rights and jurisdiction;"
  And, whether there is any such annex to the Anglo-Turkish Treaty?

QUESTIONS.
  CHURCH OF ENGLAND—QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.

    QUESTION.
    DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, notwithstanding the special constitution and objects and the very wide powers of Queen Anne's Bounty Board, the affairs of that trust are still, as reported by the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1868—
    "Practically under the management of a small number of the Bishops, with the occasional assistance of a few laymen;"
    And, whether any steps have been or

    2051
    will be taken to give effect to the recommendations of that Select Committee, regard being had to the fact that the season is approaching when the meetings of the Board are usually suspended for a period of four months?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the composition of this Board was fully set out in the Report alluded to by the hon. Member. The Board consisted of a large number of laymen as well as Bishops. The Select Committee, in their Report, expressed regret that a large number of lay members did not take part in the proceedings of the Board; but they added that the business of the Board appeared to be carefully and well conducted. He might add an expression of his personal regret that the lay members of the Board did not take a larger share in the work which it had to do. He thought it would be well if summonses were issued to all members of Board.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION— THE TRIBUTE OF CYPRUS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PULESTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is proposed to pay over to Turkey the Tribute of Cyprus, or whether it is to be retained to meet the amount owing from the 1855 Guaranteed Loan?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I presume that, by the expression, "the Tribute of Cyprus," my hon. Friend means the amount which is to be paid, as being the ascertained amount of the excess revenue over the expenditure in Cyprus, upon the average of the last five years. That amount has not yet been ascertained; but, of course, steps will be speedily taken to ascertain it. It will be a matter for further consideration in what form the payment shall be made by the one Government to the other; but, of course, when there are charges upon one Government and charges upon the other, there will no doubt be some arrangements made by which the operations will be facilitated and made more simple.

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS—CARLISLE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
    2052
    Whether his attention has been called to the inquiry into a municipal election at Carlisle, commenced on the 26th of March last, and to the Report of the Commissioner to the effect that numerous persons, including an alderman and a councillor of the borough and a guardian of the poor, had been guilty of corrupt practices within the meaning of "The Corrupt Practices (Municipal Elections) Act, 1872;" and, whether it is his intention to direct a prosecution of the persons named in the Commissioner's Report; and, if not, why not?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSin reply, said, that all the Papers had been laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, and he had not yet received a Report from them concerning the matter.

    CRIMINAL LAW—REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
    MR. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If Her Majesty's Government will undertake to deal with the case of juvenile criminals refused admission to reformatory schools, by providing some central reformatory to which such children might be sent?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had consulted the Reformatory Inspector in reference to the subject of the Question, and that gentleman had informed him that, in his opinion, there had not been a sufficient number of refusals to admit to justify the proposal of the hon. Member. He should be very happy to place the Report confidentially in the hands of the hon. Member if he wished it.

    ARMY—THE ARMY AND MILITIA RE- SERVES.—QUESTION.
    MR. RATHBONEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has made arrangements to allow the men called out in the Army Reserve to return to their families and work; and, whether he will arrange that their first quarter's pay shall be issued in advance so as to enable them to maintain themselves while they are seeking employment?
    COLONEL STANLEY: In answer to my hon. Friend, I am happy to inform him that Her Majesty has been pleased to command that the services of the First Class Army and Militia Reserves may be, until further orders, dispensed with. A

    2053
    special Army Circular was issued on Saturday, which provided that the men should be settled with up to the 31st instant; but that those men who were desirous of rejoining their families, or have got employment they could at once resume, may be allowed at once to go from their regiments without further delay. General officers and others commanding have been instructed to make such arrangements as shall insure regularity and order, and the men will be marched in parties to the rail or to the steamer, as the case may be. They will be given a free passage home; and in such cases where their families have accompanied them a point has been stretched, and free passage will be given to those families also. The men of the Army Reserve will receive plain clothes, or, where plain clothes cannot be furnished in time, a sum not exceeding £1 per man, for the purpose of providing plain clothes. Perhaps I may be allowed, at the same time, to answer a Question standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and to say that, with the view of avoiding any cases of distress until the men re-enter their old employment, directions have been given to advance, on their return to their stations, the remainder of this quarter's reserve pay. I think that these provisions will be considered sufficiently liberal to meet, in all equity, the circumstances of the case; and I believe that, in a very large number of instances, the men have had their private employment kept open for them.

  ROUMANIA—COMMERCIAL TREATY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SERJEANT SPINKSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress, if any, has been made by Her Majesty's Government in the negotiations with Roumania in rerence to a Commercial Treaty or Convention with that country?
    MR. BOURKE: Mr. White, Her Majesty's Consul General at Bucharest, has commenced negotiations for the conclusion of a Commercial Treaty between this country and Roumania; but, owing to the absence of the Roumanian Minister at Berlin, no progress has as yet been made in the negotiations.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—THE ROYAL CUMBERLAND MILITIA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the state in which the main body of the Royal Cumberland Militia marched through the streets of Carlisle on the 8th instant, when, according to the report in the "Carlisle Journal" of the 9th July, "several of the men had to be supported by their comrades," others fell to the ground, and were "escorted through the station door by two policemen," "one was so drunk that he lamed his hand, and had to be taken to the hospital besmeared with blood," while "others wandered about the station in such a bewildered state that they had almost to be dragged into the carriages;" and, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that his attention had not been called to this statement until he saw the Question of the hon. and learned Member. The commanding officer of the district, however, appeared to have noticed the statement, and to have called for a Report, from which it was evident there had been considerable exaggeration in the account of what had occurred. The men had to assemble at Carlisle, where they received their clothing and equipment, and then they had to march to the railway station to proceed to Appleby. When they paraded at the castle in Carlisle the men were steady, though on the march some half dozen men, who might have had some drink, fell out, for the day was very hot. There was no delay, however, and the man who was taken to the hospital, having fallen over a stone and cut an artery, was able to proceed to the camp the same night. Under these circumstances, he was inclined to think no further steps need be taken in the case.

  THE ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION— INDIAN TROOPS IN CYPRUS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. E. JENKINSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Indian Troops sent to Cyprus are now to be added to the permanent forces of the United Kingdom; on what footing they will remain at Cyprus, whether that of the Indian or the English Army; whether

    2055
    it is intended to fill up the Indian Army to the same strength as before the withdrawal of these Troops; and, whether it is intended to introduce this Session any Bill to regulate the employment of this force?
    COLONEL STANLEY: With the permission of the hon. Member, I will answer the Question he has put. In the first place, it is not intended that the Indian troops sent to Cyprus are to be added to the permanent Forces of the United Kingdom. They will remain at Cyprus on the same footing as during their stay at Malta. I believe it is not intended to fill up the Indian Army to the same strength as before the withdrawal of those troops. I think it follows, from these answers, that it will be unnecessary this Session to introduce any Bill to regulate the employment of those Forces.

    TURKEY—TREATY OF BERLIN— ARTICLE 18.—QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there are to be any guarantees for the performance of the promises of Turkey for the good government of the Christian Provinces and the faithful execution of the Provincial Constitutions granted; and especially, whether, after the three months allowed to a Commission to settle the Constitution of Eastern Roumelia, there is to be any "Commission of Control" corresponding to the Commissions of Control proposed by the last paragraph of the summary attached to the proceedings of the eighth meeting of the Conference of Constantinople, and which were to be charged
    "to watch over the execution of the regulations, and to aid the local authorities in measures affecting order and public security"
    in the several provinces dealt with? I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the refusal of these guarantees by Turkey was almost the sole cause of the war which subsequently ensued. I may add that since the Question was put down, I have observed in the Papers circulated to-day that in the earlier part of the proceedings in the Congress, Lord Salisbury very strongly dwelt upon the necessity of these guarantees.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: All that I can say at present, in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, is that under the 18th Article
    2056
    of the Treaty of Berlin, it is provided that a European Commission shall be appointed, and all the provisions which may be made for securing the organization of Eastern Roumelia will entirely depend upon the decisions of that Commission.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to give Notice that when this question comes before the House I shall move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, no European territory should be restored to Turkey without at least the guarantees deemed necessary by the Conference of Constantinople."

  THE MUTINY ACT—THE EUROPEAN AND NATIVE INDIAN ARMY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MUNTZasked Mr. Attorney General, If he would be so kind as to inform the House under what law British soldiers may be tried and punished in time of peace by Court Martial in Cyprus or other Crown Colonies if, as has been asserted, the Mutiny Act does not extend beyond the British Isles?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): The Annual Mutiny Act, and the Articles of War made there under, apply as well in time of peace as in time of war to all soldiers in Her Majesty's service, both at home and abroad, except the Indian Native troops, who are subject to Articles of War framed under the Indian Mutiny Act. It is a mistake to suppose that I ever asserted that the Mutiny Act does not extend beyond the British Isles. What I said in a recent debate was that the provisions of the Bill of Rights with regard to standing Armies were confined to Great Britain. I beg to add that Cyprus is not a Crown Colony.

    THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE SAN STEFANO TREATY.—QUESTION.
    MR. OTWAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the stipulations of the San Stefano Treaty, not abrogated or modified by the Treaty of Berlin, have the force of Treaty stipulations between the Governments of Russia and Turkey?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I can only say, with regard to the Question of the hon. Member, as I said just now, that this is a question of International Law arising between two

    2057
    foreign countries, and upon such question Her Majesty's Government have not, at present, expressed any opinion.

    TELEGRAPHS BILL.—QUESTION.
    MR. WHITWELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to proceed this Session with the Telegraphs Bill; and, if so, if they will refer it to a Select Committee?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, he did not at present see any reason for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.

  TURKEY—REPORTED FIRING ON A BOAT'S CREW BY THE RUSSIANS.

    QUESTION.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked 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?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I must remind the noble Lord and the House that I stated to the House on Friday last that Admiral Horn by had sent his flag captain to see General Todleben on the subject, and that General Todleben expressed his very great regret at the occurrence, of which he was entirely ignorant. General Todleben also stated that he would send at once an officer of the staff to the Gulf of Saros, to make inquiry, and to put him in a position to offer such explanation as might be possible. We have not received any further information. The noble Lord is aware that the distance would make it almost impossible for the officer to have gone and returned by this time. But I may state that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs directed the Ambassador to make a representation of the circumstances of the case to Prince Lobanoff, the Russian Ambassador, and to request an explanation; and I have no doubt we shall receive a satisfactory explanation.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: An explanation, then, has been demanded? Of course, the British flag will be saluted?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: An explanation has certainly been demanded. What the result will be I am not able to say.

    THE EASTERN QUESTION—RUSSIAN TROOPS IN TURKEY.—QUESTION.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor 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 time of peace, where their presence presents frequent occasions of dispute or war?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: All I can say at present on this subject is, that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to say how far the occupation of the territory referred to in the Question of the noble Lord is inconsistent with Articles 25 and 26 of the Treaty of San Stefano.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my Question—whether any representations have been made to induce the Russian troops to withdraw from the territories of an allied Sovereign in a time of peace?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I stated that we were not prepared to say that the Russian troops, being where they were, was a violation of certain Articles of the Treaty of San Stefano; and it may be inferred from that answer that Her Majesty's Government have not made any representations founded upon any construction of that Treaty, or the Treaty of Berlin. Undoubtedly, it will be seen from the examination of one of the Protocols, that one of the earliest representations made to the Congress of Berlin was with the view to the withdrawal of the Russian forces from the positions which they have occupied in Turkey.

    THE FOREIGN OFFICE—THE AB- STRACTION OF A STATE PAPER— THE ANGLO-TURKISH MEMORAN- DUM.—QUESTION.
    MR. CHILDERSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to his statement that the employment of Charles Marvin (a writer engaged at wages by the hour),

    2059
    in connection with the Memorandum of Count Schouvaloff and Lord Salisbury, was inconsistent with the rules of the Foreign Office, but that while the matter was the subject of judicial investigation it would be contrary to precedent and injurious to the public interests that any explanation of the circumstances should at that moment be made to Parliament, Whether now that the judicial investigation has terminated, he will state under what circumstances Charles Marvin was so employed?
    MR. BOURKE: I have to state, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that Charles Marvin was employed, with respect to the Memorandum in question, for the sake of despatch; and he was so employed under the belief that, as he had been for more than a year in the Foreign Office, he was trustworthy. I am sorry to say that that belief afterwards turned out to be erroneous.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: You must not say that, for he was acquitted.

    ARMY—POISONING OF SOLDIERS AT MALTA.—QUESTION.
    MR. MUNTZasked the Secretary of State for War, If the report circulated by the public prints that forty-eight of Her Majesty's soldiers at Malta had been poisoned by carbolic acid, given by carelessness instead of lime juice, should prove correct, he would institute a very searching inquiry, with a view to the punishment of the culpable parties?
    COLONEL STANLEY: I am sorry to say there is some foundation for this report. I have caused inquiries to be addressed to the authorities at Malta. We have not yet received an answer. If the matter should turn out to be as serious as the hon. Gentleman represents, and as the report assumes, of course a very searching inquiry will become necessary.

    THE CIVIL SERVICE—ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE (RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS) BILL.—QUESTION.
    MR. O'CLERYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the terms of the Admiralty and War Office Regulation Bill of 1878 will be extended to those departments of the Civil Service where the lower division of clerkships
    2060
    has been introduced under the Playfair scheme?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: It is not the intention to extend the terms beyond the four corners of the Bill, which embraces only the two offices mentioned.

  SOUTH AFRICAN CONFEDERATION— THE TRANSVAAL TERRITORY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. COURTNEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can now lay upon the Table Mr. Sargeaunt's Report on the Financial Condition of the Transvaal Territory; and, whether it is his intention to apply this Session for a Supplementary Vote in aid of the expenses of its government?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, it was not his intention to apply this Session for a Supplementary Vote. With regard to Mr. Sargeaunt's Report, that gentleman had been actively engaged since his recent return from South Africa in preparing such Report, which had not yet been received at the Colonial Office. Until he saw that Report, he could not promise to lay it upon the Table of the House.

    SUPPLY—THE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was sorry to have to ask, for the third time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, On what day he will state to the House the provision required for the additional expenditure proposed since the Budget?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am quite as sorry to have to answer the Question as my right hon. Friend is to put it; but I am still obliged to say that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty have not yet completed their Estimates. I hope they will be on the Table before the close of the week, and when they are no time shall be lost in making the proper statement.
    MR. CHILDERS: I will put the Question again on Friday next.

  PARLIAMENT—COUNTY OF CLARE— SIR BRYAN O'LOGHLEN.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it

    2061
    is true that Sir Bryan O'Loghlen has accepted the appointment of Attorney General of Victoria; and, whether he can inform the House of the date of such appointment, and what salary, if any, attaches to the office in question?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I cannot state the precise date of this appointment; but a short time ago I heard from the Governor of Victoria that Sir Bryan O'Loghlen had accepted the office. The salary has been altered recently, but I understand it is now between £1,600 and £1,700.
    MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall move—
    "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland for the holding of a new election for the County of Clare, in the room of Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, who, since his election, hag accepted the office of Attorney General of Victoria."

    ARMY—HALF-PAY—THE ROYAL WAR- RANT.—QUESTION.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can recommend some alteration in the Warrant by which the half-pay service of those Officers promoted to that list, (1) as a reward, (2) placed thereon owing to reduction, counts disadvantageously, and is reckoned towards compulsory retirement?
    COLONEL STANLEYwas bound to say that, on looking at the clauses of the Royal Warrant, he should, if he answered the Question at once, be driven to a conclusion adverse to the officers in question; but, inasmuch as the words of the Warrant were not wholly free from doubt, he had desired other Papers to be looked at, by which it would be seen what were the intentions of the Warrant when it was originally framed. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not receive any communication from him, perhaps he would be good enough to repeat his Question on a future day.

    POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
    MR. MELLORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state what course he proposes to take with respect to the Bill to amend the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, seeing that the Lords have decided to insist on their Amendments?
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that as he had declined, in deference to the suggestion of the Speaker, to press a Motion with respect to the Privileges of the House, as affected by this Bill, he would ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in considering the Amendments introduced by the Lords, they would consider them in connection with the Privileges of this House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am aware generally of the point to which the hon. Baronet the Member for Christchurch refers in connection with this Bill. I am not unacquainted with the position of the measure in connection with the question of the Privileges of the House of Commons; but, as I understand, you, Sir, have thought it not desirable that that question should at present be raised. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Not to-day, as I understand.] Well, not to-day; and that being so, I do not know that I can venture further at present with my answer to the hon. Baronet. With regard to the Question of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Mellor), he is aware that the Government have supported, and that I have more than once expressed my personal support of his Bill, and that I have regretted to see the Amendments which have been introduced into it by the other House of Parliament. It does not lie with me to propose to take any particular course with respect to the measure, because it is one which is in charge of my hon. Friend; but I should be prepared—and the Government should be prepared—if he thinks fit to insist upon what has been agreed to by this House, to support him.

  THE ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION— THE DESPATCH OF MAY 30.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GOSCHENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would be able before the debate on the Resolution of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) came on for discussion to place in the hands of Members any further Papers connected with the Anglo-Turkish Convention, and notably the reply of our Ambassador at Constantinople to the despatch of the 30th of May? There were no Papers before Members with

    2063
    respect to that Convention, except that despatch; and he should like to know what reply had been made to it by the Turkish Government?
    MR. BOURKE: I shall be happy to answer the Question to-morrow. I am sure that the House will see that it is one which I cannot answer without consultation with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—TREATY OF BERLIN.

    QUESTION.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state when he will be able to arrange to give me an opportunity of bringing forward the Resolution of which I have given Notice with reference to the Treaty of Berlin? I have put down the Resolution for Thursday as the earliest day it would be favourable to bring it forward; and I should like to know whether it will be in the power of the Government that the discussion should be taken on that day?
    MR. BUTT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I may be allowed to express the hope—and I think I may say the unanimous hope—of the Irish Members belonging to all Parties in this House, that nothing will be allowed to interfere, if possible, with the coming on, as already arranged, of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill on Thursday next?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is no doubt that at this period of the Session it is extremely difficult to make arrangements that will not occasion inconvenience to hon. Members on some subjects. Undoubtedly the promise which has long been made to Irish Members and others interested in the subject—that we shall proceed with the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill on Thursday—is one that ought not lightly to be overlooked. In these circumstances, I am afraid it will be impossible to offer the noble Lord an earlier day than Monday next. I have given the matter considerable study, and I think that that course will be the most advisable, both with regard to existing engagements, and with regard to the importance of the subject which the noble Lord will bring forward—a
    2064
    subject on which it is desirable that hon. Members should have time to consider the Protocols. With reference to the arrangements of our Business, I think it would be the best economy of time that the Resolutions of the noble Lord should be taken on Monday.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is to be the course of Public Business this week?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We propose to-night to go on with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, and I hope it is not impossible that it may be finished before we adjourn. To-morrow is given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) for his Motion on the Vernacular Press Law of India. On Wednesday we may have some remainders of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill to get through; if not, other Government Business will be taken. On Thursday we propose to take the Committee on the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill. In speaking of the course of Public Business, I ought also to refer to that which is an unfortunate necessity of our position. We stand very badly with respect to Supply, and that more particularly with regard to a very important Vote—the Education Vote. I hope that we may soon be able to get that Vote; but, in consequence of the pressure of Business, I think that it is not improbable that before the end of the week we may be obliged to ask for a Vote on Account in order to enable us to carry on the Business of the Education Department.

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

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    Disease and Movement, generally.
    Clause 30 (Power for Privy Council to make Orders for prevention or checking of disease, and other purposes).
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to

    2065
    Sub-section xix. of the clause, because it had rather an important bearing in connection with the discussions which they had had in Committee on the Bill. The words of the sub-section were—
    "For prohibiting or regulating the holding of markets, fairs, exhibitions, and sales of animals."
    The first sentence of the clause said—
    "The Privy Council may, from time to time, make such General or Special Orders as they think fit, subject and according to the provisions of this Act,"
    for, amongst other things, what he had just now mentioned. Owing to the intervention of the Irish Members, they had had a great deal of conversation on the subject of the powers to be granted by the Bill with regard to the holding of fairs and markets, and it appeared to him not to have been a very important conversation; because, in point of fact, under the clause they were then considering, apart from Clauses 22 and 25, the Privy Council had absolute power, in the words of the sub-section, to prohibit or regulate the holding of fairs, markets, exhibitions, or sales of cattle. The effect of that was that the Privy Council might, if they thought fit to exercise it, put a stop to the holding of fairs and markets in any position or part of the country, without declaring an infected district. They had a deal to say the other day about the Privy Council declaring the district in which the Bill should operate with regard to its restrictions; but, practically, under that sub-section the Privy Council would have ample power to prohibit any market they thought fit. That seemed to him to be a matter of serious consequence, inasmuch as there were no governing words in it to restrict the power of the Council, and they had not heard from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, up to the present time, what was to be the policy of the Privy Council in respect to that very important matter. Of course, if the Privy Council chose to deal carelessly with markets, perhaps they would decide not to interfere with them, except in case of prevalence of disease in any given district. Then, he said, they would not carry out the recommendations of their own Departmental officers. Now, he thought that it was really important that they should bear in mind
    2066
    that the Veterinary officer of the Privy Council entertained a very decided opinion as to the course which ought to be taken to put a stop to foot-and-mouth disease, and he really must ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, to satisfy them as to whether the Privy Council, carrying out the important powers they were now asking the Committee to give them—whether they did intend to exercise that power on the advice of the Veterinary officer, or whether they meant to give him the go-bye, and treat his advice as if it was worthy of no attention at all? He thought they would see very soon why it was important that they should get from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury an absolute statement as to the policy which would be carried out by the Privy Council. It was quite evident from the Report of the Committee which was presented to the Privy Council last year, that Professor Brown was very decidedly of opinion that if they wanted to put a stop to foot-and-mouth disease in that country, they must deal with markets and fairs in a very stringent manner. Professor Brown said the one absolute essential thing was to stop the movement of animals from premises where foot-and-mouth disease existed, and for that purpose it was necessary to effect changes in the present system, and that fairs and markets must be placed under competent supervision. Now, that was the recommendation of the Veterinary Inspector of the Privy Council. Of course, it would be necessary for the market authorities, in exercising control, to have the power to prohibit the holding of markets. The point he wished to get at was this—Would the Privy Council take that course or not? Were they prepared to act upon the advice of their own officer, and, in the event of disease appearing in a market, were they prepared to take steps to prohibit markets, and to insist upon the slaughter of all the animals that might be present? If they were prepared to do so, he knew that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would raise such an outcry that the Government would not care to meet it. Evidently, they were not prepared to do it, and he wanted the Committee to understand that, practically, the Bill, so far as foot-and-mouth disease was concerned, was a sham. Some people

    2067
    seemed to think that isolation of the infected animals would suffice; but foot-and-mouth disease was so insidious in its character, that if a flock were sent into a fair or market, and two or three of the number were found to be diseased, nobody could tell how far the infection might spread. He thought that, under the uncertainty which existed, he was quite justified in asking that the Government should make it clear what policy they intended to pursue. Was it intended, in the event of an outbreak of disease in a market, to carry out the recommendation of the Veterinary officers of the Privy Council, and insist upon the slaughter of the animals? If it were not intended to adopt such a course, the Privy Council would, he repeated, fail to carry out measures which, in the opinion of their own officers, were most essential as a means of stamping out disease. During the sitting of the House of Lords' Committee, Professor Simonds was asked if he agreed with the opinion of Professor Brown, and he replied that he did. The Professor said—
    "I agree generally with it. There might be a difficulty with regard to slaughtering all the fat animals—perhaps that might be thought a strong measure; but when the object is to stamp out disease, I hardly see how you can stop short of that."
    He wished to know whether the Privy Council were prepared to throw over those opinions—the opinions of the two most distinguished veterinary authorities in the country—or not? He was not recommending them to adopt those opinions; but he again said that the Committee were clearly entitled to know what the intention of the Government was in the matter. He could tell the Secretary to the Treasury that if the Government were not prepared to adopt those opinions with the view of stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, he should claim different treatment with reference to foreign imports than the Government had yet shown a disposition to concede. The Government were evidently on the horns of a dilemma.
    MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN rose to Order. Was the hon. Gentleman not out of Order in making a long speech when, so far as he (Mr. Chaplin) understood, there was no Motion or Amendment before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN:I understand the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) intends to close his speech by moving an Amendment to the clause. If he does not propose to move an Amendment, he is clearly departing from the Rules of the Committee.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he ought, perhaps, to have said the commencement that he was prepared to move the omission of the 19th sub-section he had read. He was sorry to trespass upon the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, upon whom he feared he was inflicting his remarks—as, indeed, upon the House—in vain. The hon. Gentleman would find, by referring to the clause, that it provided that the Privy Council might make such special or general Orders for prohibiting or regulating the holding of fairs and markets, exhibitions and sales of animals, as they deemed expedient. His (Mr. Rylands') object was clear. It was to ascertain what was likely to be the policy of the Privy Council. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would say that the Government did not intend to prohibit the holding of markets, nor the slaughter of all the fat cattle that might be present, in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, he should quite understand what the Bill was, and so would the Committee. The Government proposed to give great powers to the Privy Council, and they refused to give the Committee an idea as to how these powers would be exercised. Unless some explanation was vouchsafed, he, for one, should decline to give the Privy Council the powers they asked. He begged to move, with the view of raising the question, the omission of the words—
    "For prohibiting or regulating the holding of markets, fairs, exhibitions, and sales of animals."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped that if the Committee intended to make any progress with the Bill they would not too often revert to former discussions. The whole of this question was raised the last time they were in Committee, and was thoroughly debated. He stated then, as fully as he possibly could, the answer which the hon. Member now sought. He stated, in reply to an hon. Gentleman from Ireland

    2069
    what the Government proposed to do with regard to the restraining powers of local authorities in case of a sudden outbreak of disease in any fair or market. On that occasion, he referred the Committee to the general powers which existed under the Act of 1869, by which the Privy Council, and the local authorities with power delegated from the Privy Council, could stop fairs and markets in districts where disease prevailed. He also alluded to the 75th section of the Act, under which the Privy Council might from time to time make such orders as were deemed expedient for certain purposes, including prohibiting or regulating the holding of markets, fairs, exhibitions, or sales of animals. Under that the local authorities had powers for prohibiting or regulating markets, fair, &c., within their district; when authorized so to do by the Privy Council. Those powers were re-enacted in the 19th sub-section of the present clause, the powers being those which the Privy Council possessed when disease was rife in a particular district; while the regulations to be issued under Clause 26, guiding the action of local authorities and their Inspectors, would take effect in case disease broke out suddenly in any market or fair. That was the explanation which he ventured to give on the last occasion, and he believed it fully showed what was the law applicable, at the present moment, to markets and fairs when infection was rife in a particular district.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved, that whatever the powers of the Privy Council might be, their practice had not been to stop fairs or markets on account of foot-and-mouth disease. At one time their powers were so great that they could do almost anything; but they had never attempted to put those powers in force. He was not surprised at the question which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), but he hoped it would not be pressed to a division. The Government had now shown quite clearly what it was their intention to do. They had accepted the principle that the Schedule for foot-and-mouth disease and for pleuro-pneumonia should be the same, and the result would be this—that no market, fair, exhibition, or sale of cattle could be held in any place or district where foot-and-mouth prevailed,
    2070
    except by licence of the Privy Council.
    MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved the local authorities had stopped markets in his own immediate neighbourhood.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped the Government would not lay down hard-and-fast rules for foot-and-mouth disease, as there were a great variety of circumstances under which it might arise. It might be advisable to slaughter animals in isolated cases, so as to effectually prevent the disease from spreading; but if the cattle over a wide district were affected, slaughtering would be absurd. He hoped, further, that no invidious distinction would be made between fat and store cattle. If fat cattle carried disease, he was sure store cattle would; and he did not see, therefore, why they should be treated differently. As long as fat cattle and store cattle were subject to the same regulations, the position, of Ireland and England would be identical; but if fat cattle were placed under a disadvantage, it was clear that the Irish farmers would suffer unfairly. ["Divide, divide!"] He begged to inform hon. Members that he would speak on this subject as long as he chose. Coming, as he did, from, the second largest county in Ireland, he was entitled to be heard, more especially as this was the first time the important question of fat and store cattle, which affected Ireland so closely, had been raised.
    MR. ANDERSONbelieved the whole difficulty arose from the concession made to the Irish Members the other night. The English and Scotch Members had expressed no jealousy of the interference of the local authorities; but the Irish Members entered a protest against it, in consequence of which the Government took fairs and markets out of the control of the local authorities. The Privy Council was now made the responsible body; but still the Irish Members were not satisfied. His object in rising, however, was not to point out the difficulty of satisfying Ireland, but to ask what guarantee they had that the Privy Council in Ireland would follow the same rules as the Privy Council in this country? There was no power taken in this Bill to compel the Irish Privy Council to follow the lead of the Privy Council here; and he, for one, after the strong protest made by Irish

    2071
    Members against fairs and markets being interfered with, had not the slightest confidence that the authorities in Ireland would venture to take as strong measures in regard to fairs and markets as would be taken by the authorities here.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 15, line 17, after "Council," to insert—
    "For the purpose of ensuring uniformity, and the due execution of the provisions of this Act, think fit to."
    MR. BRISTOWEthought the clause was better as it stood. There might be reasons for the Amendment; but it seemed to him to unduly limit the powers of the Privy Council.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas prepared to stand by the clause as it was; but the object of introducing those words into it was merely to call the attention of the Privy Council specially to the fact that uniformity was the principle upon which the Government wished the Act to be worked.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYwished to know how far the principle of uniformity was to be extended as between the different borough and county authorities? The complaint hitherto had been that one local authority had one set of regulations, and another another.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the Privy Council, in laying down regulations for the guidance of the local authorities, would keep in view that uniformity of action which was so strongly recommended by the Committee of last year.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcalled attention to Sub-sections 32, 33, 34, and 35 of the clause, all of which he thought extraordinarily vague. Sub-section 32, moreover, appeared to be unnecessary, because it was really contained in Subsection 4. The definition of diseases in this clause and these sub-sections was so extended as to become no definition at all, and the definition of animals was equally comprehensive. It would be quite as well, indeed, to pass the Bill without any definition at all of either animals or diseases. When they came to the Schedule dealing in general terms
    2072
    with animals and diseases, they would really be dealing not with the diseases and animals mentioned in the Bill, but with all diseases and all animals whatsoever. The words of Sub-section 33 gave power to extend—
    "For all or any of the purposes of this Act, the definition of animals in this Act, so that the same shall for those purposes comprise any animals, in addition to those mentioned in this Act."
    Then, Sub-section 34 extended—
    "For all or any of the purposes of this Act, the definition of disease in this Act, so that the same shall for those purposes comprise any disease of animals, as defined either by this Act or by Order of Council, in addition to the diseases mentioned in this Act."
    Sub-section 35 was, if possible, even wider. It provided—
    "Generally, for the better execution of this Act, or for the purpose of in any manner preventing the introduction or spreading of disease (whether any such Order is of the same kind as any kind specified or enumerated in this Act or not)."
    It seemed as if they were to make provisions for diseases of all kinds, even those affecting human beings, there being no limiting words whatever. In order to raise the question in a convenient form, he would at present only move the omission of Sub-section 32. It was certain that Sub-section 32 and Sub-section 34 could not both be necessary. He was aware that the case against Sub-section 32 was less strong than against 33, because the former only stated the existing law; whereas Sub-section 33 established an entirely new order of things. But the existing law, as stated by Sub-section 32, was so vague that it had better not be incorporated into the Bill; and, therefore, he begged to move that that sub-section be omitted.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Amendment would not be accepted by the Committee. Sub-section 32 continued to the Privy Council the power they at present possessed of dealing with other diseases and other animals than those specified in the Bill. The hon. Baronet described that and the following sub-sections as proposing to deal with every imaginable disease and every imaginable animal. If, however, the hon. Member would refer to the Act of 1869, he would find that very

    2073
    similar powers were there given to the Privy Council. Clause 75 of that Act, after reciting the different Orders which the Privy Council might from time to time make, went on to say—
    "And generally, any Orders whatever which they may think it expedient to make for the better execution of this Act, or for the purpose of in any manner preventing the introduction or spread of contagious or infectious disease in animals in Great Britain."
    That Provision gave the Privy Council power to deal with any known or unknown disease that might arise; and the object of the present clause was to leave that power to the Privy Council. He trusted the Committee would not deem it wise to hamper the discretion of the Privy Council in this matter. The clause did not prejudice anyone; and should any new disease arise, it would enable the Privy Council to deal with it, without coming to Parliament for additional powers.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he had read the sub-section quite differently from his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The Committee had already passed, with little objection, a clause which gave the Privy Council most extraordinary powers. That clause—the 28th—gave the Privy Council the power, which was really enormous, of slaughtering any animal for any disease. As he read the present clause, it was a sort of instruction to the Privy Council as to how they should interpret Clause 28, and served to limit and define the extraordinary powers which that clause conferred upon them.
    MR. PAGETpreferred the provisions of the old Act, which not only included the ordinary contagious diseases of animals, but also glanders and farcy, and gave power to the Privy Council to add to the number of diseases dealt with. It also defined animals so clearly that none could be included which were not alluded to in the Act; whereas the present clause gave power to the Privy Council to include, under the word "animals," anything they pleased. He could not help thinking that it would be better if the Definition Clause of this Bill followed the old Act, or, at all events, if it included glanders and farcy, and contained words enabling the Privy Council to extend the definition of disease.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERagreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the form of the old Act would have been better than the present clause. It was a mere question of drafting, however, and did not much matter. With regard to the 28th clause, he begged to remind his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that it did not authorize the slaughter of all animals, in the usual sense of the word, but of what the Bill defined as "animals." He did not well see how the Committee could withhold from the Privy Council the powers proposed to be conferred on them by Subsection 32, which only stated the law at present existing; and, therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
    COLONEL BARNEurged that the Privy Council should have power, if necessary, to stop the running of hounds, or the passage of drovers' dogs through infected districts, as there was no doubt that these animals could carry disease.
    MR. ANDERSONwas of opinion that the 32nd sub-section was unnecessary, as both Sub-sections 34 and 35 were infinitely more comprehensive.
    MR. WHITWELLreminded the Committee that they were only giving the Privy Council power to apply the Act when, in their discretion, it became necessary to do so, without making the exercise of that power imperative.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would not, of course, divide in view of the opinion of the Committee; but should propose to divide against Subsection 34 when it was reached. He maintained that Sub-section 32 was unnecessary, if Sub-section 34 was to be passed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that Sub-section 33 extended the definition of the term animals, so that it it would apply to any kind of animals, and thereby rendered Clause 5 of the Bill altogether unnecessary. He moved the omission of the sub-section.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded the hon. Baronet that the 5th clause of the Bill was inserted for the purpose of limiting the action of the local authorities; while the sub-section under consideration intrusted the Privy Council with powers to take action in case of the introduction to this country

    2075
    of any fresh description of disease, or of any fresh manifestation of disease. He also reminded the Committee that animals were contemplated by the Bill which did not come under the definition contained in Clause 5. It was possible that, under the Quarantine Clause, such animals might introduce to this country a new disease; and the Privy Council were, by the sub-section, intrusted with power to extend the Act to animals other than those contemplated by Clause 5.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, they were apparently legislating in panic. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) seemed to be of opinion that some extraordinary and unexpected danger might arise, of which they had no experience, and the nature of which they could not anticipate. To pass a clause of the kind under consideration, embracing all descriptions of animals, at the discretion of the Privy Council and with the view of protecting themselves against dangers which never had existed, seemed to him legislation of a character that ought not to be supported; and he should certainly vote for the rejection of that most objectionable clause. The Privy Council ought not to be intrusted with unknown powers for unknown purposes. He thought the powers given to them were, moreover, without any limitation whatever, and trusted that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would divide against the sub-section.
    MR. GORSTcharacterized the powers conferred upon the Privy Council by the sub-section as the most extraordinary he had ever known. They amounted to enabling the Privy Council to pass an Act of Parliament without going through the formality of consulting the House. The powers conferred were absolutely unlimited. Of course, it would be said that they would not be used; but it was most objectionable in principle to grant powers for the reason that they were not to be made use of.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERcould not help thinking that the hon. Baronet would not press the clause, which was really not wanted. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought he could hardly consent to it. They were passing an Act for the stamping out of contagious diseases amongst cattle; and it seemed to him hardly correct to introduce lines including a
    2076
    perfectly different set of animals. It would be seen by the dictionary that the term animal had a very wide interpretation. Cats and dogs, no doubt, came under that interpretation; but if they were to have a cat and dog Bill, it was desirable that the Committee should know it. The necessity for the clause would exist only in the case of some new disease being communicated to cattle, sheep, and swine, by other animals; but if the Department really thought it necessary to have a protection against a theoretical danger of that kind, it would be easy to say they should have power to regulate the importation of animals likely to give disease against which the Bill was directed. He thought the clause would have to be withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould have been willing to fall in with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had he understood his proposal. He believed the objection of the hon. Member was to the wide definition contained in the sub-section; but he would remember that the existing Act gave power to extend the definition in cases of expediency. He was ready to consider whether the words in question were necessary, and to withdraw the sub-section.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYhoped the Government would obtain for the Privy Council complete powers with reference to the matter then under discussion. He asked the Committee to remember that the cattle plague, which was previously unknown in this country, was introduced in 1865, and that an enormous amount of damage was done by it before it could be dealt with. He was desirous that the Government should have power to deal summarily with any new disease that might at any future time be introduced, as well as with the animals themselves; because, if an Act of Parliament were found to be necessary, irreparable damage might be done before the disease could be dealt with. He hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would retain in the Bill powers that would enable the Privy Council to act efficiently under such circumstances.
    MR. EVANSthought it quite possible, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Suffolk (Colonel Barne) had suggested, that infectious diseases might be conveyed from one part to another by the

    2077
    movement of hounds or other animals. He therefore hoped that power would be retained in the Bill for dealing with any unexpected disease that might present itself. He believed it to be beyond the power of man to prevent the wandering of cats; but considered that a plan could be carried out which would, when necessary, restrict the movement of dogs. He merely wished to enforce the view of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), that the Government should retain the power of dealing efficiently, quickly, and summarily with any new disease.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, the present interpretation of the clause no doubt included the whole tribe of ferœ. It was well known that, in the North of England, there were cattle and other animals running wild, and that red deer were on the hills in many parts of the country. It seemed to him necessary to possess the power of dealing with new diseases, and to include animals of the kind referred to.
    MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved there was a deficiency in the law with respect to the power of dealing with mad dogs that should receive attention from the Government.
    DR. LUSHthought that any re-modelling of the clause should be in the direction of limiting its operation.
    MR. ANDERSONhoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would be prepared to tell the Committee what were included in the term ruminating animals. He understood that the 2nd sub-section enabled the Privy Council to include the human subject as well as human disease; and it would certainly be convenient to make some provision with reference to these. He was not in favour of leaving out the sub-section as proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. (Sir Charles W. Dilke).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sub-section omitted.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he now proposed to leave out Sub-section 34, which stood on the same footing as Sub-section 33, inasmuch as it widened the definition relating to disease, while the former widened the definition relating to animals. It was not desirable
    2078
    to retain a clause of so vague a character to be applied by the Privy Council.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the words proposed to be introduced in the next Sub-section (35) by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would, practically, cover all that it was desired to obtain. He thought that the Privy Council should have power to deal with any fresh disease that might arise outside the ordinary diseases at present known. He believed that such a power would be obtained by adding to Sub-section 35, after the word "order" in line 32, the words or "such disease."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not see how the Government could get on without Sub-section 34, to which he saw no objection, whilst Sub-section 35 appeared to him rather too strong, and, therefore, open to considerable objections.
    MR. PAGETthought it would be better to let the sub-section remain, because the definition contained therein was not the same as under the existing Act.
    MR. GORSTconsidered it unadvisable to get rid of Sub-section 34 at the cost of being obliged to adopt Sub-section 35. He had no great objection to the former sub-section, although there might be some objection to extending the definition of the term animals.
    MR. RYLANDSwas of opinion that Sub-section 34 might be very useful, while he objected altogether to Subsection 35. He would retain the former, and give up the latter clause.
    MR. SYNANthought if the Committee desired to make progress with the Bill, it was a matter of perfect indifference which of the two sub-sections was retained.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE SIR CHARLES W. DILKE moved the omission of Sub-section 35.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he should be very sorry to see the words contained in the sub-section—namely, "generally, for the better execution of this Act," struck out. The Privy Council ought to have power to make regulations with the object expressed by the words, and he therefore asked that the sub-section should be retained.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEhad no objection to the words in question if the

    2079
    hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) wished to retain them.
    MR. PAGETthought the sub-section should remain as it then stood. The words of the 75th clause of the existing Act were—"and generally any Order whatsoever for the better execution of this Act," and the wording of the subsection in question was—
    "Generally, for the better execution of this Act, or for the purpose of in any manner preventing the introduction or spreading of disease (whether any such Order is of the same kind as any kind specified or enumerated in this Act or not.")
    So that, in Section 75 of the existing Act, they had precisely the same powers expressed in almost the same words as those of Sub-section 35 of the present Bill. The provisions of the existing Act were in respect of the words, "Any orders whatsoever," wider and more comprehensive than those contained in Subsection 35 of the Bill then under discussion. He hoped the sub-section would be retained.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, there was a great difference in the clause proposed and in the clause of the Act of 1869. That provision of 1869 was proposed in ignorance of what was necessary to be done, and only eight special powers were given to the Privy Council. Up to the present time, however, there had been a good deal of experience, and the brains of the Secretary of the Veterinary Department had been exercised to find out what would be necessary. The result was that they had before them the 25th section. He had looked into the matter carefully, and with what knowledge he had, and it appeared to him that everything which was wanted was included without Sub-section 35, the wide powers of which were not required. Therefore, he thought, the sub-section might be very easily omitted.
    MR. GORSTsaid, in the case of the Act of 1869 the Privy Council were only allowed to make Orders of the kind contemplated by the Act, which was a very different thing to the proposal now before the Committee. The present Bill would give the Privy Council power to pass an Order which had nothing to do with the Act. Such a proposal was, in his opinion, going too far. It was no use to answer his objection by saying that the Privy Council would not use the
    2080
    power. If they did not want to use it, they need not seek to get it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE SIR CHARLES W. DILKE moved, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words in the sub-section, except the first line—"generally for the better execution of this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
    Clause 31 (Provision of water and food at railway stations).
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Mr. GREGORY)SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Mr. GREGORY) moved, in page 15, line 38, to add—
    "And it shall be the duty of every Rail way Company to provide that any animal carried by it shall not be kept more than 12 hours without food or water."
    He would not say a word in support of the addition unless it were opposed, as the proposal seemed to him to be so reasonable.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the hon. Baronet would see that a subsequent sub-section to the clause would really apply to everything which ought to be done in the direction he wished, inasmuch as it provided for the supply of water to the persons in charge of the animals. By Sub-section 4 the Privy Council had power to alter the limits of the time during which water should be supplied. Under those circumstances, he thought the greatest precautions had been taken.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the point of the Amendment was that at present there was no power to punish Railway Companies if cattle had water every 30 hours; whereas it was proposed to punish them if the animals were not watered within that period.
    MR. PEASEsaid, if his hon. Friend carried his Amendment, it would make Railway Companies provide water for animals every 12 hours. That was almost an absurdity in itself; because, if so provided, they could not make the animals drink, and many would not do so at such frequent periods. Those who were acquainted with agriculture knew that the worst thing which could be done for an animal was to give it water every 12 hours. Such a proceeding would be likely to bring on all kinds of diseases and complaints. At the present moment

    2081
    he did not know how many hundred Orders there were as to the provision of water at stations for cattle; and on the railway of which he was a Director every Order of the Privy Council was carried out as directed. Each animal had a supply of water, and if any would not drink it in the trucks, they were taken out and attended to. That being so, to pass such a provision as that contained in the Amendment would do more harm than good.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, if the present regulations for watering cattle were kept in force after the passing of the present Bill, he should be satisfied without the adoption of the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought there was no necessity for watering the cattle every 12 hours. The great object of requiring the provision of water at all was to make the Railway Companies carry the cattle with expedition; and, if they did that, they could carry them any distance within Great Britain in 30 hours.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobjected to the fixing by the Bill of such hours for the supply of water as must necessarily give torture to the beasts. He had that day been talking on the subject with an eminent agriculturist, who said an animal could not be kept for 30 hours without water, unless sustaining injury.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsupported the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was, he believed, responsible for the 30 hours' Order; but it was made at a time when the Privy Council were informed that such a period was not too long for an animal to wait without water. Since then, he had been told that 30 hours was too long to keep beasts without water, and that Railway Companies could provide it oftener without inconvenience. Hence he hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment to a division.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had no objection to substitute 24 hours for 30 hours, if it was the wish of the Committee that that should be done.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that would meet his wishes, and he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYregretted that the Secretary to the Treasury should have agreed to such a compromise. The alteration of the clause would make it peremptory on Railway Companies, or the consignors of cattle, to see that they were watered within 24 hours. It might, under some circumstances, be advantageous that cattle should be watered in summer during 24 hours; but he did not think such an advantage would accrue in the winter. Therefore, he hoped the Government would not give way, especially as it was in the power of the Privy Council to alter the time for watering beasts to every 24 hours if they so chose. As the Privy Council already had discretion in so many more important matters, surely they might be allowed the same in such a subject as that of watering animals. He was fully persuaded that to give cattle water every 24 hours would do more injury to them than allowing them to go without for 30 hours.
    The words "twenty-four" were then substituted for "thirty."
    MR. PEASEdid not wish to raise any objection to what the House had done with regard to the hours for water; but he had a very strong impression that when his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. W. E. Forster) originally fixed 30 hours, he did so after a complete inquiry as to what was the practice and what was convenient. Therefore, he made this suggestion to his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), that he should point out the reason for originally adopting 30 hours, in case any alteration should be proposed on Report.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, if sheep were to be considered as animals which were to be watered every 24 hours, he could safely state that many would not drink within that time, even on the hottest day.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    Dairies, Cow-sheds, and Milk-shops.
    Clause 32 (Power for Privy Council to make orders relative to dairies, cow-sheds, and milk-shops).
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG moved, in page 16, after line 28, to insert the following sub-section;—

    2083
    "(a.) For the registration with the local authority of all persons carrying on the trade of cow-keepers, dairymen, or purveyors of milk."
    He saw no reason why this should not be done the same as in the case of the sellers of petroleum, and other things, who were subject to the rules of the local authorities.
    MR. ANDERSONhoped the Government would consent to the proposed subsection.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG moved to insert the following sub-section:—"For the isolation of any cattle newly purchased." It was frequently found that newly-purchased cattle brought disease with them; whereas, if they were isolated, it would prevent infection being spread.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdid not think it would be necessary to insert the words proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet, as the object he had in view was met by Sub-section 17.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that being the case, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved to insert, in page 16, line 29, after "for," the words "the inspection of cattle in dairies, and for."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, in page 16, line 33, to insert before "milk-shops," the words "milk-stores."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 16, line 36, after the word "contamination," to insert "from typhoid fever as well as other disease." His Amendment, he said, was in the same direction as others which had already been admitted, although, perhaps, it went a little further. It was well known that a great deal of very dangerous typhoid fever was really caught from the contamination of milk. The Privy Council undoubtedly had the power to deal with typhoid fever under the Bill; and the best way to do so was to prevent the sale of contaminated milk, which was one of the most fruitful sources of the disease. It had been
    2084
    proved, as clearly as anything was capable of proof, that typhoid fever spread over a great part of a large town had sprung entirely from a dairy; and, therefore, he hoped his Amendment would be agreed to. If it was not, it would be almost necessary for the Government to introduce a special Bill to deal with dairies; but he trusted they would show themselves desirous of settling the matter without the necessity of separate legislation.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not agree to the Amendment. He was quite aware that it had been asserted, and proved, that a form of typhoid fever had resulted from drinking milk which had been under certain conditions contaminated. But he believed the words of the clause as it stood were quite sufficient to enable the Privy Council to take means to prevent the sale of milk which was contaminated; and if they used those means, the results of consuming contaminated milk would not arise.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he attached the greatest importance to the whole clause; but he did not think the words proposed to be inserted by the hon. Member for Glasgow would be of any advantage. For instance, scarlet fever and dyptheria resulted from drinking contaminated milk as much as typhoid fever; and therefore he could not see why one disease should be singled out to be dealt with.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, his Amendment contained the words, "as well as other disease," and, therefore, it was not limited entirely to typhoid fever. However, after the expression of opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    Foreign Animals.
    Clause 33 (Prohibition of importation, slaughter, or quarantine).
    MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER moved that the clause be postponed until after the consideration of Clause 74. His object in bringing forward such a Motion was this. They had gone through the whole of the clauses intended to stamp out home diseases—pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. Now they came

    2085
    to a clause dealing with foreign animals. But before they considered that clause, they ought to settle what was to be done with Irish animals; and, therefore, he would postpone Clause 33 until they reached Clause 74. True, the methods of stamping out disease in Ireland were to be the same as those adopted in England, discretion being given to the Privy Council. But there were two different bodies—England and Scotland being under the regulation of the Privy Council of England, and Ireland under the regulation of the Privy Council of that country. The result might be that different Orders would be given in England to those given in Ireland. Therefore, he thought they ought to see that different Orders were not given in the two countries before they dealt with the clause affecting foreign beasts.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONconsented to the postponement of the clause.
    Clause postponed.
    Clause 34 (Regulations of ports).
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 18, at end of clause, to add, as a new paragraph—
    "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Privy Council may, from time to time, if they think fit, in relation to any district or part of a district described in the Second Schedule, make any body, other than the body described in that Schedule, the local authority for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to foreign animals, and in connection with the local authority so made, prescribe the local rate, if any, and the clerk of the local authority."
    The Government had found it necessary with regard to certain places, and especially Liverpool, to give power to the Privy Council to create another local authority other than the actual local authority.
    MR. WHITWELLthought it would be very unreasonable to give the Privy Council power to set up any other local authority in counties than the one now in existence.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERcould not gather from the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury why the power sought for should be given, and he opposed the new paragraph.
    MR. PEASEthought the proposal of the Government went too far, giving the
    2086
    Privy Council power to do as they liked throughout the country.
    MR. RYLANDSoffered the strongest opposition in his power to the proposal. He could not at all understand why power should be given to create bodies to take the place of those already existing. The House did not at all know who were to take the place of the local authorities. The new bodies might be nominees for all the House knew. As his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) was not present, he would suggest to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury as that place was so much interested, whether it would not be well to postpone the Amendment until the hon. Member was in his place.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was quite willing to leave out this Amendment. He had consented to it because the hon. Member for Liverpool drew his attention to the subject; but as objection had now been taken to it, and the hon. Members for Liverpool were not in their place to defend the clause, he would not press it. Of course, it would be competent for the hon. Gentleman to bring the clause up again on Report, if they desired it should be accepted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    Powers and Duties of Local Authorities.
    Clause 35 (Local authorities to be treated as incorporated) agreed to.
    Clause 36 (Committees of local authority) agreed to.
    Clause 37 (Provision of places for landing of foreign animals).
    MR. E. S. HOWARD MR. E. S. HOWARD moved, in page 18, line 25, to leave out "foreign."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It would interfere with the principle of the Bill. After they had provided for the due inspection of localities, and for the making of a proper attempt to deal with disease as it broke out in the homesteads, both in Ireland and England, if they were now to proceed on the idea of treating Ireland as a

    2087
    foreign country, they would depart from the principle on which the Bill was founded.
    MR. WHITWELLhoped that the Amendment would not be withdrawn, but that it would only be postponed until they saw that the arrangement which was made in respect to Irish cattle was satisfactory.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Baronet had given an undertaking that he would revise the tolls; and he hoped, at the same time, he would consider the effect of this clause. It appeared to him to give unlimited power to the City of London to charge what tolls they pleased. As regarded existing tolls, he believed they had to obtain some sanction; and he suggested that, in future, it should be necessary that they should obtain the authority of some Department before they were allowed to impose them.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONpromised to consider the suggestion just made.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 38 (Power for local authority to acquire land).
    MR. WHITWELLdesired to know whether there was anything in the Bill which prescribed the locality in which the burial-ground for the cattle was to be placed; because the movement of diseased cattle was most important. No doubt, in some harbours and ports, it was difficult to get land where the bodies could be buried; but there ought to be some provision as to the distance and mode in which the animals were to be carried.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, those were matters which were amongst the powers of the Privy Council; and as difficulty had arisen to find land immediately near the spot where the diseased cattle were slaughtered to bury them, this clause had been put into the Bill for the purpose of giving power to acquire land.
    MR. WHITWELLasked whether the Government would take into consideration the propriety of not placing the bodies in the river, but burning them?
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 39 (Duties of local authorities and enforcement thereof).
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, in page 19, line 34, to leave out the word "may," and insert "shall." He did this in order to strengthen the hands of the Privy Council. The clause contemplated that certain local authorities might fail to carry out the provisions of the Act, and then the clause said the Privy Council might interfere. His Amendment was that it should be imperative on the Privy Council to see that the Act was carried out in cases where it was obvious that the local authorities were not doing so. He recollected very well that when certain complaints had been hitherto taken to the Privy Council, as regarded local authorities not complying with the law, the reply was that there was no power to compel them. Now, in this clause power was taken to compel them; but it was only a permissive power, which the Privy Council might sometimes be adverse to putting in motion, and, therefore, he desired to make it imperative.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINhoped the Amendment would not be accepted, because he believed it would lead to great inconvenience, and, in some cases, to hardship. There were an enormous number of regulations contained in this Bill, which, as soon as they became law, the local authorities would be expected to study. Now, it seemed to him very probable that some one of these authorities might, inadvertently, fail to carry out the provisions of the Act, and then under the clause, as it was proposed to be altered by the hon. Member, the Privy Council should be compelled to supersede the local authority, and put in an officer to carry out the Act. This, he thought, would be limiting the discretion of the Privy Council in an absurd manner, especially after the large amount of discretion they had already given that Department. If the hon. Member insisted on his Amendment, he should certainly divide the Committee against him.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, his Amendment was scarcely of the character which had been described. What he contemplated was that where the local authority, when the Privy Council had directed attention to their failure to carry out the Act, still refused to carry it out, then steps should be taken by the Department

    2089
    to enforce the Act. He should not object to words being added to the clause to meet any case of inadvertence.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONconfessed he had sufficient reliance upon the Privy Council to be assured that they would put the Act in force in cases where they found a local authority was not doing so. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment, because it might lead, in some instances, to hardship.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYcontended that there was already sufficient discretion left with the Privy Council, and that in this matter the performance of the duty ought to be made imperative on them.
    MR. MUNTZconsidered that it would not be wise to bind the Privy Council down in this matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 40 (Inspectors and other officers of local authority) agreed to.
    Clause 41 (Reports to Privy Council) agreed to.
    Clause 42 (Orders and regulations of local authorities) agreed to.
    Clause 43 (Powers of local authorities to be for their district) agreed to.

    Police.
    Clause 44 (Duties and authorities of constables).
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 22, line 23, after the word "each," to insert the words "police district or area."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG moved, in page 22, line 22, to insert the words "subject to the local authority," after the word "shall."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he opposed the Amendment, on the ground that its practical effect would be to place the Metropolitan Police under the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Metropolitan Police were a distinct body, acting under the Secretary of State; and he was of opinion that no such authority as that which it was asked to confer on the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to be introduced in a Bill of this kind.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 23, line 3, after "purpose," to leave out to end of paragraph, and insert—
    ''And all enactments relating to the release of persons or recognizances taken by an officer of police or a constable shall apply in the case of a person apprehended under this section."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    General.
    Clause 45 (General powers of inspection).
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, in page 23, line 20, after "applies," to insert "or milk store."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 23, line 41, to leave out after "disease," to end of paragraph, and insert—
    "Specified in the certificate shall for the purposes of this Act be conclusive evidence in all courts of justice of the matter certified."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 46 (Power for detention of vessels) agreed to.
    Clause 47 (Expenses of burial of car-cases washed ashore) agreed to.
    Clause 48 (Power to exclude strangers by notice) agreed to.
    Clause 49 (Provisions for protection of local authority and persons acting under Act) agreed to.
    Clause 50 (Evidence and form and service of instruments) agreed to.
    Clause 51 (Provisions respecting Orders of Council) agreed to.
    Clause 52 (Yearly return to be laid before Houses of Parliament).
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 26, line 42, after "Council," to insert "made since the date of the last return, and every previous Order in Council."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    Offences and Proceedings.
    Clause 53 (Fines for offences).
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, whether it was the case that the not giving of notice was made an offence; and, if so, where?
    MR. PEASEsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend would see that under Section 30 the Privy Council took power to make rules prescribing and regulating the notice of diseases, or of the illness of an animal to be given to, or by, any person or authority.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not know whether this was the time to do it; but he did not think it ought to be left concealed under any possible rule. He thought there ought to be somewhere in the Act a positive statement. Perhaps the hon. Baronet would undertake to bring up such a provision on Report.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment for that very purpose. He hoped that before they passed the Bill they would not simply leave the matter to the Order in Council, as the Bill proposed at present.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought that this was a matter that ought to be left to the discretion of the Privy Council. When a man failed to report disease, it was difficult to say whether it was from ignorance or design. He had known cases in which an animal had been attended by a Veterinary Inspector for a week or two before he was able to determine that it was pleuro-pneumonia. In fact, a case came to his notice only a week or two ago, in which an Inspector had been attending an animal for two or three weeks, and was only then able to discover that it was pleuro-pneumonia. It was an exceedingly difficult matter; and he thought it would require to be a very carefully-drawn section. It would be necessary, while putting a certain amount of onus on every owner of cattle, to prevent a person suffering from mere ignorance.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the way in which the Government proposed in the Bill to meet the difficulty suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was by the combined action of the 2nd subsection of Clause 54 and the 1st subsection of Clause 30. By the 1st subsection
    2092
    of Clause 30, the Privy Council might make general and special Orders for
    "prescribing and regulating the notice of disease, or of the illness of an animal, to be given to or by any person or authority."
    And then Sub-section 2 of Clause 54 said—
    "If, without lawful excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him, he fails to give, produce, observe, or do any notice, licence, rule, or thing which by this Act or by an Order of Council or by a regulation of a local authority, he is required to give, produce, observe, or do."
    If the person neglected to do that which, referring back to Clause 30, was required in the case of the disease or illness of an animal, he was guilty of an offence against the Act. He believed the combination of those two sub-sections would effect the object of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think the interpretation of the Act ought to be left to the magistrates.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would look into the matter.
    MR. PEASEsaid, he had a rather strong opinion that they ought to have the declaration on the face of the Act. The great point was to make it incumbent on every person who had a diseased animal, whether it was suffering from foot-and-mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia, to give notice to the Veterinary Inspector, in order that they might prevent the spread of disease.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he should like to ask the hon. Baronet whether Sub-section 2 was entirely in accord with Sub-section 1? In Sub-section 1, a penalty of £20 was prescribed for each offence; but by the 2nd sub-section the penalty was limited to £5 each animal, where there were more than four animals. So that if there were five animals, the fine would be limited to £5, although the offence in each case was just as great as where there was a single animal for which the penalty was £20. He should also like to ask the hon. Baronet whether he thought it would be wise to subject offences committed in relation to manure or litter to penalties according to the weight? Surely, the sooner the litter and manure were put out of sight the better, without waiting to ascertain the weight. He wanted the Bill to be as good as it could be; and as it was desirable that dead

    2093
    carcases, manure, or litter, which, created an offence, should be put out of sight as soon as possible, he did not think they should be suffered to remain till the exact weight was ascertained. He trusted the hon. Baronet would see what his object was, and perhaps he would take the point into consideration.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would promise to consider the matter. At the same time, he imagined that the method proposed had been found by experience to be the best method of carrying out the Act. It was not so much a question of weighing the manure in the manner the hon. Member suggested, because the carts which were employed in its removal generally carried a fixed quantity and weight.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 54 (General offences).
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE SIR CHARLES W. DILKE moved, in page 27, line 24, to insert after the word "Council," the words "made under this Act."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. Baronet desired that his Amendment should apply to Orders in Council only?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwithdrew his Amendment, and moved to insert after the word "authority," line 24, page 27, the words "made under this Act."
    MR. SYNANsaid, the words were perfectly superfluous, and, if introduced, would only create an ambiguity which did not exist without them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE SIR CHARLES W. DILKE moved to insert after the word "authority," in page 27, line 28, the words "made under this Act."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked, if this applied to the regulations of local authorities made under an Order in Council? If the words were not introduced, the clause would apply to both cases; but, seeing that the Amendment limited the matter to "this Act," there might be some doubt about it, and the decisions of country magistrates could not be expected to be very deep.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he confessed that he ought to have
    2094
    been better informed upon the matter, and ought to have resisted the Amendment before; but all he could do now was to point out to the hon. Baronet where the object he had in view was met in the Bill, and he thought it would be necessary to give Notice to reject on Report the Amendment which had just been introduced. The object aimed at by the hon. Baronet was provided for on page 20 of the Bill, line 39.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the place where he first moved to insert these words was after the word "Council," in line 24, page 27; and that was not in the least met by the observations of the hon. Baronet. He wished to insert them after the word "Council."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: And after the word "authority?"
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; but, in the first place, after the word "Council." I withdraw the Motion to insert the words here, in order to move their insertion after the word "Council."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE SIR CHARLES W. DILKE moved to insert, after the word "Council," in line 26, page 27, the words "made under this Act."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he must resist the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. If the Amendment was necessary, it could be made on Report; but he could not consent now to the introduction of words which would cause confusion in many other parts of the Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not help thinking that without these words the clause would be vastly too wide. There were two classes of penalties for an offence which was a breach of an Order in Council without any limiting words at all. He thought they ought to have some legal opinion on the point.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the word "Council" occurred frequently in this clause and in other clauses; and if it was necessary to insert the proposed words in one part, it would be necessary to insert them in all. If such an Amendment was necessary at all, it ought to be done as a separate clause.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, he could not believe that these words were necessary.

    2095
    If they were necessary here, they would be necessary in other parts of the Bill. He should say, put them in if they were necessary; but he had been assured by one of the best authorities that with the words "Order in Council" there was no necessity for them.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdid not like to allow the clause to pass without these words. The point was this. The words "Order in Council" occurred repeatedly, and they were creating penalties for offences which consisted in a breach of certain regulations. They were described as—
    "Things done in contravention of this Act, or of an Order in Council, or of a regulation of the local authority."
    The words "Order in Council" ought to be limited by the words "made under this Act."
    MR. SYNANsaw no objection to introducing the words "under this Act" after "Order in Council." If the hon. Baronet persisted in saying the words ought to be inserted, then, for the sake of expedition and peace, let them be inserted.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought that the powers of the Privy Council were limited by the 1st section of Clause 8. This point had been carefully considered, and he could not consent to alter the Bill in the way the hon. Baronet suggested.
    MR. PEASEpointed out the inconvenience arising from bringing forward Amendments of this technical character without having previously placed them on the Paper, and hoped that the hon. Baronet would defer them till the Report.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERwas inclined to think that the words of the 8th clause met the objection of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. The words were—
    "In this Act Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council is referred to as the Privy Council, and an order of the Privy Council under this Act is referred to as an Order in Council."
    Therefore, an Order in Council was an Order in Council under this Act.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 55 (Imprisonment instead of fine for use of expired licences, digging up of carcases, and other specified offences).
    MR. PELL MR. PELL moved, in page 29, after paragraph (xii.), to add—
    "(xiii.) If after having been previously convicted under section fifty-four of an offence against this Act he shall again be guilty of the same offence."
    He explained that the object of the Amendment was to provide that a person who was guilty of a second offence against the Act under the previous section should be liable to imprisonment. The Committee would observe that under that section the movement of diseased cattle was regulated. Their passing over roads, or being brought into uninclosed places, was made an offence; and it had been brought to his own knowledge that there were people in the Midland Counties who actually laughed at the fines imposed upon them for these offences, and who repeatedly moved diseased cattle about, to the very great injury of the community. He feared that unless some Amendment such as he suggested were introduced, enabling these offenders to be dealt with more stringently than at present, the Act would not effect what they all desired.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdesired to point out to his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire that he thought his object was already met by the Bill. In the 1st sub-section of Clause 55, it was enacted that "if any person does any of the following things he shall be guilty of an offence," and then followed a list of the offences. Whenever a person committed a fault as against this section, he was guilty of an offence, and was liable to penalties. If he repeated the offence he rendered himself again liable, and there was no necessity to prove a previous conviction.
    MR. PELL: The hon. Baronet does not understand my Amendment.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury understood the point. Clause 54 said that certain things were in contravention of the Act, including the questions of notice, licence, &c. Clause 55 said that certain other things were against the Act, such, for example, as doing a thing licensed after the licence

    2097
    had expired. But they were all special, and for these offences there was to be, or might be, imprisonment. What his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire proposed was that a person committing a second offence against the Act under Section 54 should be punished by imprisonment, instead of, as at present, by a fine only.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped that the Government would not assent to the Amendment, which might be made an engine of oppression in Ireland.
    MR. PELLfailed to see the force of the objection which had been raised to his Amendment by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury; because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had pointed out, the offences under Section 55 were specified, and referred to ordinary licences and certificates. But what he (Mr. Pell) wanted the Committee to observe was this—that the movement of cattle was to be regulated by Order in Council or by the regulation of a local authority; and that to commit an offence against the orders of the local authority, or of the Privy Council, or in reference to the moving of cattle, and bringing them into an open place, was nothing more than an offence against the 54th section of the Act, punishable only by fine. It was the practice of some people, who were well known, to convey diseased animals about the country; and in the part of the country where he lived, a vast amount of disease had been generated in that way. For instance, under Section 30, the Privy Council might make Orders for the isolation or separation of animals in an infected place; and if a person disobeyed such Orders, he could but be fined. If Parliament had really made up its mind to stop the movement of diseased animals in the country, it would be necessary to put into the hands of the Executive the power to imprison a person who repeatedly committed one of these offences. He should have no objection to add to his Amendment words providing that it should only refer to cases where there had been a conviction within 12 months. [Mr. PEASE: Six months.] He (Mr. Pell) was sure that, on reflection, it would be seen that it was not sufficient to impose a mere fine for neglecting to isolate infected animals, or for moving them over roads,
    2098
    and bringing them into the market. Merely to fine a man for carrying on an illicit trade under one's nose seemed to him to be not an adequate punishment, and in practice it had not proved to be so.
    COLONEL MUREbegged to support the view of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. The reckless way in which diseased animals were moved about the country was a scandal; and there was no doubt that the imposition of a fine was not sufficient to put a stop to it. Only the other day, a man brought a cow very ill with pleuro-pneumonia into open market. If that man knew that imprisonment would follow the detection of such an offence he would not be likely to commit it. He sincerely hoped that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire would press his Amendment.
    COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEhoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. He thought it was hardly necessary that for a second offence they should imprison a person in the class of life of those whom the Bill would affect. He had no objection to the pecuniary penalty being made more severe.
    MR. WHITWELLthought the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had rather forgotten that the infliction of the punishment of imprisonment was not compulsory. It was simply left to the discretion of the justices to inflict imprisonment or not. Taking into consideration the serious nature of the offence mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew-shire (Colonel Mure), he thought the Bill would be inefficient, unless the magistrates had power to inflict imprisonment. He would ask the hon. Member for South Leicestershire whether he would object to include the word "knowingly" in his Amendment? He should certainly support the Amendment in case the hon. Member went to a division.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhad no wish to resist the feeling of the Committee generally if it was in favour of the Amendment; but while accepting the principle of the Amendment, he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire to allow him to consider the words which he had placed upon the Paper, and to see where

    2099
    they ought to be introduced into the clause.
    MR. PELL: I presume the Government agrees to the principle?
    COLONEL MURE: I should like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury accepts the principle of imprisonment, or of a heavier fine for a second offence?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: What I said was, that I accepted the principle of my hon. Friend, and I understand that carries the punishment of imprisonment for a second offence. What I asked him was to allow me to consider the words, and the exact place where they should be introduced into the Bill.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYapprehended that farmers would be held responsible for the acts of their servants; and, under Clause 54, they might be fined for any inadvertent act of omission or commission which any of their servants might commit on their farms. He quite agreed with the general view of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, that confirmed breakers of the law, and those who broke the law wilfully, should be punished by imprisonment; but how was he going to discriminate between a farmer whose servants transgressed and that class of offenders? They must keep in mind that under this Act a great many orders might be made by the local authorities; and he knew that at one time it was utterly impossible for farmers to know what was or was not the law without consulting a lawyer.
    MR. CLARE READthought the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire meant this—that for a second offence the magistrate should be obliged to send the offender to prison. ["No!"] He hoped that was not so, and that the magistrate might be at liberty to impose a fine.
    MR. SYNANsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) was under quite a mistake as to the use of the word "discretion." What was here left to the magistrates was only a discretion as to the extent of the punishment. If a man was convicted, the magistrate would be bound to imprison him, the term of imprisonment not to exceed three months.
    MR. PELLsaid, that if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Synan) would read the paragraph of the clause which followed
    2100
    his Amendment, he would see that the punishment was not of necessity one of imprisonment—
    "And in every case in this section specified he shall be liable, on conviction, in the discretion of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction before which he is convicted, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour, in lieu of the pecuniary penalty to which he is liable under this Act."
    MR. PEASEunderstood that the Committee were not now discussing the exact words of the Amendment, the principle of which had been accepted by the Secretary to the Treasury. The Amendment was really intended to apply to those people who speculated in bad beasts, knowing that a fine could be paid out of the difference between the destruction of the beast and the sale of it.
    LORD ELCHOremarked, that, as he understood the question, the magistrate, under Clause 54, could only fine. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire wished to extend the power of the magistrate, so as to enable him to imprison, where a man wilfully or knowingly offended again. He (Lord Elcho) thought that was a salutary change.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he fully understood what was in the mind of the Committee. In accepting the proposal of his hon. Friend, he accepted the principle of giving to the magistrate, on a second offence being proved under Clause 54, the alternative of imprisonment in lieu of fine.
    MAJOR NOLANshould like to read one portion of Clause 54, which the Government proposed to make penal—
    "If he does or omits anything, the doing or omission whereof is declared, by this Act, or by an Order of Council, to be an offence by him against this Act."
    He would undertake to say that there would not be one farmer out of 100 who would know what was in this Act, or in an Order in Council; and yet they were exposing that man to the risk of being summarily sent to prison for some slip which he, or some of his servants, might make, if it were discovered that he had previously offended against the law. He knew one man in his own county who was paying £800 a-year rent, and who did not speak English. If the Committee sanctioned this Amendment, they would be putting a new engine of oppression into the hands of

    2101
    the justices in Ireland, who were hostile in religion and politics to the people.
    MR. FRENCHremarked, that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) seemed to forget that the magistrates of Ireland had taken an oath to discharge the duties of their office without fear, favour, or affection. He had no doubt that, in administering the law under this Act, they would take into consideration the circumstances of each case; and, in his opinion, a conviction under this clause did not necessarily entail imprisonment. A magistrate would have the power to order imprisonment where he saw that a flagrant and wilful breach of the Act had been committed; but he did not believe there was a man on the Bench in Ireland who would imprison a man who had offended in ignorance of the Act.
    MAJOR NOLANbelieved that the power which it was now proposed to confer on magistrates would be very often unjustly used in Ireland. Unfortunately, there was not the same amount of confidence between the farming class in Ireland and the magistrates, as existed in England; and he objected to placing in the hands of the latter a summary power of imprisoning for a second offence, which a man might not know he was committing. He should feel it his duty, on the Report, to take a division against the proposal.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he thought it was his duty to offer his opinion as to the controversy between the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). He was not personally disposed to bring a wholesale charge of dishonesty against the Irish magistrates; but, at the same time, he knew, of his own knowledge, that there were a good many among them who were not praiseworthy. The fact was that they were so prejudiced, and had so little sense of justice, that really they were not competent to give an impartial opinion on a simple proposition; and, for that reason, he thought, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was quite right in proposing to withdraw his Amendment. He should like to have an assurance from the Government that they did not intend to bring this question forward on the Report. If so, they would oblige him to
    2102
    move Amendments to every line, not only of Clause 54, but of Clause 55. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway had alluded to one sub-section of the clause, and he (Mr. Biggar) would refer to another—
    "If, without lawful excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him, he does anything which by this Act, or an Order in Council, to be an offence by him against this Act."
    If he failed to give, produce, observe, or do any notice, or refused to an Inspector, or other officer, acting in execution of the Act, or of an Order in Council, or of a regulation of a local authority, admission to any land, building, place, &c., the unfortunate man, who was liable to three months in gaol, would be called upon to prove a negative. He would have to prove that he did not know he was committing a breach of the law. He might have no means of doing so, and would, therefore, be liable to be imprisoned. The whole thing seemed to be so preposterous, that unless the Government gave some assurance that a man would not, under such circumstances, be imprisoned, he himself would move Amendments to each of the sub-sections that had been referred to.
    MR. PARNELLthought that before the Amendment was withdrawn, the Committee ought to know the mind of the Government, if, indeed, they had any mind at all upon this question. The question, undoubtedly, was one of considerable importance. The punishment of imprisonment, as proposed by the Bill, was a serious matter, although it might be reserved by the Government for offences of a very special character. Now, the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) proposed to extend the punishment, if offences were committed a second time, which offences were not offences originally when committed the first time, and which did not carry with them the punishment of imprisonment. He thought that when the Committee came to consider how the law would stand after this Cattle Diseases Bill, they would see that they had introduced a great variety of regulations, which had never existed previously, in connection with the stamping out of cattle disease. They were putting foot-and-mouth disease under the operations of the Act. If they made it penal—if they punished a farmer by imprisonment, especially

    2103
    under the new prison rules, which were of a severe character—he believed that many of the farmers in Ireland would not be so much obliged to the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) as he himself seemed to suppose they would be. Under all the circumstances, he thought the Committee had a right to know in what way the Government regarded this Amendment. Was a man to be imprisoned if it should happen that he committed one of the trivial offences contemplated under the 54th clause of the Bill, a second time over; or was imprisonment to be reserved for the more heinous offences named in the subsequent clauses?
    MR. FRENCHsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had been in the House when he spoke, he would have perceived that he did not advocate the adoption of imprisonment to farmers. He took objection to something that was said with regard to the magistrates by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan). What he (Mr. French) said was, that there were no magistrates in Ireland who would send a farmer to prison except he willingly offended against the law.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that if the hon. Member for Roscommon did not say anything in favour of imprisonment, he certainly did not raise his voice against it. The tendency of his argument, certainly, was in support of the clause.
    MAJOR NOLANthought the Committee was being misled by those who represented the farmers of England. The farmers, generally, supported the Members for the counties, and the Members for the counties, therefore, represented their views, and the principle of both was the same. Quite a different thing existed in Ireland. The farmers sent Members to Parliament, and it was well known that many of them were opposed to the magistracy. If the English Representatives of the English farmers, therefore, insisted on forcing the clause on the Irish farmers, they would be doing a serious injury to them. They would make the Bill a political Bill—they would bring in political oppression, and that popularity which the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) seemed to conceive existed in Ireland would disappear altogether. He (Major Nolan)
    2104
    admitted there were many good magistrates in Ireland; but, on the whole, they were not such an excellent body of men as the hon. Member for Roscommon seemed to think they were.
    MR. RODWELLthought there had been a great deal of unnecessary discussion as to the difference between the English and Irish farmers. It was satisfactory to hear that those who represented the counties were willing to abide by the clause. He would not say that if a farmer offended against the law he ought not to be punished or subjected to the same penalties as those persons who sent dead meat that was diseased to London or elsewhere; but he conceived that the power which it was proposed in the Bill to give to the magistrates would be very useful. If the penalty was only a fine, the offence would become a matter of speculation, and a man would do all that he could to smuggle bad meat into the markets. He did not think that the power of imprisonment would prove a hardship upon offenders; and, therefore, he should support the Amendment. Another advantage, he believed, would be derived from its adoption. The magistrates, who had to carry out the law, would see that the parties who had to publish the Orders, whether those Orders were issued by the Privy Council or the local authorities, did their duty; and, therefore, people would not have an opportunity of pleading ignorance of the subject. It would make people more careful in their transactions, and so it would carry out the object they all had in view—namely, to stamp out and remove cattle disease from this country.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that before the Committee passed the clause, he should propose another Amendment to the effect that no offender should be imprisoned unless he had been tried before a jury.
    Amendment (Mr. Pell), by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BIGGAR,who intimated that he had a prior Amendment on the Paper, said, that he should move the insertion of the words "to a penalty not exceeding £50." All the principles of the Act, he believed, would be guarded by the infliction of a heavy fine, instead of imprisonment as proposed. No man in

    2105
    his senses would, intentionally, do any of the things spoken of in the clause; and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to allow a magistrate to send a man to prison for three months for doing that which he never intended to do. According to the new prison rules, it would be a serious thing to send a man to prison to lie for a month on bare boards. It seemed to him that the parties who were promoting the Bill were desirous of making it as unpopular as possible. He should move, as an Amendment, to strike out all the words in line 36, from the words "after conviction" to the end of the clause, and to insert "a penalty not exceeding £50."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not assent to the Amendment proposed. The penalty of imprisonment would not be inflicted except in certain specified cases. It was not proposed to go beyond that. He believed in the soundness of the principle laid down in the Bill, that if there was a serious case committed knowingly by a person who had offended before—if he by his acts was likely to render all attempts to bring about a remission of the disease—if he really prejudiced the effort that was being made in that direction—there ought certainly to be a right of imprisonment under the Act. It was no novelty to give summary jurisdiction to a magistrate in a matter of the kind. With regard to one of the Amendments which had been withdrawn, and which had reference to a previous clause, he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had stated distinctly that, whilst admitting the principle of the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire—that imprisonment in lieu of a fine might be given, when the offences were serious—and they would become serious when a man offended the law wilfully—he was quite prepared to limit the power by the insertion of certain words, so as to make it a fact that breaches of the law should be committed wilfully and with a guilty knowledge—two or more breaches within a given time. It would be pointed out to the magistrates that they should act carefully and with discretion, and only inflict imprisonment in the worst cases that might come before them. To deprive the magistrates of the power which they already possessed in so many analogous cases, would be striking at the root of that which Parliament was
    2106

    anxious to do—namely, to get rid of the cattle disease in this country. It would certainly be injudicious to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and he must dissent from it.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to support the Amendment, and to point out its position at the present moment. He himself, and some other hon. Members, thought that three months' imprisonment should be imposed for 12 specified offences under the Act. He was quite willing that three months' imprisonment should be imposed for any offence against one of these definite provisions. But what the Government did when the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) moved his Amendment was to go back to Clause 54, and for an indefinite offence to give three months' imprisonment on a second conviction, and without an appeal to a jury. He strongly objected to imprisonment being put into the clause at all, or, at any rate, so much as three months, and especially to its being awarded, if they were to interpret the administration of the law by the terms of the reply which the Secretary to the Treasury gave to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. At the present moment, it was quite possible for the Government to do away with imprisonment for indefinite offences. He disapproved, also, of the system of appointing magistrates in Ireland, though he wished to convey no imputation against the great majority of that body generally. In many cases the magistrates were no friends to the farmers, having been entirely selected from one class of society. As the Bill stood, he did not so much object to the clause as to the indefinite term in which offences were stated by the Secretary to the Treasury. If the hon. Baronet would let them know exactly what he was awarding imprisonment for, he would be disposed to agree to it. He should support the hon. Member for Cavan; and if his Amendment were not accepted, he would himself endeavour to bring up words to give effect to it.
    MR. FRENCHsaid, that the Amendment really meant imprisonment for the poor man and fines for the rich man. A rich man probably would not care for a fine; but a poor man would have no option but to go to prison if he were fined £50.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, in looking over the clause, it seemed to him to be perfectly preposterous. He had understood that the punishment of three months' imprisonment was for a second offence; but it seemed, under Clause 55, that a man was liable to the penalty without the magistrate having any discretion to fine at all, and for offences, too, which seemed to him to be of the most trivial nature. There were certain subsections in the Bill that covered very serious offences—offences so serious that in many cases they would amount to forgery. The 3rd sub-section provided for the offence of using an instrument which purported to be a licence, and which was not really so. Of course, in that case, a man would be liable to a very severe punishment; but he believed, at the same time, that, without that Act at all, a person who used a document which was evidently forged would be liable to very severe punishment under other existing Acts. But in the 1st subsection there were three specific offences provided for—namely, for doing a thing which was not permitted by Order in Council, or by the local authority, or by the Act. There were three things for which the unfortunate man was liable without the option of showing that he had not seen a notice; and he was supposed to know what was in the Act of Parliament, what was in the Order of the Privy Council, and what was in the local regulations. Now, he thought it was preposterous to say that the magistrate should be called upon to imprison a person for such a matter as that. To take the case of a licence being required to move cattle along a road in a district where cattle disease was supposed to exist; in such a case, he thought, where a man had failed to comply with the regulations of the Privy Council, the magistrate should not have the power to send him to prison unless there were shown to be very bad circumstances attending the case. The 2nd sub-section was almost as bad. It provided a penalty in the case of a person neglecting to renew a licence. Now, it was quite possible that the licence might only have expired one day, and it was quite possible that it might not clearly state on what day it should be renewed. Supposing the licence was only for 14 days, and the man by some mistake allowed it to run over a day, the result would be
    2108
    that he would be hauled before a magistrate and sent to prison. Well, the 3rd sub-section amounted to forgery, and he thought it was legitimate enough to punish a man severely for that. But to send a man to gaol for what was really a trivial offence seemed to him to be rather hard. There was one provision in particular which made it penal to make a statement which was false in any particular, unless it could be shown that a person did it in ignorance. It was true that the mistake might involve something material, but that might not arise from wilful falsehood. Such a case would be if a man obtained, or endeavoured to obtain, compensation under a false pretence; and unless he could show that he did so unknowingly, he would be liable to imprisonment. That rendered the case particularly hard, for every hon. Member knew that it was a difficult thing to prove a negative; and it depended entirely upon the extent and nature of the suppression of the truth, whether or not a man should be punished; because everyone must know that in making a statement he could not recollect all the matters that ought to be stated. There was another case he might mention, which was claiming compensation under a false pretext. Now, he would show that that was perfectly unreasonable; because, according to the evidence which had been given before the Committee, there were two sorts of lung disease—namely, pleuro-pneumonia and simple inflammation of the lungs, and they resembled each other so closely that it was difficult to distinguish them one from the other. Well, according to the proposed law, a man might claim compensation for beasts slaughtered on the supposition that they were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; and should a veterinary surgeon swear that the animal died, not from pleuro-pneumonia, but from inflammation of the lungs, the man making the claim would be liable to be sent to prison, unless he could prove his innocence, which would be a very difficult matter. Sub-section 11 seemed to him to be reasonable enough, because it was an enactment against digging up animals that had been buried; but that was a thing which might be easily avoided. In all the cases he had cited it was assumed that everybody must know every order of the local authority,

    2109
    of the Privy Council, or the Act of Parliament; and, unless a person exercised a constant supervision over all those things, he was liable to these severe penalties, and, at the same time, it was not possible to fine him, because the magistrate had no option in the matter; and he, therefore, hoped that the Committee would make the alteration in the clause that he suggested.
    MR. NEWDEGATEtrusted that Her Majesty's Government would adopt the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. He was authorized by the agriculturists and magistrates of his own county to state that the difficulty which they had for years encountered arose from the fraudulent practices of a certain set of jobbers, and that those practices were not to be corrected by any fines that might be imposed. He had at one time heard it proposed that no man should be authorized or permitted to act as a dealer without a licence obtained from the local authorities; but it was found that that would have interfered most seriously with the trade. He had received strong representations from the most experienced magistrates in his own county urging this—that the profits that these men contrived to make by obtaining cattle at a very low price that had been associated with diseased cattle were so great that no fine would stop the offence—at least, no fine that the House would think of imposing, and his neighbours had come with great reluctance to the conclusion that nothing but imprisonment at the discretion of the Court, after the first or second conviction, could possibly put a stop to the mischief. He believed that nothing had contributed so much to the spread of disease as that habit of a certain set of unprincipled dealers who went about, being perfectly willing and ready to give a certain price for cattle that had been associated with diseased animals. He was convinced that the principle of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was essential to the working of the Act.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire seemed to be under a misapprehension that the clause provided for imprisonment after the first or second conviction. The clause proposed unconditionally to inflict imprisonment for the first offence,
    2110
    so that the hon. Member was mistaken in his view. The hon. Gentleman had spoken rather hardly of cattle dealers. Now, he did not think that charge was thoroughly justified, because it would not pay cattle dealers to sell diseased cattle as a rule. They wanted cattle that they could go from place to place with, and show anywhere. He believed that the dealers who brought over Irish cattle did business with the same farmers year after year. But still the fact remained that the occasional removal of cattle without a licence, or making an untenable claim for compensation, would render a party liable to imprisonment. He really did not see how certain persons could be safe under the Bill. They were liable to imprisonment if they went too far; and they were liable if they did not go far enough; so that the position seemed to be a thoroughly unpleasant one for them. He should be disposed to divide upon the Amendment.
    DR. LUSHthought there was something in the nature of a family quarrel about the matter. The Irish Members had not made up their minds to vote en bloc upon it, and so they had come to words. Living in the West of England, and being desirous that the cattle there should be protected against disease from Ireland, he regretted very much that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had withdrawn his Amendment; but as he thought it only right that Irish cattle dealers should be compelled to keep their animals in proper order, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, the Irish Members had been taunted with not agreeing. Now, what had they seen? They had seen the English county Members disagreeing with the borough Members, who sat on the same benches, with regard to that very Bill. The Irish Members were not differing about the Bill, but about something which was proposed to be put into the Bill, and they were taunted with that difference. However, he thought, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) was quite right in the course he was going to take, for he did not think that very severe penalties for an unknown offence would tend to make the Act popular in Ireland.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGthought if the hon. Member for Salisbury

    2111
    (Dr. Lush) had read the evidence given before the Committee, he would not have made the accusation of Irish cattle bringing disease into England. It would be much more correct to say that disease had been imported into Ireland from England, than to England from Ireland; and he had heard a statement made by a noble Lord in the other House to that effect. He should certainly support the hon. Member for Cavan, because he believed there was no occasion for imposing, or giving the magistrates power to impose, any imprisonment with hard labour; because under the existing law where a penalty was imposed and was not paid, there was power given to the magistrates to impose a punishment to be measured by the amount of the fine. That was to say, where a fine of £5 was imposed and was not paid, there was power given to inflict a corresponding term of imprisonment. At present, they were going to impose a term of imprisonment of three months for an offence which, under the existing law, a man might commit without knowing it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAreally hoped there would be time for the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to consider the engagement he had entered into with Ireland, and the pains and penalties that were to be inflicted in connection with the working of the law. There were a great many gentlemen who had held the Bill in no very great favour, and amongst them was himself. But he had always acted with very great forbearance up to that time. He, however, should think that any attempt to heighten the character of the class of offences, in order to cultivate the good-will of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), would be a very great mistake indeed. He should certainly support the Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARthought it was all very well for hon. Gentlemen who were going to make a penal clause to be in such a hurry about it; but he thought if they were the parties who were going to be imprisoned they would not be so hasty. They had heard from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire his ideas about the rascality of the cattle dealers.
    MR. NEWDEGATEbegged the hon. Member's pardon. What he stated was that there were a certain set of men who were perfectly well known, and who practically
    2112
    defied the authority of the trustees, and that they were able to do so by means of the large profits they made.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the correction of the hon. Member did not materially alter what was said. He should be disposed to doubt very much whether those persons whom the hon. Member had spoken of as having broken the law, had boasted of their having done so to the hon. Member himself, or whether he had had it by hearsay. He knew the hon. Member would not do anything that he did not think was perfectly right; but, at the same time, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman had prejudices on certain subjects, and that if an unfortunate cattle dealer from England or Ireland were brought before him in his magisterial capacity for having acted contrary to the provisions of the Bill, he would be likely to receive very severe punishment. The penalty which the clause imposed was, in reality, a very serious one. If a man was provided with a copy of the Act and read it carefully, he might, without being in the slightest degree aware that he was doing anything wrong, commit an offence for which he would be liable to three months' imprisonment. That would be the case, even although he had merely infringed the order of some local authority.
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that his observations referred not to the clause before the Committee, but to another which had been already agreed to.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was very sorry if, in the observations which he thought it to be his duty to make, he was out of Order; but in referring to the Orders in Council, and the regulations by the local authorities, which might be different in different districts, he was, he apprehended, confining himself to the Question which was before the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the first paragraph to which the hon. Member had alluded, relating to the infringement of the Act, was contained in Clause 54, and had just been agreed to.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, the whole discussion had arisen because the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had contended that words should be introduced into the clause before the

    2113
    Committee applying the penalties which were mentioned in Clause 54, and making a second offence punishable by imprisonment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was not in Order in basing his observations on an Amendment which had been withdrawn. The Question before the Committee was the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan himself, which had no reference to Clause 54.
    MR. BIGGARwas afraid the Chairman did not thoroughly understand the drift of his observations. The local authority might make rules and regulations which, as he had said, might vary in different districts.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Chairman had ruled that the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in pursuing the line of argument which he was endeavouring to press upon the Committee. The hon. Gentleman was bound to respect that ruling.
    MR. BIGGARwas very sorry if he had said anything which was out of Order; but doubted whether the wording of the clause did not justify the remarks which he had made. If a local authority were to frame certain regulations, a person making himself acquainted with those regulations in one district might go to another in which they were totally different, and might commit an infringement of the law without being in the slightest degree aware of it. In fact, what was illegal in one district or county might be strictly in accordance with the law in another. It was unreasonable, therefore, he maintained, to impose such a penalty as three months' imprisonment in such circumstances. The penalty was, in his opinion, much too severe; and he would, therefore, feel it to be his duty to go to a division on his Amendment.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINregretted to be obliged to differ on such a question as that before the Committee from hon. Members who represented large constituencies. The evidence, however, which had been given before the Committee upstairs on the point at issue was very strong; and he felt bound to support the Government in their determination that a considerable penalty should be inflicted in those cases in which the law was broken. An Irish witness—Professor Baldwin—who was examined before
    2114
    the Committee of the House of Lords, stated, in answer to the Duke of Somerset and others, that disease in Ireland was spread about the country in consequence of the proceedings of small cattle jobbers. The expectation of making a good profit, induced, he said, those jobbers, who were very numerous in that country, to violate the law. The only way of meeting the difficulty, he added, without interfering with the ordinary course of trade, would be to pass an Order declaring that no person should sell, at any fair in Ireland, cattle of which he was not the bonâ fide owner for a specified time. In reply to other questions, Professor Baldwin went on to say that the difficulty was a very great and serious one; and he gave, from his own experience, several cases in which jobbers had attempted to defeat the law. He further suggested that it would be desirable, if possible, to stamp out altogether the danger which was created in that way. For his own part, he was convinced that the most stringent restrictions were necessary, if the disease were to be stamped out in Ireland. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) seemed to be of opinion that there was more disease imported from England to Ireland than from Ireland to England, and he had no wish to strike a balance between the two countries in that respect. But the evidence given before the Committee showed conclusively than an immense amount of disease, and especially of foot-and-mouth disease, came from Ireland. It was, therefore, the interest of English Members that the Privy Council should have the power of enforcing the carrying out of the law in a bonâ fide manner; and he would, entertaining those views, support the Government in resisting the Amendment.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAregretted to hear the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, opposed as they were to the experience of those who were best acquainted with the farming and pastoral population of Ireland. He probably had a more extensive knowledge of the small jobbers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred than almost any other Member of that House; and he must say that a more honest or meritorious class of persons did not, in his opinion, exist. [A laugh.] He was not in the

    2115
    slightest degree afraid of the sneers of those hon. Gentlemen who thought proper to laugh, because they could not understand that which he was talking about as well as he did. The cattle jobbers in Ireland pursued their industry in a perfectly legitimate and worthy manner; and, so far as he was concerned, he had no objection that they should be punished if they committed an infraction of the law. He maintained, however, that the law should not be framed in a spirit of severity, but rather in the spirit of warning and caution, so as to prevent any ordinary or reasonable man from taking a course which, although he might deem it not wrong in itself, was opposed to the law of the land. As to the degree of obligation which Ireland was under to England for the foot-and-mouth disease, or vice versâ, he would only say that the feeling on the other side of the Channel was that the balance was in favour of Ireland—that was to say, that it received from England more of the disease than it communicated to it. But, be that as it might, what he wished chiefly to point out was that the law would be all the more likely to be effectual, if only moderate penalties were imposed under its operation. The magistrates would, he thought, shrink from imposing penalties which they regarded as being too severe. It was, in his opinion, wrong in principle to place comparatively venial offences in the category of more serious crimes; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan.
    MR. COGANwished to bring back the Committee for a moment to the real question before them. That question had nothing to do with the comparative prevalence of disease in England or Ireland, or any exceptional mode of treatment which had been adopted in one country or the other. The introduction of such questions might lead to controversy, which it appeared to him would be ill-timed, and which might prevent the Committee from arriving at a sound and impartial decision. The real point for their consideration was whether the offences enumerated in the Bill were of so grave a nature, that the magistrates should be empowered to inflict three months' imprisonment with hard labour as the penalty for their commission? Now, in his opinion, the Committee
    2116
    would not consent to view those offences in that light; and if the majority acted upon a different view of the matter, the result would, he was afraid, be to render the Bill so unpopular as to make it impossible that its provisions could be carried into effect; whereas the object of every hon. Member ought to be to make it so popular in its action, and so reasonable in its provisions, that public opinion would lend to it its sanction. The very 1st sub-section of the clause under discussion set forth that if a man did anything for which a licence was required under the Act or the regulations of a local authority without having obtained such licence, he might, at the option of the magistrates, be sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. Now, could it, he would ask, fairly be supposed that all the small farmers of the country could make themselves acquainted with the provisions of the law, the Orders in Council, and the regulations of the local authorities? He did not wish to weary the Committee by going through the various sub-sections; but several of them related to offences of so trivial a nature that he could not help thinking that the punishments imposed would be entirely disproportionate to those offences. He would take, for instance, the case in which the use of any vessel or vehicle connected with an infected animal was provided for by Order in Council under the Act, and would ask with confidence, whether it was fair that any breach of the law in that respect should be made punishable with three months' imprisonment and hard labour at the option of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction? He, for one, could not for a moment consent to the infliction of so severe a punishment for such an offence. The pecuniary punishment inflicted under a previous section of the Bill would, he believed, be quite sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case. If not, that pecuniary penalty might be increased. Holding these opinions, he should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhad no desire to take part in a discussion which was already sufficiently protracted. He felt it to be his duty, however, to point out that the sub-section, to which so much objection was urged, had been actually in force as the law of the

    2117
    land for many years. The 103rd section of the existing Act contained exactly the same penalties as those which were repeated in the 54th clause of the present Bill, and the 104th section gave the magistrates the power of summary jurisdiction, and the authority to inflict three months' imprisonment for a violation of the law, exactly in the same way that was now proposed. It was not, therefore, open to hon. Members to speak of the idea as if it were a sudden one, which it was sought to embody in our legislation for the first time. If they would study the subject more carefully, they would find that the clauses under discussion were, for the most part, a consolidation of the existing law, simply repeating clauses which, he might observe, had never been carried out in the way in which it seemed to be imagined the present Bill would be carried into effect.
    MAJOR NOLANbegged the Committee to compare the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury with that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who welcomed the present Bill as greatly increasing the penalties which would be imposed for any infraction of the law. Was it, he would ask, wise to award three months' imprisonment in the case of some unknown catalogue of crimes, which the Secretary to the Treasury had stated he would name on the Report? He would suggest that the clause should be postponed until the Committee were made aware what those new offences were to be. Let them not sanction the three months' imprisonment first, and then come to a decision with regard to the offences for which that punishment should be inflicted after.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not think it would be quite reasonable to press for the postponement of the clause after the discussion which had taken place, especially as by agreeing to it the Committee would not be pledging itself to pass any new clause which might be brought up by the Government to meet the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was, he thought, perfectly correct in saying that the clause merely repeated the law as it at present stood; and, although it might savour a little of severity to make the obtaining
    2118
    of a fraudulent licence the subject of so rigorous a punishment as three months' imprisonment with hard labour, yet it must be borne in mind that it would be utterly impossible to carry the law into effect unless there were strong provisions directed against its infringement. The offences against which the clause was directed were, in his opinion, real and serious offences; and, entertaining that view, he could not, he was sorry to say, vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that every hon. Member concurred in the view that a penalty should be imposed for a violation of the law. What the supporters of the Amendment contended for was that a punishment should not be inflicted which there was no power to inflict under the law as it stood. He would suggest that a Proviso should be introduced at the end of the section, to the effect that imprisonment under its operation should not exceed that imposed by any Act of Parliament now in force, in default of payment to a certain amount. Such a Proviso would, he thought, fairly meet the justice of the case.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that if the Committee were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, it would be making the law infinitely more lax than it was at present; for the law, as it now stood, gave power to the magistrates, in the very cases which the Committee were engaged in discussing, to inflict the punishment of imprisonment for three months.
    MR. PARNELLfelt sure the hon. Baronet did not wish to mislead the Committee. Such, however, would be the effect of the observations which had just fallen from him, if they were allowed to pass uncontradicted. The real truth of the matter was that the present Bill was the first by which it was sought to extend the provisions of the English Cattle Acts to Ireland. It was the first attempt to unite the two countries in the same measure. If the hon. Baronet would look at the Acts of 1870 and 1876, which related to Ireland, he would find that they did not empower the Bench of magistrates, or any other Court with jurisdiction, summary or otherwise, to inflict the penalty of imprisonment for a breach of the law, although fines might, and had been, imposed.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas sorry to detain the Committee, but after the assertion which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he felt it necessary to state that under the 2nd clause of the Cattle Diseases (Ireland) Act of 1870, it was provided that for a breach of the law the magistrates might inflict the punishment of imprisonment for three months, with or without hard labour.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Act of 1870 had reference to a particular offence; and that the Act of 1876, which enlarged the number of offences with regard to cattle, made no mention whatever of imprisonment, and gave no power to any magistrate to inflict such a punishment.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury would be conclusive, if the offences specified under the Act of 1870 were the same as those with which the Committee were now asked to deal.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he desired to point out that the evidence which was given before the Select Committee by Professor Baldwin, to whom reference had been made, was very different from that of other Irish witnesses. He did not allege, for one moment, that that gentleman intentionally said anything which he did not believe to be correct. But it was to be remembered that Professor Baldwin was a Government official. He was an Inspector of Irish agricultural schools; but it was notorious that the schools under his superintendence had been very unsuccessful. ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMANthought the hon. Member was travelling somewhat beyond the point immediately before the Committee.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, his object was to indicate the value of Professor Baldwin's evidence.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not a course which Parliament had ever sanctioned, that the discussion of an Amendment on a Bill should be made the means of raising a question as to the merits or qualifications of a gentleman who was not a Member of the House, and whose conduct was not in any way before it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that whatever might be the value of the evidence of Professor Baldwin, he believed there was not in Ireland a more
    2120
    honourable, efficient, or courteous officer than that gentleman. ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again point out that the conduct or qualifications of Professor Baldwin did not constitute the subject before the Committee.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that, so far as he was concerned, he felt he had been fully answered by the Secretary to the Treasury. He was not aware when he spoke that there were the existing Acts of Parliament to which the hon. Baronet had referred.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was very well for the hon. Member for Cork county (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) to speak as he had done; but the fact was that this Bill extended to, and included, offences other than those covered by previous Statutes, and placed in the hands of a Petty Sessions Court in Ireland the power of putting a farmer in prison for three months. If the object in view was to punish offences against the law, would not a fine of £50, as proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), be quite a sufficient penalty to impose for what might be really an unintentional violation of the Statute? It was impossible that any attempts could be made to inflict imprisonment for what might be unwitting offences without strong protest and opposition on the part of those who knew what confinement in gaol now really meant. Until the Government assumed control of the prisons, the magistrates knew the discipline to which those who were sent there were about to be subjected. [Admiral Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: No.] Who said "No?"—the hon. and gallant Member opposite? He asked the Chairman to call to Order the hon. and gallant Admiral, who interrupted hon. Members on every occasion he could.
    ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEsaid, he was always desirous of doing what he could to remove erroneous impressions.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was obvious that any contradiction by one hon. Member of a statement by another hon. Member must be made in a Parliamentary manner.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not complain of anything un-Parliamentary. This was a question as to the liberty of the subject, and was not, and could not, be met by cries of "No!"

    2121
    from hon. Members on the other side of the House. If those hon. Members had taken the pains and the trouble to investigate the matter which he had done, probably they would hold different opinions from those which they appeared to entertain. Imprisonment, he repeated emphatically, was very different now from what it used to be. In former times, the county magistrates sent a man to prison—knowing exactly where that man was going, knowing the description of cell in which he would be confined, and knowing the labour which would be exacted from him. Now, however, there was no such thing; and the cruelties which were inflicted in our gaols——["Order!"]
    COLONEL MUREappealed to the Chairman as to whether the hon. Member for Galway was speaking to the subject before the Committee? It appeared to him that the Committee were engaged upon a Cattle Bill, and not upon a Bill relating to Prisons.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the immediate subject-matter before the Committee was an Amendment by the hon. Member for (Cavan (Mr. Biggar) relative to the character of the penalty which ought to be inflicted—fine or imprisonment—and, that being so, he could not say that reference to confinement in gaol, or to the hardships of imprisonment, was out of Order.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he knew he was in Order; but, nevertheless, he was glad to hear the ruling of the Chairman. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had interrupted him—and who did not seem to care whether his fellow-subjects were in prison or not—would now see that this was just one of those occasions on which the difference between pecuniary penalties and personal imprisonment could be legitimately discussed in the House of Commons. No interruption, or attempt at interruption, would prevent him from doing what he believed to be his duty; and he would never consent to power being given to a Petty Sessions Court in Ireland to send a farmer to prison for three months, instead of imposing upon him a money fine. The man might occupy a good position, and might be most respectable in character; yet, for what might be a trivial and unintentional offence, he was to be liable to imprisonment for a quarter of a year!
    2122
    He hoped that every Irish Member would stand up against such a proposal. Certainly, he should resist it to the utmost of his power.
    MR. D. DAVIESsaid, some hon. Members seemed to have lost sight of the fact that this Bill applied to England and Wales as much and as well as to Ireland. Englishmen and Welshmen were nearly always caught when they transgressed the law; but it was very difficult to bring an Irishman to justice. The law as to imprisonment, therefore, and the imprisonment itself, should be severe and stringent, so that an Irishman should get it well when he was caught.
    MR. FRENCHsaid, that while he would not be able to vote with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), if that hon. Gentleman went to a division, he thought the proposal of the Bill as to the three months' imprisonment rather excessive. In his opinion, one month would be amply sufficient to vindicate the law.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it appeared to him that the objections which had been taken to his proposal were in the nature of very small arguments. Reverting, for a moment, to the evidence of Professor Baldwin, he had not the slightest idea of framing any charge against that gentleman. He believed the Professor was a thoroughly estimable man. At the same time, he early formed an opinion upon his evidence, and he had never yet seen any cause to alter that opinion, which was, that it was the testimony of one who was prejudiced on the subject. As to the contention of the Secretary to the Treasury that because, under certain Acts formerly placed upon the Statute Book, penalties could be imposed, those penalties should, therefore, be renewed, he desired to point out to the hon. Baronet that they were now making a new law, and that this was the proper time to remedy any defects in measures already existing. He could not see why a bad law should be re-enacted simply because it was a law.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGhoped that the hon. Member for Cavan would not divide the Committee, but would withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would take the advice of his hon. Friend for once, and withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that having been very much impressed with the appeal of the junior Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan), in reference to the sub-sections of the clause now before the Committee, he had asked his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar)—and had finally succeeded, with the assistance of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) in inducing him—to withdraw his Amendment, in order that there might be an opportunity of moving the omission of some of those sub-sections. The matter having already been fully discussed, he moved the omission of the 1st sub-section of the clause, which provided that a person should be guilty of an offence if he did anything for which a licence was requisite without having obtained that licence.
    Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 11, to leave out after the word "Act," to the word "licence," in line 14, inclusive.—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the sub-section objected to was simply a re-enactment of the existing law. That law was at this moment in force, and the words in the existing Statute and the present Bill were identical.
    MR. BIGGARdid not think the Act which was now in operation gave power to inflict three months' imprisonment for an infringement of the orders of local authorities.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he really meant to say—whether he could be serious in saying—that if a man violated some regulation, however minute, of a local authority, he was to be liable to three months' incarceration in gaol? With reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman near him. (Mr. D. Davies), he desired to remind him that Ireland was a totally different country from England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of failures of justice in Ireland; but the fact was that there were more grotesque failures of justice in Wales than anywhere else. In Ireland, education had been neglected; distrust between class
    2124
    and class, and especially between the small farmers and the big graziers, who were particularly anxious that this Bill should pass, was greater than in England and Wales; and it seemed to him perfectly monstrous that the measure should propose to inflict the penalty to which he had already objected, and to which he should continue to object.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAdoubted whether there was any such penalty in the present Act for contravening any of the rules and regulations of the local authority. But he appealed to the Secretary to the Treasury on the point.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the intention of the present Act was to secure uniformity of action in connection with all the instructions issued by the Privy Council for the guidance of the local authorities. That uniformity was not secured under the existing Statute; but it was manifestly desirable.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the hon. Baronet had not referred to the penalty contained in the clause now before the Committee. That clause set up a severe punishment for the most innocent and trivial breach of the law.
    DR. BRADYsaid, he should be sorry if the Bill were not to pass this Session. At the same time, he felt great objection to the provision under which it would be possible to visit an infringement of the law with three months' imprisonment. In such a case as that, the sympathy of the people would be with the offender, instead of being enlisted in support of the Statute. In Ireland, the effect of carrying out the proposal of the Government could not fail to be most injurious, and would ultimately tend to deprive the law of the power which he desired to see it possess.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, the penalty proposed was much too severe. In considering the clause the Committee should bear in mind it violated wise and well-established principles of our criminal law. The accused became bound to prove his innocence, and a guilty or criminal intent need not be established. He, therefore, objected to the tremendous responsibility which an ignorant farmer might incur in the event of doing—it might be in the most innocent way—anything for which a licence was declared to be requisite, without having obtained that licence, and in the event

    2125
    of his contravening in the slightest particular the regulations of the local authority. The clause would be attended, in its operation, with very serious consequences; for, under it, a respectable farmer might be immured in a county prison, and his character thereby sullied and degraded. He was very much surprised, indeed, that any Members on the Liberal side of the House should support this clause.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it would be recollected that when he opposed the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he stated that he gave his support to the general principle of this clause. At the same time, he must point out to the Committee that there was an enormous difference between the various offences set forth in the sub-sections of the measure. A small penalty should suffice in some cases; but there were other infringements of the Statute which would be obviously considerable offences. He wished to point out that the words of the proposed sub-section were inconsistent with Sub-section 3, which carefully provided that a person accused might be allowed to show that he had acted in error in contravening the law. By the sub-section under discussion, persons accused would have no such power, and were to be rendered liable to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for offences into the commission of which a farmer might most easily and naturally fall.
    MR. EVANSthought no great injustice was likely to occur in consequence of the operation of the sub-section. Hon. Gentlemen always seemed to forget that the punishment of three months' imprisonment was the maximum penalty; and he did not think that magistrates were in the habit of inflicting the maximum amount of punishment, except in aggravated cases. A large discretion was given under the English law in cases of this kind; and, as far as he knew, it was, as a rule, wisely exercised.
    MR. CLARE READsuggested, as a compromise, that the offences constituted by the Act should be grouped under two heads—one to be punished by fine, and the other by imprisonment; and, with regard to the latter, he thought a maximum of a month would be sufficient.
    MR. PEASEsupported this suggestion. There were some offences for which three months' imprisonment would not be too heavy a punishment; but it would be too harsh to render an ignorant drover liable to such a punishment for an offence committed by sheer inadvertence.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped the clause would be postponed.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was quite prepared to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), before the Report, with a view to grouping the various offences; but he warned the Committee that if such grouping was effected, it would be a reversal of the principle contained in an Act which had worked satisfactorily for a considerable time, and had given no occasion for a single complaint of harshness. The suggestion which had been made would have the effect of slackening the law at a time when the general opinion seemed to be that it ought to be made more severe, for the purpose of checking the spread of disease.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, that, as far as he knew, there had been no prosecutions at all under the Act of 1870 against farmers or dealers in Ireland for offences constituted under the clause referred to in that Act. But, even if there had, it was not a sufficient answer to the arguments against the clause to say the clause under discussion was similar in its terms. Was the Committee to be told—this being a measure for the consolidation of previous Statutes—that because in the hurry, which often attended legislation, a bad clause crept into a previous Act, it should be perpetuated in subsequent measures. He ventured to say that there were not many hon. Members of the House who even knew until very recently of the provisions of the Act of 1870; yet it was proposed to punish ignorant farmers, who erred from want of knowledge of matters shown to have been hitherto unknown to many Members of the Legislature.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the proposal of the Government reversed the principle of the law, for he knew of no Act of Parliament under which a man could be punished for an offence until it was proved that he was guilty. Now they assumed that a man was guilty and then required him to show that he was innocent.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he could not acquiesce in the so-called compromise, which had been accepted by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, who had promised to consider the matter between then and the Report; because, as he understood the hon. Baronet, he did not propose so to group the offences as that there should be one class which could not, under any circumstances, be punished with imprisonment.
    MR. SEELYsaid, he should vote against this clause, and partly on personal grounds. He happened to be the owner of a few cows; and if the subsection was passed in its present form, he might be subjected to three months' imprisonment on account of the laches of the person to whom he intrusted the care and management of the animals. It had been said that the maximum punishment would only be inflicted in rare and bad cases; but the power to inflict it would remain, and he did not at all like the idea of being left to the mercy of the magistrates. He thought the justice of every case in which offences were not committed knowingly and wilfully would be met by a fine.
    MR. MURPHYthought it important to make a distinction between offences committed knowingly and wilfully, and those which were the result of inadvertence or ignorance.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the clause as it stood was very ambiguous, and asked for information as to whether, in the case of his own cattle, it would be he or his herdsman who would be imprisoned in case of an infringement of the Act? He thought the simplest course would be to postpone the clause, and refer it back to the draftsman, who could deal with it in the light of the discussion which had taken place.
    MR. CHAPLINpointed out that the law had been in force since 1869.
    MR. SEELYsaid, it was no argument to say, that because for certain offences persons had been liable to imprisonment for any number of years, such liability should continue, unless it was in the interest of the public that this should be done.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he did not object to be under the control of the Privy Council—at the mercy of that body, if any hon. Member preferred the phrase—but he most strongly
    2128
    objected to be under the control, and at the mercy of the local magistracy.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he objected strongly to this waste of time, and hoped the Government would neither postpone the clause, nor give way regarding it; for Parliament must guard carefully against unscrupulous persons who infringed the law, and of whom there were a good many in this country.
    MR. GORSTsuggested, that the subsection should be so altered as only to subject to imprisonment persons whose offences were wilfully and maliciously committed.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYagain expressed a hope that the Government would give way, and urged, as an additional reason, that if a harsh law was allowed to pass, it would be harshly administered towards poor people in Ireland.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONrepeated, that he was quite willing to re-consider the point, and, if possible, on the Report, to bring up a clause which would have the effect of dividing the offences into groups.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsuggested to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he should withdraw his Amendment, and that the clause should be postponed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not consent to postpone the clause. All he could do—and his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had stated the same thing—was to consider whether some Amendment could not be introduced on the Report.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was not satisfied with what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, who had not informed the Committee as to whether he was willing, in his grouping of the offences, to provide that one group should not in any circumstances be subject to imprisonment, but to fine alone?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONrepeated, that he was perfectly willing to consider whether the offences could not be divided into different groups, with different punishments.
    DR. BRADYthought there were very sound grounds for objection to so much power being given to local authorities.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsupported the proposal to group the offences.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, one difficulty that struck him in regard to the matter was that the punitive clauses in the Bill were based upon somewhat similar clauses in an Act which had nothing to do with either pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease, He hoped that in any new clause that might be brought up, it would be provided that no one should be punished for offences committed unwittingly.
    MR. PARNELLhoped there would be no necessity for a division—a necessity which would be avoided by the Secretary to the Treasury stating that he would so divide the offences as there should be one to which the punishment of imprisonment could not apply.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 55: Majority 174.—(Div. List, No. 229.)
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA moved the omission of Sub-section 2. This subsection provided for the punishment by imprisonment, instead of fine, for the use of a licence granted under the Act, should that licence be used after it had expired. The hon. Member said that if the Secretary to the Treasury only considered what would be the effect of this sub-section, as it stood, it would scarcely commend itself to the hon. Baronet as expressing an offence that ought to be punished with three months' imprisonment. A man obtained a licence from the magistrates, or local authority, which licence was to last for six weeks or a month, as the case might be. If it were for six weeks, for instance, and the man did something, apparently, in pursuance of the licence, but on the 43rd day, then that was to become a penal act under this sub-section, unless he renewed his licence in time. Did any hon. Member tell the Committee that that was a class of offence which ought to subject a respectable man to imprisonment in a common gaol for three months, with or without hard labour? Whatever might be the merits or demerits of the objections which had been raised to the 1st sub-section—and, for his part, he thought they had not been removed—nothing could be alleged
    2130
    in favour of the 2nd sub-section. A man did an act which the law said was questionable; it was necessary, under the peculiar provisions of this Statute, that he should obtain a licence before he did that act; he went through the formality of obtaining that licence, and failed to renew it on the precise day upon which he was required by this provision to renew his licence. It was not a question of doing anything wrong, but of what licence he required; and the simple omission to take out a fresh licence became an absolute offence, punishable by imprisonment, under this Bill. Had the Committee any right, under the circumstances, to place these penal powers to the chance exercise of the local authority, or the magistrate? That was a question which he hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ib-betson) would reflect upon; and he trusted that the hon. Baronet would, after consideration of the objections made, consent to strike out this subsection from the Bill.
    DR. BRADYsaid, this sub-section was a very objectionable one, and required the careful attention of the Committee. He hoped the Government would see their way to strike it out, and not punish a man when acting in no intentional or wrong spirit. If a passenger on the railway travelled without a ticket, he was asked, according to the bye-laws, to pay for it, and there was an end of the matter; but, in the present case, there was no provision made with regard to a person who, by accident or inadvertence, omitted to obtain a renewal of his licence.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not wish to enter into the merits of this particular subsection, but only desired to point out to the Committee how absolutely impossible it was to make any progress with the Bill in the manner in which they were then trying to do. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen, who were experienced in the management of Committee matters in that House, must know that nothing was more difficult than to re-draw a clause in the course of discussion, and that any Amendments of this character must be made in quiet consultation with the draftsman, and afterwards laid before the House in a manner in which they might be suitably discussed. The Government had long since promised

    2131
    that they would be prepared to consider the points that had been raised, and would endeavour, on Report, to introduce Amendments into the clause. These points had been very clearly brought before them, and they were still disposed to consider the clause with the view of making Amendments in it. This matter had already been discussed for some hours, and if the Committee were to insist upon discussing the clause, line by line, he did not see how they were to make any progress. He would remind hon. Gentlemen that the Government were anxious to make arrangements for bringing on some important Irish Business; and while he had no desire to restrain discussion on this Bill, he must say it was rather hard that progress could not be made in a reasonable way, when this question had been fully and fairly discussed, and when the Government had promised to re-consider it, on Report. He trusted that the promise that had been given would be deemed sufficient, and that when they came to the Report the Government might be able to make a suggestion which would be acceptable to the House.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would have been a most admirable one for postponing or negativing the clause. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to proceed with the clause after he had told them that it was to be materially changed. The Government had admitted that the clause was not tenable as it stood. Why, then, should the Committee be asked to carry a clause which everybody knew would not work? The right hon. Gentleman had talked about progress; but it was not making progress to put into the Bill a clause which was only inserted to be altered. Therefore, it was fairly contended, on that side of the House, that this clause ought to be postponed as it stood. It was open to them to vote against the sub-section; and, if need be, afterwards to oppose the whole clause.
    MR. NEWDEGATEexpressed the opinion that the Amendment was designed for obstruction.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate) scarcely understood the character of the opposition to
    2132
    the clause, and the same remark might apply also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed the opposition would cease altogether if the principle advocated from the Benches on which he sat were accepted. His complaint, and that of his hon. Friend's was that the Government had not accepted that principle. Whatever the concession the Government might make, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not expressed his readiness to agree to the suggestion of his hon. Friend's, that there should be two classes of offences—one to be punishable by fine, and the other by imprisonment. If the Government would only make that concession, he believed the opposition to the clause from that side of the House would at once cease. He could imagine no proposition more monstrous than that a man should be subject to imprisonment for three months for using a licence a day after it had ceased to be valid. It certainly would be considered monstrous, if a man were sent to prison for using a contract ticket for travelling on a railway a day or two after its term had expired.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had properly undertaken to re-consider the clause; but the right hon. Gentleman had not promised to re-consider it in accordance with the terms suggested by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), which were, that there should be two classes of offences, one to be subject to fine, and the other to imprisonment. The distinction was very clear, and it was worth fighting for in discussion. The fact of a man possessing a licence was an assumption that he had made a special application to the authority that had power to grant it; and if, from any miscalculation of the number of days, or from any cause of that character, he rendered himself liable to punishment, the penalty of imprisonment, without the option of a fine, was really too severe; and the Government could not reasonably insist upon the clause being retained with that unhappy provision in it. He did not believe that such a law would be carried into effect; and certainly it was a very vicious principle to provide that an exceedingly heavy punishment should be inflicted, and afterwards not carry it out. A far more sensible course would be to make the penalty a

    2133

    reasonable one, and abide by it. Unless the Government agreed to make the desired distinction, he thought the continued opposition from that side of the House would be fully justified.
    MR. CHAPLINagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that three months' imprisonment should not be imposed for secondary offences; and he suggested that, after the Government had considered the clause, an Amendment might be moved on Report, to meet the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this point. As the Government had undertaken to consider this Amendment with a view of meeting the wishes of those hon. Members, he thought they ought to accept that assurance.
    MR. ANDERSON,referring to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was very difficult to amend this clause, which had 12 sub-sections in it, said, if it was difficult now in Committee, it would be tenfold more so on Report. Therefore, he held that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was one for postponing the clause in Committee, and not for deferring its consideration until Report. Because of the difficulty of discussing these 12 sub-sections on Report, it was necessary that the Government should give the Committee a very definite understanding on the subject, before the question was allowed to stand over. By declining to give way in the first instance, the Government had caused this long discussion. He hoped that now they would give the Committee the clear and definite assurance desired.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Committee to consider the position in which they were placed. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had just said that he saw the unreasonableness of subjecting a person who committed a minor offence under the Bill to three months' imprisonment. Had the hon. Member risen earlier in the debate to make that statement, the Government would probably have accepted the suggestion, and told the Committee upon what lines they were inclined to amend the clause. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who was also a supporter of the Government—["No, no!"]—had before contended that every one of these offences should be punished by imprisonment. It was not reasonable to say to the Committee
    2134
    that the Government would consider this question on Report, unless they now informed the Committee how they were going to consider it. If the Government would only say—"We are of the opinion of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and we will endeavour to arrange this matter in the best way we can on Report," the opposition to the clause would cease. But what had happened that night was only a repetition of that which frequently occurred in Committee. The Government got on its high horse, and, although the postponement of the clause would be the wisest step to take under the circumstances, it said—"No, we will not postpone the clause;" but afterwards, under pressure, they promised to consider it. But that would not satisfy the Committee, who asked the Government to say in what way the clause would be considered. Then the Government replied that they would consider it on Report, in the direction of the wishes of the Committee. Why did not the Government accept this plain and simple Amendment? If they did so, the opposition would cease, and the Bill would proceed.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he would accept the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to make a distinction between the two classes of offences, by withdrawing the penalty of imprisonment from the one class. The Amendment might then be withdrawn; and he, for one, would be happy to suggest its withdrawal.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded the Committee of the promise he had already made, on the part of the Government, that they would undertake to alter the clause on Report. The Government would be willing that a fine should be imposed for the first offence, and the punishment of imprisonment inflicted for the second knowingly committed; and that, for the graver class of offences, there should be imprisonment.
    MR. DILLWYNregarded the last statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) as perfectly satisfactory, because he thought it would meet the views of hon. Members on that side of the House. But, still, he wished to ask the Government, what was the use of insisting upon this clause

    2135
    being passed as it stood? There was no more fertile source of obstruction than pressing clauses under those circumstances. He hoped a fresh clause would be brought up on Report.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped that the Secretary to the Treasury, in drawing up the clause, would put it into better shape than the statements made on behalf of the Government. He was willing to trust to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), that there should be a limitation of time after the second offence.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERreally hoped that the last proposition of the Secretary to the Treasury would be accepted. The discussion had shown that the Government and the House were at one as to what should be done. As the Government could not postpone the clause by the Rules of the House, he thought that when an understanding had been come to that a certain course would be taken, they might fairly leave it to the Secretary to the Treasury to take that course. He understood that the Government were prepared to treat this offence in two categories, and that they were also prepared to put several of the suggestions that had been made into Clause 54. In that clause, hon. Members interested in the matter practically got their wish; and he did not think it too much to ask that the undertaking of the Government should be accepted. It was impossible hon. Members could succeed unless the Government assented; and he thought that was all that ought to be asked. The promises they had made would really carry out the view of the House.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he was desirous to meet the views of the Government on this matter, and it occurred to him that on the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), it would be well to withdraw the clause. He would accept the assurance of the Government, and he begged to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. PARNELLwished to guard himself against being understood to accept the principle of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), which had not yet passed the Committee, but which the Government proposed to accept on the Report, as also to include some of the sub-sections of Clause 55 in Clause 54. He understood the proposition
    2136
    the hon. Baronet made was this—that he would include some of this sub-section in Clause 54, whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire with regard to Clause 54 was passed or not. He should certainly reserve to himself the right to move an Amendment to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire on the Report; it would only be fair to give oneself the right to suggest some such Amendment.
    MR. RYLANDSjust wished to say that, in regard to the proposed new clause to be brought up on the Report, it was desirable to have the views of the Government in print, and then to have an opportunity of re-considering them in Committee. He believed that would save time, rather than by throwing discussion on the Report, whereby the progress of the Bill might be impeded. The Government, having brought forward a Bill in which they had made great changes, showed that they had no sound convictions. This had caused great loss of time, and they should not, therefore, press too strongly against Amendments.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That Clause 55 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 217; Noes 25: Majority 192.—(Div. List, No. 230.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 56 (Proceedings in court of summary jurisdiction) agreed to.
    Clause 57 (Appeal), verbally amended, and agreed to.
    Clause 58 (Proceedings under Customs Acts for unlawful landing or shipping) agreed to.
    Clause 59 (General provision as to procedure).
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had an Amendment to this clause, which was printed out of its place on the Paper, but would be found lower down. It was to leave out Sub-section 7. It seemed to him that clause was a very improper one, indeed. Very important facts might be ignored for the purposes of a particular prosecution. An offence might be considered to have arisen in a place where the offence committed actually

    2137
    arose, or in any other place. It did appear to him that this was an arbitrary power to give in prosecuting a person, to alter material facts in order to secure a conviction.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, this clause was really in accordance with the existing law, and it was a section which had been found exceedingly useful in the working of the present Act by the Privy Council. Under these circumstances, as it was merely a continuance of the present law, he hoped the Committee would not consent to its being withdrawn.
    MR. WHITWELLthought the question did require consideration. It proposed that a man should be indicted at one place for an offence which had arisen at another place. It proposed to constitute the offence at the place the person happened to be, although it might have occurred in an entirely different part of the country. That placed an offender in a position that might be very unfair to him, and that was opposed to our English law. He was quite in favour of this Bill being passed with such restrictions as might protect the property on which people depended; but there were limits beyond which they ought not to go. He thought those limits were passed in this case. This was a clause which the Committee ought not to accept. He was glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, whom he wished would recommend the Committee to do without this clause. He thought there could be no question on that point; and within his own experience no case occurred in which this clause would have been of any use. Perhaps the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would kindly inform the Committee if there had been any case brought under its operation.
    MR. GOLDNEYheld that this was a clause very favourable to the offender, because the prosecutor would have to bring the witnesses to him.
    MR. BUTTremarked, that whether the clause was useful or not, it was not opposed to English law. A man was usually tried under summary proceedings in the place where the offence was committed. This clause deviated from that, and enabled him to be tried in the place of arrest. That was not new to the law. In cases of bigamy, wherever a man was taken he could be tried. If
    2138
    the change had any effect, he thought it would be far better for the man if he was tried where he was, and so put on the opposite party the expense of bringing all their witnesses.
    MR. ANDERSON: After that explanation, I will withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.

    PART III.—SCOTLAND.
    Clause 60 (Application of Parts II. and III. to Scotland) agreed to.

    Local Authorities.
    Clause 61 (Local authorities in schedule) agreed to.
    Clause 62 (Appointment of local authority in counties).
    MR. RAMSAYwished to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the great difficulty experienced in getting meetings of farmers in large counties. He did not wish to obstruct the passing of the clause; but he hoped the hon. Baronet would be able to do something in that respect. If farmers were asked to meet for the purposes of local representation on the local authority they did not meet. It would be well if provisions were inserted in the clause to allow the parishes in each county to select tenant-farmers who should elect Members to represent them on the local authority.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYhad given Notice of the following Amendment:—In page 33, line 22, to leave out—
    "Authority, and in the manner by, and in which the members vacating office, were respectively nominated,"
    and insert—
    "Local authority electing a commissioner of supply, or occupier of an agricultural subject, as the case may be, to fill such vacancy."
    MR. RAMSAY,in the absence of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), wished to draw the attention of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to the fact that there would be great difficulty experienced in convening a meeting of farmers in the larger counties of Scotland, as proposed by the Bill. Therefore, he thought it would be better to alter the clause on Report.

    2139
    He did not wish to obstruct the Bill; but he must point out that the difficulty it would create was this—that farmers could not meet together to elect their own representatives. He thought the power to choose might be given to an elected representative board, selected by the tenant-farmers and the local authorities. He quite agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire; and, therefore, in his absence, he would move it. In the event of a vacancy occurring, as contemplated by the Act, it would be impossible to get the farmers of a county together to fill it. As an instance of this, he might take the county in which he resided, where there was an extensive district, with which he was connected. Since the Act of 1869 came into operation all the tenant-farmers elected in that district had died, and no means had been taken to fill up the vacancies. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would consent to the Amendment he had proposed.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONquite saw the force of the remarks of the hon. Member; but he could hardly agree to the terms of the Amendment in the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who had had the charge and preparation of the Scotch clauses. Several hon. Members from Scotland had brought under his (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's) notice the difficulty of getting a body of electors together to fill up the vacancies; but before doing anything in the matter, he would like to consult his right hon. and learned Friend as to the best course to be adopted.
    COLONEL MUREsaid, there were many counties in which the difficulty anticipated by the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay) would not arise, although, undoubtedly, it might be impossible to call meetings of every farmer in such counties as Argyll and Inverness.
    MR. RAMSAYcould not agree with the views of the hon. and gallant Member. Even in such a county as Renfrew it would be difficult to get the farmers together at one point; and, therefore, the best plan to adopt would be to have a representative farmer from each parish charged with the election of the local authority. Without some such arrangement, no proper action could be agreed on, as, despite the observations
    2140
    of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Mure) he was sure meetings of the general body of farmers would be impracticable in any county for such a purpose. He hoped the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the observations he had made, and he would then withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 63 (Powers and qualifications of Inspectors) agreed to.

    Legal Proceedings.
    Clause 64 (Recovery and application of penalties, and other matters).
    MR. ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 35, line 29, after "Act," to insert—"if from justices or burgh magistrates shall be to the sheriff of the county, otherwise." At present the provisions of the Bill would bear very hard upon a poor man. If any appeal were made, it would have to be to the Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh. The Amendment he proposed did not alter that provision if the appeal were made from the Sheriff; but when appeals were made from the Justices or borough magistrates, he desired that they should be heard by the Sheriff. This would give a poor man a chance of getting redress. They had not got much faith in Justices' decisions in Scotland, and it was necessary to provide a more simple mode of appeal from them or borough magistrates than the Bill at present provided. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would concede the Amendment.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not agree to accept the Amendment, and for this reason—these clauses had been carefully drawn by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, with a special view to the present form of appeal. The same form was adopted in all Acts now being passed relating to Scotland; and, therefore, he could not accept the proposed alteration.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 35, line 38, to leave out "the fine and expenses awarded against him by the conviction or order appealed from, together with." He thought such an Amendment

    2141
    could hardly be refused, because an exactly similar one had already been accepted for England. The effect of the Amendment was that a man appealing against a judgment should find security for the costs of the appeal, but should not be compelled to find security for the fine inflicted upon him. Such a provision, as enacted in the Bill, meant depriving a poor man of the right of any appeal at all. As the right of not finding security for the fine on appeal had been accorded to the English people, of course the same policy would be adopted in the case of the Scotch people.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE SIR CHARLES W. DILKE moved that the Chairman report Progress. They were now coming to the Irish portion of the Bill, and it was perfectly preposterous to think of taking any Irish clause at such an hour—a quarter to 1. Clause 33—the very important foreign clause—was postponed that night, in order that the Irish clauses might first be considered. That being so, the Irish part of the Bill required careful consideration, with the view of taking them together with the clause alluding to foreign animals.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that much time might be wasted by reporting Progress. They had now to consider not only hours, but days; and, bearing in mind the Amendments which had been made in the Bill, and bearing in mind that the greater part of the next week would be devoted to the foreign debate, they had to consider how far they could go with the Bill that night. He knew that many hon. Members from Ireland were exceedingly anxious to go on with the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill; but it would be impossible for the Government to take that unless they were allowed to make progress with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. He thought the House would be disposed to make an exertion to push forward the Business, and not prolong the Session too much.
    MAJOR NOLANsaw no reason why they should not go on with the Contagious
    2142
    Diseases (Animals) Bill. He desired to see the Irish clauses disposed of, so that they might proceed with the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 166: Majority 150.—(Div. List, No. 231.)
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair. He must say it appeared to him extremely unreasonable to be pressing on the Bill at such a time, especially as the Committee had considered 34 clauses that evening, showing that the Government had been allowed to make very considerable progress. If there had been any obstruction to the measure, he said deliberately that it had proceeded from the Government, because Amendments had been accepted after the Government had spent two or three hours in disputing them. He considered that time would be saved if the Government would accept his proposal, and let the House consider the remainder of the Bill at some future date.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    MR. BUTTsaid, the clauses of the Bill at present before the Committee related exclusively to Ireland, and there was not a single Irish Member present who did not wish the discussion to proceed. There was not one Irish Member who voted in the miserable minority of 16. Was he to understand that this Motion to obstruct the Irish Members in their own Business was given up. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, it is not.] That being so, he must tell the hon. Member for Chelsea that this was an obstruction of the Irish Members; and he must say that the hon. Member for Chelsea should be the last person in the House to be guilty of such obstruction, seeing that he was returned by Irish votes to that House. He (Mr. Butt) thought it ill became the hon. Baronet to set himself against the wishes of the whole Irish Members. He had no objection to a fair discussion upon any clause, but he protested against obstruction. He appealed to the Committee and to the House for fair play; and he complained

    2143
    of the action of those who were trying to prevent the Irish Members doing their Business at any time of night they chose. They wished to go on with the Bill, because they knew that by so doing they would be forwarding a Bill of great interest to Ireland. He, therefore, appealed to the hon. Member for Chelsea not to obstruct the Irish Members in Business which concerned them.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the hon. Member for Chelsea had stated that he would not oppose the Bill save in the shape of fair criticism. He now gave the hon. Member the opportunity of proving the sincerity of that allegation. There was now a proposal before the House that the Chairman leave the Chair, although there was no Amendment of any consequence on the Paper until Clause 68 was reached. That being so, if hon. Members were sincere in their statement that they did not wish to vexatiously obstruct the measure, they would go on with the clauses until an important Amendment was reached.
    MR. MURPHYasked the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) to withdraw his Motion until Clause 68 was reached, as previous to that clause there were no Amendments beyond mere formalities. When Clause 68 was reached, as the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) had an important Amendment to it, he would suggest that Progress be reported.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was quite ready to accept the proposal of the last speaker. His only object in the course he had taken was that the part of the Bill relating to Ireland should not be discussed at such an hour; and if hon. Members said there were some clauses on which no important Amendments occurred, he did not see why those should not be taken before Progress was reported; although, at the same time, he must confess that he thought no time would be lost by deferring them to another day. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had spoken very strongly with regard to him (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He and his hon. and learned Friend had always been on good terms, and he hoped always would be. But with regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge against English Members of obstructing Irish Business, he must assure him that if the part
    2144
    of the Bill they were now on related exclusively to Ireland, the English Members certainly would not interfere. But they could not look at the Bill in that way. They must regard it as affecting England, and affecting the trade in foreign animals. Early in the evening, his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) who, he was sorry to say, had voted against reporting Progress—moved, in a few excellent remarks, that Clause 33 be postponed until the part of the Bill relating to Ireland had been considered, and to this the Government assented, admitting, at once, that it was necessary to decide first what was to be done with regard to Ireland before dealing with foreign beasts. This acceptance on the part of the Government of the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, showed that they considered that part of the Bill relating to foreign animals, and that having reference to Ireland, should be taken conjointly. That being so, he thought the Irish clauses should not be taken that night.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, half-an-hour before he had asked whether the Irish clauses were likely to come on that night, and he understood the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to say he thought they would not. The consequence was that he had contemplated leaving the House. When the Motion to report Progress was made, and he found that the Irish Members wished to go on, he considered that they might fairly do so until a debatable clause was reached, and hence, he voted against reporting Progress. He still considered they might be allowed to go on until the 68th clause was reached; but that then Progress had better be reported, as the clause was an important one, and one on which the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) and the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would both propose Amendments.
    MR. DILLWYNregretted the attack which had just been made upon his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. It was not correct to say that his hon. Friend had obstructed the Bill. He had rendered most valuable aid in discussing the clauses. While, however, he was surprised that his hon. Friend should have been attacked in such a violent manner, he was still more surprised at the conduct of the Government. The Bill had

    2145
    now been under consideration for several hours, and when, after 1 o'clock in the morning, they moved to report Progress, they were immediately told by the Government that they were obstructives. This was not the way hon. Members ought to be treated. Formerly, it was the practice of Government to consent to Progress being reported when it was half-past 12 o'clock, and it was quite an innovation for the present Government to desire to push a measure through Committee after 1 o'clock in the morning. He hoped, if they were to proceed any further with the Bill that night, it would be on the understanding that they were not to take any contested clauses, only those that were unopposed. The House was not in a temper to discuss the Bill any more that night, and he should certainly object to their taking any clause which was opposed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Of course, we do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, and we feel that there are one or two important clauses—such as Clause 68—which it would not be right for us to ask the Committee to discuss to-night. On the other hand, there are several clauses which we think may well be disposed of at the present Sitting, because they do not appear likely to give rise to any serious discussion. What I suggest is that when we come to Clause 68, we should postpone it until a future day; but that we should endeavour to complete the other clauses of the Bill. If we do that, we may be able to get through a good deal of work, not of a very difficult character, but which might lead to more discussion on another occasion than it will now.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the proposal just made could hardly be accepted. Not only would Clause 68 create some discussion, but there was an important Amendment to Clause 71. The Government ought to be satisfied if they passed the unopposed clauses up to Clause 68, and that Progress should then be reported.
    MAJOR NOLANwas in favour of proceeding with the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARregretted the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). It showed an entire want of knowledge of the case, and he protested against a discussion of so much importance to Ireland being commenced
    2146
    at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. On a former occasion, a great injustice was inflicted upon Ireland by a Cattle Plague Bill being forced through at an early hour of the morning. Although, in the division which had just taken place, he had voted in the majority, yet, if there was to be another division, he should vote in favour of adjournment.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINgathered that it was the wish of the Committee that before Progress was reported, the couple of unopposed clauses should be agreed to; and, therefore, he would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.

    PART IV.—IRELAND.
    Clause 65 (Application of Parts II. and IV. to Ireland) agreed to.
    Clause 66 (Interpretation in Part IV.) agreed to.

    Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council.
    Clause 67 (Powers of Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council) agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

    INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the extension of the several provisions of "The Irish Church Act, 1869," with respect to Advances to be made by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the Commissioners of Church Temporalities, and with respect to the powers of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in relation to the Money to be so raised, to the provisions of any Act of the present Session to promote Intermediate Education in Ireland.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Resolution [July 19] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 269.]

    INDIAN NATIVE TROOPS (TRANSPORT AND EMPLOYMENT ABROAD).
    Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the cost of the recent movement of Her Majesty's Indian Troops from India to Malta, and to report in what respects, if any, the arrangements for employing European and Indian Native Troops together, outside the limits of India, require modification."—(Secretary Colonel Stanley.)
    And, on July 23, Committee nominated as follows:—Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL, Sir JOHN HAY, Mr. CHILDERS, Sir HENRY HAVELOCK, Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Colonel ARBUTHNOT, Mr. MARTEN, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. RICHARD POWER, Colonel HAYTER, Lord BURGHLEY, Sir HENRY WILMOT, Mr. DEEDES, Mr. FAWCETT, and Lord EUSTACE CECIL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    And, on July 24, Mr. ONSLOW and Sir PATRICK O'BRIEN added.

    ARRANMORE POLLING DISTRICT (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, Bill to amend the Law in respect to the Polling District of Arranmore (Ireland), ordered to be brought in by Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, Marquess of HAMILTON, and Mr. CHARLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 270.]

    LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill for further regulating the use of Locomotives on Highways in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 271.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Freshwater Fish Protection (155); Weights and Measures (161).
Committee—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) (157).
Report—Local Government Provisional Order (Darenth Valley) * (152).
Royal Assent—Entail Amendment (Scotland) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 28]; Monuments (Metropolis) (No. 2) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 29]; Parliamentary and Municipal Registration (Consolidated) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 26]; Bills of Sale [41 & 42 Vict. c. 31]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, Amendment [41 & 42 Vict. c. 30]; Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877, Amendment [41 & 42 Vict. c. 27]; Dental Practitioners [41 & 42 Vict. c. 33]; Highways (South Wales) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 34]; Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment [41 & 42 Vict. c. 32]; Conway Bridge (Composition of Debt) [41 & 42 Vict. c. clxvi]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Bournemouth, &c.) [41 & 42 Vict. c. clxii]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [41 & 42 Vict. c. clxiii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Dawlish, &c.) [41 & 42 Vict. c. clxv]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny Union, &c.) [41 & 42 Vict. c. clxiv].

PARLIAMENT—HOUSE OF LORDS— THE VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE rose to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a Question which would not embarrass Her Majesty's Government, and in the object of which he believed he would obtain the sympathy of both sides of the House. He wished to know, Whether the noble and learned Lord would exert his influence with his Colleagues to direct the Board of Works to take the necessary measures for improving the ventilation of the House? The atmosphere

  2019
  in it had been most oppressive during the hot weather. He never knew anything more oppressive than it was on the great occasion when the noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) came down to explain and defend his Eastern policy. On the other hand, he was told that in "another place," where superior mechanical means had been adopted, the temperature had been constantly kept not higher than 70°, and the air fresh and wholesome. This was done by means of ice and a most ingenious mechanical contrivance. The delicacy which the noble Earl had lately attributed to his (Earl Granville's) nerves prevented his proposing the heroic measure of exchanging rooms with the House of Commons, though great advantages from such an arrangement would accrue to both. Their Lordships would be cool and comfortable; while, as regarded the great popular Assembly, he would defy any man, even of the most vigorous constitution, to offer obstruction in this beautiful but ill-ventilated chamber for more than a very limited number of hours. What he proposed was merely that they should humbly follow the example of the House of Commons, and have the advantage of similar scientific appliances. He knew that he might claim the authority of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the reality of the evil, and as to the necessity of a thorough reform. But they differed as to certain temporary palliatives. The noble and learned Lord, with a view to their Lordships' increased comfort, ordered at 5 every evening the windows to be opened on the shady side of the House, an order which rejoiced the hearts of their Lordships, all of them being good Englishmen. It was the only idea which an Englishman had of cooling a house. But much as he admired his countrymen, he must admit that, owing to the great blessing of a temperate climate, they did not understand warming a house when it was very cold, like a Russian or a Canadian, or keeping it cool when the weather was hot, like an Indian or even an Italian. An Italian opened everything during the night, and darkened everything during the day. By following this simple process, their Lordships would keep their own House much cooler. His impression was that the effect of opening the windows of the
  2020
  House of Lords was to admit outer air often 9 or 10° hotter than that of the apartment itself. But he did not venture to press any theory of his own on their Lordships. He therefore consulted Dr. Percy, the eminent Fellow of the Royal Society, who had made this subject an especial study, and who had so long been in charge of the ventilation of the Houses of Parliament. He had a letter from Dr. Percy, showing how far he was right, and giving an additional reason against opening the windows, of which he was not aware—
  "July 19, 1878.
  "My Lord,—The supply of air to the House of Lords is wholly effected by exhaustion through numerous openings in the ceiling, and the air comes through the floor from the adjacent courtyards, which are kept cool by watering. When the windows are open, the air enters mainly through the open window spaces, and escapes through the roof without descending to the floor of the House. This is a point, in my opinion, of the greatest importance. The temperature rises after the windows are opened in hot weather; but last night the temperature was not very high in the House, and I suspect that the discomfort which, your Lordship experienced was due not so much to high temperature as to deficient supply of fresh air from below. I hope I have made this point plain, for it cannot be too strongly insisted upon.
  "I have the honour, &c.,
  "JOHN PERCY."
  Dr. Percy had also sent him a copy of the hourly temperature of the House last Thursday. From noon till 5 it was 71°; but at 5·30, when five windows were opened, the temperature was at 73°, and after 11 windows were opened at 6·30, the temperature rose to 75°. Dr. Percy was of opinion that great improvement could be made by mechanical appliances in the ventilation of their House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had personally more experience of the temperature of their Lordships' House than, perhaps, any of their Lordships; and he, therefore, entirely sympathized with a certain amount of the complaint which the noble Earl had made in reference to the ventilation of the House. He had endeavoured to see the officer who had charge of the ventilation, wishing to ask him some questions; but, unfortunately, he was absent at the time he sought him. He could assure the noble Earl that he should endeavour to ascertain if any improvement could be made. With reference to what the

  2021
  noble Earl had said about the causes of the oppressive heat, there was not the least doubt that it was greatly owing to the fact that so large a portion of the superficial area was composed of glass, the consequence of that being that in winter they had a very cold and in summer a very hot House. Besides, the sides of the House were east and west, so that the sun was on one side in the forenoon and on the other side in the afternoon. He quite agreed with the noble Earl's theory that if they had a reservoir of cool air in a building, and wished to prevent the temperature of it rising, it was better not to introduce air which was at a higher temperature from outside; but if they had a machinery inside which was constantly raising the temperature and exhausting the freshness of the air inside, of the two evils the least was to have fresh air admitted from outside. On Thursday evening last the House was unusually crowded, and the windows were kept closed until the great crowd had assembled. He had then given orders that the windows should be opened, and he had the consolation of thinking that he had saved lives by so doing. The blinds were now kept closed to prevent the House, as far as possible, from being heated through the windows; but without some means of damping them, that contrivance was very far from being a sufficient one. The best plan of ventilation was, no doubt, to introduce fresh air from the floor, and cause it to ascend through the body of a building; but the real difficulty was not to supply fresh air from the floor, but how to counteract the heating operation on the outside glass. He would, however, make inquiries on the subject with the view of remedying the evil.

RECENT FAMINES IN INDIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK rose to call the attention of the House to the despatch from the Secretary of State for India to the Governor General, dated the 10th of January, 1878, on the subject of the recent famine in Western and Southern India, and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they intended to lay upon the Table of the House any estimate of the number of persons who had perished by hunger, or
  2022
  its immediate consequences, in the Presidency of Madras or the State of Mysore? The noble Lord said, that before referring to the particular subject to which he had ventured to draw their Lordships' attention, he claimed their indulgence while he spoke very briefly of the recent scarcities which had occurred in India, and of the measures which had been taken to meet them. He would not go further back than the serious failure of crops which occurred in the Province of Orissa in the year 1866. In consequence of the want of timely foresight, partly on account of the want of intelligence, earnestness, and activity in the local authorities, but most of all on account of the exceptional character of the district, which was extremely difficult to get at properly, the pressure of the famine fell with unsparing severity on the population, and eventually swept off about one-third of their number—that was, about 1,000,000 souls. This result excited a feeling of amazement and remorse both in this country and in India; and the mind of the public and of the Government was very highly strung in order to meet any other emergency of the same kind which might arise. Such an emergency was not long of recurring, because in the year 1874 a very serious scarcity occurred in the Northern part of Bengal. That scarcity found the noble Earl who was then at the head of the Government of India (the Earl of Northbrook) not only forewarned but forearmed, not only encouraged by public feeling, but actually stimulated—and he might almost say menaced—by the intensity of public feeling, to use the whole of the administrative and the whole of the financial resources at his command, in order to meet the evil. Under this pressure the noble Earl continued his course with energy, firmness, and courage. Their Lordships would all remember the result. It was the first, the last, and only victory which had ever been gained over famine; and no laurels were ever more justly earned, or with more modesty borne, than those which adorned the victor of the famine of Bengal. But the effort and sacrifice necessary for the management of this great economic danger and calamity were not unattended, alas! with a sense of re-action and discouragement. The expenditure had been so great that thoughtful men not unnaturally asked themselves

  2023
  whether such ruinous expedients should be repeated; whether such sacrifices could be made, over and over again, without endangering the financial interests and prosperity of future generations, while providing, he might almost say, for the selfish preservation of existing generations? And thus, when in the year 1876 there came the dawn of a great economic calamity of so grave a nature as India had had no experience of during our reign, the emergency found the Government of India probably affected by very mixed feelings. On the one hand, there was no want of human endeavour to combat the effects of famine, and to save the lives of people committed to their charge; but, on the other hand, there was, no doubt, a resolution on the part of the Government of India to accomplish this with the greatest possible measure of economy, and they were even induced to contemplate a contingency, when an emergency might arise, on such a scale as would make it impossible for the Government of India, while making all the efforts and sacrifices possible, to attain the result of saving every life which might be exposed to the danger of famine. The condition of feeling into which he supposed the Government were thrown might be shortly illustrated from the Correspondence laid on their Lordships' Table. On the 16th of January, 1876, the following instructions were addressed to Sir Richard Temple, for the Famine Commissioners:—
  "The Government of India is resolved to spare no efforts which may to necessary and practicable with reference to the means at its disposal to save the population of the distressed districts from starvation, or from an extremity of suffering dangerous to life, but it will not sanction a course of action which must tend to demoralize the people themselves, who are passing through a time of temporary trial, and inevitably lead to the imposition of heavy and permanent burdens on the industry of the country. Even for an object of such paramount importance as the preservation of life, it is obvious that there are limits which are imposed upon us by the facts with which we have to deal. If the estimates of the local Government are to be accepted, the relief of the existing scarcity in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies, including loss of revenue, will not cost less than £6,500,000. Considering that the revenues are barely sufficient to meet the ordinary expenditure of the Empire, and that heavy additional taxation is both financially and politically impracticable, we must plainly admit that the task of saving life, irrespective of the cost, is one which it is beyond our power to undertake."
  He was quite ready to admit that there
  2024

  was a great deal of economic truth in those instructions; but, at the same time, their tenour was, in his opinion, calculated to create a certain amount of hesitation and irresolution in the minds of those charged with the administration of affairs, as to exactly how far they were justified in incurring expenditure for saving human life. In fact, the tenour of those instructions excited a great deal of attention in India; and the instructions themselves, when they reached the ears of the Government of Bombay, became the subject of discussion, which ended, on the 25th January, 1877, in the adoption of a resolution to the following effect:—
  "The letter in question, addressed to Sir Richard Temple, does not lay down any general principles by which the district officers should be guided in refusing the aid needed to preserve life, and His Excellency would view with satisfaction the issue of supplementary instructions on that point."
  The Supreme Government, thus challenged by the Government of Bombay, and having, in the meantime, taken a more careful, and perhaps a more correct, view of the methods of relief that were to be enforced, replied to the Government of Bombay on the 2nd February, 1877, in these words—
  "In regard to the duties which humanity imposes upon the Government, there has not been, and there will not be, any change of policy. We say that human life shall be saved at any cost and at any effort; no man, woman, or child shall die of starvation. Distress they must often suffer; we cannot save them from this."
  Now, whatever their Lordships might think of the prudence of that communication, there was no doubt it was an exceedingly courageous utterance on the part of the Government of India. At any rate, it was a clear, distinct, categoric statement that "no man, woman, or child should die of starvation." And now he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government how that engagement had been fulfilled—how that distinct and emphatic promise had been kept? He admitted that he put the question with some misgiving; because the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Salisbury) had already, in a despatch to which he (Lord Napier and Ettrick) had alluded, given it a very discouraging reply. The noble Marquess said—

  2025
  "I am not of opinion that any useful result would be obtained by instituting a special inquiry into this point, even if there was the slightest hope that trustworthy statistics could be collected as to the mortality due to famine alone."
  He regretted exceedingly to find himself at issue with the noble Marquess, for whose authority he had the greatest respect, and in whose sentiments with regard to India he had perfect confidence; but, at the same time, whilst differing from the noble Marquess, it was a consolation to him to know that the noble Marquess was also at issue with the Government of India on this point. That would be seen from a despatch addressed by the Secretary of the Government of India to the Secretary of the Government of Madras in October, 1877, in which it used the following language:—
  "As there must be some doubts about the accuracy of the returns of deaths furnished from the distressed districts during the past season, I am directed to suggest that at the end of the famine steps should be taken to take a census of selected Talooks in different parts of the famine country. It is very desirable to ascertain how far the numbers of the rural population may have been affected by the famine."
  Now, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had distinctly stated that, to his mind, it was not desirable that any inquisition should be made into the subject, he desired to lay before their Lordships the reasons which induced him to press an inquiry upon Her Majesty's Government. One reason was, that he thought it was necessary for the satisfaction of the Government and the people of Madras. The Government of Madras, in dealing with the famine that had desolated their country, were not left to their own judgment. They were twice corrected and superseded by the Government of India. The first occasion of the supercession was the mission of Sir Richard Temple to Madras. Sir Richard, acting under the Government of India, imposed upon the Government of Madras his own views as to famine relief, alike as to the methods of classifying those in distress, the system of public works, and the scales of diet. To all these demands the Government of Madras—whether willingly or not, he did not know—had to accede. The second occasion on which the Government of Madras was
  2026
  superseded was when the Viceroy entirely overturned the civil constitution of the Government of Madras, and established in its place the authority of a dictator, assisted by an adlatus, in the person of General Kennedy, a Bombay officer, and certainly an officer of the highest ability and distinction. Now, considering that the Government of Madras—a very ancient Government, and one that had always shown a high sense of its responsibilities—had been called upon to make a sacrifice of its functions, that would at least be a consolation to that Government to be made aware—as it was certainly due to them they should be made aware—as to what extent the sacrifice had or had not been made in vain. He also asked that some information should be given as to the mortality in Mysore. Mysore was a name that had become rather dimmed in the memory of the present generation—it was receding, so to speak, with the distance; but, nevertheless, it was a name that was not altogether unfamiliar to living man. And if there was any part of India in which no man, woman, or child should die of hunger, he ventured to affirm that it was the Province of Mysore. The Native territory, no doubt from motives both of humanity and policy, had been taken by the British Government, its administration being placed in the hands of an Executive, consisting chiefly of members of the covenanted, but partly of uncovenanted Services—a well-trained and disciplined body. This was done in order that, a few years hence, the administration might be transferred, with confidence and safety, to Native hands. Mysore, moreover, was one of the most perfect and best organized military stations on the Peninsula of India. The station at Bangalore was occupied by troops representing every arm of Her Majesty's Service, and was always commanded by an officer of superior intelligence and ability; so that their Lordships would see that there were no lack of agents ready to spend their best energies in carrying relief to the distressed inhabitants of the Province. Again, the country was in railway communication with Madras; it was traversed in all directions by roads very superior to those in many other parts of India; there was a great number of small

  2027
  irrigation and other such works affording peculiar facilities for the employment of unskilled labour; and, above all, there was at least one large work in operation, upon which the labour of a large part of the population might have been concentrated, and by which the intensity of the famine might have been considerably mitigated. Mysore, in short, as he hoped he had shown, was a very favourable site for the employment of famine labour. Mysore was a sacred trust to England; and he wanted to know how that trust had been administered? Now, in the mouth of February, 1877, Sir Richard Temple visited Mysore, and reported to the Government of India that he considered the operation of famine relief there was going on satisfactorily. Two months later he again visited Mysore; and, having inspected and criticized the system of relief, reported as follows to his Government, on the 6th April:—
  "When the failure of season which is now going on for the third year consecutively is remembered, these numbers—that is, the numbers employed—appear very moderate, and show, firstly, that the people must be in good condition, and must have some self-sustained power; and, secondly, that the authorities are administering relief very carefully and economically. Again, the results of relief administration in Mysore will compare favourably with the neighbouring districts of the Madras Presidency. Again, I am still of the opinion expressed in my Minute, dated the 14th February, that the Government of India and the Chief Commissioner may be satisfied with the progress of relief affairs in the Province of Mysore."
  Thus they had it upon record, that the Commissioner of the Government of India, after two visits to Mysore, professed himself perfectly satisfied with the system of relief being conducted in the Province. But about five months after the second of those visits, the Viceroy, in consequence of reports which had reached him, and moved, no doubt, by a humane and intelligent curiosity, personally visited Mysore, and this was the account His Excellency gave of the state of things he found there—
  "I am forced to the conclusion that matters are even worse than I had anticipated; that the provision of proper relief works has been entirely neglected; that gratuitous relief—which had increased to an inordinate extent—had been administered in a lax and unsystematic manner; that crime had greatly increased; that people were wandering from Mysore into other districts in vast numbers; and that the mortality, both in hospitals and among the wanderers, was terrible."
  2028
  Now, it must naturally occur to their Lordships to ask what was the cause of the great discrepancy between the impressions of Sir Richard Temple and the impressions of the Viceroy himself? Was it that the system inaugurated, or, at least, approved, by Sir Richard Temple, contained the seeds of failure and disaster; or was it, that between the last visit of the Commissioner and the visit of the Governor General, the local authority had sunk into culpable indifference and neglect? He did not propose to say anything in regard to that question until it had either been ratified or disputed by the testimony of official persons. All he could say was, that the most terrible accounts had reached him, in common with many others, as to the mortality at Mysore. According to eye-witnesses, scenes the most tragical and afflicting had taken place even in the vicinity of the largest towns. He was assured, from a source in which he placed great reliance, that in the district of Tromkoor, in the State of Mysore, one-third of the population had disappeared, and that the highways and fields were full of human bones. Well, another reason why he asked Her Majesty's Government to give him the most reliable information they could command on the subject was, that the erroneous and exaggerated estimates as to the mortality now in circulation might be corrected. Dr. Cornish, the sanitary Commissioner for the Province—who, from personal knowledge, he could assure their Lordships was a gentleman of great ability, and who, he was sure, wrote under a high sense of his responsibility—estimated, in one of his Reports, that the diminution of population in the Province of Mysore alone would amount to one-fifth or one-sixth of the total number of inhabitants, which would be about 2,500,000. The sanitary Commissioner's Report—made to the Secretary of the Government on the 8th May, 1877—was as follows:—
  "I have grounds for supposing that the population of the affected districts will be reduced in 18 months' time by one-fifth or one-sixth of the number living before the scarcity commenced. This is an estimate, of course, only based on the current birth and death-rates, and the present generally enfeebled condition of the working classes in the affected districts."
  Again, the estimate formed at Madras, at the end of 1877, was that the total

  2029
  diminution of population over all the districts of India affected by the late scarcity would amount to about 3,000,000. He was bound to admit that more moderate estimates had been formed by a gentleman of very extensive experience in the affairs of India, and one who in his time had rendered important service to that country—namely, Dr. George Smith. He estimated that the loss of life in Madras, Mysore, and Bombay, might be put down at 1,500,000. On the other hand, the correspondent of The Times, writing, as he supposed, under some sense of responsibility, and with some knowledge of the facts, estimated the diminution in the Presidency of Madras at 3,000,000 souls, and that the total reduction of population in the famine districts would not be much below 6,000,000. He (Lord Napier and Ettrick) had himself estimated the loss in Madras at 600,000. He would not ventures to form any estimate as to Mysore; but if it should turn out that the diminution was less than 400,000 he would be extremely happy. The last estimate he should quote was the estimate of the Viceroy himself. In a Minute written by the Viceroy on the 12th of August, 1877, His Excellency stated—
  "In regard to the main object of relief operations—namely, the saving of human life, much, but not complete, success has been attained. In some tracts relief operations began too late. At centres of population like Madras and Bangalore, and on some of the roads leading to such centres, starvation deaths have occurred. The death-rate from cholera, dysentery, and suchlike diseases has greatly increased over large areas; but, on the whole, the worst evils of famine have so far been successfully averted over the vast tracts visited by failure of crops. According to the standard of mortality during the Orissa Famine, from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 of people, instead of only 500,000, must have died of famine in Southern India during the year 1871 if the guaranteed railways had not existed, and if Government had incurred no outlay on relief operations."
  The estimate of the Governor General of India was, therefore, that about 500,000 people would die of famine in Southern India in the year 1877. In addition to all these estimates, the most painful and alarming of rumours had reached this country at various periods during the present year as to the mortality in other parts of India, which up to recent times had not attracted so much attention or inspired so much sympathy. Another reason which had induced him
  2030
  to ask Her Majesty's Government for information was, that the amount of mortality which had occurred during recent famines could not fail to cast a great deal of light upon the various methods of famine relief which had been attempted, upon the various classifications which had been made of the population, upon the various tests of want which had been discovered, upon the amount of wages which could be afforded and offered, upon the different descriptions of diet which had been recommended. The amount of mortality, and the methods adopted to lessen it, could not fail to throw considerable light upon the two capital questions which had been discussed by rival authorities in this country—namely, the nature of the works which afforded the best relief in times of famine to the suffering population; and also the amount of nourishment which the Native in Southern India requires to preserve him in life and working efficiency. Again, he asked the information for the satisfaction of the Government of India. Their Lordships had heard that the Government of India had admitted that it would be desirable to obtain information; and he did not think the Government of India should be disappointed in their evident wish. And, finally, he asked for information for the sake of truth. It was a valuable discipline for Governments to be obliged to tell the truth, and the whole truth, in circumstances of calamity; and it was a valuable lesson for the country also, that the people should have an unsparing and unvarnished report. Two or three nights ago he heard the noble Lord who had lately charge of the Government of India draw a lamentable picture of the condition of the suffering inhabitants of Asia Minor under the tyranny of the Porte; and he thought that his noble Friend, and some other noble Lords who spoke subsequently, contrasted the condition of the population of Asia Minor in its present trials with the state of the population which was subjected to the humane administration of the Government of India under our beloved Sovereign. When he heard that parallel, he felt that natural satisfaction with which any Englishman listened to an eulogy upon the administration of his countrymen. But a certain feeling of chillness and humility stole over

  2031
  his mind when he suddenly remembered that, in the fullness of our power in India, and in a district which for the most part had been under very humane and enlightened administration for nearly 100 years, and in the complete enjoyment of peace for nearly that period—with all these advantages, during the last year 1,000,000 people had probably died of famine. He thought it was a reflection which might inspire them with some charity towards other Governments and Administrations far less favourably placed. He also thought Her Majesty's Government was bound to tell the truth, and the whole truth, as far as they possibly could, respecting this calamity, to the people of England, because Her Majesty's Government had recently silenced one of the voices of the people of India. It was far from his intention to vindicate the Native Press of India in all times and in all respects; but, at least, that Press was one channel and agency by which they could occasionally be told the truth about such matters as were connected with the famine, although it was also very frequently employed in the dissemination of error, delusion, and dissension. The House might now think that he had urged valid and substantial reasons for asking Her Majesty's Government to tell the truth, and the whole truth, upon this matter; but his request would certainly be an unreasonable one if the information which he asked for was impossible of being obtained. The noble Marquess, who was recently Secretary of State for India, in a long and ably-worded paragraph in the despatch he had alluded to, argued that it was impracticable to give this information. Now, he (Lord Napier and Ettrick) did not think that an approximation was impracticable, and he would give them his reasons for it. Two methods were in use for estimating the loss of life. One might be called the census method, and the other the death-rate method. The census method might be thus described. The population of a particular district or town was ascertained or estimated by a local authority, and the normal increment was also estimated. The population being thus known on 1st January, 1877, the population enumerated on 1st January, 1878, was compared with it, and the diminution set down to the charge of the
  2032
  famine. That was the system on which had been framed some of those very high and, as he thought, exaggerated, estimates to which he had alluded. No account was taken of any emigration, though nothing was more certain than that one of the first results of famine in a district was the desertion of it by those who were in a position to remove elsewhere. There was a period in the history of a famine when all the bonds which united society were suddenly dissolved, and when the population either sat down on the floors of their cottages to die, or were dispersed to the four winds. It was impossible, therefore, to arrive at correct statistics by comparing the population at one time with the population at another. The death-rate method was far more correct. By it they took the number of deaths in a year, or the average number of deaths in a series of years. They compared the number of deaths registered in the previous year with the number of deaths registered in the famine year; and, after deducting the number of deaths from cholera, or any specific disease particularly prevalent, they set down the difference of deaths in the famine year compared with the number of deaths in the previous year to the charge of the famine. The noble Marquess had stated in his despatch that this method was not a fair one, for this reason—that in ordinary years the deaths were not accurately registered—the full number was not registered; whereas in the famine year, the vigilance of the authorities being peculiarly addressed to the task, all the deaths would be registered; and that, therefore, the excess of registered deaths in a famine over an ordinary year did not really mean the number of deaths directly or indirectly caused by the famine. He (Lord Napier and Ettrick) firmly believed that this was an error. He admitted that the registration was not complete; but statisticians in India knew what number it was necessary to add to the normal registration in order to represent the real number. He affirmed that the registration of deaths in a famine year was far less complete than in an ordinary year. First of all, because the Native authorities, who looked after it, were overborne with the quantity of other business they had to perform; secondly, because they were

  2033
  in a state of consternation, and were interested, in some degree, not to swell the number of the deaths of the poor people; and, thirdly, because a number of the starving people left, and died in other districts. He, therefore, contended that this method of estimating the number of deaths was more likely to represent a smaller than a larger mortality than the actual one. Such, he knew, was also the conviction of a great number of persons who were versed in these things. He thought, therefore, that by an appeal to the death-rate method a very fair approximate return might be made of the number of persons who had died by famine. In bringing this matter before their Lordships, he had not in the least degree been impelled by a desire to criminate either Her Majesty's Government or the authorities in India. On another occasion he had admitted that all the measures that had been adopted by the Head of the Government, and supported by the noble Marquess who was lately Secretary of State for India, and the measures that had been adopted in India, had been calculated to promote the welfare of the people of India, and to cement the connection of England with India by new and more powerful bonds; and he certainly desired now to do justice to the authorities to whom the destinies of India were committed. He recognized the ability and efforts of the Viceroy, of Sir Richard Temple, of the Duke of Buckingham, and of our many other officials, English and Native; but all the best efforts of men, in either high or subordinate positions, would not save us from calamitous results, due in part to erroneous resolutions and measures conscientiously adopted; due in part to the friction of a complicated system of government; and due in part to the incapacity of some individuals, accidentally intrusted with public functions repugnant to their inclination, or above their strength; but due, above all, to natural forces operating with overwhelming power. If these calamitous results had not occurred, let the Government say so, and no one would rejoice more than he; but if they had occurred, it was not consistent with a policy of morality that a vast number of humble human lives—lives of Her Majesty's subjects—should disappear like drops of rain upon a distant sea, unnoticed, unlamented,
  2034
  and unknown. He asked the Question of which he had given Notice.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that when the noble Lord gave Notice of the Question he had addressed to the Government he understood that he was going to call attention to the despatch of the former Secretary of State for India, and to ask a Question in relation thereto; but the only part of his Notice to which the noble Lord had given little attention had been the despatch of the noble Marquess who preceded him in the India Office, and he had, therefore, left their Lordships in ignorance of the difficulties which the noble Marquess had pointed out as being in the way of getting at the truth. He (Viscount Cranbrook) positively denied that there had been, on the part of the Government, either a desire or endeavour to conceal anything in respect to these matters. The mere fact, that one of the last acts of his noble Friend, his Predecessor in the India Office, was to appoint a Commission to inquire into everything that had taken place, with the view of preventing any such calamities in future, or mitigating them if they occurred, would show that the noble Marquess had not been in the least insensible to the great catastrophes that had occurred in Southern India. The question to be decided was, was it possible to arrive at any accuracy in this matter; and, if it was not, was it desirable that they should prematurely put before the country inaccurate statistics with respect to these famines? The noble Lord quoted one sentence from the despatch in which it was admitted to be one of the first duties of a Government to save a people under its care from starvation; and this was a duty which was certainly undertaken with great wisdom and energy by men of character and ability fitted for the duties imposed on them, who were spread over the famine districts and who greatly mitigated the distress. There was a failure at Mysore in the early period of the distress, but that remissness was censured by the Governor General of India; and the noble Marquess who was Secretary of State for India concurred in the unfavourable notice taken by His Excellency of the management of some of the officers at Mysore. There was no concealment in what was

  2035
  said about what happened. The Viceroy himself went into the famine districts there and put a stop to the mismanagement. The noble Lord said the Government were under a greater obligation to tell the truth, because they had silenced the Native Press. But the Press was free to write as it liked about the deaths by famine. If the Native Press could afford the Government accurate information, the Government would be only too glad to get it. It seemed to be supposed that nothing had been done. Statistics, however, were being collected in India, and no time would be lost in placing them, when as complete as they could be made, before the House. A few days ago his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India moved for these Papers in the House of Commons, and on this day he (Viscount Cranbrook) placed them on the Table of this House, and no doubt they would soon be printed and in the hands of their Lordships. He would be deceiving their Lordships if he said they contained a full and accurate record of the facts. While they might have accurate statements in regard to one Province or famine, the information regarding another might be anything but thoroughly reliable. He admitted it with sorrow, and to a certain extent with shame, that the Government should not be in a position to meet distress in such circumstances. But the distress had been unprecedented. There had never been anything like it before. Many of the people lived in remote places, and were spread over a great area, and the very first thing they did in a famine was to emigrate from their villages and wander into the jungles in the hope of finding food; and so they disappeared from the paternal care of the Government. As had been officially pointed out, a comparison of the mortality in Southern India during the famine with that at other times was sufficient to show that the system of registration there was very imperfect, and that the number of deaths had been inaccurately stated. Where the normal mortality was unknown, it was useless to attempt any calculations having reference to the special statistics of the famine. Then there was another difficulty in the way of making any accurate estimate—namely, the extraordinary decrease of births. That, in itself, would
  2036
  account for a material diminution of population.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that would apply to the census.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKadmitted that it would. There was, in addition to this, the element of emigration to be considered; so that the noble Lord would see that it was quite out of the power of the Government to give him any definite figures on the subject. He was ready, however, to place before the noble Lord—and, indeed, had already placed—all the information and materials which the Government itself possessed; but even then, and after all, any result arrived at must be very much a matter of speculation. He admitted that the famine had been a most sad and terrible calamity for India. The sufferings in Madras and Mysore must have been excessive; but he was rejoiced to learn, from Returns received that very day, that there were greater hopes for those districts and for Bombay than had been entertained during the past few months. The Press referred with certainty to the improved harvest prospects; and the Government were encouraged, therefore, to anticipate that a great relief would be given to the pressure of past years. By that pressure the Governors of the affected Provinces had suffered an anxiety and a strain of mind which it was impossible to exaggerate; and he felt that it was not now the desire of their Lordships to add to that strain and that anxiety. The officials had done their best to mitigate the calamity. In some respects they had been unfortunate—in some cases they had failed—still, there had been great successes and noble exertions; and although he could not say that they had put a complete stop to the famine, yet there was not a man in the country who had not done his best to put a stop to its ravages.

  FRESHWATER FISH PROTECTION BILL—(No. 155.)
  (The Earl of Morley.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained that several sections had

  2037
  been engrafted on the original measure by the Committee of the House of Commons. By Clause 2, it was provided that the Act, so far as was consistent with the tenour thereof, should be read as one with the Salmon Fishery Acts of 1861 and 1876; whilst Clause 5 directed that sections 8 and 9 of those Acts—which relate to fishing with light spears and other prohibitive instruments, and to using roe as a bait—should apply to trout and char in all waters within the limits of the present Bill, one of the objects of which was to make a close time for the selling, in addition to that for the catching, of trout. The 11th and principal clause referred to fresh-water fish, more generally known, as "white" or "coarse" fish. With the exception of those in Norfolk and Suffolk—which counties last year obtained local Acts of their own, and of the Thames, where the fishing was controlled by the Conservancy Board—the rivers of the country were entirely without any kind of protection for that sort of fish; and he thought it was hard upon the poorer classes, who were chiefly concerned in the preservation of freshwater fish, that their fish should not come in for some of that maternal care which Government had lavished upon the birds of the air and the creatures of the earth. Their Lordships would probably be surprised to learn the enormous interest taken in the kind of sport afforded by coarse fish. It was stated, in evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons, that there were no less than 80 fishing societies, comprising 50,000 members, in existence. At Sheffield, there were 8,000 members enrolled; in Birmingham, 3,000; and similar numbers in the great manufacturing centres. To his mind, it was of great importance that the people working in close shops and factories during the day, and sleeping in small or crowded rooms at night, should have afforded them the opportunity of indulging in a harmless and an invigorating sport on the banks of the rivers in their several localities. There was, too, a market for this kind of fish—it might not at present be a very large one, but still there was a market—and to that extent the sport, which it was now designed to protect, added to the food supply of the nation. It was generally considered by the Select Committee, that the fairest period at which
  2038
  a close time could be fixed for freshwater fish, was that from the 15th March to the 15th June, and accordingly that period had been adopted in the Bill. There were four exceptions under the 11th clause. Sub-section 3 was not to apply to the owners of any "several fishery" where trout, char, or grayling were specially preserved, destroying within such fishery any freshwater fish other than grayling; to any person angling in any "several fishery" with the leave of the owner of such fishery, or in any public fishery under the jurisdiction of a Board of Conservators with the leave of the said Board; to any person taking freshwater fish for scientific purposes; or to any person taking freshwater fish for use as bait. The 4th sub-section provided that any person catching or selling freshwater fish during the close season should be liable to a fine not exceeding 40 s., and on a second conviction to a fine not exceeding £5. The Bill did not apply to Norfolk and Suffolk.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Morley.)
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  (The Lord Henniker.)

  (NO. 161.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HENNIKER,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the measure simply consolidated a number of existing Acts, some of which had been found to be obscure and in some cases contradictory. Of course, in a Consolidation Bill it was impossible to avoid introducing some new matter; but, in the present case, what new matter there was arose out of the process of consolidation itself, out of the need for removing doubts and inconsistencies and correcting mistakes, or out of certain Amendments inserted by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. That new matter would make the Bill practically complete as a consolidating measure, and would go far towards establishing an uniform system of weights and measures throughout

  2039
  the Kingdom. The Bill was brought into the House of Commons and referred to a Select Committee, who went most carefully into the measure and took evidence on the subject, the result being that the Bill now came before their Lordships in as perfect a shape as possible. A great deal of trouble was taken in drawing the Bill, and in that respect the Government were fortunate enough in securing the services of a gentleman who was not only acquainted with the legal questions concerned, but was well versed in the scientific part of the subject. It was, therefore, very doubtful whether at any other time, or under any other circumstances, the matter could have been dealt with more satisfactorily. The Bill, it would seem, gave a more scientific definition of the various standards in use; and it laid it down most clearly and distinctly that only one standard—that was, the imperial standard—should be used in all the trades of the country. Although a consolidating measure, the Bill did not interfere with any of the old jurisdictions except in the way of laying down certain rules for the proper performance of the duties cast upon them. The metric system was practically recognized in the Bill, but without making it part of the imperial system of standards. Those who advocated the metric system should, he thought, be content with what was given in the Bill; for if it were found to work well, no doubt their argument for its general introduction would be very much strengthened. On the other hand, if it were not found to work well, there would not have been any disturbance of existing arrangements. The Bill, at any rate, went far enough in the direction of the metric system for the present. The chief object of all legislation on this question should be the maintenance of just dealing between buyer and seller; and in the present Bill that was secured without unnecessarily disturbing existing methods or arrangements, and without undue interference with local authorities. He believed that the Bill would place not only the law, but the whole system of weights and measures, on a more satisfactory footing.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Henniker.)
  LORD COLCHESTERobserved, that it was now eight years since the Royal
  2040
  Commission appointed to inquire into this subject had concluded their work; and as one of those who had taken part in it, rejoiced that the Government had at length introduced a measure of this kind. He only regretted that as it in some respects went beyond mere consolidation, it did not go further. As contracts were legalized in terms of the metric system, and provision was now made for verifying metric standards, he did not see why metric weights and measures should not be allowed to be used for the purposes of trade, where both buyer and seller desired it. The only precaution necessary, besides stamping them with their proper denominations, would be that they should be of a different shape or material from any imperial measures. He also thought that the clause relating to boroughs not having separate quarter sessions should be imperative, rather than permissive, as those small municipalities had no particular fitness for acting as local authorities in regard to weights and measures, many of their members being tradesmen, whose own weights and measures required vigilant inspection. He also wished that the Board of Trade had taken the power of initiating bye-laws to be pressed on the local authorities, instead of simply allowing them to submit bye-laws for the Department's approval, as he believed great advantage would result from the drawing up of model bye-laws by the Department. He also deprecated the obsolete system of annoyance juries and the powers of Courts Leet over inspection. He trusted the Bill would be a prelude to, not a substitute for, a bolder and more comprehensive measure dealing with the subject.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he had no desire to detain their Lordships; but there was one point in connection with the subject under discussion to which he desired to call their Lordships' attention. The Bill did not contain any provision for remedying the system under which the local standards in Ireland had to be sent over to this country for examination. It was necessary that these standards should be sent over to London in the custody of a sub-inspector of police and a police constable; and as this had to be done at stated intervals—namely, every five years—it became in itself a very expensive business.

  2041
  When the standards reached this country they had to remain a considerable time before verification. The money for the expense thus incurred had to be voted by the Grand Jury of each county out of the county cess, and frequently it was a heavy charge. He had made inquiry the other day what the charge was in his own district, and he found that the sum of £29 was paid last year out of the county cess for this purpose; the standards being sent over to England in charge of a sub-inspector of police and a constable, who were in London three weeks doing nothing, while the standards were waiting to be properly verified. If he were to put the average cost at £35 in each of the 32 counties, this would make a total of £1,120 every five years, or an average of £224 a-year. What he had to suggest to his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill was that some means should be found of lessening this expense to Ireland. It might easily be done by the present Bill, and it was not a new question, because the matter had been brought under the attention of the Government before, but the suggestion was not carried out at the time, as it was held that the period was inopportune, and that they should wait until the whole subject could be legislated upon. Well, the time had now arrived when they were proposing to legislate on the whole subject; and he, therefore, suggested to his noble Friend (Lord Henniker) that standards should be established in Dublin which should be the imperial standards for the rest of Ireland, and that these standards should be subject to verification every five years in England. This would save a great deal of money in the shape of travelling expenses, and it would also save a great waste of time. In saying this, he would draw attention to Clause 37 of the Bill, from the perusal of which it appeared that it was quite in the power of the Board of Trade to deal with his proposal as to Ireland in the present measure. The clause set forth that the Board of Trade should cause to be prepared standards, to be verified in such places as the Board might think fit, where they might correct the standards of any local authority. Now, if this clause would allow the Board of Trade to establish standards at such places as Manchester and Liverpool, where the standards of
  2042
  the local authorities might be verified without the expense of coming to London, the same course might be taken with regard to Ireland, by establishing similar standards for verification in Ireland. He hoped his noble Friend would see the necessity of doing something for the purpose of extending this privilege to Ireland. If this suggestion were not agreed to, he should be prepared to move an Amendment when the Bill got into Committee; but if his noble Friend could give him any assurance that the suggestion would be entertained, it would be unnecessary for him to take that course.
  EARL FORTESCUEdesired to call the attention of their Lordships to the peculiar character of the legislation in this country. He rejoiced that three years after the Report of the Royal Commission that was appointed to investigate the subject a consolidated statute was passed, which was likely to be of great value to Continental countries in reference to this subject. Having himself taken some part in carrying that measure, he naturally felt some interest in the matter. An Act to render permissive the use of the metric system of weights and measures had been passed; and although the question had rather retrogaded than advanced in public favour within the last few years in this country, yet in other countries the system had extensively been adopted. It had been adopted absolutely throughout Germany, Italy, Spain, and other countries, altogether containing a population of more than 200,000,000, and permissively in various others, such as the United States, &c.; but this country—a country carrying on the largest commercial transactions in the world—had, as yet, refrained from adopting it. He held that the metric system had become more and more necessary to England under her system of Free Trade; because she was the great depôt for merchandize of all sorts from all the countries of the world. It certainly did seem to be a matter for great regret that, while the Act rendering the use of of the metric system legal for contracts was embodied in the present Bill, yet, practically, the use of those weights and measures could not be rendered conveniently available, because no unverified weights and measures could be legally used, and under the Bill metric weights and measures

  2043
  could only be verified for scientific purposes—it being expressly provided that they were not to be verified for trade purposes. It was suggested that it was desirable for metric weights and measures to have a different shape to the ordinary weights and measures prescribed for them by law, in order that they might be easily distinguished from each other; but this seemed hardly a valid reason for referring those who had occasion to verify contracts and dealings, which they could legally make under the metric system, to a table such as that contained in the Bill, instead of to metric weights and measures verified by the standard recognized in the Bill. The metre was one of the measures most used under this system, and in order to verify the metre, recourse was to be had to an equivalent in British dimensions, which was set forth as 1 yard 1·3708 inches; giving four places of decimals. He thought that in legalizing contracts on the metric system Her Majesty's Government should have sanctioned the adoption of the metre itself, which was a measure now in use among upwards of 200,000,000 of the inhabitants of the globe. With regard to the litre, on which the metric measure of liquids was based, considering the large proportion of fluids sold under the metric system, how unnecessarily difficult was the equivalent given in Britsh quantities rendered as 1·76077 pints, with no less than five places of decimals, while the gramme, which was the foundation of the metric system of weights, was equally rendered by five places of decimals. He could not help expressing a hope that Her Majesty's Government might see their way to sanctioning some rather more convenient mode of verifying contracts than the legalizing of equivalents such as he had just read from the Bill, and which extended to so inconvenient a number of decimals. He did not wish to detain their Lordships longer than by saying that he fully endorsed what his noble Friend had said as to the small municipalities. In Devonshire there was a number of very small ones; and he did not see that because they enjoyed the privilege of quarter sessions, that places containing less than 4,000, and some less than 3,000, inhabitants, should have quite such extensive powers confined to their petty local authorities as were to be preserved to them by the
  2044
  present Bill. On the whole, however, the Bill was one which he regarded as a very valuable measure, and the last thing he would do would be to make any attempt to delay its passing.
  LORD HENNIKERremarked, that the Board of Trade had had the assistance not only of scientific men in preparing the Bill, but they had also had the most valuable information collected by the Royal Commission of 1870, over which his noble Friend behind him (Lord Colchester) had presided. He was glad that his noble Friend approved of the Bill, although he wished it to go further than it did. The Commission obtained a great variety of valuable information; and if his noble Friend desired to bring forward any Amendments, they would have the consideration of the Board of Trade. With regard to the point that had been brought forward by another noble Lord (the Earl of Donoughmore), he might say that no doubt, under the 37th clause of the Bill, what the noble Earl proposed might be carried out, provided there was no substantial objection against it, and it was possible that there might be such an objection on considerations of finance. He could not give the noble Earl more specific information at present; and he would suggest that the best way would be for the noble Earl to put down what it was that he desired to include in the Bill, so that it could receive due consideration before the Bill went into Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord President.)

  (NO. 157.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 37 (Roads formerly turnpike not wholly situated in one county or burgh).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNtook exception to sub-section C. He said, the Bill proposed to re-value the debts on turnpike roads; and he wished to submit that the proper course to be taken was, that after the debts were re-valued any

  2045
  assets belonging to the trusts, in the shape of toll-houses, gates, and other property, should be sold, and the proceeds applied to the diminution of the debts, as far as such proceeds would go, the nett debt being then divided, as the Bill proposed, between the counties and burghs interested. But the proposition made by sub-section C appeared to him to be highly objectionable, inasmuch as it proposed a very different distribution of the assets of the turnpike trusts. It proposed that the assets should be given freely to the new trustees, or managing bodies of the roads, in the counties, and the municipal authorities in the burghs, and divided between the two simply according to the principal of local situation. It seemed to be forgotten that the property was not theirs; that the toll-houses were not built by them; and that neither of the two new bodies had been called on to maintain them. The road trustees, who were the landowners in counties and burghs, were called on to pay the debts; and, therefore, it appeared to him the proper course that the usual method should be observed in this matter—the plan which he believed had been followed in England—namely, that all the assets should be realized, and applied to the reduction of the debts. He would put a case, with the view of illustrating what he meant. Let them suppose an instance in which there was a debt of £1,000 on a turnpike road, and that there were toll-houses and gates on the road to the value of £300. The natural supposition would surely be, that when the trust came to an end the £300 should be realised, and the £1,000 debt thereby reduced to £700; whereas the proposal contained in this Bill was to give the £300 away to the new bodies, and to assess the whole of the £1,000 on the landowners. This proceeding appeared to him to be a most extraordinary one, and he submitted that it ought not to be sanctioned by the House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONregretted that he could not altogether agree with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown). To a certain extent he saw the force of the objection the noble Earl had raised; but to accept the principle which he had put forward with reference to this point would be to entirely depart from the lines on which the Bill had been drawn. By Clause 44 the landowners would get
  2046
  the benefit of the toll-houses and property sold; but the noble Earl's proposal, as far as he could gather, was to provide that all those houses should be sold compulsorily. Now, the provisions of the Bill were based on the proposition that it might be in some cases useful and advisable that the toll-houses should be retained; and it should be remembered that the exact proportion of the debts and the money that might be produced was to be decided by the Debt Commissioner, who was to be called in for that purpose. He thought that on reflection the noble Earl would see that in some cases it might well happen that the road trustees ought not to be required to sell at once, but should act voluntarily and justly between all parties.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that according to the Bill as it stood, the toll-houses would be sold, and the purchasers would purchase from whom? Not from the turnpike trustees, nor the persons who had to pay the debt, but from the new managing body, and the result would be that the money paid for the toll-houses would go, not in the reduction of the debt, but simply to the bodies to whom they were to be transferred.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHquite agreed with the noble Earl opposite; and thought it never could have been intended that when the toll-houses were sold they should go towards the ordinary yearly expenses of the new body, but that any sum realized by their sale should be applied to the payment of the debts due from the trustees. He wished to add that some alarm had been expressed by different persons as to the wording of the clause. The sub-section said—
  "All lands, heritages, works, and buildings belonging to the trust locally situated within any county or burgh shall be the property of the trustees of such county or local authority of such burgh, within which the same are so situated, or the trustees having the management of such road, as the case may be, and shall be applied and used or may be sold and disposed of under the powers and for the purposes of this Act."
  His understanding of the nature of the Bill was that all the property of the old trustees should be transferred to the new trustees, not as their absolute property, but merely as a transfer in trust to them, and that then they should exercise the powers given by the Bill,

  2047
  He would, therefore, propose to strike out of the clause the words "shall be the property of," and insert the words "shall hereafter be transferred to."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 38 to 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41 (List of highways to be made up. Alteration of list).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that, as the clause stood, the result would be that any roads added to the list of public roads within the last two years would not be maintained out of the public funds. He, therefore, moved to omit the words "for not less than two years."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had no objection to the omission of the words referred to.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 42 to 88, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 89 (Special provision for highways in counties of Lanark and Renfrew).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he had set down upon the Paper a variety of Amendments to the clause; but he was of opinion, on reading them over thoroughly, that they would not stand against the previous ruling of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He would, however, ask the House to pass one Amendment. If they would not consent to restore the Bill to its original state, he hoped they would agree to strike Clause 89 out of the Bill. He had noticed that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Buccleuch) had that evening presented another Petition against the clause; and if it were omitted the counties of Lanark and Renfrew, and the City of Glasgow and the adjacent townships, would be left to be dealt with in the same way as other counties and burghs in Scotland. If the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) still objected to this measure of
  2048
  justice to the people of Glasgow, he had only to say that he (the Earl of Rosebery) should not again put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it.
  Moved to omit Clause 89.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could not agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) in thinking that the omission of the clause would be a measure of justice to Glasgow; because he believed the effect of it would be to prevent the Bill from passing through their Lordships' House that Session, and, consequently, would have to be brought once more under discussion, a measure to which everybody had been looking forward as a settlement of a much vexed question. The noble Earl must be fully aware that the subject had been before the public for many months, and that it had been discussed and considered in every possible shape. The other House had agreed to the insertion of the clause now under discussion, believing that it would put an end to a state of things which all persons connected with Scotland were of opinion should be settled with as little delay as possible. He was not quite certain whether, even if he were to satisfy the noble Earl by striking out the clause, it would not be a breach of the Privileges of the other House to do so; at any rate, though he thought this proposition quite capable of being argued, and of being argued successfully, he based his opposition to the Amendment on the fact that such a mode of dealing with this very complicated question of the roads in the vicinity of Glasgow was one which Her Majesty's Government thought not conformable to the interests of all parties. Therefore, he regretted that he was obliged to disagree with the proposal of the noble Earl.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 90 and 91 agreed to.
  Clause 92 (Trustees to have power to make bye-laws) omitted.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments,
  Page 67, line 30, Schedule C (Sections of 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 43, referred to in foregoing Act) added.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.