Sitting of 5 March 1878

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Public Business, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sampson Lloyd added.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—County Courts Jurisdiction* [100], [House counted out].

QUESTIONS.
  PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL POX.

    QUESTION.
    EARL PERCYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can state the number of deaths from small pox in England and Wales in the years 1876 and 1877 respectively?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, the number of deaths from smallpox in 1876 was 2,413; in 1877, 4,280; the difference being entirely due to the small-pox epidemic in London.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND—DEATH OF MR. G. P. CHALMERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was unavoidably absent, and had requested him, in his absence, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the murder attended with robbery of George Paul Chalmers, R.S.A., in the streets of Edinburgh, on the night of 15th February last; and, whether, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the numerous complaints in regard to the inaction of the police, he will direct special investigations with a view to the discovery of the crime, and into the condition of the Edinburgh police?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The Lord Advocate is now in Edinburgh, and the subject is at this present moment under legal investigation. I do not think, therefore, that it would be right for me to make any statement about it. I observe the Question assumes that there was murder and robbery. That is the question about which inquiry is taking place, and I do not think it ought to be assumed until it is proved. With regard to the general conduct of the Edinburgh Police, no report has been made to me of the number of complaints, nor have I any reason to believe that the force is inefficient. I have consulted the Inspector on the matter, and asked for information on the subject.

  COUNTY EXPENDITURE—BOROUGH CONTRIBUTIONS.—QUESTION.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the Return laid upon the Table of the House on July 27, 1877, showing the contributions made by municipal boroughs in England and Wales towards any county rate or county expenditure, will be distributed to Members before going into Committee on the County Government Bill?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: This Return has been for some time in type; but it was found on examination, that much of the information furnished was inaccurate and incomplete. Further inquiries have been made of many of the municipal and parochial officers, and most of the required information has
  756
  been received. I cannot say that it will be possible to produce the Return before Thursday next; but I hope it will be ready before many days.

  COMMISSION ON NOXIOUS VAPOURS—THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BLACKBURNEasked the President of the Local Government Board, When the Report of the Royal Commission on Noxious Vapours may be expected to be laid before the House?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's renewed Question, I have to inform him that I have had a letter from Lord Aberdare, the Chairman of the Commission, explaining the circumstances which have delayed the completion of the Report. I should hope, from the information given, that it may be laid on the Table before Easter.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SULLIVANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill were correctly stated by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland on the 18th of January last, when he promised for the Government (reserving the right to move certain Amendments) to
    "support it in its earlier stages, and afford greater facilities, with a view to the question being settled this Session and not delayed;"
    or whether the present Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke with greater authority on Saturday last, when he announced to a deputation of Brewers and Liquor Merchants that the Government would neither directly nor indirectly support the Bill, and that, with the conceding of one day for its discussion, the obligation of the Government ended?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary previous to the introduction of this Bill correctly expressed the views; and intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and I understand it was not in any way the intention of my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to override or alter

    757
    the understanding which was then arrived at. What my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary promised was this—He said, speaking of the Bill before it had been introduced—
    "If the provisions of that Bill are identical with those of the measure brought in last Session by the hon. Member for Londonderry County (Mr. R. Smyth), Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to take the same course with regard to it as they took last year. They will support its earlier stages, but reserve to themselves the right to move such Amendments as may appear advisable in Committee."
    He went on to say—
    "I cannot doubt that the hon. Member for Roscommon will take every means in his power to secure opportunities for the discussion of his Bill by this House; but, if necessary, the Government will be prepared to aid him in obtaining greater facilities for the purpose, with the view of securing, so far as we are able, that a settlement of the question shall he arrived at this Session, and shall not be delayed, as was the case last year, from want of time."
    We have thus far fulfilled this obligation, because we did support the Bill in its earlier stages, and we hope to fulfil the engagement as far as is in our power with regard to the subsequent stages. But this Bill is not a child of the Government, and what our duties to other people's children are is always a question of some delicacy. We do not propose either to make a promise to be so kept as to be only keeping it to the ear and breaking it to the hope; and, on the other hand, we must not be supposed to pledge ourselves to give an indefinite support to this Bill, so as to set aside other Business of pressing importance. [Major O'GORMAN: Hear, hear!] The most practical Answer I can give with regard to the next step of progress is this. I promised some time ago that if our Business was making fair progress about the middle of March, I would make some arrangement for the further discussion of this Bill. We have not yet arrived at the time I then contemplated; but, if we continue to make fair progress with the Business of Supply, and especially with the Army and Navy Estimates, I hope to be able to place either Monday, the 25th of March, or the following Thursday, the 28th, at the disposal of the promoters of this Bill, in order that we may proceed with the discussion of it, and make progress.

  RAILWAYS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. M. BROOKSasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to an accident, attended by grievous injury to several persons, which occurred on the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway on Wednesday last; whether he is aware that this is the second accident of a similar kind, on the same Railway, and in the same locality, within the last six weeks; and, if he proposes to institute an official inquiry into the causes of these accidents, and the necessity for continuous brakes?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I have sent Major-General Hutchinson to report on the accident referred to, and will lay his Report on the Table when it is received. The Board of Trade have no information of a similar accident on that railway during the present year. I have this evening laid on the Table Papers on the subject of continuous brakes.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE BRITISH EMBASSY.—QUESTION.
  MR. OWEN LEWISasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the statement in the "Daily Telegraph" of March 4th, that General Ignatieff has threatened to have the dragoman of the British Embassy at Constantinople shot, is correct; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps for the protection of his life?
  MR. BOURKE: It appears that the dragoman of the British Embassy mentioned that certain expressions were used towards him by General Ignatieff which were not of a friendly character. There is no reason to suppose that the dragoman's life is in danger.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—ALLEGED EXECUTION OF POLISH DOCTORS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR FREDERICK PERKINSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received any information confirmative of the truth of the account of an atrocity which was described in the "Standard" of March 2nd:—

    759
    "Intelligence has been received here (Paris) of the hanging of several alleged Polish doctors at Sofia when the Russians occupied that town. The victims were residents of Cracow, and Austrian subjects, being natives of Galicia. They bore Polish names, and had, like many medical men in England, joined the Turkish medical staff. When the Russians entered the town these gentlemen, in defiance of the Convention of Geneva, were arrested, tried by a drumhead court martial, and hanged before the troops. I can assure you that this is no fiction. The men were hanged solely and simply because their names were Polish and they spoke the language. General Gourko ordered the execution."
    MR. BOURKE: I answered a Question upon this subject a few days ago, and I have no reason to believe that the Answer I then gave was in any way inaccurate. I have nothing to add to the information I gave to the House at that time. Rumours upon the subject have reached Her Majesty's Government; but we have not sufficient evidence to justify me in making any statement to the House.

  JUDICATURE ACTS—ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. RODWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, owing to the abolition of prisons in certain places, any change will be made in the holding of Assizes and Quarter Sessions?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, it was not intended to make any change. The Government, under the Prisons Act, were bound to convey the prisoners for trial backwards and forwards.

  PARLIAMENT—MEETING OF THE HOUSE.
  Resolved, That this House do meet Tomorrow at Two of the Clock.—{Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MOTIONS.
  THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE,in rising to call attention to the present condition of the National Portrait Gallery, and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come for the Treasury to carry out the promise made by it in March 1876, of appropriating certain specified portions of the Exhi-
    760
    bition Buildings at South Kensington for the accommodation of the National Portrait Gallery, in addition to the apartments already occupied by the Gallery,"
    said: I appear, Sir, on behalf of one of the established and recognized collections of the country—the National Portrait Gallery, which has existed for upwards of 20 years. This Gallery is one of those collections which exist directly under the Crown, and are managed by trustees appointed by the Crown. We are not in any way a branch of the South Kensington Museum; but are, like the British Museum, or the National Gallery, an institution specially founded, managed by our own Trustees, and subsidized annually by a Vote in Supply, which, in our case, is one of £2,000 a-year, to be spent in the purchase and conservation of pictures, besides certain expenses for which the Government make themselves chargeable. We were founded in 1856, consequent upon a Motion of the late Lord Stanhope. What a student of history, what a critic, and judicious appreciator of art, he was, it is unnecessary for me to state. Lord Stanhope made a Motion in the House of Lords, that it was desirable that a Collection of Portraits, illustrative of English History, should be created. That Motion met with the approbation both of the Government and of the House, and Trustees were accordingly appointed. Of this Board our present Chairman is Lord Hardinge, a most accomplished artist, and of his Colleagues are the Earl of Beaconsfield and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), the Dean of Westminster, the President of the Royal Academy, the Earl of Derby, with Sir Coutts Lindsay, Lord Somers, Lord Ronald Gower, Lord De L'Isle, Mr. Shirley, Mr. Cochrane, the Lord President (officially), the Marquess of Bath, and I must add myself. It is on the behalf of these Trustees that I now appeal. Among those who have been Trustees in former times there are such names as Lord Stanhope, the famous Lord Lans-downe, the first Lord Ellesmere, Sidney Herbert, the present Lord Salisbury, Macaulay, Mr. Carlyle, Bishop Wilber-force, Sir George Lewis, Sir Francis Palgrave, Sir Charles Eastlake, and last, that friend, whose death everyone has so much lamented this year, Sir William Stirling-Maxwell. The Gal-

    761
    lery started with a noble gift from Lord Ellesmere of the famous Chandos Shakspeare. The acquisition was made of a house in Great George Street, and it opened in January, 1859. In that year 5,305 persons came, despite the restricted collection. In 1868 the visitors to the George Street Gallery had increased to nearly 25,000. In the next year—1869—that miscellaneous collection of sheds, which had in 1862 been the scene of so much noise and confusion, and of many unpalatable meals—the Exhibition buildings—fell into the hands—partly of the Government, and partly of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851—and in the former portion, rooms were assigned to the National Portrait Gallery. They were rooms having the advantage certainly of being able to hold pictures to a certain advantage in a fair light; but otherwise very undesirable, from the thinness of the walls, the badness of the floor, and the risk of fire in such a temporary structure. Such as they were, we moved down into them; and in 1870 the number of visitors had shot up to nearly 59,000. In the year 1871 it grew up to 63,000. The year 1876-—being the year of the Prince of Wales' India Exhibition and the Exhibition of Scientific Instruments—was an exceptional year; and then there were more than 100,000 visitors. Of course, it could not go on at so high a level; and in the year after—1877—the attendance had fallen down to about 80,000. But I put it to this House, that a public collection which has in the course of a year been visited by 80,000 persons, is no mean contribution to the education or the recreation of the people of London and the country. At present, I suppose, a great many Members are familiar with the Gallery. To those who are not, I may tell that the practical space at the disposal of the Exhibition is a long gallery, of which the extent has been eked out by cross-screens, with a staircase at each end; and that it is approached by a long temporary passage between the entrance of the Horticultural Gardens, and that magnificent pile which is at present rising to receive the Natural History Collection of the British Museum. We have in the collection some 488 pictures, and we have also 50 busts, bronze statues and casts—for the National Portrait Gallery, be it noted, is not merely a collection of pic-
    762
    tures. It is emphatically a collection of portraits of distinguished English persons, or of persons connected with English history. Therefore it admits pictures, drawings, busts; and it has created lately a very interesting series of bronze casts, carried out by the Elkington electrotype process, of monuments of Sovereigns and otherpersons, which are otherwise difficult to see, and cannot otherwise be brought into one conspectus. We have Robert Curthose from Gloucester, and Henry the Seventh and Elizabeth of York from Westminster, where you can hardly see their effigies on account of the intervening metal screen. We have the historical"Sic Sedebat" statue of Bacon from St. Albans, and his Sovereign Elizabeth. We have others which I need not name. We have drawings, we have autographs. In fact, more and more is the National Portrait Gallery becoming an historical gallery. Of course, in a gallery so constituted, the merit of the artist is not the first concern; but among our painters we may reckon names like Lely, Kneller, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Opie, Lawrence, and Landseer. Therefore, even as a collection, it is very valuable; and its present worth is set down at £50,000, consigned to rooms miserably temporary and dangerous. Well, such as they are, we are in these rooms. I do not pretend—no one who is connected with the gallery does pretend—to like it; but as it is, so long as we are like the children of Israel dwelling in tabernacles, at least, let our tents be wide enough to hold us. In 1874 a negotiation that did not come to much was vaguely set on foot to give us those galleries running from north to south on the west side of the Horticultural Gardens, in which a dead-alive ghastly after-thought of an International Exhibition crawled on for a few years, until it collapsed from inanity. Well, after the unwept end of that Exhibition, those galleries were vacant; and in 1874 we heard that they might possibly be transferred to the National Portrait Gallery. The Trustees said, as they always had said, that they would be very glad indeed to change; but this insuperable difficulty—at least, if not insuperable, this very great difficulty—intervened, that under the strange and complicated arrangements which characterize all the South Kensington Art property, these galleries were not the property of the Government as the Govern-

    763
    ment, but of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851. Therefore, it fell out that the Government to which we looked, could not obtain possession of those galleries on behalf of the National Portrait Gallery except at a very high rental. So those negotiations fell through, while our wants remained the same. In 1876 the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) who was at that time First Commissioner of Works, addressed on the 29th of February a communication to the Treasury. I am now referring to a Parliamentary Paper which has been printed and distributed about a week, from which I shall be able briefly to run over the salient points. On February 29, 1876, the noble Lord writes to the Treasury acknowledging a letter, and enclosing one from the Commissioners of Patents asking for more room, in which he refers to that portion of the South Kensington Buildings now under consideration. The First Commissioner observes—
    "The South Kensington Museum authorities have been permitted to occupy these galleries until they should be required for other purposes, and the time for their surrender has now arrived. I therefore beg to suggest to your Lordships the following arrangements."
    This is a most important statement. Here are certain rooms which have only been lent, and as to which two years ago it was said that the time was up, and the occupants must vacate. What are these rooms? I shall often have to refer to them. They are rooms some immediately adjacent, and others just under, those at present occupied by our gallery. They stand at the end of, and beneath it, forming part of the same block; they are space which, so long as we are to continue in our present lodgings, are the rooms which emphatically might be easily added to us, and that we beg may be added to us. We claim that they shall be added to us, as making our present temporary location, at least in the way of elbow-room, tolerable. But to return to the Paper—
    "The South Kensington Museum authorities have been permitted to occupy these galleries until they should be required for other purposes, and the time for their surrender has now arrived. I therefore beg to suggest to your Lordships the following arrangements."
    First, the noble Lord proposes to assign a certain portion of the building to the
    764
    Patent Museum. Of course, we had nothing to do with that. But then he goes on to say—
    "The Portrait Gallery requires more room, and I propose to assign to them the ground floor of the space marked XXII., together with the upper floor of the part coloured blue and marked with a cross."
    To those who are not familiar with the place, I should explain that this space marked "XXII." is the gallery under the existing Portrait Gallery, which is now used for the valuable purpose of the Educational Exhibition, so called, of the South Kensington Museum, as to which I shall have a little to say presently. The "part coloured blue" is the first of the rooms beyond the Portrait Gallery, and one of two large rooms where was the great restaurant during the Exhibition of 1862. They have been used for miscellaneous objects ever since—sometimes for the exhibition of naval models, sometimes for one thing and sometimes for another. But, two years ago, on February 29, 1876, it was suggested that they should be surrendered to us for the Portrait Gallery. That was the suggestion of the then First Commissioner. On the 13th of March, accordingly, Mr. Lingen, the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, replies to the Chief Commissioner—"The Treasury agrees to the proposal as above, "but with two conditions. The first was about the naval models—which I will not trouble you with; and the second was—
    "No work now nor hereafter, without further reference to this Board, be undertaken beyond what is required for immediate purposes,"
    —that is reasonable enough—
    "and is such as in nowise commits the Government to a definite mode of occupying these premises, the ultimate disposal of which is uncertain."
    Nothing, of course, could be more satisfactory to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery than this general stipulation; for, much as we wanted additional space, we might pause—we ought to have paused—before we accepted that concession of additional space as amounting to anything like an obligation upon us to remain for evermore contented with our present unsafe and inadequate accommodation. We asked for it as temporary accommodation. Mr. Lingen says, emphatically, it shall be temporary; and nobody wants a more satisfactory

    765
    reply. That was about two years ago. On the same day, Mr. Lingen writes to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, giving to them, and defining the rooms so assigned by that letter of the 13th of March, 1876. Well, at that time youmight have said the sun had come out early in spring; but three days after we had the usual result, for a spring frost overtook us. Another letter came from the Board of Works, saying that they were unable to make provision in the Estimates for the extension, or for a more convenient approach, from the main road. That, of course, damped our hopes for that year; but it did not cancel the standing promise, and, on the 29th of September in that year, our secretary, Mr. Scharf, wrote a letter to the Board of Works recalling the promise of March, and proposing, in the name of the Trustees, certain suggestions as to how to lay out the space which we had every right to suppose our own, and, above all things, calling attention to the danger of fire incurred within the last few months by the introduction of gas jets. Will the House readily believe that in this building, so temporary, so combustible, so crammed with everything in the world that would blaze away like tow and pitch, the authorities, whoever they may be, had actually without telling us—the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery—Trustees, in the name of the Queen, of that magnificent collection which could not be replaced, and containing works of art worth £50,000, though the mere money value is the least thing—laid gas pipes in that place? Is not that inconceivable? And two years ago they opened a department of cookery, and put a furnace down there just under our rooms—a furnace, with everything ready for a bonfire. I have some difficulty in bringing this matter before the House, for I cannot divest myself of the idea that I am a nurse speaking to a lot of little girls in muslin frocks about not playing with lucifer matches—the cases are identical, but not the way of meeting them; for the nurse has a right to scold these naughty little girls, as it would not be respectful to scold Her Majesty's Government, for they are persons of ripe age, in full possession of their faculties; majors in the eye of the law. On November the 6th, 1877, Mr. Scharf, our secretary, again protested against the
    766
    introduction of gas into the central building. Mr. Lingen, in replying, on the 20th of November, 1877, enclosed a copy of a letter from the Chief Commissioner, and stated that for these reasons—
    "My Lords are of opinion that they would not be warranted on the statement before them in prohibiting the use of gas in the galleries needed for the Civil Service examinations."
    That brings me to another point. What had been done with these rooms that ought to have been ours during the last two years? I shall, before I have done, explain the condition of the lower gallery. The big room upstairs was turned over to the Civil Service Commissioners for examinations. There it still is, with tables, benches, ink-stains, ink-pots, and everything else to match; and accordingly the Civil Service Commission, which I suppose is not so very poor, has taken the ewe lamb of the National Portrait Gallery. But what is the drift of the enclosure in Mr. Lingen's letter from the first Commissioner? He says it is impossible, without having this gas, which was laid on without notice to us, for the Commissioners to examine in winter. And, therefore, because the Civil Service Commission, which might examine where it pleased, chooses to examine in these rooms, this Portrait Collection is to be subjected to this enormous and unnecessary risk. What can be so preposterous as that? Then he goes on to say that the South Kensington Museum is always to be seen by gas. Of course, that may be so. I trust it may prove safe. But it was built with the intention of being fire-proof, so that gas might be used without danger accruing. These committee rooms, however, these refreshment sheds, these temporary ebullitions of the Exhibition of 1862, were constructed—cheap, nasty, and rapidly—of the most inflammable materials possible. There is more balm in Gilead yet. At last we are told, as a great comfort, that "gas pipes also run under the gallery immediately under the National Portrait Gallery." We complain of gas being next door, and they reply—"Never mind, dear fellows, the gas below you is much more dangerous. Bless your stars you are not worse off." That was on the 1st—not the 5th—of November. The next letter was sent by Mr. Scharf, to point

    767
    out that the National Portrait Gallery building was temporary and combustible, while the South Kensington Museum was the contrary; and observe that there was no gas either in the British Museum or the National Gallery. Well, but this building, which I have shown to be combustible, is also in every way unfit for pictures, except in the last resort. The floor is made of rough wood—so rough that it never can be washed down or cleaned; and the consequence is that there is a perpetual cloud of insidious dust rising from it, to the very great detriment of the pictures, which are plainly suffering from it. Not one of those arrangements which modem science has, with eager emulation, been following in the galleries of London, Vienna, Dresden, and all over the world—not one of those appliances can in the most rude, rough, rudimental way be applied to our gallery. Yet we submit for the present, and at least we contend for getting this ground-floor gallery. That, I believe, would give us a foundation on which we could plant our busts, our statues, and our casts, which, of course, are very heavy, but which could be set up there. At present they are put on brackets against one of the boundary walls, which is luckily included in our lot, and against which we are able to place them without fear of some frightful catastrophe.
    Now, I must direct the attention of the House to another circumstance very briefly. Within a year after the creation of our gallery, Lord Stanhope, who was himself both Chairman of the Trustees of the Portrait Gallery and one of the Trustees of the British Museum, communicated with the British Museum, in the person of its principal librarian, Sir Antony Panizzi, under these circum-stance. There was, and is, a collection of portraits belonging to the British Museum, which had been gradually accumulated there before either the National Gallery or the National Portrait Gallery were formed. But in the British Museum it was comparatively useless, forming no proper part of its scope; and, there being no proper place in which to show them, these pictures were left in obscurity, hanging up behind the natural history casts. They are not portraits exclusively of Englishmen; but a large portion of them—probably 88, as I computed by
    768
    rapidly running through the list—might come within our scope. Lord Stanhope, in making this application in February 1857 to the British Museum for a loan of their pictures, gave a pledge, on behalf of the Portrait Gallery, that, if the British Museum looked favourably on his application, the National Portrait Gallery would, of course, avoid—unless in very special cases—making purchases of portraits which might be the same, or nearly the same, as those which are now in the Museum. Sir Antony Panizzi, on behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum, very heartily answered, on the 3rd of March, that the Trustees would have great pleasure in meeting the wishes of the National Portrait Gallery Board, so far as they might have the legal power; and so the matter stood. There is no doubt—not a shadow of doubt has been thrown upon it from that day to this—that the legal power exists. Then the British Museum has lent pictures under similar circumstances to the National Gallery. The portraits are virtually assigned to the National Portrait Gallery by the British Museum; they only wait to be moved until the gallery has wall space or screen space whereon to hang them. The National Portrait Gallery has, with wise economy, followed out for 21 years the pledge then given—not to buy portraits identical with those in the Museum. And what is the result? That, interesting and full as our collection is, with its nearly 500 portraits, there is no picture of Bacon or of Oliver Cromwell; no likeness at all of Newton or Commodore Anson, or Speaker Onslow, or Cranmer, or Usher, or Baxter, or George Buchanan; or of the antiquaries Camden, Dugdale, Spelman, and Cotton. All these great men are in the British Museum, but they will be virtually part of the National Portrait Gallery, we trust and believe, as soon as the National Portrait Gallery can be a good hospitable host to them. The application was not for a present of the pictures. The Trustees cannot give away their property, though they can lend it. We only asked them to do by us what it was legally open to them to do, and what they have since done to the National Gallery, and what, if conceded, will make the National Portrait Gallery infinitely more interesting and complete than it at present is.

    769
    Well, you may ask, having done with the examination room—-what is the other important thing that keeps us out of the downstairs gallery which I have mentioned; what is there there at present which we should have to turn out if we went there? I have already pointed out that the occupying tenant is what is called the Educational Exhibition of the South Kensington Museum. No doubt, education is a grand thing. Nobody in the world would say a word against it. Nothing could be better, no feature more worthy of a great nation, than an Educational Exhibition. But no man can conceive what this one is. I would invite the House; you, Sir, and Her Majesty's Ministers, to go and see that Educational Exhibition which fills this gallery for which we are sueing. It would elevate all your minds. It would charm your taste. You would see there a very large assortment of globes, and all of them with their prices marked, which run up from 18 d. to £18. You would see—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am afraid, would look at them with envy—fao simile nuggets from Australia. There is also a beautiful collection of magic lantern slides. Then there is something as to which I must throw myself on the indulgence of the House, for I find it utterly impossible to explain what it is. You will find there the "Foundations of Takimetry." Then there are charming doll houses, dolls, puzzles, and a quantity of those pretty pink shells you can buy at Margate and Ramsgate. There are also painted beasts and birds; some nice water-colours, such as you may see in the national schools; a great many benches; and, finally, 14 clocks, none of them going, and fourof them made by Sir John Bennett. This, Sir, is the National Collection, which keeps Newton and Cromwell, and Cranmer and Usher, and Bacon, and other great men, out of the sight and appreciation of the people of England. I appeal to you whether such a state of things ought to continue any longer? I have put my case fairly before the House. I do not pretend to say that the galleries we are in are galleries we should like to occupy. So far as mere arrangements go, they are very inconvenient. But beyond that inconvenience, there is this risk—which really is almost too painful to dwell on—of immediate and perfectly helpless destruction. Still, as they are,
    770
    and such as they are, until we have—as we have a right to claim in some future years, when there may not be such a pull on the Estimates as we have now—some proper, decent, and sufficient National Portrait Gallery, I contend that we have on all accounts every reason to claim, at all events, from Her Majesty's Government their fulfilment of their promise of two years ago. Thinking and believing I have made that plain to the House, I beg leave, Sir, to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
    LORD FRANCIS HERVEY,said, he desired to second the Motion as one who had no official connection with the Gallery, and simply as one of the public who valued historical works of art. It was an anomaly that works of art and portraits of distinguished Englishmen should be kept in obscurity to avoid the cost of finding the necessary accomodation. He read with humiliation and shame the Correspondence which had been placed in their hands, for it seemed almost to indicate a conspiracy to prevent the portrait collection acquiring the value which it ought to have for the nation, considering that it comprised authentic portraits of all the Sovereigns and Princes of the Realm from the time of the Plantagenets, and of many distinguished Englishmen. The words of Charles Surface might well be applied to the nation; and with justice one might exclaim—"How little this nation cares for the portraits of its ancestors!" Surely no one could pretend to be satisfied with matters as they were now? His hon. Friend the Member for the Cambridge University was entitled to demand from the Government that these works of a historical and national character should be protected from fire and flame, and from the dust and dirt place in which they were now stown from the public sight, and from that inspection which no doubt would result in the instruction and benefit of the people.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come for the Treasury to carry out the promise made by it in March 1876, of appropriating certain specified portions of the Exhibition Buildings at South Kensington for the accommodation of the National Portrait Gallery, in addition to the apartments already occupied by that Gallery."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
    MR. W. CARTWRIGHTsaid, the question was one of real importance; it was, in fact, whether a collection of pictures which was national, and which had been considered of sufficient importance to receive an annual subsidy, should continue to be relegated to a lumber-room? His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge had already drawn attention to the condition of the building in which these pictures were at present housed; and, from a personal inspection made since this Motion had been upon the Paper, he could corroborate all that he had said, and declare that the dangers by which the pictures were surrounded were real and not imaginary. The building was in part a wooden shed, in part lath-and-plaster, with just the amount of brickwork necessary to keep the whole structure together. Therefore, it behoved the Government to look seriously into the question. The rooms which were originally promised were promised before it was necessary to apply the space to the Civil Service examinations. It would be well for the present to suspend the proposed transfer of some of the rooms for the purposes of these examinations until some other arrangements should be made in favour of the Gallery; but, if such arrangements could not be made, then it ought to be a question whether it was desirable to transfer the Gallery elsewhere? Meanwhile, he thought it necessary to enter his protest against the action of the Treasury in the matter.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he should not have offered any observations, had it not been for the frequent opportunities he had had during the last few months of visiting the picture and sculpture galleries abroad; and on all occasions he had been forcibly impressed with the contrast presented by them with those of our own country, which were greatly inferior in the accommodation they presented for works of art. He, therefore, thought the House and the country were much indebted to the hon. Member for Cambridge University for bringing forward the question of our National Portrait Gallery, andhe(SirEardley Wilmot) should certainly cordially support him in his Resolution. They might recollect that it was one of the customs of ancient Rome that on solemn festivals and public holidays the busts and statues of its
    772
    heroes and illustrious men were carried in procession through the streets, in order that the citizens, looking upon that solemn ceremony, and seeing the respect thus paid to their memory for great services done to their country, might be led to emulate their noble deeds. Although we might not follow the Roman example, yet by providing more commodious and accessible places for the portraits and historical pictures of our eminent men, and by affording the public greater facilities for seeing them, while, at the same time, we encouraged high art and culture, we might cherish the memory of illustrious actions, and lead our youth and all classes of our fellow-countrymen to admire and respect, the doers of them, and endeavour to follow their example. Of the importance of this he had been made more sensible by the want of reverence for the past, and for those who had gone before us, which was one of the characteristics of the present age. Mention had been made of gas and firing by an hon. Member; and he might observe that in no foreign gallery which he had visited was gas admitted—not only on account of the danger of conflagration, but also because it was felt that the use of gas had a gradually, but certainly deleterious, effect on the pictures or statues; and he found it was even a subject of complaint, sometimes among visitors to the Italian galleries, that in winter they were closed somewhat early, in consequence of there being no provision made for lighting them. He could not help expressing his regret that our country did not afford greater facilities to young artists to copy the great works of art abroad; and the hon. Member for Cambridge University had used an expression in which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) fully concurred—namely, that he felt humiliated by the inferior advantages in our own country when compared with the liberal encouragement extended to genius abroad, where magnificent galleries and buildings, both public and private, contained works open to every one to admire and copy. He joined in the appeal made to the Secretary to the Treasury, not only to find more ample and suitable accommodation for the portraits now at South Kensington, in places where they could be seen—the rooms containing them were used for

    773
    various other purposes—but also to provide for the reception of those numerous worthies now in the British Museum, many of whom had been enumerated by the noble Lord who seconded the Resolution, and who surely deserved a better fate than to hang there unobserved and forgotten. While on the subject of this Portrait Gallery, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) might, perhaps, be allowed to advert to what was not strictly belonging to the question before the House—namely, the opening of public galleries, gratis, on Sundays. He had uniformly voted against that proposal; but he must say, that, after having seen the galleries abroad, and the pleasure and enjoyment they afforded to those classes which were necessarily debarred from visiting them during the working days of the week, and the orderly way in which the visits were conducted on Sundays, he could not help feeling that this privilege might safely be extended to the working classes of our own country, and he was sure they would show themselves as worthy of that privilege as the people of other nations. He should cordially support the Resolution of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beres-ford Hope).
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he should be happy indeed, if in the few remarks he had to address to the House, he could excite the amusement or attention which his hon. Friend's observations had caused. He confessed that if it had not been for the infectious good-nature which they always recognized in him, he should have felt that the inflammable nature of the building in which the National Portrait Gallery's collection was stored had communicated itself to the Trustees, and for some moments he almost felt like those naughty children of whom the hon. Gentleman talked as deserving a scolding. Turning in all seriousness to the points advanced, he felt bound to say that both from the perusal of the Papers which had been laid before the House, and from what he had himself seen, he was disposed, although he could not on the part of the Government accept the terms of the Motion, to go a very long way with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) in the objects which he had in view. Hon. Members who had studied this question, and indeed all who had
    774
    read the Papers, would bear in mind that, roughly speaking, on the south side of these buildings there was a central block which was used as the refreshment department of the Exhibition of 1862. It was that part which stood on the right or to the eastward of this central block with which they had in this instance to do. The principal portion of this was occupied by the National Portrait Gallery. He would venture to say that anyone who had ever seen these pictures could not help coming to the conclusion that the collection was worthy of the utmost development, and also that it was insufficiently housed at the present time. He understood that besides the 450 or 500 pictures now in the Gallery there were 60 to 80 more ready to come in as soon as wall space could be found for them. Then the question was, in what manner could the relief be given? In 1876 there was a proposal to increase the space of the National Portrait Gallery by two additional rooms, one of which was on the ground-floor immediately under the present Gallery, and the other the easternmost division of the central block. The central block was now occupied by the Civil Service Commissioners, and he was bound to admit the truthfulness of the description given of it; and, indeed, it might well bear to some of the candidates the idea of a chamber of torture. The portion proposed to be given up, however, was only about one-third of the upper storey of that building; and his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works informed him that the structural details would render it extremely difficult to screen off such a portion in a manner which would make efficient provision against fire. It would be very difficult to give up that portion of the centre block, though he was willing to confess that it was intended, in the first instance, that they should be allotted to the National Portrait Gallery. The Civil Service Commission occupied the central block for 60 days in the year, and it would cost some £1,200 a-year to provide the same accommodation elsewhere. He would now state what, with the concurrence of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, might be conceded to the Trustees—namely, the portion of the building which was under

    775
    the present Gallery. To this his hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) offered two objections—one on the ground of insufficiency, the other on the ground of danger from fire. So far as the first objection was concerned, he thought it would be met by an offer which, if accepted, would double the accommodation the Trustees now possessed. It would be only necessary to construct two doorways—one right and one left—a small covered way, and also a staircase at each end, leading to the gallery above, which would enable visitors, when there was a large attendance, to circulate without inconvenience. It would, of course, be necessary to remove the objects which were now exhibited there. Large cases of pencils and remnants of school desks were, no doubt, of great value to those who were interested in education; but they had been in their present position for some years, and the time had arrived when it might be said that they had served their purpose. It was, therefore, his intention, and he believed that of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner, to press upon the Science and Art Depart-that, without doing away with a collection to which they attached value, they might select the objects of undoubted interest which it possessed for exhibition elsewhere and allow the rooms he alluded to to be given up forthwith to the Trustees. A more formidable question had been raised, however, in the course of the discussion—namely, whether anything that could be done on the present ground would meet all future requirements. That was a very large question, one which involved several Departments of Art and of Science, and affected those who were interested in historical collections, antiquities, and other matters of that kind; and he trusted he might be allowed not to say anything with respect to it at present, lest some hasty expression might, perhaps, hereafter ripen into a crop of disappointments. In these matters they were obliged, to a certain extent, to live from hand-to-mouth; and he hoped that, pending the settlement of the larger question, his hon. Friend would accept the extra accommodation of which the trustees were in want and which he hoped they would at once obtain. He was, he confessed, somewhat frightened at the long list of English
    776
    worthies to which his hon. Friend had alluded. What they should look to now was the practical question whether, without prejudice to anything that might be proposed in the future, the additional accommodation he had spoken of should not be accepted as an instalment. It would, at least, be an encouragement to those who might be willing to offer their pictures for the enjoyment of the public. In one of his letters the Secretary to the Trustees had spoken of the necessity of erecting pedestals on the ground-floor. He trusted that when they were erected, and when the friends of the hon. Member for Cambridge University presented him with a statue of himself, it would be placed on one of the pedestals, so that his hon. Friend might gaze over the work he had accomplished. What he had proposed had at least this merit—namely, that it could be proceeded with, probably, at once; but the House would allow him to make this reservation, that in the absence of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council—through illness, he regretted to say, but who, he had no doubt, would assent to his proposal—he could not, the responsible Minister not being present, give a positive promise on the subject.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE,in reply, thanked his hon. and gallant Friend for the candid, satisfactory, and straightforward answer he had just given. He joined in the regret expressed as to the cause of the absence of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council, but he willingly accepted a limited promise which was accompanied by such words as "forthwith" and "at once." He wished to supply an omission in his speech and record a very valuable gift which had been added to the Gallery by the wisdom and generosity of the Serjeants of the late Serjeants' Inn, consisting of their series of eminent lawyers and judges in 26 pictures, some by artists of fame, besides engravings, and state that that collection was already in the Gallery.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYregretted that the time of the House should have been taken up by a discussion of this kind, when the matter might have easily been settled by the authorities at the Treasury.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS (BIRMINGHAM SCHEME, &c.)

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Sir, I am sorry to be obliged to take up the time of the House with a question which to the House may appear not of great importance; but by the constituency which I am here to represent, it is considered of the greatest importance. I regret very much the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon) is not present; and I regret, as I am sure we all must, the cause of his absence. But by Act of Parliament only a certain time is allowed—I think 60 days—after a school scheme has been laid upon the Table, wherein the propriety of that scheme can be questioned. Therefore, although I have put off my Motion in the hope the noble Lord might be present, I am compelled to bring it on now, or I may have no other opportunity, and the scheme may receive the sanction of Parliament unquestioned. My Motion is—
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse Her assent to the Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth in Birmingham, and for the management of the Foundations of John Milward and Joanna Lench, in the county of Warwick."
    The school, as I need hardly tell the House, for many hon. Members are well acquainted with it, is one of the most ancient character, having come down to vis from the time of King Edward VI. It was not exactly established, but it was restored, by that Monarch in 1552. The importance of this school will be at once recognized when I inform the House that the increased value of the present income is £15,000 a-year, and that the number of children receiving education is not less, if it is not more, than 2,000. The town of Birmingham, therefore, may be forgiven if it takes the greatest interest in this educational institution, and with my constituents, the question I am now asking the House to consider is regarded as one of considerable importance. There have been many past efforts made in the town for the improvement of the management of the school. Going back to 1842, the town council of Birmingham, representing at that time the population of that great town, humbly asked that
    778
    five members of a representative character might be admitted to the board of governors of the school; and again, in 1861, they endeavoured, by means of a Private Bill, to obtain a Private Act to enable the mayor and ex-mayor of the town to be members of the governing body; but in both these attempts they failed. In 1866 the Schools Inquiry Commissioners inquired into this school, as they did into many other schools in various parts of the country. They recommended that out of 21 governors, 10 should be appointed by the town council of the borough; but the town council were not satisfied with this, and wished that the whole power of management should be transferred to the corporation; but every proposition, every attempt at reform made in past years to give the direction into the hands of the public of Birmingham, through their municipal body, has been persistently, continuously resisted by the governors of the school. The School Inquiry Commission reported upon this school, and one or two extracts I may give the House. They state that scarcely a child of the poorest of the population was to be found in the school; but almost the whole benefit of this great charitable educational institution was given to the superior classes. They say that the well-to-do tradesman sends his son to the school free, for the school is free, and has been so for 300 years. But the tradesman's porter sends his son to the national school, where he pays for his education 2d., 3d., or 4d. a-week, as the case may be. Canon Miller, a clergyman well known to many, and then a resident clergyman in the town, said the effect of the principle of self-government has been that members of all the Nonconformist Bodies are particularly excluded from the management of the schools. Now, I need not tell the House what is the general feeling in Birmingham when such is the state of things; for if there is a town in the Kingdom where Nonconformists are numerous and influential, Birmingham is the town which must specially be pointed to. There were some other points in the evidence to which I might refer. One witness, a resident of eminence and influence, stated that up to that time no member of the town council had even been elected to the board of governors, and no Member of Parliament for the borough had ever sat on the board with

    779
    one exception—and he believed he was elected before he became a Member of Parliament—the late Mr. Spooner, a Member of the Party opposite. It was stated further that up to that time 23 gentlemen had held the position of Mayor of Birmingham, but not one of these had been elected to the board. I believe that up to now 30, if not more, gentlemen have occupied that eminent position—Mayor of Birmingham—and I understand some relaxation has taken place, and two of those who have occupied the office of mayor have had a seat on the governing board. As might be expected, other things have followed this system. It was represented that the expenditure for the classical branches of education was large and expensive, while the provision made for elementary branches of education was insufficiently small. I could say more; but throughout the whole establishment from end to end the advantage of the schools came to that class who are represented on the board of management, and the intentions of the founders of this great educational institution are frustrated solely on account of the manner in which the governors of the school are appointed. The Endowed Schools Commission, which investigated the whole subject, presented a scheme in 1873. That scheme did not please everybody, but still it was such that it received a large share of support, and if it had been passed it would have settled the question. It was not called in the House of Commons; but it was opposed in the House of Lords by the Marquess of Salisbury. I have taken the trouble to read the debate that then took place, in order to ascertain on what grounds that scheme was rejected, and, as I think, most unfortunately rejected. The Endowed Schools Commissioners proposed in that scheme that the schools should be under a board of 21 governors—eight were to be what are called co-optative governors, one was to be appointed by the teachers—male and female—in the school, eight by the town council of the borough, and four by the school board of the borough. In that case, there would have been 12 representatives of the corporation and school board, eight governors self-elected, and one elected by the teachers, and the majority would be with the representative class, the school board and corporation. This compromise would have been accepted
    780
    generally in the borough; but, unfortunately, the other House of Parliament rejected it. The ground of the objection to the scheme was that there was not sufficient provision for religious instruction in accordance with the views, belief, and practice of the Church of England. I believe that this objection was made under mistake, for I cannot, after reading the words of the charter, believe that anybody concerned in it had any idea to shut out the majority of the people of Birmingham from the benefit of this school. The only ground upon which that argument seems to be founded is, that a Bishop—I think the Bishop of Worcester—is the Visitor of the school, and, in concert with the governors, does certain things in the fulfilment of his duty. It was urged that, because a Bishop was in the matter, nobody but those who believe in Bishops had a right of entry into that great institution, on the ground that the scheme was rejected by the other House of Parliament, and it failed with regard to the question of religious instruction. That was the ground upon which the other House of Parliament rejected it, and if this House was to take the course pursued by the other House on that ground it would reject this scheme. The scheme having been rejected, it fell to the lot of the Charity Commissioners, who have succeeded the Endowed School Commissioners, to found a new scheme, and in this new scheme they have adhered precisely to the course taken by their predecessors as regards religious instruction. I do not want to discuss the religious system at all. I am quite certain the Government in this scheme will take all needful means to give such religious instruction as they think wise to the scholars who are under their care. The point I want to call the attention of the House to is the constitution of the governing body. The people of Birmingham object to the scheme of the Charity Commissioners on this, among other grounds—that, whereas the school has been free for 300 years, it is now proposed to establish a system of fees. I formerly thought that free schools were not so good as schools in which some fees are payable; but I confess the more I consider the question the more I am inclined to think that the opinion was not a wise one, and that a free school after all is something better than where something would have

    781
    to be paid. If I wanted an illustration I or an argument to support that view, I would point to a remarkable case in the city of Edinburgh, where the schools contain from 4,000 to 5,000 children—schools which have been established by the accumulated funds derived from Heriot's Hospital; and I learn from good authority that in the attendance of the children in free schools there was a very large percentage of the children whose names are on the rolls attending schools, and that the general advantages of free schools are shown in the city to be altogether indisputable, and such as might well afford, in my mind, and, I might add, in the minds of others, a change of opinion in regard to the general advantages of free schools. But I shall leave that question, and I think my hon. Friend who will follow me, who is more acquainted with that subject, will deal with this question when he states his views to the House on the point. With regard to the constitution of the governing body, the present scheme proposes that out of the 21 governors, nine should be co-optative or self-elected. The town council shall appoint eight, and the teachers, men and women together, shall appoint one. There remain, then, three governors to be appointed elsewhere or by some other authority. In the proposed scheme of 1873 four were appointed by the school board, they being representatives of the population of Birmingham just as freely and clearly as the town council is. In this case, instead of giving eight co-optative governors, this scheme proposes nine—eight by the town council and one by the teachers, and three elected by the three Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London. What the corporation and the people of Birmingham object to is that the majority, which in the scheme of 1873 was given to the corporation and the school board, is reduced to a minority, the school board being altogether got rid of, The co-optative members are increased by one, and three members are to be appointed by Oxford, Cambridge, and London Universities. If the right hon. Member for the London University (Mr. Lowe) were here I would ask his opinion whether it would be well to give these three Senates power to appoint a governor of a school of a town with which they have no connection, and about
    782
    whose circumstances they may be held to be entirely unacquainted. I am not arguing the question between the town council or the school board; but I think this will be clear to the House—that on the whole, if you have eight or nine members to be elected by the town council, it is the simplest way altogether to allow the representative members to be elected by the same body, whether it were a town council or whether it were a school board. The representative system should be adhered to, and the people, to a large extent, would be satisfied. I believe the public of Birmingham would prefer the three members to be elected and appointed by the corporation rather than the matter should be under the control of the three Universities. I would like to ask the House one simple question. I was looking last night into a very interesting book, which I believe nobody has ever read through—I refer to Whitaker's Almanack—and I looked to see who were the Charity Commissioners. I will not mention their names; but I think five of them sat in London, and no doubt they performed their duties to the best of their knowledge and capacity. I would like to ask whether these five are more likely to know what is better for this great school at Birmingham than the town council, the school board, or the public of that great city. The town council it is admitted throughout the Kingdom is one of the most eminent of our municipal bodies. It has the management of the gas works of 300,000 or 400,000 people; it has the power of laying out large sums for the supply of water to that great population; it has the paving of streets and the management of the sewage of the town, and also the management of the police; it has also the conduct of all that is necessary for the sanitary condition of the town. Now, the school board is a body of which the public has heard a great deal. I believe there is no school board in the Kingdom that has done more for education than that of Birmingham, excepting the School Board of the City of London. The Birmingham board has the education of 22,000 children, and Parliament has entrusted that board to be elected by the ratepayers of the town, and they have the care of the education of a vast number of the children of that population. I should say that the Univer-

    783
    sities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London have no pretence of pointing out to the corporation or the school board of Birmingham the knowledge of the wants of that town as regarded the great educational question. In the scheme there is a description of the classes to be appointed on the board, and it states that no person shall continue to be a govenor unless he carries on a trade, business, profession, or calling within the municipal borough of Birmingham or some parish adjoining thereto, or resides within a convenient distance, such distance to be determined from time to time by the governors. I should like to ask the hon. Members for Oxford, Cam-bride, or the London University, whether it was convenient, right, or just to the population of Birmingham, to the corporation of that great town, or to the school board, that these Universities should be called upon to select somebody in the district, and put him or them on the governing body of this school, with the expectation that these three gentlemen so appointed will be more eligible in any degree than eight or 12 that the school board might be called upon to elect. It is obvious that the plan is one on behalf of which no fair argument could be offered. Last year I went with a deputation to see the Charity Commissioners; and, though they heard all we had to say, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that they did not pretend to have any kind of argument in favour of their proposition as against that which the town made. Last summer, also, I went with a deputation to meet the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, and the whole question was discussed before him fairly. When the deputation withdrew I stayed with the noble Lord, and was asked if I thought the town of Birmingham, on the whole, would be satisfied if, as regarded the three members for the Universities, that portion of the scheme were omitted—whether it would be opposed in Birmingham? With regard to the free schools, I gave my honest opinion that all my constituents were in favour of free schools, and that if they removed that objectionable part upon which the town felt humiliated, they would, on the whole, be fairly satisfied, and the scheme would be accepted, and no further difficulty would arise; and that, so far as I had any influence, I
    784
    would advise them to accept the scheme. I confess I was very much surprised, after the question was put to me at the Privy Council, when the scheme came forth, to find that the three University members were still retained. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for London University whether he thought the Senate would proceed to appoint anybody, and he said he really did not know. He thought, perhaps, they might have a committee, or some one person to recommend another person, and that the appointment would be made, no doubt, perfectly honestly and to the best of the judgment of the Senate. Allowing they did their best, it is quite obvious it must be better that Birmingham through its well-known and legal representative members of the corporation or of the school board—I prefer the corporation myself—it must be better that one of these bodies should have the choice of those three members rather than that they should be chosen by the Universities upon whom the duties have been assigned in this scheme. I understand that, though it is competent for me to move the omission of any clause from the scheme, I cannot propose the insertion of something else. Therefore, what I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will no doubt reply to me, is whether he will sanction the withdrawal of the scheme for a time, and that the Charity Commissioners be given to understand that that particular point may be re-considered, and probably they might take away these three members whom they propose to have elected by the three Universities and transfer them to the corporation of Birmingham. If that were done, I believe the whole question would be permanently settled to the general satisfaction of the town, and we should hear no more of it. If it is not done, we shall have continued attempts on the part of the corporation and the people of Birmingham to get rid of this very objectionable scheme, and other means will be taken to apply either to Parliament or to the Charity Commissioners on the subject. Before I sit down, I should like to remove the impression as regards the management of the school. I am happy to say that the management of the school has undergone a most salutary change during the last few years, and there is much greater

    785
    satisfaction in the management of the school than in past years. The whole of that has been brought about mainly through the corporation, who had infused into it a new spirit, and this magnificent school is now conducted in such a satisfactory way that no complaint is made as to its management. You have a great population, a great industry, great intelligence; you have a corporation directing the population wisely in all that it does; and there can be no doubt in my mind that the corporation is wise enough to take its fair share at least in the management of this great institution, whose property has been created by the industry of the town, and whose children, to the extent of 2,000, are now in the schools, who will form a large portion of the intelligent population of the town. I have made no attack on the schools or on the present Government. The course taken by the Charity Commissioners is, I think, humiliating and somewhat offensive to the town of Birmingham. I think it would be a good thing to allow the scheme to be withdrawn in the manner I have proposed. I believe I speak the opinions of a vast majority; the minority is not to be counted, it is so small on this matter; and if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would consent to this, it would give great satisfaction to the population. In conclusion, I beg to move the Resolution.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I rise for the purpose of seconding the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. I have taken some personal interest in this matter, because I know the subject is one that affects my constituents, and indeed the vast majority of the inhabitants of Birmingham. The public bodies of the town had urged the Charity Commissioners to make a local inquiry, in order to satisfy themselves as to the state of public opinion on the subject, but the Commissioners had refused. The town council and the school board had protested against the scheme, public meetings had been held, which had been of an open character, and presided over by the mayor; and upon all these occasions an overwhelming majority has pronounced in favour of the proposition of my right hon. Friend. The objections to the scheme as it stands are stated to be twofold. In the first instance, we object to the alterations which
    786
    are proposed to be made in the system, which has prevailed for more than 300 years, under which the school has been a free school. It is rather strange that I, as a Radical, representing] a Radical constituency, should have to appeal to a Conservative Government not to destroy an institution which has confessedly worked well up to the present time, and which no one in the constituency desires to have altered, and which is likely to be much more useful in the future than in the past. Now that the Elementary Education Acts have been passed, and the number of children going through the public schools of Birmingham are numerous, I think we may well hope more of the poorer classes will be enabled to give their children the advantages of a higher system of education, if only the doors are not closed upon them by a system of fees. It seems that the proposal for change is made at the very moment when the poor are enabled to avail themselves of the advantages offered. We say that the school should remain free for children of all classes. If not, the whole question ought to be relegated to the governors for the time being. This, after all, is a secondary matter in comparison with what is the broad issue raised by my right hon. Friend. It was whether or no the people of Birmingham are fit to be entrusted with the management of their own schools. The scheme proposed is altogether unsatisfactory. Although the governing body was to consist of only 21 members, there were six sets of electors, residing in four or five different towns. I put it to the House, as a simple proposition, whether the representatives of the people, the town council by preference, should not have the nomination of the whole of the board; or at least, if it is considered necessary, as an experiment, to introduce other elements, that the representative element should be in a majority. There was a time in the history of the school when the majority of the governors consisted of Dissenters and Liberals, and they were so liberal that they were satisfied with maintaining a majority of one, and leaving the remaining nine to be elected by Conservatives and Churchmen; but, on one occasion, when there happened to be an election to fill two vacancies, one of the Nonconformist members could not resist the temptation of a very fine

    787
    morning in May to go trout-fishing. He went, and the temporary majority of Conservatives and Churchmen thus secured elected two of their body, and no Dissenter has ever since been elected. At all events, up to recent years, no Dissenter and no Liberal had ever been elected. The result was for a long period complaints of favouritism in the nominations and of extravagance in the expenditure, complaints which had now been remedied; but distinctly in consequence of the pressure of public opinion, and not by the initiative of this self-elected board. Yet the scheme proposed to lessen the influence of this popular opinion, and to perpetuate the influence of the self-electing system, from which such grievances had resulted. The question is whether Birmingham is fit to be entrusted with the management of the school. It may be said that gentlemen are fitted to the members of a corporation which is entrusted with the management of sewage, or to be members of a school board which looks after the elementary education of the people, but have nothing to do and are not fit to be entrusted with the higher education of the people; but I say that no town in the Kingdom has shown a deeper interest in culture and in education than Birmingham. It has just been determined, with the full assent of the people, to spend £20,000 in the improvement and enlargement of its Free Library and Art Gallery, one of the finest of such institutions in the Provinces. There are thousands of members of, and subscribers to, the Midland Institute, which is one of the largest institutions in the country devoted to the work of secondary education. Sir Josiah Mason has established a Science College at a cost of £300,000 or £400,000. These things prove the interest that is taken in general culture and in higher education, and the citizens of such a town are to be denied the management of this school! It is said that town councils want intelligence, culture, and breadth of appreciation; but how is it likely they should be better if, when there is a question of culture, you say these men are not fit to undertake it? You leave it to be inferred that they find an appropriate occupation in sewage and other matters. I hope that the Government will listen to the appeal that has been addressed to them. I feel
    788
    that if they do not it will be as useless to argue with them as with the master of many legions; but we shall at least have made our final protest against the scheme. It is unpopular with our constituents, and sooner or later I believe the wisdom and justice of the House will secure its revision, and give us the management of our own school.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse Her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth in Birmingham, and for the management of the foundations of John Milward and Joanna Lench in the county of Warwick."—(Mr. John Bright)
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, he did not represent any interest in Birmingham, nor had he been communicated with on the subject; but he would speak as an independent Member, who had lived long in Birmingham, and knew something of its public life, at least, as far as his political opinions did not exclude him from its public offices. The question was whether a great educational foundation, 300 years old, which had done great service and sent many distinguished men to the Universities, which it was admitted had been fairly administered for many years past, should be administered under a thoughtful and impartial scheme, framed by the most competent authority, or whether the corporation, as now constituted, was a body better qualified than that indicated by the scheme to carry on the work. If it were a question of investing money raised by rates in making sewers or gas, he would say that the corporation, whether it fairly represented the town or not, should administer the funds, and the people must take the consequences. But, in dealing with funds, not one farthing of which came from the ratepayers, but were due to a magnificent act of Royal bounty, Parliament and the Crown, acting under proper advice, had the right, for the public good, to impose certain conditions on the management of the institution. What was the corporation of Birmingham? It consisted of 64 members, 63 of whom belonged to one political Party, and the sixty-fourth was expecting his doom if the threats of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite belonged were carried out. That

    789
    corporation, it was known, did not represent at all a minority, which was estimated at two-fifths of the population. Again, the school board, which was composed of the same Party as the corporation, was not noted for its liberality. Indeed, it was unique of its kind. It was the only board which refused its teachers liberty to give religious instruction to the children, even out of school. Such a body, however admirable in its composition, was scarcely fitted, in his opinion, to manage the funds of a great institution like King Edward's School. He would be the last to say a word against the culture of the town; it was as good as in any manufacturing town; but town councils were elected for other than educational purposes, and for reasons which had nothing to do with education. He thought the advantage which would be derived by the school from three of the governors being nominated by three seats of learning was undeniable. This would ensure there being on the board men who knew what real culture was, and who would help in keeping up a good tone in the school. As to the corporation, he thought they had a very fair share of the representation. They had eight members already against nine co-optative members and if the corporation used their important share of the representation wisely, he thought they would be able almost to determine what should be the course of education in this school. It was highly desirable that this institution should be kept a middle-class school. There were many points with regard to fees, &c, which, however, he would not now go into; but, with regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that the question before the House was whether they were fit in Birmingham to manage their own affairs, he desired to say that was not the question. The question was whether the Birmingham Corporation was a fit—or rather, indeed, the fittest—body to manage a middle-class school. The people of Birmingham had never been polled on whether they approved this or not; and if they were to go by the results of the last contested election, it was clear that the present corporation did not exactly represent the opinions of the town, unless it had changed since that time. Therefore, for all the grounds that he had
    790
    stated, and others he might name, he ventured to express a hope, without do-fending every detail of this scheme, that the House would not pass the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, were it not that he was responsible with Lord Ripon for the first scheme to which reference had been made, he should not have risen to address the House; but it might be well that he should briefly explain the ground on which they gave a majority of the governors to the representative bodies of Birmingham, and therefore show, he thought, why it should be desirable for the present Government to continue in the same course. In both schemes there were to be 21 governors, and they proposed, under the original scheme, to give eight to the town council, four to the school board, one to the teachers, and eight co-optative. The present scheme proposed to give eight to the town council, nine co-optative, one to the teachers, and three to the Universities; therefore, in this latter case, the majority were not elected by the bodies in Birmingham, whereas before they were so. The real question for the House to consider was whether it was better in the case of this great school and this great town that the majority of the governors should be appointed by the representative bodies or not? At the time of the original scheme the town council of Birmingham wished to have the governing body entirely representative. On the other hand, the governors wished a very much smaller share of the representation to be given to the town council than was finally given. A powerful body in Birmingham, called the Grammar School Re-form Association, composed of various religious denominations, wished the governing body to be divided so as not to have more than six co-optative members on the board. He was not going to say whether too large a share had been given to the co-optative section or not; but the scheme was accepted, though reluctantly, by the town council and by that Party in Birmingham which was represented by the three Members in that House, by the town council, and by the school board. The scheme was opposed in the House of Lords, not on the ground of the constitution of the board, but on the ground that some arrangement was required for religious

    791
    education—a point which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd). In this scheme, however, the provision with regard to religious instruction was perfectly clear; and, therefore, it was impossible that the governing body could imitate the conduct of the school board of Birmingham on that subject. The real point was whether one of the most magnificent institutions and one of the most progressive and powerful cities in the Empire should be out of harmony. His own views were not altogether in accord with the views entertained at Birmingham on the subject of education; but then Birmingham might not always remain of the same opinion as at present. No town was more in earnest on matters of education, nor was there any town in which the leading men had given more time to serve the cause of education. "Was it then advisable in framing a new scheme to run counter to the feelings of the town in regard to that school? Because there could be no mistake about the feelings of the town with regard to King Edward's School. He would not go into the question of the University nominees. It struck him that Birmingham was not the place to try that. They should trust to the educational zeal of the town. In supporting this Motion, he must not be supposed as admitting that it would be desirable to make education free. Having been a Member of the Schools Inquiry Commission, he felt with regard to the secondary and higher schools, that it would be no advantage to culture to make entrance to them free. He hoped, in conclusion, that the Motion of his right hon. Friend would be approved by the majority of the House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he regretted that the absence, from indisposition, of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon), imposed upon him the necessity of answering the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) and his supporters. He regretted the absence of the noble Lord, not only because of the reason of it, but because his noble Friend was more familiar with all the details of this question than he could pretend to be. However, he had a general acquaintance with the question; and from some consideration of it in former times, and from what had passed
    792
    in the present debate, he might venture to express his opinion, and to give the reasons why he could not accept the views which were put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the junior Member for Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. W. E. Forster) had put the matter in this way. He said—"I desire to see, and I think it is a fair thing you should see, a majority of the governing body composed of the representatives of the people of Birmingham." But did the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what the nature of the representative body would be under any circumstances, and especially if he and the Members for Birmingham succeeded in getting it altered in the way they wished? The right hon. Gentleman said that there should be elected members and co-optative members, and that of these the former should be in a majority. Did the right hon. Gentleman, however, recollect that co-optative members were to be kept up in the event of vacancy by election by the whole body; and that if that process were to go on the co-optative members in time would be absorbed altogether? They all admitted that in regard to the purposes for which town councils and corporations were elected, it was right that the majority should rule; but was it necessarily desirable, in a question of education and the direction of a great institution, to put the whole management into the hands of a body elected for the management of the physical condition of the town, and the management of the gas and waterworks, and so forth, and many other important functions which undoubtedly those corporations fulfilled? But hon. Members would remember this, that in what they were proposing to do, and the principles they were laying down, they could not confine their case to Birmingham; but they were introducing principles the application of which might be claimed by a great many other towns besides Birmingham. It would be invidious to say that this principle was to be applied to Birmingham and not to other towns, because they were less impartial and somewhat less advanced and intelligent. The question might be raised in a painful way by instituting comparisons of that kind. What would Manchester say? He did not profess to know the governing body of Man-

    793
    cheater; but he did know that there were upon the governing body of Manchester School the University men who were now objected to by Birmingham. Were they to say to Manchester, if they asked for similar powers—"It's all very well; you are not of the same intelligence or the same advanced culture as the corporation of Birmingham; and though it would not be right to offer such an insult to Birmingham as to have University men represented in their governing body, yet for an inferior set of people like you in Manchester it is quite good enough?" Such a principle would hardly be contended for by anybody; but if they were to admit that principle, then all the different corporations would have the same claims allowed as were put forth by Birmingham. In a governing body so constituted they might have great variety of views, and some of the views that might be brought forward might be of a very questionable character. He observed that on the present occasion the Motion which was made was for the rejection of the scheme upon two distinct grounds; one was that the governing body was not rightly constituted, and the other was that there was no provision made for gratuitous education. But some of those who supported the view that they ought to give the majority to the corporation of Birmingham held that it was not desirable to give gratuitous education; and yet they would, by supporting this Motion, put the power into the hands of men who probably would go on the length, or at all events might do so, and in that way they might be sacrificing a principle which was influential in educational questions for the sake of giving power to a corporation who took a particular view—and they must bear in mind always, when he spoke of the corporation and the representatives of a class, he was speaking of the representation of the majority and not of the minority. As regarded the bodies that should elect the governing body, the Endowed Schools Commissioners had made every reasonable suggestion in proposing bodies that could not give any offence. What was this governing body for? It was to have the conduct of a great educational institution; and surely, in conducting their affairs, it was no reflection that a small proportion of the educational body should be com-
    794
    posed of gentlemen who had a particular knowledge of the practices and principles of education. In the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, the Commissioners said—
    "It seems to us that in a good school trust, the representation of the interests of parents, the interests of education, and the past management of the school should, if possible, he combined;"
    and the Gentlemen from whose Report he quoted further said that, in their opinion, while the other two objects were attended to, some trustees should be appointed, on the ground of special knowledge, to represent the interests of education. They must bear in mind that what they did to meet the case of a particular town might have to be extended to other towns; and he feared that if they admitted the principle of the objection taken by this Motion, they would admit principles which would unravel the workings of the Schools Inquiry Commission, and remit to a number of bodies with by no means the high level of culture of the town of Birmingham the consideration of those questions, without that due reference to the interests of education which the Schools Inquiry Commission tried to introduce. He must apologize for not being able to enter more fully into the matter; but he thought that it was not necessary to do so, because the principle was easily understood and apprehended, and in itself it was a sufficient answer to the arguments of those who wished to upset the scheme. It was not necessary to go into the scheme; but he thought they might challenge the 'opinion of the House whether they would or would not affirm the principles laid down for their guidance by the Schools Inquiry Commission.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he must oppose the Motion. The scheme, he said, connected the school of Birmingham largely with the Universities. In the 78th clauseitdevoted£400perannum for scholarship in connection with Oxford and Cambridge. Surely, therefore, when they had a system beginning with the elementary schools of Birmingham, and going through the secondary scoools, and connecting them with the great Universities, it was desirable that those great Universities should be represented on the managing board. By Clause 79, £200 a-year was devoted to other Universities. But he failed to see why the

    795
    London University should have a nominated governor on the board, for it was not a teaching University, but only an examining board. The money must go to the other Universities, and not to the London University. When it was seen that this money was given in connection with the great Universities of the Kingdom, he could not, as a University man, support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, he particularly objected to that part of the scheme which related to the Universities. The present governors were just as much opposed to the three members being appointed by the Universities as the town council were. If the scheme were confirmed, the 2,000 children in the elementary schools who were now being educated gratuitously would have to leave unless they paid certain fees. The school was doing an enormous good, and they were going to put a stop to it. ["No, no!"] It was useless to attempt to argue with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a majority at his back. He believed that Birmingham would have cause to regret the day when University men meddled with the educational affairs of the town, without really understanding its wants and requirements.
    SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that, while heartily sympathizing with the reform of our grammar schools, he could not support the Motion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham. He asked all those who valued culture in their municipal institutions in England to pause before they adopted a principle which would compel them to give way to every petty local influence in the boroughs. He could not agree that the London University should not have a voice in the management of the school, and that Scotch Universities should have a part in the management of English educational establishments. He recommended the diminution of the number of the co-optative members, and was in favour of allowing University members to be chosen from any part of England instead of within seven miles of Birmingham.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 129: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 41.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.
  (Mr. Norwood, Mr. Sampson Lloyd, Mr. Watkin Williams, Mr. Waddy.)
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.

    [BILL 100.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl Bathurst, after the death of his Uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (22).
Committee—Report—Glebe Loans (Ireland)*(32).

CRIMINAL LAW—ALLEGED CRUELTY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he wished to ask a Question of Her Majesty's Government, of which, however, he had not given them private Notice. He desired

  725
  to ask whether their attention had been called to a paragraph in the papers of that morning, which gave an account of, perhaps, one of the most atrocious acts of cruelty which it had ever been his misfortune to become acquainted with? It appeared that six youths, under the care and tuition of a clergyman, at a place called Yew House, near Beacons-field, had been summoned on a charge of having put a cat in a sack in an open field, then holding it by the legs, cutting out its eyes, and baiting it with two dogs. The noble Lord was proceeding to comment upon the case as stated in the newspapers, when—
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE: Order, order!
  LORD TRUROasked why the noble Lord called him to Order?
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE: The noble Lord has not given Notice of his Question.
  LORD TRUROsaid, his object was not so much to ask a Question as to inquire whether the notice of the Government had been called to the paragraph. That did not require very much consideration in reply. If he was out of Order, he would give Notice that on Thursday next he would put the Question to the Government.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.

  (NO. 22.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, it would be unnecessary for him to go through the greater part of the Bill, because it was a consolidating Bill, re-enacting to a great extent existing laws, and he did not propose to go through those. But, in the first place, he would address himself to the congenial task of commenting on those parts of the Bill which improved the law as it now stood. Experience had shown that uniformity was desirable; it was also right to take power for the slaughter of animals in adjoining premises in cases of Cattle Plague, and to extend the existing powers in regard to pleuro-pneumonia, including the compulsory slaughter of cattle affected with that disease. If he
  726
  had any complaint to make, it was that the noble Duke had not given effect to the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons of 1873 in this respect at an earlier date. Professor Brown had pointed out in his evidence that, if this had been done, he would have been able to stamp out the Cattle Plague last year more quickly than was actually possible. He quite agreed that it was necessary to take further powers for the inspection of dairies in towns. Again, experience proved that the noble Duke was right in assuming to himself and the Privy Council all the powers hitherto possessed by the local authorities in respect to the Cattle Plague. Much as he was opposed to centralization in general, this was a move in the right direction; and, therefore, he did not offer any opposition to that part of the Bill. He did not quite agree with the transfer of the charge for compensation for slaughtered cattle to the Consolidated Fund—but that was a question for the other House of Parliament rather than for their Lordships. Other proposals, he found, modified to some extent the principle, and to a large extent the provisions, of the Act of 1869, and imposed great restrictions, first on the internal cattle trade of this country, and then on the foreign trade. It must be borne in mind that these restrictions had no reference to the Cattle Plague, but concerned the diseases known as pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease alone. In regard to these proposals, he might say that the noble Duke was bound to prove that these restrictions were absolutely necessary. All restrictions upon trade were in themselves undesirable—they tended to hamper trade and to raise prices. It was not for him to say that very stringent restrictions were not justifiable for getting rid of the diseases of cattle; for they all knew very well that the powers given by the Act of 1869 were of a very stringent character, but he would say that when still further powers of the kind proposed in this Bill were asked for, the noble Duke was bound to prove, first, that these powers were necessary, and, in the second place, that they would be effectual for their purpose. He ventured to say that the noble Duke had not established, in regard to some of these restrictions, that they were absolutely required; and, in re-

  727
  gard to others, that they would effect the purpose desired. Looking at the restrictions which it was proposed to place on the cattle trade of the country, he doubted whether it was possible by any restrictions practically to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease. He did not stand alone in that opinion, as the evidence before the Committee showed. But he quite admitted that the weight of authority was against him, and he did not wish to put his own opinion against the opinions of those who gave evidence. The question was whether that disease and pleuro-pneumonia could be stamped out by restrictions such as were proposed. Professor Simonds and Professor Brown, who were great authorities, had given their opinion that it was possible to stamp it out by certain measures which they recommended. What were those measures? They proposed to divide the country into districts, placing each one in charge of an Inspector, who should be constantly in communication with the central Department. It would, in their opinion, be absolutely essential to interfere largely with the movement of animals in this country, and with the holding of fairs and markets. Now, it must be borne in mind that these gentlemen were professors of veterinary science, and were well acquainted with the practical administration of restrictive regulations. Now, if the movements of cattle were stopped in those conterminous districts, the trade of the country would be very largely interfered with. But the Bill did not propose to do that. As he understood the Bill, it was not proposed to divide the country into districts at once; but to make them as the Privy Council thought fit. By the 18th clause, the Privy Council might at any time after disease had appeared, if they thought proper, declare a district infected. A district so proclaimed might be large, or it might be small. If it were small, little would be done towards checking the spread of disease; but if it were large, the interference with trade would be serious. It was shown in evidence that some of the witnesses did not believe that such restrictions would be submitted to. There were gentlemen who had had practical experience in carrying out regulations of this kind; they knew to what extent the regulations were likely to be submitted to Pro-
  728
  fessor Brown said, that people would not be willing to submit to these restrictions; but he (the Marquess of Ripon) was ready to admit that he believed the general feeling of large farmers was that they would be willing to submit to restrictions similar to those proposed by Professor Brown. But, in the case of small farmers, he ventured to say, that these regulations would meet with much opposition. The Secretary of the North Biding Chamber of Agriculture, when asked if he thought the farmers would submit to such regulations as were now proposed, said he did not think they would, but that they would consider the cure almost worse than the disease. He found that in the Netherlands for five or six years the importation of stock from other countries was prohibited; and that strenuous efforts were made to eradicate the disease. Notwithstanding these precautions, pleuro-pneumonia still existed in the Netherlands. Five or six years' prohibition had not proved effective in the Netherlands in stamping out pleuropneumonia. Another question which he thought had not received proper consideration was, how these restrictions would be received in Ireland?—and it was remarkable that no single representative of the opinions of the Irish farmers was examined before the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1877. There was, therefore, no means of judging whether the small Irish farmers would be willing to accept the regulations proposed in the Bill. He had, however, the means of calling one Irish witness before their Lordships, and he believed he was not wrong in saying that he could not call a more competent witness than Mr. Kavanagh. Mr. Kavanagh was a Member of the Committee of 1873, and in that year he presented a counter Report to the Committee. This Report was not accepted by the Committee. In it Mr. Kavanagh said—
  "The foot-and-mouth disease, the Committee consider, has been clearly and satisfactorily proved, by the evidence before them, to be a disease of a much milder type, and not dangerous or fatal in its character, but from its highly-infectious nature, to be one which it would appear to be hopeless to attempt to deal with by legislation, unless restrictions were imposed, which, doubtful in their result, would occasion more loss to the public than the disease in its most virulent form. Many witnesses were examined by your Committee upon the subject of

  729
  this disease, and suggestions received for its restraint or extirpation; but in none of them could your Committee see any practical prospect of beneficial result. By some witnesses restrictions were suggested of a more or less stringent character; by others, it was complained that the existing restrictions were irritating and useless, that the present system of inspection at cattle markets tended more to spread infection than to restrain it, and, by interfering with the trade, to raise the price of meat. Your Committee are of opinion that the weight of evidence has been in support of this latter argument, and that these restrictions have done more to fetter trade than to check disease."
  It was beyond doubt that if these restrictions could not be enforced in Ireland, they could not be enforced in England, because of the unrestricted trade between the two countries. Therefore, it did appear to him, with respect to these proposals, that it was doubtful whether the restrictions proposed by the Bill would be found effectual for the purpose; and whether, if they were carried out so as to be effectual, they would be submitted to for the long period of six years or more.
  Turning to the part of the Bill which provided that foreign animals should be invariably slaughtered at the port of debarkation, the House must bear in mind that this provision for slaughtering animals at the port of debarkation had nothing whatever to do with stamping out the Cattle Plague. If the Cattle Plague was in any foreign country, the only way to guard against it was to prohibit altogether the importation of cattle from that country. That was the only mode in which they could effectually meet a disease of that kind. Therefore, this proposition of slaughtering animals at the port of debarkation related only to pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. foot-and-mouth disease was a disease of which the incubation was extremely short. It did not, as a rule, exceed 40 or 42 hours, consequently it would be known very quickly after the arrival of animals at the port whether foot-and-mouth disease existed in the cargo or not. Professor Brown expressed his conviction that, to prevent foot-and-mouth disease, the present regulations were, for all practical purposes, efficient. He also showed that the number of foreign animals suffering from foot-and-mouth disease in this country had diminished considerably in 1875 and 1876, when the Cattle Plague regulations were not in force at all, although there was
  730
  slaughtering at the ports on account of that disease. These proposals, then, were really only applicable to the case of pleuro-pneumonia. There was an essential difference of principle between the present Bill and the Act of 1869. By that Act immense powers were entrusted to the discretion of the Privy Council. This Bill proposed to take away that discretion from them, and to substitute for the elastic system of 1869 a hard-and-fast line enforced by Act of Parliament. He preferred a system that could be modified as circumstances required. He preferred a system under which there was a Minister directly responsible for the restrictions enforced. The noble Duke was bound to give very fully his reasons for making this change; but in his speech in introducing the Bill he had given no reason at all. With regard to Cattle Plague, the most serious of all these diseases, large discretion was left to the Privy Council. With regard to the internal regulations proposed under the Bill, a wide discretion would be entrusted to the Privy Council. They might make the districts large or small—they had great powers in regard to the movement of cattle and the holding of fairs and markets—and he would say again that he decidedly preferred that they should have such discretion. But if the Privy Council could be trusted in respect to Cattle Plague, and in the case of internal restrictions, why could they not be trusted in respect to the foreign trade? There was one reason often urged in favour of this restriction, which was plausible upon its face. It was said that it was much better for trade if they laid down a strict rule than if they gave a discretionary power, which might be uncertain in its exercise, to the Privy Council. He had at first thought that objection entitled to great weight; but, having had various communications with those who were interested in the trade, he found that they were not of that opinion, that they did not prefer the proposals of the Bill; and he did not see the good of proposing something for their advantage which they entirely repudiated. A large meeting was held a few days ago in the City, when those present unanimously declared that they preferred the present discretionary system to the one proposed by the Bill. His noble Friend at the present moment could, as a matter of

  731
  law, schedule every country in the world, and even prohibit the importation of cattle from them—he had power under the Act of 1869 to do that which the Bill rendered it compulsory for him to do. But he agreed with him that to order the universal slaughtering of cattle under the Act of 1869 would be straining the intention of the Act; but it was no straining of the intention of the Act if the cattle were coming from a country in which the disease was known to exist. He certainly did think that it was a mistake to lay down a hard-and-fast rule in an Act of Parliament; but if they chose to adopt that course, why should they lay down the rule now proposed by his noble Friend, which went beyond the recommendation of the Committee of 1877, and, as he thought he could show, far beyond, the real feeling and desire of the Government itself? As far as the Committee of] 877 was concerned, that Committee did not recommend the compulsory slaughter of cattle from America; and he (the Marquess of Ripon) wanted to know why it was that his noble Friend proposed to order the compulsory slaughter of animals from that part of the world? The evidence of which he was in possession, showed that the trade from Canada and the United States was of an important character, and had greatly increased during the last few years. The Cattle Inspector of the port of Liverpool had stated that the American cattle came there in first-rate condition, and that they were admirable cattle in every respect; and that, instead of being in a bad condition through the voyage, the provision made for their accommodation was so good, that when they were landed, they presented no indication whatever of any suffering. He had had some conversation on the subject, since the Bill had been introduced, with a gentleman who was connected with Canada—and there was no person better able than him to speak with reference to that important Colony—and he had told him that his noble Friend would be overwhelmed with remonstrances from Canada the moment they knew of the provisions contained in the Bill. They were greatly excited about the question even last year, because ships had been fitted up with a view to this trade with which his noble Friend proposed so seriously to interfere; and he reminded their Lordships that it was not recom-
  732
  mended by the Committee of 1877 that there should be any interference with the American trade. And now as to the opinion of the Government itself. They were represented upon the Commit-tee of 1877by Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson; and after the whole of the evidence had been given, that hon. Gentleman prepared a draft Report for the purpose of expressing the views of the Government, in which the following passage was contained:—
  "The proposal to continue the freedom of importation from countries now unscheduled was justified by the evidence of many witnesses, as well as the official Returns of our imports, showing that these countries practically enjoy immunity from disease…On the whole, after considering the various alternatives, your Committee would recommend that from Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, and America, importation should be permitted as now, subject only to inspection at the port of debarkation; but that any of these countries should, on the outbreak therein of any contagious or infectious disease, be liable to be placed temporarily by Order in Council in the list of scheduled countries."
  That was the opinion of Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, after hearing all the evidence; and he (the Marquess of Ripon) wished to know why the noble Duke now wished to depart from it, and to take the very steps which Sir Selwin-Ibbetson recommended them not to take. It was his (the Marquess of Ripon's) intention to move in Committee an Amendment in the sense of Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbet-son's draft Report. He would not detain their Lordships more than a few minutes longer; but he had one suggestion to make to his noble Friend, which he made with some confidence, and he hoped that he would not hesitate to assent to it—and that was, that a provision should be inserted into the measure for the purpose of making its operation temporary. It seemed to him that it was most desirable; because the provisions of this Bill, as his noble Friend would admit, were of a highly restrictive character, and it was doubtful—he would not go further than that—whether he would succeed in putting an end to pleuro-pneumonia and the foot-and-mouth disease; while it was very doubtful, also, what would be the effect upon trade. Among other inconveniences, the Bill might be found to interfere seriously with the supply of offal, which was a matter of great interest to the poor—the offal was that portion of

  733
  the animal which was consumed by the poorest persons in the country; and if his noble Friend's system was brought into operation, it might be open to very serious objections on that ground. There was another danger, and that was that by long-continued interference with the foreign trade, they might so divert that trade that it might seek new channels, and leave us permanently. There was reason to believe that the consumption of meat abroad was increasing; and if they imposed further restrictions, they might destroy the small margin of profit, which now made it worth while to send animals from abroad to this country. Forthese reasons, he thought the Bill had better be made a temporary rather than a permanent one. His noble Friend knew very well that there were some persons in this country who believed that it was desired to have these restrictions imposed upon foreign trade for the purpose of affording some kind of commercial protection for the benefit of the home trade. He made no such charge against the noble Duke, because he was quite certain that in proposing the measure he proposed it in good faith, and had no arriere pensée whatever. Neither did he think it fair to make any such charge against the great body of the farmers in this country. He did not believe that they were desirous of any measure of this kind for purposes of commercial protection; but there might be among them some men who still believed that protection of that kind would do them good. He believed, however, the majority of them desired such measures, because they really believed that they would effectually deliver them from what was a very great evil. He should have been, however, more confident in expressing that opinion had it not been for something which he found in the Report of the Committee of 1877. In the Report of that Committee there appeared a paragraph, in which it was laid down that, in the opinion of the Committee, restrictions on the foreign trade ought not to be imposed, unless stringent restrictions were also imposed upon the home trade; but he found that, although that paragraph was adopted by the majority of the Committee, his hon. Friend Mr. Chaplin, the Member for Mid Lincoln, and six other Gentlemen voted against it; and that created in his (the Marquess of Ripon's) mind
  734
  a suspicion that among some persons there might still linger protectionist views. What, however, he would put to his noble Friend was this—if the restrictions which he proposed were not effectual for his purpose, they would become so irksome that they would have to be relaxed; and as the restrictions in the case of pleuro-pneumonia and Cattle Plague were to be left, to a great extent, in the hands of the local authorities, different views might be taken of the activity with which they ought to be enforced in different parts of the country; and if the restrictions became relaxed, nothing would remain of this Bill, except the restrictions of the foreign trade—that was to say, that they would have restrictions on the foreign trade that could be carried out at once by order of the Government directly they came into operation, and restrictions at home, which might or might not be put into force. In his opinion, unless the internal restrictions were carried out with thorough stringency, there would be in effect a renewal of the system of protection. In this view, therefore, it was of the utmost importance that this Bill should be made temporary in its operation; so that it would not only be in the power of the Parliament and Her Majesty's Government, but it would be their duty, after the lapse of a certain time, to re-consider the whole subject. Only one word more. He confessed that he should be very glad if his noble Friend would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. There had been two Committees in the House of Commons on this subject—one in 1873 and one in 1877; and they made almost opposite recommendations. Both of them were very competent Committees, but their Reports differed materially. No inquiry whatever had been made in 1877 as to the feelings of the Irish farmers; and he confessed that for this reason, among others, it appeared to him that their Lordships ought to have much fuller information as to the feeling of those who were affected, whether as to the home or foreign trade, and as to the real nature of the provisions which his noble Friend proposed. He begged, therefore, to suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He was afraid that he had trespassed a good deal on the patience of the House. He was sensible of the kindness with which

  735
  their Lordships had listened to him, and he had only to say that he proposed to make no opposition to the second reading of the Bill. There were several of its provisions of which he approved, some which appeared to him to be of doubtful utility, and others which seemed to go altogether beyond the necessities of the case which, not being necessary, would be positively mischievous; and which, therefore, he hoped that their Lordships would strike out of the Bill.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, that he rose to supplement by a few observations what the noble Marquess had said in reference to Ireland. The noble Marquess had stated that the evidence of the Committee of 1877 threw no light on the Irish side of the question. With regard to the Irish side of the question, it would probably be new to many of their Lordships when he stated that, so far as horned cattle were concerned, the balance was in favour of Ireland; there being no less than 16,000 more horned cattle in Ireland than there were in England. The graizers in Ireland were of a higher class and grazed on a larger scale than those in England. If it was necessary that something should be said on the Irish side of the question, he could quote certain statistics that would not be without interest to their Lordships. He took it for granted that the majority of their Lordships wished this Bill to pass, if not exactly in its present state, at least in a modified shape. It was not for the benefit of the producers alone, but also for that of the consumers; and, although it was true that the ultimate effect would be, no doubt, to provide the community with a better supply of cattle, it was equally true, in the first place, that the effect of the Bill would be to raise the price of food, and no doubt at first it would be received with a good deal of discontent. It was equally certain that there would be much misrepresentation about it—it would be called a landlord's Bill, and a Bill for propping up rents. Upon these grounds he asked Her Majesty's Government whether it might not be worth while, if there were any tangible objections to the Bill, to throw over the objectionable part, and preserve that only which would, without question, benefit the community at large? He thought that the measure contained provisions of great public importance with regard to pleuro-pneumo-
  736
  nia; but many entertained a different opinion when they came to consider the question of the foot-and-mouth disease. The difference of opinion was then made manifest; nor was it settled at all by the Report of the Committee of 1877. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) had said that against the Report of the Committee of 1877 they must place the Report of that of 1873, and that they expressed precisely opposite opinions. Remarks upon the respectability of the Committee were perfectly idle, because they were both equally respectable; but, for some reason or other, it had pleased the Committee of 1877 to exclude every Irish witness. Whether that was owing to the constitution of the Committee itself he did not know. That Committee comprised 27 Members, three or four of whom were Irish Members, and, subsequently, a fifth Irish Member was added. Although they might be very good Members of the House, it did not follow that they knew very much about cattle; but, at all events, it pleased them to exclude the Irish witnesses. He reminded their Lordships that the evidence given by the smaller farmers, and by those who bred hundreds and thousands of cattle, was naturally different. He considered that the case of Mr. Booth, who bred valuable shorthorns, was quite an exceptional case—in point of fact, his position was quite abnormal. He had been so unfortunate as to lose half his cattle. That, no doubt, was a great misfortune; but he thought there were exceptional circumstances to account for it. He did not wish to go into the details; but he would direct their Lordships' attention particularly to what had been the effect of the foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. He had a letter from a person who managed a very large farm in Ireland, which proved from statistics that the mortality from foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland was very small indeed. The first case he would mention was that of Mr. James Cullenden, who said that during the last 10 years he had fed 1,600 cattle and 1,200 sheep annually, and he had not during the 10 years lost more than three head of cattle and 53 sheep. Their Lordships would remember that if the 1,600 cattle were multiplied by the 10 years, it would give the product of 16,000, and the percentage of loss would only be 3 per cent by the foot-and-mouth disease. The next was

  737
  the case of Mr. H. S. Hall, who had been engaged during the last 20 years as a feeder of stock, having over 1,200 head of cattle and 1,000 sheep, and he stated that during the whole of his life he had only lost one cow and a very few sheep from the foot-and-mouth disease. That was something to put in the scale against Mr. Booth's testimony. The next was a feeder of stock named Henan, who, during a period of 15 years, had fed annually 600 cattle and 500 sheep, and he stated that during the time he had never lost a single cow or head of horned cattle by the foot-and-mouth disease. Another case was that of Mr. Charles Hamilton, who had, during the course of his life, experienced very little loss from the foot-and-mouth disease. Then there was Mr. W. Raven, of Kerry, who was for 20 years a stock-keeper, keeping 600 head of cattle and 900 sheep, and he had only lost four head of cattle and 16 sheep during the whole 20 years. His correspondent then went on to show that the foot-and-mouth disease was not nearly so fatal in Ireland as was supposed, and he believed that every Irish trader would quite agree in the statement that the loss of life in cattle from the foot-and-mouth disease was nothing like what it was thought to be. If any noble Lord wished to see the statistics, he was at perfect liberty to do so, and they certainly could not be considered in any way unsatisfactory. If their Lordships wished to know how it was that they managed to save their cattle, he could tell them that it was more by letting them alone than anything else—the chief precaution taken was to separate the infected cattle from the rest; and he knew that, in more than one case where the foot-and-mouth disease broke out in a farm, it was customary to inoculate all the sheep—as far as he himself was concerned, he should be inclined to do the very same thing this time of the year—and it had been found that where cattle and sheep had been inoculated, and afterwards caught the foot-and-mouth disease, they had it so very slightly that the proprietors lost next to nothing. He did not mean to say that, as a general rule, an animal which had had distemper did not catch it again; on the contrary, he knew that they did; but they took it so very slightly that they might be considered entirely
  738
  out of danger. He did not approve altogether of placing all the cattle in one shed. He believed that the aggregation of diseased animals in that manner tended to render the disease more virulent, and many sheep that were slightly infected, on being put into a shed with a lot of others, were made much worse than they would have been if they had been left altogether at liberty. It was just the same as if a boy had cut his finger; if a piece of rag was bound round it, and he was left at liberty, in all probability it would soon heal; but if, on the contrary, he were put into a military hospital where there was a good deal of gangrene about, the chances were that the wound would become gangrened, and the boy would die. In Kerry some of the cases of foot-and-mouth disease were very slight; one cause, no doubt, was the climate. In the first place, it was particularly mild; and, in the next place, immense quantities of rain fell, sufficient to wash out all shades of distemper. He thought, therefore, that all the clauses relating to Ireland should be omitted from the Bill; and he would point out that some of them seemed to be hardly Constitutional, because they put upon the accused the onus of proving themselves innocent; whereas it was generally understood in English law that every man was assumed to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, that after the very able speeches made upon this question by the noble Duke, who introduced the measure the other night in a speech of great moderation, but which was exceedingly clear, and again that evening by his noble Friend the noble Marquess, who formerly filled the office held by the noble Duke, who had made a speech in which he had sifted the whole question, he found it almost impossible to address any fresh remarks to their Lordships. At the same time, he might be allowed to say that, having been accidentally a good deal mixed up both with legislation on this subject and in the administration of the law in reference to it, he might be allowed to address a few observations to their Lordships. He had the honour to be placed upon a Commission upon the rinderpest which sat in the years 1865 and 1866, and, although they were much derided at the time for some of their recommendations,

  739
  he thought that they might take credit for having made some valuable suggestions, which had afterwards ripened into legislation, and had been attended by the best results. Since then he was for five years entrusted with the administration, among other matters, of the cattle law in Ireland, and, therefore, he felt great interest in the matter. If it were not for that, he would not venture to trouble their Lordships at all. The Bill dealt with two subjects—pleuropneumonia and the foot-and-mouth disease. It was not necessary for him to say more about the rinderpest than that it was a most dangerous and fatal disease—in fact, there was hardly any other that could be compared with it—and it was necessary to extirpate it in any way in which they could. He quite agreed with the noble Marquess that it was highly desirable that, while dealing with this question, they should interfere as little as possible by means of legislation with freedom of trade; and that remark applied with as much force to cattle as to corn. The greatest necessity, therefore, ought to exist before they put any restrictions upon that important trade—the meat trade of the country. They must, in the first place, be quite certain that their restrictions would in the end tend to increase the production of meat in the country, and no interference with it could be tolerated unless it was most urgently required. The Commission of 1865–6 had to deal with that matter, and they came to the conclusion that, in the case of rinderpest, the danger was so great to the country that they were obliged to recommend a system of restriction which could not do otherwise than restrict free trade in cattle. The Commission, therefore, recommended that all foreign cattle should be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. At that time he (Earl Spencer) heartily agreed with the recommendation, that being considered to be the only mode of keeping the cattle disease out of the country. A great change had taken place since then, and the experience which they had had of the effect of the action of the local authorities had shown that it was not necessary to go quite so far, even with regard to rinderpest, as actually to prohibit the importation of foreign cattle. The experience of 1869, 1872, and 1877 had taught them that they could check the intro-
  740
  duction of rinderpest with great promptitude and certainty. The outbreak of last year was one of the most violent that they had experienced; but it only lasted a few months. It broke out in January, and ceased altogether on the 1st of May. That was owing, in a great degree, to the vigour of his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council. Still, the fact remained that the powers of the Privy Council were able to deal with it without imposing any restrictions on the foreign meat trade. He agreed with the Government that it was necessary that, for the sake of uniformity of dealing with the disease, a power should be vested in the hands of the central authority through which the local authorities might act; but, at the same time, if they did so, they were no longer justified in throwing upon the local authorities the burden of the compensation to be provided and the general expenditure involved, but it should be thrown upon the general revenue of the country. He would not say anything more with regard to this Bill as it related to England. He did not think that it was necessary to have fresh legislation to improve the law as regarded the foreign trade in cattle; because, as he had said before, he thought that the powers already in existence were sufficient. He heartily approved the provisions of the Bill with regard to placing the management of the foreign trade under the Privy Council; and, like his noble Friend the noble Marquess, he did not much like the idea of throwing the burden on the Imperial funds—there were always great objections to that—but it was the natural consequence of taking these affairs into the hands of the Government that they could no longer throw the expenses of management upon the local rates, but must of necessity throw them upon the Imperial Exchequer. Now, as to the difference between pleuro-pneumonia and the foot-and-mouth disease, he quite agreed with the noble Duke that that disease was of a very serious character; and he could not at all agree with his noble Friend (Lord Dunsany), who had spoken on this question rather as a representative of Meath, as to the very small loss occasioned by the foot-and-mouth disease in his own county. He (Earl Spencer) was well acquainted with the fact that in that particular county the percentage of deaths among cattle

  741
  was exceedingly small; but that was not at all to the point, because what they had to look to was the enormous loss to the country from the abortions produced by the disease, and also the immense loss from the whole of the cattle on one farm being so thrown back that they could not be brought to market the same year. There was no doubt in his own mind that the disease could be stamped out—and, indeed, they had ample evidence to show that it could be done by complete isolation. In fact, he remembered one occasion in which it had been so stamped out; but it was like smallpox—one case brought back the epidemic. They must remember that it was no easy matter to isolate cattle altogether. Isolation with regard to the case of human diseases might be secured; but it was not so easy to secure it in the case of cattle. He did not entirely agree that the disease could be stamped out in the way proposed. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) had instanced the case of the Netherlands, in which the most stringent attempts had been made in vain. There would be the greatest possible difficulty in dealing with the case of offences against the restrictions, because everyone knew, even at present, what difficulties they had at quarter sessions in endeavouring to carry out the restrictions imposed by the Privy Council under the present state of the law. He was quite aware that public opinion had changed, and was much more generally in favour of restrictions than it was formerly. There were plenty of men like Mr. Clare Read and Mr. Howard, who advocated the most stringent measures; but the question was how far the smaller farmers throughout the country had agreed to the restrictions. He knew of one case in Northamptonshire where the magistrates had come to the unanimous conclusion that the restrictions could not be maintained. They found that licences were being forged to a great extent to enable the cattle to be moved about the country. The present restrictions would be much increased by the Bill. Instead of isolating cattle for 30 days, it would be in future for 56 days—so that in infected districts the markets would be absolutely suspended. He was afraid, therefore, that when these restrictions were put in force, the farmers would not agree to them. The Lord President would re-
  742
  member very well that, after his Report and the subsequent order, there was an absolute stoppage in the removal of cattle all over England, and it was felt that the orders of the Privy Council were not only stringent, but almost tyrannical. In his opinion, this Bill would have to be supplemented. He agreed with those who held that the Government was not justified in introducing a measure of this kind, which interfered materially with the trade of the country, unless they felt certain that it would be successful. He, therefore, supported the noble Marquess who had urged that the Bill should be limited in its duration. His own opinion was that it should be limited to three years, and then, if it were successful, it might be renewed; but he thought it was most inexpedient to adopt so stringent a measure as a permanent one until its absolute necessity became manifest, and in Committee he should move that it should be limited to three years. He took the opportunity of correcting the statement made by the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany) that cattle were more numerous in Ireland than in this country. That statement would be perfectly correct if the noble Lord intended to limit the number of cattle to England alone; but, if he included Wales, the difference would be slightly in favour of this country, because the total number of cattle in England and Wales was 4,190,000, and in Ireland 3,996,000. He thought it was very important to stimulate the Irish cattle trade. It was the general impression that the disease was much more prevalent in Ireland than it was in this country; but that idea was a fallacy, and it probably arose in consequence of the jaded condition of the cattle arriving in this country, and the fact that the hardships they had suffered on the voyage rendered them more liable to take the disease, in consequence of their exhausted condition. In his opinion, every care should be taken to improve the manner of transport. With respect to Ireland, he approved of the determination of the Government to make no difference between that country and England; and he reminded the breeders there that if they did not submit to the same regulations they would throw themselves open to an attack from their brother agriculturists on the other side of the water, who would say that, as

  743
  they did not submit to the restrictions imposed upon them, they would be obliged to treat cattle coming from Ireland as foreign cattle. That was an argument of considerable force; because, if they would not submit to the regulations, which were certainly for their own benefit, and to which England and Scotland submitted, it was right that they should be treated as foreigners. He did not agree with the noble Lord that the foot-and-mouth disease ought to be left alone. On the contrary, the experience which he had gained in Ireland showed that a very good effect had resulted from the measures taken to suppress that disease.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that having, as President last year of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, repeatedly pressed the noble Duke to legislate on the subject, he must be allowed to thank him for the very satisfactory measure which he had introduced. All seemed to approve of the part of the Bill relating to Cattle Plague; and he agreed with his noble Friend who spoke last, that the aggregate loss from pleuro-pneu-monia, and still more from foot-and-mouth disease, exceeded considerably that caused by Cattle Plague. Since its first outbreak of late years in 1865, the money loss from foot-and-mouth disease, owing to the waste of meat which it occasioned to fatting, and the injury to breeding, animals, was to be reckoned by millions. He also agreed with his noble Friend that a more enlightened feeling about the necessity for restrictions at home, and the duty of conforming to them, had sprung up among the farmers since 1865. He did not at all believe in the alleged hopelessness of expecting that they would be enforced, or in the opposition which it was asserted they would incur. Not only the Central Chamber of Agriculture, but numbers of local Chambers also, had expressed their readiness to submit to very onerous restrictions at home, if they were protected from the danger of contagious diseases, largely imported, if not exclusively derived, from abroad. That meat could be profitably and advantageously brought dead, instead of alive, to our great centres of population, they had the most conclusive proof in the constantly increasing proportion of dead meat brought to them, not merely from other countries—
  744
  and especially to so remarkable an extent from America—but also, as appeared from the evidence before the Committee, from Aberdeenshire, one of the remoter counties of Scotland, and to his own personal knowledge from Devonshire and Cornwall, two of the more distant counties of England, to London. He quite agreed, again, with his noble Friend in all that he had said of the injury done to the live animals in their journey across the Irish Channel, and by road and rail, before and after that crossing. Part of this waste and suffering, which was not confined to animals coming from Ireland, was inevitable in stormy weather at sea—when large portions of heavy cargoes had been much injured, and some even killed by being bruised and trampled upon; and in some cases the whole absolutely suffocated through the necessary closing of the hatches. But a good deal was the result of defective arrangements both by sea and land. For his own part, he hoped and believed, for the sake of humanity as well as economy, that a constantly increasing proportion of the supply of meat of our large towns would be killed at a distance, and be spared the terrible suffering and lamentable waste of long journeys alive. A great deal of exaggeration was observable in the statements as to the great importance to the poorer classes of the offal, resulting from the slaughter of foreign animals in our towns. Against this was to be set, in the first place, the diminished quantity of good meat left on each animal, resulting from wasting on the journey. Then there was the introduction, in each live animal, of a quantity of refuse other than offal for food, which could only with difficulty be prevented becoming injurious to the health of the population; and then, the best of the offal could be brought from a distance into the town, as well as the dead meat, if required; though it should always be remembered that the proportion of the meat supplied, dead or alive, from abroad to the United Kingdom, could not at most be reckoned at more than 12 per cent of the whole. He utterly dissented from the view of the noble Lord, who anticipated a rise in the price of meat from this Bill, and for this conclusive reason—during the greater part of last year, when foreign live stock was excluded from this

  745
  country, prices ruled decidedly lower than they did before, while foreign live stock came in freely. As for the Free Trade argument, which had been alluded to, it was too late to press that with any effect now-a-days. He was old enough to have heard it used more than 30 years ago on the Ten Hours Bill, which Parliament had ultimately passed with now generally recognized advantage to the community. He had afterwards heard it used in opposition to that great measure, the Public Health Act of 1848, which he felt it a great honour to have been allowed to take a humble part in promoting. They heard then a good deal about the poor man's pig, and the hardship of preventing him from keeping it in his own cellar, or close under his own or his neighbours' window. They had it used besides in opposition to the legislation for the regulation of lodging-houses. They had the old arguments used again more recently about the Adulteration Act, which Mr. Bright, who on Free Trade principles, he supposed, was so chary of legislation—though there were many subjects requiring it—while he presided over the Board of Trade, so vehemently denounced; declaring that adulteration was the natural result of competition, and that life would not be worth having in a country where dealers were liable to the intrusion of Government Inspectors to test the purity of their goods. That objection only showed that his knowledge of political economy was as defective as his sense of justice and humanity. Parliament had wisely now for years adopted an opposite course of legislation, and had recognized that it was true wisdom and economy to promote the well-being of their citizens, and the health of their flocks and herds, even at the expense of onerous restrictions on the freedom of action of individuals. As a now veteran Free Trader, who had fought the battle of Free Trade against powerful opposition at his first election in 1841, and had constantly supported Free Trade ever since, he welcomed this Bill as a wise, just, and, in the true sense of the word, economical measure, sure to benefit the consumer as well as the producer of meat.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREobserved, [that at a meeting which had been recently held, in which both sides of politics were fully represented, an almost unani-
  746
  mous opinion had been expressed that, in the matter of restrictions, no distinction should be made between Ireland as a producing and England as a consuming country. At the same time, he thought a great deal of care would have to be exercised in seeing that the restrictions were not unnecessarily severe, or such as to produce any inconvenience that could be readily avoided. In some parts of Ireland it was the custom for persons who had a great deal of grass land, and more than they could conve-nientlystock themselves—and this would apply especially to owners of demesnes—to take in lay cattle, or to let in agistment some of their grass land for the grazing season. It would be obvious, if foot-and-mouth disease were to break out, say, in the month of October, and no cattle would be removed until 28 days from the time that the last animal had recovered, by which time the law would have become as bare as a board, what great inconvenience would arise. He had always heard it said that Ireland was comparatively free from disease, and that Irish cattle imported into this country usually contracted disease on being landed at the English ports. It was the nearly universal opinion in Ireland that to attempt to cure foot-and-mouth disease by means of these restrictions would produce evils worse than the disease itself. Seeing that the machinery of this Bill would be set in motion by means of Orders in Council, he begged to suggest to the noble Duke that he should arrange with the Lord Lieutenant, as a matter of administration, that before any Orders were issued which might have the effect of seriously affecting public convenience, they should be submitted to a Committee consisting of such members of the Irish Privy Council as were practically acquainted with agricultural affairs. The noble Earl (Earl Spencer) the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had spoken from the other side, was himself a great authority on the subject, and if he, or someone like him, were in this position, this might not be necessary; but such might not always be the case. He had not made these observations in any spirit of hostility to the Bill of the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council; but because he deemed the suggestions he had thrown out not unworthy of consideration.
  LORD EMLYsaid, the feeling in Ireland was very strong that justice required that the Bill should be considered by a Select Committee. He regarded as one of the best provisions of the Bill that which assimilated the legislation of the three Kingdoms on this subject. His noble Friend (Earl Spencer) had said, alluding to the management of these matters by the local authorities, in England, that, in order to make the operations of legislation uniform, they should be under the direction of one controlling mind. In his (Lord Emly's) opinion, Ireland, like England and Scotland, should be placed under the Lord President of the Council, so that the whole of the three Kingdoms would be under one controlling and responsible head. This would tend very much to the efficient working of the Bill in Ireland. The Department over which the noble Duke presided was admirably organized. It acted under the eye of Parliament, and was represented there by a Minister of the Crown. The Department to which these things were entrusted in Ireland had not a sufficient staff. Practically, it was not represented in Parliament. The opinions of the two Committees of 1873 and 1877 were diametrically opposed in regard to the possibility of stamping out and getting rid of foot-and-mouth disease by any regulations such as proposed by this Bill. There ought to be a reasonable prospect of getting rid of the disease before the farmers were called upon to endure such vexatious regulations. Ireland ought to have the advantage of the same skilful administration as was enjoyed by England and Scotland. He would point to a single instance in? which a great and serious evil would be inflicted by this measure, if passed in its present stringent form. It might, of course, be necessary to inflict certain temporary evils, with the view of getting rid of a particular disease; but the evils which this Bill would inflict were so grave and serious that, unless there were a reasonably strong hope of the success of the measure, he thought it would be most unwise to inflict them. He would take the case of the chief ports of Ireland—Cork, Waterford, Dublin, and Drogheda—all of these might be proclaimed infected districts at the same time, and, consequently, closed as against cattle
  748
  for the period mentioned in the Bill; whereas many parts of Ireland might be free from the disease for which those ports were proclaimed. The closing of these ports would be an absolute prohibition of the export of cattle from Ireland to Great Britain. He hoped the noble Duke would not proceed with this provision unless he had the strongest reason for believing it would be effectual. He must say it would require stronger reasons than any he had yet heard to induce him to support the Bill. He should feel it his duty to move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,in reply, stated that it was because they believed there was a reasonable hope of this measure being successful in stamping out foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia from this country, that he hoped their Lordships would pass the measure he had had the honour to introduce. It might appear, from the non-calling of Irish witnesses before the Committee, that Irish interests were neglected in that inquiry. But what were the facts bearing upon that point? The Committee consisted of 27 Members, and of these, five hon. Gentlemen represented Irish constituencies—Mr. Corry, Mr. Dease, Mr. Murphy, the hon. Charles French, and Mr. King-Harman. The hon. Chairman of the Committee (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) stated that on frequent occasions those hon. Gentlemen were most assiduous in their attendance on the Committee, and they were asked on various occasions whether, after the evidence given, there was any necessity, or whether they wished to call Irish witnesses before the Committee. They declined to do so; and therefore he was justified in saying that on that Committee Irish interests were not neglected, and that witnesses had an opportunity of expressing their opinions. It had been said that this was a measure of protection. It was not a measure of protection. It was not for the protection of any one interest at the expense of another. He believed that in bringing in this Bill Her Majesty's Government were doing a benefit to the whole community, and were not legislating at the expense of the consumer to benefit the producer—their interests, properly considered, were identical. They be-

  749
  lieved that if by any measure they could bring about a better state of things, they would increase the supply of meat in this country, they would render the country independent of foreign supply, and would reduce the price of meat to all classes. They did not adopt the recommendations of the Committee of 1873, so far as they recommended immediate legislative action; because they thought it better to wait and get more information, and then to bring in a large and comprehensive measure. One of the recommendations which had been made to the Committee was that the whole country should simultaneously be placed under restrictions in the case of the plague breaking out; but the object of the Bill was to confine the restrictions to those portions of the country in which disease existed. The Government wished to give freedom of trade throughout the country, and they had, therefore, taken power for narrowing the districts to the smallest possible space, in order not to interfere with the movements of cattle any more than was necessary. As to the statement that five or six ports in Ireland might become infected districts, although possibly there might not be disease in any other part of Ireland, he could hardly imagine the thing possible. The object of the Bill was to treat all parts of the Kingdom alike. The Government did not desire to make any difference in respect to Ireland; but if the same restrictive measures were not adopted in Ireland as in England, then it was impossible that Ireland could be treated exceptionally. The object was to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease; and if it was not stamped out in Ireland, then Ireland must be treated as a foreign country—which the Government desired above all things to avoid. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) said that, although this might be accepted by the larger agriculturists, in his part of the country the farmers generally would not submit to the restrictions imposed by this Bill. But if the noble Marquess looked at the evidence of Mr. Soulby, he would find that gentleman said the farmers would submit to restrictions to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease. It was a disease which did enormous injury in this country not only to the producer, but to the consumer of food. It was said that farmers would not submit
  750
  to more restrictions than were necessary, This was exactly what was proposed by the Bill. This was why the Privy Council confined their operations to those parts of the country where disease existed. There was no system of inspection known in this country by which we could be sure that disease would not get into the country unless the animals were slaughtered at the port of landing. It was proposed that, in the first instance, whenever the local authority should discover in any particular place that disease existed, they might declare that an infected place, and the Council might take in as much of the land as they thought necessary around any particular shed and make that an infected district. His impression was that there was only one witness called before the Committee who gave evidence that the farmers would not submit to restrictions to stamp out disease. The noble Marquess seemed to object to slaughtering cattle at the port of debarkation for the purpose of getting rid of foot-and-mouth disease. It was perfectly clear, if they wanted to get rid of this disease, and if they had those restrictions in this country which would stamp it out here, these restrictions would be useless unless they could prevent the disease coming from foreign countries. It could not be said that disease was not coming from foreign countries. He found that in 1875 no less than 20,228 cattle from abroad were found to be diseased on landing at the various ports. 19,000 of these had foot-and-mouth disease; and so long as this was allowed to go on, so long would they have this complaint. The noble Marquess also touched on the question as to the effect of these restrictions. He said he did not think that these restrictions were at all likely to have the effect of getting rid of this disease. If this was so—though there was no evidence to show that the restrictions would not get rid of the disease—he would quite grant that he was asking for large powers on insufficient ground; but, on the contrary, whenever these restrictions had been carried out fully, they had the effect of diminishing disease. In the Netherlands, where the system of compulsory slaughter existed, in 1871 there were 6,078 cases of disease; in 1872 there were 4,009; in 1873 the cases were 2,479; in 1874 the number was 2,414; in 1875 there were 2,227 cases; in 1876

  751
  there were 1,723 oases; and in 1877 951 cases—showing a great diminution—due, no doubt, to the diseased animals having been slaughtered. With regard to the proposal that this Bill should have a temporary operation, his opinion was that such a course would unsettle everything and settle nothing. The essence of the Bill was that regulations should be made by which disease should be put a stop to. It had been contended that it would be an interference with the food of the people. There need be no apprehensions on that score. When the Cattle Plague restrictions were first set up in 1866, the dead meat trade commenced, to a certain extent, from Aberdeen to London. In the last five years the trade had been progressing, and he ventured to assert that what had been done from Aberdeen to London could be done from London to other parts of the country. In 1873, the dead meat carried from Aberdeen for London on the Caledonian Railway was 5,316 tons, and by sea 243 tons. There were in the same year 1,400 live cattle carried by rail, and 1,800 by sea. The total of these various years was, 1873–5,558 tons of dead meat, and 3,272 live animals; 1874–6,328 tons of dead meat, 6,371 live animals; 1875–6,425 tons of dead meat, 4,835 cattle; 1876—-6,329 tons of dead meat, 6,652 animals; 1877–684 tons of dead meat, and 4,466 live animals; making a total of 31,657 tons of dead meat, and 25,000 live animals. Allowing 6½ cwt. as the weight of a bullock, 97,388 would represent the number of animals carried as dead meat, as against 25,000 carried alive. This was conclusive evidence that the dead meat trade could be properly and successfully carried out. More than that, the cost of carrying these animals as dead meat from Aberdeen to London was so small, that practically it made no appreciable increase of price. He found that the charges upon the carriage amounted to something like a halfpenny per pound, including commission and railway carriage. The question of offal had been touched upon. He could assure the House he had gone carefully into that matter. He had inquiries made since he introduced the Bill, and the conclusion he had arrived at from the evidence given to him by persons who dealt in offal was that there would be no diffi-
  752
  culty in carrying offal from London to the manufacturing districts; and, more than that, he found it was done at present to a great extent; whereas in cold weather animals were killed in the country, and the offal disposed of in the neighbourhood. In hot weather, when the animals were killed not so much in the country districts, the offal market in London was overstocked, and quantities were sent back into the country with considerable success, as he should be able to show in Committee when they came to deal with the details of the question. He might say that undoubtedly foot-and-mouth disease was imported into Ireland from this country. He could not agree with his noble Friend behind him (Lord Dun-sany) that the operation of the Bill would increase the price of food in that country; and he defied any person to prove that this could be looked upon as a landlord's Bill, with the purpose of raising rents. He denied, also, the accuracy of the information that this Bill was not popular in the country. On the contrary, if the noble Lord who made the statement had the same information as he had, he would see that it was most popular throughout the country, and was looked forward to as a most useful measure in getting rid of disease. It had been said that it was all very well to bring forward Mr. Booth as a witness in this matter, because his stock was of a highly-bred character, and therefore more likely to take disease than other animals less well bred. That might be so; but, at the same time, the argument fell very far short, unless it could be shown that animals not so highly bred did not take the disease. Therefore, it could not be said that they were legislating for high-bred cattle, and putting the whole country to inconvenience for the sake of Mr. Booth. He denied the fact. This disease affected all classes of stock. Taking the evidence of Mr. Clare Sewell Read, who was a practical farmer, and whose farm was conducted in the same manner as an ordinary farm, he said, in answer to the following Question:—
  "You agree with the witnesses who have stated before this Committee that the foot-and-mouth disease causes very great loss, not only to the producer, the breeder, hut also to the consumer?—It does. I should say that whereas cattle plague is so deadly and horrible a disease that we are sure to take measures to extinguish

  753
  it, and that whereas pleuro-pneumonia is very fatal, still, at the same time, there can be no doubt whatever that foot-and-mouth disease destroys more meat and milk than all the other diseases put together."
  That was very strong evidence, coming from a practical man like Mr. Read; and even if no other herds than those of the same character as Mr. Booth's should be affected by the disease, still he maintained that the Government would be justified in endeavouring to stamp it out, for a high class of stock had a very beneficial effect throughout the country. He did not agree with those who said that shorthorn mothers could not bring up their calves. He had himself, in a very humble way, shorthorn stock in the North, chiefly for the benefit of the district, and he certainly could not undertake to recommend them if it required two cows to bring up every calf. Ireland also would reap the advantage of the Bill; and, as he had stated, he desired to have the same regulations in Ireland as in England. Probably it might be possible, by excluding foreign cattle, to stamp out the disease; but he could not say when that result would be achieved. Other countries—and especially Denmark—had been very successful in their treatment of the difficulty, and in England it might reasonably be expected that the disease should be confined to the area in which it originated. With regard to another point, it was clear that compensation for slaughtered animals ought to come from the Imperial funds, as when the Government ordered animals to be slaughtered, it would not be fair for the local authorities to be made to pay for them. As for the Bill itself, he hoped that it would be committed pro formâ on Thursday, as there were several Amendments to be made, and the working Committee might be fixed for the following Tuesday.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the noble Duke had not answered all the points that had been raised by the noble Marquess; and he (Earl Granville) had wished to hear the reason for including perfectly clean countries in the provisions of the Bill, and he hoped that that course would be justified in Committee. Several noble Lords had expressed their wish that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and there were obvious reasons in favour of that proceed-
  754
  ing; and, as far as he could see, no argument against it. In the Committee, on the Report of which the Bill was founded, no Irish evidence had been taken, and the Bill contained several provisions which were contrary to the recommendations of the Committee of 1873; while the noble Duke disagreed with the opinion of another President of the Council with respect to the possibility of stamping out pleuro-pneumonia. All these were points on which inquiry was desirable. The Bill would not be seriously delayed by being referred to a Select Committee, and might be sent to the other House in a fortnight. He hoped the Government would consider the convenience of appointing a Select Committee on the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.