Sitting of 22 March 1881

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 21] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 21] reported.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Great North of Scotland Railway.
Considered as amended—London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (City and Suburban Traffic Station)*; London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (Further Powers)*; London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (Maidstone and Faversham Junction)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*.
Second Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor)* [112]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Langbar Moor)* [111].
Third Reading—Local Taxation Returns (Scotland)* [107], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. WEBSTER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said that, as the Motion was opposed, he should take leave to say a few words in support of the case of the promoters. The Great North of Scotland Railway Company supplied a great part of the North-East districts of Scotland. It supplied the whole railway accommodation of the two counties of Aberdeen and Banff. The Company affirmed that it had now become necessary for them to make a new and short branch, about 13 miles in length, from an extension off the main line of railway, in order to supply the necessary railway accommodation of an important district of Banffshire, lying on the shores of the Moray Firth, and including two large and important fishing towns, which, at present, had no railway supply. The Bill was an Omnibus Bill. One great object of it was to enable the Company to make that extension of 13 miles. Another material object was to entitle the Company to carry through an amalgamation already agreed upon with the Morayshire Railway Company. The third object of the Bill arose from these circumstances—that the Company, which was a very poor one, notwithstanding that it had to meet the wants of the whole agricultural districts of these counties, had, at present, no adequate station and siding accommodation. In order to provide this accommodation, a large extension of capital was required; but they had no funds whatever to enable them to meet this absolutely necessary expenditure. It was, therefore, proposed to make, not an increase of agricultural rates, but to impose a charge for terminals, which this Company alone, he believed, of all the Railway Companies in the Kingdom, had not hitherto possessed, probably from some defect in their original Act. There was only one other point that it was necessary to call attention to. It was also proposed by the Bill to provide an income for the necessary expenditure in addition, by making a small and reasonable increase
    1640
    of charges upon the rates for the transport of guano and other valuable artificial manures, which were worth, perhaps, from £5 to £15 a-ton. These artificial manures also, from some original blemish in the old Acts of the Company, were classed with street dung and other similar composits, which were not worth more than 4s. per ton. The proposals of the Company had been met with the warmest approval in its own district. The Town Councils of Banff, of Cullen, and of Macduff had petitioned in favour of the Bill, and there had also been a largo Petition in its favour from the community of Buckie, signed by upwards of 4,000 persons. In point of fact there was no local opposition whatever to the second reading of the Bill. There were objections in regard to the rates which were proposed for the necessary terminals, and for the necessary small increase proposed upon the rates for artificial manures; but these were clearly matters for a Select Committee to consider. It was, therefore, with some surprise that the promoters of the Bill found it opposed upon the second reading, not by any Scotch Member, or in any Scotch interest, but by three English Members. It was opposed by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and by both of the hon. Members for Mid Lincolnshire. One of them (Mr. Stanhope) gave Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill; and the other hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) proposed to move that the Bill be deferred on this ground—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, no increase in the rates charged by any Railway Company for the carriage of agricultural produce ought to be sanctioned until the Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of the rates charged by Railway Companies has reported."
    That, of course, was equivalent to the rejection of the Bill upon the second reading, because it would have the effect of deferring it until too late in the Session to proceed with it. He wished, however, to point out to the House that this Amendment must have been put upon the Paper under some misapprehension, because the Bill did not propose to impose any additional rates whatever upon the carriage of agricultural produce. The additional charge proposed was no addition upon the carriage of agricultural produce; and, there-

    1641
    fore, he contended that the Amendment of the hon. Member had no ground to stand upon. The additional rates were asked for solely on terminals, in regard to which, he repeated, this Company, of all the Railway Companies in the Kingdom, had never hitherto imposed a charge. It was also proposed to make a small additional charge upon the carriage of valuable manures, which, he was informed, could not be carried at their present low rate, without costing the Company more than they received in the shape of tolls. The whole reasonableness of the proposals would be a fair matter for the consideration of a Committee upstairs. It would be most improper for the House to decide, upon the question of the second reading, whether the case which the Company said they were prepared to maintain could be made out, or whether the objections put forward by the opponents of the measure were fatal to its further progress. The Bill was of the utmost importance to the whole district to which it related, and; also to several other Northern Scotch counties and he trusted the House would not consent to reject it until its details had been fully investigated by a Committee upstairs. The Bill itself complied with the views expressed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), because it distinctly provided, by the 52nd clause, that—
    "Nothing in this Act shall except the railway from any future revision or alteration, under the authority of Parliament, of the maximum rates of fares and charges, or of the rates for small parcels."
    That provision being included in one of the clauses of the Bill, he hoped the House would agree to the second reading, and refer the consideration of the details of the measure to a Committee upstairs.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Webster.)
    MR. E. STANHOPE,who had given Notice of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months, said, that he interposed mainly because he had no personal interest whatever in the Bill. Since he had put down his Motion for the rejection of the Bill on the second reading, he had been asked by several hon. Mem-
    1642
    bers why it was that he proposed the rejection of a Bill of this kind, when this very subject of the rates now charged by railways was under consideration by a Committee recently appointed, and which was sitting upstairs for that very purpose at the present moment. His answer to that, in the first place, was that there might be some hope that that Committee would be able to get through its work in time to report in the course of next year; while, in the meantime, this Bill, or any similar Bill, if pressed, would become law in the course of the present Session. Therefore he felt justified in protesting at this stage of the Bill against the increase proposed to be charged upon certain articles specified in the Bill, and he thought that the increase was proposed in such a manner as to be specially objectionable in detail. Now, as a matter of fact, some time ago this Railway Company did increase its rates, exactly in the same manner as it now proposed to obtain the sanction of law for doing, and it did so without the authority of Parliament. In consequence of the Company having taken that step, the people of the neighbourhood brought the matter before the Railway Commission, and the Railway Commission heard the case. He believed some points were also taken to the Court of Session in Scotland, and after protracted litigation it was decided by the Railway Commission and the Court of Session that the Company had not power to make these charges. The result of the decision of the Railway Commission was that the Railway Company now came to Parliament, and asked for leave to make this very increase of rates which the Railway Commissioners forbade them to make as illegal. The proposals they now made were, in the first place, to increase the rates of carriage on certain artificial manures. That was a matter of the greatest possible interest to all connected with agriculture in this country. But there was another proposal in the Bill which was of far greater interest, and of much greater importance, and it was one by which they endeavoured to increase their maximum rates. The part of the proposal to which he ventured to make the strongest objection was that by which the Company asked to be able to increase their rates for the use of stations and sidings, for the loading or unloading of goods, the

    1643
    warehousing and the wharfage of goods, and other incidental accommodation. That was, he ventured to say, a totally new principle in a Bill of this kind. It was a fact, as stated in a paper circulated among Members by the Great North of Scotland Company that morning, that there was a precedent for that course; and that precedent, he believed, was to be found in the case of the Staffordshire Railway Bill, which became law in the course of last Session. But in that case it became law under circumstances which were totally different. It was done by agreement between the traders and the Railway Company, who met together, and agreed upon certain terms, which were incorporated in the Bill. Without such an agreement he ventured to say that such a novel principle would never have been introduced. But, in the present case, it was sought to introduce that novel principle without any such agreement, and contrary to the opinion of those who were personally concerned in the matter in the neighbourhood. If that principle were agreed to, it would constitute a most fatal precedent in respect of any future Bill, by which any Railway Company might seek to acquire similar powers. He therefore thought he was justified in entering his protest against the principle at this stage of the Bill, in the strongest terms. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster) said that the Bill was an Omnibus Bill. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) warned the Committee that if they did not take the opportunity, after the second reading, of expunging from the Bill the obnoxious proposals he referred to, he and those who took an interest in the agricultural prosperity of England would come down and do their best to reject it at a later stage. He should not, at present, move the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper.
    MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that as his name was on the back of the Bill he would like to say a few words upon the subject. The objection to the Bill was purely one of rates. When he was asked to put his name on the back of the Bill he was not aware of any proposal to increase the rates; but he understood that it was simply a Bill for the extension of the railway through a district in which a railway was very much required. The proposed line would pass through about 13 miles of rich agricul-
    1644
    tural district; it would pass through several fishing villages, and would terminate at the town of Buckie. That town was a very important port. A harbour had recently been constructed there at a cost of £50,000, which had attracted a great number of fishing boats and a considerable amount of coasting trade. It would, therefore, be considerably unfair for the inhabitants to deprive them of the advantage of a railway on what, after all, was a purely technical question, which could be decided upstairs. He ventured to say that there was no precedent for attempting to throw out a Bill of this kind, on the question of what should be charged for the carriage of a ton of guano or a sack of oats. A good many of them had had experience in connection with Committees upstairs. He himself had had a little; but he would appeal to Members who had had more experience than he had had, whether questions of this kind did not come up daily in Private Bill Committees. There was nothing exceptional in the provisions or character of the Bill. With regard to terminal charges, he did not see why the Railway Company should not have the advantage which many other Railway Companies had, of having these terminal charges. It would be too long a story to enter into a history of that subject at that hour; but all the Company asked was power to levy the usual terminal charges, and nothing exceptional. That was his justification for supporting the second reading of the Bill. There was nothing exceptional in the powers asked for. Even if there were, it would be extremely unfair to throw out the Bill, and deprive a large district and population of railway accommodation, which was greatly needed, when the question might be easily dealt with by a Committee upstairs. He thought that the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Stanhope) had taken a wise course in declining to divide the House. If the hon. Gentleman had gone to a division, he (Mr. Duff) was confident the House would not have adopted the unusual course of rejecting the Bill, and of establishing a new precedent, upon such trivial grounds as those which had been stated.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he should, in a very few words, give his reasons for moving the rejection of the Bill. He did not agree with the hon.

    1645
    Member for Banff (Mr. R. W. Duff) that the objections to the Bill were trivial, because the extra charges which this Railway Company proposed to impose on the agricultural produce would probably amount to 2s. per acre on the rent of land under crop in Aberdeenshire. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster), in moving the second reading of the Bill, seemed to be under some misapprehension, because, if he understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said the Bill was unanimously approved in the district. In point of fact, there was a public meeting called in Aberdeen of all the parties interested in the matter; and, of course, these parties were the landlords, and traders, and farmers of Aberdeenshire. At that meeting the Chairman of the Company came forward and stated the grounds on which they wished to have the rates increased as proposed under the Bill. After hearing the Chairman of the Company patiently and fully, the meeting resolved almost unanimously that it was inexpedient, improper, and unnecessary for the Railway Company to ask for the proposed increase of rates, and further appointed a Committee to oppose the Bill before a Committee of that House. He thought there were three dissentients to the Motion. There would be between 100 and 200 gentlemen present, and he understood the three dissentients were gentlemen more or less directly connected with the Railway Company. The hon. Member for Aberdeen had also said the Company proposed no increase of the rates on agricultural produce. He ventured to think the hon. Gentleman had not read, or, at the least, not fully understood, what the Bill proposed. It proposed to increase or to levy new terminal charges upon all kinds of produce and goods carried by the railway. He had in his possession a document showing what the increase would be in case the Bill were passed. He found that in one case from one station to another the Company would have the power to increase the charge from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 11 d.; in another case, from one station to another, from 5s. 4d. to 6s. 9d.; and in another case from 7s. 6d. to 8s. 11 d. This was an increase, not only upon agricultural produce, but upon all kinds of goods carried by the Company. Originally, the Company were bound to carry all kinds of manure
    1646
    at a maximum rate of 1½d. per ton. Some years ago they got a Bill through Committee without opposition, under which they increased the charge from 1½d. to 2d., and now they wished by this Bill to raise the charge from 2d. to 2½d. per ton. It could not be urged that the Bill was required to pay the shareholders a dividend, because he might mention that upon that branch of the railway in which he was particularly interested the shareholders already received dividends at the rate of 10 per cent; and upon that branch it was proposed, nevertheless, to increase the rate from 1½d. to 2d. He ought to explain that the original capital of the Company bore a very small proportion to the preferential charge upon it, and that the original shares were actually selling at a premium if account was taken of the stock which had been allotted to the shareholders without any payment. It was very hard that the people of Aberdeenshire should be under the necessity of coming here to oppose before a Committee of the House, at considerable expense, the attempt to make this increase of rates particularly at a time of agricultural depression. The charges which the Company were entitled to levy were quite as large, and larger, than the rates which any other Railway Company of Scotland had power to levy. Also the proportion of profit that this Company had upon its traffic was larger than that of any other railway in Scotland; therefore it was evident that, even at the present rates, the Company had a larger proportion of profit than other railways in Scotland. Under the circumstances, he considered he was justified in moving the rejection of the Bill.
    MR. CRAIG, in seconding the Amendment, said, that, so far as the North Staffordshire Railway was concerned, it was simply a case of nil profits to the shareholders, and the position of the Company resulted in an application to Parliament in 1879 for an adjustment of the rates. As long as the proposal was opposed the Company found themselves unable to obtain what they sought; but, subsequently, the matter became one of compromise and agreement between the traders and the Railway Company. Therefore, when the two cases were compared, it would be seen that there was no parallel between them, and it would be unfair to take the case of the North Staffordshire Railway as a

    1647
    precedent for warranting an increase of rates in this direction.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Board of Trade will have to report to the Committee on the provisions of this Bill when it comes before the House of Lords in accordance with the Standing Orders of this Assembly; and perhaps I may now be permitted to say what is the view we take of the matter. In the first place, I have to object to the argument of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). I understand him to say that the Railway Company propose to take some increased powers of charging, and that their prosals should be rejected, because they already pay 10 per cent on their undertaking: I am informed, as a matter of fact, that the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, so far as regards their main undertaking with which this branch is connected, do not pay anything at all.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I said that portion of the line which forms the Dee side branch, and in which I am specially interested. That, I believe, pays its shareholders 10 per cent.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I object altogether to this argument of my hon. Friend; and I think it is unfair to this Railway Company to say that because one of its branches is enabled to make a profit out of the passenger traffic to Balmoral, the tourist traffic, the Company should be precluded altogether from applying to Parliament to consider whether they should not be placed in a position which would enable them to make some slight profit on their main undertaking. I quite agree in another remark, that the questions raised by this Bill are of very considerable importance; but I may point out to the House that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster) stated, this is an Omnibus Bill, and it would be undesirable to refuse the Company the opportunity of going to a Committee for the powers they seek, unless there were the very strongest kind of objection to the proposal. As
    1648
    the Bill is drawn, there are clauses giving power to the Company to increase their terminal rates, and to make additions to their maximum charges under various heads; and I must say that, having carefully considered these clauses, I do think the form in which they appear is extremely objectionable. I am told, and I think the Company will accept the statement, that in justification of their proceedings they have based these clauses on some clauses which appear in an English Railway Bill. But, as has already been pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), these clauses were introduced with the assent of the traders of Staffordshire; and they ought not, therefore, to form a precedent for any other Railway Company. Representations have been made to this Railway Company in respect to these clauses; and I have the authority of the Chairman for saying that the Company will be willing, when the case goes into Committee, to withdraw them, and to substitute clauses known as the "model clauses," with regard to terminal rates. These model clauses, of which, I think, Lord Redesdale was the author in the first instance, are to be found now in the Acts of almost every railway in the Three Kingdoms. Whether these clauses are in themselves good or bad is not for me to say; but it does appear to me that it would be hard indeed to refuse to this Railway Company the opportunity of having its proposal placed before the Committee, merely because it introduces into the Bill powers which have already been taken by almost every other line of railway in the Kingdom. If any proposal is adopted which, it has been suggested, the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of railway rates may make, I can only say that the Act of this Railway Company—the Great North of Scotland Company—would be subject to any fresh legislation just as much as all other Railway Companies; and, in fact, there is now inserted in every Railway Bill a clause which enacts that all rates taken by the Bill should be subject to any fresh legislation on the part of Parliament on the subject. Under these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment he has made for the rejection of the Bill. If he declines to do so, I think it will be my duty to vote in

    1649
    favour of the second reading, in order that the Bill may go before a Committee.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONhoped the House would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), but would allow the Bill to go before a Committee. The hon. Member for Forfarshire had informed the House that there had been a large public meeting in Aberdeen, and that it came to the resolution of opposing the second reading of this Bill. He would read to the House the resolution that was come to at that meeting. It was as follows:—
    "That the following gentlemen be appointed a Committee to consider that portion of the Bill of the North of Scotland Railway which proposes to increase the rates on agricultural produce."
    The meeting did not come to any agreement to oppose the Bill on the second reading, as stated by the hon. Member for Forfarshire; but the only part of the Bill to which objection was taken was that which proposed to increase the rates for agricultural produce. He would now read the Petition of those gentlemen sent to this House in regard to the Bill, which was as follows:—
    "Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House that they may be heard by their counsel before the Committee of your House."
    He thought that entirely disposed of the remarks of the hon. Member for Forfarshire on that subject. He must remind the House that the hon. Member did not represent a single one of the persons interested in this Bill. He must also correct the hon. Member opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope), who stated that the bulk of opinion on the part of those interested in the railway was opposed to the Bill. Now, a great majority of the people who were interested in the railway were his constituents; and he had heard nothing whatever on the subject of opposing it. It was an Omnibus Bill, and the extension of the line to Buckie was its main feature. He hoped the House would consent to read it a second time.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 227; Noes 36: Majority 191.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTED PRISONERS.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with respect to Mr. P. J. Sheridan, now lying in Kilmainham Gaol on the charge of
    "Being reasonably suspected of inciting certain persons to intimidate certain other persons from the pursuit of their legal occupations,"
    Whether he will furnish the House with the particular words or speeches which constitute the grounds of suspicion; and, whether he will furnish to each man imprisoned under the Coercion Act particulars similar to those stated above, and will consent to receive from him a written statement in reply?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I must answer my hon. Friend's Question in the negative. It is a request that I will furnish particulars of the crimes of which we have reasonable grounds for believing the persons referred to to have been guilty. The hon. Member must recollect that the House, after full discussion, determined that it was not expedient and consistent with the public interest that a public statement of such particulars should be made.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: In reference to this subject, I may ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question with reference to a reply he gave to a former Question asked by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet) in my behalf in this House. The Question was with reference to threatening language used by a member of the Castlebar Board of Guardians towards another member of that Board. The right hon. Gentleman replied on that occasion that the Local Government Board had no knowledge of the matter, which probably arose from the fact that the Chief Secretary did not inquire respecting it. In consequence of the answer he gave on that occasion, I now beg to ask him, Whether he approves of gentlemen in that position using threatening language towards each other, especially as in the case where that gentleman foretold the very day and hour at which a fellow-member was to be arrested?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I was wondering how the hon. Member would connect this subject with the preceding Question. I must not be supposed to have stated that the Local Government Board have no power to interfere with Boards of Guardians, or that I approve of a great deal of the language used at Boards of Guardians and other places, and much of which I should hope no other Member would approve of. As regards the statement that somebody I never heard of prophesied that a certain person would be arrested, the fact of anybody making such a statement could have had nothing whatever to do with the arrest.

    POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—THE STRAND UNION.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has yet received the Report of Mr. Lloyd Roberts with reference to irregularities in the accounts of the Strand Union, to which his attention was called in July last?
    MR. DODSONsaid, that an interim Report had been received from Mr. Roberts; but there were still some matters requiring investigation; and as soon as the investigation was closed Mr. Roberts would be prepared to make a final Report.

    THE FRENCH COMMERCIAL TREATY—NEGOTIATIONS.
    MR. BIRLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give any information to the House regarding the negotiations now in progress with the French Government for a renewal or modification of the Commercial Treaty?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, as soon as the progress of the General Tariff Bill in the Senate showed that the time was approaching at which the French Government had indicated that negotiations might be begun, Her Majesty's Government addressed to them a pressing representation as to the importance of proceeding without delay, and of making sure that the new Treaty would be concluded before the former Treaties expired. The French Government expressed, in reply, their readiness to open negotiations as soon as the General Tariff Bill had passed the Senate. We
    1652
    have not only asked the French Government to prolong the existing Treaties for a period sufficient to cover the negotiations, but have also asked them to send a competent person at once to London to discuss with Her Majesty's Government certain details which the French Ambassador cannot be expected himself to explain.

    VACCINATION ACTS—NEW ANIMAL LYMPH.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he can state to the House the source whence the new animal lymph is to be obtained, that is, whether the calves are now innoculated from a diseased horse or from a human being suffering under small pox, or from what other source?
    MR. DODSON: Sir, the Medical Department hope to commence their series of calf vaccination from a well-ascertained case of spontaneous cowpox. If such lymph cannot be obtained, they will commence their series from the well-known lymph from The Hague or Brussels station, taking where it has long been in use.

    INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION (LONDON) 1862—METALLURGICAL COLLECTION.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Vice President of the Council, What has become of the collection illustrative of mining, metallurgy, and mineralogy which was exhibited in the Zollverein Department of the International Exhibition (London 1862), and was presented to the Department of Science and Art on the express condition, as alleged at the time, that it should be kept together and permanently exhibited at South Kensington?
    MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I have inquired into the matter referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, and I am informed that the Collection of Minerals was presented by the Zollverein Commission of the 1862 International Exhibition to the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education, no pledge, I am told, having been given as to exhibiting it in the South Kensington Museum. The late Sir Roderick Murchison having, as Director of the Royal School of Mines, a full knowledge of the Collec-

    1653
    tion, expressed himself unable to place it in the Jermyn Street Museum. An officer of the School of Mines, upon careful examination, found that it contained so many duplicates and unnecessarily large specimens that, without impairing its value, several smaller Collections could be formed with advantage to all concerned. This was done by presenting Collections to several large Provincial towns, besides giving the main Collection to King's College, London.

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS, 1866–9—LONDON LOCK HOSPITAL.
    MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the doubt which exists whether the certifying of the London Lock Hospital and the detention of patients therein, under the Contagious Diseases Acts 1866–9, is legal, inasmuch as that institution is not situated in any "Place" to which those Acts apply?
    MR. OSBORNE MORGAN, in reply, said, that his attention had only been called to the doubt referred to by the Question of his hon. and learned Friend, and he did not think that doubt was well founded. The Acts alluded to gave the fullest power to the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War to provide and certify any building whatsoever without restriction of place for hospital purposes under the Acts, and he did not think that those general words could be held to be cut down by the previous section limiting the operation of the Acts for police purposes to certain specified areas. He might add that this interpretation was borne out by the mode in which the Schedules to the Acts were framed.

    POST OFFICE—FORGING IMPRESSED STAMPS.
    SIR HENRY PEEKasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in order improperly to obtain admission to a meeting of the ratepayers under "The Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act, 1871," at which discussion took place upon the Guildford, Kingston, and London Railway Bill, the Wimbledon Post Office impressed stamp of the 13th of March 1881 was forged upon certain postcards in order to make them facsimile imitations of cards of invitation issued by the Conservators to their rate-
    1654
    payers through the post; whether such an act is not a criminal offence; and, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that, so far as he could learn, no existing statute provided a remedy for the offence in question. He hoped that the state of Public Business would enable him to bring in a Bill relating to offences against the Post Office, in which, if the House thought desirable, this particular offence might be dealt with. The Department were quite satisfied that there was no ground for attaching the slightest suspicion to the officials of the Wimbledon Post Office in reference to the occurrence.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—RURAL SCHOOL BOARDS.
    MR. ROUNDELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, considering the great importance of providing for the inexpensive working of School Boards in rural districts, he will reconsider the rigid departmental rule which indiscriminately forbids the employment of a relieving officer as clerk to a rural School Board?
    MR. DODSON: Sir, the objection to a relieving officer accepting office under another authority who might require his attendance when his services might be urgently needed in his district are so serious that such a proposal has invariably boon refused by the Board; and I am afraid that, in the interest of the Poor Law service generally, I could not undertake to re-consider a rule which, when once relaxed, would form a precedent extremely difficult to resist in other cases, and might often furnish the officer with excuses for the neglect of very important duties.

    THE CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE CROWN—CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATIONS.
    MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any steps have been taken to prevent Civil Servants of the Crown from engaging in the management of trading establishments whilst on full pay; whether it is true that all the managing officers and committee of one of the largest Supply Associations belong (with two exceptions) to this class; and, whether it is

    1655
    proposed to issue a Treasury Minute or take other action in the matter, in order to secure for the public the complete service for which remuneration is given?
    MR. MACDONALDasked, Whether there was not an understanding last year that nothing should be done until the Committee appointed to consider the matter had made its Report?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I was going to refer the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) to an answer which I gave last Session to a somewhat similar Question then put to me by the hon. Member for Oldham(Mr. Lyulph Stanley). I need only say now, with regard to the second Question, that I do not know whether it is true that all the managing officers and committee of one of the largest Supply Associations belong, with two exceptions, to the class of civil servants of the Crown. With reference to the general matter, the Government have carefully considered the representations made to them both on the part of the traders and on the part of the persons interested in the co-operative movement, and have come to the conclusion that they will not offer any opposition to the re-appointment of a Committee, if the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) desires to move for it, and that they will not take any general action on the subject until the Committee has reported; but, in the meantime, the Chiefs of the Departments will, no doubt, continue to exercise their discretion in any case in which they think that the outside duties of their officials conflict with the public interest.

    PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT—THE REV. S. F. GREEN.
    COLONEL MAKINSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Rev. S. F. Green, now a prisoner in Lancaster Castle for disregarding a monition of Lord Penzance, acting under the Public Worship Regulation Act, will have the same indulgences allowed him as are permitted to the prisoners confined in Kilmainham Gaol under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I presume this Question is intended as a jest; but if it is to be answered seriously, I would say that the gentleman
    1656
    referred to is, as I imagine, committed for contempt of Court, and, consequently, is treated under the Rules laid on the Table as a first-class misdemeanant. The other prisoners referred to are dealt with under the Rules settled and arranged under the Act recently passed by Parliament.

    CUSTOMS—THE PORT OF MALDON.
    MR. ROUNDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the estimated amount which will be saved to the Exchequer by the arrangements in connection with the recent reduction of the Port of Maldon?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the reduction will cause a diminution in the staff of officers from seven to four, and a consequent decrease in the expense of the establishment of from £275 to £440 a-year. In addition to this, some farther saving will accrue on account of minor expenses incidental to the business and management of an independent force which cannot be accurately estimated.

    STREET TRAFFIC (METROPOLIS)—WOOD PAVEMENT IN PICCADILLY.
    MR. CARINGTONasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If he will inform the House why, this time of the year, when the traffic is very heavy, has been chosen to take up the wood pavement in Piccadilly, near Hyde Park Corner; and, whether it was done in order to repair the gas or water pipes, or on account of the pavement being out of repair?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, the streets of the Metropolis are under the supervision of the Vestries and District Boards, and no permission from the Metropolitan Board of Works is requisite for repairs unless it is desired to close the thoroughfare entirely. With regard to the pavement of Piccadilly, I have ascertained, by the courtesy of the Vestry Surveyor, that it was taken up at the request of the contractors, and with the sanction of the Vestry, because it was in a bad condition. The work is being proceeded with now in order that it may be completed by the end of the Easter Recess, after which time, I need hardly mention, the traffic will be even larger than it is now.

    THE CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will place on the Notice Paper, when more than one Class of Civil Service Estimates are put down for the Committee on the same day, the numbers of the Votes of each Class which he proposes to take on the day named?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, when it is proposed to take Votes out of the order in which they stand in the several Classes, I think it is desirable that the numbers of such Votes should be placed on the Notice Paper; but when it is intended to take the Votes in order I do not see that anything would be gained by specifying the numbers.

    AFGHANISTAN—THE MAHSOOD WAZIRIS.
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a force of several thousand men is about to start from Bunnoo to chastise the Mahsood Waziris, who are subjects of the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, whether, in the arrangements now being concluded with the Ameer, the necessity has been, or will be, impressed upon him of keeping his subjects on our frontiers in proper subjection in future, so as to avoid the constant recurrence of raids upon our territories, and the necessity of sending large forces to exact satisfaction, at a heavy cost of men and money?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Mahsood Waziris are not subjects of the Ameer. They form a portion of the independent tribes on the North-Western Frontier. They have always been considered by the Government of India as an independent tribe, and the relations of the Government of India with them have always been direct. Therefore, it has never been considered, and is not now considered, desirable that the Ameer should be held responsible for the acts of tribes over whom his authority is not recognized. As to the particular acts referred to, the facts are that two years ago a body of this tribe, numbering about 2,000 men, in combination with others, committed an unprovoked attack on the British Border, maltreating the inhabitants of a town,
    1658
    and destroying property to the value of £8,000. For this conduct they were required by Lord Lytton's Government to pay a suitable fine, to restore the property they had carried off, and to give up the ringleaders of the outrage. To these terms they never submitted. On the contrary, they committed further depredations on the Frontier. This is a state of things which, in the opinion of the Government of India, cannot be permitted to continue; and they have resolved, on the recommendation of the Punjaub Government, to enforce the terms demanded in 1879, if they are not submitted to voluntarily, by means of a punitive expedition. The latter part of the Question has been already answered in the statement I have recently made.

    TUNIS—THE ENFIDA CASE.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether on consideration Her Majesty's Government has seen any reason to sanction a departure from the agreement entered into by the French and English Governments that the Enfida case at Tunis "should be dealt with by the local tribunals under whose jurisdiction the matter properly comes;" whether his attention has been drawn to a telegram from Tunis in the "Standard," announcing the arrival of Commodore Brinckes with two French frigates and a corvette, in addition to the "Jeanne d'Arc," which has been stationed there some time, besides the French despatch boat "Cassard;" if he will state what definite decision has been arrived at regarding the disposal of this case; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will now lay the Papers regarding this matter upon the Table of the House?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the case is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but no final decision hag been come to. Mr. Reade was called upon to furnish further information, and he has already forwarded it by post. A telegram has been to-day received from Lord Lyons reporting that he had been assured by the French Government that the telegram in question is unfounded, but that provisions had been sent to the iron-clads permanently stationed at Tunis in a small vessel which leaves again to-day.

    PUBLIC HEALTH—METROPOLTTAN ASYLUMS BOARD.
    MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the decision arrived at by the Metropolitan Asylums Board on Saturday last, to continue legal proceedings in the Hampstead Hospital case, has the sanction and approval of the Local Government Board; and, whether the estimated cost of the legal proceedings already incurred, and at present paid or payable by the Metropolitan Asylums Board out of public funds, exceeds £20,000?
    MR. DODSON: Sir, the sanction and approval of the Board is not necessary to the proceedings referred to; but I have no hesitation in stating that I have expressed my acquiescence in the decision of the managers not to abandon the second appeal in the Hampstead case. I have no information as to the estimated cost of the legal proceedings instituted against the managers; and I cannot, therefore, say what they will amount to.

    SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—NEGOTIATIONS.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Government, Whether they can give the House any information with reference to the proceedings in the Transvaal?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the intelligence that Sir Evelyn Wood has arrived at an arrangement with the Boers, and that the Boers have substantially accepted the conditions of Her Majesty's Government, is correct. The Papers will now be presented forthwith, and they will exhibit the course which has been taken with respect to the arrangement made by Sir Evelyn Wood, which, of course, he had to refer home. But it may be convenient, in the meantime, that I should give, without professing to quote textually, the main propositions of the arrangement. They are these—first, the suzerainty of the Queen over the Transvaal is acknowledged; next, complete self-government is promised to the Boers; thirdly, the control over foreign relations is reserved; fourthly, there is to be a Resident at the future capital; fifthly, the Royal Commission will consist of Sir Hercules Robinson, Sir Evelyn Wood, and Sir Henry de Villiers, Chief Justice of the Cape;
    1660
    sixthly, the Commissioners are to consider the provisions for the protection of Native interests, and arrangements as to Frontier affairs; seventhly, they are also to consider the question whether any and what portion of the Transvaal territory eastward, within certain limits, should be severed from the Transvaal; eighthly, the Boors withdraw from Laing's Nek and disperse to their homes; ninthly, British garrisons remain in the Transvaal until the final settlement; and, tenthly, the Boers having engaged as above, Sir Evelyn Wood promises them not to advance nor to send warlike stores into the Transvaal.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is meant by the expression, "control of foreign affairs reserved." Does it mean reserved for settlement by the Commission, or is it to be taken out and reserved for the Crown?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The words I have cited are those contained in the telegram which we have received. I may say, however, that I do not entertain the smallest doubt as to their meaning. They mean that the settlement of foreign relations will be reserved entirely to the Crown and the British Government.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Do I understand that the Boers have not laid down their arms, but are to be allowed to retire to their homes carrying their arms with them?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The terms demanded by Her Majesty's Government were the withdrawal of the forces and the dispersion of the Boers to their homes. As to the delivering up of their arms, we have never sought to impose any such condition.
    MR. J. R. YORKE: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "suzerainty." Is that term to be considered as synonymous with the word "Sovereignty," or are we to draw a distinction between the two expressions?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The word "suzerainty," I believe, in modern times, is perfectly well known to International Law. It is, undoubtedly, quite distinct from Sovereignty, while it has marked relations to Sovereignty. It would not, I think, be convenient for me to presume to give a legal decision, nor would I attempt to go further than the general

    1661
    statement I have made; but I should wish hon. Gentlemen to reserve their judgment until they have had an opportunity of considering the matter from the documents which will be laid on the Table. I quoted "suzerainty," because it is the word the Government have advisedly used in their communications with the Boers, and which will be incorporated in the settlement.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Are we to understand by the expression made use of in the telegram which the Prime Minister has read that the relations of the British Crown to the Transvaal will be analogous to those of the Sultan of Turkey with Eastern Roumelia?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The relations will be so far analogous that the relations of suzerainty will be maintained in both cases; but I cannot say that we have adopted the Eastern Roumelian Constitution.

    AFGHANISTAN—CANDAHAR—MISSING DESPATCHES.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Postmaster General with reference to an answer given last night by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. The noble Lord stated that the Correspondence relating to Candahar was in an incomplete form, and—
    "The more so, as by some accident or over sight a great part of the despatches which ought to have been received by the last two mails had not reached the India Office."
    He wished to know, Whether the Postmaster General had received any communication from the India Office with reference to the "accident or oversight?"
    MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that, as far as he had been able to ascertain, nothing had happened in the Post Office to account for the non-arrival of the despatches referred to if they had been posted. He had received no communication on the subject from the India Office.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it would have been more convenient if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given Notice of the Question he had addressed to his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General. He did not wish it to be understood
    1662
    from his answer on Monday that the despatches had been mis-sent, or had failed to be delivered by the Post Office He presumed that the despatches had not arrived in this country because they had not been sent.
    MR. GIBSONasked, whether the noble Lord had telegraphed to ask the Government of India if they had posted the despatches?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had telegraphed yesterday to inquire what had taken place; but no reply had yet been received. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave him Notice, he might be able on some future day to tell him what had occurred.

  MOTION.
    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

      RESOLUTION.
      MR. CHAPLIN, in rising to call attention to the following facts in connection with the recent outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in England:—That, up till October last, the Country had been for many months perfectly free from that disease; that, during that month, a cargo of diseased animals was landed at Deptford from France at a time when disease was known to exist there; that, within a week of their landing, cases of the disease were detected in London, and that since their detection the disease has spread rapidly among thousands of stock, causing much inconvenience to the general public and serious injury and loss to agriculturists in all parts of the Country; and to move the following Resolution:—
      "This House is of opinion that the recent outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease has been entirely caused by the importation of diseased animals into this Country from abroad; that it is proved by experience that compulsory slaughter on landing does not afford security against the introduction of contagious cattle diseases from Foreign Countries; and that the landing in England, Scotland, or Ireland of foreign live animals should not be permitted in future from countries which are known to be infected, or as to which the Privy Council are not satisfied that the Laws thereof relating to the Importation and Exportation of Animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein, are such as to afford reasonable security against the importa-

      1663
      tion therefrom of animals which are diseased into this Country,"
      said, he made no apology for bringing this matter before the House that night, because they had recently been suffering, and were still suffering, in many counties in England, from a severe outbreak of contagious disease amongst the herds. The House would remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) said, in answer to a Question put to him from that side of the House during the earliest days of the Session, that since the month of January, 1880, down to October last, the country had been perfectly free from what was known as "foot-and-mouth disease." In the accuracy of that statement he (Mr. Chaplin) was, happily, able to agree. It was true that for a period of nine months they were free from that terrible scourge; in fact, it was completely stamped out by the exercise of the severe restrictions which were imposed upon the home trade of the country under the provisions of the Act passed in 1878, and that, too, in spite of all the predictions to the contrary, which he remembered so well on the part of a great many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House, and who, at that time, were most persistent and strenuous opponents. It was interesting to watch the working of the Act from the commencement of its operation, and to see the gradual and steady effect it had had upon the course of that disease, resulting at last in its final extinction. Professor Brown, in the official Reports to the Privy Council, had illustrated so clearly the effect of the Act upon the course of that disease that he hoped he might be pardoned for quoting two or three extracts from his Reports. In the Report of 1878, referring to the progress of foot-and-mouth disease, Professor Brown said—
      "No serious accession of the disease occurred in any month of the year 1878, although the number of attacks varied in the Returns for each month, from 1,365 in January, 1,586 in February, and 2,505 in August, to 684 in September, when the regulations under the Act of 1869 were superseded by the Act and by the Orders under the Act of 1878… According to the Returns of the last week of the year 1878, there were only two centres of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain; and it is not unreasonable, therefore, to entertain the hope that under the stringent provisions of the Act of 1878 the affection may shortly be extinguished."
      1664
      That was in 1878. He would quote two very short extracts from page 6 of the Report of the Department in 1878. The first said—
      "Foot-and-mouth disease began to extend its area. At the commencement of the year the declaration of infected places and the consequent limitation of the movement of infected animals had a very marked effect in controlling the progress of the malady."
      Later on, the Report said—
      "In the latter part of the year foot-and-mouth disease declined so much that it was commonly spoken of as a thing of the past. The Return for the last week of the year included only three infected places."
      That was the experience of Professor Brown, who was probably the highest authority they had, upon the working of the Act in three months of 1878; and it culminated, as they had seen, in the total extinction of that disease during the first nine months of 1880. That, to him, was a most gratifying testimony of the beneficial working of the Act; and when he remembered it was passed during the reign of a Conservative Government, and when he called to mind the charges and taunts brought against the Conservative Government—and he must add so unscrupulously by some of their opponents, and especially during the last General Election, when it was said that they had done absolutely nothing for the farmers' interest during the whole time that they were in power—he must express his own individual opinion that the Act of 1878, which was introduced in the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, and carried in the House of Commons by his right hon. Friend below him against a Liberal opposition and a Liberal obstruction such as he had rarely seen equalled in that House, had been proved by experience to be the best, the wisest, the most statesmanlike, and the most beneficial measure affecting the agricultural interests ever carried, certainly, during his time within the House of Commons; and more so, when it had become the instrument of finally extinguishing that terrible scourge of foot - and - mouth disease throughout the country. Well, that disease having been stamped out, having, he said, practically—not only practically, but absolutely—ceased to exist in the country, he felt it his duty to take the earliest opportunity he could find of calling the attention of the House of Com-

      1665
      mons to the fact that they were again suffering from this disease, which he had stated as distinctly as he could had been absolutely stamped out; and he would endeavour to indicate, also, the means, the reliable means, by which they could ever hope to be free, as they ought to be, from any recurrence of that grievous calamity. That it was a most grievous calamity he could assure the House was no exaggeration on his part. But before he proceeded to trace what he believed to be the real remedy, perhaps the House would allow him to show, as far as he could, what had been the extent of the effect of the outbreak at the present moment, not only upon the producers of stock and the agriculturists of the country, but also upon the interests of the general public and consumers as well. He found that the number of outbreaks since October had been 3,166. According to the latest Returns he had been able to obtain, the number of animals attacked had been 131,260. The number of places infected were so numerous that, he understood, a complete list had not yet been compiled, and there had been 193 infected areas in 30 counties of England. Now, what did that mean? It meant not only immense inconvenience to the producer and owner of stock, but it meant a large additional expenditure of time and labour as well. It meant a large direct pecuniary loss, arising from the diminution in the value of the animals attacked, and it also meant a still larger pecuniary loss arising from two or three causes—partly from what he might describe as forced sales, and partly owing to the limited market, which, owing to the necessity of imposing severe restrictions in the districts where the disease existed, were all that were open to the farmer who was unfortunate enough to live in those districts. More than all that, a still more serious loss resulted to the farmer from the amount of injury done to the breeding prospects of his flocks or of his herds, as the case might be, in future. It was indeed difficult to estimate the absolute pecuniary loss sustained by the farmers, as the indirect loss, so far as he could judge, was much greater than the direct loss they had undergone. He, himself, could not put the loss at less than £1,000,000 or £1,500,000, and he was not by any means satisfied with the accuracy of those Returns. At the same time he said this, he was not making any complaint
      1666
      of the Government or the officials they employed, for anyone knew how difficult it was to obtain anything like accurate Returns. But he would give the House an instance of what he meant. It so happened that in one of the Returns there was included a farm in the county of Lincolnshire which he knew himself. The Returns in this case were given as 12 sheep dead, and 200 that remained on the farm affected by the disease. Well, it so happened that he received only yesterday morning a letter from the farmer himself, full of complaints of the sufferings of the sheep and the loss he had undergone, and he said he had lost 43 ewes by death, and 387 lambs besides, in addition to all the other animals on the farm remaining affected; and so the House would see that, taking the estimate he had done, if that Return was to be a sample of the others, he should not be much over the mark. Then the House ought to remember, as well, that the outbreak had occurred at a period of the year which was peculiarly favourable for its suppression and control; and while he gladly took that opportunity of acknowledging the energy and zeal of the Privy Council, and of expressing his opinion that the thanks of all agriculturists were due to his right hon. Friend opposite, to the President of the Privy Council (Earl Spencer), and others, for the promptitude and vigour they displayed in trying to check the spread of the disease after it had broken out, they would agree with him that if the outbreak had occurred in the summer, when the flocks were scattered over the fields, instead of in the winter, when they were sheltered in homesteads, and, so to speak, isolated, the loss must have been fully four or five times greater. So far he had spoken merely of the loss that had fallen on the producer; but what would the outbreak of the disease do at the same time for the consumer? Undoubtedly, he must be a loser as well by the return of the disease. The unhappy return of this disease would have been a serious discouragement to breeding in the country; and, in consequence, it would have lessened greatly the home production as well, and in all human probability would end in the increased cost of meat, which the consumer would have to pay; and he might say that that, perhaps, appeared to him to be the most serious question of all

      1667
      that was likely to arise through the presence of that terrible disease in the country. They must remember that live stock constituted so large a proportion of the capital of the farmer, that unless he could have a sure guarantee that they would not be subject to contagious disease, his position would always be one of great risk for the security of the capital which he had embarked in his farm. Well, but security for their capital was what they were all of them anxious to give tenant farmers in these days; and nobody more so, if he might judge by the loudness of their professions, than hon. Gentlemen opposite. The security of their capital was what they always wished to give to tenant farmers; and they might rely on this, that there was no security at the present time that could be offered which would be so effective or so beneficial to the tenant farmers of the country as security against the introduction among their flocks and herds of contagious diseases from abroad. He remembered they were told at one time that the whole agricultural produce of the country, with proper security and adequate capital, might be very easily doubled. He did not know who made the statement, and he did not care who it was; but, if he said the whole produce of this country could be doubled, with profit on the outlay, then he (Mr. Chaplin) ventured to say, in his humble estimation, he was simply talking nonsense on a subject he did not understand. But, at the same time, he was ready to admit that there was room for an enormous increase in the production of mutton and beef; but to do that, the breeder must have absolute immunity from the terror of contagious disease at home or abroad. That was absolutely essential; and until that was done he was satisfied they could never hope for any real or permanent advance in the future. So much was that the case, that he himself had known, he might almost say without exaggeration, hundreds of instances of farmers who had given up breeding in this country in disgust and despair; and to his judgment it was deplorable and distressing that, at the present time, just as they had began to entertain hopes that confidence had been restored and fear had been allayed, and just as the beneficial effects of the last legislation on the subject were beginning to be felt, all the good should be undone, and all
      1668
      that mischief have occurred, because of the unhappy importation of disease into the country again. Let him ask the House why was that so, and what was the cause of it? Whence did it come? He did not suppose that there could be a shadow of a doubt. He did not imagine that even his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Mundella) would venture to deny that it had come in that case direct from abroad. What were the facts? In the month of September in last year, there was an outbreak of the disease in the North of France, and shortly after a cargo of diseased animals was landed at Deptford. They were all slaughtered at the port of landing; but, unfortunately, human beings who had been in contact with those animals were liable to convey the disease as well as the live animals themselves. And that it had been conveyed, in this case, there could not be a shadow of a doubt, because within three days—he believed he was perfectly right in saying three days, and if he was wrong the right hon. Gentleman would correct him—after the landing of this cargo the disease appeared in the London dairies, although there had not been a single symptom of a case of that disease anywhere in England previously for nine months. Well, now, he was not making any complaint of the Government; on the contrary, he thought that after the disease had unfortunately been admitted, the efforts to check and suppress it had been of a most energetic and praiseworthy character; but they could not ignore this fact, that the whole of the mischief had arisen from the system under which the trade in foreign meat at the present time was carried on. Under that system the landing of foreign animals was kept entirely to the discretion of the Privy Council. The Privy Council could permit them to be landed, or prohibit them from being landed, as they pleased; but when landed they were obliged to be slaughtered at once. The Privy Council, however, had no discretion as to their slaughter, except under certain stringent conditions which were afterwards mentioned, and were based upon the knowledge and information possessed by the Privy Council as to the freedom from disease of those countries from which the animals might have come. Well, in that Deptford case, all those diseased animals were slaughtered at a port at once; but, notwithstanding

      1669
      that, the disease found its way into the country; and he contended, therefore, it had been shown, by experience, that compulsory slaughter at the port was absolutely no safeguard and security against the introduction of contagious disease. What he would propose, therefore, was simply this—that the Privy Council, in the first place, after giving adequate notice—and the Privy Council must decide for themselves what adequate notice was—let the Privy Council, he said, after giving adequate notice, exercise the power which they possessed already to prohibit the landing of all foreign live animals from countries infected by the disease, and known to them to be infected. Let the landing of all such animals in future be prohibited by law, but subject to those conditions of exemption to be found in the 4th section of the 5th Schedule of the Act of 1878, which applied to animals to be killed on landing, and under which none, except on those conditions, were permitted to leave the wharf alive. Then they might hope for a complete immunity from the disease abroad, and they might also look forward once again to its final and complete extermination at home. He saw the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) was going to oppose the Motion. He should be told, he supposed, that they must not interfere with the food of the people. No one was less desirous than he was to impose any restrictions on the food of the people. He remembered when the Act of 1878 was introduced, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but who was then Vice President of the Council—["No, no!"]—well, he forgot what Office the right hon. Gentleman held, but he was one of the chief opponents of the Bill, and he moved an Amendment to the effect—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, the slaughter at the ports of landing of all cattle from the Continent would restrict the supply and increase the price of food, and should, therefore, not be made compulsory, under all circumstances, by Act of Parliament."
      Then the right hon. Gentleman wont on to say—
      "It is on my ability to prove these two propositions that I ask the House to base their opinion of my Resolution."—[3 Hansard, ccxli. 148.]
      Now, what happened? So far from
      1670
      increasing the price of food, the Act had just the contrary effect, for the mean price of meat at the Metropolitan Market in 1878 was 8 1–16 d. per lb., and in 1879 only 7¾d.; and with regard to restricting the supply, he found that in 1878 there were 1,201,498 live animals imported, and in 1879, the year after the passing of the Act, 1,245,022. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were wrong at the time as to the consequences of the Act, and he had every reason to suppose they would prove equally wrong in the future so far as his proposition was concerned. He asked the House to consider what the restrictions proposed really amounted to. He was sorry to trouble the House with so many statistics, but they formed the most important part of his argument; and when it might be legitimately contended that his scheme would interfere with the supply of food, he was bound to show that that result need not be apprehended. Now, our importation of meat into England consisted partly of dead meat and partly of foreign live animals. Taking the Returns of 1879, he found that there was imported of dead meat 6,443,024 cwt., and of foreign live animals—in number—1,245,022. These 1,245,022 live animals, calculating 6 cwt. for the average weight of a beast, and 1 cwt. as the average of the sheep and pigs, would represent 2,483,862 cwt., making a total of meat imported into this country of 8,926,886 cwt. Of those foreign live animals, however, 254,000 came from the following countries:—British North America, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, and Portugal, which were already exempted under the Animals Order Act from slaughter at the port, and would, therefore, under his proposition, be allowed to land. That reduced the number of foreign live animals whose landing would be prohibited to 991,000. These 991,000, on the same calculation as above, represented 1,704,822 cwt., or just about one-fifth, and no more, of the total amount of meat, dead and alive, which was imported into the country. Those figures left out of the calculation altogether the increase in our home production that would be certain to occur, and which, in his opinion, would soon more than counterbalance the temporary loss that would be sustained. He did not know that there were any other possible ob-

      1671
      jections that he could anticipate as likely to be urged against the Resolution. Possibly, the old three-legged cripple Free Trade would be again trotted out; but he wished to remark that he demanded, not protection against foreign meat or food, but protection against foreign disease. It could scarcely be contended that the prohibition of cattle from infected countries would not give us immunity from disease. He had, indeed, heard it argued that the outbreaks were spontaneous, and that the disease was indigenous to the country; but such arguments would not hold water for a moment, as hon. Gentlemen would see if they waded impartially through the Reports of the Cattle Plague Committee of 1877, in which the balance of evidence was conclusively against that view. Lastly, there was one other consideration that he had to submit to the House. It could not be expected that the farmers of this country would continue to submit to the harassing restrictions imposed upon them, unless they received in return immunity from disease from abroad. The main opposition to the Act of 1878 was grounded on two considerations. It was said that the restrictions would never be sufficiently strong to stamp out the disease—and on this point the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had expressed himself very plainly to that effect; and, in the second place, it was declared that even if the restrictions were sufficient our farmers would never consent to them. In both respects, however, experience had shown that the late Government were right. The farmers throughout all England had loyally submitted to severe but necessary restriction; and now, after all their sacrifices and losses and inconveniences, it was most depressing and disheartening to find that their efforts had been fruitless and their sacrifices thrown away, in consequence of the re-admission of the scourge of the disease. If the system of the free admission of cattle continued, he had no hesitation in saying it would be necessary to abandon the present harassing restrictions at home, as to which the farmers could not justly be asked to submit unless they at the same time enjoyed complete and absolute immunity from foreign disease. Freedom of importation, coupled with freedom at home, meant nothing less than universal disease
      1672
      throughout England; and the only alternative was a system such as that which he advocated, and which would utterly stamp out the disease. Once more he claimed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as his supporter, for he had said in the debates on the Act of 1878—
      "If the disease were once stamped out at home, the farmers would have some ground to demand that its introduction from abroad should be rendered impossible."
      [Mr. MUNDELLA: What disease was that?] Foot-and-mouth disease. He, therefore, called upon the right hon. Gentleman and on the Government to act up to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in 1878, and to support the Resolution which he now moved, in the confident belief that its recommendations were in the interests of the farmers, of the consumers, and of the community at large. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given. Notice.
      MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON, in seconding the Resolution, said, that, as Chairman of the Veterinary Committee of the Royal Agricultual Society, also as representing a county which had suffered more from foot-and-mouth disease than any other county in England, he had had opportunities of obtaining special information on the subject. It appeared to be certain that the disease was introduced last autumn into France by a vessel which put into St. Omer, and that it next spread to the North of France, whence it was brought across the Channel to Deptford. Now, as it was difficult for the Government to put sufficient pressure on foreign Governments, he was driven to the conclusion that the only proper course was to stop the introduction of animals infected from every country in which we believed the disease to be. His point was that the French, in order to prevent the introduction of trichinosis, absolutely stopped the importation of pork. In the same way, as we had no security against the introduction of diseased animals at our ports, he was driven to the conclusion that it would be necessary to prevent altogether the importation of animals from certain countries. There had been a great growth in the feeling with respect to foot-and-mouth disease, and the measures taken with regard to it. Ten years ago, the farmers did not care much

      1673
      about it, and were unwilling to take those precautions which the foresight of Professor Brown would have imposed upon them. But now there was a feeling throughout the country that the disease was so dangerous, that farmers would submit to any restrictions to keep it out. In 1878, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) told them that foot-and-mouth disease did not come from abroad; but it was somewhat strange that since the Act of that year up to the beginning of the present year the country had enjoyed a complete immunity from that disease. He considered that the Act of 1878 had been a complete success. It had not, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated would be the case, increased the price of meat; while, at the same time, to his (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton's) own knowledge, it had acted as a stimulus to the farmers to breed more stock at home. Those two points were sufficient to show that the supporters of the measure were right, and that those who opposed it were not justified by the results. There had also been a very great increase in the dead meat trade during the last 10 years, and this country need never be afraid of any shortness of supply, seeing how successful the scheme of bringing meat from the Antipodes in frozen chambers had been. He believed the trade in dead meat might be carried on with success, if it were necessary to prohibit the importation of live cattle altogether. There were two or three centres from which foot-and-mouth disease spread, and these were the large markets. The greater part was introduced from abroad; but he believed it had been also introduced from Ireland. He did not say that the disease was in Ireland; but, from information received by the Royal Agricultural Society, he believed that animals had been landed at Silloth, which probably contracted disease in the passage. The outbreak in Cheshire had been traced to a cow in Manchester market—whether an Irish cow or one from a foreign country he could not say; but in a month from that time 390 animals were attacked. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who represented, probably, the largest dead-meat market in the North of England, was opposed to the Motion of his bon. Friend; and his Predecessor in the representation of the borough (Sir
      1674
      William Charley) on that question took a different view from the Party with which he usually acted. There must be something in the position of Salford as a dead meat market to which the opposition of its Members must be attributed. But the general feeling of agriculturists was that no sacrifices would be too great to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease, provided the price of meat was not increased, nor any restrictions placed on free trade but such as might be justified by the absolute necessity of the case. The absolute necessity of the case was that it was far more important that we should breed healthy cattle at home rather than import them, and the English farmer ought not to be handicapped in the race with other producing countries by increasing the risk of production through the importation of diseased animals from abroad. He begged to second the Resolution.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House is of opinion that the recent outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease has been entirely caused by the importation of diseased animals into this Country from abroad:
      "That it is proved by experience that compulsory slaughter on landing does not afford security against the introduction of contagious cattle diseases from Foreign Countries:
      "And that the landing in England, Scotland, or Ireland of Foreign live animals should not be permitted in future from countries which are known to be infected, or as to which the Privy Council are not satisfied that the Laws thereof relating to the Importation and Exportation of Animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein, are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals which are diseased into this Country."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
      MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped it would be found convenient that he should at the very earliest opportunity place before the House the views of the Government with respect to the Resolution of his hon. Friend. He need hardly say it was their intention to give to that Resolution a direct negative. He hoped to be able to show the House that, in the interest not only of the consumer but of the producer, the Resolution was one of the most unfortunate that could possibly be submitted. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire commenced by speaking in terms of the highest laudation of the Act of 1878. He (Mr. Mundella) did not dispute for a moment the value of that Act. He be-

      1675
      lieved its operation had been most beneficial, and that it had mainly succeeded in accomplishing the purpose for which it was passed. But the Liberal side of the House might claim some credit for the modifications which they introduced, and which made it mainly a working Act ["No!"] What, then, about the restrictions on the import of cattle from America? The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire said that the Act of 1878 was the best, wisest, and most statesmanlike measure ever passed for the agricultural interest. [Mr. CHAPLIN: I said the most beneficial in my time.] Well, if it was such a beneficial, wise, and statesmanlike Act, how was it that the hon. Gentleman asked them to destroy it? For he began by asking them to take away the very principle of the Act, which was the compulsory slaughter at the ports of landing of all animals which had not complied with the provisions of the 5th Schedule. He had looked through the long debates on the Act, and there was not even the mention of the word "prohibition" by any Member who spoke on the question. All that hon. Members opposite had professed to require was free importation with compulsory slaughter at the ports; and prohibition had never been mentioned in the House, except with reference to cattle plague and rinderpest. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who had the conduct of the Bill, made many speeches all in that sense; and citations might even be made from the speeches of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. The hon. Member said that its object was to stamp out disease at home, and prevent its re-introduction from abroad; and that it sought to attain its object by imposing severe restrictions at home, and enacting compulsory slaughter at the ports.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to misunderstand his (Mr. Chaplin's) present position. What he proposed was—instead of compulsory slaughter at the ports, which was proved by experience to be no sufficient safeguard, but which at the time we were ready to accept for a trial—that there should now be absolute prohibition in regard to the landing of live animals from countries known to be infected, or having laws which did not afford us security.
      MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that was exactly what he had assumed. The hon. Member now advocated exactly the reverse of what he wanted in 1878. It was not intended, said the hon. Member, by compulsory slaughter to stamp out disease, but to prevent infected animals coming in; and it had not been shown that that object would be attained. Of course, it was the common object of all to enlarge the meat supply. But the hon Member now proposed to abolish compulsory slaughter at the ports altogether, and to establish complete prohibition. If that were done, the principle of the Act would be entirely gone; and the hon. Member now practically asked the House to destroy the measure which he and other hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves showed to be so beneficial. He must make his acknowledgment of the way in which the administration of the Act by the Privy Council had been spoken of. He could say honestly he had endeavoured to the best of his ability to administer the Act to prevent the spread of disease; but his part in the work had been very small compared with that of Earl Spencer, who had devoted more time and labour to the business than would generally be supposed. The hon. Member had made certain statements which, for the convenience of debate, he would, as far as possible, admit. It was true that, up to October last, the country had been for some nine months practically free front foot-and-mouth disease. It was also true that during that month a cargo of diseased animals was landed at Deptford from France, at a time when the disease was known to exist there; also, that within a week of their landing cases of disease were detected in London, and that the disease had since spread largely among the stock, causing much inconvenience to the general public, and serious injury and loss to agriculturists in all parts of the country. That he would admit, but with a certain qualification. It must be remembered that the cargo from France to which reference had been made was the 15th that was affected during those nine months, and that we were constantly in receipt of affected cargoes. That only showed how effective compulsory slaughter at the port of landing had been. We had been receiving cargoes from Holland, which was, perhaps, never known to be

      1677
      free from the disease. He made the hon. Member a present of these admissions; but did they justify the hon. Member's Resolution founded upon them? To the assertion that it had been proved that compulsory slaughter on landing did not afford security against the introduction of contagious cattle diseases from foreign countries, his answer was that it was proved to have afforded reasonable security against the introduction of contagious cattle; and the only disease against which it had not afforded absolute security was foot-and-mouth disease, against which neither compulsory slaughter nor absolute prohibition would afford absolute protection. However, against pleuro-pneumonia slaughter afforded absolute security. [Mr. CHAPLIN assented.] Let it be understood that the total prohibition that was asked for by the hon. Member would exclude from three-fourths to two thirds of the vast imports of the past few years, estimated at a money value of about £8,000,000. It was impossible to prove whether it was or was not the specified cargo of October which led to the distribution of the disease in this country. The hon. Member for Cheshire (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton) upset the whole case for the Resolution by suggesting that the disease might have come from Ireland to Cheshire. [Mr. WILBRAHAM EGERTON: I said I could not tell.] He thought the hon. Member seemed to assume that it came from Ireland. He (Mr. Mundella), however, did not believe that a single case of foot-and-mouth disease had been introduced from Ireland during the last two years, although he was constantly receiving reports that Irish cattle were bringing it. Still, it was open to them to ask why might not the contagion be spread just as much from Ireland as from Deptford market? The 2nd and the 3rd Resolutions were entirely unwarranted and inadmissible; and if they were adopted their operation would be prejudicial to both producers and consumers, and consequently to the general interests of the country. To adopt them would get rid of the principle of the Act of 1878, and give effect to its two exceptions; and it would substitute for the present law prohibition or absolute freedom. The Privy Council had done nothing contrary to the principle or the letter of the Act; they had
      1678
      followed strictly the precedents of their Predecessors, if they had not gone beyond them, in order to be in advance with the measures necessary to prevent the spread of disease. Last week a deputation of farmers came to him to say that they preferred the foot-and-mouth disease to the restrictions; and he believed many farmers had said the same thing. There was prohibition of import from Russia, Austria, Greece, Turkish Provinces, Germany, and Denmark. He did not deny that some people thought that the principle of prohibition ought to be extended; and if bad cases arose, and dangerous disease existed in a country previously free, the Privy Council had at present the power to prohibit; but, up to this time, they had never been required or asked to do so. The conditions framed under the Act were perfectly clear. As long as the Privy Council were satisfied that a country was free from diseased cattle, that the laws relating to the export of cattle and the general sanitary regulations in force were such as they could approve of, then they were to allow the animals of that country to be landed at British ports without subjecting the animals to slaughter. That condition had been acted upon; and it was not imputed by the hon. Gentleman that they had admitted a single animal that ought not to have been admitted. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Disease has been admitted.] He had made the largest admissions on that subject, and had nothing to conceal. They could not boast of perfect immunity from disease. Did the hon. Gentleman know any country where such perfect immunity existed, with the exception of two or three? Well, in 1879 it was found that pleuro-pneumonia existed in the United States, and an Order was made for the slaughter of the cattle imported on landing. Later on it was found that some sheep were affected, and all animals from the United States were slaughtered. They had now had two years' experience of the Act; and he maintained that time had proved that its operation had been most beneficial. And yet the hon. Member, at the end of two years, asked the House to exclude from the administration of the Act its main provision. In introducing the Bill into the House of Lords in February, 1878, the Duke of Richmond and Gordon said—

      1679
      "In view of the danger of spreading disease through the country, I have been urged more than once to prohibit any live stock coming from abroad. It has been suggested that it ought only to come in the form of dead meat. I do not think we have sufficient experience to justify our adopting that course, and I do not think our experience of the dead meat supplies from America and the Continent is sufficient to warrant the recommendation of so grave a change in the trade. But then to make the home restrictions to which I referred bearable in this country, I think it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of getting rid of the foot-and-mouth disease and of pleuro-pneumonia that all foreign animals shall be slaughtered at the port of landing."
      And what did the hon. Gentleman himself say?
      "The object of the Bill," he said, "was to stamp out diseases at home, and to prevent their re-introduction from abroad, and it sought to attain its object by imposing severe restrictions at home and enacting compulsory slaughter at the ports. It was not intended by compulsory slaughter to stamp out disease, but to prevent disease coming in, and it had not been shown that the object would not be attained."—[3 Hansard, ccxli. 345.]
      And the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) who introduced the Bill, and carried it with so much good sense and good temper through the House, said, on the second reading—
      "The Bill which he had the honour to introduce to the House attempted to deal with the question. It proposed, as far as cattle plague was concerned, to put it down by giving to the Privy Council absolute power to stop the imports entirely from the countries where it prevailed, and by slaughter at the ports and inspection…. Combining these two precautions, he maintained that sufficient security against disease was taken."—[Ibid., 144.]
      The Government of the day were very much reproached for the provision as to slaughter at the ports, which was considered too strong a measure; and what did the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) say, in reply? He said—
      "Hon. Members had treated the Bill as if it were one entirely to prohibit foreign countries from sending live cattle to England. That was a mistake. All the Government said was, 'You may land them alive, but you shall not be allowed to take them beyond a certain limit.' Judging from what some hon. Members said, one might think that the intention was that all cattle should be knocked on the head as soon as they were lauded from the ship. Nothing was further from the intention of the Ministry. Cattle could be kept for ten days or longer at the port of debarkation, and only be killed when information was received from the great centres of consumption that a scarcity of meat prevailed."—[Ibid., 244–5.]
      1680
      Nothing could be more to the point or more satisfactory than that statement of the noble Lord. What was the first act of the then Government under the Bill? They called upon the local authorities to make provision for slaughtering animals at the port of debarkation, and he might add that there had been an enormous expenditure incurred in making the necessary arrangements. He could hardly say what amount had been spent in this fashion by the Corporation of London. The Lord President had had repeated interviews with the Corporation, who met him most handsomely in making a large increase of that expenditure in order to ensure greater sanitary precautions. Surely the hon. Gentleman, who was such an advocate for vested interests, would not ask them to abolish all those markets, and render useless all the vast expenditure indicated, without proposing some means of compensation. [Mr. CHAPLIN: I said you might compensate them.] Yes; but it would be found a very heavy item. He believed £500,000 had been spent in the case of London, and millions all over the country, for the purpose. In reference to the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary said—
      "All cattle which now came from abroad would come in still…. It had been said that this was a question of cheap and dear meat, of town and country. The only question between them was how the importation of cattle could be most safely carried on."—[Ibid., 1021–2.]
      Well, they had had no outbreak of rinderpest or sheep rot since the Act was passed. It was pleuro-pneumonia that was to be stamped out under it. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pell) was of opinion that the foot-and-mouth disease could not be stamped out in this country. [Mr. PELL: Without slaughter.] The hon. Gentleman said, in, June, 1878—
      "Even then he had serious doubts whether foot-and-mouth disease would thus be extirpated in England. He, therefore, did not feel at all comfortable at the prospect of imposing these extremely severe measures on foreign animals.…He hoped to see that strenuousnes and severity applied in some marked degree to the extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease in England, and not directed too exclusively or sharply to foreign importations."—[Ibid., 239.]
      Mr. Kavanagh, who was at that time Member for Carlow, and, he believed, Mr. Clare Read, also at the time a Member of the House, had great misgivings as to whether compulsory slaughter at

      1681
      the ports of disembarkation would have the effect of stamping out the foot-and-mouth disease. It was, therefore, a new feature in the controversy for the hon. Member now to propose that the importation of foreign cattle should be altogether prohibited. The fact was that the operation of the Act of 1878 had been most beneficial. For instance, in 1877, the number of outbreaks was 2,007, with 5,330 animals attacked; in 1878,1,771 outbreaks, and 4,593 attacked; in 1879, 1,549 outbreaks, and 4,414 attacked; and in 1880, 1,052 outbreaks, and 2,765 animals attacked. That showed that since 1877 the number of cases had come down to one-half; and if the local authorities would only second the efforts of the Government, and have a little more courage in slaughtering healthy animals that had been in contact with diseased ones, there was no doubt that in a very short time they would stamp out pleuro-pneumonia altogether. At present, so far as importation was concerned, there was no danger from that cause, except by direct contact with the foreign animal. Pleuro-pneumonia could never be incubated. In 1871, the Dutch Government tried to extirpate that disease; but they were not very successful till they came down to 1876, and resolved to slaughter the healthy animals. In 1871, they had 6,000 cases of pleuro-pneumonia; in 1872, 4,000 cases; in 1873, 2,500; in 1874, 2,400; in 1875, 2,200; in 1876, 1,723; in 1877, 900 odd; in 1878, 600 odd; and in 1880, only 48. He believed that a similar result would follow a similar course of proceeding in this country. He did not wish to minimize the serious character of the disease of which the hon. Gentleman complained—foot-and-mouth—but, at the same time, it was comparatively slight. ["No, no!"] Well, if hon. Gentlemen so wished, he would say it was a very serious disease. He knew it was a very troublesome one—it was highly infectious; it was communicated by means of a wisp of hay, a milk-maid's apron, almost any medium would convey it. When, however, total prohibition was talked about, it should be remembered that the disease had first been introduced into this country at a time when prohibition of all animals had been in force. He ventured to say that no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease had been so sud-
      1682
      denly grappled with and had led to such small results as in the present instance. He could not claim to have the agricultural authority of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he spoke on the strength of statements by experts. The present outbreak might be said to have commenced at the end of last September, between which time and the end of December the number of reported outbreaks was 1,461, and of animals attacked 32,378. In the last 13 weeks of 1871 there were reported 25,699 outbreaks, and 381,772 animals attacked—or more than ten times the number in the former period. The proximate number of fresh outbreaks and the number of animals attacked in Great Britain during the 24 weeks from October 2,1880, to March 12, 1881—both dates inclusive—were 3,166 and 131,260 respectively. There being about 36,000,000 head of live stock in Great Britain, this gave a third of 1 per cent attacked, or just over 1 in 300. He did not wish to say that this was not a larger proportion than he would like to see; and he must, in mentioning it, show how the Department were mastering the disease, by stating that the number of animals attacked had steadily fallen from 256 in the week ended January 8, to 55 in the week ended March 19, and this week he believed the numbers were proportionately less. The fact that they were keeping the country comparatively free from the disease while cargoes were constantly coming in, showed that it was possible to keep it comparatively free for a long time. But could it be hoped that they could ever, by prohibition, keep it entirely free? With our enormously increased commerce and our constant communications with countries perpetually affected by the disease, such a hope could not for a moment be indulged in. Anything that came from a French farm or a French dairy might carry infection, and there was no doubt great danger that people coming over to International Cattle Shows might bring the disease in their garments or on their boots. The hon. Member had spoken of the number and value of the animals which were brought to this country. America had found means of bringing to this country enormous supplies of animal food which, previously, it had been thought impossible to bring. The number of cattle that came in last year was slightly in excess of the number in 1876; and how was it

      1683
      that the number was not greater? The answer was, in consequence of the prohibition of Continental cattle and the slaughtering at the port; and America had only just recouped us for what we lost in the Continental supplies. We had averaged 10,000 head of German cattle until 1877, when we prohibited them; and what had since been the result? In 1877 there was imported 2,258 cwt. of dead meat, the produce of 300 cattle; in 1878, 5,541 cwt., as the produce of 600 cattle; in 1879, nothing; and last year, instead of 19,000 head of cattle from Germany, we imported exactly the produce of 19 cattle. He had no hope, therefore, of being supplied by the Continent of Europe with fresh meat. He wanted to ask the House to consider seriously what would really be the effect of cutting off this enormous supply of food. The supply of fresh meat had not increased at all in the same ratio as the supply of cattle. The imports of fresh meat last year were in excess of the year before, and they had been growing for several years past. In 1878 the value of the fresh meat imported was £1,335,299; in 1879 it was £1,501,349; and in 1880 it was £1,865,529. The value of the living animals imported into the United Kingdom in 1880 was £10,242,903, while it was only £7,075,000 in 1879. The increase of live cattle was mainly from America, and it was the quality as well as the quantity of American cattle that was important. Anyone who had read the Report of Messrs. Pell and Read would have an intelligent idea of what kind of meat the Americans were sending us. It was nothing but the primest and the best, for that was the only meat that paid; and instead of reckoning now three cattle to the ton, as used to be the case, we could only reckon two. What would happen if they acted on the principle of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire? It was a rule well known to political economists that immediately the supply fell below the demand there was a rise in price out of all proportion to the falling off. If the hon. Member's Motion were adopted, we should be deprived of from 10 to 12½ per cent of our meat supply, and the price of the article would be doubled. Anything more disastrous for the working classes, and for the interests of the country generally, could not be imagined. The
      1684
      first effect of a rise in the price of food was to diminish employment, and to drive the people from the home to the foreign trade, thus impoverishing the country, and, therefore, impoverishing the farmer. The hon. Member opposite had said that if they prohibited they would have a plentiful supply of meat presently. It was a mistake, however, to suppose that anything they could do in that House would stimulate the supply of meat. When science had found out the means for transporting fresh meat safely to this country there would be no lack of it, and then hon. Members might fairly ask for the prohibition of live cattle. Why was it that we did not at present get a much larger supply of fresh meat from America? Why, because it was a perishable article, and when brought here was brought to a forced sale; whereas the live animal could wait 14 days for a purchaser. American cattle cost in the transport to this country nearly treble what the dead meat cost. Every animal, in fact, cost 2d. per lb. while the dead meat cost only ¾d. per lb. The cost of insurance of cattle was from 5½ to 10 per cent. The loss in the transport was well illustrated by the fact that last year, out of 154,000 animals sent from America, more than 7,000 had either to be thrown overboard or killed immediately after landing. This was enough to stimulate the active and vigorous Yankees to send their dead meat as quickly as possible to avoid this loss. Dead meat, however, might be expected from other shores than those of America. Australasia, with boundless resources, was eagerly looking forward to supplying England's wants. He had received a letter from a trustworthy correspondent as to the value of meat in Sydney and Melbourne. The writer said—
      "I have made inquiry, and I find that the price of beef wholesale is from 1d. to 1½d. per lb. As to the quality, it is prime. The sheep and cattle are the choicest. The best sheep and cattle to be obtained from the Old World have been taken out to enrich the flocks and herds."
      Let them consider the boundless supply, therefore, which Australia could afford us. In Australia and New Zealand there was a population of less than 3,000,000; in this country we had a population, taken roughly, of 33,000,000, and for our 33,000,000 we owned 9,900,000

      1685
      cattle and 32,000,000 sheep; whereas Australia and New Zealand, for their population of less than 3,000,000, owned 7,800,000 head of cattle and nearly 70,000,000 sheep. Now, the Australian people had made enormous efforts to send fresh meat to England, and were expending great sums of money with that object. They brought over three cargoes last year, and two of them were perfectly successful. [An hon. MEMBER: That shows it can be done.] When it could be done safely they would see plenty of it; the quantity would be tremenduous, and there would be no need for the prohibition of live cattle. He desired to illustrate briefly how the Resolution, if carried, would affect the British farmer. The first effect would be that the countries to which notice would be given of the prohibition would pour in all the cattle they could. When the time came for total prohibition prices would rise enormously in this country; he would not venture to say how much, but he thought 3d. in the pound would be about the amount of the increase in the price if they took away 10 per cent of the supply. Suppose, however, that after two months, America came forward and said, "Our cattle are free from disease," the Government could not refuse to let American cattle in, with a hungry people knocking at the door of the House. [An hon. MEMBER: Dead meat.] The hon. Gentleman knew it did not come in dead meat. [An hon. MEMBER: It would.] Yes, it would when it paid the Americans to send it, and not till then. The effect, first of all, would be to raise the price, and there would spring up a trade of speculation, and the farmers would be reduced to the greatest uncertainty. They would probably have bought their stock while the prices were high, hoping to realize high returns by the exclusion of foreign cattle, while he found shortly after that foreign cattle were again admitted, and that his stock had become suddenly depreciated. He would find that he was not safe for a day, and that he was liable to be subjected to periods of intense depression and consequent disappointment. There would be no slaughter at the ports. He asked hon. Members to consider that there would be no means of testing the cattle. They discovered that American cattle were diseased six months before the Americans
      1686
      discovered it—[Mr. WARTON: Before they admitted it]—and they would have American cattle wandering through the country before it was ascertained whether they were healthy or not. He believed what they were doing now would give them a reasonable guarantee against cattle disease. He had shown that every disease in the category, except foot-and-mouth disease, had been guarded against, and practical immunity obtained by slaughter at the ports. Perhaps the House would ask him why they were likely to be more successful in the future than they had been in the past in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease? His belief was that they had, in this country, relied too much upon slaughter at the ports to get rid of foot-and-mouth disease. He believed they could not keep clear of it unless they had the best possible sanitary arrangements and sanitary police. They had made important changes at Deptford. Immediately that the last outbreak occurred they made inquiries, and found, in the first place, that dairymen in the neighbourhood of London had been taking fat cattle to Deptford to sell in the market with foreign animals. That, of course, brought the dairyman into contact with foreign animals, after which he went home to his dairy, and if there was any chance of disease he took it home with him. Well, the Government at once stopped that. Then they found that Deptford Market was completely overcrowded, and that there was no means of preventing healthy cattle mixing with diseased cattle. To remedy that, six blocks had now been provided, and they were so divided as to effectually isolate six several cargoes, with a slaughter-house for each block. That prevented any contact between one cargo of diseased animals and another. Then they came to the last and most difficult problem—how to prevent dealers, owners, buyers, and butchers who went in and out of the markets, from bringing out disease; because if the disease had escaped from Deptford—and he was not prepared to say it had not—it had been taken out by men. Of course, although they could slaughter the cattle, they could never think of slaughtering the men. But if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire would go down to Deptford Market, he could there find out by experience what was done to prevent the men carrying out any disease with them.

      1687
      First, he would have to divest himself of those habiliments which always graced his person so much. He would find that while they were taken charge of by someone he would have to put on a smock frock. He could then take his peregrinations through the market-place, and penetrate the blocks allotted to cattle which were found to be diseased; but when he came back he would have to go into a chamber, where he would be subjected to the action of sulphurous flames, which would cleanse him as pure as the Ghost in Hamlet. After being so disinfected, he would next be whitewashed—and he understood the attendants took care to give them in this way a very good dose of a mixture of some chloride of lime, even the hair and whiskers being well rubbed by the chloride of lime and whitewash brushes. Every person who left that market now was disinfected, there being four disinfecting houses, one of them moveable. The same thing was done in Liverpool, and the authorities now requiring it wherever foreign animals were landed. That, they believed, was the only way of preventing the escape of infection. They did all they could under the Act, which had been described as a beneficent Act, and would be glad to receive suggestions that would facilitate their efforts to keep out contagion. He believed that by the careful steps now being taken they would prevent the foot-and-mouth disease escaping from such centres as Deptford, and at the same time would be able to keep up the supply of food to our enormous and increasing population.
      SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made one admission which strengthened the argument of his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin), that the time had come when it might be necessary to re-consider the arrangements made under the Act of 1878, because the right hon. Gentleman had held out the hope that, before long, the supply of dead meat would be almost unlimited. It was quite true, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that this disease was seldom fatal, but it led to a serious diminution in the supplies sent to market. There was no doubt that the question of foreign importation affected the Metropolis far more than any other part of the country. In the discussion upon the Bill of 1878, it was shown that the amount of foreign supply represented but 2 per cent of the actual
      1688
      consumption of this country, eliminating London altogether from the calculation.
      MR. MUNDELLAwas understood to say that last year the foreign supply was 12½ per cent, and that this year it had largely increased.
      SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was indisputably proved that in 1877 and 1878—and he did not suppose the facts were very different now—the country (excluding London) depended on foreign cattle for only 2 per cent. of its supply. Then it came to a question how far the importation of that foreign supply was necessary for the Metropolis, and how far any deficiency that would arise from the adoption of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire's proposal could be met by the dead-meat trade, which was developing and increasing. There was plenty of evidence to show that a very large proportion of meat consumed in London was meat imported from America.
      MR. MUNDELLAsaid, it was shown that 49 per cent of the live animals consumed in the Metropolis were foreign animals.
      SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was contending that a very large proportion of the consumption in London was not dependent on the importation of live animals, but on a dead-meat trade, a great part of which was carried on from America. Might they not, then, fairly ask whether the time had not come for them to re-consider what took place in 1878? He held that if the consumers did not suffer by the change, anything that would bring about immunity to the farmer would be practically for the advantage of the consumers themselves, because the increase of the home trade would more than compensate for the stoppage of foreign import. They were only at the commencement of the dead-meat trade, which would supply the void that might arise from the stoppage of importation of foreign cattle. He recognized the energy which the Privy Council had shown; but the question they had to consider was whether the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was feasible, and, if feasible, whether it would not benefit the farmer without injuring the consumer. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite that already the importation of a large portion of the cattle sent from foreign

      1689
      ports had been prohibited; and that in 1878 they had the very same prophecies as to the loss of food for the people as they now heard from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. The result had not justified the former evil predictions. The price of meat had not risen since 1877; but, on the contrary, had fallen, in spite of the restrictions which, it was said, were to operate so injuriously. The Act of 1878 was objected to and fought on the very grounds that were urged against those additional restrictions which were intended as a safeguard to the home stock of this country on which the consumer depended for his supply. The proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) did not preclude animals from coming into our ports from countries which were free from disease. All it said was that in regard to countries where disease existed of so virulent a character as foot-and-mouth disease, instead of allowing animals coming from those countries to be slaughtered at the port of landing, as was done now, by which practice the disease had been again introduced among us, they should prohibit the landing of cattle from those countries, and require them either to create a dead-meat trade, or to cease to send live animals to our ports until the disease had been extirpated within their borders. The subject was well worth the consideration of the House, for, he believed, the change would not to any great extent affect the meat supply of the country.
      LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHobserved, that from whatever point of view they regarded the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, they were brought face to face with considerations of the greatest possible importance. He thought this subject was one which, beyond all question, Her Majesty's Government and every Member of the House was bound to regard from the point of view of the general interests of the country. It was impossible to exaggerate its importance as regarded the interests of the farmers, large numbers of whom, after the successive bad seasons they had experienced, would be ruined if disease were introduced into their flocks. An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, moreover, would naturally cause an increase in the price of
      1690
      meat. On the other hand, the adoption of absolute prohibition would so largely increase the price of meat that it would debar many poor families from using it. Some hon. Members would, no doubt, be disposed to support the proposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite, from a feeling that they would be benefiting the agricultural interest thereby; but, for his part, he had arrived at the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman had not given sufficient reasons to justify the adoption of his proposal. The disease was one which, although causing grave injury and loss to agriculturists, did not demand so vigorous a remedy as absolute prohibition; and it was rather to the adoption of the precautionary measures indicated by the Vice President of the Council that the country must look for relief.
      COLONEL LEVETTobserved, that to the agricultural population in and around the borough he had the honour to represent this subject was, he might almost say, of vital importance. It was not very long since they heard from a Member of the Government that if there was any class that deserved the consideration of the House, it was the class of tenant farmers. He had hoped that this Motion would not have been met with a direct negative. When he looked at the statistics as to cattle coming here, he found that more than half of the importation into this country came front Ireland. The importation of cattle from Canada and the United States appeared to be increasing to such a degree that it was practically without limit, and Canada, as was well known, was altogether free from disease. If it were possible to encourage the importation of dead meat, and to exercise greater control over the importation of disease from Ireland, he thought it might be found advisable to adopt the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. The question deserved the anxious consideration of the House.
      MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that he had suffered such losses in his own flocks and herds from the ravages of contagious diseases, that he was not likely to under-rate the importance of keeping the foot-and-mouth complaint out of the country. He thought the subject was one which should be approached entirely free from Party bias; and he therefore regretted when the

      1691
      hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), soon after the commencement of his speech, plunged into Party politics, and attempted to raise political capital out of the action of the late Government, of which he was so zealous a supporter. The hon. Member had, by that course, entered upon a dangerous path. He (Mr. Howard) wondered whether it had occurred to him why Mr. Clare Read left the Government, of which he was so useful a Member. If the memory of the hon. Member was at fault on this subject, other hon. Members had not forgotten the reasons. Mr. Read left the Government because of its supineness, its apathy—he might say its obstinacy—in refusing to amend the defects of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. It was not until Mr. Read had retired from the Government, and the farmers throughout the country had condemned, in the most unmistakeable manner, the neglect shown by the Government on the question of stamping out disease, that the Duke of Richmond could be induced to turn his attention to the subject, and to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee which had sat and reported upon the subject. So much for the political aspect of the question. Turning to the general aspect, whilst sympathizing with the object which the hon. Member had in view, it was with great regret that he could not arrive at the same conclusions as to remedies which the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) entertained. No one, however, could question the desirability of drawing our supplies of animal food from pure sources. But what were the facts which the House bad to consider? Before the passing of the Act of 1878, the farmers of the Kingdom had demanded and clamoured for compulsory slaughter of infected animals at the port of landing. This was conceded by the Act of 1878, and the farmers were satisfied. Since the Act was passed there had been but one outbreak—the recent serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease—which, for want of promoter action upon the part of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, for the want of more vigorous action on the part of local authorities, had been allowed to spread itself over the face of the country. It was under those circumstances, and those circumstances only, that the hon. Mem-
      1692
      ber asked the House virtually to repeal the Act of 1878—an Act he had so loudly applauded. The House was asked to upset the compromise arrived at after years of contention beween the great centres of population and the agricultural interest. He ventured to think that was not the wisest course; he held that it would be wiser for Government to render their own regulations more efficient. It would be in the remembrance of the House that when the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) brought forward a Motion last year for relaxing the present restrictions, he (Mr. Howard) moved an Amendment with a view to upholding them; and it would be remembered that the House carried the Amendment by a very large majority. He believed that the country indorsed the action of the House on that occasion; but he did not believe the country would concur or consent to the proposals of the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin). The evidence of their necessity was too slight for the country to consent that the great trade in foreign animals, amounting to more than £10,000,000 per annum, should be endangered; much stronger grounds would have to be adduced before the country would consent to such interference. If the house were to adopt the Resolution submitted to it, he feared the effect would be that the country would be less willing than it was at present to put up with the existing restrictions. Nor did he himself see the necessity for such a sweeping measure as that now proposed. He should be very glad if it were possible to carry into practice the principle of the Resolution, and draw our supplies from countries only which were free from disease; but that was impossible. He believed that Canada was the only country in the world that was free from contagious diseases. He objected to the Resolution, because he believed it would have the effect of arraying the great centres of population now friendly to the farming interest against it. All that was wanted, in his opinion, to secure the country against similar outbreaks and spread of disease in the future, was that the Veterinary Department should carry out more efficiently our own internal regulations; and profiting by recent experience, that would doubtless be the case, not only with the Privy Council, but with local authorities.

      1693
      On those grounds, he felt very reluctantly compelled to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire.
      MR. J. C. LAWRANCEsaid, he could not help thinking that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was founded on a misconception. The object of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was not to upset the Act of 1878: but, that Act having proved ineffectual, to go a step further in the same direction in the hope of excluding foot-and-mouth disease altogether from this country. It could not be necessary to show how a serious a matter an outbreak of this disease was in this country, affecting, as it did, not only the supply of meat, but also that of wool. Everyone who had had their cattle or sheep attacked knew how great their misfortune was; therefore it was not useful to labour the point as to the loss which resulted from the introduction of the disease into the country. The only question for consideration was, would it be possible to carry out what was proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire? He was sorry to hear that the Resolutions would be met with a direct negative, as he had hoped that the Government would continue to carry out the new rôle which they adopted last year of being the farmers' friends. Considering the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), they ought to think themselves most fortunate that the disease had not been spread all over the country before, as it appeared that 14 previous cargoes of diseased animals were imported before the one of the 15th of October last, which caused the outbreak. So it appeared that while the farmers were restricted from sending their cattle and sheep to market, and were entirely at the mercy of butchers and jobbers, the authorities in London were introducing cattle by thousands from other countries, which were liable to spread disease amongst our flocks and herds. It was quite clear from what they had heard that all the European cattle, at all events, might be slaughtered where they were grown. There could be no difficulty about that, if the American meat came over in such large quantities. The Privy Council had the Irish ports under their own control, and could prevent infected cattle coming from Ireland to this country. [Mr. MUNDELLA dissented.] Then, Irish cattle were, he presumed,
      1694
      subjected to the same conditions as those which came from foreign countries?
      MR. MUNDELLAexplained that Irish cattle were regarded as English cattle.
      MR. J. C. LAWRANCEsaid, that in that case they would not be allowed to be sent out of the country from infected areas. The Privy Council thus had a control over Ireland. [Mr. MUNDELLA: The Privy Council of Ireland has.] He (Mr. Lawrance supposed the Privy Council of Ireland would perform its duties as well as the Privy Council of England. There was no such control over any foreign country. While the Privy Council were restricting people in our own country they were allowing the importation of cattle from infected countries under the provisions of the Act of 1878, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, were insufficient to secure the object for which that Act was intended. Experience had shown that the Act had proved useless for the purpose of keeping out foot-and-mouth disease, and, therefore, if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire should press his Motion to a division, it was his intention to vote for it.
      DR. LYONSwished to say a few words on this question, because it was one which considerably affected the interests of Ireland. The present condition of cattle in Ireland had an important bearing on the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as England drew a considerable supply from the Sister Country. It was, however, unfortunately the case that England could not for some few years rely upon such a full and large supply of cattle from Ireland as in recent years. This was due to a most important reason namely, that there had been a very general diminution in the general stock of the country, and that, he thought, was a very serious question for England at the present moment. The statement that the foot-and-mouth disease had been imported from Ireland, or that it might have been contracted on the passage to this country from abroad, was an entirely gratuitous assumption in face of the fact that the cattle in Ireland had, for the last three or four years, been completely free from the disease. It was, indeed, true that there was a very serious diminution in the number of cattle in Ireland, and that the diminution was likely to continue for some time; but it was due to an unfortunate and unwise restriction of

      1695
      credit on the part of the banks, owing to the panic which prevailed at the commencement of the bad harvests three or four years ago, and which led to the sacrifice of large numbers of the younger stock by the small farmers. The stock, however, in Ireland had never been in a more healthy condition than it was at present, although, as he had already stated, this country must not calculate, for the reason which he had given, on anything like the same supply for years to come of cattle as she had hitherto drawn from that part of Her Majesty's Dominions. He could not assent to the proposition of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that the present outbreak had been mainly caused by the importation of animals from abroad; but he would not enter into a discussion in that House on the way in which disease could be disseminated. He wished, however, to point out, so far as Ireland was concerned, that that country suffered from the want of any proper system of training for veterinary surgeons. That want, he hoped, would be supplied, and an educational establishment set up, so that Irish veterinary surgeons might be educated at home, instead of having to be sent to London and Edinburgh to learn their profession.
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he did not wish to trouble the House with more than a few remarks; but as he represented a constituency mainly engaged in cattle feeding, he did not desire to be altogether silent on the question before the House. The hon. Member who had just sat down had made an able speech, containing some statements which he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) did not for a moment dispute, particularly those relating to the supply of cattle in Ireland. There was a statement, however, in that speech which he took exception to. The hon. Member characterized the assumption of his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin), that the foot-and-mouth disease had been imported from abroad, as gratuitous. He did not know what precise meaning the speaker attached to the word gratuitous. He supposed it meant an assumption without a basis; but, in the Report of the Committee of 1875, he found that the foot-and-mouth disease was attributed to a foreign origin. Now, he supposed that before drawing up that Report the Committee had before them the evidence of those who were skilled in
      1696
      the knowledge of such diseases, and, therefore, it was hardly justifiable to call the assumption of his hon. Friend a gratuitous one. But he should not have intruded himself on the notice of the House merely to make a criticism on the hon. Member's speech. He really rose for the purpose of expressing the disappointment and the astonishment he felt at the course which the Vice President of the Council had taken in meeting the Motion of his hon. Friend with a direct negative. No one had a greater admiration and was more inclined to congratulate the Government on the success and the energy with which they had encountered this disease than he. He was certain, too, there was all over the country a sense of gratitude to the Government for the course they had taken, and the energy they had shown. When, therefore, he found the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) meeting this reasonable and modest Motion with a direct negative, he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman was not consistent in the course adopted. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must also have somewhat misconstrued the Motion of his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of it as advocating a course which would result in absolutely stopping the importation of live cattle into this country. He had spoken of the outlay by various municipal bodies in the erection of slaughtering places and apparatus connected with the traffic, and he had asked how they were to be compensated for that sacrifice. He (Sir Herbert Maxwell) ventured to think that the Motion of his hon. Friend would not have the effect anticipated. Even granting the fact assumed by the right hon. Gentleman, he felt sure that when those countries which sent us live animals found the market of this country closed against them, they would at once take the precaution pointed to by the Resolution of his hon. Friend. The Vice President had said that his hon. Friend had magnified the effects of the disease; but he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) fancied that the disease was only felt at its worst in certain districts of the country, one of which was the county which the hon. Member represented (Mid Lincolnshire). The disease was distinctly local in its effects. It fell upon the local rates; and although one county might enjoy an immunity

      1697
      from the disease and expense, the neighbouring county might fall under its attacks. The right hon. Gentleman said that a day or two ago he received a deputation of farmers, who said they would rather run the risks of the disease than have the trouble and annoyance of the restrictions put upon them by the Privy Council. He could understand some farmers taking that view—they probably came from a county that was never affected by the disease. Further, in some counties, in the one, for instance, that he represented, under the Act the local authority had the power of rating both the owners and occupiers alike for the compensation of those whose cattle were slaughtered; while, in other counties, the rate was confined entirely to the owners. Therefore the farmers who lost cattle by disease were compensated by the owners in those counties—a fact which, he thought, was sometimes lost sight of. If the farmers that went as a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) came from counties where that arrangement prevailed, he could quite understand them being willing to run the risks of the disease. The right hon. Gentleman said truly that foot-and-mouth disease was not so deadly as pleuro-pneumonia and other diseases; but he was not sure whether he admitted the additional risk of contagion. The main difficulty in excluding this disease was the extraordinary risk of contagion; but he did not think the worst result of that disease had been touched upon that night—its effect on dairy stock. No statistics could show, in his opinion, the amount of damage done to various stock, and the direct and invariable results of foot-and-mouth disease. Nothing throughout the whole course of this debate had struck him as more extraordinary than the wonderful tenderness shown by the Government for the producer, who lived thousands of miles away, and the want of thought for those who lived at our doors. He was at a loss to account for this. He thought, however, a little more consideration might be extended by the Government to those who were at home, and who were able to show their gratitude in a manner which those who lived on the other side of the Atlantic were not in a position to do.
      MR. EVANSdid not hesitate to say that more damage was done in the county which he represented by foot-
      1698
      and-mouth disease than by the more terrible and frightful diseases—the cattle plague and pleuro-pneumonia. He was not prepared, however, to go so far as the Resolution. He thought, on the whole, what had been done was very successful, and he believed the precautions would be successful in the future. The Government was alive to the danger which existed, and it was inclined to take stringent precautions. The farming interest had shown a wonderful disposition to submit to these stringent precautions. If, in the long run, it should be proved that the foot-and-mouth disease came over and over again into this country, and that it was impossible to keep it out by the present precautions, he did not say that it might not be necessary, and even advisable, to go further; but at present he considered it would be premature to act upon the principles enunciated in the Resolution of the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). At the same time, he must bear his tribute to the ability and moderation with which the hon. Member had brought forward his Motion. In conclusion, he would say that he would have been better pleased had the Motion of the hon. Member been met by the Previous Question.
      MR. RODWELLsaid, he could not reconcile it with his duty to his constituents to give a silent vote on that occasion. He could hardly picture to himself the astonishment with which some of them to-morrow would read the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, when he told the House that he had received deputations of farmers who pooh-poohed the foot-and-mouth disease, and that there were parties in the country who treated this disease as a non-serious malady. He could only say he had taken the opportunity of seeking information, and he had statements from quarters on which he could rely, and he could state that an amount of terror and dismay was spread all over the Eastern Counties of England by this disease, which was quite inconsistent with the idea that this was a trifling disease. He had received a Return which showed that in Suffolk no less than 2,171 animals were now suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. The evils of the disease were specially felt in the lambing season. It was not denied by the Vice

      1699
      President of the Council that the disease came from Deptford, and yet nothing had been done to render impossible its introduction from abroad. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Evans) that the disease was so mischievous and troublesome that it was quite as serious a matter as cattle plague or pleuro-pneumonia. The Committee of 1877 had stated that the disease was of foreign origin, and he thought their statement conclusive. The only question was how to got rid of the evil. The farmers had never come before the country with so good a case as the present. They had done everything required by the Privy Council, and had been exposed to much trouble and loss. They had cheerfully and loyally submitted to the restrictions that had been imposed upon them. Surely, it was not too much to ask in their behalf that means should be taken to prevent that which, in their opinion, admitted of prevention. If it was wise to place restrictions on the movement of cattle from village to village and county to county, à fortiori a stop ought to be put on the importation of diseased animals from abroad. Why should the producer 500 miles away be placed in a better position than the producer five miles off? The evidence given before the Committee of 1877 proved that the disease was not indigenous, and that it had not become acclimatized. They were now dealing with precisely the same matter as that with which they dealt in 1865. All the steps that had been taken since that time had failed one after another. The course proposed by his hon. Friend was, therefore, quite logical. He said—"The remedies hitherto applied have failed, and consequently I am entitled to ask for a new and stronger one." The Vice President of the Council affirmed that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was proposing to repeal the valuable part of the Act of 1878. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member's proposal contemplated, instead, an extension of that Act. It was not intended that cattle should be indiscriminately excluded from England, but only such cattle as came from infected areas abroad. With the fact staring him in the face that the disease had been imported from abroad at Deptford, could the right hon. Gentleman deny that compulsory slaughter did not
      1700
      afford security against its introduction? The right hon. Gentleman talked of its affording reasonable security; but security in this case should not be a question of degree; absolute security should be given if they could possibly have it. The agriculturists of this country would feel greatly disappointed when they found that the Government, which had lately professed to have the farmers' interests so much at heart, refused them simple justice in this important matter. He held in his hand a book, which was read in 1879 by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson), who brought on a Motion with reference to the Agricultural Holdings Act; and he found from it that that hon. Gentleman, acting as a kind of volunteer Commissioner, put to the farmers this, among other questions—"What can Parliament do to remedy agricultural distress where it exists, and to increase the production at home?" Various replies were given. One of them was—"Get rid of Lord Beaconsfield's Government." But the answer, in a very great majority of instances, was this—"Defence from foreign disease; security against disease; keep out cattle disease." That was what his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) now asked the House to give the farmers. He thought his hon. Friend had made out a very strong case, which had not yet been even attempted to be answered—in fact, it had been admitted. If the English cattle -breeder had the protection from disease which he required the effect would be beneficial both to him and to the consumer, and the price of meat would probably be reduced. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had answered one of his own objections to the Motion, because he had spoken of the period when Australian meat would be in such great abundance that it would be brought home to every man's door at 2d. per lb. Again, with the power of scientific invention existing in these days, he believed that if it were known on the other side of the Atlantic that live animals could not come into this country because of their infection, means would be found to increase the supply of dead meat sent from America, and our people would not pay a farthing more for their food than they did now. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, need have no apprehension

      1701
      that, if this Motion were adopted, there would be any difference in the amount of animal food introduced into this country from abroad. The question, then, might be stated in this way—would they not, by protecting home cattle, be doing more to cheapen food and supply the wants of the people than they could do by allowing their flocks and herds to be invaded by disease through the introduction of foreign animals? In his opinion, the balance of advantage was decidedly in favour of excluding cattle coming from infected countries; and he should, therefore, cordially support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDadmitted that the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) had made a very plausible speech in support of the Motion. He also thought that a word might be said in extenuation of the introduction of that Motion, because the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire must have been, to some extent, encouraged and emboldened by the course which the Government felt it their duty to take last year in regard to a Motion which he himself then brought forward. He did not wish to minimize the importance of foot-and-mouth disease. Although foot-and-mouth disease, as hon. Members were aware, was not a deadly malady, yet it undoubtedly diminished the value of cattle. One of the strongest allegations of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire was that the disease spread from cattle in Deptford Market. Particular attention was paid by Professor Brown to the possibility of foot-and-mouth disease coming from that market. He had endeavoured to infect animals in his charge by communication from Deptford Market, and had not succeeded in carrying the contagion. Hon. Members who were on the Committee would remember that Professor Brown mentioned in his evidence that foot-and-mouth disease was introduced at a time when this importation of foreign animals was prohibited. Professor Brown said foot-and-mouth disease had been in this country 30 or 40 years at least, that the probability was that the disease had no connection with foreign importation, and that he regarded it as a disease which had become naturalized in this country. Mr. Clare Read, in his evidence before the Committee, said that the virus had no great force, and that
      1702
      it quickly died out. The question was whether it was expedient, that foreign cattle should enter alive at Deptford and other markets and be there slaughtered. It was most expedient, in the interest of the vast majority of the population of this country, that the entry of cattle should be so allowed. The hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded him had spoken as if it were a matter of indifference whether the supply of the food of the people entered this country as dead or as live meat. It was of vital importance to the health of the people that as large a portion as possible of their food supply should enter this country in a live condition. Of the dead meat imported into this country perhaps the greater part had been for a long time in a frozen condition. At the moment of freezing, the vessels which contained the juices of the meat burst, according to a well-known law of science. When the thaw of that meat took place the juices passed into the muscle and fibre of the animal, and that meat became deteriorated by that fact, and on cooking that meat those juices either passed away altogether and left the residue comparatively useless for human nutriment, or if the meat were long kept in a shop it became discoloured, and the butchers had great difficulty in selling it. He was very familiar with the operations of Deptford Market. He could not say that those operations were perfect. He thought that much might be done in that market to avoid the possibility of contagion arising from it. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had adduced a number of statistics as to the dead meat trade, and had shown that the mean price of meat was less in 1879 than in the preceding year; but the reason for that was painfully obvious, and was not connected with the Act passed in 1878. The hon. Member was possibly not aware of the extent to which wages had been withheld in manufacturing towns, or of the great sufferings that the people of those towns had endured while the depression of trade lasted. And when the hon. Member had spoken of the hardship inflicted on the farmer by the forced sale of his stock, he might with more than equal justice have dwelt on the similar but greater misfortunes of the importers. The depression of agriculture was severe, no doubt, and attracted more and more attention every day; but if the hon. Member, instead of coming

      1703
      forward with these hankerings after Protection—["No, no!"]—if, instead of coming forward with measures which had not due regard to the interest of the people, he would either introduce, or support those who were willing to introduce, measures with respect to the land which would give agriculture that expansion which it needed, he would do some good. He opposed the Resolution on the ground that its Mover had not proved his facts, and because his arguments were founded upon a careless—he would not say thoughtless—disregard for the interests of the great mass of the population of this country.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTobserved, that the House had learnt a good deal from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who, since last year, had acquired some new facts. Last year, for instance, he had said that Texan fever was not contagious.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDexplained that he had quoted that from a Blue Book.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought that the statements of Blue Books ought not to be quoted in the House as actual facts, unless the hon. Gentleman so quoting them was quoting them as facts. However, the hon. Member knew now that Texan fever was contagious. He had also learnt another fact from the Vice President of the Council—namely, that foot-and-mouth disease might be conveyed from place to place by human agency. When the hon. Member acknowledged that 15 cargoes of cattle had been slaughtered at Deptford, and that the last outbreak of the disease probably originated there, he had practically admitted the cases he had set himself to disprove. The Government deserved all credit for their endeavours to carry out the Act of 1878; but they ought to remember the cost of enforcing that Act. It amounted to this—that by restricting the markets of the farmers, their live stock, on being sold, fetched something like 15 to 16 per cent less than the proper price. He himself had been obliged to sell cattle which should have brought £24 £20, at and he lost 6s. or 8s. a-head on his sheep, which he had been obliged to sell at home. The Government knew that the agriculturists had borne the depression well, and they ought now to recompense them by
      1704
      making the introduction of the disease impossible. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had ordered special precautions to be taken at the Deptford Market; but there was another market, that at Islington, which had much to answer for on account of the laxity of the way in which cattle and calves sold there were, in ordinary times, allowed to he sent all over the country. As for the dead meat trade, the right hon. Gentleman had destroyed, his own arguments by admitting the extreme cheapness of meat in Australia, and by his own statement that arrangements for its exportation were being perfected. It was surprising that the right hon. Gentleman should have immediately afterwards contended that it would be against the interests of the English people to restrict further the importation of cattle from a neighbouring country that was known to be infected. As he had said before, the Government were carrying out the Act very well; but what was now wanted was a pledge, such as the right hon. Gentleman showed no intention of giving, that further steps should be taken to prevent the occurrence of the disease in future. What was being done would not stop the disease. It had been detrimental to the agricultural interests, in spite of their being subject to restrictions such as they had not known before. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) in the statement that since 1863 the House had been adopting, step by step, tentative measures to prevent the importation of disease. The junior right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had always opposed anything which might benefit, or even protect from disease, the agricultural interest; and he would defy that right hon. Gentleman to show that the agricultural interest could be properly protected otherwise than by more stringent measures against importation. All the steps that had been taken hitherto, it was admitted, had not advanced the price of meat. It was said it had to be shown that for the consumer absolute protection was the best thing we could have. Well, suppose there were a great war, and suppose we could not obtain our usual supplies from abroad, what would be the position of this country? [A laugh.] He noticed

      1705
      an hon. Professor laughing at that remark; no doubt he thought the supply would come whether we were at war or not. But a wise and prudent Government would look ahead, would consider what was to be done in such a contingency, and would determine that with such a population there should be no necessity to go away from home for the supply we required. This could be done only by protecting our own herds and flocks. There was no more insidious disease, and none more damaging to the stock of the farmer, than the foot-and-mouth disease. The only way to keep it down was to adopt more strenuous measures affecting importation. It was admitted that the disease affected more or less many of the cargoes that made up that import—he did not say so, but some even said three-fourths of our foreign supply—and that showed the grave responsibility that rested upon the Government if they did not adopt every means in their power to stop the importation of disease.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down had challenged him to justify the conduct he had pursued in a previous Parliament, when, as the hon. and gallant Baronet said, he was opposed to everything which could protect or, as he subsequently said, could benefit the agricultural interests. Certainly, he had some dislike to the term Protection, whether applied to agricultural or to industrial interests; but he absolutely denied that he had ever been opposed to anything which could be proved to be likely to benefit the agricultural interests of the country. He believed nothing could be done to secure the permanent advantage of these interests—which, after all, was the greatest industrial interest we had—that would not also re-act to the advantage of the other industrial interests. He did not, however, believe in any proposal in any manner intended to benefit the agricultural or other interests at the expense of some other party. Those who had followed this debate, and recollected the debate that took place two years ago, when the Act that had been under discussion was passed, would know there were always present two interests, interests which were not necessarily in-consistent, but both of which had to be considered by the Government of the
      1706
      country. First, there were the interests of the consumers generally, and especially those of the inhabitants of large towns, who were concerned in the cheap and plentiful supply of food. There were, next, the interests of farmers, who desired, not unnaturally, to be as far as possible preserved from anything in the shape of the foreign importation of disease. Those interests, he repeated, were not necessarily inconsistent; for if they could, without unnecessary interference with trade, protect the farmer they would stimulate the production of food; and that, no doubt, would result in a cheapening of the supply. These objects could be reconciled by endeavouring to follow out the recommendations of the Committee of 1869, whose aim was to secure the maximum of protection against disease with the minimum of interference with trade. To this he might add, as another condition, that any form of protection from foreign disease must be accompanied by the willing submission of our farmers to stringent domestic legislation. The question was, whether, two years after the passing of the Act by which these things were secured, it was necessary to increase the protection against foreign disease, or the stringent character of the domestic legislation? He did not deny for a moment the serious character of the disease which had been under discussion; and any further protection which could be devised that did not constitute an improper interference with enterprize might fairly claim the fullest consideration from the House. But he confessed he looked with some suspicion upon propositions having that avowed object when they came from hon. Gentlemen who, like the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, assured them that they had not the slightest concern in favour of Protection generally, and that all they desired was protection from disease, but who afterwards went on to anticipate that, in the course of debate, the "old three-logged cripple, Free Trade," would once more be trotted out. Another ground of hesitation with regard to such propositions was that they came from the Members of a Party who were continually increasing their demands. There was no satisfying them. The hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) had said that he grounded his case, in a great measure, upon the existence of agricultural dis-

      1707
      tress. Whenever there was agricultural distress in this country, there always came from that Party propositions which, if they were not Protection, were something so very much like it that it was very difficult to distinguish the difference. It was only two years ago that an Act on this subject was passed, with, apparently, the almost unanimous approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but to-night, after hearing the debate, he was really doubtful whether that Act was, as the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had said, one of the wisest, best, and most statesmanlike legislative performances he had ever known in his time; or whether it was an Act so futile and so incomplete that it required to be repealed as regarded its most important provisions. They had heard a good deal as to the failure of the predictions made by Liberal Members when that Act was under consideration; and he must say that, looking back upon that time, those who predicted, whether on the one side or the other, had had the usual fate of prophets. He hoped they would take the lesson, and, perhaps, indulge less in vaticination for the future. On his own side, undoubtedly, it was said at that time that, as one result of more stringent regulations, the price of meat would advance; and it was also thought that the farmers would not submit to the stringent restrictions which alone would justify the provisions as to foreign importation. He was bound to admit that the price of meat could not be demonstrated to have risen in consequence of the restrictions of the Act of 1878—thanks to the unexpectedly large and continued importation of live meat from the United States—and that the farmers had shown an intelligence which some had hardly expected them to exhibit; and that they had, apparently, willingly consented to very severe restrictions in the belief that by such means alone they could stop the prevalence of the foot-and-mouth disease. If their anticipations had not been entirely fulfilled, those of their opponents had been equally unconfirmed. Those gentlemen assured the House that if it only passed those regulations, they could promise an absolute immunity from disease. And now, within the short space of two years, they said, in the language of the hon. Member for Mid. Lincolnshire, that the Act of 1878, requiring
      1708
      compulsory slaughter at the ports, was no security whatever against disease. He was not prepared to deny that the time might come when both sides might re-consider the position. But if there must be re-consideration it ought to be mutual, and not be confined to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Having re-considered the matter, he was inclined to say that their experience up to the present time did not justify any considerable change. The case of the hon. Member rested upon four assumptions; but before they made so tremendous a change in the law, and risked such considerable consequences to the population, he ought to produce a case based upon something like certainty. The hon. Member alleged, in the first place, that the Act of 1878 had the effect of immediately reducing and, very shortly after, of extinguishing foot-and-mouth disease; in the second place, that the disease was re-introduced from abroad by the importation of diseased cattle from France; thirdly, that absolute immunity from risk of that kind was necessary to the British farmer if he was to proceed with any energy in his undertakings; and, fourthly, that this absolute immunity could only be secured, and would certainly be secured, by the prohibition of the importation of live animals. Not one of those allegations was in the nature of an axiom to be accepted without much more evidence. It was not absolutely certain that the Act of 1878 was the sole cause why the foot-and-mouth disease diminished, and for a period of nine months was almost extinguished. On previous occasions the disease almost disappeared for a time. In 1876 there was hardly any foot-and-mouth disease in the country. They had that on the evidence of Professor Brown before the Committee. And yet at that time there were no restrictions of anything like the severity of those imposed by the Act of 1878. Foot-and-mouth disease was like many diseases to which human beings were subject, and was capricious, and subject to periodic variations in intensity. There might be times when cattle were more susceptible of it. As to the disease being propagated by immediate contagion, as maintained by the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), gentlemen of great authority declared before the Committee that they had done all in their power to induce

      1709
      contagion by taking the virus from the foot and saliva from the mouth of a diseased animal, and they had failed. He did not deny that there was evidence which pointed in a contrary direction; but it was too much to be asked to undertake such extravagant legislation upon a basis of theory and not of fact. As to the British farmer not being able to carry on his business unless he was protected in the way proposed, if that were so, then the British farmer stood upon a different footing from other persons. There was no manufacturer or shopkeeper who did not carry on his business with certain risks. Lastly, he was not able to admit as a positive fact that the absolute stoppage of the importation of cattle would prevent the reintroduction of the disease. Professors Brown and Simonds gave evidence before the Committee that they did not believe in putting an end to the disease by the prevention of foreign importations, but relied on the most stringent home regulations. Some witnesses before the Committee of 1878 declared that this as well as other diseases could be imported in hides, wool, and even dead meat. He had very little confidence that if the House were to assent now to the imposition of the more stringent regulations desired, in two years hence, if agricultural distress were to continue, some of the hon. Gentlemen would not come forward and promise absolute immunity from disease if they would only protect the British farmer by prohibiting the importation of hides, wool, and dead meat. The argument of hon. Members he understood to be that, inasmuch as the Act of 1878 had not increased the price of meat, they might still further limit importation. Why had not the Act operated in that way? Simply because the importation of live animals was not stopped. They were told in 1878 that they might rely on the importation of dead meat to prevent a rise in the price of meat. If they had done so they would certainly have been disappointed. In three years the importation of dead meat had only increased to the extent of £500,000, while that of live animals had increased nearly £3,000,000, or six times as much as the other. In the case of the Continent there was no dead meat trade to take the place of the live supply; and, as the importation from the Continent bad considerably dimi-
      1710
      nished, there would have been a great difference in the price of meat if it were not for the supply of animals from the United States. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had pointed out that there was a prejudice against foreign dead meat, because the English consumer preferred fresh-killed beef. It might be said that the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would apply only to infected countries. But at present, and it would probably be the case for some time to come, most foreign countries were infected. His right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council had pointed out that the proposal would not be beneficial, even in the narrowest point of view, to the British farmer. They would have to provide £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 out of the Exchequer to compensate the local authorities for the provision they had made under the former Act, and then there would remain ono of two alternatives—absolute prohibition when any country was infected, and absolute free trade the moment that country appeared to be healthy. But, as his right hon. Friend had pointed out, there might be primâ facie evidence of a country being healthy, while there might really be some disease in it, which might be imported under the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. The Act of 1878 was a compromise. It was said that it had met with strenuous opposition from hon. Members representing town constituencies, and no doubt that was so; but those hon. Members did not sit on one side of the House only. That opposition was not due to any prejudice against the farmers, but from a desire to protect the food of the people against unnecessary restrictions and interference. Hon. Members opposite sought to obtain in the Bill powers of compulsory slaughter, and they obtained those powers, with certain modifications. What had happened since? So many foreign countries had proved to be diseased that hon. Members opposite obtained practically all that they had been demanded. They must all, he thought, admit that the legislation of 1878 had been fairly successful. It had been borne by the country, first, because the live meat trade had continued to increase, and, next, because the farmers showed themselves willing to meet the restrictions on foreign importation by very stringent

      1711
      domestic restrictions. The country had, in fact, obtained a reasonable guarantee of security against disease; and he hoped in time, with proper precautions, the disease would be further restricted and practically extinguished. It was too much to hope that that would be the case after two years' experience of the Act, and he considered that they were no true friends of the British farmer who would provoke an agitation which might end in the present restrictions being entirely swept away. It would be much wiser for the House to watch for a further period the working of that Act, and not to pronounce it a failure, when, with more experience, it might prove to be a success.
      SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEtrusted he might be permitted to occupy the attention of the House for a very short time, as he happened to represent, not only an agricultural constituency, but a constituency sufficiently numerous in large towns to give him a significant hint if he did anything to shorten their food supplies. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had touched on the subject of Protection; but he begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that he supported the Motion so far only as it related to protection from disease. The debate had been fruitful in charming surprises. It had caused to be exhibited in the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council a strong symptom of the Toryism which lately sat on that Bench; and he (Sir William Hart Dyke) began to wonder whether there might not be some contagion left there. Then, again, it presented the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. J. Howard), the presiding member of a powerful organization for supporting the interests of the British farmer—a leading feature in whose programme was the protection of the capital of the farmer—as an opponent of the Motion. And yet the very thing that deprived the farmer of security for his capital was the apprehension of cattle disease. The hon Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), too, had evinced a sudden knowledge of agricultural matters; but he mentioned the county of Lincoln as a veritable Garden of Eden. The hon. Member had dived into a Blue Book, and found that the state of agriculture was truly lamentable, for it was stated that at the Midland Hotel, Derby, 300 lb.
      1712
      of French butter was sold each week. The hon. Member described that as a disgraceful fact, and he thought he might claim the vote of the hon. Member. But why was not English butter sold there instead? Because the English farmer had been for so many years in terror of this disease that he dared not purchase and keep the necessary stock. Hon. Members opposite talked of the importance of the agricultural interest; but they did not seem to realize its importance. They talked of facilities for selling land, and other matters. He had a considerable quantity of land of which he might have got rid with great facility; and if hon. Members would carry out their argument practically and buy that land he would be very glad. He desired to show the dangerous position of agriculture at the present moment. Corn growing was at a discount, and there were hundreds of farms in this country the tenants of which were brought to the verge of bankruptcy because they dared not invest in cattle, owing to the terror which was inspired by this disease. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had referred to the Bill of 1878, and acknowledged that it had done good; and he seemed to look with great fear lest anything should happen to it. Well, very soon the right hon. Gentleman would be discussing a great Land Bill, which would set aside the Land Act of 1870; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not forfeit his present position from any fear of the alteration or destruction of that Act. He did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should be terrified at the idea that the Act of 1878 might, perhaps, be amended. To his (Sir William Hart Dyke's) mind, they ought, as practical men, to deal with these difficulties as they arose. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the farmers of this country ought to be content with the present condition of affairs, because post legislation had relieved them, to a great extent, from the diseases which in past times ravaged their flocks and herds; because it could not be forgotten that, as a class, they had by no means got over the difficulties that were thrust upon them by the want of legislation in their interest which existed in former days. With regard to the food supply of the country, the Vice President of the Council had tried to terrify

      1713
      them by saying that if these restrictions were imposed the food supply of the country would be injured. But the next instant the right hon. Gentleman had read a letter which knocked that argument most completely on the head by threatening us with such facilities regarding food supply from Australia as would certainly destroy the landed interest of this country. He should not have the least difficulty in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire. He wished, in conclusion, to express the satisfaction with which he had observed the tone of the debate—a tone entirely different from the town and country cry which was raised in 1866, when the House discussed a similar question under the influence of the cattle plague scare.
      MR. DUCKHAMentered his protest against the argument that this was an attempt to return to Protection under another guise. There could be no doubt that great injury had been inflicted upon the agricultural classes in this country by the existence of the foot-and-mouth disease, which, in his opinion, was a national disaster, and was far more worthy of consideration than either rinderpest or pleuro-pneumonia. He begged to remind the House that the Farmers' Club and the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which had their headquarters in London, had passed resolutions expressing their opinions in favour of the Privy Council taking steps to prevent the importation of live cattle from all countries in which contagious disease was known to exist. He was pleased to hear that the Privy Council was about to enforce stricter rules in respect to the landing of foreign cattle. The men who attended to and foddered the cattle at Deptford performed the same duties at the Caledonian Road Market, so that it was a wonder that the spread of the disease had not been more general. It was, however, a satisfaction for hon. Members to learn that regulations had been adopted at the Deptford Market, such as disinfecting the buildings, which he hoped would have the effect, whether the present Motion was carried or not, of stamping out the disease, for the farmers had a right to protection.
      MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not believe his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) desired the repeal of a tittle of the Contagious
      1714
      Diseases Act of 1878; but simply wished, by means of a Resolution of the House, to induce Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill to provide—what? That it should be within the discretion of the Privy Council to prohibit the importation of cattle from any country in which disease was known to exist, and where there were no internal regulations adequate to the stamping out of disease. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council seemed to assume that his hon. Friend wished to repeal the Act of 1878. He (Mr. Newdegate) would certainly not vote with him if he thought his hon. Friend had any such intention; but he meant to vote with him for this reason—that, having watched this legislation from step to step, and remembering that when the Party opposite were in Office in 1865–6 they kept the country a whole year without legislative protection against the rinderpest, and were at length obliged to pass the first Contagious Diseases Act under the pressure of public opinion. Remembering that, he thought his hon. Friend did good service by moving in that House, when the occasion required it, and he held that the recurrence of disease furnished the occasion. He (Mr. Newdegate), therefore, concurred in pressing hon. Gentlemen opposite to take one step further in the direction they had been long pursuing, so that where disease was known to exist abroad, perhaps only across the Channel, and where the Government of that foreign country had not adopted efficient means for the repression of disease, in that case the Privy Council should have power to declare that the importation of cattle from that country should cease for a time. That proposal appeared to him to be perfectly consistent with the whole course of legislation on the subject. He had never regarded that course of legislation as being based on mere commercial considerations. On the contrary, he had voted on all the existing measures for the exclusion or repression of cattle disease as measures of quarantine; and, in that sense, he believed that the proposal of his hon. Friend was the only one which would have the double effect of positively excluding disease, and thus giving the farmers of this country something like an adequate security against the importation of disease, and, at the

      1715
      same time, of giving foreign Governments to understand that if they desired the free importation of their agricultural produce into this country, they must adopt measures within their own country which were adequate to the suppression of disease. It was from that point of view that he had looked at all the measures kindred to the present proposal that bad been passed. It was lamentable that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be so jealous lest there should be some infraction of their favourite commercial theory, the system of free importations, that they were willing to imperil the safety of our flocks and herds by allowing the free importation of disease. Hon. Gentlemen might depend upon it that they had not carried public opinion with them in taking that course. Instead of securing the commercial policy, to which they were attached, they would endanger it, because it was contrary to all sound reason and common sense that the principles which were applied to their commercial policy should be introduced into matters of quarantine. The fact was, that adequate reasons for the proposals of his hon. Friend had been furnished by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council; for what did the right hon. Gentleman say? Why, that hundreds and thousands of animals coming from the United States were thrown overboard. [Mr. MUNDELLA: I said from 6,000 to 7,000 last year.] Well, 6,000 or 7,000 last year; and why were those animals thrown overboard? Because they were diseased. And if they went on throwing overboard 6,000 or 7,000 a-year they might clear their cargoes of disease. Considering this argument, he held that they were not in so much danger of the importation of disease from the United States as from the Continent of Europe, and that there were stronger reasons for the adoption of his hon. Friend's proposal with respect to the trade with the United States. With the present facilities of telegraph and steam communication, information might be conveyed to France, to Holland, to Belgium, or to Germany, so that, slaughtering within their own territories, the owners of cattle and sheep in those Continental States could accommodate the supply to the demands of the market here in England. Why, then, should not the House adopt the Resolu-
      1716
      tion of his hon. Friend by enabling the Privy Council, in the exercise of their discretion, to declare that cattle should no longer be imported from France, or from the other States of the Continent respectively, until means for the suppression of disease had been taken in that country. The French stockholder might be informed by telegram of every turn in the market, and have his cattle slaughtered within the confines of France in time to catch every turn of the market in this country. It was from the Continent that the greatest danger of disease was to be apprehended; and considering that all these measures were, properly speaking, not measures of commercial policy, but simply measures of quarantine, and believing that the supply of food to the consumers of this country, in abundance and cheapness, could never be so well secured as by preserving the health of our flocks and herds in England, which, at all events, afford 70 or 80 per cent of the total supply, he (Mr. Newdegate) could have no hesitation in giving his vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, with the clear understanding that his hon. Friend did not intend to touch any provisions of the Act of 1878, but to add to the provisions of that Act power in the hands of the Privy Council to exclude for a time the cattle of any country in which disease prevailed, and which had not internal regulations of its own for securing the health of the supply.
      MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, it seemed to him unfortunate that the Party opposite were almost always engaged in discussing questions which tended to imperil the supply of the food of the people. Having succeeded in getting the cattle slaughtered at the port of entry, the next step was to prevent the introduction of cattle at all, and then would follow the prohibition of the introduction of dead meat on the ground that disease could be brought by dead meat also. ["Oh, oh!"] Evidence to this effect had been given in a Committee of the House. If that was the case, the effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be to cut off two months' supply of the animal food of this country. Who would suffer by that? None but the poor families, who got too little animal food already. The adoption of the Motion would have the effect of increasing the price of meat, so that the poorer

      1717
      classes, both in counties and towns, would have to eat less animal food. Before the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) attacked the food of the poorest portion of the inhabitants in the counties of England, he ought to wait until the county franchise allowed their own representatives to decide this question. He regarded the proposal of the hon. Member as the most rash and the most foolish that had ever been made in the House on such a subject. He did not think the hon. Member really thought he would be able to carry the Resolution when he proposed it; and he would venture to say that he did not believe any English Government would ever dare to adopt a policy which would suddenly cut off one-sixth or one-eighth of the food supply of the country. The hon. Member's proposition might be advantageous to the Party opposite with regard to the opinions of farmers; but it would certainly be disadvantageous to them in regard to the feeling of the boroughs of the country.
      MR. R. H. PAGETsaid the whole of the last speech was based on the assumption that the Motion, if adopted, would have the effect of increasing the price of meat. This the supporters of the Motion entirely denied. The ground they took was, that in the interest of the producer, as well as in the interest of the consumer, this Motion was deserving of consideration, and ought to be passed. He never listened to a debate in which so many arguments in support of the proposition had been adduced by those who had risen to contend against it. The Vice President of the Council himself, after dividing the Motion into two parts, admitted the truth of one part, and then set himself to prove the truth of the other. The right hon. Gentleman allowed that the disease was spread in consequence of the importation of French stock at Deptford; and when he came to treat of the difficulty which would arise if foreign live stock were excluded, he showed how easy it would be to meet the difficulty by the enormous importations of dead meat, which were ready to enter our ports from foreign countries. The President of the Board of Trade had remarked that he saw no reason why a farmer should expect an exemption which was not enjoyed by the ordinary shopkeeper; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that there was no
      1718
      disease of which the shopkeeper had to dread the importation, and which, if it broke out, would destroy his muslins and silks, or whatever his commodities were. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had lost sight of the fact that science was constantly progressing. A few years ago there were doubts whether this disease was not, so to speak, indigenous in England; but it was now established that a spontaneous generation of disease was among the impossibilities of nature. The disease must be spread from some active source, and if they got rid of it, it could not come again unless it was imported. If one thing was more clearly accepted than another, it was that the disease was easily conveyed. A question had been raised as to what became of diseased meat. They wished to prevent diseased beasts entering the country at all, and to supply only sound and healthy meat. We could have no safeguard against the introduction of disease unless we prohibited the entry of any live animal from a tainted source. The supply of dead meat would increase to make up for any difference resulting from further restrictions. They affected only a fraction of the supply, for no one suggested that any restriction should be placed on the freest importation from healthy countries. The trade would soon suit itself to the new circumstances by establishing slaughter-houses on the foreign side of the water. He believed this debate would do good if it had no other effect than to secure the recognition of the truth, which had been so constantly denied, of the great injury done to the agriculturists of this country by the foot-and-mouth disease. In the agricultural constituency which he represented the estimated loss from that cause alone in one year exceeded £200,000. He appealed to the sense of justice of the House to support the Resolution of his hon. Friend, which, he believed, would have the effect, not merely of freeing the farmers from the risk of disease, but of increasing, and by no means diminishing, the supply of food to the people of this country.
      COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, that at that time of night—12 o'clock—he would not have troubled the House with any observations if it had not been for a remark which had been made by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob

      1719
      Bright). The hon. Member said that anybody who supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) must wish to restrict the supply of meat to the working classes, and also to enhance its price. Now, if he thought that, it would be the very last vote he should think of giving.
      MR. JACOB BRIGHT: What I said was that it would have that effect; not that anybody wished it to have that effect.
      COLONEL KINGSCOTEwould certainly not vote for the Motion if he thought it would have that effect. Representing as he did a very large constituency, and not a purely agricultural one, but a very large constituency of working men, he should feel ashamed if he thought he was doing anything that could advance the price of meat to the working classes. But he believed that the carrying out of the principle of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire would have just the contrary effect, He wished to impress upon the House, and upon the country at large, that one reason why the price of meat was so high was that the tenant farmer, and all those who had to do with the agriculture of the country, were really afraid of breeding cattle on account of the diseases they were likely to contract. It was admitted that the price of meat was very high. And why was that? It was because the farmers had to buy in their cattle at high prices, because so few were bred; and, therefore, the price of live stock was kept up. If they could breed with more impunity and freedom from disease, he believed that the price of meat would very much decrease, and that the farmers would not suffer in consequence, and the consumers would obtain their meat at a lower price. He had listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire; and he regretted very much, when the Vice President of the Council began his speech, that he should have said, on behalf of the Government, that he intended to meet the Motion with a direct negative. Although he gave the noble Lord the President of the Council, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President, and all those who worked under them full credit for having carried out the Act of 1878, and he endorsed every word which had been said in praise of the Act, yet he thought that the right hon. Gentleman went on to show that the Act itself was not perfect in every respect.
      1720
      At all events, if the Privy Council had the power, they had not exerted it in trying to stop the foot-and-mouth disease coming into this country. Upon the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, 15 cargoes of infected cattle had come in without any remonstrance being made with the country—France—from which they came. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Those 15 cargoes came from all countries.] At all events, the first cargo came from France; and if the Privy Council had made remonstrances at the time, through the Foreign Office, to that country, he should have had more confidence in the Privy Council, and the disease which broke out in consequence of the importation from France would not, in all probability, have occurred. Instead of meeting the Resolution with a direct negative, he thought it would have been better for the right hon. Gentleman to have moved the Previous Question; and his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire might then have been satisfied with the assurance that the Privy Council would do all in its power to keep out the disease. He believed that foreign countries were willing to assist us in keeping out the disease; but when we were slapping cargoes from France animals might be infected without the disease having time to develop itself. In the conveyance of cattle between America and this country, the case was different, and the disease had ample time to develop itself; but when cattle were shipped from France they came over to this country so quickly that disease might break out the day or several days after they were landed without anyone having had the slightest knowledge of the diseased condition in which they were shipped. He was glad to hear that there were still more restrictions to be put before sending cattle into Deptford Market. That, however, would only apply to one market, and what they required was that the regulations should be applied to all ports where cattle were landed, and that the restrictions should be carried out to the letter in every market. A good deal had been said, especially by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), as to the impossibility of further extending the dead meat trade, and it had even been contended that the people would not eat meat so imported. But he had recently read the Report written by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), in which it was stated how

      1721
      very much this country was behind hand in the means it adopted, not only for the killing, but for the storing of meat. He had not yet heard that any people in America had been poisoned by beef and mutton so kept, and he did not see why the same state of things should not prevail here. In spite of what the hon. Member for Salford said, the dead meat trade would develop very considerably, and very quickly. What induced a foreign country to lend itself to the propagation of cattle diseases was the knowledge it possessed, that it could not send dead meat here, and that nothing had been done by the Legislature of this country to free the markets from the contamination of infectious diseases. When France and other countries found that they could not send their infected animals here, they would take effectual measures to keep diseases out of their own country. He was sorry to have troubled the House with these observations, and he felt he could only support the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire to a certain degree. He could not go with him to the extent of crippling Free Trade in any way; but he did not believe that it was desirable, even in the interest of Free Trade itself, that disease should be imported into this country.
      MR. PELLsaid, he was afraid that an hon. Member, who had spoken on that side of the House, had spoken a little too soon when he congratulated the House on the tone in which the debate had been conducted. If he had waited until the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) had addressed the House, he would not have expressed that opinion. He (Mr. Pell) regretted that after so long an acquaintance with the sentiments of hon. Members on that side of the House, the hon. Member for Manchester should not yet have learned that it was not one of their principal objects to enhance the value of their produce at the cost of the consumer in order to put money into their own pockets. None of them desired to do that, and in the few words he should address to the House he should direct the attention of the House to the evil consequences that were likely to arise, if the condition of things which now prevailed in regard to the foreign cattle trade was allowed to continue. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said they were always increasing their
      1722
      demands. He admitted at once that their demands had increased; but so had their knowledge of the necessities of the case increased also. They increased their demands, as they found they were able to improve upon the system, and methods, and practices which they could employ. There was a time when a large portion of the country, including many very able men, was of opinion that rinderpest could be kept out of the country by a system of Orders in Council, and by internal regulations. No one was now of that opinion, and it was admitted that slaughter alone stamped out the disease, and that the entire prohibition of importation from infected countries was necessary. As soon as the importation of cattle from any country in which foot-and-mouth disease was known to exist was prohibited, what had been proved to be true in regard to rinderpest would probably be found to be true in reference to foot-and-mouth disease. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council told them that, even if the country assented to the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, and assented to the prohibition of the importation of live cattle from the country where foot-and-mouth disease existed, they might still have disease brought in by means of articles used for packing, by farm produce, and so forth. But had that been the case with regard to rinderpest? Since the country in which rinderpest existed had been prohibited from sending their stock here, he could not call to mind one occasion in which the disease had been introduced by articles which formed part of a ship's cargo without the diseased cattle themselves being actually on board ship. The last attack of rinderpest in this country was brought about by contact with diseased animals from another country. It was hardly fair, therefore, to say that the prohibition which had proved to be effectual in the case of rinderpest might not equally prove effectual in the case of foot-and-mouth disease. Foot-and-mouth disease, we all knew, was a most infectious disorder, but not more so than rinderpest; and if rinderpest had been got rid of out of the country by prohibiting the introduction of live animals, it was only reasonable to infer that similar treatment might keep out the foot-and-mouth disease. It was asserted that

      1723
      there was a large amount of capital invested in the trade; and an argument was made use of by the President of the Board of Trade, and by the Vice President of the Council, was that immense capital had been invested by the municipalities in making provision for the slaughter of cattle on shore, and that it would be unfair now that that capital had been sunk to turn round, and alter our policy in regard to the question, and say—"These wharves must now be shut up, and you are to have no compensation." It had been also suggested that compensation might be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer. But compensation was not wanted. The City of London had taken very good care to compensate itself before the Deptford Market was started. He was in the House when the Bill for that market was introduced; and before a single place was fitted up for the reception of foreign cattle, the tolls on English cattle were raised very materially, in order to furnish a foreign market. It was not, therefore, correct to say that the City of London had sunk money, and that money had been provided by the municipal funds, when, in fact, it had been provided by the country, in shape of increased tolls on English as well as foreign animals. They had now to consider the condition of the trade. Whatever proportion the foreign trade in cattle might bear to the English trade, there was no one who would not admit that the English trade was a most important one. We bred in this country the very best cattle in the world, with the exception of the Shorthorns bred in America. We bred the very best sheep in the world without any exception, and we should act most unwisely if we permitted the monopoly of pure blood which we now enjoyed to be seriously endangered and contaminated, year after year, by the importation of diseased animals from abroad. He could conceive no return to the country that would compensate for the serious mischief that might ensue in that direction. The present debate had turned very much on the effect the disease had upon the supply of meat. Very little had been said with regard to milk. Now, he was glad to say that every day there was a less demand for beer and a greater demand for milk. This milk was supplied from British homesteads, and there was no disease that interfered so materially and distressingly with the
      1724
      supply of milk as the foot-and-mouth disease. In the first place, it produced abortion among the cows, and thus lessened the supply; and, in the next place, it had had the effect of imposing upon the farmers of England the dairy order, which required a farmer to register himself as a dairyman, when, if the foot-and-mouth disease broke out among his cattle, his business was at once gone, as he had to cease supplying milk tainted with the infection. There appeared to be a contest going on now between the supply of meat in the shape of live stock and dead stock. They had been told that the live trade had been increasing, and that there was every prospect of its superseding the trade in dead meat, and becoming a very large trade indeed in the country. He hoped that it might. There could not be too much of it, and the price the people had to pay for meat now was heavy enough. The farmers would not make any demand upon the Legislature on the score of the bad price of meat; but so long as the English Parliament continued to trifle with the question foreigners would continue to thrust their cattle alive upon the English market, even if they had disease, and the English butcher would avail himself of the chance of buying. In America, although America abounded in cattle, and although the people ate a great deal too much meat, and lived too much upon it to the exclusion of vegetables, what did they do there? Dead meat was sent East, West, North, and South in ice from the great centres of the meat supply at Chicago and other great cities, and there were admirable regulations in force for the conveyance and storage of dead meat. In England there were no regulations of any kind. America sent her dead meat to Liverpool in as good a condition as it left the slaughter-houses in Chicago or New York. What did we do when we received it at Liverpool? We had no ice to store it in, no proper carriage for its conveyance to Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, London, and the other great towns. It was seized by time butchers as soon as it reached Liverpool, and the work of destruction at once commenced. How, under these circumstances, could we expect the dead meat supply to be what it ought to be in England; and how could we expect it to supersede the introduction of live cattle from places where the disease was existing? He

      1725
      had one other word to say about the English farmer increasing his demand. His hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) now asked the House to assent to a proposal for dealing with foreign countries as he (Mr. Pell) was dealt with in the county of Northampton at the present moment. If a case of foot-and-mouth disease occurred on one of his own farms the district was declared an infected district; and he could not take his cattle into Lincolnshire, let them be over so fat, nor could he send them to a market town. He supposed that if he farmed in America or France he could send them to England. Therefore, if they were told, as they were told truly by the Vice President of the Council, that the restrictive measures were operating well in England, he said, extend and apply these restrictions, if only as an experiment, to foreign countries. They had got foot-and-month disease now, and he was afraid it was too prevalent for them to hope to get rid of it at once. Did the right hon. Gentleman know what it meant to the English farmer when the market was not open? He submitted to it quietly, because he hoped the disease might be got rid of by restriction; but it meant a bad price for everything he sold. When Free Trade was restricted, if there was but for a moment a deficiency in the supply, if only a very small quantity of cattle entered the market, the price would at once be enormously enhanced. But if the butcher found that they had only half-a-dozen more beasts in the market than they wanted the price equally went down at once, and the sellers went away discontented and disappointed. He would not enter into any question as to what country had sent us the foot-and-mouth disease. From France, during the last two or three years, the amount of importations had been infinitesimally small. All that she sent out in 1879 was something like 248 beasts, and last year not more than 150; and yet this insignificant supply had contaminated the whole of the stock in England. In conclusion, he thought there was good reason in the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, although it was rather a long one. He thought there was sense and justice in it, and a great deal in the circumstances of the case that would justify him in voting for it, Free Trader as he was and had ever been.
      MR. MAGNIACwas not disposed, at that late hour of the night, to make more than a few observations; but on that tide of the House there had been last Session great willingness to meet the views of the farmers, and even to support demands which many of them would themselves be disinclined to ask. He thought they had, therefore, a right to say that the arguments which had been addressed to the House throughout the whole of the debate from the other side of the House had been based upon assumptions, and on the assertion of principles which had no real foundation. He and others who sat upon the Liberal Benches were quite as competent as hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand and speak upon these questions. Many of them had studied it fully and with mite as much personal interest as hon. Members opposite. Nevertheless, they had no confidence whatever in the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), but absolutely and entirely preferred the Act of 1878. To his mind that Act gave much greater security to the farmer than the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member himself seemed to doubt the wisdom of his own proposition, for the proposal, as it stood upon the Paper, was entirely different from that which the hon. Member shadowed forth in his speech. The hon. Member told them that the British farmer must have absolute immunity from disease; but his Resolution only went to this extent—that he wanted "reasonable security." [Mr. CHAPLIN dissented.] The hon. Gentleman by his Resolution, the terms of which the House had a right to discuss, asked not for total immunity, but for reasonable security; and the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) asked the Liberal Members what reasonable security was. He (Mr. Magniac) did not know why that question should be addressed to hon. Members on that side of the House; it ought rather to have been addressed to the hon. Member who framed the Resolution. It was altogether the hon. Member's affair, and not that of hon. Members who sat on that side of the House. They knew well enough what they meant by reasonable security. They believed that the Act of 1878 gave reasonable security, and if it had not been so, such a Resolution as that which the

      1727
      hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had placed upon the Paper, would never have been proposed. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) urged that there must be total immunity by importing dead meat only; but the hon. Member knew very well that the country would never stand such a Resolution as that. Every argument used by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire went direct to the point that dead meat, and dead only, should be imported into the country. ["No, no!"] He asserted that it was so. He asserted confidently that if total immunity were claimed on logical grounds they could not obtain it by such half-hearted proposals as this. What they should require was the slaughter of every animal before it left a foreign shore. They must import dead meat, and dead meat only. If the hon. Member made such a proposition it would be something upon which they could join issue; but the proposal now before the House meant neither one thing nor the other. The hon. Member wanted to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. He could not do both. If he wanted total immunity there was only one way of getting it. Let him, then, submit a proposal in that form and see how many Members would support it.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would not detain the House except for a very few moments at that hour of the night (12.20) after the kindness and patience with which he had been listened to in opening the debate. The hon. Member who had just sat down had informed them that he approved the Act of 1878 a great deal more than the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. If the hon. Member had given attention to the Act of 1878 he would have known that the whole of the last clause of the Motion had been taken from the 4th section of the 5th Schedule of the Act of 1878. After the speech of the Vice President of the Council he had no alternative but to take a division upon the Resolution before the House. The right hon. Gentleman bluntly declared in almost the first sentence of his speech that he would meet the Motion with a direct negative. What was still more surprising, he went on to say that he was about to take that action in the interest of the British farmer. It seemed to him the right hon. Gentleman had never taken the trouble to study the
      1728
      terms of his Motion. Many believed that compulsory slaughter would be sufficient to prevent the introduction of disease; but, unfortunately, the experience of the last few months showed that compulsory slaughter at the port was no guarantee and no security whatever against the introduction of disease. He, therefore, proposed to go a little further, and ask for a prohibition against the landing of live animals from foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) alleged that under the system of compulsory slaughter our Continental trade in meat had been superseded by the American trade. It was true that the Continental trade had been so superseded; but why was this the case? Because the American meat was better, and because it could be sent forward at a cheaper rate. The right hon. Gentleman also complained that the dead moat trade had not increased as it ought to have done. He admitted that this was so, and regretted the fact; because, as far as the consumer was concerned, the dead meat was cheaper. The reason why the dead meat trade had not increased to the desired extent was because it paid the exporter rather better to send live cattle. If once the importation of live cattle was prohibited, the dead meat trade would increase with gigantic strides. The right hon. Gentleman declared that compulsory slaughter afforded a reasonable security against the importation of contagious diseases from abroad. But what did the right hon. Gentleman mean by reasonable security? The Act of 1878 had been in force for two years, and in that time there had been one severe outbreak of disease. Did this outbreak of disease in two years conform with the right hon. Gentleman's idea of reasonable security? The right hon. Gentleman was followed by the President of the Board of Trade, who, being of a more venturesome disposition than his Colleague, appeared to throw the right hon. Gentleman over altogether. The Vice President of the Council admitted that his (Mr. Chaplin's) facts were true; but the President of the Board of Trade declined to admit their truth, though he was not prepared to deny it. The right hon. Gentleman complained that his allegations were based upon assumption, and not upon certainty; but surely if the Government were not prepared to deny the serious allegations

      1729
      which he had made, he was justified in assuming that they were true. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) had protested against his assumptions. In his turn, he must protest against those of the right hon. Gentleman. There never had been, and he felt sure there never would be, a desire on the part of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House to defend measures which they believed would impose harsh and unnecessary restrictions on the supply of food to the people. Before concluding, he would add that he could not conceal his surprise and regret at one speech which he had heard that evening, delivered by a pretended champion of the farmers' interest. He referred to the hon. Gentleman who, he was informed, was Chairman of the organization called the Farmers' Alliance. The apology made by that hon. Member for opposing the Motion appeared to him to be the lamest apology ever made by a farmers' friend for opposing a Resolution. But although the hon. Member would not support him, he trusted he should be followed into the Lobby by every real supporter of the agricultural interest.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 205: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 167.)

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    SUPPLY—REPORT.
    Resolutions [21st March] reported.
    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

      QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am anxious, Sir, fox the convenience of the House, to put a Question to the Government with regard to the debate which will take place on Thursday, and probably also on the following day, with respect to Candahar. I understood yesterday that it was probable that the Government might desire that the debate should be concluded on Friday, if arrangements could be made for clearing that day for the continuance of the debate. But my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) has a very important Motion on the Paper for Friday; and he would not be disposed, I understand, to give way unless he were assured that he would have some early opportunity, say
      1730
      on Monday next, of bringing on his Motion. I have reason to believe that an arrangement is in contemplation which would meet that case; but it would be for the general convenience that we should know publicly if that is so, and, if not, in what shape an arrangement can be made. My hon. Friend's Motion is on going into Supply. Would it be proposed that Supply should be taken, and he should stand first on Supply, or that he should make his Motion as a definite and substantive Motion on Monday, and the Orders of the Day be postponed until that Notice has been taken?
      MR. GLADSTONE: It appears that it would be for the convenience of the House that the debate on Candahar should be continued and disposed of on Friday. That being so, I conceive that we should have no option but to clear the list for Friday by the necessary purchasing of the time on Friday. We are, undoubtedly, under obligation to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire to give him on Monday as fair an opportunity as he would have had on Friday, subject only to the one stipulation that if we think it necessary to place the second reading of the Mutiny Bill as the first Order, we shall do so. I do not imagine that the second reading of the Mutiny Bill is likely to be subject to debate; but we could not properly run the risk of any difficulty about that, inasmuch as I do not think it would be possible for us, otherwise, to get that Bill into Committee. Subject to that understanding, we should have no difficulty in giving the hon. Member Monday for his Motion.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Would my hon. Friend's Motion come first on going into Committee of Supply?
      MR. SPEAKER: Probably the most convenient course would be to postpone the Orders of the Day after the Mutiny Bill, so as to admit the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire.
      Resolutions agreed to.

      WAYS AND MEANS.

        CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
        Resolution [March 21] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. PLAYFAIR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
        Bill presented, and read the first time.
        House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—India Office (Sale of Superfluous Land)* (51).
Committee—Court of Session (Scotland) (42), debate adjourned sine die.
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Godalming, &c.)* (48).

SOUTH GARSTON DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned Debate on the Earl Cadogan's motion,
"That the order made on Thursday the 3rd instant 'that the Bill be not further proceeded with during the present Session' be discharged and the Bill re-committed to the same Select Committee for the purpose of considering the question of awarding costs to the petitioners who appeared before the Committee;"
read, and discharged, and motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS).—QUESTION
EARL CADOGAN: May I ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to the negotiations in the Transvaal, a subject which at this moment is one of so much interest?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am much obliged to my noble Friend for asking the Question. I am only able to say, speaking generally, that the statement that an arrangement has been come to is true; but I am not in a position this evening to state the details.

COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (No. 42.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he very much regretted that on the occasion of the second reading of this Bill he had not the opportunity of making a statement to their Lordships of the reasons for its introduction; and he also thought he ought to apologize to their Lordships for having put the second reading for as early a date as he did after the time that the Bill was introduced. He should certainly not have done so if he could at that time have anticipated the strong sentiment upon the subject which had manifested itself in Scotland. The Bill had been prepared by his learned Friend the Lord Advocate, after communicating with, and ascertaining the opinions of, those who, from their position, had the best right to be consulted: and, having himself had the advantage of personal communication with some of those learned persons, and of seeing the views expressed by others, he had regarded the Bill as one to which, though it might require discussion in Committee, no objection was likely to be offered in an earlier stage. Whatever might be thought of the proposals made by the Bill, it was a matter of gratification to find how popular the Court of Session was in that country, and how great was the satisfaction with the way in which justice was administered in that Court. But it was his duty to state to their Lordships the reasons which caused the Government to suppose that they would be doing a public service, and in no way interfering with the efficient administration of justice in Scotland, if they recommended to Parliament such a reduction of the judicial staff of the Court of Session as was proposed by this Bill, and as appeared to be so much objected to. Their Lordships, he was sure, would all be of opinion that it was not desirable in any Court or in any country to have a greater judicial staff than could be kept constantly and fully occupied with the business of the country; and, however well under the existing system the judicial business of Scotland might be performed, yet, if by a greater economy and better

  1617
  arrangements as to the distribution of the power of the Court, a smaller number of Judges would be sufficient, the Government would be doing no more than their duty in making such a proposal to the House. Their Lordships would, perhaps, permit him first to state what was the present judicial power of the Court of Session in Scotland, and how it was distributed, and to compare it with that in England; and inasmuch as he knew that in the minds of some this was a question which ought not to be considered apart from the question of the local Courts in Scotland, he would also state what was the judicial power of these local Courts at present, and how it stood comparatively with that of the corresponding tribunals in England. The Court of Session, with the full number of Judges—there was at present one vacancy—would consist of 13 Judges of the first order. It was divided into what were called the Outer and the Inner House. The Inner House, consisting of two divisions of four Judges each, took all the appeal business; while the Outer House, consisting of Judges called Lords Ordinary, who sat each separately, took the business of the Court which arose in the first instance and certain summary proceedings. The business of the Inner House was not exclusively appellate; it had at present eight Judges; and for the business of first instance, in what was called the Outer House, they had five Judges. If that were compared with England, they would find that in England there were in all six ordinary Judges in Appeal. They had occasionally assistance from three ex-officio Judges, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Master of the Rolls; making nine, therefore, if they included the extraordinary assistance, as compared with eight in Scotland. But the Inner House in Scotland did not, like the ordinary Judges of Appeal in England—except when on Circuit—do appeal business alone. In England the Judges of first instance, including the Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, who also sometimes sat in the Court of Appeal, were not less than 22 in number. With regard to the Inferior Courts in Scotland, there were 18 principal sheriffs, and about 50 sheriffs substitute. In England there were 57 County Court Judges. Their Lordships would see that upon that comparative statement two
  1618
  things were apparent—first, that upon the whole the numerical strength of the Scottish Bench, both in the Court of Session and in the country generally, was greater in proportion than the English with respect to the population and business; and, secondly, that if they regarded the Inner House in Scotland with respect to its main functions as an appellate tribunal, the disproportion was still greater. The subject of the strength and constitution of the Court of Session was considered by a Commission which reported in the year 1870, of which he himself and other Members of their Lordships' House not connected with Scotland were Members, and also the present Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, and other learned persons then or now on the Scottish Bench. That Commission undoubtedly did express an opinion that the then number of 13 Judges in the Court of Session could not by any redistribution or in any re-arrangement be diminished without interfering with the efficiency of the Court, and without injuring the public. Speaking for himself, he would say that he was very much influenced as a Member of that Commission by the opinion of the Scotch Members of it, particularly of Lord Colonsay. He did not wish at all to detract from the authority of the Commission of 1870; but he must submit to their Lordships that that was not a conclusive view, and ought not to stand in the way of any arrangements which further consideration might suggest. Two years before that Commission reported, a very important Act had been passed for the simplification and improvement of the judicial procedure in the Court of Session. In the year 1870, when that Report was made, full experience could not have been had of the working of that law. But it had since worked, he believed, most successfully, and had tended among other things to the expeditious discharge of business, and after that experience, there had been reason to believe, that, under proper arrangements, a smaller number of Judges might discharge the work of the Court of Session than the number of 13. It so happened that there had since been frequent vacancies upon the Bench, some of which had continued for a considerable time. There were two vacancies, he thought, at that very time—

  1619
  namely, 1869–70—and they continued for some months without, he believed, any serious inconvenience. He passed over one vacancy which continued for some time in 1873–4; but there was another which continued for, he believed, more than three years before the change of Government, which took place in April last. He understood that it was the declared view of the late Government that advantage ought to be taken of that vacancy to re-consider the whole subject; and he thought he did not misunderstand that view when he added, that it was intended by them that some reduction of the number of Judges should take place. Inasmuch, however, as no such legislation had taken place, they considered eventually that they had no option but to fill up that vacancy, which was done last year. Other vacancies had since occurred, and there was one now; and that, partly, was the reason why the Government had thought it right to bring the matter before Parliament at this particular time. As he had pointed out to their Lordships, the vacancy which was filled up in the spring of last year had existed for more than three years; and, according to the information he had received, the administration of justice in Scotland was perfectly satisfactory during the whole of that time. Furthermore, he could not but believe, from the information which he had received, that the present strength of the Outer House was greater than was necessary for the regular discharge of its ordinary work. It was admitted that blank days were of no uncommon occurrence. In 1868–9, and he believed since, each Lord Ordinary had one blank day every week; some of them were said sometimes to get through a whole week's work in two or three days; and others were, not unfrequently, obliged to rise after the discharge of the merely formal business. He was told that the work had been greater within the last year or two: and he did not doubt, that at times all the Lords Ordinary might be fully occupied; but that could not be considered as a general or universal rule. He had seen it stated, in some papers which had been circulated, that at the time the Courts rose for the Vacations there were arrears still to be disposed of; but he did not think these arrears could be very serious or important, for this reason. By a section of the Act of 1868 it was expressly stated
  1620
  that causes for trial before the Lords Ordinary at the end of the Winter and Summer Sessions should be taken in the Recess by the Lord Ordinary or some Judge acting for him. But he did not learn that that provision had been often, if at all, called into operation. If the judicial power were capable of being distributed according to the actual requirements of the ordinary business, he acknowledged that under extraordinary pressure four, or even five, Judges might sometimes be wanted in the Outer House; but the Bill before the House would enable a Judge to be spared from one of the Inner Divisions when wanted for work in the Outer House; and he could not think that any serious evil would arise from that. The Bill contained provisions, like those in the English Judicature Acts, for making the whole judicial strength of the Court available for all the business, of every kind, which might be transacted in it; and in this way such an economy of power would be secured as to render the full number of 13 Judges excessive. He knew that there was an opinion prevalent in Scotland that four was a good number for a Court of Appeal. Experience, however, in England and Ireland seemed to prove that three was also a good number. At present all the business of the Court of Appeal in England, which was divided into two branches, was done by three Judges. The House of Lords, except in cases of more than common importance, usually sat as a Court of three, and their Lordships had no reason to suppose that inconvenience or dissatisfaction was caused by that arrangement. In addition to these considerations, which related to the Inner House as a Court of Appeal, he had to state to their Lordships that half, or more than half, the business of that Court consisted, not of appeals from the Lords Ordinary, but of cases brought up from the Sheriff Courts, and of original business, chiefly in the form of special cases, of various kinds. He could not but think, therefore, that the arrangement the Bill proposed, which would make the number four in each Division, and which would enable each Division to spare a Judge when wanted for the Outer Court, would be found amply sufficient for the satisfactory administration of justice both in the appellate branch, and in the first instance. Any multiplication of Judges beyond the numbers

  1621
  which were really necessary for the discharge of business was in itself an evil. If the arrangements for the distribution of judicial power were not such as to provide work sufficient fully to occupy the time of the Judges, there was always a risk, however earnest and assiduous the Judges might be in the discharge of their duties, that the system would become more or less lax on account of the want of sufficient occupation. That was his apology for having thought it right to introduce this measure, the details of which he would leave to the future consideration of their Lordships, although he believed they would not provoke any great controversy, except on this one point of the proposed numerical reduction.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL CAIRNSregretted somewhat that, from circumstances to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, more attention was not drawn to the Bill on the second reading, and that more opportunity was not given to the House at that stage for discussing it. Looking at the Bill, the first thing which caused him some regret was its scope. He doubted very much whether in any country, and especially in Scotland, looking to the character of the Judicature, they could deal satisfactorily with the higher class of Judges without some reference to the subordinate or local Judges. His noble and learned Friend had himself referred to what might be called the local Judges. There were, he thought, in all 18 sheriff principals and 50 sheriff substitutes. Now, it occurred to him that if any proposal was made to alter the Judicature of Scotland with regard to the Court of Session, something ought also to be done with regard to the position of the Sheriff Courts of the country. There was an appeal inside the local Courts which had struck him as exceedingly inconvenient, an appeal from the sheriff substitute to the sheriff principal. He hoped that question would be re-considered some day, and the people of Scotland would come to be of opinion that they would be better not to have an appeal from the sheriff substitute to the sheriff principal. If that appeal were done away with, it would add to the work of the
  1622
  superior Courts, and might cause their Lordships to regret diminishing the number of the superior Judges. It would, he believed, be much more satisfactory to have only one litigation in the local Courts, and a direct appeal from the sheriff substitute to the Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session. He did not altogether disregard the money consideration; but if this mode of appeal was done away with, there would be good reason to make some modification in the two classes of sheriffs, and that would save quite as much as by doing away with two of the superior Judges. He regretted that that had not been considered; and he must say that, in his opinion, no re-construction of the judicatory in Scotland would be satisfactory unless they dealt with the whole question together. His noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had spoken of the time of the Judges of the Superior Courts not being fully occupied. There were, in Scotland, in all 13 Judges, four in each of the two Divisions, and five Lords Ordinary. If the noble and learned Lord meant that the Scotch Judges were not so fully occupied as the English Judges, he entirely agreed with him. He knew no country where the Judges were so fully occupied as in England. He thought they had a great deal too much to do, and that with the enormous pressure on the Judges they would do more justice to themselves and to the public if they had not quite so much to do. The Scotch Judges had not so much to do; but here, again, they must look at the question of salaries. The English Judge received nearly double what the Scotch received. If they were to propose to the Scotch Judges that the work to be done by them was to be measured by that clone by their English brethren, they would naturally say, if they were to be worked at high pressure like the English Judges, they must be paid accordingly. He thought the Lord Chancellor had hardly done justice to the Judges of Scotland when he said that the Lords Ordinary had each a day in the week.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Down to 1868, he was not sure how it might have been.
  EARL CAIRNS: But the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, in pronouncing his judgment, wrote with his own hand an elaborate interlocutor and note, describing the facts of the case, and entering fully

  1623
  into all the reasons for his judgment. He spoke from observation when he said these notes were of the greatest use when the cases came up before their Lordships' House. No Judge, he maintained, could possibly give these written judgments unless he had some spare time to prepare his notes. English Judges, no doubt, occasionally delivered written judgments, but more commonly they did not; and, therefore, they did not take the time which the Lords Ordinary in Scotland required. On the other hand, he thought it would be unfortunate to the public to have no margin whatever of judicial strength in their arrangements. Look at the consequences in the case of any of the Judges being ill. A whole Court was knocked out of work, because they had no margin on which to draw. Recently there had been examples of the speedy and economical transaction of business in Scotland, in connection with the City of Glasgow Bank cases. A great many questions arose from that failure, and it was of the greatest possible moment that they should be solved economically and expeditiously; and he must say they were disposed of with a rapidity, regularity, and precision, which he never saw equalled in England. Fourteen of these cases were appealed to the House of Lords; but in only one case was there a slight re-arrangement of the judgment in the Court of Session, and that was a high testimony to the manner in which the business of the Court of Session was transacted. He felt satisfied that the original hearings of the cases in Scotland were all taken within a few weeks. What this Bill proposed was to make a reduction of the Lords Ordinary to three. Now, the Lords Ordinary were the primary Judges of the country, and it struck him that was a very strong proposal to make to reduce them from five to three. It was a remarkable thing that the only Parliamentary evidence existing upon this subject was the Report of the Royal Commission which sat some years ago. His noble and learned Friend said he paid considerable deference to the opinion of the Scotch lawyers, and was very much influenced by their views; but here it was. This Royal Commision, consisting of 20 Members, and including a number of very eminent men—the Lord Justice General, Lord Young, Lord Moncreiff, the late Mr. Justice Willes,
  1624
  Sir Roundell Palmer, Lord Rutherfurd Clark, and Mr. Sclater-Booth—reported in these terms—
  "As regards the total number of Judges, they are unanimously of opinion that the present number of thirteen cannot, by any re-distribution of the staff, or under any re-arrangement of business, be diminished without detriment to the efficiency of the judicial establishment, and consequent injury to the country."
  He did not think it possible that stronger words could be used; and he must say that in face of that Report, and with no further evidence, he could not, for his part, assent to the Bill.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYrose with very great reluctance to say a few words on this Bill. In the first place, he was haunted by the fear, common to the lay mind, of treading on that legal ground where wandering was apt to be treated by learned Lords with their very just contempt; and, in the second place, he was very sorry to be compelled to object, root and branch, to the proposal of the Government of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was the Representative on this occasion. And this led him to remark that the people who would be affected by this Bill had been very largely the back-bone and muscles of the present Parliamentary majority that kept that Government in power. As regarded that point he had only to say this—that from every communication he had received, and from every means of forming an opinion that could be given by the public Press, he believed his view to be entirely that of the great mass of the people of Scotland, and not the view of Her Majesty's Government. Why was that Bill introduced? Had there been any complaint is Scotland of the administration of justice? Had there been any great popular demand for this measure? The Scottish people, as was known, were not a Conservative race. Any proposal that came before them, having, for its object drastic change, was supposed to appeal with irresistible power to all the sympathies of the Scottish nation. But, as a matter of fact, this Bill had been received not with the applause with which such a measure should be received in Scotland, but had been received with an almost unanimous chorus of denunciation and dislike. He was not always a great believer in Parliamentary Petitions. There were means of securing a very great show of Petitions by judicious agitation;

  1625
  but on this occasion, as far as he knew, without any stirring of the waters of agitation, without a word spoken, Petitions had come in in the most remarkable manner from every important body almost in Scotland, and certainly from the two most considerable cities in Scotland, praying their Lordships not to pass this Bill into law. He had the honour this evening to present a Petition from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the City of Edinburgh, praying their Lordships not to proceed with this Bill. That, of course, was an important Petition. There was a somewhat natural and generous rivalry between the City of Edinburgh and the City of Glasgow, which prevented them often concurring on measures of the same nature. But on this occasion the lion had lain down with the lamb, and the City of Glasgow went hand in hand with the City of Edinburgh, asking their Lordships not to pass this Bill. He would not go into details as to the various Chambers of Commerce that had petitioned against the Bill, but he wanted to take one peculiar body—the Trade Protection Society of Scotland. That was not a legal Society; it was a Society having representatives in every small town and district in Scotland. It numbered over 2,000 members. It might be taken as a fair commercial representation of the people of Scotland; and they, unsolicited, had petitioned most vigorously against the Bill. Now, under these circumstances, he must express some surprise to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say that he had brought in this Bill after mature consideration with those who had the greatest interest in the administration of justice in Scotland. Who was it that had the greatest interest in the administration of justice in Scotland? Was it not the people of Scotland? Was it not the great cities of Scotland—the commercial bodies and corporations of Scotland? And those cities, bodies, and corporations of Scotland were one and all unanimous against the Bill. The question thus arose—what was the call which had led to this Bill being brought in? He meant to have touched on the very remarkable Report, which was the only evidence on which they had to proceed. That Report, as they had only recently heard, was signed by Sir Roundell Palmer, by the Lord Justice Clerk—whom
  1626
  he saw present—and by almost every great judicial authority in Scotland. What had occurred since then to change the views of those noble and learned Lords? They had no evidence upon that point. It was not necessary for him to go into the points raised by the noble and learned Earl who lately sat on the Woolsack. He thought that the people of Scotland had a right to ask why was that Report, signed by names that they respected so greatly as they did those, not acted upon? There was much that was interesting in that Report, and he heard with the greatest astonishment the noble and learned Lord argue against the very powerful Report that had been signed by Sir Roundell Palmer; but he devoted a large portion of his speech to arguing against a Division consisting of four Judges, and he naturally turned to the Report, which, as they had already said, was the foundation of all their Parliamentary evidence on the question, and what did it say? It said—
  "We are of opinion that each Division should consist of four Judges, although, to meet the ordinary contingencies, a quorum should be three as at present. A Court of four sitting as a Court reviewing the judgments of Lords Ordinary, and giving a decision that is to be final, unless it be appealed to the House of Lords, is in every respect preferable to a Court of three. More minds are brought to bear upon the case, and if a majority differ from the Lord Ordinary, though one should concur with him, the judgment has the weight of a majority of the five Judges who have considered the case; whereas in a Court of three, if one Judge should concur with the Lord Ordinary while the other two differ from him, the judgment could not have the same weight."
  Now, in considering these very important paragraphs, it did appear material to consider what had occurred to change this weighty opinion. Had business diminished since then in the Courts of Scotland—since the time of the 13 Judges—that the number could now by an impossibility be reduced? Now, they could find that out very easily. The important cases were the cases initiated by summons in the Courts of Scotland. In 1869, when this Commission was sitting, these were the figures on which they formed their opinion. There were 1,026 of these cases. In 1879, two years ago—and that was the last Return he had, and it was that on which the noble and learned Lord came down and said that it was necessary for the Judges to be reduced—the number of cases was

  1627
  1,352. This was the more remarkable when he mentioned that the last few years had been years of remarkable depression and stagnation of trade, without which they might fairly suppose the cases would have been very considerably more numerous. Had the population increased? The population in 1870 was 3,222,000; in 1879 it was estimated at 3,627,000. They had thus an estimated increase of population in Scotland of nearly 500,000. There was a certain increase under unfavourable circumstances of 300 cases, and yet they said they were to disregard their former opinion and abolish those Judges. The question then arose—Was business likely to dimish? Now, there was a Bill which had recently been introduced into "another place" by the recognized law authority of the Crown, dealing with the subject of teinds—for the purposes of interpretation, he would venture to explain that was the subject of tithes in Scotland. Well, under that Bill, one Judge was to be detached to do the work of that Bill. That was another reduction. It was quite possible that Her Majesty's Government might not see much prospect of passing that Bill; but surely it was not, at the moment of introducing a Bill which was to detach a Judge for two or three years from their Courts, wise and expedient to introduce a Bill to reduce them. There was another thing he wanted to draw attention to. The City of Glasgow had petitioned, as he said before, with regard to this measure, and one of the things that they said was somewhat remarkable. It was that—
  "The amount of civil business in Glasgow and other large centres of population will, in the case of your petitioners, necessitate arrangements being speedily made under which the Judges of the Supreme Court shall hold frequent Circuits for the discharge of business as occasion shall arise. In view of the possibility of such an arrangement, which seems to be favourably regarded by the Lord Advocate, a diminution of the existing number of the Judges of the Court of Session will be highly inexpedient, and if effected would seriously interfere with the carrying out of such Circuit arrangements. That, even under existing arrangements for the transaction of criminal business, it is a subject of great complaint that these Judges are unable to make more frequent visits to Glasgow and other towns, and much unnecessary hardship and expense are occasioned by the long interval between Circuits at present. If one or more of the Judges of Justiciary should be detailed from the Civil Courts to try criminals in the several districts as often as occasion arises, a great im-
  1628
  provement would be effected in the administration of justice. To this your petitioners attach much importance. They feel that it would be desirable to have the number of Justiciary Judges increased, a step which a reduction of the number of judges of the Court of Session would render practically impossible."
  But he went further. It was well known that the Home Secretary visited Scotland last year. It was also perfectly well known that the Home Secretary was appalled at the length of time that prisoners were kept in detention without being brought to trial. He asked the first prisoner he met in one of the great gaols of Edinburgh or Glasgow—he forgot which—how long he had been in prison? The prisoner said he had been three months in prison without trial. Yet that was the moment when the noble and learned Lord proposed to reduce the member of Judges in Scotland. There was another point, and that was the question of sheriffships. Was it supposed that no legislation was contemplated with regard to sheriffships? It was well known that a very large section of the legal and judicial bodies of Scotland were in favour of some considerable reform as regards sheriffships. Surely, if sheriffships were to be done away with, or if they were to abolish one class of sheriffs, or reduce the number, and to do away with the intermediate appeal to which the noble and learned Lord alluded, that would be throwing more business on the Court of Session. He did not know what the contemplated measures might be; he was not quite sure that such measures might soon be called for; but he was quite certain of this—that if such measures were really brought forward, anything more rash, anything more untimely, than the reduction of the Judges could hardly be conceived. There was a question—a very burning question—which had only been touched upon very slightly by the noble and learned Earl who lately sat on the Woolsack. It was a question of salaries. There was no doubt that the Judges in Scotland were very much underpaid. There was a hope that this measure would contain some consolatory clauses by which they would apply the plunder from the Judgeships to be abolished to increase the salaries of their more fortunate surviving brethren. He hoped that even though the clause could not be brought to this House the noble and learned Lord in his

  1629
  statement would have given them some hope on that score; but he did not catch any words to hold out any such hope. But he thought the question of salary, though an important one, was not the main question before them, and that if they wished to legislate with regard to the salaries of the Court of Session, it ought to be so irrespective of the Judgeships which it was wished to suppress. He would not detain their Lordships any longer. He had only touched on those parts of the question which it seemed to him it was competent for a lay Member of their Lordships' House, and one deeply interested in the administration of justice in his native country, to touch upon without offence. It seemed to him that if they legislated on questions of this kind, they ought to legislate either in deference to some great popular demand, or else to remove some scandal to which the mass of the community was corruptly attached. There was on this occasion no necessity, no scandal, no demand. The demand was all the other way. They were proceeding to cut down the judicial staff of a country increasing daily and largely in population and in wealth, and he could not believe that such a reduction was justified.
  LORD MONCREIFFsaid, he had no hesitation in avowing the fact that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack did him the honour to communicate with him before the Bill was introduced, and that he approved of it and advised its introduction. He should state to their Lordships very shortly the reasons that induced him to come to this conclusion. This matter of a reduction of the number of Judges was by no means a new question, or was one which came up only in the present day. His noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery)—to whose speech he had listened with the greatest pleasure, because nothing could be more conducive, he thought, to the right discussion of questions of this kind than to have statements of opinion from men who were not connected with the administration of the law—had asked why it was that this Bill was introduced? Well, he might say it was 30 years ago since he recollected a proposition being made to reduce the staff of the Court of Session. The question was then abandoned for a time; but since then it had cropped up over and over again. It was raised, for example, in 1870, and, as his noble and
  1630
  learned Friend on the Woolsack had stated, again in 1873 and 1874. The principal grounds upon which the proposal was made had never been plainly or specifically asserted. He could quite understand that, comparing the number of Judges in Scotland with the number of Judges in England, the number in England might appear excessively large; but this comparison was not altogether a correct basis on which to form an opinion, because the staff in a small country might be, and indeed must be, larger in proportion than a similar staff for the same purposes in a larger country. In Scotland, when the population was probably not one-half what it was now, there were, for example, 15 Judges. He did not think this was the aspect in which the question should be looked at; but no doubt this had been one of the reasons that weighed with the Governments which from time to time raised the question whether the staff of Judges in Scotland was or was not excessive. The question, however, came ultimately, in 1876, to an issue to which he traced very much the introduction of the Bill that was now before the House. His noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) asked why it was that this Bill had been introduced? It was said that nobody asked for it, or thought there was any necessity for it being introduced. Well, he could to a certain extent satisfy, he did not say the curiosity of his noble Friend as to the motives that had led to the introduction of the Bill, and he could give him a very good reason why it should be introduced, whatever might be said as to the provisions which it contained. In 1876 the Division of the Court over which he had the honour to preside had the misfortune to lose one of the most useful and brilliant of its members in the death of Lord Neaves, a very great loss to the Court, which at that time consisted of four, and from the end of 1876 down to the beginning of 1880 no appointment was made; the vacancy was not filled up; and notwithstanding that the statute which prescribed the number of Judges to sit in each Division prescribed four as the number that should have been on the Bench, they had been working without the statutory number. He did not wish in the least to impute any blame whatever to those who were then responsible for the business of the country and of

  1631
  the Courts. He knew very well the difficulties that surrounded this question, and he was also quite aware that in the years following 1876 the attention of Parliament was fixed on exciting topics, and that its time was so completely filled up that there might not be time or opportunity to introduce a measure dealing with this subject. But still the fact remained that, notwithstanding the enactment of the statute, the vacancy was not filled. The question ultimately came to a crisis that made it absolutely essential that it should be looked at, because in the end of last year the Court of the Second Division was reduced to two, and it appeared to him that the time had certainly come, so far as his own opinion went—and he believed he did not stand alone by any means in that opinion—when, whatever the number of Judges ought to be, whatever the quorum of each Court ought to be, it ought to be fixed by statute, and the statute should be followed. With reference to the statement of his noble Friend that the public during this time were not dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Court while it was thus shorn of its full numbers, he could only say that the public did not mix in the matter. There was no such expostulation as they now heard, even though the reduction had been made without statutory authority. The Faculty of Advocates, he believed, did make a remonstrance during this period; but they did not take any really active step, or awaken any public support, and for this reason he came to the conclusion that this was the time to settle a long pending source of irritation and annoyance, and that it was not only desirable, but absolutely necessary in one way or other to legislate upon it. Then, when he had come to this conclusion that it was not only desirable that there should be legislation, but that if legislation did not take place there was a great risk of more danger to the institution than would be caused even by the fact of one of the vacancies not being filled up, he certainly was of opinion, looking to the nature of the spontaneous detrition that was going on, that it would be desirable to settle at once the whole question, so that the number of Judges might be beyond all further dispute. Whether he was right or wrong in that he did
  1632
  not say. He only knew that he agreed with some who had good means of judging. He thought, besides, that the proposal that was made in the Bill was one that could be conveniently carried out. His reasons for that were two in number. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) very naturally and very reasonably referred to the opinions entertained in regard to the state of the Court in 1869 and 1870; but since that time the operation of the Act of 1868 had facilitated, expedited, simplified the whole procedure in the College of Justice. The technicalities that used to cause delay and expense were to a large extent discarded, and the whole machine worked much more easily and much more rapidly than it did. Then, in addition to this, the Act in question transferred from the Outer House two very considerable classes of cases which now came straight into the Court of Appeal. One of these classes was the cases from the Sheriff Courts, which formerly went through the Outer House, but now come straight on appeal to the Divisions; and he might say that the business of the Divisions appeared to be very considerably increased in consequence, because upon inquiry he found that the number of final judgments pronounced within the last three years was double what it was in a similar period preceding the Act. There were, too, special cases which now came before the Divisions—that was to say, when parties agreed upon facts they stated a question of law for decision, and in that way a considerable expenditure both of time and money was avoided, and questions were determined that might have run the gauntlet for years in the Inner and the Outer Houses. In consequence of these changes, it would, he thought, be possible to make arrangements even without the two Judges, and yet to overtake the work with perfect convenience to the public. He did not say he was right in that opinion, because he found the opinion challenged by those who had the best opportunities of knowledge. He must own that he had not been prepared for the outburst of feeling that seemed to have taken place. Looking to the public quiescence during the time of which he had spoken, he did not suspect that there would have been this rebellion against the proposals that had been made, and it was certainly gratify-

  1633
  ing to those who had a humble share in the administration of the law that their mode of administering it had not been without the confidence of the public; and he was rejoiced, for one, that the opinions that had been expressed had put an end to a good many of the fears that had been floating about the Court of Session, and that, at all events, it would not be supposed that the Judges in the Court were men drawing a maximum of salary and doing a minimum of work. In these circumstances, he was prepared to say that he had been shaken by the opinions that had been expressed, not only by the professional bodies, but also by the municipal corporations. These opinions were, he thought, entitled to great consideration. Some points had been touched upon which he would not enter into at that time, because, though exceedingly important, they were not necessarily cognate to this matter, and required much elucidation than it was possible to give them. The question about the Sheriff Courts was a very large question—a question that had certainly more aspects than one, and would require full consideration. In regard to the question as to the number of Judges who should compose the Inner House, he might state that he was for seven years President of one of the Divisions of the Inner House, with four Judges on the Bench, and for five years President of the same Division with only three Judges; and unquestionably, while it was not a matter to be dogmatic upon, or to be reduced to equation in any sense or way whatever, he thought that three was the best number for expedition, and four was the safest and the surest, though, no doubt, each number had its own advantages. With these observations, and fully recognizing the great difficulties surrounding the question, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(The Lord Moncreiff.)
  LORD WATSON, after stating that he did not entertain such strong objections as his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down (Lord Moncreiff) to the reduction of the number of Appeal Judges below four, pointed out that the principle of the Bill before the House was, first, that the number of Judges should be reduced; and, in the second place, that the Judges in the Inner
  1634
  House should, in future, assist in Outer House work. He was not at all surprised that a Bill of this character had been introduced into the House by his noble and learned Friend, because, notwithstanding the recommendations that were made by the Commissioners in 1870, that the Court should be maintained in its full strength, there had repeatedly been a demand on the part of the Press for a reduction in the number of Judges. In the years before 1876 there was a very sensible and, as time went on, a very large diminution in the work of the Outer House. No doubt, that was facilitated to some extent by the active habits of some of the Judges; and one Lord Ordinary might dispose, and had, in fact, disposed, of cases in 10 or 20 minutes, which would have occupied the Judges of the noble Lords who sat in that House for a day or two, or even three days. But this was an exceptional case; though they all hoped and desired that the Lords Ordinary would show all expedition in disposing of cases. It was quite true that the late Government had, at one time, in contemplation a measure of this kind; but when that had been mentioned, he thought reference might also have been made to the circumstance that it was their intention that the two questions of the principal sheriffships and the reduction in the Court of Session should be dealt with together. There was, undoubtedly, a strong feeling in Scotland against the double sheriffship; but then there was this feeling—hitherto unknown, he must say, to himself—in favour of retaining the Court of Session in its present position; and what he said was that if this measure were allowed to pass without the other question being taken up, they might have some difficulty in afterwards obtaining the desired reforms. At one time he was perfectly satisfied that three Judges, in ordinary circumstances, would be quite competent to overtake the whole work of the Outer House; but the figures laid before their Lordships on this occasion had satisfied him that that was not the case at the present time. The country was fast recovering from the state of utter collapse which resulted from the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank, and he believed they might not have Judges sufficient to dispose of the cases with that rapidity which mercantile men

  1635
  desired. He did not at all wonder at the degree of interest taken in this matter in Scotland. The people wore always pressing for despatch in the disposal of cases brought before the Court, and he thought they were rightly jealous of any attempt to deal with the question in a way which might subsequently turn out to be prejudicial. Two or three years ago he could have seen his way to give his cordial assent to this measure; but he did not think, at the present time, it was right or expedient in this matter that the Court of Session should alone be dealt with without taking into consideration the whole judicial establishments of Scotland, and settling the administration of the law upon a firm and lasting basis.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no reason to complain of the manner in which the debate had been conducted. It had been enlivened by the good humour and eloquence of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), to whom had been intrusted on this occasion the duty of representing the sentiments so largely expressed by very important bodies in Scotland. He had no reason at all to complain of the observations made by his noble Friend; and with regard to the views expressed by the Lord Justice Clerk (Lord Moncreiff), and the noble and learned Lord who spoke last, he could not but acknowledge the candour of the observations of both these noble and learned Lords, who, he thought, had done justice to the motives and the reasons which had weighed with the Government in introducing this measure. He would refer particularly to his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken (Lord Watson), who said that when he was himself in Office he entertained views which led him to contemplate the introduction of a measure not dissimilar to this, though it might have had, in some respects, a larger scope. In point of fact, when there remained between three and four years a Judgeship vacant in Scotland, and that in a manner not the most convenient possible for the administration of justice, it seemed at once to show the possibility of discharging the business with a less number of Judges. He wished to say a few words on two points raised—one by his noble and learned Friend the late Lord Chancellor (Earl Cairns), and the other by the noble Earl below the Gangway (the Earl
  1636
  of Rosebery). The noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) suggested, that, instead of reducing the number of Lords Ordinary, if there was any reduction it ought to be rather of the Judges of the Inner House. He could assure the noble and learned Earl that, after a good deal of consideration, it had been the opinion of the highest authorities whom the Government could consult in Scotland upon this subject, that it would be better to preserve a fixed and normal number in the two Divisions of the Inner House, making any of the Judges of those Divisions available, as occasion might require, for the work of the Outer House. The reason for this was, partly, that more than half the business of the Inner House was either original, or by way of appeal, not from the Lords Ordinary, but from inferior Courts. As to the other point, he would frankly tell his noble Friend, that when he said the motive of the introduction of this Bill and of the reduction which it proposed to make in the number of Judges was the saving of a small sum of money in order to increase the salaries of the remaining Judges, he was incorrect. He (the Lord Chancellor) disclaimed any such motive; he said distinctly that if no better reason than that could be given for proposing the reduction of the number of Judges the proposal would be unjustifiable. If he might be allowed to express his individual opinion, it seemed to him that there were considerable reasons in favour of some increase in the salaries of the Judges in Scotland; and it was proper and natural, when such a measure as this was brought forward, that the attention of the Government should be directed to that point. But it was a point on which the Government had not, at present, arrived at any conclusion: and he declined to mix up that question, which could only be considered in the House of Commons, with that which was raised by the present Bill. The administration of justice in Scotland was the thing they ought to regard in this matter, and whether it could not be better provided for by a less number of Judges. Whether the salaries of the Judges remained as at present, or whether they were increased—the question of reducing the number of Judges ought to be regarded independently of that question. With regard to the proposal of his noble and

  1637
  learned Friend (Lord Moncreiff) to adjourn this debate, he had no hesitation in saying that the course which the discussion had taken, and the opinions expressed on the subject in Scotland, made him (the Lord Chancellor) think that their Lordships might consent to that proposal, particularly having regard to what the noble and learned Lord (Lord Watson), and the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), had said as to the importance of dealing with the judicial powers of the Court of Session, together with the subject of the Sheriff Courts. He had heard that opinion expressed in a good many quarters entitled to great consideration. If that view, upon further consideration, should commend itself to Her Majesty's Government, and if it should be thought that much time would be required for the purpose of maturing any measure which might be necessary, he might possibly not be in a situation to ask their Lordships to proceed further with this Bill. But that point must, for the present, be reserved; and their Lordspips would, of course, have full Notice, when it was decided either to resume, or not to resume, the discussion which would now stand adjourned.
  Motion agreed to.
  Further debate on the said motion adjourned sine die.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (THE NEGOTIATIONS).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I wish to say that since my noble Friend opposite (Earl Cadogan) asked me a Question in the earlier part of the evening in regard to the Transvaal, I find myself in a position to give the House more complete details. I will read to the House a short summary of what the arrangements are—
  "In the first place, Suzerainty of the Queen acknowledged.
  "2. Complete self-government promised to the Boers.
  "3. Control of foreign relations reserved.
  "4. Resident at future capital.
  "5. Royal Commission—Sir Hercules Robinson, Sir Evelyn Wood, Chief Justice de Villiers.
  "6. Commission to consider protection of native interests and arrangements as to frontier affairs;
  1638
  "7. Question to be considered by the Commission, whether any and what portions of territory eastwards, within certain limits, shall be severed from the Transvaal.
  "8. Boers withdraw from the Nek, and disperse to their homes.
  "9. British garrisons remain until final settlement.
  "10. The Boers having engaged as above, Sir Evelyn Wood promises not to advance nor to send warlike stores into the Transvaal."
  Her Majesty's Government have intimated to Sir Evelyn Wood their approval of the arrangement.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Are the British troops not to advance into the Transvaal, or not to advance at all?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The words I read were—"Sir Evelyn Wood promises not to advance nor to send warlike stores into the Transvaal." And that means that Sir Evelyn Wood is not to advance from his present position.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Not within the limits even of Natal?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The meaning is precisely what I have stated. He is not to advance from his present position.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.