Sitting of 7 February 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Sale of Spirits (Mixed Traders) * [79]. Ordered—Elective County Boards (Ireland).* Ordered—First Reading—Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.) * [56]; Police * [56]; Freshwater Fisheries Act Amendment* [57]; Free Libraries * [58]; Cruelty to Animals Acts Extension * [60]; Theatres, &c. Regulation (Metropolis) * [61]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act (1878) Amendment* [62]; Commons and Inclosure Acts Amendment * [63]; Compensation (Occupiers of Tenements) * [64]; Parish Churches * [65]; Cathedral Statutes * [66]; Settlement and Removal Law Amendment* [67]; Municipal Boroughs * [68]; Brokers (City of London) * [69]; Tithe Rent Extraordinary * [70]; Compensation for Improvements (Ireland) * [71]; Hackney Carriage Laws (Metropolis) * [72]; Marriage Hours Extension* [73]; Burial Fees* [74]; Summary Jurisdiction over Children (Ireland) * [75]; Steam Engines and Boilers * [76]; Municipal Franchise (Ireland)* [77]; Lands Clauses Consolidation Act Amendment * [78]; Yorkshire Registries * [80]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham)* [81]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act (1878) Amendment (No. 2) * [82]; Board of Works (Ireland)* [83]; Stage Plays (Oxford and Cambridge) * [84]; Reclamation of Land (Ireland) * [85]; Fishery Law Amendment (Ireland) * [86]; Dublin Museum of Science and Art * [59]; Commons and Inclosure Acts Amendment (No. 2) * [87]; Corn Sales * [88]; Irish Land Court Officers (Exclusion from Parliament) * [89].
NOTICE OF MOTION.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—VOTE OF CENSURE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I beg to give Notice that on Tuesday next I propose to move—
  "That this House, having read and considered the Correspondence relating to Egypt, laid upon the Table by Her Majesty's Command, is of opinion that the recent lamentable events in the Soudan are due, in a great measure, to the vacillating and inconsistent policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government."

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POST—RURAL POST MESSENGERS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Postmaster General, What is the maximum weight carried by rural Post Messengers since the establishment of the

  171
  Parcels Post; the maximum distance they have to walk in a day; their present average weekly salaries; and to what extent, if any, their salaries have been increased since the introduction of the Parcels Post?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member I may state that at the time of the introduction of the Parcel Post instructions were given to Postmasters throughout the country that the combined weight of letters and parcels carried by any postman should not exceed 35 lbs. If it appeared that a heavier weight than this would generally be carried, the postman was usually mounted; and special instructions were given that in exceptional cases, where an excessive weight would have to be carried, assistance in some form should be provided. Speaking generally, eight or nine miles each way may be regarded as the maximum distance walked by rural postmen. The pay is adjusted according to the distance traversed and the wages prevailing in the locality. There has been no general revision of wages since the introduction of the Parcel Post; but when it is thought there is any special reason for an increase of pay, it is given. I may mention that lately the system of good-conduct stripes, carrying allowances of 1s., 2s., or 3s. a-week, which formerly was confined to London, has been extended to the entire country, and rural postmen participate in the advantage. Within the last two years the arrangement has been adopted of allowing every rural postman a week's holiday annually.

  SPAIN—THE CUBAN REFUGEES (COLONEL MACEO).
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Spanish Government have released Colonel Maceo?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Spanish Government have not as yet released Maceo, but have decided to remove him to Port Mahon, where he will enjoy his liberty under parole. Papers on the subject will be laid before Parliament.

  INDIA (ECCLESIASTICAL DEPARTMENT)—GRANTS TO PROTESTANT CLERGYMEN.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When he
  172
  proposes to lay upon the Table the Correspondence between the Secretary of State for India in Council, the Government of India, and the honourable Member for Montrose, on the proposal to withdraw the grants now made to certain Protestant clergymen in India?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, there is no knowledge at the India Office of any triangular Correspondence such as that described by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire; but if the hon. Gentleman will move for such Correspondence as we have, it shall be laid on the Table.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact, as stated by the President of the Local Government Board in a speech at Chelsea on January 22nd, that
"Her Majesty's Government were informed only about ten days ago that, although General Gordon had no wish to go to Egypt, he would willingly obey the orders of Her Majesty's Government to go should they choose to send him; "
whether such communication was made by General Gordon himself; and, whether General Gordon, being an officer in Her Majesty's Army, it was not in the power of the Government to have sent him to the Soudan at any period during the last two years or more? He had further to ask, If any confirmation has been received of the painful rumours regarding General Gordon—his capture?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the answer to the last part of this Question is that General Gordon, being an officer in Her Majesty's Service, might undoubtedly have been sent by the Government to the Soudan or anywhere else at any time. But the Government would never have thought of sending an officer on this special service, lying altogether outside of his ordinary professional duties, without his own full concurrence; and 1 need scarcely add that the knowledge that the officer in question fully concurred in the policy of the Government was an essential condition of any such employment. In reply to the first part of the Question, I understand that Lord Granville some months ago was informed,

173
on what he considered good authority, that General Gordon was determined not again to enter the Egyptian Service, which at that time was the only capacity in which he could have thought of recommending him for employment in the Soudan. The President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) correctly described the language used by General Gordon at his interviews at the War Office on the 15th and 18th of January. In reply to the last Question of the hon. Member, I have to say no information has reached either the War Office or the Foreign Office on the subject of the capture of General Gordon; and I may add that a telegram from Sir Evelyn Baring from Cairo has been received as late as noon to-day, in which no mention was made of the rumour referred to.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: With regard to the answer of the noble Marquess, it is not quite clear whether the initiation of this interview to which the noble Marquess referred came from General Gordon or from Her Majesty's Government, and that is a point on which I would ask the noble Marquess to make a distinct reply, if possible. I should also like to know whether it is not a fact that General Gordon has been appointed Governor General of the Soudan by the Khedive?
MR. RITCHIE: May I ask whether any inquiries with regard to the reported capture of General Gordon have been made by telegraph to Cairo?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the last Question, it is scarcely necessary to telegraph to Cairo, as Sir Evelyn Baring would have lost no time whatever in informing the Government if any report on the subject had reached him. I would also point out that the report which has appeared in the papers purports to be received from Alexandria, and to have been received at Alexandria from Cairo. The fact that I have just mentioned, that we have heard from Sir Evelyn Baring as late as 12 o'clock to-day, shows that no report—or, at all events, no report to which he attaches any credence—had been received at Cairo up to that time. In regard to the further Question of the hon. Member for Eye, I have no objection to state that General Gordon was asked, with my entire concurrence, by Lord Wolseley, who is intimately ac-
174
quainted with the gallant officer, to come to see him at the War Office, and fully to explain to him the views he held with regard to the Soudan.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: When was that?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That, I believe, was on the 15th of January. The invitation was addressed to General Gordon a day or two before.
MR. BOURKE: I should like to ask the noble Marquess a Question arising out of the answer he has just given. I understand the noble Marquess to say that one of the reasons why General Gordon was not sent to the Soudan some months ago was that General Gordon was unwilling to enter the service of the Khedive. I wish to ask, therefore, whether Colonel Stewart and two other officers who were sent to the Soudan were in the service of the Khedive or in the service of Her Majesty's Government?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I did not say that the reason why General Gordon was not sent to the Soudan earlier was that we were aware that he was unwilling to serve the Khedive. All I stated, and all I have any knowledge of, is that Earl Granville had received information which he thought could be relied on that General Gordon had expressed his determination not again to enter the service of the Khedive, and he did not think his employment at that time was possible. Colonel Stewart, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, was sent by Her Majesty's Government—not in the service of the Khedive—to report on the condition of affairs in the Soudan. That is a mission which it is quite evident an officer holding General Gordon's position could not have been expected to undertake?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Do I understand the noble Marquess to say that General Gordon is now in the service of the Khedive?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir.
MR. GIBSON: Who appointed General Gordon Governor General of the Soudan?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Khedive, I believe, has appointed General Gordon Governor General of the Soudan. The mission upon which General Gordon was sent is a mission

175
upon which he was sent by Her Majesty's Government.
MR. GIBSON: But does the noble Marquess mean to say that the Khedive appoints General Gordon as Governor General of the Soudan, at the same time leaving him outside his employment?
[No reply was given.]

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK CORNER—THE WELLINGTON STATUTE.
LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can inform the House of the decision taken by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Wellington Statue?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, hon. Members will recollect that at the end of last Session I informed the House that the Committee of eminent men to whom I have referred the question of the disposal of the statue of the Duke of Wellington had advised that, on account of its colossal size, they were quite unable to recommend any site for it near to its present position or elsewhere in the London Parks; and, further, that as in their opinion the statue is a very bad work of art, they advised that it should be broken up, and a new statue made of the ordinary heroic size, which would be suitable to the present position, where, for many reasons, it is most proper that a statue of the great Duke should be placed. Since that time I have become aware that a very considerable number of people object to the statue being broken up, and this is especially the case with the Army, whose contributions to the statue were very large. Under these circumstances, the Government will not carry out that part of the recommendations of the Committee. The main reason for removing the statue from its present site is that from its colossal size it would overtop everything else, and make it impossible to decorate the "place" in a suitable manner. At present the "place" is in a very unfinished state; in fact, it is a mere sketch which requires filling in. The House will learn with pleasure that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who is always ready to come forward to assist in any great public object, has invited a number of Gentlemen to form a Committee for the purpose of considering the best means of decorating the "place" in a suitable
176
manner, and of raising funds for the purpose. Their first task will be to complete the triumphal arch according to the designs of the architect by the erection of a quadriga. His Royal Highness has made this proposal upon the understanding that the Government would carry out the intention they announced last year of asking Parliament to contribute £6,000 towards the cost of a new statue of the Duke. His Royal Highness further suggested that the present statue should be removed to Aldershot. The Government have acceded to this course, on the understanding that they will not be called upon to pay more than £6,000 towards the new statue of the Duke, with the exception of a small sum required for the removal to Alder-shot. I may add that it has been decided that the new "place" shall in future be called Wellington Place.

PATENT MEDICINES—LEGISLATION.
MR. WARTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of William Henry John Heath Sheahan, aged seven months, on whose body an inquest was holden on the 31st December 1883 by Dr. Danford Thomas, and whose death the jury found was caused by the antimony contained in a patent medicine called "Holt's Specific for Whooping Cough;" whether he is aware that the jury did not desire to call his attention to the sale of patent medicines, with a view to legislation on the subject; and, whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill to restrict the sale of poisonous patent medicines?
MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the attention of the Privy Council has been directed to this and two other similar cases. A Bill is now under consideration, which will be introduced very shortly in the House of Lords, dealing with the whole subject.
MR. WARTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly back my Bill?

CITY OF LONDON LIVERY COMPANIES COMMISSION.
MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What is the cause of the delay in presenting the Report of the Royal Commission on Livery Companies which was promised by him last Session, and

177
to know, why the Sittings of the Commission have been abandoned for many months past?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have inquired into this matter, and I am informed that the subject is one of great detail. Many of the Members of the Commission having been absent during the Vacation, the Report has been somewhat delayed; but the Commissioners propose to hold a meeting on the 20th instant to finally settle and agree to the Report.

INDIA—THE ISLAND Of PERIM.
MR. GREERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the Island of Perim to become an extensive coaling station; and, if so, whether suitable fortifications will be erected to protect it in time of war?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, a concession of land on the Island of Perim, resumable at any time at the discretion of Government, has been granted to a Company for the establishment of a coaling station. There is no present intention of erecting fortifications on the Island.

THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE NATIONAL LEAGUE MEETINGS.
MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the protest made on the 31st January by the Rev. P. White, Parish Priest of Miltown Malbay, county Clare, and President of the local branch of the National League, against the attendance of the police (acting under the orders of their superiors) at the meetings of the branch; and, whether the meetings of Orange Lodges have likewise been placed under police supervision?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen a report of the proceedings referred to. The police were present in discharge of their duty and in compliance with special instructions, and the chairman of the meeting, as stated in the Question, objected to their presence. No general instructions have been given to the police to be present at indoor meetings of the National League, and no instructions have been given to place Orange Lodges under police supervision.
MR. KENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police attend the
178
meetings of the branch of the National League in Miltown Malbay and do not attend meetings of other branches in the County Clare; and, if so, can he say whether the police are acting on their own responsibility or on the orders of Mr. Jenkinson?
MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of the closing part of his answer with reference to the absence of general instructions to the police to attend meetings of Orange Lodges, Whether any special instructions have been given during the tenure of Office of the right hon. Gentleman to the police to attend any meeting of any Orange Lodge in Ireland?
MR. TREVELYAN: I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that there is no record of any such instructions to my knowledge.

BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883—RECEIVERS IN BANKRUPTCY.
MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that of the sixty-seven official receiverships created under the new Bankrupty Act fifty-one are Liberals, and of these fifty-one thirteen were Liberal election agents; and, if so, if he could explain why the assurance given to the House on the 14th August 1883, in the following words:—
"That if the Bankruptcy Bill was to be a success it would be so entirely in consequence of the choice which might be made in the first instance, especially of the officials who were to carry it into effect.…He hoped to avoid any suspicion of anything like improper party considerations entering into the selection of the officials"—
has not been carried out?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that upon the first day of the Session I moved for a Report made to me by the Committee which I appointed in order to consider and recommend the candidates for the appointment of Official Receivers. That Report, I believe, has been distributed to Members to-day, and the hon. Member will perceive that I have fully carried out the assurances which I gave to the House, and that the whole of these appointments have been made upon the recommendation of a Committee appointed by me, and consisting of four of the chief officials entrusted with the administration of the

179
Act. I cannot say whether the statement contained in the Question of the hon. Member, and which, I believe, is extracted from a statement that appeared in a provincial newspaper, is correct or not, because I am personally unacquainted with the political opinions of the majority of the gentlemen selected.

BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883—RECEIVERS IN BANKRUPTCY.

  FISHING VESSELS (REGULATIONS AS TO LIGHTS)—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Joint Committee on Fishing Vessels' Lights have agreed to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1880 in their entirety, as regards trawlers carrying one white masthead light when trawling?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the Select Committee of 1880 reported as follows:—
  "Your Committee, therefore, recommend that Article 10 of the new Regulations should he revised so as to satisfy the fishermen's desire to he relieved from carrying coloured side-lights while at work, and to retain the use of the white light while engaged in fishing, and at the same time secure the use of a distinctive mark by drift-net fishing boats to distinguish them from trawling smacks."
  The Joint Departmental Committee were again directed to meet and consider this among other points. There were laid before them the Report of the Select Committee, and also a number of Reports which had been obtained in the meantime from representatives of the shipping interest and of the fishing interests and from Foreign Governments. Abstracts of these were laid before Parliament in 1882. The Departmental Committee were assisted by representatives of the shipping interest deputed for the purpose, and with their aid and concurrence recommended that trawlers should use a white light with a red light above it to distinguish it from a pilot light. The rules recommended by the Joint Committee are now under the consideration of Foreign Governments.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—EXTRA POLICE TAX IN GALWAY.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will relinquish any claim accruing since the 1st January 1884, on the county rates of the county of Gal- 180
  way, for such extra Constabulary now or lately charged to the whole county?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the charge for extra Constabulary must be met in the manner provided by law, and the Government cannot relieve any county of the proportion legally due by it. I am unable, therefore, to give any undertaking that the course suggested in this Question shall be carried out.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—HOUSE OF COMMONS—ACCOMMODATION FOR THE OPPOSITION WHIPS.
MR. THORNHILLasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is necessary that the luncheon bar should be placed outside the only window of the room in which the Opposition Whips have to transact their business, and that bottles should be placed in the window frame; so that the noise of the customers and the smell of the refreshments make it very difficult for them either to hear or breathe with any degree of comfort? The hon. Member said, he had further to complain that some machinery connected with the electric light was beneath the room, and that its vibrations, together with the noise of the customers at the bar, made it almost impossible to carry on consultations there.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain to the House the meaning of the expression "Opposition Whips," and state what are the functions which these Gentlemen perform; and also whether Gentlemen discharging similar functions for any other portion of the House will receive similar accommodation?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, I am extremely sorry that the change in the Lobby arrangements should have caused any inconvenience to two Members to whom hon. Members on that side of the House owe so much, and who are entitled to every consideration from the Government and the House. If they will kindly communicate with me, I will try to mitigate the evils of which they complain, and, if possible, provide them with some other accommodation. The House is aware that the amount of accommodation is very limited, and that the disposal of rooms does not rest with me, but on Mr. Speaker, who has many other claims to consider, especially those of the officials of the House. All I can say is that we will do our best.

POST OFFICE—SIXPENNY TELEGRAMS.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can inform the House what is the proposal of the Government with regard to sixpenny telegrams; and, when it is probable the new Tariff will come into operation?
MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I may state that no decision has yet been come to with regard to the particular plan that may be adopted to give effect to the decision that the minimum charge for inland telegrams should be reduced to 6d. In addition to the three plans described in the Treasury Minute, issued last year, five others have been for some time under the consideration of the Department; but the attempt to estimate the financial results of adopting any one of them involves many intricate details. With regard to the date of the introduction of the reduced tariff, the Government has been reluctantly led to the conclusion not to introduce it at the date originally fixed, and the precise time will be left open until my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Financial Statement, when the Government will be in a position to determine it.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: Do any of these plans include the retention of free addresses?
MR. FAWCETT: Yes; one plan suggests free addresses; another that free addresses should be limited to 10 words; and a third that they should be limited to eight words. All the plans will be laid on the Table and the facts bearing on them, so far as we can get them.

ARMY—DRESS OF THE ARMY—THE OSTRICH FEATHER HEAD-DRESS OF THE HIGHLAND REGIMENTS.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to discontinue the feather bonnet as the head-dress of the Highland Regiments; and, if so, whether it is on account of its expense or supposed unserviceable qualities; what is its cost relatively to the head-dresses of the Household Troops, Cavalry, and other Regiments; and, whether any
182
substitute has been decided upon for it?
LORD COLIN CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to abolish the feather-bonnet hitherto worn by the Highland Regiments?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in reply to these Questions, I have to say that it has been decided to discontinue the ostrich feather bonnet as the head-dress of the Highland regiments. The decision is based on the recommendation of a Committee, composed of distinguished officers, whose Report was presented to Parliament in 1881. In the words of that Report the ostrich feather head-dress is—
"Costly, and is never worn on active service. As it has no national origin it should he replaced by the fine national head-dress, the bonnet."
For a number of years the ostrich feather bonnet has never been worn out of the United Kingdom. In all recent wars the kilted regiments have worn the helmets. The proposal now made is, therefore, only that the Highland regiments should wear at home the same head-dress they wear abroad and on service. I am not prepared at this moment to state the exact cost of the ostrich feather bonnet; but a Return showing the cost of the different head-dresses can be given if the hon. Baronet will move for it. I can, however, say that with the exception of the Guards' bearskin, the Highland head-dress costs far more than any other supplied to the Army. As regards a substitute for the ostrich feather bonnet, a final decision has not yet been come to; but probably the helmet, or some modification of it, will be adopted.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the noble Marquess whether, although the head-dress had no national or natural origin, it had not a historical origin; and whether it had not originated among the troops under Sir Ralph Abercromby in Egypt, who added the ostrich feathers to the bonnet as a protection from the sun?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I cannot say whether the hon. Baronet has accurately stated the origin of the bonnet; but I have no reason to question the accuracy of his statement of the origin.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS-STATISTICS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state whether any, and, if so, what increase has taken place in the percentage of Contagious Diseases in the Army and Navy since the Suspension of the operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts; and, whether he will lay upon the Table Returns on the subject and inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government intend taking any steps to check the spread of these maladies?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he had already had several Returns on this subject prepared. They were now ready and could be inspected by hon. Members. With the concurrence of the hon. Member, he would communicate with him as to the exact form in which the Returns should be presented to the House.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, with regard to this question, Whether there was any truth in the statement that, in consequence of a large number of seamen suffering from these disorders, orders had been issued by the Admiralty that sailors who were not cured should be sent to the hospital on board ships?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked that Notice of the Question should be given.

TUNIS-ABOLITION OF THE CONSULAR JURISDICTION.
MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When he will be able to lay Papers upon the Table in regard to the recent abolition of Consular Jurisdiction in Tunis?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE,in reply, said, the Papers in question were distributed that morning.

WEST INDIES (JAMAICA)—CHANGES IN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any, and what, change has been made in the form of Government in Jamaica; and, whether Papers will be laid upon the Table showing the proposed alteration, the protest sent by a deputation of Colonists to Sir H. Nor-
184
man, and His Excellency's reply thereto; and, if he will cause the Report of the Jamaica Commission to be printed and circulated?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in reply, said, the Papers which were laid on the Table of the House on Tuesday gave all the information required. This matter was not a very simple one, and as the Papers would be in the hands of Members in a short time, he must refer the hon. and gallant Member to them.
CAPTION PRICEsaid, no answer had been given to the second portion of his Question, as to whether the protests sent by a deputation of Colonists to Sir Henry Norman and the reply thereto were included?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; they are.

AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE TRANSVAAL—THE EXECUTION OF MAMPOER.
MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Lord Derby requested President Kruger to delay the execution of the Chief, Mampoer, until he had conferred with the President on the subject; whether the Acting High Commissioner at the Cape had reason to believe that the request would be complied with; and, whether it is a fact that the Transvaal Authorities executed Mampoer without waiting for any expression of Lord Derby's views on the case?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, Papers laid on the Table of the House to-day will give in full the several communications which have passed on this subject; but I think I ought to state briefly an answer as to the immediate point at issue in my hon. Friend's Question. On the 1st of October the Acting High Commissioner wrote from Cape Town that he had had an interview with President Kruger, who said that in view of Lord Derby's request—
"He would telegraph to Vice President Joubert desiring him to delay any execution until after the arrival of the deputation in England, so as to enable them to learn your Lordship's views in the matter."
Two days later President Kruger communicated to General Smyth the text of his telegram to the State Secretary at Pretoria, which was as follows:—
"Tell Vice President, trust he received telegram of Lord Derby respecting death sentence of Mampoer and Niabel. I abide by opinion then communicated to him. Niabel and other

185
rebel chieftains may receive exemption from death sentence, but not so the murderer Mampoer. However, I earnestly hope sentence of death will not be carried out until I have seen Lord Derby himself according to wish."
President Kruger and the Delegates then arrived in England, and on the 21st of November the Secretary of State, seeing a report that Mampoer was to he executed on that day, wrote to them reminding them of Mr. Kruger's action at Cape Town. The reply was that the latest information in possession of the deputation was contained in a letter to President Kruger from the State Secretary at Pretoria, dated the 9th of October, 1883, of which the following was a translated extract:—
"I have received your telegram from Cape Town. The Executive Council will not now take any steps with regard to the sentences of death passed upon Mampoer and Niabel before your Honour has had an interview with Lord Derby on the subject, when we shall hear again from you."
On the 30th of November Lord Derby again wrote to the Delegates, the certain news of Mampoer's death having arrived, and said he learnt with surprise and regret that the Executive Council of the Transvaal had acted in violation of the undertaking given by President Kruger and General Smyth, which had been fully relied on by Her Majesty's Government, In answer to this, the Transvaal deputation, on the 1st of December, said they had communicated with the Government at Pretoria, and that as soon as they received any information they would at once communicate it to the Colonial Office. We have not yet received any further communication in the matter.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: What was the date on which the Delegates arrived in England?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I cannot recall the exact date. I think about the first week in November.
MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR): I have understood that the date was the 1st of December
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I wish to ask whether the Papers that will be laid on the Table with reference to the Transvaal Delegates will show that Lord Derby had satisfied himself that the Government of the Transvaal would be able to carry out any arrangements that they may make here in some definite shape, and more completely than
186
they were able to carry out their own instructions.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Papers will speak for themselves.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to ask whether, if the last telegram was received on the 1st December, the Government have, by telegraph to the officers at the Cape, or by further communication with the Transvaal Delegates, expressed surprise at not receiving any answer?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that the telegram which was submitted to the Chief Commissioner by President Kruger is not a pledge, and you cannot twist it into a pledge; and we had no legal right of interference, but only of remonstrance.

SCOTLAND—EXPENSES OF RETURNING OFFICERS—THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) ACT, 1883.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Lord Advocate, If he is prepared to introduce a Bill to amend "The Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections Act, 1883," with the view of scheduling and limiting the expenses of Returning Officers in Scotland (over which candidates at present have no control), and by this means assimilating the Law to that of England?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The Corrupt Practices Act made no alteration on the previous law regulating this matter in Scotland, nor, as I understand, in England. The law in England stands upon the Parliamentary Elections Returning Officers Act, 1875, which enabled Returning Officers to require security for their expenses, and also fixed a scale of their charges. An Act bearing a similar title was passed for Scotland in 1878, to which no scale of charges was appended. Both of these Acts are to be read as one with the Ballot Act; and consequently any amendment upon them would be most appropriately made when the Ballot Act is under consideration. I may say that I think the matter is very fit for being made the subject of complete statutory regulation.

NAVY—MARINE BANDS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whe-

187
ther it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to place Marine bands on the same footing as musicians of the Line with regard to boy's service and pension on discharge on completing twenty-one years' service?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, in view of the difference which exists between the Regulations for entry in the Royal Marines and the Army respectively, and also of the different character of the service on which the two forces are employed, it is not recognized as desirable to assimilate in all respects their pay and allowances. In the instance referred to by the hon. Member, the Marine bandsmen have the advantage of constant homo service at the same stations—an advantage not enjoyed by the bandsmen in the Navy, nor, except in a few exceptional cases, by those in the Army. There is, therefore, no intention to make the alteration suggested.

SCOTLAND—THE HIGHLAND CROFTERS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
LORD COLIN CAMPBELLasked the Lord Advocate, "Whether the Reports of the Evidence taken by the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the condition of the population of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland will be laid before Parliament at an early date?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have ascertained from the noble Chairman of the Commission that they expect to place their Report with the evidence in the hands of the Secretary of State for submission to Her Majesty about the end of the present month, and the Papers will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as possible thereafter.

VENEZUELA—IMPORT DUTIES.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Signor Guzman Blanco, the Governor of Venezuela, has been for some time levying a duty of thirty per cent. in addition to ordinary duties on goods imported from British Colonies; whether this differential duty against Great Britain is not in contravention of the Treaty of 1825, confirmed by the Convention of 1834; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government has taken to secure the fulfilment of Treaty
188
obligations, through the violation of which the trade of Trinidad is being seriously prejudiced; whether certain vessels were seized in the Maturin River on the allegation of trying to evade that duty, one of the vessels being sunk, and some of the crew imprisoned; whether this has continued for several months, without any steps being taken for the protection of these British subjects; and, whether anything is now being done to obtain redress?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the duties in question are in violation of the Treaty of 1825. Negotiations for a settlement are in progress; but there has been a certain delay owing to there being no Representative in this country. With regard to the seizure of British vessels in the Maturin River, and the imprisonment of their crews upon a charge of smuggling, Her Majesty's Minister at Caracas reported that he had lost no time in addressing a representation on the subject to the Venezuelan Government, and a further despatch is expected from him in the course of next week.

MALTA—THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in the Constitution granted to Malta, there is a provision by which elected members of the Legislative Council can at pleasure resign their seats; and, if so, whether the seats now vacant through resignation have to be immediately filled, or whether it is not possible to have the electorate divided into constituencies before any new election takes place?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: There is in the Letters Patent of 1849, Clause 8, which provides for the resignation by Members of their seats. These Letters Patent are to be read in connection with the now Letters Patent of last year. The seats now vacant must be filled very shortly, and it will not be possible to have the electorate divided as proposed before the new elections. The present division of the constituency is regulated by a local ordinance.

PRISONS (IRELAND)—INQUESTS IN CORK GAOL.
MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

189
Whether his attention has been called to the newspaper reports of inquests held in Cork Gaol on 10th January into the circumstances touching the death of a prisoner named Timothy Mahony, who had been twelve months in prison; and, on 22nd December, on the body of a man named Horgan, who had been three weeks in prison; whether, at the latter inquest, the coroner stated that he invariably found at inquests in Cork Gaol that the prisoner had been removed to hospital only a few hours before his death; whether the evidence of the medical officer and governor of the prison confirmed this statement; whether it is true that Horgan, though seeking medical assistance on the 9th January, was kept to the treadmill until the 18th, and kept on the plank bed until the 20th, the day before his death; whether he is aware that the medical officer of the prison deposed at the inquest that Horgan was "an active, strong, muscular man when he entered the prison;" whether it is true, as stated by the coroner, that Mr. Roberts, the governor of the prison, in apprising the authorities of Morgan's death, addressed a letter to the sub-inspector of Constabulary, commencing "My dear Newell," and asking him to direct the sergeant to be careful in the selection of the jury; and, whether it is the intention of the Lord Lieutenant to hold an inquiry into these facts; and, if so, whether the friends of the prisoners will have an opportunity of being present or being represented thereat?
MR. TREVELYAN: The newspaper reports referred to were brought to my notice, and I directed inquiries to be made on the subject. With respect to the allegations that deceased prisoners had been invariably found to have been removed to hospital only a few hours before death, I am informed that inquiry shows that no such circumstance has occurred in Cork Prison during the past six years, the period for which the records have been examined. It seems, therefore, impossible that the Governor or medical officer could have confirmed such a statement. The prisoner Mahony, named in the Question, was in hospital three days before his death, which is believed to have been caused by the bursting of a tumour. He had not been on the plank bed for 11 months, and he had never been at penal labour. He was treated with great care and attention
190
—two doctors of the highest standing in Cork having been called in to see him in consultation. The prisoner Horgan received medical attention whenever he asked for it. The medical officer did not see any necessity for exempting him from the plank bed or penal labour. He was, however, only three times on the treadmill during his imprisonment. He was two days in hospital before his death. It is true that the doctor stated that he was in good health when committed; but it has transpired that he had received some rough usage prior to his committal to prison, and had complained at home of internal injuries. It is to be regretted that this matter was not inquired into at the inquest. [Mr. HARRINGTON: The special jury.] I regret that the Coroner did not go into the question of the injuries which he received from the hands of private persons before he was committed to prison. I have communicated to His Excellency the circumstances of this case, some of which would appear to require investigation. In this case there appeal's to have been some slight irregularity. [Mr. HARRINGTON: "Slight" irregularity.] I think I am justified in calling it a "slight" irregularity. The doctor recommended him not to be put on the treadmill, which is always considered to be a severe sort of hard labour, but at shot drill. The warder omitted in this case to follow the recommendation of the doctor, and allowed him to go on the treadmill three times. That is the matter to which I have referred, and which is a matter which requires closer inquiry. The letter of the Governor referred to in the Question was written in consequence of what had occurred on a former occasion, when a person who had recently been in custody on a criminal charge had been sworn on a Coroner's Jury, and had behaved very improperly. I am in communication with His Excellency as to whether the circumstances call for any further inquiry.
MR. HARRINGTON: Arising out of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in answer to the Question, might I ask him if the Governor wrote a letter to the Sub-Inspector, addressed "My dear Newell," asking him to direct the sergeant to be careful in summoning the jury; and also whether the Governor had at previous inquests upon prisoners declined to attend at the request of the

191
Coroner; also, might I ask whether the prisoner Horgan was on the treadmill on the 18th, although he was under medical consideration on the 9th of December; whether it was after fainting in the chapel on the 21st he was removed to hospital, and died on the 22nd?
[No reply was given.]

AFRICA (SOUTH)—ALLEGED CRUELTY OF A HOTTENTOT CHIEF.
MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information concerning the statement which appeared in the "Daily News"of February 4th, as to certain cruelties alleged to have been inflicted on his Native prisoners by Paul Vister, a Hottentot Chief residing in the country north of the Orange River; and, whether, if that statement is officially confirmed, Her Majesty's Acting High Commissioner at Cape Town will be instructed to take such steps as may be practicable to prevent a repetition of such enormities?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in reply, said, that no news whatever had been received at the Colonial Office with reference to this matter, and they did not even recognize the name "Paul Vister," described in the Question as a Hottentot Chief. If they heard anything about the matter, he would inform the right hon. Gentleman. As to the second part of the Question, he had to point out that they did not claim any jurisdiction whatever, or power of interference, in the territory referred to.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND).
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What course the Irish Executive meant to adopt with regard to persons who, being either Justices of the Peace in Ireland, or persons employed in offices of profit in the public service of that country, have publicly identified themselves, or may publicly identify themselves, hereafter, with the course of conduct by which Lord Rossmore has incurred removal from the Commission of the Peace; and, whether the Irish Executive are determined to proceed according to the spirit and terms of the letter addressed on the 24th of November last
192
by the Lords Commissioners for the custody of the Great Seal of Ireland to Lord Rossmore, dismissing him from the Commission of the Peace, and of a further letter addressed, on the 17th December' last, to Sir John Leslie, J.P., by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland?
MR. GIBSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would like to ask if he is aware that addresses, signed by magistrates, deputy lieutenants of counties, and others, have been signed without any regard to Party; and that many of them have been signed by gentlemen who are not Orangemen or Conservatives—amongst others Lord Fitzwilliam and Lord Meath have signed. I have also to ask him if he has seen a published letter from Lord Dartrey, Lord Lieutenant of the county, who originally appointed Lord Rossmore, in which the following occurs:—
"The addresses to you from this county have all emanated from the Orange Body, of which I am not a member. It would have been inconsistent, therefore, for me to sign. But, lost my silence might be misconstrued, I must state that no one feels more strongly about the treatment which you have received from the Commissioners of the Great Seal, who, without even inquiry as to whether the charge could be substantiated, have deprived you of the Commission of the Peace. One would have expected that the addresses would have been welcomed by the Government, as I know they were signed by all Loyalists and numbers of loyal Roman Catholics. I am glad to see that the whole question is to be brought, as soon as possible, under the consideration of Parliament."
MR. TREVELYAN: In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say I am aware that several noblemen and gentlemen belonging to the Liberal Party have signed the addresses referred to, but I cannot admit that those addresses are totally unconnected with Party. The letter of Lord Dartrey, I admit, was written, and that it contained all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read. It would be improper for me, now, to make remarks upon that letter in reply to this Question; but I wish that Lord Dartrey were here that I might answer in detail. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for the County of Sligo, I have to say that it rests with the Lord Chancellor, as head of the Judicial Body in Ireland, to deal with the conduct of magistrates; but the Executive Government fully concur with the views on this subject, stated in the letters referred to,

193
and have already expressed such concurrence in a letter to Lord Lanesborough, the Lord Lieutenant of County Cavan, a letter which I shall be very glad to show to the hon. Member, or to any other hon. Gentleman, who would like to see it. I shall be very glad if Lord Lanesborough can see his way to allow it to be published in the papers. With regard to persons holding office under the Crown, His Excellency will consider each case that may arise on its merits. With regard to the latter part of the Question, there is a material difference between a person with more or less imperfect knowledge of the circumstances identifying himself with a course of action taken by another, and himself taking an active part in directing proceedings fraught with danger to the public peace.
MR. GIBSONasked whether when the right hon. Gentleman said the Lord Lieutenant was to consider each case on its merits he meant to convey that the Lord Lieutenant was entitled to deal with all the persons who had signed those addresses?
MR. TREVELYAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has hardly been so long in Ireland or the United Kingdom without knowing that the Lord Lieutenant has not a right to interfere directly with magistrates; but, as to persons employed in offices of profit in the Public Service of the country, I consider that they might so identify themselves with a controversy of this nature that their conduct might require notice.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he would on Monday give two cases of persons holding offices of profit in the Public Service who had identified themselves with those proceedings; and would also ask how the Government could reconcile the continuance in the Commission of the Peace of gentlemen in various Irish counties who had made insubordinate and defiant declarations with the declarations of the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal in regard to the duty of magistrates?
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table the Correspondence and Papers relating to the dismissal of Lord Rossmore, and particularly the letter of the Lord Lieutenant to the Lord Lieutenant of the County Cavan?
MR. TREVELYAN: That is a question which will have to be very carefully considered. Speaking as a layman, I cannot say how many of these Papers may be privileged communications; but the letter of the Lord Lieutenant to Lord Lanesborough I shall be very glad to lay on the Table.
MR. MACARTNEY: I hope when the letters are produced that the Government will also produce the report of the Resident Magistrate upon which Lord Rossmore was dismissed—the Resident Magistrate who met Lord Rossmore on his way to Rosslea, and advised him to go the other way.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, as a matter of Order, whether a Member of the Treasury Bench could quote from official documents from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or other Crown officials without producing such documents?
MR. TREVELYAN: Might I say that I have not quoted from any documents.

EDUCATION (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can say how soon the Government will introduce the Bill (promised in the Speech from the Throne) for the promotion of education in Ireland; whether the Bill will contain provisions for improving the condition of the Irish National School Teachers, more especially with regard to their salaries, residences, and pensions; and, whether the Government will consider the introduction into their Bill of provisions to carry into effect the suggestions made in a recent public letter of the Catholic Bishop of Meath, with respect to the training of girls in domestic and other industries, under, or in connection with, the system of National Education in Ireland?
MR. TREVELYAN: I propose to introduce the Bill for the promotion of education in Ireland on the earliest opportunity after the Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland has made satisfactory progress through the House of Commons, for that Bill stands first. On that occasion I will make a statement which will embrace all the essential provisions of the Bill. I have communicated with the Commissioners of National Education

195
with regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 187S—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Privy Council will undertake to put in force their present powers for the purpose of excluding animals from any Foreign Country in which foot and mouth disease exists during the passing of the Bill to be introduced by the Lord President of the Privy Council for amending the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878?
MR. DODSON: The Privy Council have undertaken to exercise their present powers as stringently as they hold to be consistent with the spirit and intention of the Act of 1878. They have prohibited the landing of animals from Prance on account of the successive cargoes containing disease sent to us at the beginning of the year, and the continuing unsatisfactory condition of the country as to foot-and-mouth disease. They have called the attention of the Governments of the United States, Germany, and Holland to the fact that foot-and-mouth disease has been sent to Great Britain, and have warned them that if they continued to send us disease the landing of their animals would be prohibited. We are prepared to give effect to that warning on the first occasion that calls for it. I wish to add this, that since the month of May—a period of more than eight months—not a single head of foreign cattle with foot-and-mouth disease has been landed upon our shores. Since the 11th of November—that is, a period of very nearly three months—not a single animal of any kind with foot-and-mouth disease has been landed upon our shores; and we do not consider that we could issue a prohibitory Order against any country which has not sent us a case of disease for such a period as that without cause arising.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Are we to understand that the Government, knowing that foot-and-mouth disease exists in the United States, Germany, and Holland, do not consider that sufficient cause exists to prohibit the importation of live animals from those countries until the disease has been imported into this country?
MR. DODSON: No, Sir; and for this reason. The Act of 1878 expressly provides for the slaughtering of animals at the port of landing when they have come from countries which are not clear of disease. It gives a power of prohibition to be used, in exceptional cases, from time to time, as occasion arises.
MR. CHAPLIN: I gather from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that he is of opinion that the existing law does not give him the necessary power to carry out the Resolution of last Session, and to prohibit the landing of animals from countries affected with foot-and-mouth disease, wherever they may be, in the manner we have so long demanded.
MR. DODSON: We most certainly consider, as I told the hon. Member in debate last Session, that the existing Act does not give us the power to carry out the Resolution which he proposed. That Resolution was not, however, such as he has described.
MR. J. LOWTHER: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that communications have been addressed to certain Foreign Powers to the effect that, under certain circumstances, Her Majesty's Government would prohibit the importation of animals from those countries. May I ask under what powers he proposes to prohibit such importation?
MR. NEWDEGATE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I be allowed to put another? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned that he had warned certain Governments that he apprehended danger on the part of the Government of this country. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having that information, he has not under the existing law power to prohibit the importation of diseased animals?
MR. DODSON: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), I have to say that the countries which are prohibited, or which may be prohibited, are prohibited under the special and exceptional powers given to the Privy Council by the 35th section of the Act.
MR. JAMES HOWARD: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy, whether I correctly understood him to say that no animals have been landed in England

197
affected with foot-and-mouth disease; or whether he intended to convey to the House that the disease had not escaped from the port of debarkation?
MR. DODSON: No, Sir; my statement was that not one single head of foreign cattle affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been landed upon our shores since the month of May, and my further statement was that not a single foreign animal of any kind affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been landed upon our shores since the 11th of November—a period of nearly three months.
MR. DUCKHAM: Do I understand, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that the test of prohibition will be the arrival of cargoes of diseased animals on the shores of this country?
MR. DODSON: No, Sir; we could not lay down a hard-and-fast line that the bare fact of the arrival of a cargo should be the test for prohibition, for very obvious reasons. [Cries of "What are they?"]
MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: May I ask whether there was not an Order of the Privy Council of the 28th of March prohibiting the landing of diseased cattle from France until the 6th of May, and why such a course should not be used in the case of other countries?
SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: May I ask whether there is any limitation of the powers given to the Government by the 35th section of the Act, which is in these words—
"For prohibiting the landing of animals in such manner as they think fit?"
MR. DODSON: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I may say that in a similar case to that of France which I stated just now, the Privy Council would feel it their duty to act in the same manner and prohibit the importation. In answer to the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me (Sir Alexander Gordon), I would point out that the 35th section must be construed in conjunction with the 5th Schedule of the Act to which it refers. By the 5th Schedule it is distinctly laid down as a general rule that animals from foreign countries are to be landed and slaughtered at the port of debarkation, and the power of prohibiting is an exceptional power in limitation of the general rule.
MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform me
198
why the Order was promulgated by the Privy Council against France?
MR. DODSON: I am afraid my statement did not reach the hon. Member. In the first Question which I answered I stated the reason why France was prohibited from sending cattle into this country.
An hon. MEMBER: May I ask whether I understood from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no animals which have arrived since the 1st of May last have been seized with foot-and-mouth disease since they came into this country?
MR. DODSON: The animals were all slaughtered at the port of debarkation; and, therefore, the most effectual precautions were taken against their subsequently suffering from the disease.
MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: I am very sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend; but we at this end of the House would take it as a great favour if he would repeat his answer with respect to France.
MR. JAMES HOWARD: We should like to know the reason why the Order was put in force in respect to France, Portugal, and Spain? Was it because the vessels were infected, or because the countries were infected? Two reasons have been assigned, and we should like to know officially why the Privy Council adopted that course.
MR. DODSON: To put it very briefly, we prohibited France because of successive cargoes containing the disease coming over at the beginning of the year, and the prohibition has been continued from time to time owing to the unsatisfactory condition of the country.
MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House how many cases have occurred since the 1st of May of any kind of animals arriving in this country affected with foot-and-mouth disease? I understood him to make a distinction between cattle, sheep, and pigs. I understood him to say that no cattle affected with foot-and-mouth disease had arrived in this country since May 1 last, and no animals of any kind since November last. But I gather that between May and November certain animals other than cattle had arrived in this country affected with foot-and-disease.
MR. DODSON: I cannot state offhand what number of affected animals arrived between May and November; but the two last cargoes were one with 14 swine on October 29, and the other with eight sheep on November 11. Since that date not a single animal affected with foot-and-mouth disease has been landed on our shores.
MR. E. H. PAGET: May I ask how many animals were in the ships in which these diseased animals were imported?
MR. DODSON: I am unable to answer that off-hand.
SIR HENRY TYLER: May I ask from what countries they came?
MR. DODSON: One from Germany and the other from Holland.
MR. HARRINGTONasked if it was the case that in certain districts in Ireland the police were allowed to sell diseased cattle, whereas the farmers were not permitted to do so?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, he should be much surprised if that was the case.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to give Notice that in consequence of the announcement that Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce a Bill in the other House of Parliament to amend the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, I do not intend to proceed with the Amendment of which I had given Notice; but I intend to move the following instead:—
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction with which we have learnt the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to present to Parliament a Bill to enable them to give effect to a Resolution passed in this House on the 11th July 1883; and humbly to assure Her Majesty that precedence over the measures mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne will he given by us to that Bill when it reaches this House, so as to secure that adequate steps may be taken to prevent the importation into this country of animals suffering from foot and mouth disease without further delay."
MR. HENEAGE: I wish to ask whether it is not the intention of the Government to press forward the Cattle Diseases Bill with an earnest desire that it should become law as early as possible before Easter, while not delaying the great measures of Reform mentioned in the Queen's Speech?
MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend behind me has spoken entirely on his own responsility; but he has given, I must say, a very fair and just description of the intentions of the Government. It can hardly be supposed that the
200
Government would introduce a Bill for re-organizing the powers of the Privy Council, with regard to which at any time an immediate necessity might arise, although I am not aware that at the present moment the necessity has arisen, without meaning to press it on Parliament. In case any lengthened explanation should he required of me, I will do it in the discussion which the hon. Member has promised us; but undoubtedly our desire is to press forward the Bill with every expedition we can fairly give, it being perfectly well understood that we must entirely decline to give it precedence over all other Business of the House, particularly the two most important measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech.

POST OFFICE (SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT)—ANNUITY AND INSURANCE TABLES.
MR. JOHN HOLLONDasked the Postmaster General, When the new scheme for providing annuities and insurances through the Post Office Savings Bank will be brought into operation?
MR. FAWCETT: In reply to my hon. Friend I may state that I understand that the new Annuity and Insurance Tables, which had to be prepared by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, are now being printed, and that the Commissioners hoped to have them ready to be laid before Parliament in a few days. They cannot be acted upon until they have laid on the Table of the House for 30 days. After this the new scheme can be brought into operation in a very brief period, and certainly within a few weeks.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)-FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (IRELAND).
COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will permit of the immediate resumption of fairs and markets in those Unions of the county of Galway which have been reported free for fourteen days from foot and mouth disease?
MR. TREVELYAN: In the county of Galway, as in the other counties in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant deals with every application for leave to hold a fair or market on its own merits, and I will

201
put the case of Loughrea before the Lord Lieutenant in a letter to-night. He is most anxious to remove the restrictions as soon as possible; but he cannot as yet give any general permission such as the hon. and gallant Member asks for. A fair or market cannot always be held without danger in a Union which is itself free from disease, as there might be infected places too close to its boundaries. I may say that, under the recent Orders which have been in force since the 5th of January, foot-and-mouth disease has very rapidly been diminishing. There were 353 animals attacked in the week ending the 5th of January; 245 the next week; 176 in the next; and in the week ending the 26th, 100 in the whole of Ireland.

EGYPT—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government are able to state what steps they propose to take to check the fanatical revolution in the Soudan which threatens the peace of Egypt and of the neighbouring Countries? He also desired to add a Question, of which he had given the Prime Minister private Notice—namely, Whether the Prime Minister would state what steps Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take to secure the safety of the garrisons at Sinkat and Tokar, who had now been besieged, within 30 miles of the Bed Sea, for a period of seven weeks, and who were in the greatest distress?
MR. GLADSTONE: I received this morning from the hon. Member a written addition to the Question of the hon. Member. The Question now asks whether Her Majesty's Government are able to state what steps they propose to take to check the fanatical revolution in the Soudan; and, secondly, what course they intend to pursue with respect to certain garrisons in the Soudan? As regards the first part of the Question, it is a demand for an expression of the views of the Government with regard to Egypt and the Soudan generally, and, as to that, I may say that I hope to take a very early opportunity of stating fully in debate the views of Her Majesty's Government on that subject. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Government have this infor-
202
mation as to the fate of Tewfik Pasha—that the rumour which caused so much alarm in the House yesterday is not founded on fact, Sir Evelyn Baring having telegraphed to Lord Granville—
"There is no truth in the reports, which I understand have been telegraphed home, that Sinkat has been taken, but the garrison is in great straits."
The statement that Tewfik Pasha had endeavoured to cut his way out with a body of some hundreds of men, and had been cut to pieces, is the subject of the telegram which is contradicted.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: With regard to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask him whether, the garrison of Sinkat being in dire straits from starvation, and being within 30 miles of the Red Sea Coast, which is in the occupation of Her Majesty's Government at this moment, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take immediate steps to relieve that gallant officer, Tewfik Pasha, and the garrison from the terrors in which they are placed?
MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot undertake to make any statement as to the question of the Soudan or the garrison of Sinkat until the early opportunity for discussing the question we have named has arrived.
MR. A. F. EGERTON: May I ask whether it is true that a division of Marines is to be sent to Suakim; and also whether or not troops can be stopped in the Red Sea for the relief of that place?
MR. RITCHIE: Before that question is answered, may I ask whether it is true that the blue-jackets who have been stopped in the Red Sea on their way home, and placed at the disposal of Sir William Hewett, are without arms?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Steps have been immediately taken to furnish Sir William Hewett with such increase of strength as he has asked for; in fact, measures had already been, to some extent, adopted in anticipation of his wishes. I do not think it will be expected that I should give any details of numbers; but I may mention, as I see somewhat inaccurate statements in the newspapers, that there are at present either at Suakim or Massowah—most of them probably at Suakim—including the flagship, certainly—the Euryalus corvette, the Ranger, Decoy, Coquette, and the Sphinx. In addition,

203
the Carysfort, a large corvette, has been ordered from Alexandria to convoy the reinforcements necessary to Suakin.

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—VOTE OF CENSURE.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to give Notice that when the Leader of the Opposition brings forward next week his Motion for a Vote of Censure on the Government I shall move as an Amendment—
  "That this House, whilst declining at present to express an opinion on the Egyptian policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued during the last two years, with the support of the House, trusts that in future British Forces may not be employed for the purpose of interfering with the Egyptian people in the selection of their own Government."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [THIRD NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [5th February].—[See page 52.]
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS).
  MR. CHAPLIN,in rising to move the following Amendment:—
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction with which we have learnt the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to present to Parliament a Bill to enable them to give effect to a Resolution passed in this House on the 11th July 1883:
  "And humbly to assure Her Majesty that precedence over the measures mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne will be given by us to that Bill when it reaches this House, so as to secure that adequate steps may be taken to prevent the importation into this Country of animals suffering from foot-and-mouth disease without further delay,"
  said: Sir, in the observations I am about to make I wish to say nothing which might be regarded as too strong or emphatic. Believing, as I do, in the strength of my case, I shall endeavour to submit it as temperately as I can. The question which forms the subject
  204
  of the Amendment has recently assumed a position of considerable interest and importance in public estimation. I think that people everywhere are beginning to perceive that the matter is one which affects the interests of the consumers quite as much as it affects the interests of the producers of meat in this country. Numerous public meetings have been held on the subject; committees have been formed for the purpose of widely disseminating as far as possible information with regard to it; speeches, moreover, have been made upon it—and some of them, I am sorry to say, I think foolish and misleading speeches—by Cabinet Ministers and supporters of the Government. I think it is not too much to say that widespread and general attention has been attracted to the subject. Of my own knowledge, Memorials and Petitions and representations in great numbers have been forwarded to the Prime Minister and some of his Colleagues; but notwithstanding all that occurred last Session in the House, notwithstanding the Resolution passed by the House, calling on the Government to deal with the question in a certain direction, to my great surprise and astonishment no mention was made of it in the gracious Speech from the Throne. This is, however, but another illustration of the complete disregard of the agricultural interest of which we have had so frequently to complain. In the course of the last 48 hours a change appears to have come over the spirit of their dream. I confess I have witnessed some of the proceedings on that (the Ministerial) side of the House with interest and amusement. All those impromptu Questions and their pre-arranged answers that have passed between the Ministers and their Supporters behind them—then the sudden announcement of their intention to bring in a Bill with hot haste, and still more by the numerous Questions pressed in an agitated manner—all these are indications of the consternation created in the Liberal camp by the announcement that an Amendment would be moved to the Address, if Her Majesty's Government did not recognize in the eleventh hour that Constitutional duty that they ought to have maintained long ago. Up to yesterday this important question was deliberately ignored by the Government; but the announcement of an

  205
  Amendment from this side of the House I has already produced us the promise of a Bill. That is good in itself; but it is not good enough, and I now propose by this Amendment to obtain a promise from the Government that that Bill shall be proceeded with with all possible despatch. These proceedings are gratifying to me for this reason particularly, that, as far as I am concerned, this discussion can be restricted within the narrowest limits. Had I proceeded with my original Amendment, I should have been prepared to enforce, to the best of my ability, the arguments I have used both in this House and elsewhere in support of the views I entertain. I should have been able to show that it/was a matter of great interest and anxiety, quite as much to the consumer as to the producer, and that by adopting the course I desire you would confer a boon on agriculture and indirectly benefit the trade of this country. I should have been able to explain to the House that, while we only propose to interfere with 6 per cent of the whole consumption of meat in this country, we anticipate from that interference compensating advantages far more than would make up for the probable loss that might have been incurred. I should have quoted evidence to show that whatever loss occurred from the prohibition of the importation of live animals would be fully supplied by the importation of dead meat in their place. I should have produced evidence from practical breeders of stock to show to the House that a large development of flocks and herds in this country might be expected to commence the moment you gave the farmers the best security and protection in your power against the ravages of this disease from which they have suffered so much. Lastly, I should have pressed on the attention of the House the great opening which this security would give for a large development in the milk trade—a matter which I regard as of great importance to a depressed and embarrassed industry as agriculture is at the present time. In a word, I think I should have been able to have shown to the House, and carried with me the conviction of the House, that the extirpation of this ruinous disease from the United Kingdom is a measure of national importance, in which all classes in the country are deeply interested; and, at the same time, that we
  206
  never can hope to see the disease permanently extirpated from this country until such time as the landing of all live animals from infected countries is prohibited altogether. All this seems to me now rendered superfluous by the intention of the Government, however hastily formed, to deal with the question by immediate legislation. That I take to be a frank admission that the Government have abandoned the attitude that up to the present time they have taken on this subject. The House will recollect the proposal I submitted last Session, and which was opposed by Her Majesty's Government on this main ground particularly—namely, that it would seriously increase the price of meat. That it would raise the price of meat to famine prices to the people of this country was the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), who immediately followed me, and who spoke on the part of Her Majesty's Government. We may suppose that as the right hon. Gentleman is still a Member of the Government, and has not sent in his resignation, that he entirely retracts what appeared to me at the time to be a rather foolish and extravagant statement of opinion, for which I have all along contended there was not the slightest shadow of foundation. We may also conclude that Her Majesty's Government admit the force, validity, and justice of the arguments advanced by many of their own Supporters as well as by myself and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. If that be so, and I have correctly interpreted the action of the Government, it seems to me that I am relieved from the necessity of arguing the case, and very little is left for me to do except to elicit from Her Majesty's Government a distinct understanding on one point in particular. I take it this is a Bill to enable the Government to give effect in reference to foot-and-mouth disease to the Resolution which was passed last year. I mention foot-and-mouth disease specifically, because, in certain quarters, it has been stated that the Resolution of last year referred to all foreign diseases, which I contend was not the case. My intention, and the meaning of the Resolution, was to limit it to foot-and-mouth disease. Then, Sir, the question I wish to put to the Government is with reference to the

  207
  time when they contemplate making progress with this measure. We understand it is to he introduced in the other House of Parliament. Will it be introduced and conducted through that House with all convenient speed and despatch as far as the action of the Government is concerned; and when it reaches this House will it be proceeded with at once? It is right and necessary that I should speak with the utmost frankness on this point, lest the slightest misunderstanding should arise between the Government and myself with regard to this point. This question, I contend, is above all others essentially urgent. The mischief is going on now. The disease is active in the country at this moment. Moreover, we are at the time of the year when it can be most effectually dealt with. Two months hence it will be too late, and for this reason—the severe restrictions which are absolutely necessary to stamp out the disease for good at home would be intolerable; and though I should urge on you to enforce them most rigorously as soon as you give the best security against the introduction of disease, if you do it at once, it would be intolerable, and I believe impossible, in three months' time, when the cattle and flocks will be distributed in the fields throughout the whole country. I venture to submit to the Prime Minister that, however important the Government may consider their other measures, such as the Reform Bill or the Local Government Bill, to be, it is quite immaterial to them whether they are carried in three or four months from this date provided they are passed before the close of the Session. Therefore it must be a sina quâ non with me, as to the pressing of this Amendment to a Division, that this measure shall not be postponed until the Reform Bill and other measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne are disposed of, but, on the other hand, I must ask that the Government shall give a clear undertaking that they will press it on, when it reaches this House, with all speed and despatch. If that be done there will be no necessity for prolonging this discussion, as far as I am concerned, and the remainder of the Address may be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion. Nothing could give me greater pleasure than to give the Government all the assistance in my power in passing a Bill
  208
  of that nature; and as far as I have any knowledge of this House and the nature of the subject, I see no reason why it should occupy more than two or three days in passing. I have endeavoured to state as frankly as I can the position I feel myself bound to take up in this question. I have been associated in this matter, both in and out of Parliament for a considerable number of months, with a number of Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House, and who are followers of the Prime Minister. I consequently know their feelings upon the matter, and I feel confident they will give me credit for this, that from first to last I have done my utmost on more than one occasion to keep this question free from Party lines. But, at the same time, I am bound by other and serious obligations, and the chief of them is this—I have over and over again declared my positive intention, and on the faith of that intention I have received a great accession of support from all parts of the country to use all the resources in my power to bring this question to an immediate solution if possible. So that of course I feel myself pledged beyond power of recall to persist in that intention. I have endeavoured to put the question as fairly and temperately as I can before the Government and the House of Commons. The fate of this question rests in no degree in my hands, but, in a great degree, it does rest with a section of hon. Gentlemen in this House. Undoubtedly it is for each Member to judge for himself as to his own responsibility, and how far he is pledged to any particular course of action on any particular subject. I do not know how far those Members of the Liberal Party who have hitherto acted with me on this question, and who have attended the same meetings and supported the same resolutions by which I feel myself bound, will be prepared to act with me on the present occasion; but this I do know, that at this moment there is an enormous probability that the future of this measure rests with them. I am persuaded that victory on this matter is almost within our grasp, and if they continue to support me as they have done up to the present time we shall at length achieve the object for which we have been working hard for so many months. The hon. Member

  209
  concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 58, after the word "arrangements," to insert the words "Humbly to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction with which we have learnt the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to present to Parliament a Bill to enable them to give effect to a Resolution passed in this House an the 11th July 1883:
  "And humbly to assure Her Majesty that precedence over the measures mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne will be given by us to that Bill when it reaches this House, so as to secure that adequate steps may be taken to prevent the importation into this Country of animals suffering from foot and mouth disease without further delay."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) has addressed the House at no great length, and it will be possible for me to confine my remarks within even still shorter compass. It is not necessary, Sir—it would not be regular, under the circumstances, having regard to the Notice which Her Majesty's Government have given with respect to proceedings "elsewhere"—and I do not think it would tend to the attainment of any practical object, were I to enter into any minute particulars with respect to the character of the measure of which Her Majesty's Government intend to promote the introduction. But I make this admission to the hon. Gentleman. He is perfectly entitled to notice it, and it is perfectly true that Her Majesty's Government, though they might have been inclined to believe, and especially encouraged by the experience of the last few months, in the sufficiency of the steps which they have been adopting, yet they have made a concession to what they believe to be a very general and widespread feeling, and they propose to introduce a Bill for the enlargement—and the very considerable enlargement—of the powers of the Privy Council, which the hon. Gentleman is quite justified in interpreting as a concession on our part. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that no Government, having made a concession of that kind, could possibly be so unwise, not to say inequitable, as to aim at defeating concession by allowing a measure of that kind, so far as depends upon them, to be clogged and embarrassed
  210
  and intercepted in its progress through the Forms of the House, or through their relegating it to the class of measures of indifference, or of only secondary importance. Sir, some part of the question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me I can answer in a manner that will be satisfactory, I think, even to him. I just observed that he has told us what, if it had not been for the promise of Her Majesty's Government, he would have done, and has given us all the heads of the speech which it was his intention to make. I will only add one more particular to what he would have done. He would have embodied in his Amendment not only a demand for legislation, but a Censure upon the Government. Of course, by that Censure of the Government he would have made it impossible for us to hold Office. Of that he is perfectly cognizant. Far be it from me to complain of this token of his regard and friendship; but observe the hon. Gentleman's ground all along—his ground of the extreme urgency of this subject, and that not a moment is to be lost in dealing with it. It certainly would have been a very singular method of commencing operations of this kind to begin by displacing the Government, the result of which must have involved a period of perhaps several weeks before any measures could have been taken at all. I should like to add that to the "would have dones" of the hon. Member. But now I come to the question of the hon. Member before us, as far as I understand it, and to the Motion which he has put into the hands of the House. I must draw a distinction between the two. I think I can reasonably satisfy his question; but I could not satisfy the terms of his Motion, and Her Majesty's Government could not accept it, for reasons which I think will be obvious and clear. He asks whether we intend to proceed with despatch in the House of Lords? I hope, Sir, there would not be any impropriety to my Colleagues in the other House in my saying that it is their intention, using the privileges and powers within their reach, to proceed immediately. It would be too much for me to state precisely the day on which Notice is to be given "elsewhere;" but I have the hope, I may say I have the certainty, that it will be an extremely early day; and I hope, even, that it will be a day

  211
  as early as Monday. The hon. Gentleman then says, do we intend to proceed with despatch in the House of Lords? I can only say that my noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) will lose no time, so far as depends upon him, in obtaining the judgment of that House upon the proposals of the Government. So far, I trust, we move in harmony. "But, then," says the hon. Gentleman, "What will you do when your Bill comes down to the House of Commons?" I am very glad, Sir, to accept that question of the hon. Member as a proof that our Bill will come down to the House of Commons. My Colleagues have power to propose the Bill in the House of Lords; but it does not so absolutely depend upon them, as it does upon some other persons, to procure their assent to it. I will, however, giving my confidence to the implied sense of the hon. Gentleman, at once assume, after what he has said, that the Bill is to come to this House from the House of Lords; and he says—"Will you, then, give us the assurance that the Bill shall not be postponed until the measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne—that is, the great measures, I presume, in the Speech from the Throne—have been disposed of?" Most certainly, Sir, I can give that assurance. We have not the least intention of asking the House to delay the consideration of this subject until the great measures announced in the Speech from the Throne have been disposed of. So far, we go with the hon. Gentleman. And, as regards the nature of the Bill, I think it is right that I should simply remind the House of what was stated by my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Dodson) yesterday, when he said the intention of the Government was that it should be a Bill to enlarge the powers of the Privy Council under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, for the prohibition and regulation of the importation of animals from foreign countries. I will venture to say this much of the Bill, that I do not think any one who sees it will complain of the enlargement as being too limited. I will not attempt to go farther into the question. If that is so, it is evident that the Privy Council will accept and possess those increased powers and responsibilities, and that, with those increased powers and responsibilities, they will be liable to answer for all they do,
  212
  and for all they do not do, to this House; and, consequently, through Ministerial responsibility, the House of Commons will obtain a command over the question which until the present time, in our opinion, it has not possessed. I assume, therefore, Sir, that, at this moment, there is no quarrel between us, for the purposes of this evening's conversation, as to the extent of the Bill. I could not describe it, in the terms in which it is described in this Amendment, as a Bill to give effect to the Resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman, because I think some discussion might be had upon the meaning of that Resolution; and, as I understood it, the hon. Gentleman did not himself describe the effect of the Resolution accurately in his speech to night. But, probably, I have said enough in regard to the nature of a Bill not before us, and which can only be considered at present as a Ministerial plan. I have said enough, I hope, as to the progress of the Bill in general terms, and have given the most explicit promise that there is no intention on the part of the Government of postponement such as the hon. Member suggested in his question, and that of such postponement we should ourselves be the first to complain. The hon. Gentleman, in his Amendment, after having given what I do not think is an accurate description of our plan—but upon that I need not dwell—comes to the point of procedure; and where we are reluctantly obliged to part company with him is when he asks us to assure him that precedence over the other measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne will be given by us to that Bill when it reaches this Assembly. Well, I may say that it would be a very extraordinary course to this House, and one not agreeable to the respect which we owe to the other House of Parliament, to assume in a formal manner, and in the Address to the Throne, that a Bill which is going to be presented "elsewhere" by the Government is to be proceeded with in a particular manner. I object to the substance of the demand. I object to the demand that the other measures promised in the Speech from the Throne—and notably, and especially, as it stands first in order, the measure of the franchise—shall be postponed until this measure has been disposed of. I put it to the House that

  213
  that is not a reasonable demand. What would be the first effect of acceding to such a demand? I must say it would be a method of dealing with the Speech from the Throne such as I have never known to be adopted by the House. If Her Majesty's Government possess any share of the confidence of the House, they will have accorded to them the function which they alone can perform—that, namely, of determining the order, not of Public Business, but of that portion of Public Business which is in their hands, and under their immediate responsibility. Acting upon that principle, we have advised the Crown to declare, in the Speech from the Throne, that at once a measure relating to the franchise will be presented to this House and proceeded with, and that proceeding with that measure, speaking generally, will be the first great demand made upon the attention of the House of Commons. Why, Sir, the House will feel with me that it is totally impossible—it would not be consistent either with our duty, Sir, or, I may say, with Parliamentary usage—if I may venture to say it, with Parliamentary decency—after that Speech has been delivered from the Throne, and if the arrangement of Business is to be recognized as belonging to the primary duties of the Government, it would be impossible for us to consent to put it aside. But, further, Sir, what would be the next effect? Why, Sir, the next effect would be that every subject connected with the importation of cattle would become a means available to anybody so inclined for the purpose of obstructing the Bill relating to the franchise. We are not at all disposed to multiply, so far as depends upon us, the means of indirect obstruction. Indirect obstruction is the greatest evil that at present impedes the progress of Public Business, and I must also say it is the one that is most detrimental to the honour and credit of this House. We must decline, by giving a promise of this kind, to open a new door to proceedings of that description. I have given, I think, conclusive reasons why we cannot accept the terms of this Amendment, which are perfectly distinct, and which demand the setting aside of the Franchise Bill for the purpose of prosecuting a measure in respect to which—although I hope it will not
  214
  arouse serious division in any quarter—yet I have no power to guarantee that it will not give rise to serious opposition. To give such a measure precedence over all other measures would be inconsistent with the promise which in the Speech from the Throne the Government have already made to Parliament—a promise from which it is impossible for them to recede. Notwithstanding the stringency of these remarks, I think the assurance I have given as to the prosecution of this measure is one that will be accepted as satisfactory, and that all reasonable men will be satisfied that it will not be postponed till all the measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech have been disposed of. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Or some of them?] I was speaking of the hon. Gentleman's speech. What he said in his speech was reasonable. His Motion, I venture to say, is not unreasonable. I repeat that I frankly own we are not able to accede to the demand that this measure shall be placed before the measures with respect to which Her Majesty has promised in the Speech from the Throne—the one measure in particular with respect to which Her Majesty has promised in a solemn manner that it shall be the first great measure submitted to the consideration of Parliament. Under these circumstances the House will not be surprised at all—while I hope and think that I have gone as far as reason permits, and far enough to satisfy every equitably-minded man, in the engagement I have made for promoting despatch in the treatment of this Bill—the House will not be surprised that it is impossible for us to give a pledge such as is demanded by the hon. Gentleman, in the teeth and in the utter breach of the pledges we have already given to Parliament in the most solemn form—namely, in the Speech from the Throne.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was afraid he was one of those who, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (the Prime Minister), could not be considered to be equitably-minded men, for he was not satisfied by the engagements into which the right hon. Gentleman had entered; but he could assure the House that his only desire in the matter was to gee a measure passed into law for carrying out the Resolution of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Chaplin). That, he also believed, was the wish—

  215
  the, he might say, unanimous wish—of I the agricultural community throughout the United Kingdom. ["No, no!"] He believed it was a wish that was daily becoming more and more shared in by the inhabitants of towns as they perceived that their real interests were bound up with those of agriculturists in the success of this movement. What did the speech of the right hon. Gentleman amount to? In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman would not tell them what this measure was to be. His declaration on the subject was about as vague as anything that had ever fallen from his lips. The right hon. Gentleman said there was to be a very considerable enlargement of the powers of the Privy Council. But everybody knew that; because, without enlargement of those powers, no legislation could be of any conceivable use. As to whether the Bill would enable the Privy Council to carry out the Resolution of last Session the right hon. Gentleman bad vouchsafed no information, nor did his Colleague (Mr. Dodson), when delivering a very carefully-prepared answer on the subject in the House the other evening. If they regarded for a moment the tone of the answers given by that right hon. Gentleman to the Questions put to him on this occasion, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was afraid that they could not form a very sanguine opinion that, even if the Bill itself went as far as they could desire, it would be likely to be administered by the Privy Council in the temper which they could wish. The Prime Minister had told them that this Bill would certainly not be postponed until all the measures mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech had been disposed of. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not know how sanguine the Government were as to the passing of the London Municipal Reform Bill; but he did not consider it any concession that the Bill under discussion would not be postponed until after that measure had been passed. All the Prime Minister had said was—I will take the Franchise Bill first. It must be disposed of, and then we will prosecute this Bill; but the whole of that Bill, with all the questions that may arise upon it, must be disposed of.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is an entire mistake to suppose that. What I declined to do on the part of the Govern-
  216
  ment is to contradict the words delivered in the Queen's Speech in regard to the precedence of the Franchise Bill, and to adopt words which require the Franchise Bill and other measures to be put aside till this Bill is disposed of. It is quite manifest, with regard to a Bill like the Franchise Bill, that there must be intervals in the progress of the stages of that measure, and I see no reason in the world why it should not be practicable to make progress in this subject and also with our measure in regard to the importation of cattle, should it reach this House in those intervals.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he supposed that to mean that the Bill might be advanced a stage after the second reading of the Franchise Bill, but that it would have to wait for its subsequent stage until that measure was passed through Committee, and the same with the remaining stages of the two Bills. But those who were interested in the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire regarded it as a more important question than the Franchise Bill, and infinitely more urgent, and did not wish to see the passage of the former postponed till the end of July. The case of the Government was that they had no power, under the present law, to carry out the Resolution to which the House agreed last Session, and which, under pressure, they were now disposed, waiving their own views, to endeavour to carry out. If they really wanted to carry out the Resolution, and if they required further legislation to enable them to do so, they ought, for their own sakes, to press forward this Bill with the least possible delay. The subject was of infinite urgency in itself. The very circumstance, referred to by the Vice President of the Council—and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would admit its truth—that foot-and-mouth disease was diminishing in this country, made the urgency of legislation all the greater, because it was of the utmost importance to prevent a contingency which was greatly dreaded, the importation of fresh virus from abroad, which would prevent them from stamping out the disease. The agricultural community were getting more and more impatient of the local restrictions on the movement of cattle, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as they in-

  217
  curred more serious loss from such restrictions than they would perhaps incur from the disease itself. The farmers, he believed, would be willing to submit to existing, and even to more stringent, restrictions upon the movement of cattle, if they believed that the Government and Parliament were doing everything possible to prevent the re-importation of the disease. If, however, the steps necessary to be taken to prevent the re-importation of the disease were to be delayed, as he was afraid, from the language of the right hon. Gentleman, they would be for some months, the farmers would become impatient of local restrictions, and would demand their abolition, with the inevitable result that the disease would again spread rapidly all over the United Kingdom. He confessed he must speak with some little doubt as to the real intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told them to-night, that the Government intended to put in force their present powers as stringently as they held to be consistent with the spirit and intention of the Act of 1878; but how did they propose to do it? The right hon. Gentleman knew that foot-and-mouth disease prevailed in the United States, in Germany, and in Holland. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No, not at all.] He said it did. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), who used to be an authority on this subject, had now been deposed. If the Vice President had been in the House—[Mr. MUNDELLA: Yes, I was.] Well, then, he must have heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster state that the Government had actually found it necessary to give warning to the United States, in consequence of the existence of disease in that country; so that he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was justified in saying that the Government were aware of the existence of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. More than that, Her Majesty's Government were aware that cases of foot-and-mouth disease had actually been imported from Germany and Holland during the last six months. Yet, in face of all this, they were not prepared to undertake what would seem to be the natural step of prohibiting the importation of live animals from these countries. In fact, they were content to
  218
  wait until the steed was stolen, before they locked the stable-door, and to allow the seeds of the disease to be sown in this country before they prevented its importation. He therefore thought there was some ground for mistrusting the intention of Her Majesty's Government to act in the way the majority of the House thought desirable. He did not wish to refer to previous debates on this subject; but anyone who had taken an interest in the question must remember that Her Majesty's Government were now professing to recant their former views, and that the principles of the proposed measure would be in direct contradiction to the opinions they had formerly expressed in deliberate debate in that House. He had not forgotten the portentous prophecies of the Vice President of the Council, when the right hon. Gentleman told the House how, if they adopted the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), they would raise the price of meat to famine prices, and warned them against laying their hands upon the food of the people. He had not forgotten how readily the right hon. Gentleman and other Representatives of the Government adopted all the claptrap that was talked on this subject. Bat now they were to believe that the Government had at last seen the error of their ways, and that they were prepared, in order to secure the support of certain hon. Gentlemen who sat behind them, to carry out the wishes of the agricultural community by introducing a sufficient measure dealing with the matter. If that were so, he could only express the hope that their intention would be carried out soon, and that the Bill would be brought in and passed into law as rapidly as possible; but in regard to this, what they wanted was a more definite pledge than they had yet received. In the circumstances of the case, the one they had was quite insufficient; and, unless a sufficient one were given, he trusted his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire would persevere with his Amendment.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he felt bound to come to the conclusion that the measure which Her Majesty's Government had promised to introduce would carry out the objects of the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), for it must be a Bill to increase the present powers of the Privy

  219
  Council, and it could be nothing else. The Prime Minister had given a pledge, which he (Colonel Kingscote) heartily accepted, that the measure would be introduced in "another place" at once, and that when it came down to that House it would be proceeded with as speedily as the other pressing and important Business would allow. In these circumstances, he (Colonel Kingscote) hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion. He must, however, express his great regret that Her Majesty's Government had not made this concession a little earlier, and had not included this measure among those mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, as it would have been better, and more spontaneous. He could not see what good could be attained now by putting anything in the way of the introduction of the measure. If the Government had not consented to its introduction, he should have been bound to vote for the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, because growing and vast importance was being attached to this subject, not only by the agricultural community, but by the working men all over the Kingdom; and he sincerely trusted it would soon be brought forward and decided by the House. Hoping, therefore, that the Government would pass the measure as speedily as possible, he advised the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he must confess he was unable to take so hopeful a view of this matter as the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Kingscote). The concession made them was a very slight one, and the object of the Motion was to rectify a grave omission in the Queen's Speech. He was surprised at a measure of so much importance being treated in the manner it was; for if it were to be taken between the different stages of the Franchise Bill, he could not see the remotest chance of its becoming law until long after Midsummer. The Prime Minister wished the House to believe that there was no precedent for the Government introducing, at so early a period in the Session, any measure not mentioned in the Queen's Speech; but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have forgotten that the Affirmation Bill had been introduced last year early in the Session, although it had not been mentioned in
  220
  the Speech from the Throne. He could say that, in his own county of Somerset, the farmers took the greatest possible interest in the subject, and were daily expecting it would be settled by Parliament. The House did not know what would be the provisions of the Bill to be introduced in the House of Lords; but they accepted, in good faith, the assurance that its provisions would be such as so far to enlarge the present powers of the Department charged with the conduct of this particular business, as that both producers and consumers should have no further ground for complaint. That was all very well; but why could not the Government have gone a step further, and introduced the Bill in that House, instead of allowing it to be brought forward in the House of Lords; and, what was the value of the speed, if the Bill was, probably or possibly, to be allowed to die a lingering death in the House of Commons, or if Midsummer were to arrive before the Bill became law? As a word of warning, he would ask the Government whether they thought it likely that a large class of the community, who had, for a long time, quietly and tamely submitted to restrictions, which had interfered bitterly with their trade, would go on so submitting much longer, and would wait patiently for a postponement of legislation, which they had a right to demand, in order to put an end to this most grievous infection, which had devastated their flocks and herds? He could not accept as satisfactory the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), that what the Government proposed to do between the present time and that at which the Bill to be introduced would become law, was to prevent the further importation of cattle from countries which might send infected animals to our shores. It was poor satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman had told them that the Government had warned the United States, and Germany, and Holland, that if they continued to send diseased animals to England they would be stopped. Was that all the solace they were to receive? Further, nothing could do away with the fact that, as bitter experience had shown, slaughter at the port of debarkation was no certain preventative against the introduction of disease. He

  221
  hoped Her Majesty's Government would listen to reason, and give an assurance that, when the Bill came down from the House of Lords, it would be pushed forward in this House with the greatest speed, instead of being allowed to give way to other measures or proposals, in which the agricultural and meat-consuming classes were not by any means largely interested. He contended that its omission from the gracious Speech from the Throne was an accident, which the Government now had the opportunity of remedying; and he therefore invited them to take advantage of it. The Government had already taken steps to prevent the importation of cattle from France. Let them show, by giving a definite promise in this matter, that their conversion was complete, and that what had been promised was not to be mere moonshine, and he, for one, would join in asking the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) not to persevere with his Motion. But, in the absence of any distinct assurance—and none such had been given—he thought agriculturists were no better off than they were a few weeks ago, when the Bill had not been heard of. Unless such an assurance were given, unless they got what they had a right to ask, and what every farmer required them to ask—and not only every farmer, but every consumer as well—unless they obtained that reasonable assurance, he hoped that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire would go to a Division, when he should certainly accord him support.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he must deny that he and other hon. Members of the Liberal Party alluded to by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had changed their minds. It was the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire himself who had changed his mind, his tactics, and his Amendment. The Liberal Members who had acted with him had done so for a definite purpose—to press the Government to bring in a Bill, if they found they had not sufficient powers already. The hon. Member had always said that he did not intend his action to be in any sense a Party one, and that he had simply the interests of the nation in view; but those who had listened to the debate and heard the speeches could not fail to be impressed with the decidedly Party tone which it
  222
  had taken. Every speech from the Opposition Benches had been condemnatory of Her Majesty's Government, and he failed to see on what ground hon. Members opposite claimed support from those on his side of the House. Until they reached the House they were not aware that the hon. Gentleman had changed his mind, and abandoned his original Amendment. The Amendment, as it had been moved, was envenomed with Party spirit; but those who sat on the same side of the House as himself, and were as much interested as the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire in the cause of the producer and consumer, believed that the Government, which was composed of Statesmen who were also Gentlemen, would fulfil the promises which they had made—promises which would not only fulfil the reasonable expectations of, and give confidence to, agriculturists in this country, but would cause other countries to exercise greater care than they had hitherto done in the matter alike of sending cattle to this country and of adopting wiser precautions in their own. That was the difference between them; and they on that side of the House could, therefore, be no parties to this ill-timed and, in his opinion, foolish Amendment of the hon. Member. It was not only discourteous to Ministers and to the House of Lords, but was entirely indefensible. He had no doubt that the Bill of Her Majesty's Government would prove of advantage to the nation, and he should, therefore, give them his support.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Government had, for many years, had the power to prohibit the importation of cattle from countries in which disease prevailed, and they had never prohibited the importation till they had the disease in the country. He would not have said a word on this subject were it not that he was in a peculiar position. He had been a Governor of the Royal Veterinary College for 40 years, for many years Chairman of the Governors. He had addressed a communication to the Principal, which, together with the reply, he desired to read to the House—
  "To the Principal, Royal Veterinary College, Camden Town, N.W.
  "My dear Sir,—Will you allow me to ask you, since I have not had the advantage of seeing you for some time, whether any circumstances have come to the knowledge of yourself,

  223
  of the Professors, or of anyone connected with the administration of the Royal Veterinary College, to disprove that, equally with Rinderpest and Pleuro-pneumonia, the origin in this country, and most of the successive outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease are due to importation? My own recollection and impression is, that the Royal Veterinary College is in possession of no evidence to prove that either of the three above-mentioned diseases have had a spontaneous origin within the United Kingdom, but, on the contrary, that when they have appeared in the United Kingdom they have always been foreign in their origin.
  "I remain, dear Sir, yours very sincerely,"
  C. N. NEWDEGATE."
  "My dear Sir,—There is no evidence in the possession of the Royal Veterinary College, or of anyone officially connected with that Institution, that I am aware of, which tends to subvert the opinion entertained, that the contagious cattle diseases known as Rinderpest, Pleuro-pneumonia, and Foot-and-Mouth disease have, or have had, any spontaneous origin within the United Kingdom; but our opinion is, that they are and have been dependent for their appearance here upon the importation of diseased animals. The greater number of the outbreaks of these diseases within the United Kingdom have been directly traceable to importations of these maladies. Of course, when introduced they will propagate and extend here as elsewhere.
  "I am, dear Sir, your obedient Servant,"WM. ROBERTSON, Principal.
  "To C. N. Newdegate, Esq., M.P."
  This tended to prove that the diseases were always imported, and the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman the Representative of the Duchy of Lancaster that night corroborated this evidence. The Government had used the power to prohibit importation from countries in which disease was known to prevail so sparingly, that he did not believe they could prove that they had used this power in one case, until disease had actually appeared within the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, after foot-and-mouth disease had been imported, farmers and stock-keepers of this country were subjected to a variety of prohibitions. They could not, in many cases, send the fat stock to even the nearest market. They could not buy store stock elsewhere to the best advantage. All these prohibitions inflicted loss upon them. Meanwhile, the Government abstained from imposing restrictions upon foreign importation from countries in which disease was notoriously prevalent. That impatience should prevail among the farmers and stock-owners of this country, under such an administration of the law, was not surprising. The
  224
  House of Commons had manifested its disapprobation. As for the Bill to be introduced into the House of Lords, the House of Commons knew nothing of its tenour. It was, therefore, natural and legitimate that impatience should be manifested under such circumstances.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he looked upon the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, as being generally very satisfactory; but, before the discussion closed, he should like to reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). If he were not to do so, he thought there would be a great misapprehension in the House as to what the views of farmers were. The farmers were indeed much indebted to the bon. Gentleman for the zeal and energy which he had displayed in bringing forward this question; but he had somewhat of a complaint against the hon. Member—namely, that he had changed the position he had taken up, and which he (Mr. Barclay) and others had not been quite able to understand. He desired the Government to prohibit the importation of cattle from countries where disease prevailed. Such a policy would, no doubt, be of advantage to agriculturists generally, and also a great advantage to the public throughout the country; but the hon. Gentleman went further, and said he would like to prohibit the importation of all live cattle from abroad. [" No, no!"] He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was glad to hear that disavowal; but, certainly, the tone of the speech which the hon. Member made led him to believe that he (Mr. Chaplin) thought it would be a great advantage to this country if the importation of live cattle from abroad was entirely prohibited.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I can assure the hon. Gentleman I have never intimated that, here or anywhere.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was glad his remarks had evoked that declaration from the hon. Member. The question now resolved itself into one of policy upon the administration of the Cattle Disease Acts. Under what circumstances and conditions were live cattle to be imported into this country? His constituents, a large majority of whom were farmers, were strongly in favour of the importation of store animals from the Western States of

  225
  America, and the local authority had almost unanimously memorialized the Privy Council to permit such a proceeding. The constituents of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) met the other day, and came to a similar conclusion; and, from his (Mr. J. W. Barclay's) own experience there was also a very strong feeling in favour of importing store cattle on the part of many farmers in England. If the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chaplin) placed before the country a proposal that the Government ought to prohibit the importation of diseased animals, of course there could be only one answer to that, and that unanimously in his favour; but if he put the question to the farmers throughout the country, "Should the importation of all live animals be prohibited?" he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) thought he would find a very great diversity of opinion, and that he would not carry a majority. He had a Motion on the Paper for the appointment of a Committee. That was a Motion he put last year as an Amendment to the hon. Gentleman, and he regretted that Motion was not carried. By it, they would have elucidated the various opinions which would require to be taken into consideration in any Bill which passed through that House. He was in favour of a Select Committee making an inquiry respecting the importation of disease, and there were several points in which the existing Acts ought to be amended. He recollected very well, when the Contagious Diseases Act of 187 8 went through the House, that he said it would not be found much more effective than the previous Act. Hon. Members said the Act was perfect, and would have the desired effect. They were, however, beginning to find out that several Amendments were necessary, and particularly, he thought, in dealing with disease in this country. Disease had been introduced into Scotland, as into England, and yet the action of the local authorities had prevented the spreading of the disease. What was the reason? He wished to point out—and desired the attention of hon. Members opposite to this view of the question—to whatever extent importation of animals from abroad might be restricted, they could not be certain that disease would not be imported, and if introduced, disease
  226
  might spread rapidly over the country. It was, therefore, incumbent upon them that the machinery for dealing with disease in this country should be effective. He wished to point out to the House the difference between local authorities in England and Scotland. In Scotland the local authority was an elective body, composed one-half of farmers and the other of landlords. That body had dealt very effectively in putting down disease; but in certain counties in England the case was different. The local authority in England was not an elective body. It consisted of the Quarter Sessions, and certainly he did not understand that the farming interest was properly represented by those bodies. He should expect the Government, in the Bill which had been promised, to reconstruct the local authorities in England. He did not think that the general restrictions on fairs and markets were of very great advantage in putting a stop to disease. The policy which ought to be adopted was this—that diseased animals, or localities in which disease existed, should be strictly isolated, and the movement of any animals within such areas strictly prohibited. Perfect freedom might then be granted for the general movement of animals throughout the country. Speaking of Scotland, where there were sometimes half-a-dozen local authorities in one county, he considered it would very much facilitate the carrying out of the Act if there was only one authority in each county, and that the burghs be represented on it. At present each borough in Scotland had a local authority, and the county itself had one, and the result was that contradictory orders were frequently issued.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, his constituency, in common with the rest of Ireland, was most deeply interested in this question, by reason of the fact that Ireland had the same number of cattle which were to be found in England. During the last few months he had heard more from his constituents with regard to this matter than on any other subject. There was a great deal of doubt in Ireland as to what was the best remedy for the present state of things. If foot-and-mouth disease could be stamped out, the Irish farmers would be willing to submit to any restrictions and to any amount of trouble in effecting that result. He

  227
  did not believe a single beast had died of the disease within the Union of which he was the Chairman, and every cottager-peasant would have sold or expected to have sold his beasts, had it not been for the restrictions imposed upon the Irish cattle trade by the local authorities in England, or by the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. He was not finding fault with the action of Earl Spencer; His Excellency was a specialist on the question, and if he had acted wrongly it was the mistake of a skilled person. Under the present Bill, it was not the Privy Council that acted harshly to any great extent; but it was the local authorities in England that made their own arrangements, and, in his opinion, in the case of Irish importations, their power had been grossly abused. As soon as they heard that disease had appeared in one or two counties in Ireland, they forthwith prohibited the importation of cattle from the whole country. That being so, he certainly could not support a Motion to give the authorities further powers. In many cases, those restrictions had arisen from jealousy on the part of English farmers, as regarded the Irish cattle trade. Ireland had suffered bitterly from this jealousy, and he could not therefore vote for a Motion like the present, unless they received pledges that the proposed restrictions were not likely to be applied in Ireland. The way the Act had been used by the English authorities had frightened thorn in Ireland as to any use that might be made of any further powers. He thought it was of the greatest importance that Ireland should not be ignored, as it was a question on which, next to the potato crop, the whole state of the country depended. He heartily agreed with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) that the local authorities should be more centralized.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had not intended to offer any observations on the remarks of the First Lord of the Treasury until they saw what was the proposal Her Majesty's Government were going to make. But it had been said by some of the speakers on the other side of the House that this was a consumers' question. So no doubt it was. But he would remind the House that there were in this country 43 boroughs, each containing upwards of 10,000 electors, and in the aggregate
  228
  1,600,000. In the Division on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), in July last year, as regarded the representation of these boroughs, Members representing 1,000,000 electors followed Her Majesty's Government into the Lobby, and Members representing 100,000 went with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. Hon. Members opposite urged Her Majesty's Government to stop all importation of live animals from the United States. He challenged anybody to deny his assertion that, within the last 24 months, which was a long period, there had only been one case of foot-and-mouth disease imported from the United States, only one out of the hundreds of thousands of animals imported. He held that if the Government, by Bill or otherwise, were to stop the importation of live animals from the United States, they would be perpetrating one of the greatest possible wrongs on the people of this country which a Government could inflict.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, it was no doubt a very touching sight to see the wandering sheep of the Liberal Party returning to the fold; but he held that those Members who had spoken on the Ministerial side of the House had shown no reason whatever for the confidence they expressed in the action of the Government. Having heard that evening from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) that, even up to November in last year, the Government did not think it necessary to stop the importation of cattle from infected countries, he thought that some definite pledge was required as to the manner in which they proposed to deal with this subject. If the Government were really in earnest, nothing was more simple than for the right hon. Gentleman to give a definite answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and state whether the Bill that the Government had pledged themselves to bring in was intended to carry out the Resolution carried by the House last year. If he (Viscount Emlyn) was assured that it did, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) to withdraw his Motion; but so long as they were not told what the Bill was to contain, of what value was the statement that it was to be introduced? If the Government declined to give an answer, it must be

  229
  because the Bill did not intend to carry out the Resolution of the House, and the course they had adopted might be taken as indicating the fact that that was not the object they had in view.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, it was in anticipation of the difficulty which might arise in reference to the early carrying out of the promise of the Government that he had placed on the Paper the Question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that day. He must confess that he had been somewhat disappointed at the reply he had received. When they bore in mind that the importation of one animal was sufficient to convey the disease to Ireland, to spread it over a large area of that country, and to cause such serious losses as those which had been alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), and when they knew that from that animal the disease was spread in about six weeks over Antrim, Down, Wicklow, Galway, Dublin, and other counties in Ireland, despite all the efforts of the local authorities to check it, they had convincing proof how insidious and contagious the disease was. They also knew that a small lot of cattle sent from Dublin in February last conveyed the disease to Scotland, and that by the 24th March 16 counties in Scotland wore infected. They had heard the extravagant compliments which had been paid to Scotch management by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay); but they knew that Scotland was not yet free from disease, although the importation from England and Wales was still prohibited in Scotland by the Privy Council, whilst England and Wales were open to the disease, not only from Ireland and Scotland, but from foreign countries. He had no wish to cast any reflections upon the Privy Council management; but it was evident that, with all the care which had been exercised, it had been found impossible to free the country from disease. Thus, whilst the farmers of the nation had to compete with all the world with what they grow, they were handicapped with the disease. It had been said by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) that no disease had been imported from the United States for the last 24 months. ["No, no!" Only one case had arrived.] Well, the hon. Member said that only one
  230
  diseased cargo had arrived during that time. [An hon. MEMBER: Only one animal.] That made it still better for his argument. Instead of there having been only one diseased animal from the United States during the last 24 months, there were four diseased cargoes imported from the United States last year, and from those four cargoes 536 diseased animals were landed. The total number of diseased animals landed from foreign countries during the past year was 1,185, of which number nearly one-half came from the United States. Surely the hon. Member for Salford could not have made himself thoroughly acquainted with the Returns from the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, or he would scarcely have made the statement he had addressed to the House. For his own part, he (Mr. Duckham) had confidence that the Government would fulfil their promise at an early date; but he still pressed and hoped that before the debate closed the House would receive some assurance that the utmost vigilance would be exercised in prohibiting the introduction of diseased animals into this country from foreign countries. He fully agreed with the remarks which had been made, that a great alteration was required in the local restrictions—a very great alteration indeed. At present they were harassing and vexatious in the extreme. There were too many conflicting authorities—one set of authorities in the counties, and another set of local authorities in the boroughs, with entirely different interests from the counties. In his opinion, the local authorities both for the counties and boroughs should be the same, because it must be patent to every person that the great question to be considered was how best to secure the greatest amount of food that could be obtained of our home produce, and how, in the interests of the consumer, it could be best supplemented by a foreign supply. The only thing to guard against was the importation of disease. He would not further take up the time of the House, as he was sure they were impatient for a Division, or, as he hoped, for closing the debate by the withdrawal of the Amendment; but, before resuming his seat, he would again express the hope that the House would receive some further assurance that animals from foreign countries should not be allowed

  231
  to be landed in England whilst suffering from the disease.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he thought the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) required correction. It did not follow that because Members representing 1,000,000 borough electors voted with the Government on this Resolution last year, and only 100,000 against the Government, that therefore the feeling of the majority of the country was with the Government. The quality, as well as the quantity, of Members should be taken into consideration; and it was to be remarked that the Representatives of the counties, who were specially interested in this question, and who were elected by very largo rural constituencies, almost to a man voted against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had rallied the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion (Mr. Chaplin), and to whose action the agricultural interest of the country owed so much, by saying that if he had carried his Resolution, and turned out the Government, that result would have been fatal to the measure he desired to carry. The Prime Minister very adroitly, or very conveniently, forgot the fact that when he was beaten last year upon this question he did not see fit to resign, as, according to his present dictum, he should have done. Such a resignation would have been accepted by the country with complacency. As to Ireland, no doubt the restriction had been very distressing and annoying in some cases, yet the cause of those restrictions was the refusal of the Government to carry out the Resolution of the House. If one diseased beast could import the disease, and cause it to spread throughout the country, it was as bad as the importation of 500 diseased animals. The great point was to keep the disease out of the country. The Prime Minister had advised them the other day to take to dairy-farming and cultivate fruit; and with regard to the latter, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) might be allowed to quote the first words of a well-known Latin ode, "Jam satis." But it was impossible for dairy-farming to succeed, so long as the herds of cattle were decimated by disease. Was it a fact, however, that the Government had done what they might have done in regard to this question? For nearly a
  232
  whole year they had neglected it. They had allowed the herds of the country to be ravaged by disease, and now, at the last moment, in order to avoid certain defeat on the Address, and perhaps the possibility of that resignation to which the Prime Minister referred, the Government had given the promise of a vague Bill; but they would not tell the House whether they intended to carry out the principle of the Resolution. As the noble Viscount (Viscount Emlyn) pointed out, if the Government wished to carry out the wishes of the House, all they had to do was to state that they would embody the principle of the Resolution of the hon. Member in the Bill, and the House would be satisfied with the result. The county of Suffolk, in which the borough that he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) represented stood, had suffered very severely in two ways from foot-and-mouth disease—originally in the spread of the disease, and then from the local restrictions which had been necessary owing to the neglect of the Government. Until the Government took measures to stamp out this disease completely at the ports of landing, it would continue to spread throughout the country. There was not, he believed, an authentic instance on record of foot-and-mouth disease developing itself within the country from the neglect of the ordinary conditions of health. It always resulted from contagion with an affected animal brought from abroad. He hoped that, considering the unsatisfactory declarations of the Government, so far as they failed to tell the House what the principle of their Bill was, and also considering the immense delay which would probably result from the course which the Government proposed, the House would affirm the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The Government stated that they were anxious to further the passing of this Bill; but they refused even to say what the outlines of the Bill would be, or whether it would follow out the Resolution passed by the House last Session. At the same time, however, the Prime Minister told the House that he would on no account permit its precedence over two important Government measures. Those measures would be, he supposed, the new Reform Bill, which the Ministry were going to press upon an indifferent country in

  233
  order to try to divert attention from their universal blundering, and the London Government Bill. Those two measures, however, would occupy nearly the whole time of the Session, unless it should be cut short, as they hoped it might be, by an early Dissolution. It was probable, therefore, that this Bill would not be passed until July or August, if indeed then, and in the meantime the agricultural interest would continue to suffer. He was surprised that hon. Members opposite, after the speeches they had made at agricultural dinners, and elsewhere, should be satisfied with the uncertain pledge the Government had given. No interest in this country could prosper if agriculture was suffering. The agricultural interest was the root and basis of the prosperity of this country. No relief could be obtained by the farmers, unless the Government would stamp out the disease at all ports of landing. For these reasons, therefore, he hoped hon. Members on both sides of the House who were interested in the agricultural interest would support the Amendment.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN,in rising to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, expressed his great surprise at the action taken on that question by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Colonel Nolan). The interests of Ireland were largely bound up with the prevention of cattle disease, the introduction of which not only entailed enormous loss to the graziers, but tended completely to paralyze the whole trade of that country. He maintained that, before the admission of the disease into Ireland, that country was free from it; while, after the landing of one diseased animal, the disease spread round Dublin, and then through different parts of the country. There was nothing that could affect the country more than this disease, as farmers could make no money from their stock. It was the duty of every Member to do all that lay in his power to prevent the spread of this disease, which was only introduced by foreign cattle. When it came to England they were sure to get it in Ireland; and for this reason he would have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment. It might be said that those restrictions would increase the price of meat. Now, that he denied.
  234
  In his opinion it would lower the price of meat, because if restrictions were imposed on the importation of diseased animals there would be far more cattle produced in the country.
  MR. BIRKBECKsaid, that the county of Norfolk had suffered more than any other county from the existence of the disease, as more fat cattle went up from that county to London and the large towns in the Midlands than from, perhaps, any other in England. The agricultural interest would enter their protest, in consequence of the delay of the Government in legislating on the subject. A delay of even three months would be most injurious, because it was during the next three months that the farmers purchased their store stock. The Government had passed a Bill very rapidly last Session. Why should they not act in the same manner now as they had with regard to the Explosives Bill? Surely a question affecting the food supply of the country was more important than all the Government measures put together that were alluded to in the Queen's Speech. If the disease was got rid of, the farmers would be encouraged to invest more capital and supply more fat stock than they had ever done before, but which they had no encouragement to do from the action of the Government.
  MR. STOKERsaid, he hoped that this question would not degenerate into a Party one; it was one which was looked forward to with the greatest interest by all the inhabitants of this country. Agriculturists had suffered under the restrictions with the greatest patience, and were they now to be told by the Government that they were not to have any immediate answer, but that some Bill or other would be introduced? An announcement of that kind would be badly received; and he would not advise the Liberal Party to go to the country with an announcement like that. The Orders issued of late by the Privy Council had practically prevented store cattle from being sold; and as fat cattle could not be taken back from a market, the farmers were at the meroy of a ring of butchers. The country would be disgusted if it did not hear some definite proposal from the Government, whose conduct at present looked like evasion of the whole question. Disease was spread throughout

  235
  the country, not by farmers, but by cattle dealers; and it was the latter, therefore, that the Government should endeavour to restrain. Agriculturists would look with some degree of suspicion on the action of the Government in ignoring their claims in the Speech from the Throne. The present distress was unparalleled, and the whole land of this country would soon be out of cultivation altogether under a false system, which was not really Free Trade. If the Government did not quickly settle this point, they would soon find that there was a strong feeling against them in the country.
  MR. MACMAHONsaid, that any measure which would prevent the importation of diseased cattle from foreign countries would be received with general satisfaction in Ireland. It was not possible to calculate the loss sustained, not by the owners of stock, but by the small traders throughout Ireland, in consequence of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, and the restrictions imposed on the country on that account. Whatever might be the details of the measure to be brought forward by the Government, it was to be hoped that the restrictions which existed at present in Ireland would be removed, because the great injury to the country was not so much in the loss individually sustained through disease as on the owners of stock being prevented from bringing their cattle to the markets and fairs. He knew, from his own knowledge, that in the towns in Ireland where fairs were prohibited, the loss to the traders was very great, and the loss to the farmers was also very serious. In fact, it would be impossible for the farmers to pay their rents unless they were able to sell their stock. Therefore, he hoped that these obnoxious restrictions would be quickly removed. As to the effect of those restrictions, he might say that he heard the farmers say—and also gentlemen well acquainted with the management of stock—that if there were no restrictions the disease would have long since run its course. At any rate, there was a very strong feeling in Ireland against these restrictions. In the North Dublin Union it was not possible at present for the owners of stock to take their cattle for sale to other districts, in consequence of these restrictions; and he hoped sincerely that, whatever else
  236
  the Bill to be introduced might do, it would remove these restrictions in Ire-land, the maintenance of which had already done immense injury, not only to the farming community, but to the people of the country generally.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he could only account for the sudden conversion of the Government on one theory, and that was that they saw the end was approaching. It was a death-bed repentance. The object of the Government last year seemed to be to spread disease in every direction. He might refer to the speech of the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), who, although he was present, was not likely to address the House, as the new principle was that the Minister who was present was forbidden to speak while the Minister who ought to speak was absent. The Government was utterly incapable of distinguishing between great things and small. They thought the question of Reform important. Why, it was of no importance whatever compared with a question affecting the health and food of the people and the destruction or maintenance of the agricultural interest. He feared the promises of the Government of pressing forward the measure dealing with that question were not to be relied on—indeed, the only way to treat such promises was to distrust them altogether. What hope had they that the Bill would be taken in any reasonable time when they came to consider the character of the measures proposed in the Queen's Speech? Take the Franchise Bill alone. Out of that one subject a host of difficult problems arose, every one of which would entail prolonged discussion. He would mention among them such matters as the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill, the question whether redistribution should accompany enfranchisement, and many others of a like character. If the Government wished to benefit Ireland, they would do that better by turning their attention to the material prosperity of the country, and secure that by protecting its flocks from the ravages of disease, than by enlarging the franchise and strengthening the hands of the Home Rule Party. He appealed to the Government to throw aside their fads and fancies with regard to Reform in favour of a question which was of real importance both to the farmer and to the consumer, and declared

  237
  that in giving precedence to the Franchise Bill over the measure dealing with cattle disease the Prime Minister would be trifling with the true interests of the country.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he hoped he should not forfeit the confidence of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down if he were to approach this question from a different point of view. This question of cattle disease presented two aspects, not as regards the consumer and the producer, because he maintained that if this question were carefully studied it would be found that the interests of these two classes were not antagonistic to each other, but as regarded the breeder and the grazier of stock herd. He was prepared to admit that the grazier derived considerable benefit from the importation of cattle for stock, such stock entering largely into the consumption of this country. In his own county considerable advantage accrued to some of the graziers from the importation of Irish stock, and they would certainly be opposed to legislation which would tend to shut out those importations, particularly from Ireland. While they were desirous that all these importations should be of a healthy character, they would be glad to find that proper means were taken to prevent the importation of diseased animals. He also thought the Irish producers were themselves desirous to secure the health of their own stock, and prepared to submit to some restriction for the purpose; and in that he heartily concurred. There was nothing in this Resolution that would interfere with the importation into this country of Irish stock. There was another matter, however, which affected the producer and breeder of stock to which he should be glad to refer, and that was the great and growing increase in the consumption of milk. Milk was now drunk to a larger extent than had hitherto been the case; indeed, he believed that in many cases it had superseded the use of spirituous liquors. Now, it was well known that foot-and-mouth disease was much more prejudicial among milch cows than among any other class of animals. Milch cows breeding stock, in fact, were peculiarly liable to this disease, and this was another ground—and, in his opinion, a very important ground—for dealing immediately with the ques-
  238
  tion. The Government had undertaken to carry out the Resolution adopted by the House last Session, but had not done so. A Bill had been introduced into the other House, but they had no guarantee or pledge that the measure should be passed within a reasonable time. The hon. Member who had introduced the question pointed out that it was desirable that legislation should take place whilst the stocks were still in the homesteads, and before they were turned out and began to travel. Now, he (Mr. Gregory) thought this was a very grave reason for giving precedence to the measure of the Government, with a view of bringing it into immediate operation. Nor did he anticipate that the Government would have any difficulty in passing their measure immediately into law, for it would be acceptable to both sides of the House. On these grounds he thought the Government would not be prejudiced if the House were to adopt the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: There is no doubt, Sir, that this question has been occupying the attention of every thinking man in the country—it is one which affects the welfare of the agricultural classes, and it is also one which certainly deserves the serious consideration of the House. Since this question was first mooted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire, to whom I give every credit, my hon. Friend has not only fought the question successfully in this House, but has given battle upon it all over the country, notably at Hull. We are now beginning to make the impression that we are not working for what hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side are pleased to call "Protection." The President of the Board of Trade stated that what he believes we are working for is Protection, knowing, as I believe he must know, that the object of our agitation is simply protection against disease. So long as there is disease in the country the agricultural interests cannot prosper. No one knows better than the Prime Minister the serious condition in which the agricultural districts have been placed during the last nine years. No one knows better than he the effect this great depression has had not only upon all great industries, but upon the agricultural interest, which, we

  239
  trust, is now going to receive more attention at the hands of the Government than it has hitherto done. I am grateful that the Government, even at the eleventh hour, and under very peculiar circumstances—for they know that if they do not make some concession they will find themselves in a minority—are going to deal with this question. This much I may say—that the Prime Minister must be aware that it is all-important that any measure which they may bring forward in "another place" should be passed into law at the very first opportunity. But what we want particularly is that a Bill, which is to be brought forward in "another place," should be in accordance with the Resolution that was passed by the House last July, and to guarantee that as soon as that Bill, if it is approved by the other House, shall come down here and be forthwith proceeded with. Unless that guarantee is given we cannot allow a debate of this kind to close without going to a Division, and showing the country that we are in earnest, and that we intend that there shall be no delay with regard to this most important question. There is no one who knows better than you, Mr. Speaker, the little margin of profit that is now left to those carrying on agricultural operations, and that profit, I may say, comes entirely from what we are able to realize out of our cattle and sheep. This is one of the most important questions we could possibly deal with. We know that a large amount of arable land has gone out of cultivation, and that wheat now is not grown at a remunerative price. The Prime Minister knows and studies all these questions. In his speech to his tenants the other day he stated one or two facts; one was that men who had been crying out for years for the repeal of the Malt Tax now asserted that they were not relieved by its repeal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has placed a heavier tax on barley than when the Malt Tax was in force. He was at the time he made the alteration in great hopes, and I have no doubt he has succeeded in raising a far greater revenue than he could have done under the old system. But he also knows that the best class and quality of barley has fallen in the market from over 50s. to 40s. and less. There is another point which those who were for the repeal of
  240
  the Malt Tax, and were anxious that the duty should be placed upon beer, never contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman has carried out his principle of Free Trade to such an extent that now you may have beer made from any substance or article a brewer may imagine he can use to his greatest advantage, and that was also very disadvantageous to the farmer. In addressing a meeting of his agricultural neighbours the other day, he saw that in the course of his speech he went on to say, in an exceedingly pleasant and agreeable way, something with regard to jam. The capacity of the human stomach was supposed to be so great that it would take any amount of jam; and he strongly recommended that as we get our sugar duty free, and can get it 40 per cent less than anyone else, everybody should turn his attention to jam, and jam should be generally taken into the British stomach. If the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious that jam should be poured so largely into the British stomach, I hope he will allow the people something better than adulterated beer. With those concomitants of jam and adulterated beer inside his capacious stomach, I am afraid there would be such a fermentation that it would speedily burst up the ordinary Englishman. There is another question which the right hon. Gentleman raised, and that was the question of milk. That is a very serious question, and one that is most largely affected by the importation of cattle disease into this country. Still, in the course of his speech to his tenants he never said a single word to the effect that he was about to do anything to mitigate the introduction of that disease from abroad. Of course his tenants, out of compliment to him, would say nothing; but I am absolutely sure that they felt in the same way as every other tenant in the country feels, that this disease has been brought in from abroad, and will continue to be brought until some repressive measures are adopted to secure us against the introduction of it. I would only say this much further on the subject—that looking at the present price of stock, looking at the small margin of profit there is, if anyone will carry his mind back to 20 years ago he will find they could buy lean stock at something like two-thirds of the price which they pay now. I would say that for a good fair useful bullock, for which

  241
  you used to pay £10 or £12, you are now paying from £15 to £16, or £17, and for good fair tegs, one year old, which you then got at from 30 s. to 38 s., you are now paying from 40 s. to 54 s., or even more, because I have myself paid 59 s. for them. I am more particularly speaking of South Down sheep. Well, now, what profit is left to a man if he fattens these animals, and if you have, in addition, to look to the contingencies of disease? Why, every possible margin of profit is taken away from you. I say emphatically that there should be nothing which can possibly prevent the spread of this disease from abroad which the Government ought not, by every means in their power, to adopt. But I will go a little further. The restrictions now placed upon the sale of animals and the restrictions upon the movement of cattle act very heavily upon the tenant farmer. I, for one, am naturally most anxious that the disease should be stamped out; but if you cannot persuade the tenant farmer that you are doing all in your power to prevent the introduction of disease from abroad, how can you expect him to tolerate for a moment these great restrictions now placed upon him? Let me just ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whom I see in his place, how he can account for this, which is one of the regulations which is prevalent throughout England. He allows store cattle to be moved if they have been passed as free from disease, over any part of England, but he gives an order that no fat cattle shall be allowed to remain alive after they have been taken into a market which has been closed, but opened by licence for the sale of fat stock, or at a sale by public auction for more than a period of six days. Now, in that division of the county in which he lived, we do not allow any animals to be sent into a market which has a licence to sell fat stock or to any public sale by auction. We do not allow any fat stock to go there unless that stock has been in the possession of its owner for at least 28 days, and has a clean bill of health. I think that the existing rules might certainly be modified and altered to the great advantage of the tenant farmers of this country. There is one other great difficulty under which we are labouring at the present moment. I was very sorry
  242
  to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway stating that the great object of the local authorities in England was to prevent the importation of Irish cattle—["Hear, hear!"] Well, anybody who says "Hear, hear!" to that does not know what the present condition of the British agriculturist is.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I only said that they did it very often.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Do it very often? They do it for a purpose; but I tell you candidly that the only purpose for which they ever do it is to keep out disease. When cattle come over affected with disease, you cannot expect that they will be allowed to pass. There is no market to which a greater number of Irish cattle come than Chichester Market, which is the largest cattle market in England south of London. We are always delighted, too, to have them; and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will only take the trouble to look and see that the holds of the vessels in which they come over from Ireland are less closely packed, more properly cleansed and disinfected, and the cattle landed in a fairly good condition at Bristol, then he will do a good service to his country, and to us also. I say this because it is from Bristol Market that we in the Western Division of Sussex have received more disease than from any other part of the whole United Kingdom. Therefore, let me tell my hon. and gallant Friend, and those surrounding him on the same Benches, that we are only too glad to buy your cattle from Ireland, and to fatten them, and give you a good fair honest price for them. I see that it has been said that if we did away with our cattle from abroad we should be short of meat. The Vice President of the Council said that it would send meat up to famine prices. The number of cattle from abroad is by comparison insignificant; but no man ever made a more gross statement contrary to facts than did the right hon. Gentleman. I am surprised at him, be-cause he has had a great deal to do with these things. My firm belief and conviction is that if the dead meat traffic from abroad was once fairly and properly established, and proper plans were adopted for the slaughter of the cattle at the port of embarkation, they would come to this country in a far better condition than many of those cattle come

  243
  now, herded as they are together in the holds of vessels absolutely unfit for the purpose. I believe it would rather hurt us than otherwise, but our object is not to prevent the importation of meat for the benefit of the country, but to prevent the importation of disease, from which we seem to have no security whatever. It has been said that taking 100 per cent. 73½ per cent is grown, fattened, and killed in this country. If that is so, that is a very large percentage. Dead meat is said to come in at 17 per cent. and from good and healthy countries 3½ per cent. the remaining 6 per cent being that which we are asking you to deal with. Before I sit down, as the latter figure is so small, and as we are so anxious, if possible, that the Government should tell us what they propose to do in order to obviate the necessity of going to a Division, I would ask them whether they are prepared to state, in the first place, that the Bill which is to be brought over from the House of Lords shall be on the exact lines of the Resolution drawn up by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire; that they are prepared to stop, until the Bill is passed, any cattle coming into this country from those countries and districts which have had disease in them—namely, America, Holland, and indeed Germany; and that the first thing they will do when the Bill comes over to this House will be to pass it in all its stages? When that is done it will tend to satisfy the agriculturists of this country; and I think we have some claim upon the Government to do this, considering the position in which the agricultural interest has been placed during the last few years.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought they were justified in drawing a comparison between the manner in which the Government had dealt with contagious diseases among animals and contagious diseases of another sort. In the latter case they had deliberately set aside an Act of Parliament; but in the former, although a Resolution had been passed by that House in favour of a particular view of an Act which, to say the least, was of an ambiguous nature, they had made no effort to amend that Act so as to carry out the opinion expressed by the House. The inland restrictions in this country with regard to cattle were; too stringent, and his opinion was that
  244
  more harm had been done by them than by the restrictions with reference to the importation of foreign cattle. They had had a mischievous effect in the case of small Irish farmers, who had no proper means of converting their stock into money at the proper time in order to enable them to pay their rent and other outgoings. He thought the Government should entirely abolish the restrictions with regard to fairs and markets in Ireland and the movement of cattle in all parts of the United Kingdom. He had been told of a case in which similar cattle sold for £27 10 s. one week in the Dublin Market and for only £17 10 s. in the next week, simply because it was required that they should be slaughtered. This was an enormous loss to the dealer, and the difference went into the pockets of the butchers. It was all very well to bring store cattle from the Western States of America if you were thoroughly certain that no disease existed there; but if disease prevailed there, the risk of disseminating it by store cattle was greater than that of spreading it by removing fat cattle about the country. Being without instructions from his Leader he would not say he would vote for the Amendment; but he had risen to give his voice against the inconsistent—he was going to say the unprincipled—conduct of Government upon this question. The House had great reason to complain of their action. The prevailing restrictions of fairs had a most mischievous effect in Ireland upon the graziers, and especially upon the small farmers, as these unfortunate people could not sell their pigs to realize their rents. He certainly believed that if the Government did not keep diseased cattle out of these countries, and did not relax the present restrictions upon Irish fairs, they would not be entitled to any consideration from the House.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he had listened attentively to what had been stated on behalf of the Government, but he was unable to see to what extent any concession had been made in the direction of the Amendment. It was said that a Bill was to be introduced into the other House, but they were not told what its contents were to be, nor when it was to be introduced, whether it was to be after the chief measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech or after the second

  245
  reading of the Franchise Bill. He asked that the Government should enlighten them on these points. He did not think the Government at all realized the importance of the subject. There was no subject on which the agricultural body were so much exercised or felt so much disquiet as that of the foot-and-mouth disease. All agriculturists depended upon their stock; the future prosperity of agriculture depended entirely upon cattle. That they could not compete with the rest of the world in cereals was shown by the fact that wheat had averaged 37 s. 9s. during the last fortnight. If this country could not compete in wheat, our farmers must depend upon their stock. As they had to compete with all the world, they were much handicapped by the introduction of disease, and handicapped was only another word for Protection. To the extent that our farmers were handicapped, to that extent were foreigners protected. It was a suicidal policy for us to sacrifice our own flocks and herds, and at the same time to send money out of the country to purchase others in substitution for them. The inconsistency of the Privy Council was that it forbade local authorities to allow the removal of stock from infected areas at home; but when it came to foreign countries there was no prevention of the introduction of diseased animals from them. That was wrong and unjust in every respect. He could not see why we should not have the same protection for the English farmer that was given to the foreigner. The policy of the Government was a constant sourse of insecurity and of anxiety; it checked and deterred enterprize; it destroyed confidence; and it drove away capital from the land. It was not only that the disease itself was injurious to the British farmer, but it was also the restrictions that were imposed in the futile attempt to check the spread of foreign disease. The farmer did not object to restrictions, however harassing and vexatious, provided he saw some probability of stamping out the disease; but they were intolerable when he knew he got no good out of them, and that the pecuniary loss to himself was very considerable. The farmers said that they were harassing, vexatious, and inconvenient, and it was a question whether the remedy was not worse than the disease, for he had the maximum
  246
  of inconvenience and the minimum of benefit. He should like to ask what was the stake which the Government were playing for in imposing this disability on the British farmers? It was stated that 75 per cent of the total meat supply of this country was produced at home; that 17 per cent was brought in as dead meat, and that 6 per cent came from infected countries. The Amendment did not attempt to interfere with the introduction of dead meat, which had increased 30 per cent last year. Nor was it desired to interfere with the introduction of stock from healthy countries. The Amendment referred only to those countries in which disease prevailed. It was more than probable that if we shut out this 6 per cent we should get some portion of it back again in dead meat; so that it came to this—that for 5 per cent. or 1–20th of the whole meat supply, the Government were incurring these risks, and giving so much anxiety to the agricultural interest. It was only practical experience that could enable anyone to estimate the disadvantages that attached to foot-and-mouth disease. There was the loss of breeding property, of milk, and of calves. An increase of milk production was as important as the healthy moat supply, particularly to the working classes. If milk were to be abundant and cheap, disease must be stamped out. We might import meat, but we could not import fresh milk. This was, therefore, not only a farmer's, but it was also a national question. The loss of the producer fell upon the consumer, for the limitation of the supply enhanced the price. The agricultural interest did not command the attention it ought to have in the House. He was afraid the reason was that the agriculturists were not altogether a united body; and they had an example of it that night. Members for agricultural constituencies had said they could not support a proposition which the agriculturists of this country regarded with the greatest possible interest. What was to be their remedy? They wore to have a Bill in the Lords; but what was to be their remedy in the interval between the present time and the passing of the Bill? It had not been stated that the Privy Council would carry out the Act of 1878 as they were empowered to do. They found they

  247
  could do it with respect to France; why not as to other countries? It seemed to him that the policy of the Government might be summed up in three words—"Always too late." It was delay, procrastination, vacillation, and hesitation, which marred everything, social, domestic, and foreign, that the Government had undertaken. Relief had often been dangled before the eyes of the farmers, but they had been disappointed from time to time. They could not be satisfied with the statement of the Prime Minister; and he hoped they would be told what was to be done between the present time and the passing of the promised Bill.
  MR. EWARTsaid, that, as an Irish Member, and as the Representative of a very important and popular manufacturing constituency, he desired to state his views as to how it affected the commercial classes. The question had been treated, so far as he had heard the debate, as one chiefly affecting the farming interest. Undoubtedly, great injury to the agricultural interests was being done in the United Kingdom by the ravages of the disease, but he took a larger and wider view of the subject. Whatever in the shape of misfortune occurred to the agricultural portion of the community reflected more or less on the commercial classes. Thus at present not only was the price of meat raised upon the commercial community by the present unfortunate state of affairs, but trade itself was embarrassed, and in some places reduced to a hopeless standstill. In Ireland the deplorable condition of things was such that landlords, and tenants, and traders had alike been injured—in fact, to some extent there existed what almost amounted to a deadlock. That, in his opinion, would continue to go on until measures were taken to stamp out the disease. In Ireland they had cases of cattle disease coming from England, which had in the first instance been imported from foreign countries where the infection prevailed. He must confess that, for his own part, he was very much dissatisfied with the extent of the promise that had been made of doing something. It meant involving all the risk arising out of the politics of the House and other things that might occur, which might mean delay for how long they knew not; and he did consider, when it was admitted
  248
  that there was something to be done, that they had a right to expect Her Majesty's Government to make some more definite statement than they had as yet made to the House. They did not wish to be left to all the risks of Party warfare, for in reality to a great extent this question had now passed out of the region of Party politics; and he would, therefore, while supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, still urge on the Government to make some promise that would afford satisfaction to the House and be a relief to the country.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYsaid, that it was with very considerable satisfaction that hon. Members on the Conservative Benches found that Her Majesty's Government had suddenly been converted, and had announced their intention of bringing in a Bill to enable them to do that which it was always understood they had already the power to do—namely, to prevent the importation of cattle from infected foreign countries. But that satisfaction was much dimmed and diminished—he might almost say extinguished—by the Government announcement of their refusal to give this measure what the country would consider the necessary speed in its progress through the House. The Government had not earned for themselves, either in this country or on another Continent, such a reputation for taking time by the forelock as to justify any exaggerated confidence in their appreciation of the fatal effects of delay. It was monstrous that a measure of practical legislation, for which the country had long been clamouring, and intended to remove a grievance under which the agricultural classes were lying paralyzed, should be postponed to take its chances of legislative bye-days, and should not rather have precedence over mere theoretic legislation, for which there was no general desire, and which, under the condition of its introduction, would probably provoke lengthened and strenuous opposition. It was a crying scandal that we should have already so long surrendered all the exceptional advantages of our insular position, and should still permit ourselves to be ravaged by a disease which was known to be non-indigenous. He would remind hon. Members opposite, who scoffed at that idea, of the words in which an English-

  249
  man, not inferior to themselves in intellect or even in common sense, described this country as—
  "A precious stone set in the silver sea,
  Which serves it as the office of a wall,
  Or as a moat defensive to a house,
  Against the envy of less happier lands;
  This fortress built by Nature for herself
  Against 'Infection' and the hand of War."
  Although some hon. Members depreciated and made light of the virulence of foot-and-mouth disease, he did not believe that anyone who was really acquainted with the general feeling of the country could help admitting that the existing restrictions were ruining the most profitable branch of the farmers' business, and must eventually become absolutely insupportable. He could not gather from the Prime Minister's speech whether the change which had taken place in his opinions was due to conviction or to the widespread feeling against the present condition of things. If to the former, he was afraid that his conviction was rather in the nature of faith without works; but if to the latter, he would ask him to probe that feeling still more deeply, and he would then find there was also an earnest desire to give precedence to his promised measure over merely theoretical legislation, even though it had been honoured with a place in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House were not as fond of good milk and good beef as the Opposition were. He could assure them that was not the case. He felt that this was a very difficult and a very important question, and, speaking for himself, he should have liked if the Government could have seen their way to take the measure dealing with it first. The hon. Member for Mid Lincoln, he trusted, would not divide the House on this question, as he would only sour the Government. He would vote with the Government—he must support the Government, whether he agreed with them or not. He trusted they, on both sides of the House, would be friends over this question. If in the House they acted as they did in their private business they would have passed the little Bill while they had been talking about it. He knew something about agriculture, although he did not farm now, and he
  250
  knew the enormous loss entailed on farmers in consequence of the restrictions which had been imposed upon them. The loss to the country by the restrictions was greater than by the disease itself; but if they did not restrict they should very often see disease in every farm in the country. He did not know how much the new Bill would do; but let them pass it anyhow, and then they would give satisfaction to the country. He knew that his constituents would approve of a Bill that would enable them to obtain cheap meat, and abundance of it. But he liked fair play to the farmer. It was all very well to say that the losses came out of the landowners' pockets, but they affected the tenant farmer as well. The little Bill could not take up any time, and he would appeal to the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln not to divide the House. If he did so he would vote against him. So would a great number round him. A great many did not like to speak their minds in the House, because when they went into the Lobby they were asked what they were doing on that side of the House. He did not like to say very much, as he felt himself in a very awkward position; but he meant to vote with the Government, as he did not like to run away.
  MR. PELLsaid, that after the very candid confession of the last speaker, he thought he ought to ask the hon. Gentleman to pair with him. The hon. Gentleman said he intended to support the Government, whether or not he agreed with their views and their policy; on the other hand, while he (Mr. Pell) might not agree with everything that fell from his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, he thought he might safely say "ditto" to the hon. Gentleman opposite, and vote with the Opposition. The matter appeared to him to be one of urgency, and he was quite willing to give to Her Majesty's Government every credit for their good intentions to bring in the Bill directly it had passed the other House. But it was very well known that objections would be raised to it by certain hon. Members, and he could quite understand that the Government would not, under those circumstances, be able to obtain so strenuous a support for it as they would if it took precedence of less important measures. Unless immediate action

  251
  were taken the condition of agriculture would continue to grow worse. Last year 500,000 cattle were gazetted as affected with foot-and-mouth disease. The very lowest estimate that could be put on the loss the country had suffered was £500,000. He hoped that the Government Bill would contain restrictions more stringent than those at present in force with regard to the internal cattle trade, and that this subject would be no longer left to be dealt with by the local authorities. Under existing regulations diseased cattle found their way into the country, and so long as that was allowed to go on, of what moment was it to him as a farmer whether they were landed at Deptford or not? He and others who represented agricultural districts might be misunderstood if they withheld their support from the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, to whom their thanks ought to be given for the great energy and activity he had shown in handling this question. For his own part, he should support the Amendment, because he had perceived that, in questions of local taxation for instance, they got nothing by allowing the Government time. He would only add that the foreign trade in cattle was increasing enormously with those countries where there was no disease—Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Canada; since 1877 the import from those countries had risen from 60,000 a year to 231,000 in cattle.
  LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he should heartily support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. Was the stoppage of only 6 per cent of our meat supply to stand in the way of the prevention of contagion amongst English stock? He did not see what difficulty the Government could have in preventing the importation of cattle from abroad when they had already imposed restrictions which affected two out of every twelve beasts belonging to the farmers of England. He was certain the Government possessed the power to stop the importation of cattle from abroad; but they were so half-hearted in this matter, as they were in all others which affected the interests of their country, that they dare not move further in the right direction, and, putting their foot down, stamp out the disease. The course adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire would, he
  252
  felt assured, meet with the approval of the whole agricultural interest in this country.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had waited under the impression and in the hope that one of the right hon. Gentlemen who were officially responsible for the administration of the Acts now under consideration would have risen to make some reply to the numerous questions which had been put to them; but apparently the system upon which debates were being conducted during the present Session did not involve the necessity of Ministers replying to arguments addressed to them from that side of the House. The Prime Minister did, indeed, make a few observations at an early stage of this debate, and he must draw attention to the extraordinary character of those observations. The reason, he said, why Her Majesty's Government were unable to grant the very reasonable request of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire was that the order of Business had been settled by Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech. But the right hon. Gentleman did not say whose fault it was that the order of Business was settled as they found it in that document. He went on to say, however, with, perhaps, rather a stretch of what was constitutional, that it was impossible to depart from the order laid down in Her Majesty's Speech, because Her Majesty had publicly pledged herself to that order of Business. He must confess that he had never hoard a more extraordinary argument, and although his position was an irresponsible one he must protest against the doctrine so laid down, which might have consequences which might be most embarrassing even to Her Majesty's Government themselves, that, however great the emergency might be, the Government were tied down to proceed with the Business of the Session in the order in which it appeared in the Queen's Speech. He thought that the Prime Minister himself must feel by this time that he had spoken rather rashly on the point. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the Bill on the subject was to be introduced into the other House of Parliament in the first place, and many Members on both sides of the House appeared inclined to take it for granted that the measure to be so introduced would satisfactorily carry out the views

  253
  of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. But what security had they that it would do so? The right hon. Gentleman had also told them that the measure would be proceeded with as rapidly as other Business would permit. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had distinctly declined to pledge himself that this measure, which was of the most pressing urgency, should have precedence over other measures to which that attribute could not fairly be ascribed; and therefore, this measure, which, in the eyes of all agriculturists, was the most urgent of all, must wait for the passing of another measure, which avowedly would have the effect of annihilating the influence of the agricultural community. Assuming, however, that Her Majesty's Government were to obtain the assent of Parliament to the measure which had been so vaguely sketched out, and which did not render it absolutely illegal for animals to be imported from infected countries, what security had they that the powers to be given to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would ever be enforced by him, who had for the last four years studiously ignored the powers he already possessed, and had failed to carry out the requirements of the agricultural community? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy had that evening, in reply to a Question he had addressed to him, stated that representations had been addressed to certain foreign countries warning them that unless they took certain precautions to prevent the exportation of cattle disease, Her Majesty's Government would be compelled to take upon themselves to prevent the importation of their cattle into this country. When asked under what powers the Government would act in such a case, the right hon. Gentleman had replied under the powers conferred by the 85th section of the Act. If that were the case, why did not the Government avail themselves of the powers given under that section at once? That was a question which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reply to before the close of this debate. Probably foreign countries would take the menaces of the right hon. Gentleman at their true value. It was true that Her Majesty's Government had taken upon themselves to prohibit the importation of live cattle from France, but they had declined to take upon themselves
  254
  the responsibility of prohibiting the importation of live cattle from other infected countries. The House would be extremely suspicious that powers placed in the hands of the Government to prohibit the importation of live cattle from infected countries would be carried into effect, unless the Bill made the exercise of such powers compulsory, when they recollected that a year ago the Vice President of the Council had said that, if he exercised the prohibitory powers that he either possessed or had illegally exercised in the case of France, he should raise the price of meat to famine point. Did the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement now? Then, if the right hon. Gentleman did not withdraw it, how were they to trust that he would enforce the powers that might be conferred upon him under this measure unless their exercise was to be made compulsory? The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), who had posed as the farmers' friend on agricultural platforms, and had pledged himself to support the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire in this matter, had, at the first crack of the Party whip, withdrawn his brave words, and had given up all claim to the measure being urgent, and professed himself ready to let it take its chance amid the vicissitudes of the Session, which did not promise to be a very peaceful one. This measure would afford the agriculturists of the country a fair opportunity of sifting the wheat from the chaff, and of letting them know who were their real friends. The charge had been brought against his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire that he had changed his policy on this question, and had sought to make the matter a Party one; but that charge was absolutely without foundation. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Hear, hear!] No doubt his hon. Friend had been compelled by the force of circumstances to shift his position somewhat; but what were the circumstances? Throughout the whole of last Session, and throughout the whole of the Recess, Her Majesty's Government had allowed foot-and-mouth disease to have full play over the length and breadth of the land; but when they came to meet Parliament face to face they found that they could not safely continue to disregard the unanimous voice of the agricultural community, and they deemed it prudent to shift their ground; and up jumped the

  255
  Prime Minister and promised to add this measure to the already overcrowded list of Bills referred to in the Queen's Speech. In these circumstances it became absolutely necessary for his hon. Friend to take up a position somewhat different from that which he had previously occupied. That was the only inconsistency, if such it could be called, of which the hon. Member was guilty. Those, however, who professed to support his hon. Friend outside the House had, at the first crack of the Liberal whip, deserted him, and the agriculturists of the country were now—not for the first time—driven to rely solely upon those who were the real Representatives of the agricultural interest. He trusted that the Government would avail themselves of this opportunity to give the House a clear outline of this Bill which they intended to introduce, unless, indeed, it had merely been shadowed forth to meet a particular emergency, and would, as soon as that emergency had passed away, be put aside altogether.
  MR. DODSON: I am afraid that I cannot comply with the last request of the right hon. Gentleman, as I am not about to introduce any measure on the subject, and it would be most irregular for me to present to the House the details of a Bill that is to be introduced in a few days in the other House. If I were to comply with the invitation, I apprehend not many minutes would elapse before I was called to Order by you, Sir. We have stated, and I stated in answer to Questions, what the object of the Bill is—namely, to give the Privy Council powers to prohibit or regulate the importation of animals from foreign countries greater than those already possessed under the Contagious Diseases Acts. That is as much as I can state with regard to a Bill to be introduced in the other House. But I think we have special reason to congratulate ourselves on the favour with which this announcement has been received by the House. ["Oh, oh!"] I think I have a right to do so, because what is the Amendment before us? It is an Amendment urging that precedence shall be given to this Bill. So much did hon. Gentlemen approve of it, so anxious are they to have it, that the only fault they have to find is that it should not be pushed forward with sufficient rapidity. That, I think, is a most grati-
  256
  fying thing, and I never before, during my experience, heard of a Bill received with such special favour from the Opposition side of the House. I hope that we are none of us counting our chickens before they are hatched, but that we are justified in hoping that the Bill will speedily come down from the House of Lords to be discussed in this House and passed into law without unnecessary loss of time, which I can assure the House the Government are most anxious to avoid. It is not for me to enter further into the question of the order of the Business of the House. So far as it is possible for such a question to be now answered, it has been answered by the Prime Minister in the earlier period of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down complains that I have not answered one or two questions; but I was subjected to a considerable catechism in the earlier part of the evening, and I have not heard in the whole course of this somewhat lengthened debate any question that had not been put to me and answered already. The hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), if I did not misunderstand him, complained of the severe restrictions which were put on home animals, while foreign animals were freely admitted. I sympathize greatly with the farmers and those interested in agriculture under the restrictions they are subjected to; but those restrictions are mainly in the hands of local authorities, and the consequent want of uniformity, which is attended with some inconvenience, has this advantage, that the local authorities can make the arrangements suited to the special and different requirements of the several localities. As to saying that the foreign animals come in free, however, that was a slip of the tongue, because foreign animals are subjected to much severer restriction, they are subjected to slaughter, not only the diseased animals, but the entire cargo. As far as the Fairs and Markets Order is concerned, I acknowledge that the Order has inflicted inconvenience and loss upon many persons; but, at the same time, I think it has proved very efficient in checking, if not in entirely stamping out, the disease, which has rapidly diminished throughout the entire country. I do not claim for that Order the

  257
  entire credit of that happy result; but, judging from former years, we are entitled to claim for it a considerable share in contributing to that good result. I hope now, after the prolonged discussion, that if the hon. Member intends to take a Division we shall be allowed to proceed to it at once.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, whatever may be the result of the Division which will shortly be taken, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) upon the series of successes which he has already achieved upon this question, beginning with the passing against the Government last Session of the Resolution which has been the foundation of the whole matter. The Government resisted the passing of that Resolution, and thereby gave a tolerable proof that they were not disposed to take any further action for the purpose of dealing with this important question beyond that which they had previously done. The House, however, had determined that it was a question on which both sides had a right to demand that some definite and effective action should be taken, and, accordingly, the Resolution to which I am referring was passed. Unfortunately it proved very little more than a dead letter, for no action was taken by the Government upon it. In fact, the Government informed the House that they could not take any action on the Resolution without an Act of Parliament; and we must not be too severe upon the Government for not asking Parliament to pass such a mea-sure late in the Session. It might have been expected, however, that when Parliament re-assembled, and with a knowledge of the great ravages which the disease had been making among the flocks and herds of the country, some reference would be made to the subject in the Queen's Speech, and we should have been promised some further measures to effect what was necessary. But nothing of the sort. There was no kind of reference to the matter in the Speech, either direct or indirect, nor, so far as I remember, was it referred to in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. But my hon. Friend, who had achieved one success, was not satisfied with the state of things; and he gave Notice of an Amendment to the Address. What was the immediate
  258
  result of his giving that Notice? It was that the Government came forward and promised that a measure should be introduced; but it was not said how it was to be introduced. The former success of my hon. Friend led him to press the Government still further upon the matter; and he asked whether it was to be a serious matter, or merely a something to stop the mouths of those who were demanding remedial legislation? I suppose there are a certain number of hon. Gentlemen in this House who may be satisfied with what they have got—some kind of promise which will enable them to go to their constituents and say—"You will see it will all come right; you must not hurry the matter; the Government are quite in earnest about it; and you may be perfectly certain that your wants will be attended to." I do not myself say that the Government are not in earnest. It may be said that there is no zeal like that of a convert, and as the Government are in reference to this matter very recent converts, they are, no doubt, very zealous; but, at the same time, my hon. Friend was naturally very anxious to get something a little more definite on the matter, and, knowing as he did that many Bills which are introduced never get beyond the stage of Bills, he wanted to know whether the Government were prepared to press the matter forward seriously. I think he was perfectly justified in putting that question, because he was dealing with what might be called a hostile Administration in reference to this particular subject. They had had the matter forced upon them so far, and we were anxious to know how far they had digested the dose; and my hon. Friend also asked the Prime Minister whether, when the Bill came down to this House, it was to have precedence? "Oh dear no," said the Prime Minister, "it cannot have precedence, but we shall go on with it with all due diligence." The phrase "due diligence" is a somewhat wide one, and when it was accompanied with eulogies of other measures contained in the Queen's Speech, and taken in conjunction with many of the pledges contained in that Speech, we could not help thinking that the Government was very much in the position of a stepmother dealing with a child not her own, and having to com-

  259
  pare its interests with the interests of her own offspring. The Prime Minister, then beginning to see that the matter was more serious than he had considered it, gave us a promise that the measure should not be postponed until the end of all the measures contained in the Queen's Speech. That was another step, and with that my hon. Friend was told he ought to be satisfied—namely, that the Bill should be introduced speedily in the House of Lords, and passed there with as much rapidity as the Government are able to secure for it, and that when it comes down here it shall be put not entirely at the bottom of everything, but proceeded with in such odds and ends of time as can be spared from other Government proposals. The sole reason for the introduction of this Bill is that a great and serious evil has to be dealt with. If we could be sure that foot-and-mouth disease would suspend its ravages while we are delaying, then we might be justified in postponing our legislation, and accepting the assurance of the Government; but this matter is a very serious one for all classes of the country, and the justification for our action is that the evil is upon us and ought to be dealt with summarily. If it be not dealt with summarily, very great mischief may arise throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) says that it is satisfactory to think that the Bill which the Government are preparing, and which they intend to bring in, has been received with such applause before its provisions are known. I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the meaning of that applause. "We applaud the decision of the Government to deal with the matter at all; but what the provisions of the Bill may be we cannot yet judge until we see it. Of course, the object we have in view is the suppression of the evil we have been discussing, and, if necessary, we shall propose and carry any Amendment which may be necessary for that object. I hope my hon. Friend will persevere in his Motion. He will by so doing put upon record his sense and the sense of those who are anxious in this matter that an early measure should be introduced; and I think my hon. Friend in this course will have the approval, not only of his constituents, but of all those who are interested in the subject. I do
  260
  not know whether those who oppose him consider it desirable that there should be delay—["No, no!"]; they seemed to be willing to admit delay; and if the vote means anything it means they are willing to vote for delay. ["No!"] At all events, if the hon. Member were to acquiesce in the view of the Government, he would shake the confidence of his constituents, and I think he will be perfectly justified in taking the sense of the House. I hope, therefore, he will go to a Division, and that he will be supported upon the principles I have endeavoured to indicate.
  MR. BORLASEsaid, that the position of Liberal Members on that side was never more clearly defined than on the present occasion. He had always supported, through thick and thin, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), both inside and outside the House, and he would continue to do so. But it was only fair to Her Majesty's Government that hon. Members should know what the Bill was which they proposed to introduce. The simple question before the House was the question of the precedence of the Bill; and with regard to that question it seemed to him to be a thing entirely unprecedented that an hon. Member, having a particular object to bring before the House, should attempt to force the measure which related to it before ail other measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech. This alone ought to deter the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire from going to a Division on this Amendment. But, while he said this, he, at the same time, reserved to himself the most entire independence as to the way in which he should think fit to deal with the Bill when it came before the House. If the measure did not give to the Privy Council the most thorough powers to stop the importation of live cattle from countries where the disease existed, and if he did not obtain from those right bon. Gentlemen who were bringing in the Bill assurances that such powers would be put in operation by the Privy Council, the measure would receive his fullest and freest opposition.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 251: Majority 51.

  AYES.

  Alexander, Major-Gen.

  Floyer, J.

  Allsopp, C.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Forester, C. T. W.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Foster, W. H.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Barne, F. St. J. ST.

  Galway, Viscount

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Gardner, R. Richardson-

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Garnier, J. C.

  Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

  Gibson, right hon. E.

  Giffard, Sir H. S.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Bective, Earl of

  Gore-Langton, W. S.

  Bellingham, A. H.

  Greene, E.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Greer, T.

  Beresford, G. De la P.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Biddell, W.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Boord, T. W.

  Harvey, Sir R. B.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Brooke, Lord

  Hicks, E.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Bruce, hon. T. C.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Brymer, W. E.

  Hill, A. S.

  Burghley, Lord

  Hinchingbrook, Visc.

  Buxton, Sir R. J.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Cameron, D.

  Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Christie, W. L.

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  Clarke, E.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  Cole, Viscount

  Kennard, C. J.

  Collins, T.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Compton, F.

  King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

  Coope, O. E.

  Corry, J. P.

  Knight, F. W.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Knigbtley, Sir R.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Curzon, Major hon. M.

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Legh, W. J.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Leighton, Sir B.

  Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

  Leighton, S.

  Dawnay, hon. G. C.

  Lever, J. O.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Levett, T. J.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Digby, Colonel hon. E.

  Loder, R.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Long, W. H.

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Mac Iver, D.

  Ecroyd, W. F.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Elcho, Lord

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Ennis, Sir J.

  March, Earl of

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Marriott, W. T.

  Ewart, W.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Feilden, Lieut.-General R. J.

  Miles, C. W.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Finch, G. H.

  Milner, Sir F.

  Fletcher, Sir IT.

  Monckton, F.

  262

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Salt, T.

  Moss, R.

  Sclater-Bootb, rt. hn. G.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Scott, M. D.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Newport, Viscount

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Severne, J. E.

  North, Colonel J. S.

  Smith, A.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.

  O'Connor, A.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Onslow, D. R.

  Storer, G.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Strutt, bon. C. H.

  Paget, R. H.

  Sykes, C.

  Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

  Talbot, J. G.

  Thomson, H.

  Peek, Sir H. W.

  Thornhill, T.

  Pell, A.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Tollemache, hon. W. F.

  Percy, rt. hon. Earl

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Percy, Lord A.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Phipps, C. N. P.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Phipps, P.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Warburton, P. E.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Warton, C. N.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Welby-Gregory, SirW.

  Rankin, J.

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Rendlesham, Lord

  Winn, R.

  Repton, G. W.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Wroughton, P.

  Rolls, J. A.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Ross, A. H.

  Ross, C. C.

  TELLERS.

  Round, J.

  Chaplin, H.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  NOES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Brown, A. H.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Agnew, W.

  Burt, T.

  Ainsworth, D.

  Buszard, M C.

  Anderson, G.

  Buxton, F. W.

  Armitage, B.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Armitstead, G.

  Caine, W. S.

  Arnold, A.

  Cameron, C.

  Asher, A.

  Campbell, Lord C.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Baldwin, E.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Barclay, J. W.

  Carbutt, E. H.

  Barran, J.

  Carington, hon. R.

  Bass, Sir A.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Bass, H.

  Causton, R. K.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Biddulph, M.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Blaire, J. A.

  Chambers, Sir T.

  Blennerhassett, R. P.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Clarke, J. C.

  Brand, H. R.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Coddington, W.

  Brett, R. B.

  Cohen, A.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Collings, J.

  Bright, right hon. J.

  Collins, E.

  Bright, J.

  Colman, J. J.

  Brinton, J.

  Colthurst, Colonel

  Broadhurst, H.

  Corbett, J.

  Brogden, A.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Brooks, M.

  Courtauld, G.

  263

  Courtney, L. H.

  Inderwick, F. A.

  Craig, W. Y.

  James, Sir H.

  Creyke, R.

  James, C.

  Cropper, J.

  James, W. H.

  Cross, J. K.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Crum, A.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Currie, Sir D.

  Jerningham, H. E. H

  Davey, H.

  Johnson, E.

  Davies, D.

  Jones-Parry, L.

  Davies, R.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  De Ferrières, Baron

  Labouchere, H.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Lambton, hon. F. W.

  Dilke, rt. hn, Sir C. W.

  Lawrence, W.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Dodds, J.

  Lea, T.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Leake, R.

  Duckham, T.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Duff, R. W.

  Lee, H.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

  Earp, T.

  Lloyd, M.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Edwards, H.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Edwards, P.

  Lyons, R. D.

  Egerton, Admiral hon. F.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Macliver, P. S.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  M'Arthur, Sir W.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  M'Intyre, æneas J.

  Ferguson, R.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Efolkes, Sir W. H. B.

  M'Laren, C. B. B.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W.

  Marjoribanks, E.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Martin, R. B.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

  Forster, Sir C.

  Forster, rt. hn. W. E.

  Milbank, Sir F. A.

  Fort, R.

  Monk, C. J.

  Fowler, H. H.

  Moreton, Lord

  Fowler, W.

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

  Fry, L.

  Morley, A.

  Fry, T.

  Morley, J.

  Gabbet, D. F.

  Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Noel, E.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Norwood, C. M.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Gordon, Sir A.

  O'Shea, W. H.

  Gordon, Lord D.

  Otway, Sir A.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Paget, T. T.

  Grant, Sir G. M.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Grant, A.

  Parker, C. S.

  Grant, D.

  Pease, A.

  Grey, A. H. G.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Guest, M. J.

  Pender, J.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Playfair, rt. hn. Sir L.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Potter, T. B.

  Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Price, Sir R. G.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Pulley, J.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Ramsay, J.

  Henderson, F.

  Rathbone, W.

  Heneage, E.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Reid, R. T.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Richardson, T.

  Hill, T. R.

  Roberts, J.

  Holden, I.

  Robertson, H.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Roe, T.

  Holms, J.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Rothschild, Sir N. M. de

  Howard, J.

  Roundell, C. S.

  Illingworth, A.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Ince, H. B.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  264

  Rylands, P.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Samuelson, B.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Samuelson, H.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Walker, S.

  Shaw, T.

  Walter, J.

  Sheridan, H B.

  Waugh, E.

  Shield, H.

  West, H. W.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Whitbread, S.

  Slagg, J.

  Whitley, E.

  Smith, Lieut.-Col. G.

  Whitworth, B.

  Smith, S.

  Wiggin, H.

  Spencer, hon. C. R

  Williamson, S.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  Willis, W.

  Stansfold, rt. hon. J.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Stuart, H. V.

  Wilson, I

  Summers, W.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Woodall, W.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Tennant, C.

  TELLERS.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Tillett, J. H.

  Kensington, rt. hn. Lord

  Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. BIGGAR,in moving the adjournment of the debate, said, he did it for this reason, that there was a very important Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but at that hour it was quite evident that there was no reasonable possibility of their coming to a conclusion upon it that evening. It must also be recollected that there were upon the Notice Paper, Notices standing in the names of various hon. Members for 34 Bills which must be brought in, in accordance with the ordinary Rules of the House, and it would therefore be altogether impossible to give to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the consideration which it required. In all probability, in regard to some of the Bills of which Notice had been given, an explanation would be required on introducing them, and therefore a considerable amount of time would probably be taken up.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had heard the Motion with regret. The evening had been very well clipped at the beginning by Questions, and the moving of adjournments before the usual time would have a very extraordinary appearance in the face of the country, if

  265
  the country was to believe that the House was anxious to get on with its Business. He did not see the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in his place. He believed the hon. Member had placed an Amendment on the Paper which he wished to bring forward; but, certainly, without some manifestation of a general desire on the part of the House, he (Mr. Gladstone) would be extremely loth to encourage a Motion for the adjournment of the House before the usual time.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), although not at that moment in the House, was at hand, and prepared to proceed with his Amendment. It would, however, be extremely inconvenient, considering the exceptional public interest attaching to every speech of his hon. Friend, that he should be asked to proceed at that hour. If his hon. Friend addressed the House at that hour, his remarks would not be adequately reported, even in the Irish papers. It was therefore unreasonable to expect him at that hour to make a speech, when the only benefit which he could derive from it would be taken away from him. As the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had pointed out, there were 34 Notices on the Paper for the introduction of Bills to-night, and he thought the good sense and good feeling of the House would not require his hon. Friend, under such circumstances, to proceed with his Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.

STATE OF IRELAND—THE DISTURBANCES AT LONDONDERRY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that before the Address was further proceeded with, he desired to call the attention of the House to some facts in connection with a visit of his to Londonderry, of which he had a very lively and bitter recollection. He would not delay the House long in referring to the incident which he had in his mind, and he thought, before he concluded, he should be able to show distinctly that in Ireland, and in the circumstances he was about to refer to, the Government were still continuing the pernicious policy of sustaining the minority as against the majority by the aid of the power of the Crown and the
  266
  assistance of armed troops. The scenes which occurred in Londonderry on the 12th of November last year would be in the recollection of the House. He had promised some young men in the city, who were anxious to improve themselves in self-culture, to go down and address them in aid of their library on a subject of Constitutional interest—one proposing to the people a Constitutional weapon instead of the blood-stained one which had been constantly used in that city. He had been led to suppose, by incidents which occurred before his visit, that he would have been received there in a very different manner from that in which he was received, because the city of Londonderry consisted of 29,000 persons, of whom 17,000 were Roman Catholic and National, while the remaining minority were made up of all the other sects of the city. Although the overwhelming majority was with him and the Party he represented, the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had gone to that city a few days before, and had spoken against the very principles he (Mr. Dawson) went there to lecture on and to vindicate. The right hon. Gentleman was received without passion; and therefore all his (Mr. Dawson's) fears in regard to the possibility of riot or tumult had been set at rest, seeing the way in which the right hon. Gentleman was received when he visited the city, in order to broach doctrines of a different character. He did not act, however, merely upon assumption; but he took the precaution of informing the people that he wished to choose a subject that should not excite violent passions against any citizen. He asked permission to deliver his lecture under cover, and he applied for the use of the public hall of the city for the discussion, because he was unwilling to be the cause of riot in a city which had unfortunately earned notoriety for such scenes. He was informed that the Corporation were prepared to give the City Hall for the purpose of his lecture, on the condition that the meeting would be decorously conducted and carried on in a manner that was likely to be beneficial to the people of the city. But immediately before his arrival at Londonderry, on his approach to the city, he found that the people had been instigated and excited to violent proceedings by the use of the most vio-

  267
  lent language that could be employed by noble Lords, sons of former Viceroys of Ireland, who egged on the people of that city to deeds of murder and assassination, which they were well nigh carrying into fatal and lamentable effect. How could he hope to escape the enmity of these noble Lords—how could he escape their vulgar vituperation and threatening language, when even a noble Lord who had a seat in that House had not spared the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, the first man in the world, but had pointed him out as a scourge and plague that ought to be removed? [Laughter.] He did not know at which part of his remarks the House was smiling, whether it was when he described the right hon. Gentleman as the first man in the world, or the attacks upon him by the noble Lord. To a passionate Orangeman an attack of such a nature was not of a trifling character, and when he (Mr. Dawson) went to Londonderry he was able to see what the attitude of the Orangemen was, and the action that was taken in consequence of these incitements. On his way to Londonderry he came to Omagh Station, where the carrying of arms was illegal. He saw the station filled with policemen, and in the presence of their officers the men got into the carriage next to the one in which he sat and began to fire a fusillade to intimidate him from doing that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), who had locked up a considerable portion of the people of Ireland, admitted that he had a perfect right to do. These officers saw this violation of the law, they saw this firing off' of arms in a proclaimed district, where the carrying of arms was illegal, and these officers of the law remained quite passive while the law was being broken. If it had been possible to transfer the scene to Limerick, or Tipperary, the House knew very well that few of these breakers of the law would have found themselves before the night closed out of custody. Well, he proceeded to Londonderry. The Corporation of that city gave him the use of the public hall; they took a deposit of money, and made a contract. It was a sacred contract, and the Corporation, composed largely of magistrates, entered into it knowingly. They let the hall and took the money for the use of it,
  268
  and they made no intimation that anything was likely to go wrong until he arrived in the city, for they did not retract the permission to use the hall until he had arrived in Londonderry, and then at the last moment they did break their word. The troops of the Queen kept back the thousands of persons who sympathized with him, and they allowed 300 or 400 Orangemen to break open the hall and take possession of it, thus breaking not only the law, but the contract which they had entered into. He and his friends went up to the hall without arms. They had no intention, although they were there in thousands, of storming the hall; but, at his request, they remained perfectly quiet and kept the peace. When, however, they came up to the hall, they found, to their surprise, that it was bristling with a riotous and armed mob. They further found that riotous mob using firearms with deadly effect, because two people wore shot in immediate proximity to the carriage in which he sat. One of these men was still in danger of the death which it was intended he (Mr. Dawson) should suffer. It did not surprise him that Orangemen, hounded on by noble Lords, should act in that way, but it did surprise him that the troops of the Queen should be drawn up at that building to protect the minority in their murderous attack on the people. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he could deny these facts; and, if not, whether he could justify them? How could the Irish people be expected to respect the law, when they found the Queen's troops, for whom they all paid alike, drawn up to protect a murderous minority in firing upon an unarmed people below? He failed to see why the people of the country should be called upon to pay taxes in order to support a murderous minority in acts of assassination. He was asked whether an attack should be made on the hall; but he said "No." He remained in his hotel, and, although there were thousands who sympathized with him, he would not provoke a breach of the peace. When asked if he would make an attempt to enter the hall, in declining, he distinctly stated that he and his friends had law and order on their side. There were Resident Magistrates there to inquire into the matter;

  269
  and it was for them to find out how it was that the streets were kept clear of the people who sympathized with him, while they were allowed to be freely frequented by those who were opposed to him. He was asked by the magistrates if he wanted protection, and he said—"No; withdraw your soldiers and police. What I complain of is that you have afforded no protection to me and to others who are engaged in a peaceable and legal work, while, at the same time, you do protect those who wish to murder us." The Resident Magistrate expressed a hope that he would not take a band with him if he went to lecture in another hall, and the magistrate added that it was illegal to have a band after sunset; but while the Resident Magistrate was making that remark an Orange band passed the window playing Orange tunes. The Resident Magistrate saw at once that while he was proposing a check upon him (Mr. Dawson) the law was being set at defiance by his opponents. The Queen's Writ did not run in Londonderry, but the Orange Writ did run, and it was well that Catholic blood did not flow. The Resident Magistrate went out to inquire how it was that bands were playing, and he came back with the explanation that it was the local magistrates who had allowed it. Therefore, between the local magistrates and the Resident Magistrate, that was the state to which law and order were reduced in the City of Londonderry. It was a vivid illustration of the effect of propping up a small murderous minority in Ireland over the overwhelming will of the vast majority of the Irish people. He thanked the House for having listened to his remarks upon a matter in which he was personally interested; but he trusted that his excuse would be found in the peculiar nature of the facts he had adduced. He was prepared to vouch for the full accuracy of the incidents he had mentioned, and he promised that further details should be given by his Colleagues when the general question of the policy of the government of Ireland came up for the consideration, and he hoped the condemnation, of the House and of the public.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he was afraid that the hon. Gentleman the late Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson) was in a state of considerable ex-
  270
  citement. In fact, the hon. Member appeared to have persuaded himself, although he had not persuaded the House, that he (Lord Claud Hamilton) was almost as bad as the hon. Member's late colleague, Mr. James Carey. The hon. Member had accused him (Lord Claud Hamilton) of being a promoter of murder and assassination. Now, what was the truth of the "cock-and-bull" story to which the House had just listened. The hon. Member, when he was Lord Mayor of Dublin, was invited, or advertised at all events, in the City of Londonderry to deliver a lecture on the franchise. In an ill-advised moment the Corporation granted the use of their old historic hall for that purpose. The moment the fact became known in the city a considerable feeling of indignation was aroused, not that the people of Londonderry objected to the use of the hall for the delivery of an ordinary political lecture, but they knew, from what had been going on around them, that the object of obtaining the hall was not for the delivery of a political lecture, but that it was merely part of a plan for making a great national display within their historic walls. He (Lord Claud Hamilton) was appealed to by some of those whom he was proud to look upon as his former constituents, to do all he could to avert the public disgrace with which the city was threatened. He took the liberty of issuing a placard, a portion of which, with the permission of the House, he would read. He had written saying that—
  "As a Member of the Legislature, as a former Representative of Londonderry, and as one who will always taken a deep interest in her welfare, may I be allowed, through your columns (The Derry Sentinel), to address a few words of warning to her citizens in regard to this so-called lecture. The Lord Mayor of Dublin, as such, is unquestionably entitled to every respect from the position he occupies as Chief of the Municipality of our capital city. But he is to appear in Londonderry to-morrow, not in his capacity of Lord Mayor of Dublin, but as an emissary of that organization which, for the past few years, has devastated the three Southern Provinces of our country, and has made the name of Ireland a bye-word among nations."
  He further pointed out that the hon. Member was not only a servile follower of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), but that he was

  271
  an active member of the Land League when it rejoiced in the joint leadership of Messrs. Parnell, Davitt, Sheridan, and James Carey. He reminded his former constituents that the Lord Mayor's term of office had been disgraced at intervals by studied disloyalty to the Queen, and her Representative, the Lord Lieutenant. That was the course of the action which he (Lord Claud Hamilton) took then, and which he was prepared to take now, as a course which justified the inhabitants of the City of Londonderry in preventing the Lord Mayor of Dublin from obtaining a footing in their historic Town Hall, and in making a demonstration on behalf of what was wrongly called the National Party of Ireland. The House knew what followed. He was not there; but there was no doubt that the Town Hall of Londonderry was seized by a large party of Loyalists and Apprentice Boys of the city, who held it for the rest of the day against all comers. No doubt they acted in a manner which was unusual; but they acted from their natural instinct of loyalty. Had he been present among them, he would have taken his place at their head. The hon. Member for Carlow said that when he arrived at the city he found everything quiet. The hon. Member knew that when he arrived there he was met by a carefully-organized demonstration, with the banners of the Land League bearing seditious emblems flying; he was escorted by that demonstration into the city, and up to that time no noise, disturbance, or symptom of riot occurred. The House would remember that all this had been a matter of inquiry, and had been reported upon. No sooner, however, had the hon. Member left his hotel than shots were fired from the procession which followed his carriage. [Cries of "No, no!" from the Irish Members.] That had been distinctly stated in evidence. It was given in evidence that the first shots—they may have been harmless shots, and they may have been fired from weapons that were not loaded with shot; but it was distinctly given in evidence that the first shots came from the procession which surrounded the hon. Member. The sound of those shots excited those who were in the Town Hall, and, in an ill-advised moment, a man—who he was he (Lord
  272
  Claud Hamilton) could not say—fired two shots from the hall. Whether those were the shots which wounded two persons he did not know; but every well-disposed man would join with him in regretting that they were ever fired at all. At the same time, although he strongly condemned the act, it must be remembered that the shots were only fired after other shots had been fired by those who accompanied the procession. The hon. Member for Carlow charged him (Lord Claud Hamilton) with inciting to assassination. He was at a loss to know what the hon. Gentleman meant; and he would ask him to produce a single word that he had uttered in justification of that assertion, and to sustain so serious an indictment. What vindication could the hon. Member make for such a statement against any Member of the House? It was a matter for great regret that such accusations should be made against any Member of the House, when every hon. Member must know that there was not the slightest ground for them.
  MR. DAWSON: I will answer the noble Lord out of his own words. He advised the people of Derry to oppose me by every means in their power. They adopted that advice, and used firearms as the most effective means.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONcontinued: The hon. Member seemed to forget that the city of Londonderry was situated in the Province of Ulster, and they were accustomed in that Province to appeal to Constitutional means of opposition, and not to murderous weapons. Therefore, he said, the charge of the hon. Member could not, in the slightest degree, be sustained. The hon. Member also brought a charge against the authorities. It happened that the Town Council was sitting in council assembled at the moment the hall was taken possession of, and that accounted for the door being open and the hall being entered and seized. The Corporation themselves had not the slightest idea that it would be taken possession of. If any blame attached to anyone, it must fall upon those who took possession of the hall; but he thought, under the circumstances, that they were perfectly justified in their action. After the hon. Member for Carlow was refused admission to the hall, he proceeded to another part of

  273
  the town, and he had an opportunity of delivering his lecture in another room. From that moment he (Lord Claud Hamilton) believed that perfect peace and quiet were restored. No further outrages were committed, and the riot came to an end. The hon. Member seemed to think that he was justified in making all these charges against the Loyalists, because, in the loyal city of Londonderry, a representative of the Land League was opposed. Now, whether the majority of the people of Londonderry were Catholics or Protestants he knew not; but they were, in the main, loyal; they wished to remain loyal; and if they were only preserved from these invasions of the Land League, under the guise of delivering moderate speeches, when the real object was to spread broadcast the infamous doctrines of the Land League, they would remain loyal and peaceable. They felt quite sure that, if the doctrines of the Land League were to prevail, the connection between Ireland and England would not long continue. They strongly objected to the delivery among them of lectures of that kind, accompanied by all the paraphernalia of disloyalty; and whenever an attempt was made to invade them in the same manner they would adopt exactly the same course. The Loyalists of Ulster took no part in preventing legally constituted meetings for Constitutional purposes; but it was known that the hon. Member for Carlow was accompanied into Londonderry by one of the most notorious organizers of the defunct Land League as his bottle-holder, and whenever the National League should attempt to obtain a footing in Londonderry, or in any other part of Ulster, the Loyalists were prepared to repulse them in a similar way. Whenever members of the Land League attempted to indulge in Ulster in disloyal speeches, in speeches inciting to sedition, to the separation of the United Kingdom, and to the destruction of Government, the Loyalists of Ulster would consider it their duty to intervene if the Government themselves did not interfere to prevent such meetings. He was satisfied that if these meetings were allowed to succeed in Ulster, they would ultimately lead to civil war. The Loyalists of Ulster were still a majority of the people of that Province, and they would take care of themselves in the
  274
  event of the Government not interfering to prevent disloyal meetings.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he rose to ask a simple question of the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Claud Hamilton). The noble Lord told the House of Commons that he was prepared to abide by every word he had uttered in the Recess, and by every word he had written. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether, in the presence of the House, he was prepared to abide by the following words which he had spoken in Londonderry upon a re-recent occasion? The noble Lord said—"If the Government do not prevent these hordes of ruffians from invading us"——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seconded the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and he has, therefore, exhausted his right to speak.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that as it would be out of Order for his hon. Friend (Mr. Sullivan) to continue the debate, he (Mr. Harrington) would read the passage in the speech of the noble Lord which his hon. Friend referred to, in order that the House might see whether, in the spirit of the boast the noble Lord had just made, he was prepared to substantiate and abide by the words he had uttered. The noble Lord said—
  "If the Government do not prevent these hordes of ruffians from invading us, we will take the law into our own hands, and we ourselves will."
  That was the expression used by the noble Lord, who put himself forward as the representative of law and order in Ulster, and the opponent of disloyalty, and what he was pleased to call the dismemberment of the Empire. This was the example of law and order which the noble Lord set. If, instead of being a scion of a noble house and one of the minority in Ireland, he belonged to the people and was a Representative of a National constituency in Ireland, the noble Lord would, as he himself (Mr. Harrington) had done, have found himself in prison on a plank bed. He (Mr. Harrington) had had some experience of the justice which Her Majesty's Government dealt out in Ireland, and for an observation which, side by side with the statement of the noble Lord, was as innocent as any that was over delivered in that House, Her Majesty's Government had sent him to prison. He had had to

  275
  undergo 12 months in prison, and afterwards two months on a plank bed. He challenged those who called him and his Colleagues disloyal, and the apostles of disorder and outrage, to point to anything they had ever said that was so opposed to law and order, and so calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, as these expressions of the noble Lord. There was another observation of the noble Lord which deserved the attention of the House. When he spoke those words the noble Lord had evidently his eye upon the House of Commons, because he said he spoke them on his full responsibility as a Member of that House. This was the example which the noble Lord wished to set to the people of Ireland, in order to teach them obedience to law and order. The noble Lord appeared to think that when the people of Ireland tried to give effect to their opinions, and the Government made no attempt to suppress them, he was entitled to take the law into his own hands. Did not the noble Lord think that the people of Ireland might be tempted to take the law into their own hands, and deal with his miserable minority in the same manner? The noble Lord had said that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), the late Lord Mayor of Dublin, went to Londonderry as an emissary of the National League. To that statement he (Mr. Harrington) was ready to give a most unqualified contradiction. He was the responsible Secretary of the National League in Ireland, and he had never known, except from the public journals, anything whatever about his hon. Friend's visit to Londonderry. He was fully prepared to say that his hon. Friend did not go there with the sanction, or at the request, of the National League. His hon. Friend was not a member of the executive of the late Land League. He would not stop to question, after the extract from the speech delivered by the noble Lord at Londonderry, which he had read to the House, the good taste of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, however, had stated that James Carey was a member of the Land League. To that statement he (Mr. Harrington) also gave an unqualified denial. James Carey was not a member of the Land League, but he was the pet in Dublin of the friends of the noble Lord, and was put into the Corporation as the nominee of the Conservatives of Trinity Ward. The
  276
  votes that returned him to the Corporation were the votes of Trinity College and Merrion Square. James Carey had had no connection with the Land League. ["Oh, oh!"] He repeated that James Carey had had no connection with the Land League. He had never been a member of the Land League; but he had a connection with the friends of the noble Lord; and bad and infamous as James Carey was, had he been in Ulster at the time of the late agitation, he (Mr. Harrington) believed the friends of the noble Lord would not have disdained to avail themselves of his services and assistance. The friends of the noble Lord appeared to have had no other object than the incitement of the people to murder those who were obnoxious to them. The noble Lord, who had pretended to the House that he knew everything about Londonderry, now confessed that he did not know whether the majority of the people of that city were Catholics or Protestants. He (Mr. Harrington) would read to the noble Lord the opinion of one of the gentlemen who assisted in the demonstrations in the North as to the constitution of the people of Londonderry. He referred to Colonel Waring, a gentleman with whom, no doubt, the noble Lord was well acquainted. Describing the scene in Londonderry on the occasion which had been referred to, Colonel Waring said, after he had returned from the demonstration, and was giving an account of his exploits—
  "When he found himself in Bishop Street, Derry, on Thursday morning, with about 500 good and true men about him, surrounded by near as many thousands of Catholics, he did feel that they were a remnant, and perhaps a very small remnant."
  They were not only a remnant in Londonderry, but in Ulster also; and the parade which they made, and the placards which they issued, were only meant to deceive the people of England, and especially the Members of that House, so that they might be prevented from passing such remedial measures as the people of Ireland believed to be just and necessary. The noble Lord had said that the majority of the people of Londonderry were loyal and Constitutional. If that were so, and if the majority of the people were loyal and Constitutional, what harm could it do to those loyal and Constitutional people that the Lord

  277
  Mayor of Dublin should go down and lecture to them upon the franchise? Did the House think that the mere mention of the franchise had such weight with the friends of the noble Lord and his minority, or that their loyalty was of so ephemeral a character that a lecture on the franchise would occasion it to disappear altogether? And if the majority of the people were Catholics, why was it that the majority of the magistracy were not Catholics? How was it that in the whole City of Londonderry there was but one Catholic magistrate? Why was it that the administration of the law, not merely in Londonderry or in Ulster, but throughout Ireland, was left to such Gentlemen as the noble Lord and his colleagues? [Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: I am not a magistrate.] He thought the House would be very much delighted to hear that the noble Lord was not a magistrate, and he (Mr. Harrington) only wished that he could receive an assurance from the Irish Executive that he would never be a magistrate, because the noble Lord had stated that, if the Government did not step in at his dictation, and do what he considered right, he would take the law into his own hands. It was evident, therefore, that the noble Lord ought not to be a magistrate. He (Mr. Harrington) would not trouble the House with any further remarks on this subject. He would only say that if the noble Lord wished the people to follow his example—if he wished the people of Ireland to be incited to crime and to outrage—he could not take a better way of doing it than by standing up in that House to justify the campaign which he and his friends had carried on in the North of Ireland. The noble Lord must be aware that, after these placards were issued, some of those who were associated with him at the meeting attacked the houses of those who were friendly towards the Lord Mayor. In some cases, the houses were attempted to be set on fire, and in numerous instances individuals were attacked. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) had a narrow escape of his life, a shot having been fired at him, which wounded a man standing only a few yards from him. Hon. Members well knew that great excesses had been committed in the North of Ireland; and when the noble Lord rose to explain
  278
  his conduct, he (Mr. Harrington) had thought that, at least, he would have had the decency to explain that, although he had called the people forth and issued these placards, he had not contemplated such grave and serious outrages as those which followed. Instead of taking that course, the noble Lord had justified all that had been done, and had even gone the length of stating that, if he had been in Londonderry at the time, he would have taken his place beside the rowdy "Apprentice Boys" who attacked the Lord Mayor of Dublin. The noble Lord added, that he should do in the future as he had done in the past. Therefore, if Her Majesty's Government wished to govern Ireland, and to make the law respected, they must not disregard the warning they had received, and should not, by giving way to the wishes of the noble Lord and his friends, hand over to them the government of the country. If they heard, from time to time of outrages in Ireland, it was not by hon. Members on that side of the House that agitation and bitterness of feeling had been stirred up. He challenged the noble Lord to show any instance in the South or West of Ireland of sectarian feelings having been drawn forth by the National agitation. No, it was to the friends of the noble Lord that belonged the honour of having called forth bitter memories of religious disputes among the people of Ireland. If the Government did not change their minds, but continued to have one law for the friends of the noble Lord, and another for the people, they might depend upon it that they would have a difficult task, in the future, in governing the country.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I rise to make a few remarks upon a subject of considerable importance; but my speech will be so short that it can hardly be called a speech at all. I rise to state a fact, in order to explain why it is impossible for me at this moment to enlarge upon the subject. I will merely say that the hon. Member the late Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson) has quite unconsciously placed me in a position of considerable embarrassment by raising this question at this moment. It is quite evident to the House, after the statements of the noble Lord, and also of the other side, that certain events took place at Londonderry of a very ex-

  279
  cited character, which gave rise to such varied emotions, that those who took an active part in them could not be expected to allow many days to pass before they brought them under the notice of the House. I do not propose to enter into the question of what is called the invasion of Ulster, and the measures which were taken by the parties opposed to that movement in order to counteract that invasion. There is an Amendment upon the Paper of the House, condemning the Government in carefully-studied and most Parliamentary language for its treatment of the meetings in Ireland, and especially of the meetings in Ulster during the past Recess; and I wish to reserve what I have to say until I have heard the observations of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the charges which, I am told, hon. Members opposite are going to make. I think it will be the best opportunity for making a defence of the action which the Irish Executive have taken in the matter. I have only now to say that what passed at Londonderry was a matter of such gravity that the Government found themselves unable to act upon the knowledge which was before them in the shape of reports from the Resident Magistrate, and the evidence taken before the bench of magistrates at the committal for trial of certain persons who were charged before thorn. In all the other cases which have occurred in Ireland during the Recess, however important they have been—and there were several—we have had materials on which to arrive at a decision. Decisions have been arrived at on grave questions, which no one will deny were very definite indeed; but in this case we considered it necessary to obtain further evidence, and also to obtain the judgment and assistance of legal men, whose coolness and impartiality could be relied upon, and we accordingly appointed two gentlemen—Mr. Bewlay and Mr. Piers White—one of them a Protestant and the other a Catholic, to make an investigation. Those gentlemen went down to Derry, and held an inquiry there; but, owing to various circumstances, principally connected with the family of one gentleman, they have only just been able to lay their Report before Her Majesty's Government. That Report will be at once examined with the great care which so grave a question
  280
  demands, and as soon as they have made up their decision Her Majesty's Government will only be too ready to communicate it to the House; but, until that decision is arrived at, I should not be justified in entering upon any side issue.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he would not have placed the right hon. Gentleman at the disadvantage to which he had referred, if the Government had agreed to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I shall not offer any opposition to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (REPEAL, &c.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to repeal divers enactments rendered unnecessary by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and other Acts relating to Proceedings before Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and to make further provision for the uniformity of proceedings before those Courts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir William HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 55.]

  POLICE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to make provision respecting the Pensions, Allowances, and Gratuities of Police Constables in Great Britain, and their Widows and Children, and to make other provisions respecting the Police of Great Britain. ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 56.]

  FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill for the further Protection of Fish, other than Salmon, in Fresh Waters, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 57.]

  FREE LIBRARIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HOPWOOD, Bill to amend and consolidate the Law relating to Free Libraries, ordered to be brought in by Mr.

  281
  HOPWOOD, Mr. RATHBONE, Mr. SLAGG, Mr. SUMMERS, and Mr. HOULDSWORTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 58.]

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS EXTENSION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. "LABOUCHERE, Bill to extend the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Acts, ordered to he brought in by Mr. LABOUCHERE, Mr. KENNARD, and Mr. O'SHEA.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 60.]

  THEATRES, &C. REGULATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND, Bill for the hotter Regulation of Theatres and Music Halls within the Metropolitan area, ordered to he brought in by Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND, Sir EDMUND LECHMERE, Mr. MACFARLANE, and Mr. HICKS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 61.]

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD, Bill to amend "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," ordered to he brought in by Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD, Mr. BARCLAY, and Mr. ARMITAGE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 62.]

  COMMONS AND INCLOSURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JAMES, Bill to amend the Commons and Inclosure Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES, Mr. BRYCE, Mr. STORY-MASKELYNE, and Mr. CHEETHAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 63.]

  COMPENSATION (OCCUPIERS OF TENEMENTS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR COHEN, Bill to secure Compensation to the Occupiers of Tenements in certain cases where the houses in which they live are taken or demolished under statutory or compulsory powers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR COHEN, Mr. RITCHIE, and Mr. ROUNDELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 64.]

  PARISH CHURCHES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ALBERT GREY, Bill to declare and enact the Law as to the rights of parishioners in respect of their Parish Churches, ordered to he brought in by Mr. ALBERT GREY, Mr. FRANCIS BUXTON, Mr. COURTAULD, Mr. CROPPER, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 65.]

  CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Bill for providing for the revision of Cathedral Statutes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Mr. CROPPER, and Mr. DALRYMPLE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 66.]

  SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Bill to amend the Law of Settlement and Removal, ordered to be brought in by Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Mr. PELL, Mr. CORRY, Mr. LEWIS, and Mr. O'SULLIVAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 67.]

  MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER, Bill to amend the Law with respect to the division of Municipal Boroughs into Wards, and the determintion of the number of Councillors in a Borough, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, and Mr. SHIELD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 68.]

  BROKERS (CITY OF LONDON) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RICHARD MARTIN, Bill for the Relief of the Brokers of the City of London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RICHARD MARTIN, Mr. MAGNIAC, and Mr. FRANCIS BUXTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 69.]

  TITHE RENT EXTRAORDINARY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. INDERWICK, Bill to amend the Law relating to Extraordinary Tithe Rent-charges, ordered to be brought in by Mr. INDERWICK, Mr. DUCKHAM, Mr. EDWARD LEATHAM, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. VIVIAN, and Mr. WALTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 70.]

  COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel NOLAN, Bill to afford Compensation for Improvements in Towns, Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Colonel NOLAN, Mr. MARTIN, Mr. BIGGAR, Mr. O'SHEA, Mr. SMALL, and Mr. SULLIVAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 71.]

  HACKNEY CARRIAGE LAWS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND, Bill to amend the Metropolitan Hackney Carriage Laws, ordered to he brought in by Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND and Baron DE WORMS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 72.]

  MARRIAGE HOURS EXTENSION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Bill to amend the legal Hours of Marriage, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Mr. MONK, and Mr. CAINE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 73.]

  BURIAL FEES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Bill to amend the Law relating to Burial, Monumental,

  283
  and Mortuary Fees, ordered to be brought in by Sir ALEXANDER GORDON and Mr. BRINTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 74.]

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION OVER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Bill to amend the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Acts so far as they relate to children and young persons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GIBSON, Sir RICHARD WALLACE, Mr. BLAKE, and Mr. CORRY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 75.]

  ELECTIVE COUNTY BOARDS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel NOLAN, Bill to establish Elective County Boards in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Colonel NOLAN and Mr. O'SHEA.

  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JOHN MORLEY, Bill to provide for the examination of persons having charge of Steam Engines and Boilers on land, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN MORLEY, Mr. BROADHURST, Mr. BURT, and Mr. CRAIG.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 76.]

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SHELL, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Municipal Franchise in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHEIL, Mr. RICHARD POWER, and Mr. SMALL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 77.]

  LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. M'LAREN, Bill to amend "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,"ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAREN, Sir DANIEL GOOCH, and Mr. SLAGG.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 78.]

  SALE OF SPIRITS (MIXED TRADERS).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal such sections of any Act of Parliament as enable mixed traders, other than duly licensed victuallers, to deal in the retail sale of spirits and liqueurs.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered, to be brought in by Mr. KENNARD, Viscount FOLKESTONE, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Mr. STAE-FORD HOWARD, and Mr. CROPPER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 79.]

  YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DUNDAS, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Registration of Deeds and other matters affecting lands and hereditaments within the North, East, and West Ridings of the county of York, ordered to be
  284
  brought in by Mr. DUNDAS, Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. GUY DAWNAY, Sir ANDREW FAIRBAIRN, and Mr. CHARLES WILSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 80.]

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. THEODORE FRY, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in the county of Durham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. THEODORE FRY, Mr. WALTER, JAMES, Mr. LAMBTON, Mr. DODDS, Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON, Mr. GOURLEY, and Mr. THOMAS THOMPSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 81.]

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT (1878) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JAMES HOWARD, Bill to amend "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES HOWARD and Mr. BORLASE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 82.]

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LEA, Bill to vest the control of the Board of Works in Ireland in the Irish Executive, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LEA, Mr. THOMAS DICKSON, and Mr. FIND-LATER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 83.]

  STAGE PLAYS (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SHIELD, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Licensing and Performance of Stage Plays in the city of Oxford and town of Cambridge, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHIELD, Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER, Mr. BULWER, and Mr. HANBURY-TRACY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 84.]

  RECLAMATION OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, Bill to facilitate the Reclamation of Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, Colonel NOLAN, Mr. O'SULLIVAN, Mr. HARRINGTON, Mr. SHEIL, and Mr. MOLLOY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 85.]

  FISHERY LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CORRY, Bill to amend the Law relating to Fisheries in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CORRY and Lord ARTHUR HILL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 86.]

  DUBLIN MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to confer further powers upon the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland of acquiring lands in

  285
  Dublin for all or any of the purposes of "The Dublin Science and Art Museum Act, 1877," ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 59.]

  COMMONS AND INCLOSURE ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL,
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Bill to amend the Commons and Inclosure Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Mr. STOREY-MASKELYNE, Mr. BRYCE, Mr. PELL, Lord ARTHUR RUSSELL, and Mr. CHEETHAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 87.]

  CORN SALES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RANKIN, Bill to provide for greater uniformity in the weights and measures used in the Sale of Corn, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RANKIN, Sir JOSEPH BAILEY, Mr. DUCKHAM, Mr. BIDDELL, Mr. DAVENPORT, and Mr. WILLIAMSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 88.]

  IRISH LAND COURT OFFICERS (EXCLUSION FROM PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BRODRICK, Bill restricting the eligibility of Officials under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act (1881)" to become candidates for Seats in Parliament, ordered to be brought in by" Mr. BRODRICK, Lord ARTHUR HILL, and Mr. MACARTNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 89.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—VOTE OF CENSURE.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I propose on Tuesday next to make the following Motion:—
  "That this House, having read and considered the Correspondence laid on the Table by Her Majesty's command, is of opinion that the recent lamentable events in the Soudan are due in a great measure to the vacillating and inconsistent policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government."

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.

  QUESTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have deferred putting a Question about General Gordon till the last moment, as the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is not in his place, and I will now put it to the most dignified Member of the Government present, the Lord President of the Council. Is the noble Lord able to toll me whether there is any truth in the news which has been spread about London that General Gordon is taken?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): I have only this moment heard of the report, but not from any official quarter.
  Earl GRANVILLE having at this moment taken his place—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYagain rose and said: I wish to ask the noble Earl, whether there is any foundation for the report which is prevalent in London that General Gordon is taken?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I was informed about an hour ago that the second edition of The Daily News contained a telegram to the effect stated by the noble Marquess. We have had no information of that kind. Not being able to get the second edition, I sent to The Daily News office to know the particulars, and I have just received a note from the editor, in which he says that they had received a telegram to that effect, but they did not publish, it be-

  165
  cause they did not attach any weight to it.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER,in rising to ask, What wore the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the "Criminal Law Amendment Bill, for the better protection of Women and Children," said, the subject was one of considerable importance, and was viewed with very great anxiety by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that a Bill dealing with the question was introduced in that House last Session. That Bill was founded upon the Report of a Special Committee, and many of their Lordships took a very great interest in it. He was sorry to say, however, that although the measure passed through all its stages in their Lordships' House it fell through owing to the pressure of Business in "another place." No doubt, the miscreants who got their living by plying this detestable trade were only too glad to be left alone. But he trusted that their Lordships would come to the conclusion that the matter should not be allowed to rest where it was at the present moment. He knew the deepest interest was taken in the Bill by the noble Lord who had charge of it last Session, and he hoped the Government would now be in a position to inform the House that they intended to bring in a judicious measure upon the subject without delay.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in reply, said, he was afraid he could not give an answer to the Question which the right rev. Prelate would be likely to think altogether satisfactory. The subject was discussed last year, and it was found to be one of considerable difficulty. All he could say was that in the present state of Public Business it was almost impossible for the Government to decide what course they would take with the Bill; but when Public Business was more advanced they would consider how they could best deal with the matter.

FRANCHISE (IRELAND),

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK,in moving for a Return showing the population in each county, city, and borough in Ire-
  166
  land returning Members to Parliament; together with the acreage, the valuation of rateable property, the number of registered voters, the number of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, and the number of inhabited houses in each, at their different ratings, said, that a Return very like this was moved for in 1880. It only, however, referred to cities and boroughs, whilst the Return he now ventured to move for extended to counties. It was a matter of great interest to many Irishmen at the present time to know certain particulars about the population, valuation, and other details connected with the counties, cities, and boroughs of Ireland. The Return which he moved for had been drawn up in consultation with various Gentlemen, some of them belonging to the House of Commons, and they had expressed the opinion that it would be a most desirable Return for the Government to grant and for them to have. Their Lordships would see the object of it. They had been told that there was some chance, this year, of legislation dealing with the extension of the occupation franchise to Ireland, and it was well that they should know what class of persons would be enfranchised by any measure the Government might introduce, what was the nature of the inhabited houses in the various counties, cities, and boroughs in Ireland, and whether a large number of those houses were not occupied by persons very little above the pauper class. He could not think that the Return would take any very great time in preparing, and if the Government intended to introduce a Franchise Bill, the information was no doubt in their possession. They must, he thought, have considered the details which he asked for if they had come to the conclusion to bring in such a measure. He might mention that the previous Return, referring only to boroughs, was so easily obtained that although the Order of their Lordships' House was obtained on the 24th June, 1880, the Return was ordered to be printed on the 5th July, 1880, so that it practically took less than a fortnight to secure the Return.
  Moved, "That there he laid before this House, Return, showing—

  1. The population in each county, city, and borough in Ireland returning members to Parliament.

  2. The acreage of each of the same.

  167

  3. The valuation of rateable property in each of the same.

  4. The number of registered voters in each of the same.

  5. The number of lands, tenements, or hereditaments in each county as above, rated at

  (1.) £12 and over;

  (2.) Over £4 and less than £12;

  (3.) £4 and under.

  6. The number of lands, tenements, or hereditaments in each city and borough, as above, rated at

  (1.) Over£4;

  (2.) £4 and under.

  7. The number of inhabited houses in each county, city, and borough as above, rated at

  (1.) £12 and over;

  (2.) Over £4 and less than £12;

  (3.) Over £1 and not exceeding £4;

  (4.) £1 and under."—(The Earl of Limerick.)

  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL),in reply, said, he was afraid there would be very great difficulty in preparing the Return. With respect to the first four heads of the Return, there would be, of course, no difficulty in obtaining the information which would come under them, which information would be easily accessible without preparing such a document. The difficulty lay in the heads 5, 6, and 7, which required an elaborate classification of all lands, tenements, and hereditaments throughout Ireland, and also of the inhabited houses in the cities and boroughs there. He had received a full statement from the Commissioner of Valuation in Dublin, in which that gentleman stated that it was absolutely out of his power at this time of the year to undertake that classification. The Commissioner stated that the whole of his staff were engaged upon the work of the annual revision of the valuation of Ireland, work which must be completed under Statute by a certain day, and that it would be absolutely impossible for him to withdraw them from that work. The Commissioner added that it would make such an important addition to his work, that it would take away the greater portion of his staff for two months from the revision of the valuation. Under those circumstances, he (Lord Carlingford) did not see how it would be possible for the Government to require the Commissioner of Valuation at the present time to perform the work of preparing the Return which the noble Earl desired to obtain.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, the really valuable part of the information
  168
  would be under heads 5, 6, and 7. As to the details being elaborate, those of the Return of 1880 were as elaborate, and yet he would remind the noble Lord that no difficulty was experienced in supplying them in about 10 days. He thought that before any measure was proposed by the Government for extending the franchise in Ireland, they ought to know what class of persons would be introduced upon the registers. Unless his Motion were agreed to, he should divide the House upon it.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 34: Majority 4.

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Brabourne, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Cadogan, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Egerton, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

  Hardwicke, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Lucan, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Romney, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Bagot, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Grafton, D.

  Dorchester, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Gwydir, L.

  Derby, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Granville, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie,)

  Morley, E. [Teller.]

  Northbrook, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Sudeley, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Belper, E.

  Tweeddale, E. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Blachford, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Waveney, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. PARNELL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether Mr. Parnell, M.P. for Cork, has not ceased to be on the Commission of the Peace; and, if so, when he ceased to be so, and whether it was by his own resignation or by removal from the Magistracy? The noble Earl said that two years ago he put a corresponding Question to the Government. After the passing of the Coercion Act, during which Members of the Government so strongly denounced the proceedings of the Land League, of which Mr. Parnell was President, he was told, to his surprise, that Mr. Parnell was still a Justice of the Peace. He then lost no time in putting a Question to the Government on the subject, and the Lord President answered him with much complacency that Mr. Parnell had been 10 years a magistrate for the County of Wicklow and was so still. He thought nothing more of the matter until the recent remarkable removal of Lord Rossmore from the Commission of the Peace. Then, looking to the list of magistrates in Thom's well known Directory, he found that Mr. Parnell's name had disappeared therefrom. He therefore begged to ask how this removal had occurred?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that he had obtained the necessary information from the Lord Chancellor's Office in Dublin. It appeared that Mr. Parnell was removed from the magistracy. The warrant for the writ superseding him as Justice of the Peace for the County of Wicklow was signed by the Lord Chancellor on the 14th of October, 1881; the writ of supersedeas had been forwarded to the Clerk of the Peace in Dublin on the 15th of October, and it was handed to Mr. Parnell while under arrest in Kilmainham on the 18th of October.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.