said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is prepared to state what steps will be taken by Government in consequence of the Report of the Second Commission on the Grievances of Indian Officers?

replied that he could only say that the very difficult and complicated matter to which the Question of the noble Lord referred, had met with the earliest and most earnest attention of the Secretary of State; but it was, of course, impossible to state the conclusions at which he had not yet arrived, nor was it even possible to name a day on which such a statement could be made, but he might assure the House that his noble Friend (Earl de Grey) would give his earnest and continuous attention to the subject. The House would not begrudge the time necessary to arrive at a conclusion, considering the importance of coming to one which should, if possible, be final, and put a stop to discussion on a vexed question.

said, he wished to ask, Whether the Government propose to introduce any measure to authorize the collection of Agricultural Statistics in Great Britain?

It is the intention of the Government to ask for the same Vote as last year for the collection of those statistics.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If the Reports of the Veterinary Department relating to the Cattle Plague can specify in more detail the Returns of the cattle attacked, killed, or died; whether cows, oxen, or calves?

said, in reply, that up to the present time the Reports had not distinguished between oxen, cows, I and calves. But for the future the duty of sending in those Returns would be intrusted to the local authorities, who would be required to make them to the Privy Council in such form and at such time as they might think fit. He could see no objection, but, on the contrary, great advantage, in adopting the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman,

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, in view of the Order in Council 4th July, 1865, and also of the Order 19th February, 1866, relating to "sheep-pox or variola ovina," his attention has been given to the Eighth Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs, in which that disorder is termed "scab or variola ovina," the first name implying a disease not uncommon in this country, and very easily cured; and whether he has noticed, in the same Report and page (26), that mention is made of

"Diseases which are sometimes erroneously supposed to be peculiar to Foreign Cattle, but which in reality have existed in the United Kingdom many years before the importation of Foreign animals commenced."

replied, that he had read the Report, and the passage to which the hon. Baronet had refered was this—

"The sheep affected by scab or variola ovina are rather more than 1 per cent."

He could not believe, however, that the Commissioners really intended to say that "scab" and "variola ovina" were syno-nymus, as they differed in much the same way as itch and smallpox in the human frame. The opinion expressed in the latter part of the Question was a very safe and very possibly a sound one. But from whatever places they came they were now seated in the country. Whether the rinderpest or the variola ovina was imported or not seemed a matter of little importance. The vital question was, were they contagious, were they likely to spread, and what were the precautions to be taken against them? Precautions had been taken. Out of seventy sheep lately imported from Copenhagen into Northamptonshire eight had the variola ovina, and of a neighbouring flock of eighty-eight ten had died and ten were suffering. The district had been isolated, and, whatever the opinion of the hon. Baronet might be, the general belief was that absolute isolation ought to be enforced.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home De- partment, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill into Parliament during the present Session to amend the Law relating to Weights and Measures?

, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session on the subject. The special object of the Bill would be to transfer to the Department of the Board of Trade all the duties at present imposed by various Acts of Parliament on the Controller General of the Exchequer, and to place on a more satisfactory footing the custody of our standards.

said, it would have nothing to do with the coinage.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has reason to believe that the alleged Official Report of Mr. Gordon's trial, which has been published in England, may be received as an authentic copy of the proceedings?

Sir, the authentic report of the proceedings on Mr. Gordon's trial, with many other documents, sent by Mr. Eyre to Sir Henry Storks, will form part of the subject-matter of inquiry by the Commission. No copy of those proceedings has reached me, and of course it is not in my power to express any opinion with respect to them.

I should like to ask a Question bearing upon this subject, which, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer to-night, perhaps he will answer to-morrow. The question is this—Would he be willing to lay upon the table of the House the Despatches received at the War Department, and at the Admiralty, from officers in those services connected with the recent transactions in Jamaica? I presume they must have arrived in this country; and perhaps the Government and the right hon. Gentleman will have no objection to let the House and the country be fully informed respecting them.

The despatches which I have laid upon the table are those which have passed between me and the Governor of Jamaica. With regard to the Question which the hon. Gentleman has put, it certainly requires notice, and as the papers have been sent to other Departments I cannot give an answer.

Then I will ask the Question another evening.

said, he wished to put a Question, of which he had given private notice, and it would be desirable to say a few words first in explanation. The facts were these. He received a letter yesterday morning from an influential constituent asking him to obtain a copy of the Cattle Diseases Act. He was not able, however, to get a copy yesterday; but in The Times of this morning he saw a notice that the Act had been delivered yesterday. He called at the Sale Office to-day, and inquired why he could not get a copy the day before. The answer he got was that the Act had been sold yesterday in such numbers for the private profit of the Queen's printer that they were unable to deliver copies of it that morning, and consequently Members could not obtain them. Now, he begged to ask Her Majesty's Government, Why the public were to be served before Members, and why Members were to be hindered so long from seeing the fruits of their own devices and wranglings; and, secondly, as 40,000 copies of The Times could be delivered before seven o'clock in the morning, why the public and the House of Commons could not be served with copies of the Act on the same day?

said, he had received the note which the noble Lord addressed to him only a few minutes ago, and therefore he could not answer his questions. All he could say was this. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, immediately after the passing of the Act, desired a letter to be written to the Queen's printer, urging the extreme importance of circulating the Act with the least possible delay among the local authorities all over the country. All the information that he had received was that this Act had been circulated among the local authorities of counties yesterday, and to-day copies would be circulated among the local authorities of boroughs.

I can add some information on this subject to that which has just been given. The noble Lord communicated with me since the House met. I sent for the chief officer in the Vote Office, and he informed me that he had not received from the Queen's printer any copies of the Act to distribute to Members. The noble Lord states that they have been sold to the public. If that be the case, I should consider that there has been a great omission on the part of the Queen's printer. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), yesterday mentioned to me the great wish which he knew prevailed that this Act should be speedily printed, and at my request the Clerk at the Table wrote immediately to the Clerk of the Parliaments, wishing that he would communicate with the Queen's printer, and inform him that the utmost expedition should be employed in forwarding the printing of that Act. However, it appears that the copies of the Act have not yet been delivered at the Vote Office. Although this House has not an immediate control over the Queen's printer, I think I may venture to say that a communication shall be made to the Clerk of the Parliaments to prevent the recurrence of such a circumstance.

stated, that although by the ordinary law the Commissioners could not meet without ten day's notice, he intended to move the insertion of a clause in the Bill of the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), which would obviate the inconvenience, and allow the Commissioners to meet immediately.

Sir, I rise to state that it is not my intention to offer any opposition to the plan which the Government has proposed upon this subject. I feel that it must be a subject of very sincere regret to both sides of this House, and I have no doubt whatever that it is a matter of sincere regret to Her Majesty's Government, that we are thus compelled to take what I may call a retrograde step in colonial policy, by repealing, or, at all events, temporarily suspending the free representative Constitution which has been enjoyed by the colony of Jamaica for upwards of 200 years. But, notwithstanding the regret which I feel for the necessity of taking this retrograde step, I think it will not be necessary that we should enter at any length into a discussion either as to the state of Jamaica or the causes which have induced Her Majesty's Government to come to Parliament with this proposal to suspend the Constitution. I think it impossible that any one who is cognizant of the recent history of Jamaica, or who has made himself acquainted with the contents of the Papers which have lately been laid before us, to doubt that the Government have really very little option in adopting the course which they now have done, and asking the House to consent to the measure which they have submitted to our notice. No one can have read those Papers or have reflected on the history of Jamaica without feeling that the state of that colony has been sadly changed by the events of the last few years, by that policy which, whether right or wrong, was adopted by the Imperial Government with regard to the production of sugar in the West India Islands. Whether that policy were wise or unwise it is now too late to consider, but I think there can be no doubt that the effect of that policy has been to involve this island of Jamaica in a state of increasing misfortune and decay, the result of which is that there now remains in the island neither material for a free representative Assembly nor the basis upon which a free representative Assembly could be founded. The proposal which Her Majesty's Government has submitted to us is very similar to a proposal submitted to the House by the Government in the year 1839, but one difference is this. In 1839 the island of Jamaica was in a state of great excitement, and great party violence prevailed there in consequence of the emancipation of the slaves. Further—I think unfortunately—that measure was proposed in this House at a time when party spirit ran very high, when political parties were very nearly balanced, and when a great party struggle for the government of the country was in progress. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies was then in Parliament—I think not; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Member at the time, and if I remember aright he was, like myself, one of that very powerful party which, although in fact a minority, was sufficiently strong to put an end to that measure. I frankly confess my belief that it was unfortunate that we arrived at that conclusion. My opinion is, that if the state of politics had allowed that question to be considered in the calm and dispassionate manner in which we consider the present measure, and if that suspension of the Constitution had then been carried, the history of Jamaica during the years which have intervened would in all probability have been less disastrous than they have been. Another respect in which the cases are dissimilar is that in that case a difference had arisen between the Legislature of Jamaica and the Legislature of the mother country, whereas now there is no difference of opinion between the Legislature of Jamaica and the Legislature of the mother country, and Her Majesty's Government are proceeding to suspend the Constitution of Jamaica, not only because in their judgment that suspension is necessary, but because the Jamaica Government itself has abdicated its functions and declared its own incompetence and incapacity to carry on the business of the colony. Under these circumstances, I, for one, can have no doubt that it is my duty as a Member of this House to give my support to Her Majesty's Government in the proposal which they have made; and with regard to that part of the proposal which relates to the manner in which the Government of Jamaica is to be conducted during the three years in which the Constitution is to be suspended, I think that is a point which we ought to leave to the discretion of Her Majesty's Ministers. It will be at once the course the most prudent and the most acceptable to the colony. I therefore give my cordial support to the proposal which Her Majesty's Government have made. There is one other point to which I will venture for a moment to request the attention of the House. I am most anxious that this occasion should not be taken advantage of by Gentlemen on either side of the House [cheers] to initiate a discussion upon recent events in Jamaica. I am glad to hear those cheers; they strengthen me in the hope that I may appeal to the good feeling of Gentlemen on both sides of the House, whatever may be the impression produced upon their minds, to acquiesce in the strong opinion I express that at this moment, while a solemn inquiry is being conducted by a Royal Commission into the unfortunate occurrences at Jamaica, and the conduct of the civil and military authorities there, any discussion of these matters would be premature, and that we are bound in fairness, in honour, and in justice, to suspend our judgments, with regard to the merits or demerits of the conduct of those concerned, until the decision of the Commission is in our hands. I hope I may be met in the spirit in which I speak by the Secretary of State if I strongly deprecate, above all, anything like prejudging the conduct of the parties concerned on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman because I am disposed to believe that a very erroneous impression widely prevails with regard to the manner in which Governor Eyre has been treated by the Ministry. I believe there is a wide impression that, by suspending Governor Eyre, the Government have prejudged and condemned him, and that his suspension was a penal suspension. In justice to the Government, I am bound to say that I, for one, never shared that opinion. I believe, on the contrary, that the Government intended to treat Governor Eyre with perfect fairness. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in suspending Governor Eyre from his official functions, had no intention to prejudge him or to express any opinion one way or the other with regard to his conduct. His suspension was nothing more than an indispensable consequence of an official investigation by a Royal Commission, during whose inquiries it was impossible he could discharge the duties of Governor. It was to facilitate this inquiry that he was sus- pended, and it was not the intention of the Government to prejudge or condemn him. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have no hesitation in confirming that view.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether it was true, as was stated on the authority of a Member of the late Jamaica House of Assembly, that the population of the island—about equal to that of Sheffield—was taxed to the amount of £45,000 per year for the maintenance of an ecclesiastical establishment to which not more than one-eighth of the people belong. If the statement were true, he asked from the Government an explanation of their intentions for the future. Was this canker on the prosperity of the island to continue? Was £45,000, or any sum, to be exacted from the people to support a Church to which they did not belong? If so, the island would never be happy. This state of things was worse even than that which existed in Ireland, for in Ireland the Established Church was maintained by the property of the country, whereas in Jamaica it was supported out of taxes levied for that purpose. It was impossible to expect the great majority of the people of Jamaica to submit to a tax so unfairly proportioned,

said, that every one who took an interest in the affairs of Jamaica must feel thankful to the Colonial Secretary for bringing in this Bill. There were great differences of opinion in re-gard to the unhappy event in the island, but he was glad that all parties were now disposed to hold their judgments in abeyance until the report of the Commission was received. The late Assembly of Jamaica was a body which really commanded the respect of no one, and therefore no one regretted its abolition. During the thirty years of its existence it had grossly mismanaged the affairs of the island, and it had failed to introduce any measures adapted to the state of society as changed by negro emancipation. The only good law the Assembly passed was that by which it abolished itself. The Bill now before the House simply affirmed what the Assembly had done. While he heartily approved the Bill, he must say that the period of three years was too short to make an experiment upon the island. He hoped the Bill would not be so limited. Jamaica required, among other changes, a strong Government in order to restore order among the excitable population. The country also needed independent Judges and magistrates, who would be able to administer justice with impartiality. Ample provision, too, must be made for the education of the people. At present great ignorance prevailed in the island. Some time would necessarily elapse before a good Government would be appreciated and the excited feelings of the country allayed. When there should be a good and firm Government, and when justice should be impartially administered to them, and an interest be manifested in their welfare by the authorities, the past unfortunate proceedings would soon vanish from their memory. While, however, there remained evidences of discontent and disorder in the island, capital would never flow to it and commerce would decline.

stated that he had, in common with other Members of the House, received a very extraordinary epistle from one of its Members, a Gentleman whose acquaintance he had never had the honour of making, and to whom he had never spoken. Whether it was Parliamentary to characterize the conduct of the hon. Member by the phrase an "unwarrantable liberty," he did not know, but would, if the Speaker should intimate that it was not, apply a more mitigated expression to it. He would take the liberty of reading the letter which had been addressed to him by the hon. Member for Surrey—

"At the Conservative dinner at Leeds you attacked those who had denounced the doings in Jamaica in very strong terms. I hope you will not shrink from making the same charges in the House of Commons face to face with us. Your speech will, I believe, be alluded to."

In the first place, he would tell the hon. Member for Surrey that he was not one of those who were in the habit of saying things behind a man's back that he would not say to his face, and in the House of Commons too. He was not one to shrink from his duty. Now, as he had been challenged to repeat what he had said at Leeds, the House would allow him a few minutes while he read an extract from the speech which had so much galled the hon. Member. It ran thus—

"He wished to make one or two observations with regard to the Jamaica question. Was there ever anything in this world so disreputable as the conduct of certain parties? Let them take the facts as they stood. An insurrection, planned years ago, broke out before all the plans were matured. He thanked God that it did, and it showed that there was a Providence which overlooked us all, and no doubt the premature outbreak of that insurrection was a means to an end. The intention of half-a-million of negroes was to massacre the 15,000 white men in the island, and to take possession of the soil to the exclusion of its rightful proprietors. Fortunately, before these plans were matured, the plot exploded, and they had to thank Governor Eyre for the prompt and energetic manner in which he crushed that rebellion. He hanged its ringleaders, and what then followed? By the return mail thanks and congratulations were sent out from Lord Russell and the Colonial Minister, who appreciated the services of Governor Eyre, and also the services of the army generally. Immediately this was known there was a great howl in Exeter Hall among the Baptists and philanthropists. Mr. Bright denounced the Government of Jamaica and everybody connected with its policy, and said it was wrong altogether. But the fact was that had it not been for Governor Eyre's promptitude in the way in which he dealt with those atrocious murderers, who had already sacrificed the lives of numbers of our countrymen, the whole white population of that island would have ceased to exist months ago. Lord Russell, feeling the iron hand of Mr. Bright, trembled in his shoes, and wrote out at once to suspend Governor Eyre, that a Commission would issue forthwith, thus punishing him prematurely, and the troops, instead of receiving honour from the Crown, had to abide the result of the inquiry. Was there ever such a miserable piece of administration? Was there ever such gross injustice done, not merely to Governor Eyre, but to the gallant troops under his command? If the troops of the British Isles—if the troops under the command of Her Majesty—were to receive no thanks from the weak, impotent, degraded Government, where were they to look? Where would the country find troops to serve her, or Governors to protect her colonies, if they were thus treated?"

Having read the words he had uttered at the meeting held at Leeds, he must thank the hon. Member for the honour he had thus conferred upon him in bringing his name before the House of Commons; because he thus obtained the opportunity of making the world aware of what were the notions of one Member, at all events, respecting the atrocities committed in Jamaica, and the conduct of the Government towards the Governor of that island. His speech at Leeds was certainly an after-dinner effusion, and, therefore, it would not, perhaps, go far beyond the precincts of the town; but now, in consequence of the interference of the hon. Member for Surrey, he was able, by means of the press, to place his views before the country. If, however, the House of Commons were to be called upon to listen to what had occurred at public meetings throughout the country, its time would be wasted and the interests of the nation altogether Colonel Edwards neglected. He therefore hoped the conduct which the hon. Member for Surrey had pursued would be generally discouraged by the House. He did not retract a single syllable he had uttered in his speech at Leeds. His impression at the time he made it was that it was entirely correct from beginning to end, and that impression had since become a conviction, and neither the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey, nor those of any other Member, would change his views untill he had seen the Report of the Royal Commission.

Sir, I am glad-notwithstanding the little episode to which we have just listened—it appears to be the opinion of the House that we are acting wisely in avoiding discussion with reference to the late proceedings in Jamaica. In answering the appeal made by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington) that we should proceed with the Bill without reference to the general question, it is only necessary I should say, that as has been most handsomely admitted by my right hon. Friend, the course we have been compelled to take was, upon the whole, the only course open to us. I have great pleasure in stating that the construction he has put upon that course, in regard to the motives of the Government, is the true and right construction. Nothing was further from our intention than in the smallest degree to prejudge the case on either side; and I am bound to say that I can conceive no conduct more unworthy than ours would have been if we had sent the Governor before the Royal Commission with any prejudgment expressed by us with regard to any portion of his conduct. Perhaps I may be permitted to read the concluding paragraph of the despatch in which I conveyed to Governor Eyre the views of Her Majesty's Government. In the early portion of the despatch we stated that an inquiry must take place; and that, if it was to be conducted fully and impartially, it must be conducted by independent persons who had themselves taken no part in the proceedings. If we consider the safety of the colony, it was manifest that that safety might be endangered by an inquiry injudiciously conducted. If we consider the efficiency of the inquiry, and the confidence which it ought to inspire in the general community, whether in Jamaica or in this country, it is manifest that it must be conducted by independent persons. The Government rightly thought that it was impossible to hold the Governor responsible for the safety of the colony, and, at the same time, to subject him to a searching inquiry with regard to the measures he had adopted in repressing the outbreak which had already taken place. Whether, therefore, we considered the safety of the colony, the efficiency of the inquiry, or the position of the Governor himself, we felt that it was our duty to direct that the inquiry should be conducted by independent persons. Well, then, Sir, I will read the passage, in order that I may show the feeling entertained by the Government on this subject. It is as follows:—

"In conclusion, I will only repeat on the part of Her Majesty's Government that, while we feel it to be our imperative duty to institute this inquiry, we desire by every means in our power to guard against in any way prejudging its result. Our earnest hope is that the result will he to satisfy us on the points on which it is necessary for us to be satisfied, and at the same time to exhibit the conduct of those whose duty has compelled them to take part in those proceedings, and to whom the suppression of the outbreak is due, in a light consistent with their position and character, and especially, in your own case, with that high character for courage and humanity for which you have always been distinguished."

I trust that these views of Her Majesty's Government will be a conclusive proof that the credit which the right hon. Gentleman so handsomely gave us for the motives which influenced us was not undeserved. With respect to the measure now before us, I have little more to add except to express my obligations to the House for the candid manner in which the proposal has been received. It is, no doubt, a matter of great regret to both sides of the House that a popular form of Government which has existed for 200 years should come to a conclusion, and that we should be compelled to substitute for it the form of Government now proposed. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those who have traced the history of Jamaica from 1839 to this time may well doubt whether it would not have been for the benefit of the colony that the step which we now propose had been taken before. There is no doubt that Jamaica, from its natural advantages,—from its soil, from the splendour of its climate, and its great suitability for all tropical productions, was once by far the most flourishing and valuable of our West Indian possessions. At the time of emancipation it received the larger part of the money voted for that object, and in exports, population, and wealth it was then nearly equal to all our other West Indian pos- sessions taken together. From that period it has afforded a melancholy example of declension and decay. It is now agreed by its own Legislature that the time has arrived for a change in the form of its Government. That Legislature has made a proposal which Parliament is about to sanction, and therefore, with the concurrence of this House and of the Legislature of Jamaica, we are about to institute this experiment. The hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Hadfield) has asked me what we are about to do with the ecclesiastical establishments of Jamaica. My answer is that we are now about to establish a form of Government, and that our first duty will be to consider what the institutions of the island are, and to endeavour to bring them into a working form most likely to promote the prosperity of the island. I am sure my hon. Friend will see that nothing would be more premature or ill-advised than to make declarations on the subject to which he has referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Crum-Ewing) has said that the success of this measure will depend on its being temporary or permanent, and in that to a great extent I agree. I have not the least reason to suppose that the House will determine, at the expiration of three years, the period proposed to restore the former Legislature of Jamaica. But in our present state of imperfect information during the pendency of an inquiry, it is much more natural that we should avail ourselves of the elasticity of the power of modifying our proceedings by Orders in Council. At the time this Bill shall expire, the House may have the subject before it more fully and in a more perfect shape. I do not at all anticipate that at the expiration of that time we shall recur to the ancient Constitution of Jamaica. The House will probably continue the present Bill. We think that a form of Government which is preferred in Trinidad, Ceylon, and the Mauritius is most likely to promote the prosperity of Jamaica. I have again to thank the House for the kind manner in which they have received this measure.

said, that no one could feel more then he did the wisdom of the advice that no allusion should be made at this period to the events which had taken place in Jamaica; and therefore, in the few remarks which he was about to make, he would be careful not to say a single word upon the subject. Of the composition of the Commission there could be no question. Sir Henry Storks was one of the best men that could be chosen, and each of the other members was, he believed, equally well qualified for a duty which was likely to tax all their ability and resolution. Nothing could be more true than the remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and other hon. Members, that the Constitution of Jamaica had been the great barrier to her prosperity. The frequent elections which took place turned away the people from habits of industry to political excitement. Valuable time was wasted in the House of Assembly in undignified squabbles with the Legislative Council, in abortive measures, and in jobs of every kind The right hon. Baronet had referred to the crisis of 1839. Again in 1849, on a question of the reduction of salaries, the House of Assembly refused to perform its duties, and the effect was that the rum duties were lost to the amount of £50,000. In 1853 the taxes were not collected, and the duties not levied for nearly six months, and by that £177,000 was lost, and a permanent debt of £130,000 was incurred, the matter resulting, as was said, in a handsome profit to some of the members through whom the crisis had come about. The Constitution of 1854 was an attempt to have responsible and representative Government without party. It was entirely unworkable, but no doubt the object aimed at was the right one, because in a case like Jamaica party strife became a conflict of races. Jamaica was rapidly returning into its original wilderness, and, under the circumstances, it was clear that a change was necessary. It was to be hoped that when some time had passed away they would find, instead of the ruin that was impending, returning prosperity, because he felt certain that the form of Government which now prevailed in Trinidad, and which was about to be applied to Jamaica, was the only one fitted to the circumstances of that community.

said, he was intimately acquainted with the West India Islands, and he felt convinced that the Government which existed in Trinidad—consisting of a Governor and a Council of nominated men—was infinitely preferable to that absurd burlesque of the British Constitution which existed in times past, but was now perishing in Jamaica.

said he should not remark on the singular and strange part which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Edwards) opposite took in replying to the letter addressed to him; nor should he reply to his remarks or go into any discussion on the question. He entirely agreed that it would be far better to suspend judgment for a few weeks until the report of the Royal Commission had been received. He only wished to say, in regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as applied to himself and those with whom he acted, that they would not cause him or any one else an instant's pain. He confessed, however, that the tremendous and sweeping charges which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made against the whole negro race of the island, while he (Mr. Buxton) and his friends had been accused day by day of prejudging the case against Governor Eyre, had stung him and all who took a deep interest in the welfare of that race. He firmly believed that the negroes would be proved innocent of any such deep diabolical design as a conspiracy to murder the white population of the island. If the discussion had gone on, he should have been rejoiced to lay before the House what he considered overwhelming proof that no such idea had ever been entertained by the negroes.

opposed the clause as being most dangerous.

consented to its omission.

objected to the adoption of this clause. It would give full liberty to persons to move cattle freely across moors and other open places.

said, that if the clause was not adopted the result would ruin some hundred small farmers in his district. These persons sent their cattle to graze on commons, and if the clause were rejected they would be ruined.

said, that he had not introduced the clause, nor did he give it his approval.

proposed to add at the end of the clause the following words:—

"Any person wilfully driving, or allowing any cattle under his charge to be driven, or to stray into any field sufficiently fenced without the consent of the owner or occupier thereof, shall, on conviction before two justices of the peace, be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding thirty days, and the cattle may be slaughtered by order of the said justices if they so think fit."

trusted that his hon. Friend would withdraw the addition, and allow it to come up on the Report.

hoped they would have no clauses proposed on the Report, and entreated the Committee to dispose that evening of all the matters in dispute, in order that when they came to the Report there might be nothing left to be done but to make such verbal alterations as would render the language of the Bill clear.

said, he felt bound to oppose the insertion of the proposed words unless they were brought forward for discussion upon the Report. Penalties like that of thirty days' hard labour could not be imposed upon persons without due consideration.

said, he would consent to withdraw his Amendment for the present, and bring it up again on the Report. It was very essential that the malpractices of drovers should be prevented by proper punishment.

explained that when he ex- pressed the hope that there would be no new clauses on the Report, he did not mean to refer to the Amendments desired by the Scotch Members, who, he understood, had met that day and agreed as to what was necessary to make the Bill applicable to Scotland.

said, he hoped to have the clauses applicable to Scotland ready for delivery that night.

said, a number of Amendments and new clauses had been put upon the paper only that morning, to which he had not been able to give more than a casual and imperfect consideration. He must, therefore, distinctly reserve, on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, his right to raise any question on the Report.

must say he trusted that the way in which they had received at the hands of his hon. Friend, during the passage of the Government Bill through Committee, several clauses which were in manuscript only would form some sort of precedent for the spirit in which his own clauses would be received by the Committee.

thought that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew) was very important. There was a case within his own knowledge where a drover had bought some cattle which proved to be diseased, and turned these beasts into a field on a farm without the occupier's permission. The consequence was, that the cattle on the farm had become infected, and the farmer had suffered a severe loss. Such acts required to be stopped by severe punishments.

also argued that a penalty of a much more stringent character than a fine of £5 was absolutely necessary to protect stock-owners against such serious crimes.

suggested, that the object in view might be attained by adding to the end of the 28th clause words to the effect that any person wilfully driving or allowing any beast under his charge to be driven or to stray into any field that was sufficiently fenced, without the consent of the owner, should be deemed to have moved such beast in contravention of the Act. In that way the offender would be brought under the general penalties of the Bill.

objected to the clause in its present form.

drew attention to the fact that the clause made no provision for the payment of the inspectors to be appointed under it.

said the clause was very-important. Of 1,100 cows in the city of Edinburgh 600 had died of the cattle plague, which had spread with amazing rapidity in consequence of the imperfect accommodation provided in that city. He hoped that the power given by this clause to the magistrates to remedy the state of things to which he had referred would not be taken away. There was no difficulty whatever in reference to the payment of the inspectors, as the officers at present in the employ of the magistrates would be able to fulfil the duties imposed by the clause, or in case of any difficulty the magistrates themselves might act as inspectors.

hoped the clause would be allowed to remain in the Bill.

regarded the clause as the most valuable part of the whole Bill. He hoped that in future sanatory regulations with respect to cattle would be more strictly enforced.

said, he had merely wished to point out the fact that the clause did not state how the inspectors were to be remunerated. He might also remark that in many towns there were no persons who answered to the description of magistrates of boroughs, except the police magistrates, within whose functions the appointment of cattle inspectors could scarcely be intended to come.

thought no difficulty would arise as to the payment of the inspectors to be appointed under this clause. In his opinion the scope of the clause might be extended with advantage; for if cow-sheds and large dairies were prohibited in large towns it would be a good step.

suggested that the local authorities, for the purposes of this clause, should be deemed to be the local Boards of Health or the town councils in place of the magistrates of boroughs, and that such local authorities should have the power to pay the expenses to be incurred under this clause out of the borough rate.

thought it a pity to waste time in discussing a clause of this character when the Bill was only to be in force until the 24th of March. If the existing large dairies in towns were to be done away with during the suspension of the cattle traffic, what was to become of the cows? The subject might be worth consideration with the view to permanent legislation, but it should not be dealt with in a temporary Bill like that now before the House.

said, the discussion of the clause he was now about to move would probably occupy more time than any other clause which had been taken into consideration during the evening. This clause related to imported beasts; and the principle upon which it was based was that imported beasts should, if possible, be slaughtered at the place of landing, or, if that were wholly impossible from the circumstances of any port, that they should be taken to the nearest slaughterhouse, there to be slaughtered, or to lairs adjacent, where they should remain until they were slaughtered; and that under no circumstances whatever should they be taken to any market or fair. That was the principle on which he had endeavoured to frame the clause. He had originally proposed that there should be a power of moving cattle to a distance "not exceeding 500 yards" from the port. At that' time, however, he was unable to say whether that would be a sufficient distance in the case of all the ports; but he had since taken care to ascertain the circumstances of every port in reference to this matter. As far as he knew, the clause he had put on the paper must be amended in certain respects in order to suit the convenience of some of those ports, though at the same time it was not his intention to infringe the principle which he had laid down in preparing the clause. The alterations he had to propose would give certain relaxations with regard to several ports, but except in the case of two of them the distance would not be extended beyond a mile. The clause he should propose was in these terms—

"Any live beast landed from a vessel at any port, if sound, may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be moved on a highway to a slaughterhouse, or to any lair, yard, or building adjacent to a slaughterhouse near the place of landing for slaughter; but this enactment shall not authorize the moving of any beast on a highway in any case beyond the district of the local authority within whose district is the port of landing, or for a greater distance than one mile even within those limits."

He believed those words would satisfy the requirements of all the seaport towns, with two exceptions, Leith and Bristol. Leith was rather more than three miles from the slaughterhouses at Edinburgh; but the whole of the road along which cattle would go to it from the port of Leith was wholly separated either by wharf warehouses or market gardens from any places where beasts were kept. That, therefore, was an exceptional case. Then came the case of the port of Bristol. Now, there was no licensed slaughterhouse, nor any yard or lair, adjacent to that port, within the jurisdiction of the mayor and corporation of Bristol. The place of landing was about two miles and a half from the licensed slaughterhouses of that city. He was informed that all these slaughterhouses lay very near together, and that there were yards adjoining them in which animals could be kept until they were slaughtered. The route to the slaughterhouse was through quays and streets, and he believed there was no beast known to be kept in any place abutting upon the road along which the animals would have to pass. It seemed to him that the port of Bristol might fairly be made an exception to the general rule. He would not deal with the case of Liverpool, as his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) would bring forward the case of that port. He would be prepared to deal with that case when it arose, and he should advocate adherence to the general principle he had laid down. He came now, however, to the much-vexed question as to the port of London, and he must repeat what he had said the other day, that he did not intend, if he could help it, to make an exception in the case of London. The London market was the central market for the supply of meat to all parts of the country. At the present time—and the regulation would continue till the 24th of March—no beast within the meaning of the Act would be able to enter the London market except the few beasts which were kept within a six-mile radius of that market—and there were, in fact, none, or next to none, within that radius. He confessed this was a strong proposition; but he hoped the Committee would think the circumstances of the case warranted it. They had stopped the use of all cattle-trucks until they had been cleansed, and they had stopped the transit of cattle by railway—and this they had done, in order to insure against spreading the infection. Now the London market was the centre and focus of infection. Indeed, those who had inquired into the matter were thoroughly satisfied that the disease was carried into the provinces from the Metropolitan Market, though the provinces had returned the favour by sending it back again to the London market until the passing of the Act which had just received the Royal Assent, The consequence had been that nearly all the lairs in the immediate neighbourhood of the Loudon market were infected. The metropolitan Members might be sceptical as to his theories on infection, but they were based upon the opinions and observations of those who had studied the subject. Now, it was a generally admitted fact that the chance of infection was nowhere greater than when the animals were placed upon infected ground. If, however, no new animals were put into such lairs, and no fresh moisture admitted, the place became more or less desiccated and disinfected. If that were so, he had made out a strong case for the disuse for a time of the Metropolitan Market and the lairs connected with it. He would now proceed to another point, and here he confessed he felt strongly the necessity of what he should propose. By the Bill which had just received the Royal Assent, no British beast could enter the Metropolitan Market, unless uninfected and from within a six-mile radius. The plague had carried off all the beasts within that radius except milch cows, and they were very few; and he was told that nearly the whole of the lairs in the market and in its neighbourhood were infected, and therefore that cattle put into those lairs would run the highest possible amount of risk. But were they to admit foreign beasts into the London market when British beasts were excluded? If it could be shown that there was a necessity for doing so, his case was gone. He did not wish to give the British dealer a single advantage over the foreign dealer, but he was bound to protect the former against the latter. Unless his Bill were carried in its entirety, the foreign beasts would gain such an enormous advantage, that the foreign dealer would really have a monopoly of the market. He had no fear of the London market not being supplied with dead meat, and he would, moreover, encourage the bringing of dead meat from abroad. He would further encourage the importation of live beasts from abroad and from Ireland; but he would have them slaughtered at the port at which they were landed, allowing them to travel such a distance as might be consistent with safety, and giving them no advantage over English beasts which could be avoided. If it were necessary that beasts should be slaughtered at the Metropolitan Market, there was an end of his case, and he admitted the seriousness of the proposition he was making. Within the last few days he had made a personal examination of the neighbourhood of the wharves where imported cattle were landed. The port of London had four wharves specially applied to that purpose. Dublin-wharf, near the Tower, was the highest up the river, and was a very small one. Newcastle-wharf was a small one and little business was done at it. The wharf at which most cattle were landed was Brown's-wharf, Poplar, and then there was the Brunswick-wharf at Blackwall. Upon the quay of the last-named wharf, there was what seemed to him to be a very large building in which cattle not passed by the inspectors were slaughtered. The evidence taken by the Commission showed that the meshes of the inspectors' nets were very wide, and that many infected animals slipped through them, as, owing to the pressure of business, it was impossible that complete examination could be made in the allotted time. Many infected animals, therefore, got into the London market. He saw one at Brunswick-wharf that was being dressed, and it was so decidedly unhealthy that it could not have been passed as a sound one even by one of the metropolitan Members, who were better judges of men than they were of beasts. The building, however, was large enough to give great accommodation for slaughtering beasts. At Brown's-wharf he was informed there was considerable accommodation for the slaughter of beasts. A few days ago he received a communication from a gentleman named Odams, representing that he was manager of, and principal shareholder in, a company called the Wharfing and Warehousing Company, which had extensive premises immediately contiguous to the Victoria Docks. Mr. Odams let him have a plan of the premises, which were built for the petroleum trade, and if the Committee would allow him he would exhibit it just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had once shown the House certain articles manufactured out of a new material. [The hon. Gentleman here held up the plan to the view of the Committee.] The wharf where those premises were was from 500 to 800 yards below the place where most beasts were now landed. There were sixteen sheds now on the premises, ten of them 150 feet long by 30 wide, and six the same length by 60 feet wide. Three of those larger sheds were open at one side, and were exceedingly well ventilated, the roof being to some extent open in order to allow the fumes of the petroleum to escape. These three sheds were admirably adapted for the reception of the animals, and for judging them before they were slaughtered. There were on the other side three more sheds 150 feet long by 60 wide, which would be available for dead meat to hang by the carcass or joint until sent away. He would no doubt be asked, were they high enough for the purpose? Experience was the best test. He had the height of the beam in Brunswick-wharf, from which he saw the ox suspended measured, and the carcass did not touch the ground. He had himself measured the buildings which he now recommended as a fit place for slaughterhouses, and found that the same height could be obtained there. He would admit that at the present moment there were no beams fixed, but there were piers strengthening the brick-work at every ten feet, and from each pier beams could be placed. The beams which he saw used at Brunswick-wharf were movable, and similar ones might be obtained from any timber merchant's yard at thirty-six hours' notice. So much for the capabilities of the place inside; but how about getting the beasts there? That, he admitted, was the weak part of the case. The landing-place had been constructed only for the reception of barrels and casks, and in its present state beasts could not be safely landed there. But Mr. Odams said that if the place were used for slaughtering animals during the month of March, and if he was properly remunerated, he would be prepared at the end of a week to have stages up so that beasts could be landed there. Whether that could be done or not he would not say, for he was no judge; but he believed Mr. Odams would undertake that they could. It might be said now, "Oh! here is the Member for Northamptonshire got hold of by a man who wants to turn his premises to account." But he told Mr. Odams that he must be excused if he took his statement with reserve, and should wish to have it confirmed by some person in the trade. Mr. Odams said that was perfectly reasonable, and he should be furnished with the confirmation he desired. Accordingly, he had received a letter from Mr. Odams giving the authority of Mr. Baker for what he had said. He did not himself know Mr. Baker, but he was informed by one of the largest West End butchers that Mr. Baker was one of the most extensive slaughtermen and Government contractors that we had. In that letter Mr. Odams said that Mr. Baker, after comparing these premises with his own at Deptford, where his beasts were slaughtered, was of opinion that there was ample room on the premises for all the foreign cattle that would come into London up to July, and that there would be quite sufficient time to provide for the summer requirements. Now, the next question was, supposing those premises to be put to the use he proposed, would there be conveniences for getting away the meat? The time occupied in travelling by water from the premises in question to Woolwich Arsenal was only ten minutes; and this was a great point in connection with the supply of the victualling yards there. A more important point was the conveyance of meat to other parts of the country. There was abutting upon the premises, or within three or four yards of them, a line called the Old North Woolwich line, now in the hands of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and up to it were tramways, though of a different gauge, laid for the conveyance of goods. The London dead-meat market was not in direct communication with the premises, and at present dead meat could not be conveyed thence by rail to any point nearer than a mile of Newgate Market; but if permanent foreign cattle markets were contemplated, a line could be constructed through the sheds he had mentioned from the Old North Woolwich line, and that this could be extended in the other direction so as to reach the dead-meat market. Some weeks ago the Secretary for the Home Department was kind enough to say to him, "Granting you can supply London with dead meat, it does not follow that you can provide for the great inland towns." His plan, however, would show that those great towns could receive meat directly from Mr. Odam's premises, for the North Woolwich line communicated with the Great Northern, the Midland, the North-Western, and the Great Western Railways. It was possible that hon. Members representing metropolitan constituencies might say, "You have got a Member of Parliament to exercise his very poor judgment on the matter, and you have a greatly interested owner of premises, and a Government contractor, who would like to have the meat near the Deptford victualling yard which he supplies." If, however, he were to advance nothing further in support of his case, he confessed that it might be open to that objection; but he was going to cite the admission of two hostile witnesses who came to combat the scheme proposed. Their names were very well known through their having given evidence before the Cattle Plague Commissioners. Messrs. Honck and Hicks were two of the largest consignees of foreign cattle in London, and they therefore might be considered to represent the trade. They stated that great inconvenience would be entailed by slaughtering all the cattle at the port. He produced to them his scheme, and asked if they were acquainted with Mr. Odam's premises. They replied, "Oh, yes, we know them well; but we hope we shall not be driven to slaughter the cattle there." He then asked, "Do you mean to say there is no accommodation for slaughtering there?" They said, "Oh, yes; if it comes to that, there is accommodation." These were statements from persons whe would do all in their power to prevent the adoption of the scheme he had laid before the Committee. He then asked what was their objection, and they replied, "It will put us to great inconvenience if we have to remove the dead meat from these premises to the market in London." He said, "Why so? You can go by railway within a mile of the market." "Yes," they said, "but the customers who have usually attended in the London market will not be so ready to meet us at the place you have named, and, in consequence, the price of our meat will be depreciated." He then asked what would be the effect upon the trade of the Amendment carried the other day with regard to the prohibition of the movement of cattle by rail; but they did not give him an answer. He, however, learnt by the expression of their countenances that that Amendment would be very advantageous to them if they should succeed in getting foreign cattle to the port of London. It was perfectly obvious that if they secured the exclusive use of the market of London the value of their property would be very much enhanced. He told them he thought they had no right to complain. He (Mr. Hunt) said it would be an enormous advantage to the public if these premises and the land around could be secured as a permanent foreign cattle market. He believed that the greater part of the disease that affected our herds was derived through the medium of foreign cattle, and was of opinion that foreign fat cattle ought never to leave the port of London alive, and that all foreign store cattle in the port of London ought to be inspected and quarantined. If that was desirable he could not conceive any place better adapted to such purposes than the premises he had named. The land comprised an area of twenty-five acres. A great part of it was swampy and wanted filling up with ballast to make a standing place for beasts, but with some outlay of money he could not conceive that any place could be more adapted for the purpose. It was bounded on the south by the river, on the west by the Victoria Docks, on the east by a watercourse running through Plaistow Marshes, and on the north by the Old North Woolwich line. It was completely isolated, therefore, from all places where cattle not intended for immediate slaughter were kept by farmers or others. There was room there for slaughtering the animals, for dressing the meat and hanging it up till removal, for preparing the hides, hoofs, and horns; and there were facilities for carrying away the meat and those portions of the beasts which were not used as human food. This sounded like a magnificent scheme; and hon. Members might, perhaps, say that Mr. Odams had got hold of him, and that he had shown himself very ready to listen to that gentleman's recommendation of the premises; but he could assure them that Mr. Odams was a perfect stranger to him. He knew nothing about him or his company; but certainly it did appear to him that the proposal was one worthy of consideration. He asked Mr. Odams whether he had communicated with the Government, and he replied that he had done so. He said that as long ago as October he had communicated with the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and that, lately, he had communicated with the Under Secretary of State; adding that his letters had been acknowledged, but that no further notice had been taken of the matter. He had no doubt the Government had caused inquiries to be made, and the premises to be inspected by trustworthy persons; and if they had done so, what they would lay before the Committee would be a great guide in the matter. He must apologize to the Committee for having trespassed so long upon their attention; but the matter was an important and difficult one, and he was anxious to point out a way of getting out of the difficulty. If they were able to prevent foreign cattle landing in London from obtaining an advantage over their own, and keeping up the infection, a great step would be gained. He had put this information before the Committee, and he hoped they would support him in the views he had stated.

said, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), as well as one or two friends who were supporting him, appeared to be very jealous of any one knowing anything about the cattle plague. He (Mr. Ayrton) never had pretended to any special knowledge of the subject. He had intervened once or twice on the general principles of legislation, and he thought that on each occasion of his intervention the hon. Member admitted he was wrong, or else made a correction exactly in the sense he had suggested. He was going to intervene now because the hon. Member was not only dealing with the cattle plague in the country, but was plaguing them with the cattle disease in town. The elaborate speech just delivered by the hon. Member went to show that he felt the question to be a difficult one, and that he entertained very great doubt of what he was doing. [Mr. HUNT: No!] Well, the hon. Gentleman ought to entertain very great doubt of it. He would now call the attention of the Committee to the present position of the question, both as regarded London and other large towns. The fundamental error with which the hon. Gentleman began and ended was the supposition that the foreigner would get a great advantage if this protective clause were not carried. According to the present law cattle imported into any port could not be moved except by sea from the port into which they had been brought; but, practically, there was a very large area of England into which foreign cattle could be imported. London was not the only town of cattle import. The inland towns would derive a benefit from the regulation preventing imported cattle from being conveyed inland, because they would not have the competition of cattle coming in by sea. It was clear that there was no possibility of contaminating cattle in the country by those brought into seaport towns; and, therefore, the former were sufficiently protected. But the hon. Gentleman objected to imported cattle being moved to a distance of six miles for slaughter. He would, however, remind him that, by one of the exceptions already objected, home cattle could be carried about the country to a distance of six miles for the purpose of slaughter; there was no objection to bringing an animal a distance of six miles for breeding purposes; and calves could be moved twenty miles from the cow. This being so, the first thing which would occur to one was, that imported cattle might be moved to a distance of six miles for slaughter; but this was what the hon. Member for Northampton objected to. The hon. Gentleman wanted to have a quarantine of twenty-five days established in the Metropolitan Cattle Market. He presumed the hon. Member and his friends regarded that market as an Augean stable, which it would take twenty-five days to clean. Nothing could be more ridiculous. Such was the condition in which the Me- tropolitan Cattle Market was kept, that he believed it to be one of the cleanest places to be found in the metropolis. ["Hear!'] The hon. Gentleman who cried "hear!" must not know that market. The first question to be considered was this—what was the nature of the London cattle trade? The sales in the Metropolitan Cattle Market amounted to something like 7,000 or 8,000 head of cattle, and yet the metropolis was suffering from a scarcity in the meat supply. He believed that the metropolis and other large towns had a right to expect freedom in the importation of cattle brought by sea for the purpose of affording some alleviation of the embarrassments to which the prohibition of the movement of cattle in the interior of the country would necessarily give rise, and the importation by sea, large as it was at the present moment, must inevitably increase as soon as the inland supplies fall off, or were altogether withdrawn. A trade of such magnitude necessitated preparations upon a corresponding scale. Landing-places, markets, slaughterhouse—all should be proportioned to the extent of the traffic; and it was not to be supposed that an established industry like that of the meat supply to London was all in one day to be overturned and re-created. The hon. Member said he had only seen four places where cattle were actually imported into the metropolis; but some strange confusion appeared to exist in his mind between the metropolis and the port of London. The port of London began at Gravesend, and ended at Staines; and the arrangements for the supply of cattle throughout that district would, of necessity, be somewhat complicated. But confining their attention to the metropolis, the hon. Member it seemed had got a project which enabled him utterly to disregard and supersede the course of the trade for years past. The hon. Member had met some old man or old woman who had given him a plan and project. The hon. Member, in his capacity of projector, became therefore one of those dangerous and often deceptive persons against whom it was necessary to be upon one's guard. He had occupied three quarters of an hour in going through the details of his project, just as any projector would do in a Committee-room upstairs, endeavouring to persuade hon. Members that he had got a good project which would benefit everybody but the inventor himself. Unfortunately, the hon. Member wished to back up his project with what amounted to compulsory legislation, imposing however a severe tax and great inconvenience upon a large branch of industry for the benefit of this Mr. Odham. What guarantee was there that, if everybody were compelled to go to his place, he would give it to the metropolis at a reasonable price? The hon. Member for Northamptonshire was not authorized to negotiate on his behalf. [Mr. HUNT: You have got power under the Act to take lands.] The hon. Member, if he entered into that question, would get into great difficulties. Mr. Odham's land, moreover, lay not in the metropolis, but in Essex. Of course, everybody between Gravesend and London could point to a great many acres of land and say, "These are at the disposal of the metropolis, to carry on all the industry which is now carried on in London." But before the House could legislate upon the subject, possession of the land must first be acquired, and an Act passed regulating the tolls. It must be seen, moreover, that everybody obtained the same right of use and access upon proper and recognized conditions. The hon. Member put nothing in effect more than a sheet of paper before the House, and were they to proceed upon the mere scheme of a projector, anxious to turn his land to account? He had land which he could not use, petroleum casks without any oil in them; and he said to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, "Bring my sheds and my petroleum casks before the House and I will undertake to supply all the wants of the metropolis." Even in connection with the Cattle Plague Bill, this was hardly a proposition that ought to have been brought before the House. Into the conversations held with Messrs. Honks and Hicks he would not enter. Many conversations had been preserved, both of the living and the dead, but conversations more uninteresting than those held by the hon. Member he had never heard. He should be sorry if the task of annotation fell to his lot, for certainly they were anything but instructive. All those Gentlemen, of course, held particular opinions and views; but he was not there to deal with private theories. What he looked at was the general benefit and the interests of great and established branches of industry. The hon. Member would not let cattle be driven six miles through the metropolis; but he would let them be driven six miles to a slaughterhouse in the country, though the dan- ger there was infinitely greater. What could possibly be infected in London except the cowhouses? and these were screened from the thoroughfares through which the animals should pass. [Mr. HUNT: We in the country are not allowed to drive cattle to market.] Yes; but to the slaughterhouse it was perfectly legitimate to drive them along narrow lanes separated only by a hedge from other animals grazing in the field. To conduct the meat trade of the metropolis, it was absolutely necessary that the beasts imported should be brought to market. It was idle to suppose that all the butchers of the metropolis would go down to the water-side and wait for animals to be landed there, buy them, have them slaughtered on the spot, and then wait the arrival and debarkation of fresh ones. Business could never be conducted on such principles as that. The cattle must be regularly brought to a place where buyers could see them, and where buyers could assemble; and in close proximity to which were regularly licensed slaughterhouses. A single animal sufficing for the consumption of a village might be slaughtered almost anywhere, but it was different with a great meat trade like that of London. Arrangements could never be made in the way suggested for slaughtering thousands of cattle from week to week, and he was prepared to go the length of saying not only that cattle imported should have free access to market, but that they should remain free within the limits of the metropolis. How else were the dairies to be restocked? This was a very serious question, for the price of milk already had gone up 25 per cent, and persons ought to be encouraged to restock their dairies at the earliest moment. The reproductive power of the 16,000 dairy cows in London in a short time would replace all the cattle destroyed by the plague. Was it to be laid down broadly that in the metropolis there was no longer to be any breeding of cattle? In the manufacture of beer millions of quarters of malt were consumed in London. After the manufacture of the beer there was, of course, a great quantity of grains, which was excellent cattle food, and the result was that cows could be maintained cheaper in London than in any other part of the kingdom. If the proposed clause was adopted, the people of London should look to Northamptonshire for milk, and everybody knew what wretched stuff Northamptonshire milk was. The London milk dealers complained that the Northamptonshire farmers watered the milk before they sent it to London, thus depriving the dealers of their just rights and privileges. The milk from the London cows was, on the contrary, very good, because cows in London dairies were well fed and well cared for. He could see no reason whatever that could justify the House in ruining the London dairy proprietors for the benefit of the Northamptonshire farmers. He strongly objected to the representatives of inland counties endeavouring to introduce into the Bill clauses calculated to serve their own constituencies and to injure the cattle trade of large seaport towns. If the clause now before the House was adopted, its effect would be of most serious inconvenience to all the inhabitants, and positive ruin to many of those engaged in the London cattle trade.

said, that it was true that the passing of the clause might injure some private interests, but they were not there to consider private interests, but were there to see what they could do to check the progress of the cattle plague. They all knew that the disease had been first imported into this country from abroad, and there was no better way of checking the spread of the disease than the adoption of the clause now before them, which would effectually prevent diseased cattle coming into the country from abroad. It was impossible by the adoption of any precaution to discover whether animals coming from abroad were sound or not. He had known cases in which the very best judges of cattle bought animals as sound which afterwards turned out to have been suffering from the plague at the time of their purchase into the country. Whether that interfered with the trade or not they knew very well that the safety of our whole herds depended upon it, and the farmers and graziers of the country were perfectly alive to that, and would do anything to prevent the importation of the disease into the country. Unless they did something to check the passage of the disease through the country they would do very little good at all.

said, that the hon. Member who had just addressed the House spoke of the opponents of the clause as persons who supported private interests. He did not see how the interests of the three million of people who inhabited the metropolis could be called private interests. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) prudently made Bristol one of the proposed exceptions to the working of the clause. He did this because he knew that there was a great cattle trade between Ireland and Bristol, and he hoped that by excepting Bristol from the working of the clause he would obtain the support of the Irish Members. Now he (Mr. Crawford) told the Irish Members that, if the clause was adopted, it would entirely destroy any trade in cattle now existing between Ireland and London. He feared, from the arguments on which the hon. Member for Northamptonshire based his views with reference to the importation of foreign cattle, that that gentleman was returning to the doctrine of protection. It was well known that the Jews, many of whom lived in the east of London, could not eat the flesh of animals unless it were dressed in accordance with their customs. He apprehended it would not be possible to set up an establishment in the proposed slaughtering place to suit them; but if this were not done, and the clause were carried, he thought it would be little less than tyranny. He trusted the Committee would deal with the matter in a liberal spirit, and not permit the importation of meat to be restricted in such a way as to deal harshly with any one class.

feared the last speaker had totally misapprehended the motive of those whom he opposed. They had no desire to stop the importation of live cattle to London. On the contrary, they wished to have as much foreign meat as possible, provided it could be brought without fear of infecting the cattle of this country afresh. The hon. Members for the metropolis seemed to consider the interests of the metropolis the major point, and the stoppage of the cattle plague the minor point. But that House had to consider, not whether or not they should stop the importation of foreign cattle, but what means they could devise to prevent the propagation of the disease. With respect to the first point, he believed they were agreed that the nearer the meat was brought to the consumer the easier the offal could be conveyed away, and the nearer a place for the disposal of the hides was to the market the better. The site in the neighbourhood of the Victoria Docks answered all these requirements most admirably. Near the large tract of land spoken of—and it was of little value— they had the Blackwall Railway and the North London Railway; and by these the meat could be taken to Newgate or White-chapel with remarkable ease. He had been told that two-thirds of the meat imported to London was consumed by the people living in the East End; and yet some hon. Gentlemen proposed to send the cattle six miles from the landing place, and, having there slaughtered the beasts, to carry the carcases back to Whitechapel. It would not do to dispose of the question by saying it was only for three weeks. As long as the rinderpest lasted the restrictions proposed would have to be continued, and it was a delusion to think the rinderpest would end in three weeks. Then with regard to the disposal of the offal. Within 400 yards of the Victoria Docks' site was a large manure factory which used up the blood and offal of 2,500 animals weekly. How much better would it be to remove the offal to this factory than to carry it through the heart of London to Bermondsey from Islington or the many little slaughterhouses in the City! He was told that the hides went to Bermondsey. If they took the foreign beasts to Copenhagen Fields, what was to become of the hides? Why, carts must be got to take them to Bermondsey, whereas if the cattle were slaughtered on the banks of the Thames the hides might be placed on barges and taken to Bermondsey close to the manufactories. He submitted he had proved his case. He thought he had never heard two gentlemen endeavour to do more mischief to their constituents than the two metropolitan Members who had addressed the House to-night. In spite of all the care of the inspectors, some diseased animals might slip through. They would, at all events, come over now and then with infected animals, and would carry with them the germs of the disease. Then what would become of the calves of these cows? They were to be sent into the country to be taken care of, and there was great danger that they would propagate the disease. The sheep, too, were to go back to the country again. There were instances of sheep carrying the infection; they were to go into the same market with the cattle; and there was cause for apprehension that the sheep would take the infection into the country with them. His hon. Friend and those who supported him did not wish to do anything either directly or indirectly to prejudice the admission of live cattle into the port of London, or to hinder the best and largest supply of meat for the metropolis.

said, he had an Amendment to propose by way of rider to the clause.

said, it would not be competent for the hon. Member to propose it at the present stage.

said, he would postpone the Amendment until the proper moment. He wished, however, to explain that the port with which he was connected was peculiarly situated. The cattle market of Liverpool was in the jurisdiction of the county magistrates, being about 1,000 yards from the boundaries of the borough. The way from the point of landing was more a street than a highway, being lined with houses almost continuously. From the market, within the jurisdiction of the county magistrates, the cattle were brought back again within the jurisdiction of the local authorities, and were there slaughtered. That there was no danger from the free use of the cattle market might be inferred from the fact that the county magistrates, on the 29th of January, passed a resolution, permitting cattle to come within their jurisdiction to be sold, and returned to town for slaughter. He knew how difficult it was to make out a case for exception, but he based his appeal to the Committee upon the peculiar position of the trade, which would inevitably centre in Liverpool as soon as the present Bill passed. Liverpool must become the centre of supply of dead meat for the large manufacturing towns of Lancashire and the depot of the meat-producing districts of the north of England and Ireland. On these grounds he trusted that the Committee would not object to add a third exception to the two already admitted in the Bill.

pointed out that the great difficulties attending the clause were demonstrated by the fact that it had been four times modified, and that the hon. Mover had intimated a probability that coming telegrams might show the necessity of still farther alterations. He acquitted the hon. Gentleman opposite who raised this question of any intention to raise the question of protection. He did not believe that any man would divide the interest of England and Ireland in this matter, and the effect of the clause was to throw the same obstructions in the way of the cattle trade with Ireland and foreign countries. Looking at the clause, he should say that it was both unnecessary and im- practicable. The pith of it was, that all beasts imported should go no further than one mile from the place of landing, and at the end of that mile they must be slaughtered. Now, in the Bill passed the other day on that subject it was enacted that all cattle brought by sea to any town or place should not be allowed to leave such town or place alive. Where, then, was the necessity for the present clause? Why, it rather weakened the effect of the clause which was already law, because it would cease to operate, together with the whole of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, on the 25th of March, whereas the Government measure would continue in operation till the 15th of April next. It was said that certain conveniences for the disposal of cattle would be erected below Blackwall, and that was the only suggestion which the hon. Member had to offer to explain how the cattle landed at the port of London could be killed within a mile of the spot of landing. The carrying out of the clause would be impracticable in the port of London, and intelligence might soon reach them that it would be equally impracticable in twenty or thirty other ports in the kingdom. Why should not beasts be allowed to be taken through the streets—of London, for instance—or Liverpool? Let them act in that matter like sensible men, dealing with infected places strictly, but not imposing vexatious or harassing restrictions without sufficient cause. The hon. Member wished to have Islington market thoroughly cleansed; but, if the clause passed, it would by no means secure that object, for the market would be still open for sheep and pigs. No animal could now leave the metropolis alive, and therefore it was impossible the plague could be spread by means of that market. The supply of beasts to this great metropolis was already affected to a serious extent by the stoppage of cattle transit by rail, and he was sure the Committee would, after all, feel that it was a question of some importance how more than 3,000,000 people were to be fed.

said, he would not object to the second reading of the clause, but meant immediately afterwards to move an Amendment in it. If they did not pass the clause, there could be no movement of cattle at all in the streets of London. ["No!"] He maintained that, having already passed one Bill allowing such movement, if they now passed another Bill saying there was to be no such movement they would thereby repeal the provisions in the previous Act. It was necessary, therefore, now to pass some clause making exceptions to the general enactment; and, the hon. Member's clause being one of a sweeping character, he would propose an Amendment to modify it.

wished the port of Glasgow to be excepted.

said, that Glasgow would be dealt with as favourably by his proposal as any other large town.

asked, whether the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets meant, in speaking of the limits of the metropolis, to take in a radius of twelve miles from the General Post Office?

replied that he meant the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, not the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police.

said, we should be in constant danger of having the plague renewed throughout the country, even though we should be so fortunate as to get rid of it for the present, unless some means were taken to prevent the intermixture in the markets adjoining the various ports of the cattle driven to them for sale with those imported from abroad. The danger of such intermixture was especially great now, owing to the ramifications of Continental railways extending in those districts in which the disease seemed regularly established. He wished, under these circumstances, to learn from the Government whether their attention would be directed to the subject with the view of introducing some permanent measure, which might contain provisions calculated to prevent this danger.

said, that the law gave power to prevent the importation of cattle from any country in which the disease was known to exist. He could not at the present moment pledge the Government to bring in a permanent measure on this subject which should come into operation on the 25th of March next, though they might make some proposal for regulating the movement of cattle whether infected or not. He thought he might add that the House was hardly spending its time very usefully in legislating for so short a period.

concurred with the right hon. Gentleman so far as to admit that there had been a considerable waste of time that evening in discussing very trifling matters; but he warned him that he was losing a most valuable opportunity if he did not undertake to introduce such a measure as would guard this country against the recurrence of the cattle plague. In Prussia a perpetual war was maintained against the disease from one end of the year to the other; and now that railways brought us into constant communication with Hungary and other places which seemed to be permanent seats of the disease, it was absolutely necessary that the system of traffic in foreign cattle should be placed on a satisfactory footing, with a view to ward off, as far as possible, future danger.

said, he thought it most imperative that some steps should be taken to secure an inspection of vessels engaged in cattle traffic between this and foreign countries, particularly with a view of securing a free circulation of air through all parts of the vessel, plenty of room, and a sufficiency of provender. No cattle, moreover, ought to be allowed on deck. If he saw no sign from the Government of a desire to attain this object he should be disposed to blame them, and to charge the President of the Board of Trade with a remissness of duty.

said, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had had nume- rous conferences with gentlemen engaged largely in the trade of hides and skins in the borough which he (Mr. Baines) had the honour to represent, as well as in other places; and he must say that the hon. Gentleman had not only met them in a most liberal manner, but the entire series of clauses now added to the Bill were entirely satisfactory to them.

proposed to add at end of this clause a section placing the inspection of cowhouses, &c, and cattle-sheds in burghs and populous places in Scotland under the Commissioners appointed under the "Police and Improvement Scotland Act."

was afraid when the Bill reached the other House with such a clause it would appear they had almost spent much of their time in vain. He hoped something would be done to make the Bill rather more worthy of all the pains they had taken with it.

thought they had been utterly wasting their time if the Bill was only to continue in operation for three weeks. He had to-day received from several quarters the strongest expressions of opinion that some system should be adopted permanently to regulate cattle traffic in England. The Government had turned their attention to this point, but they were completely stopped by the course which had been taken on the other side.

said, he could understand the disappointment of hon. Gentlemen op- posite. He had been most strongly urged to limit the Act to the 25th of March. It certainly appeared to him to be the sense of the Committee that the Act should be temporary and that the Government should, between the present time and the 25th of March, give their attention to the subject and then bring in a Bill either continuing some of its provisions or substituting others for them.

understood his hon. Friend opposite to hold the opinion that the necessities of farmers were such that it was essential that stock should move about the country as early as the 25th of March, and he proposed clauses carrying out that view, He had expected from his hon. Friend something more definite as to what degree of relaxation was necessary for the farming interest after the 25th of March.

said, he had brought in a Bill which was to continue in operation up to a certain time, and in the interval he hoped the Government would give their consideration to the subject. Between this and the 25th of March it would be quite possible to bring in a Bill to continue the provisions of this Act, or to improve upon them.

said, the time of the House would probably be otherwise occupied, and hon. Gentlemen must trust to Orders in Council to continue any of the provisions of this Act.

hoped the Bill would be restricted to the 25th of March, and that the Government would in the meantime give the subject their attention. He was perfectly willing that power should be given to the Government to continue some of the provisions of the Bill; or, if that was not done, a short continuance Act might be introduced for the purpose.

said, he doubted whether by the 24th of March the Bill could be carried out, and in some parts of the country the exceptions contained in the measure would be fatal to its whole object. In districts where there might be a great deal of infection, those on the spot should have the power of abolishing all the exceptions.

said, he thought that the public would be disappointed if all the provisions of this Bill, which had been so carefully considered, should come to an end on the 24th of March. The subject was one which ought to be taken up and dealt with by the Home Office.

said, he saw great difficulty in making any rule applicable to all the various circumstances of different parts of the country, and he considered it best to lay down some general rules, and leave it to the local authorities to adapt them to the different parts of the country.

said, that as far as he knew, it was the unanimous opinion of Scotch Members that the clause should be adopted.

said, that the hon. Member was rather mistaken on that point.

thought the clause gave too much power to parish officers. He was of opinion that it would be better to fix upon some particular officer in each parish, and charge him with the responsibility.

thought it would be better to require no confirmation whatever of the statement of the owners.

said, he should have no objection to add the words, "Parish officers being ratepayers to a certain extent or being owners of cattle."

said, the plan adopted in Northumberland had worked well. There the declaration of the owner was countersigned by two tenant-farmers living in the neighbourhood, who certified that they themselves had seen the cattle and the premises where they were, that they were healthy, and that there was no disease within five miles of the place.

thought a plan which required neighbouring farmers to go on to premises to inspect cattle would be objectionable, as being likely to propagate infection.

said, that some substantial person should be made responsible for the granting of these certificates, for the door would be open to gross fraud if the power were vested in any parish officer.

said, that the system of elected overseers had worked well in Devonshire, which, however, might not be on all fours with other counties. He believed the best plan was to have certificates given by persons elected by farmers, and confirmed as far as might be by magistrates. The next best thing would be to leave the matter in the hands of the magistrates. If a man were elected for a totally different purpose, there was no security whatever, and the principle of popular election was not brought into play. He was sorry that the proposal to appoint overseers had been withdrawn.

thought the local authorities should be at liberty to take the course which they thought most efficient.

suggested that the local authorities should appoint the parish officers.

accepted the suggestion, which was about the only one he had heard from the other side of the House.

said, that in many townships there was only one occupier who could be the parish officer, and that person might possibly be interested in the cattle in question. He proposed an alteration in the clause in conformity with the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney)—namely, to leave the appointment of "person or persons" to sign the certificate to the local authorities.