said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Reports for 1868 of (1.) Committee of Council on Education; (2.) Science and Art Department; (3.) Medical Officer of Privy Council, are to be published during this Session; and, if so, when; and, whether he can assign any reason why the publication of these Reports have been thus delayed until after the Votes to which they have reference?

, in reply, said, that the reason why the Report for 1868 of the Committee of Council on Education had not been published until after the Education Vote was asked for was that the Vote was taken this year many weeks earlier than usual. The Report of the Science and Art Department would be published in a few days. The Report of the Medical Officer of Privy Council had been delayed in consequence of the coloured engravings, but it would shortly be in the hands of Members.

said, he would beg-to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why non-combatant Officers when appointed to mounted corps are compelled to pay ration stoppages, although they received no mounted pay?

said, in reply, that it was impossible to deny "that with reference to non-combatant officers, especially with respect to the medical officers, there was a great inconsistency in their pay. Some years ago the pay of the medical officers in the Army was reconsidered, and the pay of the Infantry medical officers was raised to the level of the Cavalry officers' pay, thereby leaving the Cavalry officers at some disadvantage with respect to forage deductions. It was, however, constantly found that medical officers in the Army were desirous of obtaining commissions in Cavalry regiments.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government have determined to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to report on the mode of conducting medico-legal inquiries as to the operation of the Sanitary Laws?

, in reply, said, that an influential deputation had waited upon him to urge the appointment of a Royal Commission, and the subject would not be lost sight of. Some documents were about to be laid before the Government with a view of seeing what steps should be taken in the matter.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he sees any objection to the appointment of a High Sheriff for each of the Ridings of the county of York—namely, one for the East, one for the West, and one for the North Riding, and, if he does see any difficulty or objections, if he will state the same to the House?

said, in reply, that he had already stated his opinion that it was a very objectionable state of things that any one High Sheriff should have elections to conduct for the three Ridings, with divisions in them, and two assizes. It would not be necessary, he thought, to appoint a Sheriff for each Riding. It would be sufficient to have a Sheriff for the West Riding, to attend the assizes at Leeds, and another for the East and North Ridings, who should attend the assizes at York.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the state of Public Business, and the period of the Session, he would object to substitute a measure having a temporary effect so far as the Indian Council in this Country is concerned, for the proposed Government of India Amendment Bill?

, in reply, said, there would be four vacancies in the Council of India this year, and there would be great difficulty in inducing gentlemen to accept the office, unless they knew the nature of the tenure by which they would hold their offices, and the amount of their salaries. The Government of India Amendment Bill only contained six clauses. The 1st had passed through Committee. To the 3rd, 5th, and 6th there was no objection. The 4th related to the appointment of the Governor General's Council in India, which might give rise to some discussion, and he proposed to withdraw it from the Bill and transfer it to the Governor General of India Bill. The last clause referred to the salaries of future Members of the Council. The Bill stood for Committee that day, and if he was allowed to pass it through Committee at the unopposed hour hon. Members might move any new clauses on the Report, and the field of discussion would thus be much narrowed.

During the long and able address of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson), he referred to me as one partially responsible for the Bill which is now before the House. He has some right to do so, I admit; for on several occasions I have both urged its adoption, and advocated the principle upon which it rests. At the commencement of this Session I expressed my satisfaction at its introduction, in a paragraph in the Queen's Speech. Upon Committee I have given its main provisions my support, both personally and as President of one of those Chambers to which he alludes, he asks me to show cause for this in my place. As far as my humble powers go, he shall have no cause to complain of my reticence in such respect. Nevertheless, in re-opening a debate of so much importance, there are some considerations which press upon me with unusual weight. It seems to me that I have undertaken too much, at least if it is held necessary that I should follow in detail all the arguments the hon. Member has put forth. The ground he covered was immense—Spain, France, Portugal, Denmark and Barking Creek, with accompanying statistics, facts and figures appropriate to each. The right hon. Member for the City of London tells us that a lengthy statement must be answered at length. Why then I pity the House; but, as far as I am concerned, let the House be re-assured my remarks on each topic shall be brief. I shall impose limits on myself. I will not go to Spain or Portugal, or Denmark, or Barking Creek. I will not go into the details of this Bill, nor follow my right hon. Friend into the technical objections he takes. I leave this to more able hands than myself. It is always more pleasant to agree than to differ with my right hon. Friend, and I do agree with him up to a certain point. What is the nature of the Amendment he makes? He affirms a principle from which I do not dissent—that all legislation upon this matter should be of a general and comprehensive class. Well, is it not so up to this point? Why this is the view I have always held, and which I advocated last year in this House. Let us look back. In pursuance of this principle, I urged the adoption of the slaughter clause at all the ports, which by an act of Privy Council was carried out. In accordance with this principle the restrictions then existing upon the home traffic was relaxed, to the immediate benefit of the consumers of meat. The separation of the metropolitan market was urged to the same effect, and this again to be followed by other measures of a consistent class. But the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with this, and he wants legislation of a more comprehensive class, not consecutive measures such as this. Now, our differences begin at that point. Does he really think that we could carry such a measure as this, and can he really throw much blame upon Government for this? The right hon. Member was part of an Administration once; and what took place? A few years since our cattle were dying by scores; meat at famine price; farmers at their wits end; consumers un-consuming; and what took place? If my memory serves me Her Majesty's Government preserved a most majestic attitude, but they did not move in the least. It was a vindication of a great policy, a policy which had a French name. Is this the policy the right hon. Member admires? He did not explain himself quite fully upon that point. The laissez faire did not cure the plague nevertheless. I will not impute it as a fault, for it is, and must be, as far as I can see, a characteristic of the legislation of this House, and Government, such as ours, cannot move until public opinion is expressed. In this then the right hon. Gentleman has blamed the action of the Government, rashly as I think; and there is some heedless rhetoric even on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman may see the errors of that course, but that he himself would take such prompt and decisive measures is what, from these antecedents, I should not expect. But, if such be the case, what next? What is the next step upon our path? A separate market we think. I leave the question of the absolute slaughter apart, and whether this should be discontinued or not. The necessity is certainly very great. Without it no effectual precaution; no good inspection; no quarantine; and lastly, no relaxation of the present restriction can be carried out, safely at least. Surely, it should form part of those complete arrangements you hope to carry out. The reasons against it do not seem to me to possess much weight. If there is difficulty in passing this law, much more so the complete measure of the right hon. Member. Who could get such a Bill through this House? The Select Committee would last several years, and no room in this House would hold the counsel for the defence. You would have deputations several miles long, and Parliament Street under blockade from morning until night. I am aware that there are inconveniences to this partial or consecutive form of legislation; we had an instance not long since. The Government in compliance with the great pressure put upon them by the hon. Member and his Friends on that side of the House, as he says—for I do not say so, mark that—the Government prematurely, as I think, made some relaxation in respect to certain stock—Spanish and Portuguese. Well, what took place? It was found to give an advantage to land borne stock, and difficulties sprung up. This I foresaw from the first. Of this the light hon. Gentleman takes advantage at once, though with some scruples of conscience I should think. If Her Majesty's Ministers will profit by the use made of such a concession it will act as a warning, no doubt. But in connection I with such a measure, my right hon. Friend has really stated a remarkable fact, I mean, what would be inserted in the papers as a remarkable fact along with the big turnip, of course. He tells us that in Manchester and Birmingham it has rained ribs of beef ever since. [An hon. MEMBER: He says "cattle."] Well, that is more remarkable, of course; but for the euphony, I like ribs of beef, if he will permit me for this once:—that may account for the drought. All the rain has turned to ribs of beef. Where on earth could they have come from? Not from Spain or Portugal, without doubt, for the Returns are before us as to that—about 3,000 head into Liverpool during the year. Why, that would not make one moderate shower of beef-steaks. But it has been raining ribs of beef, we are assured of that; and the action of Her Majesty's Government has been the cause of this—we gather that fact, at least. This is one of those acts for which the discretion of the Privy Council ought to be praised according to the theory the right hon. Gentleman has put forth. Does he praise them for this? Why, he does not scruple to say that it is an electioneering trick—raining ribs of beef. Well, I do not wonder at his discomfiture at such a trick as this for an adversary to possess. It outdoes Houdin, and beats Mr. Home outright. There is something substantial about this; and if Her Majesty's Government should exercise this art, put in gentle showers of this sort about Christmas next. I think we shall know what sort of a Parliament to expect. There will not be a Radical returned to this House, and, I am afraid, some very moderate Whigs at best. But is it not just possible that the right hon. Gentleman has been drawing upon his imagination just a little. I, at least, must think so upon one point; and if it has been raining ribs of beef, Her Majesty's Government have shown themselves very weather wise in such respects. I give them full credit for this, while, I doubt, with a view to the present measure, the expediency of the act. Now, let me turn to an argument my right hon. Friend has much pressed—namely, the wisdom and policy of leaving an irresponsible power in the hands of the Privy Council in matters of this class. We have had some experience of government of this sort, and we like government by Acts of Parliament best. Why, what is our experience of this sort of government, and to what has it led? Let us look back a little for this. My right hon. Friend may remember something of this. At a time of a most critical kind it resisted every evidence and advice, scientific and practical alike. Supported by the urban Press, it defied alike science and common sense, and we know the rest. That it was not until scourged by an intolerable and widely-spread plague, and threatened by a famine which reached to these gates that it accorded aught. Nor, indeed, was it until the advent of a new Administration that a real change in its policy took place. Happily for this country that it did so, for let me ask him, and right hon. Members to reflect upon the consequences, had this scourge continued during one more year with wheat at 70s., and the distress of the poorer class increased by it, and who can doubt that, had the Privy Council had its way, this would have been the case? The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to France, and he now recommends us to imitate a policy which is not that of laissez faire—at least, an admirable system no doubt, and followed by an admirable result. Well, once more, let me recall the memory of the right hon. Gentleman to anterior facts. Does my hon. Friend recollect a correspondence with my humble self upon this—writing to him as President of the Board of Trade—as President of a simple "Farmer's Club?" Well, I have copies of these, and their purport is that 1 called upon the President of the Board of Trade to consider the question from the stand-point of France. I urged imitation of that system, and the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture like Mr. Behic, and provincial newspapers called me a modest man, and they were right; but it seems that I was right, too, nevertheless, and it commands the right hon. Gentleman's consent. I have considered the matter well since, and I have come to the conclusion that under Privy Council government that system could not be carried out, though it could under Mr. Behicand the Emperor of France. The difference must at nil times be, that we have no Emperor and we have no Mr. Behic. There is no superior power there to over-rule and meddle and muddle everything it has the misfortune to touch. Here there are several such. Under what influence does the Privy Council act? Under what pressure from without? What has been imputed to it by the right hon. Gentleman himself as a cause for this last Order respecting Portuguese stock? Is there anything to inspire respect in this? Nor, Sir, let me say plainly, does confidence exist? I will not impute it as a fault that a French system cannot be carried out,—we lack every element of success. The high and irresponsible authority, which sets mere selfish suggestions at naught, the skilled official, the aptitude for management, and the patience to endure—all these are wanting to us. But the right hon. Gentleman has complained that no scientific evidence was brought before the Committee by the promoters of this Bill. What is it that the right hon. Gentleman wants? I know that until very lately he had doubts upon a very vital point—namely, the specific origin of this disease. This is an important point. But upon what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman doubt? To us, who are less sceptically minded, the demonstration amounts to proof. In favour of it we have not only the opinions of all our best veterinarians, but the united testimony of all Europe on its behalf. In that great European Congress held at Hamburg in 1863, out of nearly 200 veterinarians, there was not a dissentient voice. Nay, the President, Professor Zugger, speaks thus—

"Rinderpest is not a disease of to-day. It is an old disease, and when we deliberate upon its prevention or limitation, we must not forget its history. And what does that history prove? It proves that the malady spreads as a contagious disease over the West and South of Europe, coming from the East, and this happens always at a time when learned men start the question. Does rinderpest really spread by means of a contagion, or does it not? Does it develop primarily? And when this question, emanating from learned men, excited attention in any country, it was always a misfortune for that country, France, Holland, and England can testify to this."

Now, we, at least, do not want any further demonstration than that which we have so dearly bought, and we can very well dispense with any further doubts of learned men. But the next argument is this. That what we as agriculturalists want, is a gigantic system of Protection for our cattle, similar to that we had for corn. And on this what evidence is adduced? That of Sir James Elphinstone, who says that the present drawback upon Scotch cattle amounts to as much as £2 per head. Well, with the accuracy of his calculation we have little to do; let us assume it to be a fact. Does it at all prove that the consumer would be taxed to this amount? For this is what is said—"Why, it is so much dearer, no doubt, to him. If by any means you reduce the profit of an article to the producer, do you think he will produce at a loss, especially when the reduction is caused by artificial means?" The consumer pays for it, no doubt, and even on the foreign stock, the price of which will be thus artificially enhanced. It acts as a protective duty to him unless he labours under similar disadvantages, and then the consumer pays for both at the increased rate. Well, this is not Free Trade? But "what is Free Trade?" I may at this time, at least, be asked. I will be very plain upon this point. Upon a former occasion the right hon. Member for South Lancashire taunted us. He said that we never lost an occasion of nibbling at this. Now, I will, at least, on the present occasion, leave him no occasion to say so. We are not apt at explanation, and we find it better to call a spade a spade than an agricultural implement, which also might be a rake. What is this Free Trade, of the honour of which right hon. Gentlemen are so susceptible. I say it is time to ask, what is this watchword, or catchword, which we hear from so many lips? All claim it alike. We do know what it has meant, in some cases at least. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman this—applied to Ireland, did it mean Irish depopulation, and that Fenianism which follows upon its wake, to which you offer up the Irish Church? Some facts would lead us to suppose this. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this. In 1660 you passed a law prohibiting the importation of Irish cattle into England, and the land went to tillage, of course. In 1690 you placed 4s. additional duty upon every 20s. worth of broadcloth exported. So sheep and woollen manufactures go out. By 10 Will. III. you put 2s. on serge and baize and kersey. And a little later, by 3 & 4 Anne, you smite the linen trade with a prohibitory law. In 1848 you tell the same people to compete with the whole world in what they like. Now is that Free Trade? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me so? Then it is not (thus applied) a principle I can accept. Once more, does it mean unchecked monopoly and selfishness? Does it mean cattle plague? Does it mean the sale of Alabamas? We have heard it claimed for each. Does it mean the free enjoyment of vice and misery and dirt? Then it is a principle I do not nibble at—I do not accept. If the right hon. Gentleman deign to reply, let him answer this. If not let him once more appeal to popular ignorance and stamp out the doubt. And let him also reply to a greater than I am in this House, who in answer to his imputation at that very time spoke thus—

"In my right hon. Friend's mind political economy seems to stand for a set of practical maxims. It is not a science. It is not a theory of the manner in which causes produce effects. It is a set of practical rules, and these practical rules are indefeasible. Now, so far from being a set of rules to be applied without regard for times, or places, or circumstances, the function of political economy is to enable us to find the rules which ought to govern any state of circumstances with which we have to deal, which are never the same in any two cases. My right hon. Friend has been very plain spoken, and I will be plain spoken too. Political economy has many enemies, but its worst enemies are its friends. It is such modes of argument as this that has made political economy so thoroughly unpopular with a large and not the least philanthropic portion of the people of England. In my hon. Friend's mind political economy seems to exist as a bar, even to the fair consideration of anything that is proposed for the benefit of the economic condition of any people, in any but the old ways."

I place the quotation unreservedly at the disposal of that Bench, and if its wisdom is recognized it may save us from some future mishaps. But if this is not Protection, is it starvation of the poorer class? The argument has been much pressed, and a learned Counsel was very eloquent upon this, but most deficient in proof. Why, turn to evidence, and to what does it amount. Who want to feed the poorer classes, and by what means? Well, we are told—that brought and driven through narrow and crowded streets to the abomination of the abattoirs reeking in our midst, they are slaughtered, and sold—to whom?—the poorer classes? Well to the Jew middleman first, and then, through such philanthropic hands, finally sold to the poorer class, with a second and third profit, no doubt. I can claim some sympathy with the poorer class, but not of this sort. Nor do I quite believe in a dispensation to which a Jew salesman administers after this sort. Otherwise the argument is self I destructive, for if foreign stock is not imported, it will be because home stock is too cheap, and the argument that the poorer classes will buy foreign meat—in the first place because it is dearer, and the second place because it is bad—will not hold good. At any rate my sympathies do not extend to this. The learned Counsel was eloquent, I admit, and he has published his speech, and some hon. Members have read it, no doubt. Well, he did not convince me, I confess; first, because I thought that perhaps he mistook his audience; and, secondly, because he did not, in my humble judgment, prove his case. Nor, if I am permitted to say so, did the right hon. Gentleman, who has urged this with so much ability upon this House? I have, I feel, trespassed too long upon the House; but I think it will be admitted that I have not done so needlessly, if due I allowance be made for the number and variety of the arguments I have had to meet. One only remains—the consumers' interest in this. There can be but one rational opinion, that as far as he is concerned all restrictions are bad. Nothing but dire necessity can justify them in any case. He pays for trouble and risk and loss. This sealed London market and restricted traffic are at his cost. But, he also pays for cattle plagues of all sorts. Is this clearly understood? I must think not. Why, what has been proposed in this case? That if a foreign cattle market is put under certain restrictions for a certain purpose, the same should also apply to another market where no such necessity exists. Why, what sort of legislation is this? Is the consumer interested? Let me, at least, ask this. My right hon. Friend does not, of course, agree to it. He has more justly assumed that our object must be rather to relax in every possible way. But there is only one way in which this would be possible and safe. Separate the market for foreign stock. The right hon. Gentleman wants to maintain the present system, until it shall be possible to carry out the complete system he suggests. Now, let my right hon. Friend remember this, that he cannot do so if he would, no, not—should this Bill drop—for six weeks. Consumers and producers will make common cause, and sweep away this system, especially since the admission of foreign stock. It is a grave responsibility you sock, you who would defeat this scheme. With the relaxation will come the disease and fresh distress, and it will be with consumers you will have to settle accounts. With wheat at 70s. and harvest doubtful as yet, dare you face the winter thus? I speak for the poorer class. Under your system of government we have suffered much. You call our attention to France. There may come a time when wearied with your delays, your war of parties, your needless exertions and self-inflicted ills, the people of this country may indeed look to France, and remembering the advice you now give, may seek protection in the sense of immunity from needless evils, in the policy of Imperial France.

said, he had listened with great concern to the closing sentences of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Corrance's) speech, and it astounded him not a little to hear one, who rose as the representative of what was termed the agricultural interest, assuming the attitude of a suffering and persecuted man. What had he suffered? He had suffered the abstraction of the power of supporting his own industry at; the expense of others, and had also experienced the great evil of obtaining under; the influence of free competition a higher range of prices for almost every production in which he was interested than the system of Protection afforded. The matter of the Bill was complicated enough in itself, so I that there was no need to embarrass its consideration still further by attempts to revive the animosities of a by-gone controversy. At the close of the Session they were just at the beginning of the discussion of the details of a Bill involving considera tions of the most complicated and obscure character, and which were hardly to be despatched without endless controversy, The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council who, judging from the state of the I Treasury Bench, appeared to be the sole representative of the Government upon this measure, had in his very animated speech the other day left out of view two fundamental considerations, without a clear understanding as to which it would be impossible to entertain such a measure. He would not accuse hon. Gentlemen opposite, notwithstanding the provocation which their language seemed to offer, of the intention to return to Protection under the veil of an enactment of this kind; but he could not forget that the noble Lord had expressed his entire condemnation of the foreign cattle trade, and in the corrected copy of the noble Lord's speech which was now before him, the noble Lord assumed that a certain group of diseases had been imported by means of foreign cattle, and that the loss resulting from those diseases was greater than the aggregate value of the cattle imported. The noble Lord also assumed that a wholesale system of contraband was carried on to enable the butchers to pass off foreign meat as British, to the injury of the consumers. Finally, the noble Lord complained of the good old lamp of 1842 having been exchanged for the lackered lantern brought to us by the stranger—this good old lamp being, no doubt, the exclusive privilege for the benefit of the British agriculturist of supplying not only the markets of London but all the markets of the country. The object of such representations could not be mistaken—it was to describe as a calamity the removal of prohibitions and the introduction of foreign cattle. But he drew a broad distinction between this part of the noble Lord's speech and that in which he discussed the restrictions upon British cattle which were now in force. He was bound to say that as regards one portion of his argument on that head—namely, with respect to the present extent of the metropolitan district, it appeared unanswerable. With regard to those restrictions generally he did not presume to give any opinion whether they could with safety be removed. He would venture to say he had but little faith in them, and but a feeble conviction of their necessity. He had a strong sympathy with the agriculturists so long as the tendency of their arguments was only to demand that the restrictions on themselves should be brought to the minimum consistent with the public welfare; but the current altogether turned when they began to urge demands for restrictions, for which the necessity had not been shown, upon the importation of foreign cattle. There were two branches of this question on which the speech of the noble Lord did not contain a single word, but which, nevertheless, were vital to its due consideration. The first of these was, why should they depart from the basis of the present system—a system under which the responsible Ministers of the Crown considered from time to time what restrictions were or were not necessary either in respect of foreign or British cattle? The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said they had already had enough of the Privy Council; but if that was so, this Bill was not the proper mode of applying a remedy. The proper mode would be to fall back on the Motion proposed by his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Milner Gibson). He laid down a proposition which it was difficult to dispute—that it was premature, at the very least, to pass a law such as that for London, without taking into consideration the policy they ought to pursue of imposing statutory restrictions on the cattle trade in other parts of the United Kingdom. His own belief was that that view of the case was insurmountable, both in argument and in common sense, and that this Bill as it stood was not fit to be carried into law. In a case of this kind the argument in favour of working by the instrument of a large discretion in the Executive rather than by rigid, stereotyped, statutory restrictions was obvious and strong. That was a state of things exceedingly appropriate, considering the present state of our knowledge and experience with regard to cattle diseases. It was very easy to assume that the cattle plague was imported from abroad—but how? By the bodies of foreign cattle, and by them exclusively, or by other means, by persons whose contact with them was close and immediate? The opinion of many was that the cattle plague was imported by the last of these means. That was the opinion with regard to its importation into Ireland. There was no proof that the exclusive communication of the cattle plague was by the movement of the bodies of cattle. How did the cattle plague in Aberdeenshire leap over a space of twenty—or as some said thirty—miles? It was not in that instance communicated by the movement of cattle. In that state of things two matters appeared to be perfectly clear. One was that the greatest vigilance should be exercised by the Government in watching the state of affairs in foreign countries and restricting or stopping importation from ports suspected. The other was that wherever the mischief appeared the most stringent measures should be applied for restricting the evil. Other restrictions, it appeared to him, should in the present state of our knowledge and experience be in the hands of the Executive Government, who should deal from day to day with the actual necessities of the case. He objected altogether to the transition from the discretionary powers of the Privy Council to a rigid system of enactment by statute. But if the time had arrived for a departure from the principle to which he had referred, why should the change apply to the markets of London only, and not to those of the country generally? The noble Lord had not said a single word upon that important portion of the argument; but if there were to be such a transition from executive discretion to the stereotyped provisions of the law, the transition should, at all events, be uniform—not necessarily uniform in its details, but founded upon a comprehensive consideration of the whole circumstances of the kingdom. If this transition were to be made crude and rigid, provisions like those contained in the Bill should not receive the force of law. We had already gained some experience in the working of the system of separate markets. He was not arguing absolutely and I unconditionally against the system; all he said was that that system was so fenced round with doubts and difficulties and evils and inconveniences, that whatever was to be done towards carrying it into effect should be done under the discretion and responsibility of the Executive, and not by an Act of Parliament. Taking the case of the port of Hull, he found that in the year 1867 the working of the separate market system there had been greatly to reduce the import of sheep, lambs, and pigs, and almost to extinguish that of cattle. The importation of sheep and lambs into Hull since the formation of a separate market had fallen from 69,000 head to 9,000; pigs had diminished from 15,000 head to 3,000; cattle from 41,000 head to 15,000, and for the first fraction of the year 1868 the trade had been so reduced that it might be considered to have ceased. That was a very serious matter, which certainly deserved the greatest consideration, supposing that it was not the intention of the Government merely to take the sense of the House upon the subject by taking a division upon going into Committee. Another point which the noble Lord had not referred to in the slightest degree, and to which he wished to draw especial attention, was the question of finance. The contemplated outlay under this Bill amounted to £300,000, which, by compensation and other expenses, would be raised to £500,000. If a large building was to be erected at this vast expense, and if the public was to become a speculator in slaughterhouses, we ought, in the first place, to see clearly whence that £500,000 was to come. An hon. Member asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, whether, in the event of any deficiency arising in the funds necessary for the erection and sustentation of this market, that deficiency was to be supplied out of the Consolidated Fund? and to that question the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied in unequivocal terms that it was not. He himself thereupon ventured to ask the right hon. Gentlemen, in the event of such deficiency arising, in what way it was to be met? but to that question he was not fortunate enough to obtain a reply. It was, however, absolutely necessary that they should have a reply to that question before they proceeded further with this measure. It was impossible that they could authorize the outlay of this large sum of money without taking into consideration, in the first place, the provisions by which the Bill was to be converted from a phantom into a reality. If the Commissioners were not armed with sufficient borrowing powers, the House might find itself in the ridiculous position that, after a prolonged conflict in that House, the Assent of the Crown might be given to a statute which might prove to be an absolute dead letter. He hoped the noble Lord would make some statement upon this part of the question, By another part of the Bill it was provided that the Corporation of the City of London might become the market authorities under the Bill, and might pledge their credit to raise the money necessary for its I purposes; but what precedent was there in existence for appointing authorities in this way without their willingness to act having been previously ascertained? He believed the Corporation of London had withdrawn from the advocacy of the Bill; but even if they had not he could not understand how they could appropriate their general securities for the purposes of the market. The representatives of the City of London were opposed to the Bill, and he could not understand how the Corporation could be said to be in favour of it. In the event of their declining to accept the responsibility of acting as the managers of the market, the Crown was authorized to appoint Commissioners, who were to have power to borrow money for the purposes of the Bill. But he should like to know how—if under such circumstances a deficiency arose—it was possible to avoid that deficiency being made good out of the public purse, and similar demands being made upon it on behalf of the other great ports of the United Kingdom. The deficiency could not be made good at the expense of the ratepayers of the metropolis, who were of opinion that the effect of the Bill would be permanently to raise the price of meat. Mr. Dudley Baxter, who was no mean authority in such matters, was of the same opinion. If the ratepayers of London, then, were not to contribute them, whence were the funds for the maintenance of the market to come? Were they to come from the foreign cattle market itself? At Islington they had only one fixed capital to bear the charge of, and they had got the whole of the tolls, both from British and foreign cattle, for the purpose; but the tolls from British and foreign cattle together did not yet yield a revenue sufficient by £7,000 a year to bear the charge of the Islington market. And now it was proposed to clap on another £500,000 for establishing the proposed new market. That was a state of things which required explanation; and as a body which was bound to give something of solidity to the schemes it adopted, it was necessary that the House should call on the Government to point out to them distinctly the source from which the cost of that market was to be derived. It was impossible to maintain the new market by means of a simple augmentation of the dues. The financial elements of the scheme, then, should be thoroughly sifted, together with that other point which lay at the root of the whole question—namely, the expediency or inexpediency of a transition from an elastic system worked by the Executive Government to a rigid statutory system leaving no room for discretion before they could advantageously consider the provisions of any particular plan.

said, the question before them was whether they should go into Committee on that Bill and consider the difficulties just raised, among others, or whether they should adopt an Amendment which would virtually get rid of the whole matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) told them there were two vital questions, the largest of which was whether they should proceed by way of legislation at all, or should leave the whole of those great and difficult subjects in the hands of the Privy Council. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had carefully avoided giving the slightest opinion on the question, aye or no, whether there ought to he a separate market. Supposing the Privy Council came to the conclusion that there should be a separate market, how was it possible for the Privy Council to carry it out and to deal with all those difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman stated, and which the Select Committee, sitting for no end of time, had attempted to solve? That was almost a conclusive answer to the suggestion that those things should be left altogether to the discretion of the Privy Council. Had the country reason to be satisfied with the power of the Privy Council? What happened when the cattle plague visited this country? They had a Privy Council then, which he dared say doubted, as the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite probably doubted now, whether that disease came from abroad. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON was understood to indicate dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. That was some comfort, at all events. The other right hon. Gentleman was still mute as far as shaking heads went. But the immense majority of the people of this country had no such doubt. And how did they suffer by the want of action and the vacillation of the Privy Council for six or seven months, before Parliament and the voice of the country compelled them to take those measures which they might have taken beforehand? The Privy Council began by proclamation to stamp out the plague, but they had not the heart to go on with it. And why? Because they saw the great expense it would entail; and so they allowed the disease to spread over the country, to the great injury and even the ruin of many persons. They did nothing efficacious until Parliament met. They were now told they ought not to refer to Free Trade at all; but last week the right hon. Member for Ash ton brought up Sir Robert Peel and blew a great Free Trade trumpet. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON indicated dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head again, but he was in the recollection of the House, who would bear him out in saying that the right hon. Gentleman talked a great deal about the reversal of the policy of Sir Robert Peel. When the right hon. Gentleman brought that in, and all that rubbish about farmers' friends and election cries, the impression left on his mind was that the right hon. Gentleman had got so uncommonly bad a case that he had to cover his total want of argument in that way. It was asked if they were not content with the French system, why did they not take the quarantine system and treat beasts as they would do human beings coming from suspected countries? He believed that quarantine would form a far greater impediment to the foreign trade than what was now proposed. What was the French system? The French were threatened as we were, and very much about the same time. What did the French do, and what did our Privy Council, of which the right hon. Gentleman was then a member, do? If he was so fond of the French system, why had he not acted upon it, and so prevented the disease from coming to this country? The right hon. Gentleman boasted that the French system left France with the loss of only forty-five head of cattle; but the French prohibited all foreign cattle from entering their country. They would need green spectacles to look at the fury which the right hon. Gentleman would be in if anybody asked him to prohibit foreign cattle from coming here. Neither of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite had, in his opinion, dealt satisfactorily with the peculiarity of the case which the Bill was intended to meet. The market in Copenhagen-fields had for many years been the central market for the cattle trade, not only of London but of the entire country. The Privy Council, however, had felt it to be their duty to impose restrictions on the going out of cattle from that market, and what had been the result? The whole number of cattle which used to come into the London market previous to the breaking out of the cattle plague amounted to 343,000 a year on an average; last year the number was only 287,000; so that the effect of the Privy Council regulations had been to reduce the supply of cattle in the market by 1,000 a week. Was it likely, if these regulations were to become per- manent, that the supply of meat would increase? But what had been the effect of the system of restriction on the foreign trade. In the first thirteen weeks of 1867 the number of foreign cattle which entered the London market was 26,000, while in the corresponding part of the present year it was only 10,000. It had been stated, and he believed with truth, that the number of cattle slaughtered in the United Kingdom for the consumption of the people ranged between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000 per annum, and that the whole number of foreign cattle which used to be slaughtered was something over 200,000, the number at present being only 150,000 or 160,000. Now, would it, he should like to know, promote the interests of the producer or consumer that restrictions on the movement of 2,000,000 of cattle should be continued, rather than that the proposed conditions should be laid down with respect to the comparatively limited number of foreign cattle which entered our ports? The noble Lord had given the other day a list of ten countries which it had been reported to the Privy Council were infected by the plague last year. These countries were Austria, Bavaria, Belgium, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Prussia, Russia, and Turkey. Now, if those countries were so infected, what Privy Council regulations could be adopted, he should like to know, which would protect this country from a recurrence of the evils under which we had already suffered? The French had means of getting information as to those infected localities which we did not possess, because, except the comparatively small number which entered by the port of Marseilles, the cattle for the French markets must either walk or be conveyed by railway, and then the places from which they came might be easily ascertained. In this country, however, into which foreign cattle were imported by sea, it was impossible to find out whence they were brought. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) found fault with the present Bill because its operation would be in his opinion limited, There was no good reason, however, for not doing some good because all good could not be effected. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that which was used against the reform of the Courts of Chancery, and it was one to which he thought but little weight was to be attached. The right hon. Gentleman would keep us with this danger hanging over us for years, because we cannot deal with the whole question at once. What harm could there be in letting in the cattle of Spain, where cattle plague had never been known to exist? The right hon. Gentleman did not venture to say that the Bill did not proceed in the right direction. It was quite possible that the Bill would not effect a great deal; but at all events it afforded evidence of the wish of the Government to relieve the home trade, in respect to which there was no risk of infection, from restrictions, by the establishment of a separate market for foreign cattle. The infection of the cattle plague was of the most subtle and of the most mysterious nature, for cattle when placed under such circumstances that their seizure by the disease seemed a certainty had often been known to escape altogether, whereas they often took it where it was impossible to trace the means of infection. It was almost impossible to say whether the cattle brought from Rotterdam or other places by sea did not come from infected countries, and therefore it was necessary to take some precautions to prevent the spread of disease in this country.

said, there was a great deal of justice in the criticisms of his two right hon. Friends near him; but the real question before the House was not whether this Bill applied a remedy in the best possible way, but whether the remedy was one which ought to be applied at all. The simple question was, whether it was advisable to have a second meat market placed on the shore, so that the animals when landed could be slaughtered on the spot. He did not doubt the finance of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone); but, at the same time, he felt sure that, if the establishment of such a market were thought desirable, there would be found sufficient ingenuity in the House to supply the requisite money. It was a great pity that the whole scheme of the Government was not before the House; but there was no reason in not doing one thing because they could not do another. His right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) had imported into this discussion a degree of heat and vehemence which, considering the extreme sweetness of his nature, was hardly to be accounted for, except on the supposition that he had been in the company of that class of persons who were once not thought fit to servo on juries on account of the ferocity which their trade was supposed to engender. His right hon. Friend took every possible objection to the Bill, and yet concluded with a Motion which amounted to a declaration that, though he disliked the thing being done at all, yet be objected to its not being done all at once. The question was, whether the principle of having a separate market for foreign cattle, with compulsory slaughter, was right or not. On behalf of the Cattle Plague Commissioners—whose views the Government had really adopted—he hoped he should be excused for trespassing on the House for a short time. What was the state of things? He believed that the country had lost £6,000,000 by the cattle plague, and it was exposed to enormous risk for the future. They ought not to cherish the belief that because 100 years had elapsed since the last appearance of the cattle plague, the same interval would occur again, The cattle plague was en permanence on the steppes of Russia, and by means of the facilities afforded by railways it was capable of being carried in a very few days from those steppes to ports whence the cattle were exported to England. Every year was likely to increase the danger which now existed. Under these circumstances, the Cattle Plague Commission found that the only protection against this terrible enemy was a system of inspection; and all the evidence they took proved entirely that to lean on inspection was to lean on a broken reed, ntterly worthless. It must be so. It was not in human nature that the inspection of a large number of beasts by a person who had no particular interest in the matter should be otherwise than perfunctory and imperfect. Therefore the Commission sought some other protection, and they found it in enactments such as were proposed by this Bill, which his right hon. Friend told him was an interference with the principles of Free Trade. How did the matter stand at the present moment? There was nothing to prevent any amount of diseased cattle being brought into London. The metropolis was almost defenceless. A cordon was, indeed, drawn around it, which cost for police £16,000 a year; but as long as they allowed foreign cattle to be merely inspected—which could not be relied on at all—diseased cattle from Copenhagen might be introduced into the London market, and driven to be slaughtered in the interior, spreading infection throughout the country. It was said the Privy Council had all the powers that were required, and there need not be a rigid Parliamentary law on the subject. But the condition of the London market, as he had described it, was a permanent one; it was almost at any moment liable to an invasion of the cattle plague, and this permanent condition of things required a permanent remedy. It was not a case for a temporary remedy. It was not desirable to prevent the importation of foreign meat; but it was necessary that measures should be taken to have it slaughtered at the waterside, where every precaution might be taken to prevent infection. They could not say that, absolutely, no infection should come, because that in all cases could not be secured. That was a course of argument which would go to abolish the whole criminal law. But they could say that foreign cattle should be slaughtered on the seashore, and thus prevent the evil of driving foreign cattle through the streets and spreading contagion. This was the object of the Bill—to prevent foreign cattle from coming into contact with English cattle. The present state of things was full of mischief, both to the metropolis and to the country. If he fancied a dairy cow he could not get it; if a calf was born in the metropolis, instead of going into the neighbouring counties to be agisted into a cow, it must be killed. If a farmer sent a beast to the market to be sold for a certain price, and he could not get that price, he must take what he could get. But he was told, if this Bill passed, the price of meat would rise, and beasts would fetch £2 a head more than at present. He was not able to enter into that question, but what he said was this—the butchers of London had found it worth their while to deluge every Member of Parliament with pamphlets, and beset them in every possible way. They had retained very able counsel to recommend their view of the whole question, and he was asked to believe that they were doing all this with a view to reduce the price of meat. He believed they knew very well that on the balance of things this Bill would not make any very great difference in the price of meat, because it was not merely cattle plague, but pleuro-pneumonia, that went so far to raise the price. The question was, what ought they to do with the present state of things? It was permanent; therefore they should have a permanent remedy. They might depend upon it they must submit to some impediment to foreign importations of cattle, or be prepared periodically, at no long intervals, to have the most injurious restraints put on domestic cattle. Therefore, although he had been grievously intimidated by his right hon. Friend, he must say he had heard nothing that proved to him that the Cattle Plague Commission were wrong in their recommendations, and he sincerely hoped the House would give a second reading to this Bill. There were a number of questions that might fairly be considered in Committee; but he did trust the House would not acquiesce in a state of things which would attach a permanent stigma to the metropolis as liable always to be infected with the cattle plague, and having no means of sending cattle down into the country.

said, he hoped he should receive the indulgence of the House while he endeavoured to show the interest which the metropolis had in this matter. It was one of those questions which brought home to the great centres of population how numerically weak they were in that House. Hitherto no one connected with the metropolis had enjoyed the opportunity of being heard. They must watch this Bill most jealously, and sec that the great supply of foreign cattle required by the wants of the metropolis was not cut off. For the consumption of the metropolis no less than 68 per cent of the foreign cattle imported, and 72 per cent of the foreign sheep were required; and of the cattle slaughtered in London it was calculated that 42 per cent of the whole was foreign. The restrictions in foreign trade had seriously interfered with the supply, and if still stronger restrictions were imposed, a still greater diminution must be expected. The experiment now proposed was to be made not at the expense of the agricultural districts, but of London consumers and ratepayers. It was said that the Government wished to try the effect of the system first in the metropolis; but the metropolis had a right to ask the Government how they were going to deal with the other ports afterwards. The notion of the Government evidently was that the door at London was to be shut while the doors at the other ports were to be left open to inspection. The Government permitted Spanish and Portuguese, and soon they would permit Danish cat tie to be landed at all ports of the kingdom, except London; but he wanted to know why the latter City, with its vast population, was to be deprived of its foreign meat in order that the metropolis might continue to be the emporium of the cattle trade of the country. The noble Lord said that if this measure were adopted now other measures would be brought forward next Session; but could the noble Lord guarantee that the new Parliament would be willing to adopt his views upon this subject? The House had had no declaration from Her Majesty's Government as to what their plans were. The large towns interested in this Bill—if it were to be proceeded with, of which he had much doubt, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place—would have reason to complain that they could hear nothing as to the policy to be pursued. His right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) supported the Bill as a protection against the cattle plague; but the real object of the Bill was to remove the restrictions on the home trade. It was an insurrection of the agriculturists against their restrictions, and an attempt to have the whole burden placed on the foreign trade. The Commission, of which the right hon. Member for Calne was a Member, recommended that all restrictions placed on the home trade in cattle should be extended to the foreign trade also; but from the evidence taken before the Commission it appeared that the present system of inspection was far from being insufficient. The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) said that the system of inspection was never sufficient, and that, therefore, this Bill ought to pass; but Mr. Pell, a considerable authority among agriculturists, in giving his evidence before the Commission, stated that the only objection to the system of inspection was its cumbrous machinery—that was to say, that it did not suit the convenience of the agriculturists. Admitting that it was desirable that the agriculturists should have a central market, easily approachable by railway, that was no reason why it should be situated inside of London, and why the people of London should be deprived of foreign meat. He thought it wrong that 3,000,000 people should be starved in order to preserve the health of 2,500,000 cattle. It was said that the restrictions had prevented home cattle from coming to London; but, instead of a diminution, there had been an increase of home cattle coining to London. He hoped the noble Lord would say, in his reply, whether the same inspection as at; present was to be kept up in the new market or not. If not, there would be increased danger of the cattle plague. The opinion of the Secretary to the Central Chamber of Agriculture was that there ought to be a safety market into which cattle should be poured from all countries, whether infected or not. If there was to be a market of that kind—a market into which diseased cattle would be poured from every country in Europe, without let or hindrance—he should like to know what his right hon. Friend the Member for Calne would say to such a market being established without inspection. Neither France nor Prussia, nor any other country, would throw open its ports to cattle from infected countries; but there was to be a market for them in London, and yet this was called a measure for keeping the cattle plague out of the country. It was evident that if the cattle plague was once fairly established in the metropolitan cattle market, it would be very difficult to get it out again. The most inferior beasts in Europe would be sent to such a market. He defied the Government to assert that they intended to do away with inspection. There was another objection. At present ten days were allowed for the slaughter of foreign cattle, but under the new system cattle were to be allowed to remain as long as the owners liked. The market was to contain 5,000 beasts and 30,000 sheep. Suppose these quantities arrived one week and there was no sale for them, the market next week would be full, and where were the new arrivals to be put? It had been asked why they wanted scientific evidence on that subject. What they wanted it for was to ascertain whether the restrictions proposed by that Bill were as effectual for the prevention of the cattle plague as other restrictions, and not one single medical witness was called before the Select Committee to prove that. On the other hand, there was a host of scientific witnesses to prove the danger of the cattle plague being communicated from that separate market to the home market. The disease was so infectious that if they had it in the one market they would have it in the other. It was impossible to make regulations that would prevent that. The beasts from the home market would be scattered over the whole country, and, coming in contact with other beasts, would thus carry the disease through the kingdom. The effect of the Bill would be that if infection was carried by clothes from one market to the other, then the beasts were to be allowed to circulate freely throughout the country, taking the plague with them. As to the cordon round London to which reference had been made, it had kept the health of the herds and flocks of the country in a better state than it had been for a long time, and had been perfectly effectual for its purpose. The question of slaughter houses had been very much misrepresented. He would say let them be done away with if it were necessary for sanitary purposes, but let it not be done to handicap the foreigner. It could hardly be doubted by anyone that the Bill would tend to diminish the supply of foreign cattle for London. It was absolutely certain that the butcher would go first to the English market, and when he could no longer supply himself there conveniently and cheaply, as a last resource he would go to the foreign cattle market. Would the foreign producers continue to send their cattle to this country on those terms? It had been said that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson) was all for the foreigner, but did not think of the Englishman. He was surprised that such a line of argument should in these days be used. The foreign producer was the friend of the English consumer, and to draw a distinction between the foreign and the home producer was to overlook the fact that this country depended to a great extent on the foreign producer for its supply of the first necessaries of life. It was asked, why not make the foreign cattle market a dead-meat market? But the feeding of London could not be carried on under the circumstances of a dead-meat market. The retail butcher would never be able to go ten miles below London to get his meat. Moreover, what was the course of the foreign cattle trade? In the very months when the dead-meat trade was smallest the foreign cattle trade was largest, and vice versâ. In August there were ten times as many beasts imported as in January, and eleven times as many sheep. July, August, September, and October, were the months in which the foreign cattle chiefly reached this country. On the other hand, there was a certain dead-meat trade in January, February, March, and April, just when the foreign cattle could not arrive here, owing to the geographical circumstances of the countries from which they came. In the hot months they could not have a dead-meat trade. But there being such objections as he had stated to the Bill, had every means been taken, he should like to know, to discover some alternative scheme? He thought not. There were, however, other schemes which might be adopted. They might have a market outside for the transit cattle, while the consuming market should be in the centre of London; or there might be a certain place where there would be a junction of railways, through which the cattle would be allowed to pass. A small market might be established at the riverside for the purpose of receiving the cattle from certain countries where the cattle plague was known to exist. What he so strongly objected to was that London should be debarred from drawing its supplies from Denmark, Portugal, and. Spain, which had never been suspected. Denmark supplied 25 per cent of the whole of the foreign cattle which arrived in this country. Another serious objection to the Bill was that if it were carried into effect, the wharfingers, salesmen, and others whose trade it interfered with must be compensated, but if the House should next year reverse the policy embodied in this Bill it could not make those people refund the money they had received, ["Divide !"] He had no wish to detain the House, but he must be permitted to say a few words on the question of expense as it affected his constituents. Who was to bear the burden of the costly experiment which it was proposed to make? Some hon. Members were careless about what might be done in this matter, because they proposed to throw the whole expense on the metropolis. Was it possible that the citizens of London could look with favour on a scheme under the operation of which they would have to pay for two markets, while one now sufficed? He hoped the House would perceive the unfairness of throwing additional taxation on the metropolis for such a purpose. But it was suggested that the new markets would be self-supporting. Seeing that the one already in existence was not self-supporting, he could not understand how that statement could be maintained. How was this new market to be self-supporting with few cattle when the present market was not self-supporting with much cattle? They could not allow this Bill to pass alone, and yet they had no security that the same statutory regulations would be applied to other ports, though they were asked to incur this enormous expenditure. Were they to make this experiment at the fag end of the Session at the cost of the ratepayers of London and of the metropolis? They would have to incur an expenditure of £500,000, and derange their foreign cattle trade; because foreigners, on reading the speech of the noble Lord the Vice-President of the Council, would assume that it was the policy of England to shut out foreign cattle. Such was the way in which foreign Governments would read the noble Lord's sneers about foreign producers. He hoped the House would pause before they passed this Bill, which was really not a measure for the prevention of the cattle plague, it being admitted even by hon. Gentlemen opposite that at present the inspection was satisfactory. These restrictions on the cattle trade must be shared by all alike, or they would diminish the supply of food. Was it fair to pass this Bill when Government was silent about other ports, and when they had called no scientific witnesses to show that the present system was unsatisfactory?

said, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), that although we could not do all we might wish, that was no reason why we should not do all we could. The metropolis must be viewed exceptionally in this matter, because no less than 70 per cent of the cattle imported into England was sent to London, and it was only in the metropolis that foreign cattle, save Spanish and Portuguese, mixed with our home stock. London, he believed, at present enjoyed the privilege of importing cattle not only from Denmark, but from every portion of the globe, and he held in his hand a Return which would show the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of Denmark furnishing a quarter of the whole supply of foreign cattle imported into this country during the three years ending December last, only 23,000 out of 698,000 cattle imported from abroad came from that country.

pointed out the fact that a Return of the cattle imported during the last eight years showed that on the average the imports from Denmark were 25 per cent of the number imported.

The right hon. Gentleman had complained that the market would not be ready for two years and a half. Well, considering that markets could not be created by the stroke of a fairy's wand, he did not regard that period as being anything unusual, though he would at the same time remark that if this Bill were rejected it might be three years and a half instead of two years and a half before the market could be completed. Now, in this matter he could not help thinking that the Corporation had acted in a very pitiful and pettish manner. They first said that there could not be any profit from the market, but directly it was urged that the profits, if any should arise, should be devoted to reducing the tolls of the foreign cattle market, they threw up the whole concern. Now, with reference to the Privy Council, he could only say that the Orders of that body had been most vacillating and contradictory. At the first outbreak of the cattle plague in June, 1865, he went to them and implored them to arrest the progress of the disease by preventing the foreign cattle being taken into the country. But the Council either objected to that course or were not strong enough to take it. They sent inspectors into the country to kill the cattle on the different farms, and refused to make any compensation to the owners whose cattle were destroyed, and it was not until the House passed a Bill on the subject, in 1866, that the progress of the disease received any check. That Bill was founded on the Report of the Cattle Plague Commissioners, and those gentlemen stated that to avoid continual outbreaks of the disease certain ports ought to be set aside as ports of debarkation, and cattle there imported killed at the water side. And he would remind the House that those who were then opposed to the system of "stamping out," and who stigmatized the practice as barbarous and retrogressive, were just those who were now opposing this measure. The present system must, at the best, be ineffectual; for in the metropolitan cattle market the cattle imported were allowed to mix with the sheep; and, as there was no restriction on the removal of sheep, the disease could easily be conveyed from one part of the country to another, so that the present system of inspection was a farce, perfectly useless for the purposes intended. Who was to know, too, when the plague broke out in any of the slaughterhouses? The animals diseased would at once be killed, the fact concealed, and the infection might be carried into the country by means of the manure. But with a new cattle market the case would be different. The right hon. Gentleman had accused him of being in favour of relaxing the strictness of the present system of inspection. That was true to this extent. He thought that it ought not to be carried on for twelve hours, that the cattle ought to be allowed to pass into some comfortable lairs close by, and that if one bullock was infected with pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease, it was not necessary on that account to kill all the remainder. But a vigilant inspection there must undoubtedly be. There would be a resident inspector, who, at any outbreak of the disease, would immediately order the cattle to be killed and the place to be disinfected. He did not for a moment contend that we could by this or any other means secure absolute prevention; but still the plan suggested gave them, he believed, the minimum risk. A complaint had been made that the towns had not been fairly represented on the Committee, whereas, the fact was that out of the Members forming that Committee seven represented counties and seven boroughs; but the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Lord Robert Montagu) was in the chair and could only give a casting vote, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Northumberland (Sir Matthew Ridley) was so seriously ill that he could not attend. So in the divisions there generally appeared the names of seven borough and only five county members. The Government had been taunted with not supporting the Bill with veterinary evidence, whereas it was agreed by all parties to put in the scientific evidence taken before the Cattle Plague Commissioners and the Trade in Animals Committee and not call any veterinary witnesses. But the opponents disregarded this agreement, and Professor Spooner was examined by the opponents, as were also several veterinary surgeons. And he would ground his argument for the Bill on the evidence of the latter gentlemen, who maintained that the present restrictions, to be of any service, ought to be more stringent. We were told we could safely rely on the precaution of foreign governments and our own inspectors; but these veterinaries were expected to detect incubating diseases, whereas after two years' study some learned professors did not know the cattle plague when they saw it. He appealed to the House, therefore, not to take into consideration the interests of any particular class, or of any particular individuals, but to do all they could to keep these diseases out of the country; an attempt which, if successful, would result in greatly reducing the price paid for meat.

said, he desired to remind the House that the whole country, and not the metropolis alone, was interested in a proposal which was founded upon the principle of dealing with foreign cattle, however healthy, in a different manner from the way in which other cattle were dealt with. They were going to legislate in a more permanent form than by Act of Parliament, because by building this market they were about to lay down for all time to come that they were to deal in a certain way with foreign cattle. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill sought to apply to the metropolis the same restrictions as had been applied to other ports; but he (Mr. Headlam) entirely disagreed with the noble Lord as to the effect of those restrictions. Before the restrictions were imposed, in the town of New-castle-upon-Tyne, which he represented, there had been a large trade in the importation of cattle from Denmark, but though no cattle plague existed in Denmark, the trade had now been strangled, and this had caused a great interference with the supply of the necessaries and luxuries of life to his constituents. A similar result had ensued at Southampton.

then moved that the debate be adjourned.

seconded the Motion.

(who spoke amidst loud cries of "Divide!") said, that in the course of the debate, which had lasted two days, certain questions of general policy had been raised, and yet no Member of the Cabinet had risen to express the views of the Government with regard to them. Under these circumstances the adjournment of the debate was the only course which could be adopted. He was not one of those who were against the agricultural party; and the noble Lord who introduced this measure said that he (Mr. Ayrton) was the father of the Bill. He certainly had a right to be heard, but he wished to hear a Member of the Cabinet, no Member of which had given an opinion on this subject, nor was any Cabinet Minister present.

said, he thought the discussion and the numbers which had just been announced would show plainly to the country that this Select Committee, which; sat for nine weeks on this Bill, came to the proper conclusion when they reported in; its favour. He did not believe the effect of the measure would be to enhance the price of meat to the consumer in the metropolis. The importation of foreign cattle must be placed on a sounder and less capricious footing than at present, or the supply of foreign cattle would be put a stop to altogether. Those who supported this Bill had been called Protectionists and opponents of Free Trade; but he was glad now to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) that that charge was now repudiated. He regretted the means which had been resorted to in order to procrastinate the debate and prevent the passing of the Bill.

said, he rose to call attention to the services of the troops engaged in the late New Zealand War. In so doing he was conscious that the recollection of these services had been to a great effaced by the Abyssinian campaign, to the troops engaged in which the House had yesterday paid a graceful and grateful compliment. The war in New Zealand might be traced back to the campaigns of 1845 and 1846, but the principle interest attached of course to those commenced in the Waikato districts in 1863, and ending in the submission of their hostile tribes in 1866. The late war in New Zealand was, to some extent, unpopular in this country, and might have been impolitic. It certainly was very costly, but he would not discuss those questions. A soldier or sailor had nothing to do with politics; his duty was to go where he was sent, and to fight when he was ordered, and if he did his duty well; he was entitled to his reward. Everyone would admit that the troops went through all the hardships and vicissitudes of a well-fought campaign. It was frequently urged that the medal should be granted only for services against a foreign enemy, but this rule had been departed from in some no table instances—such as the Indian Mutiny and the Kaffir War; the latter especially bearing a great analogy to the New Zealand campaign. In the case of the superior I officers engaged in New Zealand recognition had been made of their services to the following extent:—Two Generals had been made Knights Commanders of the Bath; fourteen officers of the two services of the r respective ranks of Colonel, Major and Captain had been made Commanders of the Bath; twenty-one brevet promotions had been given to officers, and seven had been decorated with the Victoria Cross. The non-commissioned officers and privates, however, had only been rewarded to the following extent:—Four non-commissioned officers had received the Victoria Cross, as also did one blue-jacket and a drummer. Five distinguished-conduct medals had been issued to the soldiers, and three commissions had been given from the ranks. The nature, however, of these rewards proved that the war had been considered a serious and severe one; the Maori race, one of the most formidable subject to British authority, fighting with all those local advantages which made them doubly dangerous. The forces engaged consisted of portions of the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, and Military Train; the 1st Battalion 12th Foot, 2nd Battalion 14th Foot, 2nd Battalion 18th Foot, the 40th Regiment, 43rd Regiment, 50th Regiment, 57th Regiment, 65th Regiment, 68th Regiment, and 70th Regiment. To those were added 300 men of the Royal Naval Brigade, and some colonial forces, comprising Forest Rangers, Bush Rangers, and Native troops. To his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) he was indebted for some very useful details of the campaigns, from which he had been enabled to ascertain that the number of skirmishes and engagements were fifteen in all. The number of troops employed were—of land forces about 9,000 men; and of the Naval Brigade 300 men and officers. The total of killed and wounded, he regretted to say, was 688, of whom 18 officers were killed, 56 wounded, and 15 died subsequently of wounds received before the enemy. The Naval Brigade lost—in killed 6 officers and 14 men, and in wounded 8 officers and 32 men, making a total loss of 60. The New Zealand War was one in which the troops met with most harrassing duties, repeated ambuscades, and perpetual fighting either on u small or a large scale. They had no "loot" to look forward to and no prize-money to receive. There was none of the usual romance and excitement of war, but they did their duty with resolute bravery. He might state that he had no connection either privately or officially with either branch of the service engaged in that war. He would not move any Resolution on the subject, believing that such a course might be unconstitutional and impolitic; but he trusted the day would be far distant when an independent Member of Parliament would hesitate to say a word in his place in behalf of the services of English soldiers and sailors who had been by ill-luck or inadvertence overlooked or neglected. The noble Viscount in conclusion, asked the Secretary of State for War whether a medal would be issued to the soldiers and sailors who had been engaged in the New Zealand War?

said, he rose with great pleasure to support the noble Viscount's request. None could have brought the subject forward with greater ability or effect than the noble Viscount, the eldest son of one of our most distinguished officers. His noble Friend had rather under-stated than over-stated the number of casualties in the New Zealand War, and the ability and zeal of the gallant men engaged in it. Those men had gone through greater fatigues, with less excitement to carry them forward, than soldiers engaged in campaigns of greater magnitude. It was often so of little wars. A friend of his who had been engaged in the Kaffir and Crimean Wars had declared the hardships of the former far more severe than those of the latter. He trusted, therefore, the Secretary for War would recommend Her Majesty to bestow some mark of distinction upon the men engaged in New Zealand, in acknowledgment of their faithful services to their Queen and country.

said, he thought that this was a real question of hardship, and he feared that we had not been in the habit of rewarding our troops in the way they had a right to expect. He was quite sure if this subject were considered by the House justice would be done. After all, a bit of metal or a ribbon was not of much intrinsic value, but in the eyes of the soldier and his family it was viewed with much pride, as a certificate that he had deserved well of his country. He hoped that no petty notions of economy would stand in the way of those decorations being granted to a number of gallant men who had done great service to their country. They had just spent £5,000,000 on the Abyssinian War, and he hoped they would not refuse few hundreds for the purpose of giving these men their well-earned decorations.

said, he felt in rather a curious position as a supporter of this re- quest since he was neither soldier nor soldier's friend; but he added his voice to that of the noble Viscount on the principle that we are bound in common justice adequately to reward those whom we employ. He had friends in New Zealand, and he knew the sense they entertained of the services rendered by the soldiers. Those occupying a high position had been rewarded, and perhaps not too highly; but he knew that many of them felt that they had I been rewarded for acts which they could not have performed except by the aid of those men whose claims had been so ably advocated by his noble Friend.

I regret very much my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War is not present, because he would speak with more authority than I can on this subject; what are the reasons of his absence at this particular hour—whether he is at New Zealand or not—I will not now inquire. But in considering this question I am sure the House will in candour remember that the New Zealand War was originated and conducted to a conclusion not under the present Government, and that therefore we are not responsible for any neglect of the troops engaged, or for any deficiency of feeling in the matter of recognizing the very great things those troops accomplished. Regarding these very severe colonial struggles, which perhaps too frequently occur, we must always remember that the merits of those engaged are not to be estimated merely by the result of the operations. Those who are engaged in a great European struggle or Imperial war have that excitement to sustain them which is produced by a consciousness of the considerable circumstances with which they are connected, and the public recognition of their services in the journals of Europe. A soldier engaged under such circumstances is sustained by the feeling that an admiring world and a grateful country are applauding his deeds, and will offer him the tribute of reward and praise, and this he feels is some compensation for the great hazards and endurance he is called on to undergo. But not less heroic qualities are requisite in connection with these more obscure encounters, and I think it was very wise on the part of the Government to recognize the conduct of the troops engaged in the campaigns of the Kaffir War. The noble Viscount who introduced this question, with that propriety which always characterizes his proceedings in this House, has called our attention to the ample recogni tion of the services of the officers, but we must remember that this is not the age in which we should forget the qualities of the men. Only yesterday the House, in the most generous spirit of appreciation, publicly acknowledged how grateful this great country is to the soldiers and sailors engaged in the Abyssinian Expedition; and certainly, in the case of the; New Zealand War, I am sure it is not conducive to the honour of the country or the satisfaction of any subject of the Queen—and it cannot, I am sure, accord with the feeling of the Sovereign herself—that the services of those engaged in this prolonged struggle should not be recognized in the manner in which I am sure every generous and patriotic man would desire. I can, therefore, assure the noble Viscount, while reminding him that the present Government are in no way responsible for any neglect hitherto, that we will give the most candid consideration to the subject, and I am sure the ultimate decision arrived at will become the dignity and honour and good feeling of the country.

My original purpose was to have called the attention of the House at some length to the Report on Scotch Burgh and Middle Class Schools, which has been laid on the table this year by the same Commissioners who last year reported upon elementary schools in Scotland. When I put my Notice on the Paper, however, hoped that, before my Motion came on, we should have had the advantage of listening to a full discussion of that very remarkable document which the Schools Inquiry Commissioners for England have recently given us—a document which will, I am sure, as soon as the country has got its mind sufficiently clear of electoral cares to give an earnest attention to it, be recognized as a most valuable contribution to the better ordering and happiness of this great nation. In that hope I have been disappointed, if, indeed, I can say that I really am disappointed that a Parliament—wearied with the agitations of a Session during which Members have been morally tossed in a blanket, to a degree which the nerves of few can stand—should not have its last hours embittered by being questioned as to its opinion on the details or even the principles of secondary education. Feeling, however, as I do, that Scotch educational reformers will have their hands greatly strengthened by the noble Report of the English Commissioners, and believing that the Scotch Commissioners would have given us a Report of somewhat wider scope and range if they had not known that the whole subject of secondary education was being concurrently considered in England, I have abandoned my original purpose, and shall confine myself to a very few remarks on matters with regard to which I should like to elicit the opinion of the learned Lord opposite (the Lord Advocate). I turn, then, to the recommendations of the Commissioners, printed at the end of their Report, and to these I shall confine myself. They occupy little more than one widely printed octavo page. The first two of these, relating to superannuation allowances and giants for building, do not call for any special remark; for everyone will, I think, agree in the policy recommended, at least everyone who knows that the total endowment of all Burgh Schools under the partial or exclusive management of Town Councils does not exceed £3,000 a year, while the fees amount to £42,000. Then comes the 3rd—

"In consideration of the aid thus contributed, all Burgh Schools and the buildings and offices of such schools should be examined every year by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, who should report both as regards the efficiency of the teaching and the state of the buildings and offices. The Inspectors should have like access to Burgh Schools for these purposes, as is possessed in relation to elementary schools."

Now, this recommendation seems to me the most important of all, because, although our Burgh and Middle Class Schools are most terribly in want of money, they are even more in want of guidance—guidance from persons who, being thoroughly familiar with all that is being done in those countries where secondary education has been brought to its highest pitch, can aid find co-operate with those whose experience has been, from the nature of things, confined to a narrower field. It is infinitely to the credit of the masters of Scotch Burgh and Middle Class Schools that they should have thoroughly recognized this. Here is the passage from the Report of the Assistant Commissioners which the Commissioners incorporate in their Report with regard to this subject—

"In the notes of Particulars of Inquiry, which we were instructed to distribute among the teachers in the different schools, the question bearing on this subject is in these words—

'Would it in your opinion be an advantage or otherwise if the Burgh Schools were examined annually, and reported on by independent examiners?' To this question we have received 105 answers from teachers in all the important schools in Scotland. Of these answers, 84, or 80 per cent, are in the affirmative, 11 are in the negative, and 10 are doubtful—that is to say, 80 per cent of the best teachers in the Public Middle Class Schools consider that it would be of advantage to their schools if they were examined annually, and reported on by independent examiners. Nothing can be more satisfactory than this result, and there is no feature connected with the inquiry which reflects greater credit upon the teachers throughout Scotland than this desire which they have expressed to exhibit the true condition of their schools, and to secure the benefit of independent examination. It is of a piece with the perfect courtesy with which they received us when we visited the schools, and with the liberal manner in which they gave us every assistance in arriving at an estimate of the work done in the schools. It will be remarked that there is no mention of any recompense or return in exchange for the liberty of examination. They say simply and definitely it will be of advantage to the schools if they be examined."

Then we come to recommendation No. 4, relating to tenure, which I pass by for the present. The 5th recommendation is as follows:—

"In cases where, from the want of a Burgh School, the Parochial School discharges the functions of a Secondary School, we recommend that special grants should be made to the master by the Treasury in order to encourage the study of the higher subjects."

Now, I think one may safely say that, without some such arrangement as this, it will be found impossible to devise a system of education which will satisfy the people of Scotland. The Commissioners most properly point out that the theory of our school system, as originally conceived by Knox and others, was to supply every member of the community with the means of obtaining for his children not only the elements of education, but such instruction as would fit him to pass to the Burgh School, and thence to the University, or directly to the University from the Parish School. They observe at page 10 of their Report—

"The connection between the Parochial and Burgh Schools and the University is therefore one essential element in our scheme of national education. The only way in which this clement can be preserved is by insisting that the teachers in every Burgh or Secondary School, and many of the Parochial Schools, should be capable of instructing their pupils, not only in the subjects common to all Primary Schools, but in the elements of Latin, mathematics, and Greek. To be satisfied with any standard of competency inferior to this would be to lower the character of education which has hitherto prevailed in this country, to deprive meritorious poverty of the means of gratifying a legitimate ambition, and to destroy the link which has hitherto united our schools with our Universities, and which, according to universal consent, has proved of the utmost value to the people of this country.":

I do not think that our educational system in Scotland will be put on a satisfactory footing until the highest authority in matters of education—that is to say, this House—thoroughly accepts the sentiments conveyed in this extract. Of course the first thing to be looked to is that every child in the country shall have an opportunity of receiving the very elements of education—shall be put in a position, that is to say, to be a real human being, as distinguished from a featherless biped. That end would be to a great extent accomplished if we passed the Bill which the Commissioners suggested last year. If we passed that Bill, or a Bill pretty like it, for there are numbers of details connected with this subject which, for all I care, may be settled in any one of half-a-dozen ways, if only something substantial is done for widening the area of education and undenominationalizing it. If that, I say, were done, the next thing to he attended to is this excellent recommendation of the Commissioners about favouring by public grants the teaching of the higher branches. These grants to the elementary schools should be liberal. We are quite in favour of the thoroughness of the Revised Code, and its payments by results properly estimated, We do not want schoolmasters to slight the lower part of their work, under the plea that they are attending to the higher part of it; but then we say a good man can perfectly attend to both, and we will not have the narrowness of the Revised Code forced upon us. We are not at this time of day going to put the ship about, and go off in a direction opposite to that in which we have been sailing for three centuries. Now we come to the 6th recommendation, with which I entirely disagree, and which is as follows:—

"Excepting in these particulars, we do not recommend that further grants of public money should be made on account of Burgh Schools in Scotland, nor any other alteration in their management or superintendence."

I think, Sir, that the Commissioners have left out two most important suggestions, which they ought to have included in their recommendations, and which are strongly urged by their Assistant Commissioners at page 146 of their Report. The first of these is, that there should be established in parts of Scotland where the Burgh and Middle Class School accommodation is insufficient, district schools, to which all boys might go when they had passed through the elementary school, if they could afford it; and to which boys who could not afford it from their own resources might go by the help of small exhibitions, gained by competitive examination at the elementary schools. These district schools should give a thoroughly good education to boys up to sixteen or seventeen, and should have both a classical side and a modern side, so as to prepare at once for the Universities or for active life. Without these the giants for advanced teaching to elementary schoolmasters would not be enough—although, as I have said, very valuable. I do not want very many of these schools to begin with—four or six in the whole country, perhaps, to act as models; but then they should be first-rate of their kind, as good, say, as the Zurich secondary schools, and that means, as hon. Gentlemen who have seen these remarkable institutions will know, something very good indeed. With regard to the exhibitions, I think it would be quite fair if the Committee of Council were only to meet local benevolence half way. The creation of small exhibitions—bursaries we call them—to support young men at the University, has long been a favourite object of Scotch benevolence. We have quite enough of these for all purposes—nay, some might say, too many; for they are constantly given away by mere favour, and not as the result of competitive examination. If the Committee of Council were to lead the way, it would soon find people ready to follow it on this road. The 7th and last recommendation relates to the great educational foundations, known in Scotland as Hospitals, which possess about £50,000 a year; but about them I shall say nothing, preferring to wait, in the hope that public opinion, and the opinion of those connected with these institutions, will be gradually led to see means for rendering them more generally useful than they now are, by the educational discussions which are sure to occupy a very large share of public attention from 1869 onward. Before sitting down, I have only to add that I have read with great pleasure the interesting and remarkable Report of Messrs. Harvey and Sellar. Some controversy is going on in various parts of Scotland as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of various parts of it. That of course is inevitable, and the result will no doubt be to sift their statements, and enable each locality to know the exact state of affairs. One thing is sufficiently clear, and that is, that between the Report to which I am alluding—the Report of Mr. Fearon—and the Report of Messrs. Demogeot and Mantuci, we have really got as complete a picture of our Scotch secondary education as we need want. One word as to the Report of Mr. Fearon. It is an excellent Report, but, in reading it, we should bear in mind that it was addressed for English purposes to an English Commission. It was intended to show to inefficient masters of well-endowed schools in England how much is done with comparatively slender appliances by many schoolmasters on the other side of the Tweed. It made me think of the Germania of Tacitus, which was, we are told, intended not only to set forth the virtues of the barbarians, but to satirize the vices of Rome. Good as it is, it would do positive harm in Scotland, if it led our schoolmasters to try themselves only by an English standard. Luckily, it is bound up with Mr. Arnold's Report upon Foreign Schools, so that our Scotch schoolmasters may work out a higher ideal for themselves by the study of his pages. Give the Burgh and Middle Class Schoolmasters of Scotland good pay, honourable treatment, good models, and the constant disinterested advice of men whose abilities and profound knowledge of education they cannot fail to recognize—and no others should be appointed inspectors—and you will soon have a corps d'elite which will hold its own with any similar body of men in the world.

said, that the questions to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention were of great importance to those interested in education in general, and in Scotch education in particular. As, however, no measure founded upon the Reports of the Commissioners and sub-Commissioners had been introduced this Session, and as a great deal of other Business was now before the House, he would not enter into the subject at any great length. The Reports presented last year on elementary education disclosed a state of affairs in the urban districts with which he should have attempted to deal this Session had not the House been so fully occupied with other questions. They showed, however, that in the rural districts elementary education, so far as regarded quality, was in a very satisfactory condition, though there might be room for some improvements. This year's Reports had been presented on secondary or middle-class education, and he thought there was reason for congratulation on its very satisfactory state, whether as regarded quality or quantity. One in 205 of the population of Scotland attended the secondary schools, exclusive of private ones, whereas in Prussia, which was esteemed the most advanced country educationally, the attendance was 1 in 249, and in France 1 in 570. He would not state the proportion in England for fear of exciting sectional prejudices, but secondary education was certainly in a more gratifying position in Scotland than in any other country in Europe. It appeared, moreover, from the exhaustive and instructive Reports of the sub-Commissioners that 71 per cent of the teachers had received a University education, 36 per cent having graduated at Universities. This showed the intimate connection between the Universities and the secondary schools. He looked upon it as a fact of great importance that 1 in 1,000 of the population of Scotland went to the Universities, whereas in Germany the proportion was 1 in 2,600, and in England only 1 in 5,800. Moreover, 58 per cent of the students at the Scotch Universities came from the elementary schools. It was very desirable to maintain and strengthen the connection subsisting between the Universities and the teachers in the elementary and secondary schools. The system of education in those schools was very different from the English system, and in any future legislation that difference ought to be kept in view, for it would not be wise to assimilate the Scotch elementary schools to the English schools as at present constituted. The gross estimated attendance at the secondary schools was 16,000. The endowments, he was sorry to say, were very small, amounting only to about £3,000 a year. The fees were about £42,000, and, taking into account the assistance given by public bodies, the entire cost of secondary education was from £45,000 to £50,000. The average cost per pupil, girls being included, was £3 11s. 6d., a rate about equal to that of England; but in this country there were very large endowments, the revenues of Eton and Winchester alone exceeding the entire receipts of the Scotch secondary schools and Universities put together. The educational giants from all public sources, national and municipal, amounted to about 16s. for each pupil, whereas in France the amount was 37s. and in Prussia 41s.—namely, 21s. from the State and 20s. from the municipality. These facts showed that Scotland was entitled to some credit for turning such narrow resources to the best possible account. The efficiency of the Scotch schools materially depended on the masters, and on the liberal education many of them had received at the Universities. To obtain that education they underwent, he might almost say, privations; and the benefits of it were not confined to themselves, but were shared by all with whom they were brought into contact. Care ought, therefore, to be taken not to deteriorate but rather to improve their position. With regard to the recommendations contained in the Reports, he could not at the present time give any pledge on the part of the Government, but could only indicate what steps ought, in his individual opinion, to be taken. It had been urged that there should be a retiring provision out of the public funds for teachers in the secondary schools, who, from old age or other circumstances, became disabled. To that proposition he was inclined to accede. But with reference to the buildings, he thought that a more doubtful question, ft was a matter for those interested in the locality to attend to the buildings, whether in the way of erecting new buildings or maintaining old. There was a great deal to be said for annual inspection. He thought, moreover, that if any concessions were made on the part of the Government to maintain secondary education it was but right that there should be some Government supervision, in order to insure that the schools were properly conducted. He was glad to see that nearly 80 per cent of those interested in secondary education were desirous that there should be Government inspection. Then as to supplementary schools in those districts whore the population was very sparse, that was a question which deserved serious consideration, but with respect to which he would rather not express a definite opinion at present. With respect to the creation of exhibitions he would be happy to see them conferred upon deserving pupils in the important schools. But from his experience of official life he knew there was a body called the Treasury, which exercised a strict supervision over these matters, and it would be improper for him to express any further opinion on the subject. The only other matter to which he would refer related to the Hospitals. Certainly while the funds for the support of education in Scotland were in general very limited, as far as the hospitals connected with Edinburgh were concerned there was a superfluity, or, in other words, there was upwards of £40,000 a year derived from foundations, which were called in Scotland "mortifications," commencing at the time of George Heriot, the goldsmith, in the reign of James I of England. Now, that was a matter which was really of very great interest to the inhabitants of Edinburgh. The consideration was always forced upon them that this £40,000 a year was not probably employed in the most beneficial manner. The children were lodged in hospitals, where they acquired habits, not of luxury, but of comfort not altogether consistent with the position in life which they might afterwards hold, and it was a question whether that almost monastic life was the best fitted for preparing young people for the world. The funds for those foundations had increased very much owing to improvement in the property; but the will of the testators must to a great extent be respected, and it was only where the funds had been increased very much that they could be applied to any new purposes. The funds of George Heriot's hospital had been applied to the extent of £3,000 or £4,000 to the support, not of in-door but out-door pupils, and a great deal of good had been done in that way. The whole question was one which deserved the attention of the public, and would probably come before that House. In all other respects Scotland was badly off for educational funds. The people of Scotland contributed largely towards the support of the public Exchequer, while they did not derive very great benefit from the expenditure of the public money. If, therefore, the Treasury should see their way to making concessions in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman and recommended by the Commissioners, he would be happy to do anything in his power towards that end. He could not, however, express himself very definitely on a subject upon which he had not had an opportunity of consulting Her Majesty's Government.

said, the salaries of the schoolmasters in Aberdeenshire were exceedingly low, ranging generally from £40 to £70 a year, even with the forty-five teachers who participated in the Milne bequest; and in November, 1866, in forty parishes where the teachers did not parti- cipate in the Milne bequest, the maximum salary was £50 per annum, and the minimum was £20, in the parish of Culsamond with a population of 1,165 souls! He had presented a petition some years ago from seven schoolmasters of Aberdeenshire, five of whom were Masters of Arts. Two of them were receiving £24 a year, and yet they were doing their duty zealously, honestly, and ably. How did they obtain the education that enabled them to fulfil their duties so well? In this way: the sons of small tradesmen, or small farmers, went to a parochial school; the master, having obtained a University education, was able to teach them Latin, extending even to mathematics, Greek, and French. They were thus enabled to go to the University of Aberdeen, and compete for bursaries of £10 or £20 per annum, and thus to pursue the same career as those from whom they had received their instruction. From such a source came men who had gone through a most honourable career in various parts of the world. It had been justly said that there was no part of the world in which you would not find a Scotchman; and it was equally true that you would generally find him successful in life. What was that success attributed to but to the education which he had received in early life at his parochial school? The schoolmasters felt some alarm at the change which was about to take place by the substitution of national for parochial schools, which bad existed for 300 years. They said that if they were to be controlled by a central body in Edinburgh, at least they should have some representatives in that body, and that seemed to him to be a reasonable demand.

said, he hoped that next Session the learned Lord Advocate would bring in a Bill which would meet the educational requirements of Scotland. Though, on the whole, the people of Scotland might be better educated than those of England, yet one-tenth part of the population in the rural districts were very imperfectly educated, the parochial schools being quite inadequate to meet the wants of these parishes. The average pay of the schoolmasters in the Highlands did not exceed 10s. a week.

, who had given Notice that he would call attention to the danger arising to life and property form the careless use of Lucifer Matches, said, at this late period of the Session, when he could not hope to arrive at any satisfactory or practical result on the subject of the Notice standing in his name on the Paper, he did not think that he would be justified, although the opportunities of doing so were not very numerous, in proceeding with it, particularly when he took into consideration the large amount of important Business still remaining to be got over: he should, therefore, withdraw his Notice. Perhaps, however, the House would allow him to make a very few remarks, to show his reasons for bringing the matter forward. A large number of fires, causing very great damage to property, in his own and adjoining counties, had occurred lately from the careless use of lucifer matches. This was considered to be so serious that last year, at the Assizes in Suffolk, the Grand Jury, of which he was foreman, made a Presentment on the subject; it was a rare thing in that county for a Presentment to be made, but so many cases of arson came before them, proved to have arisen chiefly from children playing with, and having easy access to, lucifer matches, that they thought it right to do so. The number of fires arising from the same cause increased through the winter, and the case became a still more serious one. To show the amount of damage done by the careless use of lucifer matches, he would mention that the Norwich Union Fire Insurance Office, which insures one-seventh of the whole agricultural property and farming stock in the country, paid in three years for insurances for damage done by 133 fires no less than £13,462, calculating on that basis, the amount paid throughout the country by Insurance Offices for insured property of this class would be £94,234, for damage done by 931 fires caused entirely by the indiscriminate sale and use of these articles; and when it was considered what the amount would probably be on uninsured property not taken into calculation, this was a very serious matter indeed. In the Report of the Evidence before a Select Committee of the House last year on Fire Protection, in answer to a question put as to the amount of the payments made for insurances by the Sun Fire Office for fires arising from the same cause, the gentleman representing that office stated that they were no less than £10,000 a year. He hoped he had justified himself for having placed the Notice on the Paper, and shown that the subject was an important one. He would put off any further remarks to some future opportunity, and would content himself now with the few observations he had made. Ho wished merely to press upon the Government the importance of the question, with a hope that they might consider it with a view to some remedy.

said, he rose to call attention to the granting of Writs of Error in criminal cases, and to move a Resolution on the subject. It had lately been asserted by a Law Officer of the down in Ireland that writs of error were not a matter of right but a matter of grace. In the case of Mr. Pigott, the proprietor of the Irishman newspaper, who was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for the insertion of a seditious libel in that journal, a petition signed by Counsel for a writ of error was presented on the 21st of April. On the 13th of May—and he complained of this delay—Sir Thomas Larcom replied that, in the opinion of the Attorney General, no grounds existed for granting the writ. As it was stated that the reason for this refusal was because no grounds of error had been assigned in the original petition, another petition was presented on May 28, and on June 5, the issue of the writ was again refused. A petition was thereupon presented on behalf of Mr. Pigott to the Lord Chancellor, and the case was argued before him, but his Lordship decided that he had no jurisdiction to interfere. He did not impute blame to the Attorney General, who had acted, he believed, bonâ fide, though, as he thought, in an unconstitutional manner, in erroneously refusing to grant a writ of error when it was applied for on behalf of Mr. Pigott; hut as the matter was an important one, he felt it his duty to bring it before Parliament. The question whether writs of error were a matter of right or of favour did not now for the first time come before Parliament. In the reign of Charles I. Sir Thomas Armstrong was indicted for high treason, and outlawed; he afterwards surrendered and was executed-the Attorney General refusing a writ of error. In 1689, on the petition of his widow and daughters, his case was brought before the House of Commons, which appointed a Committee of thirty-five Members to examine into the circumstances of the case, and also to ascertain and state the law as to writs of error in criminal cases. That Committee reported that the refusal of the writ was altogether unlawful, and further that—

"A writ of error for the reversal of judgment in treason or felony is the right of the subject, and ought to be granted at his desire, and is not an act of grace or favour which may be denied or granted at pleasure."

The House confirmed the Report, and expelled the Attorney General by a majority of 131 against 71. This showed with what jealousy Parliament looked into the matter immediately after the Revolution. Again, in 1704, in the reign of Anne, where, in the Aylesbury case, actions were brought against the returning officers for disallowing votes, a writ of error was refused by the Attorney General, and the case came before the House of Lords, who took the opinion of the Judges, with Chief Justice Holt at their head, on the point, and, after getting their opinion, the Lords resolved—

"That a writ of error is not a writ of grace, but of right, and ought not to be denied to the subject when duly applied for—though at the request of either House of Parliament—the denial thereof being an obstruction of justice, and contrary to Magna Charta."

Following this up, the Lords presented an Address to Her Majesty praying her to direct a writ of error to issue, and in that Address they say—

"Whether writs of error ought to be granted, and what ought to be done upon writs of error afterwards, are very different things. The only matter under your Majesty's consideration is, whether in right and justice the Petitioners are not entitled to have writs of error granted.

"We are sure that the House of Commons in 1689 was of opinion that a writ of error, even in cases of felony and treason, is the right of the subject, and ought to be granted at his desire, and is not an act of grace and favour which may be denied or granted at pleasure. So that, as far as the opinion of the House of Commons ought to have weight in such a question, whatever the present opinion of the House is, they then thought a writ of error was the right of the subject in capital cases, where only it had been at any time doubted of.

"But that it is a writ of right in all other cases has been affirmed in the law books, is verified by the constant practice, and is the opinion of all your present Judges except Mr. Baron Price and Mr. Baron Smith."

And the Lords then go on to argue in the Strongest manner the justice and expediency of this view of the law. After this Address was presented to Her Majesty, the Judges were again summoned, and on their opinion being laid before Her Majesty, she sent ft Message to the Lords that she would comply with their request; but the Parliament having been very soon after dissolved, all the proceedings fell to the ground. In modern times the question as to the rights of a writ of error came before Lord Chancellor Hart. In 1828, the Attorney General of Ireland, refused to grant his fiat for a writ of error in the case of Radford Hoe, who had been convicted of perjury and forgery, and the cursitor refused to issue it without his fiat, whereupon an application was made to Lord Chancellor Hart, who held that the cursitor was bound to issue the writ. Under those circumstances, then, he thought it was a very unconstitutional act for an Attorney General—especially in Ireland—to refuse to grant a writ of error. He was aware that the dicta of some modern English Judges might be quoted in favour of the course taken by the Attorney General for Ireland; but it had been held over and over again by the earlier English Judges that the writ of error was a right, and not a matter of grace. Two modern cases which came before Lord Campbell "Ex parte Newton," in 1855, and "Ex parte Lee," in 1858, will be relied upon. In both the Court decided it had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter—that the Attorney General should act on his own responsibility—and that if the object for which the writ of error was applied for was merely to raise an objection which did not affect the merits of the case, then he should refuse to grant his fiat—the right to grant the writ of error being one of the Prerogatives of the Crown. It was a monstrous doctrine that the Attorney General—the Prosecutor—was to decide that the ground on which a writ of error was applied for had nothing to do with the merits of a case, and though this doctrine had the sanction of Lord Campbell, he would venture to say that a more monstrous doctrine was never laid down even in the worst times of Royal Prerogative. He had felt it his bounden duty to bring forward this question, as it was decided by a solemn Resolution of this House in the reign of William III. that the issuing of a writ of error was a matter of right and not of grace. This doctrine, which was endorsed by ten out of twelve Judges in the reign of Queen Anne, and by the House of Lords at that period, had been attempted to be overridden by modern English Judges who had not studied the Constitutional Law so well as they had studied the Common Law; but he hoped this House would not sanction such an attempt. The whole of our law relating to appeals in criminal cases was a disgrace to the country. England was the only country in the world without a Court of Appeal on questions of fact in criminal cases. The only appeal was to the Home Secretary, which was most unsatisfactory. It was true that an appeal might be made on a point of law, but such an appeal was only allowed to the Court of Criminal appeal by consent of the Judge who tried the case or else by writ of error; and it was now laid down that the latter method could not be resorted to except by consent of the Attorney General. The Attorney General for Ireland had acted against precedent, for in cases of misdemeanour especially the writ of error was always felt to be a matter of right, and since the decision of Lord Chancellor Hart it had been so considered in Ireland. If, however, the Attorney General refused a writ, Parliament was the only power that could control him. He would not go into the question whether Mr. Pigott was justly convicted or not, but the fact remained that the further investigation of the case had been stopped without any appeal, because the Attorney General, who was the prosecutor, had refused the writ of error in defiance of the Resolutions of Parliament and of the law laid down by the Judges. In conclusion he would beg to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.

I think it would have been more fair and becoming on the part of the hon. and learned Ba- ronet if he had given in the Notice which he had placed on the Paper some intimation of an intention to impeach my conduct on the present occasion. [Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN denied that he had done so.] My conduct has certainly been impeached, for the hon. and learned Baronet has asserted that the Attorney General has been guilty of unreasonable delay, and violated the constitutional rule applicable to the granting of writs of error. The Resolution, however, contained nothing but an allegation which I am prepared to prove utterly unfounded. I confess, however, I cannot sufficiently admire the ingenuity and bustling importunity with which, during the present Session, the hon. and learned Member for Clare had sought opportunities to provoke the House to interfere in matters relating to the Queen and her Royal Prerogative. On reference to the Papers of the House, I find that the Prerogative of the Queen in connection with the peerage of Ireland was the subject of a Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Baronet; but that measure was brought to an untimely end by the interference of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I also find that a Motion of the hon. and learned Baronet stood on the Paper proposing that the House should interfere as to the Queen's Prerogative in connection with the title of honour called knighthood—an interference sought by none, and repudiated by many of those on whom the hon. and learned Baronet was desirous of thrusting the honour. Again, the hon. and learned Baronet had during the present Session placed on the table Notices of Motions connected with the residence of the Sovereign, and with regard to the declarations which the Queen, as the Protestant Sovereign of a Protestant kingdom, was required to make. ["Question!"] I am speaking to the question, as the present was one of a series of attacks upon the Prerogative of the Crown. The hon. and learned Baronet had also introduced a Motion proposing that the House should interfere with the Queen in a matter connected with a charitable institution. That Motion met the ignominious defeat which in my opinion it richly deserved. And now the hon. and learned Baronet has made a direct attack on the Royal Prerogative; for I am in a position to satisfy the House that the granting of writs of error is strictly a matter of Prerogative. The hon. and learned Baronet had com- menced by saying that the present practice was of modern date. But when the subject was discussed recently, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland remarked that it bad been thoroughly investigated, and shown to date back at least as far as the time of the Plantagenets. I find it distinctly laid down in two cases—known as "Crawle's case" and "The Rioters' case"—decided in 1683 and 1684, that in all cases, whether of treason, felony, or misdemeanour, the granting of a fiat for a writ of error was a matter of Royal Prerogative, and that the assent of the Sovereign must be obtained. As to the case which occurred in the reign of Queen Anne, ten out of twelve Judges held that the writ of error should be granted as a matter of right in cases of misdemeanour; and that judgment was afterwards explained in the case of the notorious Wilkes by Lord Mansfield, who laid it down that even in cases of misdemeanour the writ did not issue as a matter of right unless sufficient probable grounds were shown. The universal practice in Ireland had been to apply to the Lord Lieutenant, and he, exercising the Royal Prerogative, referred the matter to the Attorney General. It was granted in cases of treason and felony merely as a matter of grace; in cases of misdemeanour, upon probable grounds of error being shown to the satisfaction of the Attorney General; and there was no authority to the contrary, except the case decided by Sir Anthony Hart, who was not a great criminal lawyer, but simply a master of Equity practice. What would have happened in the case of Mr. Pigott if the law had been otherwise? Under the recent Act of Parliament relating to misdemeanours, if a writ of error were issued the prisoner would be discharged on bail. Mr. Pigott could have got a writ of error as a matter of course, and been admitted to bail pending the appeal. Now, what advantage would the public have derived from his conviction if, after the lapse of perhaps two years, the sentence on this gentleman was ratified, and he was sent hack to prison? Bluckstone, who wrote after the Resolution referred to by the hon. and learned Baronet had been passed by the House of Commons, laid down the law thus—

"Writs of error to reverse judgments in case of misdemeanours are not to be allowed of course but on sufficient probable cause shown to the Attorney General, and then they are understood to be grantable of common right, and a debito justitiae. But writs of error to reverse attainders in capital cases are only allowed ex gratiâ, and not without express warrant under the King's sign manual, or at least by the consent of the Attorney General."

That was the law recognized by Lord Campbell and the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. In Lee's case Lord Campbell said—

"It is part of the Prerogative of the Crown that a writ of error should not issue except with the concurrence of the Crown, testified by the fiat of the Attorney General."

Chief Justice Jervis, and Lord Chancellor Brewster—who was unrivalled in his experience of criminal law—all held that that was the law. I apprehend, therefore, that this was the ancient and legal practice; and as I was bound by my oath to advise the Queen according to law, I advised the Lord Lieutenant, Her Majesty's deputy, that there were no probable grounds for granting a writ of error in Mr. Pigott's case. I desire now to say a few words as to my personal conduct. I was attending to my duties in the House of Commons when the application was presented to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland; but in the course of two or three days the memorial was forwarded. It contained no allegation of any error in the record, nor had any point been raised at the trial by Mr. Heron, who conducted the defence of the prisoner. On receiving the application, I took time to consider, and to institute inquiries about the record. When I refused my sanction the parties immediately presented a petition to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for a fiat to the writ of error, notwithstanding the opinion of the Attorney General. When the case came on for argument the Lord Chancellor, without hearing counsel for the Crown, expressed a strong opinion against the memorial, and upon my consent ordered the petition to be taken off the file of the Court of Chancery. When the second petition was presented to me as Attorney General, I, wishing to have my own opinion strengthened if I was right, corrected if I was wrong, directed that all the papers should be laid before the Counsel who had been engaged in the case, including with the Solicitor General and Law Adviser, Dr. Ball and Mr. Murphy, who were not Law Officers of the Crown. They met in consultation in my absence, and arrived at the unanimous opinion that there were no grounds whatever for a reversal of my decision in the case. Acting on the law as laid down by Lord Campbell and by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, I refused my sanction to the prosecution of a writ of error in the matter. I may observe that when the matter came on to be heard before the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Butt did not state that the case was a clear one in his favour, but only that it was an arguable case. Every one knew that when a barrister only went the length of saying that his case was an "arguable" one he meant that, while something might be said in its favour, the law was against him. It was not on light grounds that I would refuse my sanction to a writ of error. Only that day the Judges of England in the case of a writ of error brought to the Hou3e of Lords on behalf of a man named Mulcahy, who had been convicted in Ireland of a political offence, gave their opinion against the first point raised in Pigott's memorial. For myself, I venture to say that, in acting as I have, I acted according to law, and in the conscientious discharge of my manifest duty. If the law was to be changed, it must be done, not by one branch of the Legislature, but by the two branches, and the consent of the Sovereign. I hope that in this, and all such cases, whoever may be the individual holding the office which I have now the honour to fill, the House of Commons will support him in maintaining the Prerogative of the Crown.

said, he had heard with great astonishment the lecture delivered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) as to his course of proceeding in that House, and the Notices he had from time to time placed upon its records. He (Mr. O'Beirne) was quite at a loss to understand by what right the hon. and learned Gentleman so presumed upon his position. The hon. and learned Baronet had gained for himself the respect and regard of both sides of the House, and was not open to such remarks as had been made. He (Mr. O'Beirne) did not intend to treat this subject as a matter of law merely. He was not disposed to follow his hon. and learned Friend, by whom the question had been introduced, into the pages of Blackstone or the long-past Resolutions of Parliament. He desired rather to look upon it in a popular point of view, and to auk the House to consider what the impressions of the public must be if such proceedings as those stated by his hon. and learned Friend were permitted. There could be no doubt that the policy of Parliament had always been to protect the accused against anything that could bear the character of injustice, and it was that disposition that marked the action of the Legislature in the instances which had been cited by his learned Friend, and to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had given no reply whatever. It was of great importance that our law, and, above all, our criminal law, should be administered with the most rigid impartiality; and it was also of great importance that it should be in its application placed above and beyond all suspicion. It was because the refusal to grant a writ of error, in such a case as that of Mr. Pigott, was calculated to cast some doubt upon the administration of that law, that the consideration of the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was of such moment. Surely if a doubt existed this was a case where the legal discretion of the right hon. Gentleman might have been well used in favour of the prisoner—where the rules springing from principles and precedents might well be stretched a little if such were necessary. He (Mr. O'Beirne) was not anxious to impute unworthy or prejudiced motives to the right hon. Gentleman, whose duty must, or certainly ought to have been very distasteful to him. Nor did he desire to call in question the conduct of the prosecution, the evidence brought forward, or the result of the trial. What he desired to impress upon the House was this—that the right hon. Gentleman was the leader against the prisoner; that when the verdict was obtained he was the judge—the irresponsible judge—as to whether there should be an appeal by writ of error from that verdict, and that he refused to permit any such appeal. He (Mr. O'Beirne) now stated broadly, and he called upon the occupants of the opposite Bench to contradict him if he was mistaken, that this was the first instance in which a writ of error was refused in Ireland in the case of a misdemeanour. Was this so or not? if it was so, he must say he considered the right hon. Gentleman, in taking upon himself to refuse it, acted illegally and unconstitutionally, and his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) discharged a proper duty in bringing forward the subject for the consideration of this House. The noble Earl the Chief Secretary for Ireland would remember the celebrated case of Mr. O'Connell and his friends who were prosecuted some twenty years ago for an offence falling within the same category. Then a writ of error was brought and the conviction was annulled. There was no hesitation upon that occa- sion to grant the writ. Since then the feeling of the Legislature had been shown by an Act which passed, providing that when a writ of error was brought the prisoner should be immediately admitted to bail. This was manifestly for the purpose of protecting him from any injustice, the bail being bound to deliver him up to the authorities to fulfil his sentence in case judgment in error pronounced against him. The right hon. Gentleman in his remarks relied upon the fact that no causes of error were stated by Mr. Pigott in his memorial. This he (Mr. O'Beirne) apprehended was a mistake, as on looking to the memorial he (Mr. O'Beirne) found six points of error very clearly, as he thought, stated and certified by the three learned counsel who had charge of the defence.

The hon. Member was under a misapprehension—the points of error alluded to were in the second memorial. He (the Attorney General) had alluded to the first memorial.

It seemed to him that the fact of the second memorial made the case only the stronger against the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, who, having refused the first application, had been by the second afforded a further opportunity to consider the matter, and then repeated his refusal. As to the circumstance to which he had also referred, and upon which he seemed to rely, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had, in giving his judgment, expressed a strong opinion on the case, he (Mr. O'Beirne) could not attach any importance to such a statement, as the point for his Lordship's decision manifestly was whether he had jurisdiction or not, and the judgment merely ruled that no such jurisdiction existed. The right hon. Gentleman also relied upon the fact that granting a writ of error was a Prerogative of the Crown, and that he was bound by his oath to advise Her Majesty according to law. Now, this seemed to be rather a singular statement. No doubt what the right hon. Gentleman meant to say was that he was bound to advise Her Majesty according to the law as he believed it to be. An oath of any other nature would be rather an unusual one. But there was nothing to satisfy the public or the House that because the right hon. Gentleman took this oath he was not open to mistakes. Certainly, it was now of the utmost moment that the House should express an opinion upon this question. If the law was to be considered to justify the refusal to allow an appeal merely upon the irresponsible dictum of the Attorney General—himself probably, as in this case, the prosecutor, and answerable for the error committed—it should be at once openly so declared. Once it was clearly ascertained and known that a power so dangerous was authorized by law the Legislature would speedily adopt effective measures to protect Her Majesty's subjects from so great an injustice.

expressed his surprise that the hon. and learned Baronet should ask the House of Commons to pass a Resolution of a most extraordinary character merely because Resolutions of a similar nature had been passed in the reign of William III., laying down as a constitutional practice what the Courts of Law had ever since consistently denied. There were few things in the law which could not be contradicted by an ingenious advocate; but, as far as legal authorities could establish a principle, it had been laid down beyond all dispute and question that in cases of treason and felony the grant of a writ of error was not ex debilo justitiœ, but simply ex gratiâ by the Crown; and according to modern practice it was the duty—and by no means an agreeable one—of the Attorney General to determine whether there was such a case in the face of the petition, or appearing from the papers, as to induce him to say that the writ of error ought to issue. The duty of the Attorney General was twofold: to see that the writ was not withheld if proper and sufficient grounds were advanced, and on the other hand not to allow the writ to be issued upon insufficient or purely frivolous grounds. In the case of misdemeanour there was this distinction, as the law had been laid down, that the Law Officer ought not to advise the Crown to refuse the writ in any case where there was a probability that it might be successful. He did not propose to argue before the House of Commons a question which might be argued for days and days before the Court of Queen's Bench, and he was not about to canvass, as other Members appeared to have done, the motives which induced his right hon. Friend to return the answer which he gave; but dealing simply with the Motion put before the House, and advising them to the best of his ability upon the subject, he ventured to suggest that they should come to no such Resolution as that which was proposed. Its only effect could be to mis-state the law; and even if such a statement were put forward it would have no binding effect upon the Judges or Courts of this country. The right hon. Baronet seemed to have misunderstood the question, which was not decided without long consideration, the learned counsel having asked for time to prepare, and, having investigated the authorities and found what he could, the judgment of the Court was still against him. That learned Judge, Lord Campbell, while clearly laying down the principle upon which alone the writ ought to issue, said that the decision of the Attorney General was in the nature of a judicial function, in which he had a duty to perform towards the people at large, and also towards the Court. If he decided improperly or corruptly, the Attorney General might be made responsible in Parliament and dismissed by the Crown, but the Court had no power to review his decision. Mr. Justice Erle, afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and one of the most eminent Judges that in modern times adorned the Bench, after stating that it was the duty of the Attorney General in cases of misdemeanour to grant his fiat for a reasonable cause, said that it was equally his duty to refuse it if there was no reasonable cause, and generously added an expression of his own opinion in the following words:—

"If the Attorney General wished for his private satisfaction to know how, supposing this Court had the supreme jurisdiction which he possesses, we should have exorcised the jurisdiction, I, for one, have no objection to say that I should have done as he did, and have refused the writ."

If, then, modern authorities and ancient practice concurred, he wished to know upon what ground the House could now be asked to affirm a totally different principle? The practice and the reasons for it were to be found in books so old that probably their names were unfamiliar to Members of that House—in Fortescue, in Salkeld, Borroughs, and other writers and these all concurred in declaring that in cases of treason and felony the issue of a writ of error was ex gratiâ, and not ex debito justitiœ, and in misdemeanour only on probable cause shown, The Judges, moreover, had declared in the strongest manner that the recommendation rested with the Attorney General, and that they had no power to reverse the decision.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, be rose to call the attention of the House to the services of Officers, Seamen, and Marines of Her Majesty's Navy, who had not receive decorations in accordance with Admiralty Circulars of June, 1847, 1848, and 1858, which awarded medals to survivors in actions since 1793, a period over fifty years; and to ask, whether Honorary Rewards, as understood by above Circulars, for Gallant Services are to be discontinued? The manner in which all such rewards in the Royal Navy had been bestowed during the last thirty years, had gone far to destroy the value which they ought to possess. This was especially the case in the Syrian, China, and Russian Wars, where many received them without being under fire, or even within hearing of any engagement, really gallant services, meanwhile of various kinds, having been passed over without any recognition. The Admiralty, upon the 7th of June, 1847, issued a circular with reference to the granting of medals, and had this rule been fairly carried out great heart burnings and dissatisfaction would have been prevented. But in the wars which followed there were examples of two medals being worn, for the Black Sea and Baltic, the wearer of which might never have been under fire, and thousands of men in the transport service and in blockading ships received this medal who had never been within sound of an enemy's gun. There would have been no injustice in excluding ships not actually engaged, as no medals were given in the long war with France for blockading or transport service. Even the ships of Nelson's fleet who were absent while the battle of Trafalgar was ought, but returned in time to assist the disabled ships, did not receive the Trafalgar clasp. But the unfairness of the present system would be shown when compared with gallant actions for which no medal had ever been given, although the deeds themselves were well known and appreciated in naval history. Take, for instance, such cases as the attack on the pirate schooner Zaragorana by Captain walcott, with boats of the Tyne, on the 31st of March, 1823. This notorious pirate, who hoisted the black flag, and would neither give nor take quarter, was chased into a narrow creek off Baracoa, in the West Indies. Moored head and stern, with broadside sprung to oppose, she yet was carried with great gallantry against double the number of the assailants. Or take the two actions of Lieutenant Ramsay, commanding the Black Joke tender, in one of which, after a desperate and continuous fight of some hours, he captured the Marinerito, with five guns and seventy-seven men, more than double the force of the Black Joke.

resuming, said, he would not occupy the attention of the House long. He did not press for an immediate reply from the Government, but would rest satisfied with a promise that the matter should be attended to.

said, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, he was unable to give his hon. and gallant Friend a definite Answer to the inquiry he had addressed to the Government respecting naval decorations; but he would do so on Tuesday if the Question were repeated. The subject was one which had engaged the attention of several Boards of Admiralty, and he would not fail to bring the matter under the notice of the present Board.

said, he was greatly surprised at the course taken by hon. Members. In the first place, an hon. and gallant Member was simply calling attention to a subject, and no Motion was before the House except that the Speaker leave the Chair. The Speaker waited some time, and then put the Question most distinctly that he should leave the Chair, which was carried, for no one objected to it, and he left the Chair in the ordinary course.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not given a very accurate description of what had passed. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Henry Lennox) was in conversation with Mr. Speaker at the close of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Mackinnon); but it was impossible for the House to know the nature of the conversation, and he thought that at least Mr. Speaker had taken hon. Members by surprise; he thought that the hon. Members whose names were on the Paper ought to have been called on before the Question was put. Without any notice or understanding of what course Mr. Speaker was about to take, the right hon. Gentleman left the Chair, although he called the right hon. Gentleman's attention when he was on the step of the Chair, He thought there ought to be an understanding between hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel French) was mistaken in his recollection. So far as his (Mr. Disraeli's) experience went—and it was not inconsiderable—the Speaker had followed the usual course. It had never been the practice to call the names of Members who had given Notice of Amendments on going into Supply. He should, however, be happy to give any assistance in his power to enable Members who considered themselves aggrieved to bring forward their Motions on an early day. When he looked at the Paper he did not see that any serious injury had been done to any hon. Gentleman; but even if so, it had been by his own inadvertence. There were two or three Notices on the Paper which took precedence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's—one relating to the Royal Irish Academy, which was a very fertile subject, and after that a Motion on the subject of the Privy Council and the importation of foreign cattle. These would have occupied the available time of the House if they had come on, so that he had sustained no injury whatever, even if the Speaker had waited until it came to his turn. His Question was, moreover, addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as his right hon. Friend was absent, and the Question was one which he alone could answer, the Government would have been obliged to appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone his Question. He felt certain it would not be his wish to obstruct the progress of Public Business. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) would also have had no opportunity of bringing forward his Motion if those before him on the Paper had been called upon. He trusted he would withdraw his Motion, because if Progress were reported it would not furnish the hon. Gentleman with any remedy, or enable him to bring forward the subject of his Notice.

said, that though he was inconvenienced by what had occurred, yet he was perfectly willing to submit with good humour. There was, however, no opportunity, except on Fridays, for private Members to bring any matter under the attention of the House, Tuesdays having now been taken from them, so that they had only three more nights this Session. He roust say that the Speaker distinctly put the Question that he should leave the Chair, and he (Mr. Otway) remained quiet, thinking that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel French) was about to rise. The Prime Minister was willing to give every facility he could to private Members to bring on their Business, and therefore he would make the small return of offering no obstruction to the progress of Public Business.

said, that on Tuesdays every Motion was a substantive Motion put from the Chair, and the practice was for the Speaker to call upon every Member to make his Motion. But on Friday there was technically only one Motion, and the various Notices were merely Amendments to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. It was then "each man for himself."

said, he had erroneously expected that Mr. Speaker would have called upon each Member having Notices on the Paper.

lamented that he had to address the House at that late hour (a few minutes to twelve o'clock), when, after a lengthened sitting, he could not hope to command its attention. Time was when Mr. Brotherton used to move the adjournment of the House at midnight, and it would be well for the interests of the country if the practice were resumed, particularly on nights when Estimates were proposed. He would prefer postponing his Motion; but, if the House wished it, he would proceed! ["Go on."] Well, then, he rose to move that the salary of the Envoy and Chief Superintendent at Pekin be put on the same footing as that of the Envoy Extra-ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary and Consul General in Japan, and said he should lament exceedingly if it were thought that in making this Motion he desired to depreciate the services of Sir Rutherford Alcock, our Envoy in Pekin. The votes for diplomatic salaries had gone on increasing year by year. There was a net increase of £16,632 this year for the diplomatic service of China, Japan, and Siam, the total amount being £100,983 last year and £117,615 for the coming year. Colonel Crossmnn had moreover reported in favour of building houses for the diplomatic, judicial, and consular services at an expense of £171,402, and there was in addition a sum of £7,500 to be asked for the purchase of a wharf for the Admiralty at Shanghai. He contended that the salary of £6,000 per annum was now disproportionate to the; duties of the Envoy. There was no such thing as an Executive Government in China. The Emperor was a boy of twelve years of age, in the guidance of two women—the widows of the last Emperor—the provinces were in the hands of viceroys who had enough to do to hold their own against rebellions which existed in many of the viceroyalties, and the viceroys either could not obey or slighted the mandates from Pekin, where the authority was so feeble that it could not guarantee the safety of its Ambassador to Europe—Mr. Burlinghame, on his short journey from Pekin to Tien-Tsin—rebels, even in the vicinity of the capital, rendering the roads dangerous, and Mr. Burlinghame was only enabled to reach Tien-Tsin by the aid of British sailors. Under such circumstances, the position of Sir Rutherford Alcock was most undignified, for he was accredited to an impotent Government which could not fulfil any engagements it might enter into with him. The treaty of Tien-Tsin, for example, contained clauses respecting transit duties, of vital importance to the foreign trader, which were violated by the local Mandarins; and the remonstrances of our Minister were wholly without effect. The salary of our Envoy and Chief Superintendent at Pekin was £6,000, which was a large sum compared with the salaries and allowances of our Envoys and diplomatic agents in different parts of the world. Sir Henry Parkes, our Envoy Extraordinary in Japan, whose life was daily exposed to the utmost risk from the fanaticism of the Japanese people, and whose labours were ceaseless, received only £4,000 a year. In conclusion, while entertaining the highest respect for Sir Rutherford Alcock, he felt it his duty, in the interest of the British taxpayer, to move that the Minister's salary be reduced from £6,000 to £4,000 per annum.

said, he could hardly think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in earnest in making that proposition. [Colonel SYKES: Quite.] Nobody understood Chinese affairs better than the hon. and gallant Member; but when he urged that the salaries of our Ministers at Pekin and in Japan should be the same, he forgot that our commercial interest was exactly ten times greater in China than it was in Japan. That was one ground of the difference between the salaries of the two Ministers. Again, China was a very distant country, and every article of European comfort was very expensive at Pekin, where there were no hotels, and they could not expect to get service there at the same price as in Europe. Our countrymen naturally looked to the Envoy for hospitality. As to the weakness of the Chinese Government, with that we had nothing to do. If the Taepings got the upper hand—which they had not done and did not seem likely to do—we should recognize them as the de facto Government. With regard to the execution of the treaty of Tien-Tsin there was a Minister from the Court of Pekin accredited to Europe to take that question into consideration. That, therefore, was no reason for diminishing the salary of our Minister in China: £6,000 a year was not an unreasonable sum to pay the person who at the other end of the world was charged with commercial interests involving £60,000,000 or £70,000,000, and which were rapidly increasing.

said, the mission appealed to be altogether one of a very expensive character. He objected to the largeness of the Vote, and still more to its increase year after year. £172,000 was a heavy sum per annum to pay for China. There were abundance of Scotchmen in China seeking situations, and there would be no difficulty in finding men at less salaries than were now paid.

said, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Amendment to a division. The sum proposed was by no means too great for a Minister in China.

then moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £500, the salary of the Vice Consul at Taku. The place, he said, consisted of a little more than a mud shore and a few huts, and literally contained no house in which an European gentleman could reside. There were three Consuls at Tien-Tsin, and a Vice Consul at Taku. The three former were absent, and the work of the four had to be done by the Vice Consul at Taku. The services of the latter could very well be dispensed with.

pointed out that Taku was the port of Tien-Tsin, and that the last Returns showed that ninety-two British ships had been cleared and ninety-one entered there. The trade, which was a glowing trade, was only just beginning to be developed, and a salary of £500 a year to the person who looked after our interests at Taku was, under the circumstances, he thought, not too much.

objected to the payment of sums of money to Noblemen for going to Russia and Austria to invest the Sovereigns of those countries with the Order of the Garter, and moved that the Vote be reduced by £2,500.

thought the expenses of these official ceremonies were very extravagant. The Persian Boundary Commission, he believed, was in a state of suspended animation as regarded everything but the charge for which it appeared on the Estimates. He observed that a charge of £478 was made for the extraordinary expenses of the mission at Frankfort. There was a large number of Englishmen there, and there were also great commercial interests requiring the attention of the Consul, who received no pay. He thought that the whole system of unpaid Consuls was bad.

said that it would, no doubt, be more satisfactory to have all Consuls paid; but if the system of paying all Cousuls were introduced, the House must make up its mind to increase the Estimates by something like £100,000. He had been in hopes that they had heard the last of the Persian Boundary Commission, but some delay had arisen within the last year, and he could only say that he trusted it would not again appear on the Estimates. With respect to the investiture of Foreign Sovereigns with the Order of the Garter, he observed that that was an international compliment, and it was the practice of all the great Powers of Europe reciprocally to confer similar compliments.

said, he feared that when, after a Morning's Sitting, the House resumed at nine, hon. Members were in danger of supposing that twelve o'clock was midnight, and feeling as if they had been sitting for a long time, whereas they were in fact only commencing the Public Business. He hoped that they might be allowed to proceed.

This is a proof of the inconvenience of sitting at two o'clock.

The right hon. Gentleman does not attend here at eleven o'clock and sit on Committee till four.

I hope the hon. Baronet will allow these last three Votes of Class V. to be taken.

assented.