I should be sorry to make any attack on the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. I have never found him wanting in courtesy, and I believe him to have frequently done excellent service in protecting the interests of the public. In this instance I regret that a personal attack upon me by the noble Lord obliges me to say a very few words. The noble Lord, in complaining of railway influence at the Board of Trade, is reported to have said in reference to a similar clause to that of which I have given notice in the Railways' Regulation Bill—

"In all probability the imprudence of the Vice President will impose upon your Lordships the necessity of reversing a decision of the other House."—[3 Hansard, cxciii. 1078.]

As to railway influence at the Board of Trade, I do not care to say anything. The opinions expressed to me by the railway interest in this House in reference to this very Bill do not lead me to think that they share in that opinion. With reference to the charge against myself I have three remarks to make. In the first place, that it is somewhat strong ground to take, that a collision between the two Houses is provoked by the introduction into a public Bill of a provision rejected in the House of Lords chiefly because it was not in a public but in a private Bill. Secondly, it would seem somewhat unusual to discuss "elsewhere" an Amendment which is merely on the Notice Paper of this House, and has never been brought forward. Lastly, that the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for the conduct of the Department. He is a Member of the House of Lords. Surely, then, the noble Lord ought to have called him to account, and not have attacked—as I understand, in the temporary absence of the noble Duke—his representative in this House, who acts of course under his direction in these matters. I venture, therefore, to think that the term "imprudence" may be more justly applied to the remarks of the noble Lord than to the conduct of the Vice President of the Board of Trade. I shall not speak or vote in reference to this Amendment, as I shall be prepared to support it to-morrow when it comes before the House in Committee on the Railways Regulation Bill.

rose to call attention to the Petition of Mr. Samuel Aspinwall Goddard, merchant and gun-maker of Birmingham [presented 24th April], stating his claims for inventions and improvements in the construction of breech-loading cannon. The hon. Member said, that some years ago the Government had challenged the inventive power of the country to solve the problem as to having breech-loading cannon; and Mr. Goddard was one of the earliest to come forward, and he succeeded in making a breech-loading cannon. The weapon was handed over to the Select Committee on Ordnance, that they might test its powers. The Members of that Committee made various suggestions, and the result was that Mr. Goddard manufactured several other breech-loading cannon and sent them to the Government; and at last he invented a gun which was said by the Government and by the Select Committee to be as perfect a gun as could at that time be found. Mr. Goddard thought that having found out what was wanted he was in a position to command the attention of the Government, He offered to the Government that they should take the gun to Shoeburyness and fire 500 rounds from it without cleaning, the only condition being that they should put a wet sponge down it. Mr. Goddard described the merits of his invention in the Petition, from which he would read the following passage:—

"This cannon was taken to Shoeburyness, General Cator, the president, and Colonel W. H. Pickering, the secretary, and other Members of the Select Committee attending, and that it was then and there loaded and fired 360 or 370 times successively without sponging or cleaning, and without any appliance whatever, not even the insertion of the wet sponge, as had been stipulated for. That these facts are in substance recorded in the Minutes of the Select Committee; that this cannon has met and satisfied the essential requirements of a breech-loading cannon; and that the qualities which it possesses are permanent and not transitory, and may be copied and extended to other cannon indefinitely. That General Cator, on the conclusion of the trial, declared that, the cannon worked well;' that neither he nor the other members of the Committee then present could see any fault in it, but that' all that be and the Committee could do was to commend it to the Government, which they would do.' That soon after this Report was sent in, petitioner was instructed by the War Department to get up a 32-pounder upon a similar construction, which was done, and the cannon was delivered at Woolwich, where it was proved, with three several charges of 18, 18, and 20 pounds of powder and ball, after which it was taken to Shoeburyness and loaded and fired many times, several times with 56 lb. oblong shot, without any obstruction arising and without exhibiting any defect. That this 32-pounder was mounted upon a carriage invented by petitioner, combining an inclined plane upon which the recoil took place, the force of which was retarded by strong india-rubber belts, which also drew it back into position, effecting the double object of preventing shock by recoil, and of placing the cannon in position, without the intervention of much, if any, manual labour, which plan of carriage, though it may not be brought literally into use, suggests valuable ideas to artillerists in Her Majesty's service, and these inventions have, as your petitioner believes, been to some extent applied. That Mr. Armstrong's cannon was accepted, and that of your petitioner put aside, the small one, which had been so successful, being placed in the Arsenal at Woolwich, where it remains at the present time. That after a large number of Armstrong cannon bad been manufactured, including 1,000 100-poundcrs, either finished or in process of manufacture, and a very large sum of money had been expended, and after they had proved defective in service in China or Japan, as was reported, Her Majesty's Secretary of War desired petitioner to go to Woolwich, and see if he could alter to his plan the 100-pounder Armstrong guns which were in preparation. That petitioner did go to Woolwich, and found that his breech-loading cannon, which had been lying at Woolwich, had been got out and put in order, and examined by the Select Committee of the Honourable Board of Ordnance, and your petitioner humbly represents that the request of the Minister of War to your petitioner to go to Woolwich and see if he could not alter the Armstrong gun to his plan, after such examination by the Select Committee had been made, was very conclusive evidence of its possessing substantial merits, and a very high compliment to his invention. That, in examining the butts prepared for the Armstrong 100-pounders, petitioner reported to the Select Committee that they could be finished on his plan, but would not be perfect guns, inasmuch as that they were, in his opinion, already weak where they should be strong, while the alteration would make them still weaker; but that there were at the Arsenal some 70-poundcr butts of a construction well adapted to the object. That the War Department accepted this Report, and requested petitioner to provide working drawings, and give such instructions to the Superintendent at Woolwich as would enable him to get up a 70-pounder on the proposed model. That petitioner considered such request in the nature of a command, and did provide the drawings, and attended with his machinist at Woolwich on several occasions to give instructions for getting up the cannon and to examine the execution of the work. That the difficulties which presented themselves at the outset in the construction of breech-loading cannon were, first, a mode of closing the breech; and, second, a mode of preventing the escape of gas upon the discharge, both of which are completely overcome in the cannon, produced by your petitioner; the former accomplished by two wedges acting in connection and nearly simultaneously, and the latter by an action to compensate for the stretching or expanding of the iron upon a discharge, in proof of the importance of which your petitioner has a written communication from the late Secretary of War, stating that the two inventions for effecting these objects were considered by the Department valuable. That petitioner has devoted to this invention some portion of valuable time during a period of fourteen years; that he has expended a sum of money which, with interest, amounts to more than £5,000; that he has placed in the possession of Her Majesty's Government most valuable inventions; and that he has had no expectation of profit or recompense from any other than Her Majesty's Government."

The War Department continuing to refuse to make Mr. Goddard any remuneration for the £5,000 he had expended in what might be called the service of the Government, or for the valuable time he had given to perfecting breech-loading cannon, he applied for remuneration for the use of his invention in a gun called the "wedge-gun," which had been got up at Woolwich to supersede the Armstrong "hollow screw gun," whereupon Mr. Goddard was asked to go to Woolwich and examine that gun and point out definitely wherein his invention had been appropriated. Mr. Goddard accordingly did go to Woolwich and examine the wedge-gun, and found that the compensating bouche, or gas check, had been adopted without any change, and that the principle of the double wedge had been adopted with modifications. Several of Mr. Goddard's minor contrivances had also keen appropriated. In order not to be deceived by his own judgment in examining the wedge gun Mr. Goddard took with him to Woolwich a machinist of great practical ability to inspect the gun, and to make a report thereon, of which the following is a copy:—

"I, John Huggins, of Birmingham, machinist, at the request of Samuel Aspinwall Goddard, owner and proprietor of the breech-loading gun now lying at Woolwich Arsenal, and known by the name of the Church and Goddard gun, and of the inventions appertaining thereto, went to Woolwich to inspect the 64-pounder wedge-gun, permission having been obtained for that purpose, in order to ascertain in what respect, if any, it f embraced the inventions comprised in the said Church and Goddard gun, and having carefully examined the said 64-poundcr wedge-gun, make the following report, viz.:—1. I find that the sliding bouche or ring in the Goddard gun is adopted in the wedge-gun without any modification, with the exception that the bevil on the front interior of, the bouche is omitted, which bevil was not necessary to the invention, but was adopted simply as precautionary measure to insure the more certain action of the bouche. This mode of closing the breech, so as to prevent the escape of gas on discharge of the gun, I consider a most valuable invention, and I know of no other mechanical mode by which this indispensable object can be accomplished. 2. I find that the double wedge of the Goddard gun is applied to the wedge-gun, but in a modified form, and in my opinion in a greatly inferior form, inasmuch as that, among other disadvantages, its manipulation in the act of loading and filing would require double the time occupied by the Goddard gun in that performance; the principle, however, of the double wedge is fully adopted and applied. These two main features of, the Church and Goddard gun—viz., the compensating bouche and the double wedge—constitute the main features of the wedge-gun."

The remainder of the Report was immaterial. That Report was sent to the Minister of War, who had, however, declined, or rather neglected, to make any compensation to him for the trouble and expense to which he had been put in aiding the Government in their endeavour to perfect a breech-loading cannon. Mr. Goddard said that the grounds for refusal by the War Department to make him any compensation were, first, that he had no legal claim; secondly, that much money had been expended over another breech-loading cannon with an unsatisfactory result; thirdly, that there was no immediate necessity for breech-loading cannon; fourthly, probably that his did not meet every requirement. With respect to the first of these grounds, Mr. Goddard submitted that claims in equity might be as strong as claims in law; with respect to the second and third, that he ought not to suffer be- cause other inventions had failed; that although there might be no immediate occasion for a perfect breech-loading cannon, yet that all the reasons in favour of a breech-loading cannon which induced Her Majesty's Government to spend a large sum of money in producing them still remained in full force, and that the time might come when the want of them might be urgent, perhaps indispensable. While, with respect to the fourth, it might be said that if his gun was not perfect, it was either the first or second best that had been offered to the Government. No doubt the War Department was much troubled with useless inventions; but in the present instance a really valuable invention had been offered to them and had undoubtedly received their approbation. The Government should treat inventors like Mr. Goddard with liberality, in the same way as they had done inventors of small-arms.

asked the hon. Member how long it was since Mr. Goddard's claim had been preferred at the War Department.

said, that it was very likely that the right hon. Gentleman was not in Office when the last application on Mr. Goddard's behalf had been made. Mr. Goddard's services had extended over a period of fourteen years. He (Mr. Sheridan) should be perfectly satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would read over Mr. Goddard's petition and take the matter into consideration. As the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) had intimated to him that he would refer to the matter presently, he (Mr. Sheridan) would not make a formal Motion.

, referring to certain complaints he had made about a fortnight ago against the Manufacturing Departments in the War Office, said that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in replying on that occasion, had stated that his charges were vague and indefinite, whereas, on the contrary, they were specific and even minute in their details. The right hon. Gentleman had further stated that he had received no Notice of the charges he had brought against those Departments; but when the right hon. Gentleman was about to bring forward the Army Estimates in April last he informed him that he had a Motion on the Paper dealing with those Departments, against which he had very serious charges to bring. He had, however, postponed bringing forward these charges until the officers of those Departments had had time to investigate them. He had then written a letter to the War Department, containing the charges he had referred to, and he held in his hand the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to that communication. It was impossible, after such a communication, it could be said that he had not given fair Notice of the charges he was about to make. It was no pleasure to him to make charges against a public Department, and he did so simply from a sense of duty. It was unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to have got up the other evening and spoken of the injured feelings of distinguished officers to whom his charges did not in any respect apply. The right hon. Gentleman, in another part of his speech assumed that he (Major Anson) had been posted up in those charges by some outsider. He had undoubtedly gone to Major Palliser for information; but, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman was equally inspired by the Royal Gun Factories. Major Palliser bad a right to have his case heard in that House, seeing that he was a most distinguished man, and that his inventions had saved the country many hundreds of thousands of pounds. He should conclude by moving for a Committee.

seconded the Amendment, of which he heartily approved, considering that it was for the interest of the Royal Gun Factories themselves that this investigation should take place, with a view to the removal of the suspicion which, no doubt, at present existed.

ruled that the original Motion of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Anson) must be carried before the addition could be put to the House.

said, he regretted the aggrieved tone assumed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson), because there was already I enough of unpleasantness connected with the subject to make it advisable that in the House at least it should be approached as calmly and deliberately as possible. His hon. and gallant Friend commenced his speech by a complaint which had already been answered by the statement of fact that he had given no Notice of his intention to bring charges against the officers of the Gun Factory. He (Sir John Pakington) was sorry to say he could not retract a word he had uttered in that respect. The proof of Notice now was, that the hon. and gallant Member had some communication with him (Sir John Pakington) in April last, in which he intimated that he had a series of charges to bring against this Department; but the hon. and gallant Member must forgive him if he did not at that time bear in mind a communication made to him in last April. Then he referred to a letter and an answer; but the letter was not directed to him, but to Major Palliser. He thought that a letter written with his (Sir John Pakington's) authority, in April last, to Major Palliser, could hardly be considered a notice of the speech that the hon. and gallant Member was going to make in July. On Monday week his hon. and gallant Friend made a very important Motion consisting of three parts, every one of which deserved serious consideration, but the Notice of Motion contained: no intimation of the serious charges adverted to by him in April, nor that he was going to make those charges a portion of his speech in July; and therefore he (Sir John Pakington) adhered to the statement that he had no warning that the hon. and gallant Member was going to advert to the subject. The details of those accusations were exceedingly difficult to follow; but there was no doubt that the speech conveyed serious accusations, not only against the acts done in the Gun Factory, but against the motives of the officers, and the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) said that the charges were so serious that they were bound in fairness to make them the subject of inquiry. Considering what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, he had certainly expected some definite Notice would have been given; indeed, without wishing to introduce any asperity into the discussion, he was bound to say he had reason to complain of the course his hon. and gallant Friend took. The Notice had first appeared last Wednesday for the following Friday; but its terms were very vague, and his hon. and gallant Friend failed to persevere with it. On Monday, a week after the accusations had been made, another Notice appeared on the Paper; but his hon. and gallant Friend did not persevere with that, and a third Notice stood on the Paper for Tuesday last; again, notwithstanding he was present to meet the charge, his hon. and gallant Friend did not appear. Thus, after no less than three distinct Notices of Motion had passed by, the House was on Thursday called on to consider the accusation made last Monday week. Respecting the substance of the Motion he had no objection to offer; he was quite ready to assent to the appointment of the Committee in whatever shape might appear best to the House. He could not, however, refrain from reminding the House that the terms of the Motion did not touch the gravest point of the accusations made on Monday week; he trusted those allegations would be considered by a Committee, and he felt very confident the officers concerned would be able to give a satisfactory answer to every one of them. The gallant officers concerned now stated that those imputa- tions could be explained in the fullest and most satisfactory manner. What they complained of was the imputation of unworthy motives. His hon. and gallant Friend imputed motives which they considered to be most dishonourable. One of their imputations was understood to be that when the gentlemen referred to found there was a desire to employ the trade they immediately altered their prices. There was another allegation which had reference to a particular gun; but he observed that this allegation was not included in the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend. His Motion did not touch it, and he hoped he was not going too far when he said that in his opinion his hon. and gallant Friend must allow him to consider those parts of his allegations which were not included in his Motion as practically and intentionally withdrawn. The feelings of honourable men were very much hurt at those imputations. His noble Friend the Member for the East Riding (Lord Hotham), to whom all in that House were so much indebted, thought there was an objection to having the proposed Committee nominated by the Committee of Selection. That being so, he felt it right to inform the House that the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson) was in no way responsible for that mode of nomination. He himself must take that responsibility; and his reason for suggesting that the Committee of Selection should nominate ill this case was his strong feeling that as the Inquiry was to be in the nature of a judicial one, there should be no room for the slightest suspicion that there was anything like party or bias in the Committee. However, in respect to the manner in which the Committee should be named, he was in the hands of the House. With respect to the addition to the Committee proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Captain Vivian), he must, for himself, beg to decline to be put on the Committee. In the first place, his numerous engagements s would interfere with his serving on the Committee; and, in the next place, he should prefer not to do so in consequence of his impressions on the subject itself. Then, he thought, it would be difficult for him to find any Member of that House to conduct the case on the other side who had gone so fully into the subject and was in possession of so many of the details as the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield. That duty might be discharged by Colonel Campbell; but as that gallant officer was not a Member of the House, he did not know whether he would be competent to propose Colonel Campbell as one of the Committee. His own opinion was that five Members of that House, carefully and impartially selected, would be quite competent to give a satisfactory decision in the case.

begged to be understood as not wishing to offer the slightest Opposition to the proposed inquiry when he expressed a hope that the Committee would not be nominated in the way proposed by the hon. and gallant Member (Major Anson). When the Committee of Selection had to nominate a Committee, it was their duly to find Members free from any connection with the subject to be investigated. It might so happen, therefore, that the Members appointed were entirely ignorant of the subject; but it must be their own fault if they remained long so, because, on entering the Committee-room, they found themselves confronted by numerous counsel whose duty it was to bring forward the facts on both sides. But in the case of the Inquiry, as proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield it would be quite different. If five Gentlemen entirely unconnected with and knowing nothing of the subject were selected there would be no counsel or no agents to bring the matter before them. The hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) proposed an attempt to remedy that inconvenience by moving that two Gentlemen should be appointed—one to represent one side and the other to represent the other side—who should take part in all the proceedings, but abstain from voting. From his own experience in other cases, he was of opinion that a Committee formed in that way was a Committee of the worst possible kind for investigating a matter requiring examination. He thought that no Member should be placed on a Committee to take part in its proceedings, and at the same time to be relieved from the responsibility of voting. The proposed Committee was to investigate a subject of great public importance, and he could not see why it should not be selected by the House in the usual manner In this way a Committee might be selected to conduct the Inquiry fairly and impartially. Necessarily the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield would be nominated on one side, and he could not but think that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would be able to name a Member to whom such information might he supplied from the War Office as would enable him to see justice done. He begged to add that he thought a Committee of seven would be quite large enough, and that the sittings of the Committee ought to be continuous pending the Inquiry.

, on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield, who could not speak again, explained that the hon. and gallant Member had waited for a day or two in order to see whether the Inquiry would be proposed by the Secretary of State for War. The hon. and gallant Member having made the charges thought the investigation ought to be originated by the War Department. As regarded the imputation of motives, the hon. and gallant Member entirely eschewed the accuracy of the view taken by the right hon. Baronet of what he had said; but he was content to leave the question of motives to be decided by the Committee. His hon. and gallant Friend had brought no charges against any individual, but only generally against the system, and he was quite prepared to have his allegations thus tested before a Committee. As regarded the trial of this question he (Lord Elcho) confessed that the course suggested by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Hotham) appeared to be the right one.

expressed his readiness to act upon the suggestion which had been thrown out by the noble Lord (Lord Hotham).

rose to move an humble Address to Her Majesty—

"That She will be graciously pleased to direct that an Institution shall be established to receive and educate the Orphan Daughters of Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers of our Army."

The hon. and gallant Member referred to the Chelsea Asylum, which was established by his Royal Highness the Duke of York in 1801. The rules laid down for the admission of children into that asylum, in accordance with the Royal Warrant of the 26th of April, 1805, were as follows:—

"In the selection of children preference shall be given in general—first, to orphans; secondly, to those whose fathers have been killed or have died on foreign service; thirdly, to those who have lost their mothers and whose fathers are absent on service abroad; fourthly, to those whose fathers are ordered on foreign service, or whose parents have other children."

The next Warrant was that of 1809, which was to the following effect:—

"Whereas, from the extent of our army and the great proportion thereof usually employed on foreign service, it is become highly expedient to make a further provision for the maintenance and education of distressed children of non-commissioned officers and soldiers belonging to our regular forces, our will and pleasure is that the number to be admitted into our said asylums shall be extended to 792 boys and 348 girls, making in the whole 1,140 children."

Now, at that time our army numbered 216,179 men, including, however, a large number of foreign subsidies, while our present force amounted to 204,037. The next Warrant was that of 1811, which said—

"By his Royal Highness the Prince Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, our will and pleasure is, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty, that the number to be admitted into the said asylum shall be extended to 800 boys and 400 girls, making in all 1,200 children, exclusive of the infant establishment in the Isle of Wight."

The question was brought before the House on the 4th of May, 1854, when the late Lord Herbert was Secretary for War. The complaint then made was that 120 orphan boys had been taken from Chelsea Asylum for the purpose of making room for the schoolmasters of the army, and the moment the House of Commons became aware that the fact was so he ordered the schoolmasters to be removed and the 120 boys restored to the asylum. He would read an extract from the speech which was made on that occasion by Lord Herbert. He said—

"About 350 children were now received within the walls of the asylum; while at a former period, when there was also a similar establishment at Southampton, it had accommodated 1,222. It had, however, been found, both here and at Greenwich, that the experiment of educating a large number of girls together had proved a complete failure, so far as regarded their future course of life. The experiment had consequently been abandoned, and he should feel great hesitation in renewing it. With regard to boys, the case was different."—(3 Hansard, cxxxii. 1280.]

The answer which he had returned at the time to that statement was that he was not aware that soldiers' daughters were more likely to turn out ill-conducted in after-life than any other portion of Her Majesty's subjects, and that if they had turned out badly it must be owing to the grossest negligence on the part of those who had charge of them. Now, what he had then said he believed to be perfectly true, and he had himself for many years been a subscriber to an asylum the success of which corroborated that view, although his attention had never been sufficiently directed to the admirable manner in which it worked until this year. The establishment to which he referred was called the Soldiers' Daughters' Home. It was instituted in 1855 by Major the Hon. Powys Keck, at the termination of the Crimean war. General Boileau was Chairman of the Committee, 460 had been admitted; 176 were now in the house, and 146 had been placed in domestic service. A prize was given to girls who remained two years in the same situation; ninety-two entered service prior to 1866, of whom forty-seven, or nearly one in every two, have had prizes. Girls who had left the asylum since 1866 were not yet eligible to receive the prize. Besides the girls placed in service three had been trained as schoolmistresses, and two obtained Queen's Scholarships by competition. It was supported by voluntary contributions, and there were thirteen endowed scholarships—eight of the Royal Artillery Crimean Fund, two of the Crimean Endowment Fund, and three of the Havelock Memorial Fund, for one girl each from the 5th, 64th, and 84th Regiments. The first two were perpetual; the third expired in 1882. Was not the success of the Establishment, as shown by those figures, a proof, he would ask, of the justice of his reply to the statement of Lord Herbert that if the girls had turned out badly under the charge of the Government it was owing to some negligence on the part of those whose duty it was to look after them? He hoped that under these circumstances his right hon. Friend at the head of the War Department would be disposed to view the Motion which he was about to make with favour. Some time must of course elapse before the institution required could be satisfactorily established; but might it not, in the meantime, be possible to grant a sum of money to such an institution as that which he had just mentioned on the understanding that it should receive a certain number of children until another asylum for them could be provided? There were a great number of vacancies in the institution, because its funds did not permit of the admission of more girls. There was an amount of £29,000 of prize money Arising from the Crimean War which had not been distributed to the troops owing to the smallness of the sum; but it was as much their right as their pay, and he would suggest that part of this sum might be granted to this institution.

said, he fully appreciated the excellent motives which induced the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel North) to make the present proposal; but he appeared to have forgotten the establishment at Wandsworth, in full operation under the Patriotic Fund Commissioners. Past experience threw doubts on the success of such experiments; but he had reason to suppose that the establishment at Hampstead was successful, and he believed also that the one at Wandsworth would prove successful. The Duke of York's School, which was removed to Southampton, was afterwards broken up, in consequence of the girls from it turning out badly; and they had similar experience in reference to a similar establishment in Ireland. In the establishment at Wandsworth 300 orphan daughters of soldiers and sailors were carefully brought up. Of course, the children of those engaged in the Crimean War had the first chance of admission; but their number was being rapidly diminished by the course of time, and he thought that the House, before acceding to the present Motion, had better wait to see whether the hopes entertained with regard to the two establishments he had just mentioned were confirmed before proceeding to further experiments.

said, he thought the Patriotic Fund had the best title to State assistance, and the Commissioners would be glad to extend their operations if possible. An hon. MEMBER said, that there was a remarkably well-conducted institution for the orphan daughters of soldiers near Dublin, and he thought, if funds were given to such establishments by the Government, it would have a fair claim for assistance.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

rose to move an Address for—

"Copy of the Draft Regulations for the Control Department originally sent in by the War Office to the Treasury, together with any memoranda thereupon by the Assistant Under Secretary of State for War, together with the reply thereto by the Controller in Chief."

In the discussion the other evening he had observed that it appeared from the Papers on the table as if the Treasury did not desire that Sir Henry Storks should remain at his post as Controller-in-Chief; and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War then told him that he laboured under a most extraordinary misapprehension in supposing that the Government, after having selected Sir Henry Storks on account of his high character and distinguished abilities, had now turned round on that distinguished officer and declared that they I did not want him. He (Colonel Jervis) was not in the habit of speaking without a knowledge of the facts to which he referred, and he now declared that every word of his statement was correct. The Papers moved for by the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) would distinctly prove all the allegations he had made. They would show that the right hon. Baronet, up to a certain period, worked with entire cordiality with Sir Henry Storks, and that suddenly that gallant officer found himself thrown over, the regulations framed by him being cast aside, If he was correctly informed there were, in fact, two Secretaries of State for War—one recognized by the House and the country; but there was another at the War Office, who was more powerful than the Secretary of State for War—who that individual was he did not know. It could not be the Director of Ordnance, nor the Accountant General, nor Sir Edward Lugard; but the Papers asked for would alone tell them who this great power within the; Department was. It was right that the House should know who were the ruling powers of the Department. What he now wished to state was that he was not incorrect in his statement on a previous evening; but that the right hon. Baronet was not accurately informed by those whose duty it was to give him proper information.

said, this question of Army Control could not be too often considered. It was not his intention to find fault with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, for in all communications with his right hon. Friend he had always found him most anxious to promote the efficiency of the service; and he believed that if the right hon. Baronet could have had his will, and if the Control Department had been established in accordance with the Letter of the 8th of March, there would be no reason for any Member of that House to find fault with what had occurred. There existed an erroneous impression among a portion of the public, who supposed that this controversy was a fight between the civil and military officers of the War Office, the latter endeavouring to place the military element above the civil clement. He held in his hand an article which appeared recently in the Saturday Review, which clearly showed I either that the public mind had been led astray upon this question, or that there was an animus manifested by certain authorities in the War Department which was thoroughly discreditable to all parties concerned. It was said in that article—

"The adverse decision of the Treasury is of: course, for all practical purposes, an end of the really great career which was open to Sir Henry Storks and General Balfour at the War Office. They had the chance of distinguishing themselves by the introduction of great reforms into our Army Administration. They have used their opportunity to serve a project for intensifying the already intolerable control which the Horse Guards indirectly exercises over the War Office. If they had been left undisturbed, not a civilian would have remained six months in any position of importance, and the army would have governed the Minister of War through his exclusively military subordinates, and have risen superior to Parliamentary control. What it would have cost under such a system no one can guess; but happily the chief agents in the scheme have defeated themselves by excess of zeal. There is now little more to fear, for, though discussion may be burked in the present Parliament, military domination is the last thing which the new House is likely to endure. Whether Sir Henry Storks and his assistant will retire on the significant hint of the Treasury, or will cling a little longer to the rank and emoluments of a position which they have not known how to fill, is very immaterial."

He was inclined to think that article was inspired by some high authority in the War Department of the Government. From what he had heard from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office, he believed there existed in its Departments a great jealousy of the new office of Controller-in-Chief. which was to control them all. It appeared that an attempt had been made to set aside the intentions of Lord Strathnairn's Committee in favour of the appointment of one man to control all these Departments under the authority of the Secretary of State for War. Sir Henry Storks, who was selected for the post he now filled as being the most competent man in the country to re-organize these unorganized Departments and to tiring them under same system of control, and General Balfour had given evidence before Lord Strathnairn's Committee, and a scheme by which there should be one Controller subject to the Secretary of State for War had been recommended by the Committee, which was approved by some of the most competent authorities on the subject. That scheme had been submitted to the Secretary of State for War, who approved it, and wrote a letter to the Treasury asking them to endorse it, and stating that in the event of their doing so it might be put into immediate operation on the 1st of April in Ireland, where it was proposed to try it in the first instance. This letter from the Secretary of State was met by objections on the part of the Treasury which were accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, and the result was that they had now in operation a system of control accepted by the Government and by the right hon. Gentleman in place of that proposed by Sir Henry Storks and General Balfour. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head at that statement; but he could not say that the present system had received the approval of those gallant gentlemen. He (Lord Elcho) should be glad to hear his explanation on the matter. A great deal of misapprehension appeared to prevail respecting the alleged desire among certain officers at the War Office to place the military element above the civil element; but he believed that the various Departments of the War Office would be much better and more economically administered if the duties were performed by officers and noncommissioned officers of the army, as was the case in every other well-regulated military Department, such as those in Prussia and France. The right hon. Gen- tleman had advocated the principle of giving higher pay for more work; but, on the contrary, he believed that by the system of employing half-pay officers in the higher classes and non-commissioned officers in the lower grades they would obtain infinitely better work for a less amount of pay, while it would prove a stimulus to enlistment in the army. In fact, he believed that it would prove a most desirable investment of the public money to buy up all the interests of the present clerks, in order to appoint military men in their room, and he thought the scheme one well worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. In the event of the various offices being filled by military men, there would be no danger of the military element becoming insubordinate, or of its attempting to become superior to the Secretary of State for War, who would still be the complete autocrat of his Department, and superior to every other authority at the War Office—even to the Horse Guards and the Commander-in-Chief. The Duke of Cambridge, in giving evidence before the Commission of 1860, said, in answer to Question 4,105, that he should recognize the superior authority of the Secretary of State for War in all cases. It was clear that the Secretary of State for War exercised complete control over the Commander-in-Chief, except in matters of discipline, and even in such instance the ultimate appeal was to the Secretary of State for War. Sir Charles Trevelyan, himself a civilian, had said after the Crimean War that military men should be employed to a largo extent in the War Office. But, instead of appointing one Controller-in-Chief, it was proposed to establish under the new system practically two Controllers, one of whom might be a financial gentleman, who, though thoroughly competent to administer the monetary affairs of the Department, might be, on the other hand, utterly ignorant of the means of securing military efficiency, or incapable of forming a sound opinion as to the necessity or otherwise of the recommendations of the Controller-in-Chief. He could not see the necessity for the appointment of one Controller General who was to exercise control with regard to military matters, and of another who was to exercise control over financial matters. The Secretary of State who was responsible to Parliament would still have the control of the Controller-in-Chief. The Report was full of passages which pointed to the Controller as the sole officer who, in the opinion of the Committee, should govern the whole Department, being responsible alone to the Secretary of State. The practical result of the recommendations of Lord Strathnairn's Committee was that the Secretary of State for War at home and the general officers commanding abroad would have to deal in all matters relating to the administration of the army with one responsible officer. Last night, meeting Lord Strathnairn, he asked him whether he approved the present position of this question; and he was bound to say, giving the utmost credit to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for the excellence of his intentions, he should be very much surprised if, in the discussion which was to come on tonight on this subject in the other House of Parliament, that noble Lord (Lord Strathnairn) did say that he approved this system, or that it did give effect to the Report of his Committee. On the contrary, he believed be would say that he considered the whole scheme of the Controllership they had laid down after the most careful inquiry had been cut out, and that the scheme as originally proposed by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had been nullified by the subsequent proceedings. In conclusion, he thought this subject was of an importance that could not he exaggerated, and on which the public were greatly mistaken.

urged the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington), in justice to his Department as well as to himself, to accede to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Jervis), in order that the country might know what were really his views upon the matter at issue.

denied that he had ever contended that the Controller-in-Chief was to be equally powerful with the Secretary of State for War. On the contrary, he had always expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should possess entire and supreme control over his own and every other Department connected with the army. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any material difference between the draft regulations that were withdrawn and the regulations which were now being acted upon. He understood that they were substantially the same. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accede to his hon. and gallant Friend's wishes.

said, that looking forward to a much larger change in the relations of the principal officers of our military Departments, he only regarded the present controversy as relating to a temporary expedient. But even as to that it was undesirable to adopt false principles; and he could not too strongly protest against the doctrine laid down by his noble Friend—that the Accountant General was the only person to whom the Secretary of State should refer as to financial matters involved in proposals by a Controller-in-Chief, or other administrative officer. When his noble Friend referred to Sir Charles Trevelyan, he forgot that that Gentleman had proposed that an Under Secretary of State should be the financial adviser of the War Minister.

said, it was impossible for him to remain silent after what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho). This conversation had been commenced by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich (Colonel Jervis), and he (Sir John Pakington) presumed that he was not aware he was acting in violation of the rules of the House, or the Speaker would have interrupted him when he was making his statement. It struck him, however, that his hon. and gallant Friend was not acting in accordance with their usual practice in the course he had taken. His hon. and gallant Friend commenced his observations by referring to a speech of his (Sir John Pakington's), made in that House more than a week ago, and then, passing on to a speech made by himself in reply, arrived at the comfortable conclusion that he (Colonel Jervis) was right, and he (Sir John Pakington) was wrong. His hon. and gallant Friend distinctly stated, in reference to the Papers laid before the House, that the Government had turned round upon Sir Henry Storks, and displayed a desire to get rid of him.

What I said was, that it would appear to be so from the reading of the Papers.

said, he had noticed that in strong language. He said such a statement was wild, unfounded, and unjustifiable. He did not shrink from one of these words, but was rather disposed to reiterate them. The statement was utterly unfounded. He repeated that the most harmonious feeling existed between him and Sir Henry Storks, and he should be base indeed if he had acted in any way inconsistent with that respectful feeling which he had ever evinced towards that distinguished Gentleman. When then, the hon. and gallant Member came down to the House and made a statement to the effect that, finding Sir Henry Storks had served his (Sir John Pakington's) purpose, he was trying to get rid of him, the Member for Harwich was casting upon him (Sir John Pakington) an aspersion which, if he did not at once repudiate in the strongest possible manner, he should be unworthy to hold the Office which he now filled. The hon. and gallant Member went on to allude to another power, which, he said, was equal to that of the Secretary of State within the War Office. It was much to be lamented that his hon. and gallant Friend should have founded such statements upon mere idle gossip picked up here and there. He had never heard such a remarkable departure from anything like an accurate knowledge of what was the real state of the War Office as was shown in the speeches both of the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Colonel Jervis) and the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). There was no such rivalry of opinion going on in the War Office as was supposed from the speeches alluded to. Now, his noble Friend had read an extract from the Saturday Review, and all he (Sir John Pakington) could say was, that he had never seen that article. [Lord ELCHO: I did not say so.] He could not help feeling that the course pursued by his noble Friend was an unusual one. He (Sir John Pakington) was sorry to say he had observed in certain letters which appeared lately in the London Press a combination of personality and misstatement regarding War Office affairs which, in the interest of the public generally, he deeply regretted; because, however erroneous those statements were, they were sure to be accepted as facts by a certain portion of the public. The noble Lord said he believed that the article in the Saturday Review was inspired by some person high up in the War Office.

No; what I said was, I do not think it impossible that the article was inspired. I did not say that I had reason to believe it was inspired.

Well, that was pretty much the same thing. Now, he refused to believe that anyone in the War Office could be so base and disloyal as to publish newspaper attacks upon the Department with which he was connected. He would not deny that he had heard such statements before, that he had been told that these personalities and attacks had proceeded from some one connected with the War Office; but he for one did not believe that statement, and all he could say in reply was that if the man were pointed out he should know how to deal with him. The noble Lord said he believed that some differences had arisen between him and Sir Henry Storks and General Balfour. [Lord ELCHO denied having made such statement.] He could only say there was not the slightest foundation for such an insinuation. He had further to express his regret that those Members of the House who were most desirous to see this system of control carried out should come down to that House and throw difficulties in his way, and do more than any others to endanger the prosperity and success of the working of the scheme. It was idle to suppose that such a large change as was contemplated could be effected without great difficulty and perhaps inconvenience to certain gentlemen of high position in the office, but the difficulty was much increased by the course which was pursued by Gentlemen who ought to give him all the encouragement in their power instead of throwing obstacles in his way. This was the more to be regretted, inasmuch as the objections urged were for the most part futile and unfounded, for he did not believe that any change was ever inaugurated with greater promise of success. The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Colonel Jervis) had now asked him, as the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) had asked him the other evening, to produce a Copy of the Regulations which were first drawn up, the Correspondence written by Mr. Galton, and the answers of Sir Henry Storks. Personally he should not have slightest objection to their production; indeed, he should be pleased to see them upon the table of the House. But he would ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to remember that if he were to accede to this Motion he would be establishing a precedent of the most dangerous and objectionable character. Whenever any departmental change was introduced Parliament had a right to be informed of the change; but to demand the production of such Correspondence as that now asked—documents which must be looked upon to a great extent as private in their character—would be establishing a precedent which could not but injuriously affect the best interests of the public service of this country, Believing that such would be the result, he could not assent to the Motion made by his hon. and gallant Friend.

said, that he felt bound not to withdraw his Motion for the production of these Papers.

said, he trusted the House would consider before giving a decision on a point which was of the utmost importance. If the House were to insist upon the production of Papers and Correspondence which concerned the preparation and preliminary consideration of measures, they would thereby put a stop to that freedom of criticism which was always invited on such occasions, and which contributed so much to the perfection of public measures. The moment that it became known that the opinions of those most competent to judge of public measures, and who were invited to express them, were likely to be produced in that House, great disadvantage to the public service would result, because everybody would naturally shrink from the responsibility he would have to encounter. Instead, then, of the Government having the advantage of the suggestions which they were in the habit of receiving, and the information and criticism which better enabled them to carry out any changes which they contemplated in the administration of public affairs, they would find themselves in the position of having to deal with merely mechanical persons, who would afford only information upon points on which they were well up, and they (the Government) would lose the advantage arising from those large spontaneous suggestions, and from that general information which tended greatly to the advantage of the public interests. He trusted then, for the sake of the public service, that the House would not assent to this demand for the production of the Papers called for.

, referring to several other Amendments on the Paper, said, it was really of the utmost importance that the House should go into Committee upon the Army Vote. He hoped that the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne), who had a Motion on the Paper respecting the Shoeburyness experiments, would waive his right, in order to allow the Vote in question to be taken in Committee.

said, he would withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would give him an opportunity of bringing that most important matter, of which he had given Notice, under the consideration of the House, before the close of the Session.

The hon. Member can bring on his Motion upon the Report of Supply under any circumstances.

expressed his dissatisfaction with such an arrangement.

The House will sit on Saturday, and I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be then afforded the opportunity he desires.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would put down the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill as the first Order of the Day for that evening, it having been fixed for the Morning Sitting? ["No, no!"] That Bill and the Irish Registration Bill must, he presumed, become law before the close of this Session, the Government having pledged themselves to carry them. The Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill might fairly take precedence that evening of the Cattle Market Bill. ["No, no!"]

desired to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had declared that all business connected with the question of Reform would be the first to be wound up. The Irish Registration Bill was not only connected with Reform, but its immediate passing was a necessity. There could, therefore, be no reason why it should not have precedence of the Cattle Market Bill. ["No, no!"] He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the declarations which he had made, and either proceed with Reform measures or assign some intelligible reasons for deviating from that course.

I repeat it is the determination of Her Majesty's Government to carry the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, and all I can say is this—I will not advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament until that measure is definitely decided upon by the House. With that view alone I propose a two o'clock Sitting of the House to morrow in order to go on with that Bill. With regard to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson) on the subject of Corrupt Practices, I do not think that I have said anything to justify that phrase as a description of my policy. My wish is to fulfil the engagements I have made with a number of Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I have, therefore, fixed this evening for the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill, and I feel myself bound to adhere to that arrangement. I do not, of course, know how long the discussion upon that subject may take; but perhaps it may terminate before the usual time of adjournment. In that case we shall take the Irish Registration Bill, which is on the Paper. In the new fervour for Reform principles of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson)—of which by the way he gave us very little taste during the general discussions—he seems to throw a doubt upon our sincerity in those questions immediately connected with it. He may, however, rest assured that the Irish Registration Bill will pass this Session, because without it we cannot make the appeal to the country which we are so desirous of expediting. Allowing this arrangement, then, to stand, I propose that on to-morrow at two o'clock we shall proceed with the Corrupt Practices Bill.

said, that having given way to the Government on a former occasion on being told that he should have an opportunity of bringing this subject forward, he found that the pledge given by the Government had been fulfilled by his Motion being placed thirty-ninth on the Orders of the Day. Finding he should be out of Order in now bringing forward his Motion, he wished to ask the Solicitor General in the absence of the Attorney General, Whether it was his intention to prosecute those who had been guilty of bribery and other malpractices at the last Bristol election?

said, he had no doubt, though he had had no communication with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, that the Attorney General had given consideration to this Question. He apprehended, however, that his learned Friend would think much further inquiry necessary before he could decide upon instituting proceedings, about the result of which it would be impossible to judge.

offered his notes on the evidence taken before the Bristol Election Committee to the Attorney General, and assured him that the information they contained would enable him to prosecute a dozen persons without a moment's hesitation.

called attention to the Report of the Committee on the Military Reserve Funds; and referred to the several schemes suggested for promoting retirement among officers of the Royal Artillery and Engineers, contending that the inducement to be offered to officers to retire should be equal to their hopes if they remained in the corps. The system of purchasing out the officers of the Engineers and of the Artillery with sums from a reserve fund to which they never had contributed was a most objectionable one, and had been condemned by a Committee who had gone very fully into the subject. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would inform the House that they were going to put an end to this mode of purchasing out officers, and to do something towards carrying out the recommendations of the Committee on the subject.

, while admitting that the subject was a difficult one, and while not blaming the Government, thought at the same time that it was very unfortunate the War Department had not come to a decision in reference to the recommendations of the Committee to which the hon. and gallant General (General Dunne) had just referred. On the other question, nothing could be worse than the system under which the officers of non-purchase corps were now retired. A fixed sum was provided, out of which officers of a certain standing might or might not, according to their rank, receive annuities of £600 or £450 a year; but it was a farce to call this a system of retirement. The Committee recommended that there should be a fixed scale according to length of service, and that officers should be allowed to compound for the payments to which they would be entitled. The only thing the House had got before them in reference to the intentions of the Government was a Paper, drawn up by the actuaries and based upon speculations entirely gratuitous, as far as the Committee were concerned, on the part of gentlemen in the War Department and at the Horse Guards. It was true that some of these gentlemen came before the Committee, and the Committee had heard some of these speculations; but they never even alluded to them in their Report; and the Paper was perfectly useless so far as the House might want it. He must therefore disregard it as an authority in the discussion of the question. Even according to the view of the parties themselves the scheme was so absurd that it was impossible for reasonable men to deal with it. He hoped, seeing what ideas were in vogue in his office, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War would not commit Parliament and the country to any change in the present arrangements till next Session.

, in reply to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member (General Dunne), with reference to the reserve fund, said, that as the change involved in the Report of the Committee was a very important one he thought the best course to adopt, looking to the interests of the army was to consider it during the Recess. He had therefore applied to the Treasury and had obtained their sanction to deal with the reserve fund exactly as heretofore up to the time when the Estimates would be introduced nest year. By that time the Government would have made up their minds as to the course which they would be prepared to lake in reference to the fund. As to the observations which had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), he could only repeat what he had already stated, that it would be absolutely necessary before long to have a new plan of retirement for the non-purchase corps. The questions involved, however, were very complicated and difficult, and it was far more important that any scheme which was devised should be well done than that it should be done quickly. He would assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) (hat no premature action would be taken upon the subject to which he referred, and that nothing would be done without the sanction of Parliament. He hoped the House would he content with his assurance that during the Recess he should give further consider- ation to the subject. There was in the Vote they were about to pass a sum of £5,000, being the second instalment of £10,000 for the Engineers; did the hon. Gentleman wish that that £5,000 should not be expended as was intended.

That is distinctly my wish.

said, he had no objection to accept the suggestion.

said, he did not think the right hon. Baronet understood the subject. This £5,000 was part of £10,000 which should have been voted last year for the Engineers.

trusted that the Committee would not consent to withdraw this £5,000.

complained of the consolidation of barrack districts, thereby imposing additional duties on barrack masters for which they were inadequately paid.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Is it the fact that Michael O'Hanlon, formerly a resident in Belfast, and who has a wife and four children totally dependent for their support on his earnings as a working gardener, had been nearly eighteen months in prison; and, if so, if any reason can be assigned for not bringing him to trial or admiting him to bail?

said, that an Order for the discharge of Michael O'Hanlon was made out on the 8th of this month, and he had heard that morning that he had been discharged under that Order.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there has been any recent Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States on the question of naturalization and expatriation; and, if so, whether he is willing to lay such Correspondence upon the Table of the House?

Sir, the House will probably Lave seen in some English newspapers the Despatch from, the United States' Government upon this subject, to which the Question of the hon. Member refers. That Despatch was placed in my hands a few days ago, and it appears to have been made public in America previous to its reaching this country. Before it came into my hands, I had written to the British Minister at Washington upon the subject—a Despatch which must have crossed that of Mr. Seward on its way to this country. In that Despatch I explained the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the question of naturalization as it now stands. In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I may say that I have no objection to lay that Despatch, as well as that of Mr. Seward, upon the table. I may also repeat what I have already stated in answer to a Question put to me in this House, that Her Majesty's Government are quite prepared to accept in principle the views of the naturalization question for which the United States' Government contend, and therefore I do not apprehend that any misunderstanding can arise out of it. We have declined, however, to enter into any treaty upon the subject just at present, for two reasons—firstly, because some legal details have to be arranged, and are now being considered by the Commission appointed for that purpose; and next because, even if we were to act irrespectively of the Report of that Commission, such a treaty would be perfectly useless until an Act of Parliament is passed to bring it into operation. I need not say that in the state of Business—not only as it is now but as it has been for the past month—it would have been useless to attempt to bring in so large and important a measure. If it should be my fortune to have any share in the Government next year, I shall be ready to introduce a Bill upon the subject in the new Parliament.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether notices will be served during the autumn on the owners of houses in Holywell Street, and also on the owners of houses in the line of a new street from the Strand to Lincoln's Inn Fields, on the west side of proposed New Law Courts, in order that a Bill may be brought in, during the next Session of Parliament, to provide approaches to the Bite of the New Courts of Justice by the removal of Holywell Street and the formation of a new street from the Strand to Lincoln's Inn Fields?

said, in reply, that the Royal Commissioners did not recommend the removal of the property referred to by the hon. Member for the approaches to the New Law Courts. And, however desirable it might be that these houses should be removed for metropolitan improvements, Her Majesty's Government had no intention of giving the notices with a view of bringing in a Bill for the purchase of the property next year.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the inequality of taxation between Great Britain and Ireland shown by Return No. 345, printed by Order of this House on the 22nd June last, by which it appears that the amount of Revenue for each £100 of assessed Property and Income Tax paid by Great Britain in the year 1854 was £23 18s. 11¼d.; while that paid by Ireland was £27 15s. 11d.: the amount paid by Great Britain in 1861 was£21 9s. 5½d.; that paid by Ireland was £29 2s. 11½d.: and that paid by Great Britain in 1866 was £17 14s.; while that paid by Ireland was £29 10s. 7½d. per cent.: and, whether he proposes, during the Recess, to consider this inequality of taxation with a view to its being remedied?

said, in reply, that as the Question affected the Treasury, perhaps the House would permit him to answer the hon. Member's Question. The attention of Her Majesty's Government had been drawn to the Return lately moved for by the hon. Member, and an inquiry had been made and was being continued into the causes which appeared to show, on the face of a Return the hon. Member referred to in his Question, what was certainly not in accordance with the common impression, that the taxation of Ireland was in a higher ratio than that of England. One cause probably that tended to that was that the basis of Schedule A in Ireland was notoriously lower than the basis of Schedule A in England.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether the Board of Works are going to pull down the public houses on the eastern side of Park Lane, since the proposal to widen the Lane through Hamilton Place has been rejected?

said, in reply, that in 1864 an application, which was refused, was made to the Government to make a communication through the Park. The same scheme was submitted to the Government by Mr. Snell, but with no better success. In 1865 the Board of Works introduced a Bill to open Hamilton Place; but it was opposed by Mr. Gore on the part of the Government, and after being referred to a Select Committee, it was rejected. In 1866 the Board of Works brought in a Bill to open up Park Lane by taking down Gloucester House. In 1866–7 there were no means of carrying out the improvement through the Coal and Wine duties, and the Bills of 1866 and 1867 had to be withdrawn. The sanction of the Government having been this year obtained for the continuance of the Coal and Wine duties, a Bill was brought in but the plan of taking down Gloucester House was unfortunately rejected unanimously by the Select Committee. The question was, therefore, still open, and the possibility of widening the other side of Park Lane was under consideration, and also the suggestion of the Committee of 1868. Not a moment would be lost in considering the question by the Board of Works, and he hoped next Session to be able to bring in a Bill by which this desirable improvement might be carried out, but certainly not by the removal of Gloucester House.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Commercial Treaty between Sweden and this Country contains the "most favoured nation" Clause; and, if so, whether the Government propose to extend to cattle imported from Sweden—being a country free from cattle plague—similar privileges to those which have been granted to cattle imported from Portugal, Spain, and Normandy: whether it would not be in accordance with our Treaty engagements with Prussia, which embrace the "most favoured nation" Clause, that similar privileges should also be granted to cattle imported from Schleswig Holstein, in case such province be found to be entirely free from cattle plague; and, whether any representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government in reference to the importation of cattle from Denmark, and whether the Government declines to remove the existing restrictions on the importation of cattle from Denmark, al- though that country is and has been entirely free from cattle plague?

said, in reply, that the commercial treaty between Sweden and this country did contain the "most favoured nation" clause, but stipulations of that kind had not been held to apply, and he did not think it reasonable that they should be considered as applying to restrictions temporarily imposed for sanitary purposes only, and not imposed with a view of giving one country a commercial advantage over another. That also answered the second part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman, which related to our treaty engagements with Prussia. With regard to the third part of the Question, many representations had been addressed to Her Majesty's Government on the subject; but although these representations were addressed to the Foreign Office in the first instance, it rested, not with him, but with the Council Office to consider what restrictions should be imposed for sanitary purposes.

said, if the restrictions were not necessary for sanitary purposes, he understood the noble Lord to say the "most favoured nation" clause would apply. Therefore, if there was no cattle plague in Sweden and Denmark, those countries had a right to demand that that clause should he carried into effect.

said, that that was a matter for argument.

said, not as argument, but as a matter of fact, he wished to ask, If it was true that if there was no cattle plague in Sweden and Denmark, the "most favoured nation" clause applied?

said, the right hon. Gentleman put a question on a hypothetical case, which he could not answer on an occasion of this kind, inasmuch as he would have to enter on a longer discussion than the rules of the House would permit him. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to raise the question, he had better bring it on in a form in which it might be debated.

said, he wished to ask, Whether, as Denmark was free from the cattle plague, the Government intend to withdraw the restrictions on the importation of cattle from that country?

said, the question was not as to the landing of cattle, since that was permitted, but as to what was to be done with the cattle after they were landed. Cattle imported from Spain were allowed to go inland; but there were reasons why the regulations passed respecting cattle from Spain, Portugal, Brittany, and Normandy should not be applied to Denmark. The ships that went to Spain were engaged in the wine trade alone, and did not go to any other country than Spain, so that there was no danger of the cattle contracting any disease on board those ships; but the ships that went to Denmark went also to Revel and the Baltic ports, and cattle might very well contract disease in them. Another reason was that Spain, Portugal, Brittany, and Normandy reared more cattle than they required for their own use, exporting only, but not importing; so that there was no danger of the cattle contracting disease before their embarkation; but in the case of other countries this did not apply. When the hon. Member spoke of cattle being imported from Denmark, he must mean that they were exported from Schleswig and Holstein because the ports were in those provinces, and cattle from Hungary, Podolia, Galicia, Styria, and other districts where the cattle plague was indigenous, were conveyed to the ports of Schleswig and Holstein, and might be brought to this country. For those reasons it would be imprudent to apply the same regulations to the northern ports, where the same security against cattle plague did not exist.

said, he had confined his question to Denmark proper.

said, there was no port of export from Denmark proper.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the recent decision of the House to confer the franchise on the officers of the Customs, Inland Revenue, and Post Office, he is not of opinion that Members of Parliament should be precluded from making application in favour of persons seeking employment in those Departments?

, in reply, said, there was no intention of legislating with the view of precluding Members of Parliament from making application in favour of persons seeking employment in Government Offices, because of the recent Act removing their disabilities.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have any objection to continue to allow Foreign Sheep imported into London to be removed alive to populous inland towns as at present, with the sanction of the Privy Council; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to except Foreign Sheep from the operation of the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill?

said, in reply, that there was no intention to prevent foreign sheep from going into the country, as the Order in Council showed; but the evidence adduced against the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Milner Gibson)—he referred especially to that of Mr. Rudkin, the Chairman of their Market Committee—proved incontestably that there was great danger in the free transit of foreign sheep, and induced the Committee, and the Government also, to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to prevent sheep from infected places from going into the country.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the great and increasing destruction of growing crops and other property by fires caused by sparks from Railway Engines; and why Railway Companies should not be prohibited from using Coals in Locomotive Engines at least till the harvest is ended?

, in reply, said, the Board of Trade had received no recent communication on this subject. Fires were, no doubt, occasionally caused by sparks from locomotives, and in dry weather, such as that which now prevails, the danger was, of course, much increased. Still, if negligence could be proved against a company, it was liable for damages. It had been suggested that wire caps should be used for the funnels, such as are seen on Italian railways; but these were found materially to impede the draught, and besides had not proved effectually preventive. There was no law prohibiting the use of coals, and the Board of Trade was also powerless in the matter; the objection to the substitution of coke consisted in its much heavier cost. Sparks, like smoke, were formed of particles of imperfectly consumed fuel, and a clause in the Railway Regulation Bill of this Session, which, provided for a more perfect consumption of smoke, would, he hoped, tend to prevent the mischief of which his hon. Friend complained.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Privy Council, If all the Claims for Cattle Plague Compensation are settled; and when the final Report on the Cattle Plague—a great portion of which has been in type since May, 1867—will be in the hands of Members; and, whether the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council Office is likely to be permanent; and, if so, why Agricultural Statistics, which cost last year £18,000, the Corn Averages, costing annually £2,700, and other Returns connected with Agriculture, should not be collected through this Office?

, in reply, said, although there were still thirty-one outstanding claims for compensation, the delay was not in the Council Office; it arose from the difficulty of getting the necessary information from the clerks of the local authorities. The final Report on the Cattle Plague was now awaiting only the completion of the medical Report and the illustrations. It was true that portions of it were in type in May, 1867, but those portions consisted only of the statistics for 1865 and 1866. The Report, when com- pleted, would contain a full history of the outbreak, from its commencement to its termination. It would be in the hands of Members early in the Recess. The Treasury has appointed a Commission to in quire into the desirability of making the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council permanent, and the Commission will meet in a few days. The remaining portion of the Question of the hon. Gentleman he was unable to answer.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, a copy of the Despatch of Mr. Cardwell to the Governor of Vancouver's Island, dated 11th October, 1865, No. 57, transmitting Copy of Correspondence with the Treasury and the Post Office relating to the postal communication between that Colony and Great Britain?

said, in reply, that he could not see the use of giving to the House a despatch from a late Secretary of State to a late Governor of a colony which no longer existed, respecting negotiations which had come to an end. New negotiations were now on foot, which he had recently stated to the House; but, for reasons he then gave, it would not be proper to lay any Papers on the table respecting them until they had come to a conclusion.

said, in the absence of his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Greville) he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he is aware that the large and commodious Barracks at Mullingar hare for some time been unoccupied by a Regiment of the Line, and that at the present moment there are only two Companies quartered there; and whether, considering the central situation of Mullingar Barracks, on a line of Railways which connects it with the North and South, as well as the East and West of Ireland, he does not think it desirable that as large a force should be kept there now as formerly?

said, in reply, that the Irish Government had nothing to do with the distribution of the troops in Ireland, except in cases of preserving the public peace; all ordinary movements of the Army were directed by the War Office. His own opinion, however, was that there was no necessity to station troops at Mullingar in any considerable force.

said, that the question raised by the Bill itself was one of very great importance, being nothing less than this—whether this country should continue the policy which it had been pursuing for twenty years, or whether it should reverse that policy. Parliament had now to consider whether it would revert to Protection or persevere in the great principles of Free Trade, which had led to results so beneficial, not only to this country, but to all the world. The Government had introduced a Bill of a most protective kind—and how had it been introduced? It had been, at least, as far as regarded the principle involved in it, smuggled into the House in the first instance; but when it came before the Select Committee he and other hon. Members perceived that it was a measure of rank Protection. It would defeat one of the great objects Sir Robert Peel had in view when asking Parliament to adopt the principle of Free Trade in cattle—namely, that of securing to the people of this country meat at prices within their reach. During the investigation conducted by the Select Committee it was admitted on all hands—by the advocates as well as by the opponents of the Bill—that the effect of the measure would be to raise prices very much. Graziers certainly said that its effect would be to bring about Free Trade; but when asked what they meant by Free Trade they said they meant free competition. When the inquiry was carried a little further it appeared that they meant competition among themselves, but a keeping out of the foreigner. Within a few months after the passing of this Bill the importation of foreign cattle would come to an end. Indeed, he might refer to the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council in support of that proposition, for the noble Lord had frequently avowed in that House that foreign dealers would not send their cattle to this country if the animals were to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. But the Select Committee had heard the evidence of more practical men than the noble Lord—butchers and farmers. The latter said that if this Bill passed prices would be improved; and they added that, in their opinion, prices ought to be improved. The butchers stated that the Bill would have the effect of advancing prices; but their objection to this was that, while prices would be increased the supply would be diminished. Perhaps it had been the desire of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) that some of his party should be educated in Free Trade principles by the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) and other Members of the Committee; but he did not think anything had been effected in that way beyond getting some of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Disraeli's) supporters to admit that if you limited the supply and increased the demand you would raise prices. The pretence for the Bill was the rinderpest, which had visited this country a year or a year and a half ago; but it had not been shown that such a measure was necessary for keeping that disease out in future, or that it would effect that object. Before the Committee, M. Rouher, the chief of the Department in France which had the matter under its charge, attended for the purpose of explaining what arrangements were made for preventing the ravages of rinderpest across the Channel. The position of France was far less favourable than ours, and yet, though they had the disease there eight or ten times, they had never found any difficulty in stamping it out without in any degree giving up the full and free importation of foreign cattle. It was very instructive to see how this information was received by the country Gentlemen on the Committee. One would have thought they would have listened to it with the greatest interest; but it was evident that M. Rouher had had in them a comparatively unwilling audience. In France the rinderpest had been stamped out with a loss of 600 head, whereas it cost us 278,000, besides 54,000 that had been slaughtered on account of the disease. In Austria, too, which was the only country where rinderpest still existed, the plague was confined to one or two provinces, and surely the Government, before they subjected the country to a tax of £2,000,000, or £3,000,000 in the enhanced price of their food, ought to have inquired how the Germans contrived to restrict the malady within a few districts. Depend upon it, the real rinderpest which hon. Gentlemen opposite feared was foreign competition. There was a minor point on which he desired information. Did the Government intend to adhere to their resolution to admit cattle from Spain, Portugal, and Brittany? If they did, it seemed to him hardly consistent with the dignity of this country to attempt thus to evade our obligations under "the most favoured nation" clauses of our treaties. The only effect of this Bill would be to raise seriously the price of meat. This would especially be the case in London, for two reasons—because it would limit the supply, and because the expense of the construction of the foreign market would fall upon the metropolis. It had been estimated that the cost would be nearly £500,000; and it was also believed that it would be four or five years before the market could be opened; so that, during all that time, the meat market would be in a state of confusion and uncertainty. A rise of price in the article of meat touched the comfort of the people. In 1866 the number of foreign cattle in the metropolitan market was 343,000 head, and in 1867 that number was decreased by 56,000, or nearly 15 per cent. It was difficult to measure the amount of privation and suffering caused by that diminution. He trusted that the House would never consent to infringe on the great policy of Free Trade, and that the friends of that policy would by their vigilance and perseverance prevent the adoption of such a law as the one now proposed. It might appear to be harmless; but he believed that it would prove, if it was passed, a most vicious and prejudicial piece of legislation.

said, that the Medical Officer's Report in 1863 stated that the diseases which figured behind the dead meat market were various. The more important were contagious fevers, parasitic diseases and typhoid; and Mr. Gamgee (who was admitted on all hands to be a great authority on such subjects) stated it to be his belief that one-fifth of the mutton, beef, veal, &c., sold in this country was considerably diseased. He also stated that the epidemic diseases were entirely owing to the importation of diseased meat, and that by the adoption of more strict precautionary measures it might be greatly reduced. It was well-known that pleuro-pneumonia was one of the most fatal kinds of cattle disease, yet up to the year 1845 it was absolutely unknown in this country. The number of cattle imported in I860 was 104,000, and three times the number imported died of disease. He had another duty to discharge in reference to this matter. In "another place," when the cattle plague was under discussion, all sorts of threats and menaces were held out against every magistrate who neglected his duty by not enforcing these Orders. Now he had often offended in this way, and as he believed that these threats were levelled at him, and as he was not allowed to say what Orders he would enforce, and what he would not, he had thought it his duty to announce at the Quarter Sessions that he had made up his mind to retire from the bench. He did not charge the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite with having in view the reversal of Free Trade; but he must say such was their tendency. The Notice he had placed on the Paper was put there partly in irony, It was to this effect—

"That any legal restrictions on the importation of foreign cattle are premature, until the request to the Russian Government to appoint an International Commission to consider the possibility of arresting the cattle plague in its place of origin, the Steppes of Russia, determined by the International Congress held at Zurich in September 1867, to which Professor Simonds was delegated by the President of the Privy Council, shall have received an answer."

The whole course of the Privy Council had been full of mistakes. First of all, they had the stories about pleuro-pneumonia, with the loss of £6,000,000—an exaggerated statement. Then they sent out Mr. Simon, the Officer of Health, to the Continent to trace out the origin of the plague. He went to Holland; but it was not there. He went farther and farther on with like success, until at last he overtook it in Galicia, where he found four infected beasts that had just come out of the Steppes. But when Mr. Simon was asked whether he went on to the Steppes, he said "No,. for if he had he would not have been allowed to come back again." In fact, Mr. Simon made a joke of the whole matter. Then came the Report of the Commissioners, who said that the stamping-out system was only useful when there were a few cases. The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) said that the Commissioners derived all their information from the Report of the medical officers, which was a mistake.

said, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was, that the Commissioners had not consulted the medical officer.

The Commissioners said in their Report that they depended upon the excellent judgment, information, and experience of their medical officer, Mr. Simon; but when Mr. Simon came to be examined before a Committee, and was asked what he knew about the cattle plague, he said he could only speak as one of the party, and that he knew nothing about it. In September last, Mr. Simon was again sent into Germany, and on his return home he reported that he had attended a Convention of scientific men from all parts of the world—even Russia and Turkey being included. This Convention had come to a resolution to send to the Emperor of Russia to request him to take steps for the suppression of the cattle plague at the place of its origin on the Steppes. Being curious to know the result of this deputation, he put a question on the subject to the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Lord Robert Montagu), but the noble Lord informed him that that subject was not in his Department, he ought to apply to the Foreign Secretary. He accordingly put the same question to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary (Lord Stanley) and he got from him the same answer as from the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council. It was stated by the officers of the Customs that there was not a word of truth in the statement that the disease was imported from abroad. It seemed to be their opinion that it was spontaneous. It had been stated, and he believed with great truth, that it was the desire of the Government to shake off their responsibility in this matter upon an Act of Parliament, and to make this House responsible for the acts of the Privy Council. That Act was the Contagious Diseases Prevention Act, which was itself a mistake, because it provided that in the case of cattle slaughtered by mistake compensation should be given to the owner. That appeared to him to be a bonus on fraud and ignorance. Now, he thought if there was one thing in which there could he no mistake, it was this, that the cattle plague was capable of originating spontaneously. If it did so in one case it might do so in all, and then down went all the Resolutions of the Privy Council. It had been said that the hardships undergone by the cattle in conveying food across the Russian Steppes would be got rid of by the formation of railways now in progress, and that the diseases consequent upon their hardships would be prevented. If that were so, Russian cattle would arrive in this country in good condition. He hoped the House would hesitate before passing the present Bill.

believed that this question had been introduced under the shield of Protection, carried on by Protection arguments, and he feared that it would close with the cry of Protection. He was not, therefore, surprised that that cry had been so ably met by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson). If the arguments on the one side, however, savoured too much of Protection those on the other side savoured too much of Free Trade, and to neither side did he feel disposed to give implicit adherence. He thought, however, that it was very desirable that a market should be established where the butchers of Brighton and other towns might enter into competition with the London butchers, instead of all the foreign cattle coming into London being at once killed and consumed in the metropolis. The Bill was, in his opinion, far from faultless, but he should certainly support the going into Committee, in the belief that the principle on which it was founded would be of advantage to the country.

said, the Bill was a very important one, and it was utterly impossible to give it the consideration it deserved. Where were the Cabinet Ministers? Was the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council the only Member of the Government responsible for the Bill? It was most disrespectful to the House that no Cabinet Minister was present at a dis- cussion of such importance. He regarded freedom of trade as an established principle of legislation, and thought it out of the question to proceed with the Bill. There was no hope or expectation in any quarter that it would pass this Session. There were twenty-one Orders on the Paper, and they had better proceed to them. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion.

said, he trusted the House would not assent to an adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member (Mr. Hadfield) had given no reason why it should be adjourned. The Bill had been introduced in December, and it was afterwards most carefully considered by a Select Committee. He had yet to learn that it is the practice of Cabinet Ministers to speak at the beginning of a debate. As regarded the absence of the Cabinet Ministers at the present moment, the hon. Member knew that this was the dinner hour. There was ample time to pass this Bill, and it was of the utmost importance that there should be a decision of the House. He had placed the question before the House on the ground of Free Trade, and not of Protection. He believed the majority of the people of this country to be in favour of the Bill. There was ample time to have passed it long ago had it not been for the factious delays that were offered. ["Oh !"] It was introduced on the 5th of December, read a second time on the 12th February, and referred to a Select Committee, where it was under consideration for more than two months. When the Bill came down again the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) moved that the Report should be sent to the Examiner of Standing Orders, which had no other effect than to lose more time. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to over-ride the opinion of the House by dodges.

rose to Order, and said that the word "dodge" ought not to be applied to any action which a Member on the Opposition side of the House might, in his duty, think proper to take.

thought that the noble Lord was scarcely in Order in using the word "dodge" in the remarks which he had made. He had better confine himself to the reasons against the Motion for Adjournment.

said, he did not mean anything offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, but the contrary. What he meant to convey was that the forms of the House had been somewhat ingeniously strained to prevent the progress of the Bill. He hoped the debate would not be adjourned until they had had the opportunity of hearing the opinions of the Cabinet, and perhaps of the Prime Minister himself, on the subject.

said, that when this Bill was under discussion on another occasion, he took the liberty of pointing out the position in which they were placed, and there might be some misapprehension as to his views. ["Divide !"] We have not yet heard the opinion of one Minister of the Crown, and the Treasury Bench has not now a single occupant. Possibly that may be taken as a type of the mental state of the Government on the subject of this Bill. We have not heard one Minister of the Crown. The only Minister who was brought before the Committee was the President of the Board of Trade, and he distinctly stated that he was not cognizant of the nature of the Bill. ["Divide !"]

, as a Member of the Select Committee, wished to say a few words on the subject, although, not being a Minister of the Crown, he did not fulfil the condition laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed the House (Mr. Ayrton). At this time of the evening, however, it was somewhat unreasonable to expect the Members of the Government to be seated on the Treasury Bench. The question placed before the Select Committee was, whether this Bill was a proper one, and one which should become the law of the country. He confessed that he had had great difficulty in sitting on the same Committee with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson), for that right hon. Gentleman seemed to have been animated by two feelings—the one an insuperable hatred to Protection, and the other an almost idolatrous love of Free Trade. His love, however, began abroad and ended abroad. His love for a foreign ox was something touching; his love for a foreign sheep was something beatific; but the centre of his affection seemed to be in a foreign goat; whether the attraction was in its horns, in its aroma, or in its milk, in association with the right hon. Gentle- man's infantine days, did not appear. But of this he (Mr. Freshfield) was quite sure, that the right hon. Gentleman had neither sympathy, affection, nor allegiance with the typical John Bull of our own native land. The object of the Committee had been to determine whether the Bill was calculated to meet the purpose of its framcrs—namely, to make provision for the streams of cattle which converged into the metropolis. It was found that the restrictions with regard to London amounted to a cattle plague in themselves, by the cordon which was drawn around the metropolis, and by the edict that all the cattle within that area must not leave it alive, the result being scarcity of supply and enhanced cost to the consumer. It was most remarkable that a witness summoned to give evidence against the Bill, and who Stated that he landed more than half the foreign cattle which came to England, admitted that in the interest of the public the measure was a wise one.

The witness had petitioned against the Bill, and he was promised compensation.

The agent had prepared a very general petition; but the witness declared on his oath that the form of his petition was a mistake, and that he had never any other feeling than that the measure was a right and proper one. Could the right hon. Gentleman deny that? This evidence, although amusing, was at the same time instructive. As to the Members of the Select Committee voting in small majorities, all he (Mr. Freshfield) could say was, that the right hon. Gentleman was a man of such astute mind, that it was exceedingly difficult for persons less sophisticated than himself to understand the mode in which he conducted the case; and he dressed up his objections in so many forms that it was difficult to recognize the ! staple of them; and no kaleidoscope could give them more varied shape. As far, however, as one could collect them, the right hon. Gentleman's main objections to the Bill were these—First, he complained that they were legislating for contingencies; that the cattle plague might have existed, but that it existed no longer; and that they were imposing a heavy permanent burden on the country. That certainly was rather an extraordinary argument to emanate from the front Opposition Bench, considering that the occupants of that Bench had been endeavouring to pass a Suspensory Bill which should have operation only in the contingency of the passing of another Bill which had not been, and he trusted never would be, passed, for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church. The cattle plague was a patent and disastrous fact in our annals; and it was as certain that it would return as that the extent of the evil, when it came, would depend on the legislation of Parliament. Next, the right hon. Gentleman told them that the market would cost £500,000. But let them look at the other side of the account. What was the cost of the cattle plague? Since the ports were opened 2,000,000 head of cattle had died, at a loss of not less than £60,000,000. Since the last outbreak of that plague it was computed that some 300,000 cattle had died, causing a loss of not less than £9,000,000 sterling. What then was £500,000? Barely a year's interest at 5 per cent on the loss they had sustained. Then it was said that the measure was an imperfect one, and that they were legislating for the port of London only. But the case of London was exceptional; the mass of foreign cattle came there; and if foreign cattle were admitted into London it was impossible but that the cattle plague must be bred there, and thence disseminated over the country. The right hon. Gentleman said the way to stop the cattle plague was to close the ports. Admitting that, still there was nothing in the Bill to prevent that course being taken when necessary. The Bill was an additional measure of precaution. It was found that the existing restrictions at the other ports were not sufficient for the metropolis, and also that those restrictions, as regarded the metropolis, became an evil there and involved a loss second only to that caused by the cattle plague itself. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill would introduce infected cattle—[Mr. MILNER GIBSON: Hear, hear !]—whereas it was not intended to make the foreign cattle market a whit less impure than the Copenhagen Fields market. Our duty was to enforce all the existing restrictions, and more; and even to have English Consuls at the foreign ports to see that no infected cattle were exported. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the butchers would carry the cattle plague in their boots. It was true that it had been proved that the disease was most subtle; but was not the risk of the cattle plague being carried in butchers' boots altogether insignificant in comparison with the danger of cattle being altogether intermixed? He (Mr. Freshfield) would earnestly recommend the House to proceed to pass the Bill this Session. It would be bad enough to commit it to Gentlemen opposite to carry out, and worse for the interests of the country, if it was left to three right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who entertained such peculiar opinions upon the subject.

said, he was sorry his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Freshfield) had compelled him, contrary to his intention, to take part in the debate and to make a protest on his own behalf. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he saw with great concern the unanimity of counsel that prevailed between himself (Mr. Gladstone) and two Gentlemen sitting on the same Bench with him; and from what he had said he was not in the House when he (Mr. Gladstone) addressed the House on a former debate upon this Bill; and his silence almost amounted to an admission of the fact.

said, he was in the House, and heard the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and if time bad permitted he should have replied to it.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman's discretion was greater than if he had not heard it. On a previous occasion he avoided giving a positive or dogmatic judgment upon the great question of Protection involved in this Bill—the free or restricted supply of food—not because he might not have his own prepossessions with regard to it; but because he knew a number of Gentlemen on the Committee, and others, who were able to give to that evidence a degree of detailed attention he had been unable to give it, that he thought it but fair towards them and respectful to the House to leave the operation of the Bill to be discussed by them. He, however, dwelt on matter entirely distinct from that conveyed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson). Not that he was ashamed of being associated with him on any question, and more particularly that of Free Trade, in which, for the last twenty-five years, his right hon. Friend had been the standard-bearer in what was now admitted to be the cause of the nation against not the real but the supposed and imaginary cause of the particular interest of a particular class. Therefore, if he divided himself on that occasion from his right hon. Friend it was from no reluctance to stand in the same rank with him. On a former occasion be dwelt on two points, and he referred to them now because the Government had not yet said one word upon a vital point that must first be disposed of, namely—why they thought the powers already vested in the hands of the Privy Council were insufficient for the whole demands and exigencies that might arise in connection with the importation of foreign cattle? He should have been glad to have heard the hon. and learned Member for Dover's remarks upon that point. They had had retrospective complaints of the conduct of the Privy Council in former times; but it was not a question of what the Privy Council, under other auspices, might have done in former times. They had now a Privy Council in which they reposed confidence, and it became them to show cause for departing from that system which Parliament had deliberately adopted—the system of trusting to that elastic power which was lodged in the hands of the Executive Government, and of persons capable, if they went astray, of being immediately called to account, and set right by Parliament. There had been no attempt to show any cause for the departure from that elastic system, and for the attempt to substitute at the point, where it should best be substituted, a rigid system of law, which it would be difficult to revoke when once adopted, and involving at the outset great pecuniary liability. That subject had received no consideration whatever in any of the speeches of the promoters of the Bill, and certainly it had not received consideration in the detailed address of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council (Lord Robert Montagu), and therefore he (Mr. Gladstone) commended it to the consideration of the hon. and learned Member for Dover. Another point which he considered more vital, and which must be explained by the Government before the Speaker left the Chair, was the finance of the market. Not a word had as yet been said about it. He had never known, in the course of a long experience and close observation, when the Government of the day had brought forward a plan involving a large financial liability, when it was not made a capital and primary point—

rose to Order. He understood that when his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council was making objections he was stopped by the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair on the ground that he had already spoken on the merits of the Bill, and that it was not com- petent to him, on the Motion for Adjournment, to re-open the main question and principles of the Bill, and he wished now to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in repeating on the same Motion the observations made by him on a former occasion respecting the Bill?

said, what he wished to point out was that his observations were simply a direct, unequivocal, and necessary reply to the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield); and why, he asked, did not his noble Friend [Lord John Manners] rise during the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dover when he was pointing out what a subtle disease the cattle plague was, and call him to Order? That had no immediate connection with the question of the adjournment of the debate, but the merits of the Bill. He had no wish to stand in the way and, as it was certain that this was a subject that must be fully discussed before going into Committee, he withdrew from making any further comment on his hon. and learned Friend's speech.

said, that this was unquestionably a Protection Bill. It was a Bill for protecting the public against eating diseased meat, and therefore, in the interests of the community, he should support it.

said, that the farmers of Aberdeenshire had a great interest in preventing the introduction of the disease in cattle. Aberdeenshire was the largest cattle breeding county in Scotland, sending to London about 90,000 head of cattle, alive or dead, per annum. His constituents took a very simple view of this Bill. They said they were entitled, as a matter of police regulation, to precautions being adopted for keeping diseased cattle out of the country. Under a system of free and unrestricted importation one disease after another had been imported into this country. The cattle plague prevailed in Aberdeenshire, and the only successful measure was to isolate the county. What his constituents asked was, that the same plan should be applied to the whole country as far as practicable, and this object, so qualified, was carried out by the Bill. If the system foreshadowed in the Bill were carried out the result would be the establishment of dead meat markets in the neighbourhood of all large towns. It was not protection against foreign meat that his constituents wanted, but protection against disease. Hon. Gentlemen said, "Where is the ne- cessity for such a Bill? There is no cattle plague at present." But if they had, like some of the farmers of Aberdeenshire, lost nine-tenths of their cattle by the rinderpest, and had found their present stock depreciated in value by £2 per head, they would hold very different language. Something must be done to establish dead meat markets in all large towns, and he regretted the Select Committee did not examine the gentlemen who came from Aberdeenshire to represent the views of the farmers of that locality, who would have shown that it was possible to supply London with dead meat from Aberdeenshire. There was a strong feeling among the agriculturists of Scotland in favour of the Bill.

said, he was in favour of the adjournment, thinking that the House was not at present in a position to come to a conclusion on this important subject, and he doubted whether it would be so during the present Session. It was no doubt the interest of the farmers of Aberdeenshire to obtain the highest price for their beasts, and it was equally the interest of the shoemakers of Northampton and others to get meat as cheap as possible. The Privy Council possessed sufficient powers for preventing the transfer of cattle throughout the country. He objected to the Bill as a return to Protection, and the arguments employed to show that the agriculturists needed protection from foreign cattle reminded him of those formerly used in support of protection from foreign corn.

, as an unrepentant Protectionist, thought the proceedings of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were calculated to further what he desired—namely, the modification of the present system of Free Trade in corn. They claimed a right to import disease ["No !"] unrestricted, except by Orders in Council. They might cry "No !" but that was really the meaning of the Opposition. Now, he had the same objection to that elastic system, so much admired by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, that his forefathers had to ship-money.

said, it did not seem a very satisfactory course to adopt to move the adjournment at that hour; but there were circumstances which sometimes rendered it necessary to take an exceptional course. The subject now under debate had been before the House for three nights; it was a measure of great importance, inasmuch as it affected the food supply of the metropolis; and yet the Ministers of the Crown had not seen fit to express their own opinion upon it. It was proposed by this Bill to exclude all foreign living cattle from this country, and to enact that all such upon their arrival should be slaughtered, whether they were healthy or unhealthy. He himself was an advocate for prohibiting the importation of cattle from unhealthy and affected countries; but he was in favour of admitting healthy cattle which could be brought into this country without danger. He supported the Motion for the Adjournment upon this ground, that no Cabinet Minister had thought it worth his while to condescend even to listen to the debate—much less to speak—in it. Upon one occasion the Government, through their organ in that House, represented this measure as a gigantic scheme of Protection. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) had been charged with faction, and with using dodges; but he denied both. The noble Lord the Vice President of the Privy Council made a speech recently, in which he said—

"How are we to feed the poor? There are some difficulties in dealing with the subject, but the greatest of all is the feeding of the poor. If the beasts are killed at Harwich only the best joints would be sent up to London, for it would not pay to send up the others. But the working classes do not live upon the best joints, but upon shins of beef; not upon Southdowns, but upon Merino sheep; not upon joints, but upon offal; and that offal will never be brought to London if the animals are slaughtered at their places of landing."

Those were the words of the Government. When, therefore, they had such a remarkable change of opinion—when they found Ministers violating their own opinions so recently expressed, they were entitled to learn from those Cabinet Ministers what was the fresh evidence which had induced that change of sentiment, and what were the excuses for thus placing restrictions upon the food of the people. He was told that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had excited the suspicions of a certain number of the country Gentlemen below the Gangway on account of his insincerity. Amongst these a round robin had been got up—a threatening communication—and presented to the Premier, striving to coerce him into carrying this Bill. The Prime Minister had evidently departed from all his arrangements with regard to the Public Business. He said some time ago that the Bribery and the Supplementary Reform Bills were to take the precedence; but in came this threatening letter from the country Gentlemen, and this Cattle Market Bill was thrust in between. They were surely entitled to hear the opinion of Ministers themselves on the subject. He should vote for the adjournment of the debate, because he had heard no explanation from any Member of the Cabinet, and because he believed the House was being treated with disrespect. They had been called down at great inconvenience to two Forenoon Sittings in order to debate the Bill, and not a single Member of the Government had deemed it worth while even to peep in and see what they were doing. He should like to know what were the public objects which the Government wished to accomplish. If he received no clear and satisfactory information with respect to the Ministerial policy he should support the Motion for adjournment.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Milner Gibson) would have taken a wider and a broader view of this matter than he had done. No Member of the House knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that the large slaughter in Holland of cattle which took place during the cattle plague had had the effect of greatly reducing the price of meat. Dutch beef was sold in the London market at 6½d. per pound, whilst English beef sold at 10d. and 11d. Quantities of dead meat, amounting to as much as 18,000 tons, during the half year, had been shipped to the metropolis by the Great Eastern Railway. If that could be done in Holland they might expect still more favourable results if the cattle coming from all countries were compelled to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. The Bill now under discussion was loudly and urgently demanded. The importation of cattle into London from other parts of England had almost been stopped by the cattle plague, and some such measure as the one before the House was required to revive the home trade. He had no hesitation in saying that the sole opposition to this Bill was simply to defend the interests of some twenty cattle salesmen in London. No man knew that better than the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. The first opposition to the Bill rose from the Thames Haven Company. Three cattle salesman, one dead meat salesman, and the Tilbury line were at the bottom of the whole of it. The twenty people to whom he had referred had set the whole of the Opposition going for the last eighteen months. The Veterinary Department of the Board of Trade had been undoubtedly also opposed to the Bill; but that was because they were afraid of being abolished should the new law come into operation. He was not surprised, therefore, that that Department should receive the support of the right hon. Member for Ashton, who was formerly connected with that Department. The real question to be decided, however, was whether they were or were not to pass the Bill. His own opinion was that no Government in the position of the present could possibly prorogue Parliament without passing the measure, more especially as not a single argument had really been advanced against it. He maintained that no class interest whatever would be injured by it; on the contrary, they would all be benefited, and moreover the whole country was in favour of the Bill. The slaughtering of the cattle at the landing place would have the ultimate effect of relieving Newgate Market of the great pressure and inconvenience which at present prevailed there. District butchers who sent their carts there as early as three or four o'clock in the morning, had often to keep them waiting till nine o'clock under a broiling sun before they could get their meat conveyed away. That, of course, tended very considerably to deteriorate the quality of the beef. He wanted to know why that which had been done by Governments who were most careful not to allow their people to be in want of food should not be done by us? The French Government could not allow their people to grumble for want of food, and they had established this system. He hoped that the next time the right hon. Gentleman opposed the Bill he would do so, not for the mere fun of putting a stop to it, but would make use of sound arguments which might go forth to the country.

supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) for the adjournment of the debate. He wanted to know what they were to think of the huge trades union formed in that House for the purpose of raising the price of the food of the people. ["Oh, oh !"] What had they seen in the House this evening but a trades union, pursuing the same course as the trades unions they had all heard so much of. ["Oh !"] They had heard that hon. Members were engaged in preparing a missive to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli); in fact, that they were preparing to "ratten" him unless he conformed to their wishes. Under such circumstances he appealed to the House whether the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu)—and, by-the-by, the Treasury Bench was entirely empty at the time—was justified with charging Members on that (the Opposition) side with faction? He maintained that they were perfectly justified in the course they had taken.

I rise, Sir, to speak on the question of adjournment, and I must say I very much regret to have heard that such a Motion was made. It seems to me to be a most unusual course to adopt on such an occasion. The observations that no Ministers were present on this Bench at eight o'clock, if accurate, have not been made in that spirit of courtesy which generally pervades our debates. Nor is it true, I think, that there has been an absence of Ministers of the Crown generally during this debate. There have been two long Morning Sittings. I have been present at them, and I have been in my place the whole of this day. It is not customary to make such remarks; it would be inconvenient for both sides, and I think it is scarcely justified. It appears to me that it is desirable that the House should come to a division; not, however, upon the question of adjournment, but on the merits of the case. If the House wishes that the debate should be prolonged, I am perfectly ready to take part in it, and there are others of my Colleagues who are prepared to do the same. I think that, under these circumstances, if the House comes to a division upon the question of the adjournment we shall be liable to great misrepresentation, and there will be some ground for the insinuations which have been thrown out that there is a desire on the part of a portion of the Members of this House not to meet the question with that fairness which is desirable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire has made an inquiry which, though I am speaking on the question of adjournment, I would wish to answer. The right hon. Gentleman says he is anxious to know why we did not meet the necessities of the case by Orders in Council instead of this Bill. I quite admit that that is a very fair inquiry, and one which I think would occur to any one who gives a candid consideration to this question. But the real cause for the introduction of this measure was that Orders in Council did not meet the necessities of the case. We are obliged to hare recourse to statutory regulations, because we cannot by Orders in Council meet the necessities of the case. There is a clause in the Bill of last year which provides that the Council shall have powers to establish a special market for foreign cattle. At the time the Bill was under discussion I remember that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) proposed that this provision should be compulsory, not only on the local authorities, but on the Privy Council. That was opposed, because it is not expedient; that compulsory powers should be given unless they are absolutely necessary, and under the Bill we had the power of establishing a market for foreign meat in every town, and also of purchasing land for that purpose. Well, we have succeeded with these powers in every town except London; but when we attempted to carry that legislation into effect in London we utterly failed. We found that we could not deal with the local authorities and with those whose concurrence was necessary in order to effect what we desired. There was no redress for us, therefore, and no means by which to overcome the difficulty unless by coming to this House and asking for legislation. That is my answer to the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want, though I am prepared on a fitting occasion, to go into a discussion on the general policy involved in the Bill. All I wish now is to impress on the House the extreme inexpediency of our going to a division on a question which does not involve any expression of opinion as to the policy of the Bill. That appears to me highly undesirable, and I trust, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will feel that the best course is to withdraw the Motion for adjournment, and let us proceed with the discussion.

said, he should be sorry to interrupt in any way the course of Business, and would therefore withdraw the Motion.

said, he considered the House had a very important duty to discharge in deciding upon the present question, affecting as it did the supply of food to the people. The question assumed increased importance when they considered the character of the country, which, with perhaps one exception, was more thickly peopled than any other in Europe, and which, without any exception, was the country in all the world which was most dependent upon the importation of food. He was not, as was well known, a metropolitan Member; but the constituency he represented was as much interested in the Bill as the metropolis itself. If, as was generally supposed, the restrictions which this Bill would impose would limit the importation of cattle into the metropolis, the metropolis must necessarily make up its supplies of food by competing with the rest of the country, and therefore the price of meat to the rest of the country would be enhanced. But if there was any necessity to pass this Bill for the metropolis, there was undoubtedly a necessity to pass it for the whole country. And if the argument was not strong enough to extend the Bill to the whole country, then undoubtedly the Bill itself had no legs to stand upon. This was, of course, the thin end of the wedge, and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Fordyce) had very candidly told them it was a foreshadowing of what would come upon the country. Many things had been said in the course of that debate; and, generally, what one side of the House had asserted the other side had contradicted; but there was one point on which all were agreed. It was admitted that, for a temporary evil, they were about to impose permanent restrictions, and it was admitted and understood that those permanent restrictions would limit the importation of cattle. ["No !"] Well, then, there were some exceptions, and they were not universally agreed upon that point; but it was enough for him that the Government admitted it, and that it was believed to a very great extent on that side of the House. The Government admitted it; for the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, in the very long speech he delivered in introducing the Bill, began, by telling them that they had a choice of evils. If so, then undoubtedly there must be some evil in the restrictions proposed. If it were the fact that they were going to limit the importation of food, and therefore that they were about to increase permanently the price of meat throughout the country, he called that a most startling proposition. Hardly more than a week ago many Members of that House met together, in a place not far from that spot, to keep alive the memory of a great statesman (Mr. Cobden) and to advocate his opinions. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) presided on that occasion, and his name was as much associated with Free Trade as that of any man in the country. In the face of associations like these, there appeared to him to be something unreal in the business they were now upon, and he could not wonder at the suspicion expressed by many Members, especially by the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson). He doubted whether the Government was serious in the matter; certainly the Bill had not been introduced by the most serious Member of the Government. It had been supposed by high authorities that this measure was really introduced for electioneering purposes. It was believed that the Government had treated very badly the great party behind it, and that they had no real desire to pass the Bill; that the party behind them were pressing the Government, and that the Government was not free to act as it desired in this matter. Undoubtedly there was great mystery and perplexity about this question, and the measure was not supported as one of that great importance ought to be. The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council said they had to consider whether they would put up with this evil of restriction in order to avoid a possible recurrence of the cattle plague in this country, and that upon the answer to that question depended the fate of the Bill. Although the noble Lord had discussed every mortal thing in connection with it for upwards of two hours, he did not discuss the question he had himself put. Was it remembered that it was 100 years since this country had been afflicted with the cattle plague? For a quarter of a century at least the importation of cattle had been unrestricted, yet we had been free until recently from the cattle plague. According to the evidence given before the Committee, it was fifty years since France had been afflicted with the cattle plague. He did not mean to say that a period equally long must elapse before this country was again visited by it, but we could only judge of the future by our knowledge of the past. If the question were put to the French whether they would submit to such restrictions in order to ensure themselves against the recurrence of the plague, he was confident their answer would be that the proposal was a monstrous one. For £200 or £300 the French Government had stamped out the cattle plague, and at the present moment they imported from every country, taking no precautions beyond inspecting the cattle at the frontier and at the port of Marseilles. He would say, if the Privy Council had not the authority which the French Government had in the matter, let it be armed with that authority; but he was told that they had power absolutely to prohibit the importation of cattle, if they could make out a case justifying such a measure. Let the House consider that the evils of restriction already experienced at the outports would be visited upon the metropolis. How great the evil was might appear from the experience of Hull, where the importation of foreign cattle had dwindled down from 35,000, at which it stood three years back, to something like 1,300. That was the evil they had to anticipate in order to avoid a possible cattle plague. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall), whose absence from the House on that occasion he regretted, had successfully warded off the attempt made to impose those restrictions upon the great port he represented, but what that port, through its Conservative Member, had repudiated, the Government were now about to saddle on the much larger area of the port of London. The noble Lord the Vice-President of the Council enlarged on the great difficulty of guarding this area, from its irregularity and extent; but in the face of that difficulty, and in the face of the fact of the introduction of foreign sheep, the cattle plague had disappeared from the country. The barrier had been thrown down in the case of France, and he could not conceive why it should be allowed to exist here. If that House had been assembled to discuss the question how more meat could be supplied to this country, it might have been a futile discussion, but it would not have been a dangerous one, and would not have raised unpleasant suspicions. There were millions of people in this country who knew nothing of animal food except what they saw of it in passing through their towns. It rarely touched their Tips. If every man and woman were to have one meal of animal food per day, this country would be revolutionized. According to Mr. Caird, who was a high authority upon the subject, if all the meat, home and foreign, consumed in this country were divided among the population, it would only amount to two ounces per head per day; and when they considered the abundance, or rather the superabundance, enjoyed by the rich, it was manifest that a large portion of the people must be wholly deprived of that luxury. Again: Mr. Caird told us that one-eighth part of all the meat consumed in the country came from abroad. One-eighth of the population of this country was 4,000,000 of people, and therefore they were dealing with the meat supply of 4,000,000 of people. Hon. Members who had been severe sufferers by the cattle plague could not be the most dispassionate judges of a question like this. Men who were suffering from great loss or pain no matter of what kind, were not always the best judges of the reinedy. If they were to ask men who had been garotted to legislate in respect to garotting, they would probably wish to have one-half of us put in strait-jackets. The noble Lord the Vice President had spoken, in the days of his innocence, before he was corrupted or coerced—he (Mr. Jacob Bright) did not know exactly by what means hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench were violently driven from one extreme of opinion to another—the noble Lord had spoken of the difficulty of feeding the poor, and had characterized the policy of this measure as a scheme of gigantic Protection. If there was any intention of restoring Protection this was a very inopportune time to do it. Bread had been dear, and there had been a yearly increase of taxation, and fears were expressed that we were likely to have a much harder race with the foreigner in regard to our industry. But if this restriction were imposed it would raise the price of food—["No, no !"]—the cattle which would otherwise have come to this country would be kept away—["No, no !"]—and the tendency would be to bring about this unfortunate state of things, that the food of our competitors would be lowered while our own food would be increased in cost. This Parliament began its career of legislation by passing what was called the Cattle Plague Bill—a Bill which gave compensation to men engaged in agriculture at the cost of the rest of the country. Now, he did not deny that legislation was necessary at that time, and on that question; but, in common with the great majority of the non-agricultural population of the country, he believed that the legislation that did take place was of a most unjust character. He had not then the honour of a seat in that House. He was simply a spectator. But it appeared to him that at that time there was a great agricultural insurrection in that House, led on by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government, for the time, he believed, was not able to legislate in the sense in which it desired to legislate. The name of the right hon. Gentleman was at the back of this Bill, which, however, he did not believe would pass. If it did, it would be a fit legislative close of a Parliament which so unjustly began. They had heard a good deal said about the moral competence of the House. Well, seeing that the cattle plague had disappeared from the country under present regulations, and almost entirely from Europe—seeing that neighbouring countries admitted foreign cattle—seeing that those who would be injured by an enhanced price had no voice in that House—he asked whether, under these circumstances, they had the moral competence to deal with this question, which should be remitted to another Parliament? The House had been condemned by the country and by itself, and the Government had over and over again been condemned by the House, and it had been understood that only such questions should come before that House as were necessary for the winding up of Business. He was not credulous with respect to the character of the next Parliament. He had never believed that the mere giving of votes could create a miracle, nor did he believe that a really national assembly would ever sit in that House until the people of this country were protected in giving their votes—["Question !"]—and until the balance of power as between the large and small constituencies were redressed. But a new Parliament would never sanction such a measure as this. And he believed, if they succeeded in passing this Bill, long before they had wrung the £500,000 from the taxpayers, the next House of Commons would have repudiated the measure and given them no thanks for their pains. Whatever came of this Bill, it could not fail to discredit the Government. He had never had much respect for the Government. Its conduct in the year 1866; its peculiar origin, and its still more peculiar history, had made it difficult for him to be one of its admirers. But there were elements in it which had led him to believe that it was impossible it could ever lend itself to a folly like that. He had been compelled to acknowledge with the rest of the world, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Go- vernment was a man of commanding intellect. He had believed, and he would not yet abandon the belief, that the great intelligence of the Prime Minister was a guarantee that his Government would not be allowed to commit the extraordinary blunder of once again placing the great Conservative party between the people and their supply of food.

said, if his name had not been at the back of the Bill he would have spoken, as the subject of the Bill was one in which he took great interest. He deeply regretted the tone of the debate, which was calculated to create the false impression that this was a question between urban and rural interests. He wholly denied that there was any such conflict. The hobgoblin of Protection had been raised in order to defeat the Bill. Now, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House the question of Free Trade and Protection had been entirely settled, and he had never heard any Member attempt to revive the old Protectionist doctrine. If he thought the present proposal would revive that doctrine in any shape be would never have allowed his name, as it did, to appear on the back of the Bill. The simple question they had then to consider was, what was the best way of keeping our flocks and herds, on which we mainly depended for the food supply of the people, free from the contagion of disease imported from abroad? It must be admitted that town and country were interested in keeping our herds free from contagion. The question was, could that be better done by a system of exceedingly complicated and vexatious regulations than by fixing upon a place where foreign cattle should be landed and slaughtered? That was the only question to be considered; and all that had been said about the towns Buffering from the measure was beside the mark. He admitted that the matter was not wholly free from difficulty, that there was much to be said on both sides, and that, if the Bill had come before the House two years ago he should not have supported it. He had sat upon the Committee presided over' by the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) on the subject of Trade in Animals; and when the labours of that Committee were concluded they sent in a Report which abstained from recommending the adoption of a measure like the present. But the experience they had since acquired convinced him—as it con- vinced, he believed, many others who had then shared his opinion—that such a proposal as the present one might be prudently and beneficially adopted. Previous to the cattle plague breaking out the metropolitan market was the great market for the whole of the country as well as for the metropolis and its neighbourhood. But the regulations which had been acquiesced in by the country—and against which, as far as he was aware, no protest had been raised in the House—were so strict as regards the metropolitan market that they prevented an immense number being sent up to London. The supply was consequently very much limited. Previous to the outbreak of the cattle plague the supplies were annually on the increase; but there had been a positive decrease since the new regulations came into force. It was clear, then, that the present system tended to limit the supply of home-bred animals to the metropolitan limits; and it could hardly be denied that the removal of the existing restrictions and the consequent admission of a large number of beasts to the market would be a benefit to the consumer. Every hon. Member, he thought, must wish to see a very large supply sent to the metropolis, so that the price of meat might be reduced. Such a supply was prevented by the rule that when once an animal had come into the metropolitan market it could not be allowed to leave the metropolis. It was formerly the practice that persons in distant towns should come up to London, or should employ agents to purchase cattle in the metropolitan market; but that practice was put a stop to by the regulations now in force. This fact was, in his opinion, an answer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jacob Bright). He would pass by the argument, in which there was a certain amount of force, that the insecurity which prevailed in consequence of the apprehension of danger from foreign infection tended to prevent people from investing their money in the breeding of cattle. But, on the other hand, it must be remembered that, under the present arrangement, a large number of young animals born within the metropolitan area had either to be destroyed or furtively, and in evasion of the law, to be sent to he reared in the country. When he reflected upon the number of milch cows kept in London for the supply of milk, it was evident that the number of calves destroyed must be considerable; or, if they were sent into the country it was because people felt that the present regulations were contrary to common sense, and they were therefore disregarded with an easy conscience. The question, therefore, for consideration was whether it would not be advisable to free the metropolitan area from restrictions which tended to limit the supply of food in the metropolis, and to appropriate a market at the waterside for the slaughter and sale of foreign animals. He did not deny that the course the Government recommended was open to some objection; he offered it to the House as the lesser evil of the two; and, in reality, all they had before them was a choice of evils. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) had said that it would tend to raise the price of the Government contracts for meat; but he believed there was no evidence to support that objection. On the contrary, the evidence went to show that if the contractors were obliged to slaughter the cattle in London they could supply the troops with dead meat at a cheaper rate; because, having a ready market for what was technically called the offal, they would be enabled to sell the prime parts at a lower rate than if they had to convey the whole of the animal to the place where those prime parts were required for consumption.

was under stood to say that the contractors were not permitted to slaughter the beasts in London.

said, he had no doubt that an enlightened Government like the present would find means to make an alteration in that respect. Then it had been objected that it would ha exceedingly inconvenient to persons in the trade to have to go to two markets; and he did not deny that the change, like all other changes, might be productive of a certain amount of inconvenience; but that inconvenience would soon cease to be felt, as persons in the trade would in a very short time conduct their business according to the altered state of affairs. It had Also been urged that under the system now proposed there would he no real security against infection, because persons after handling the beasts in one market could go and handle the beasts in the other. No doubt contagion might arise in that way; but he was of opinion: that the danger of it was very much lessened by the scheme proposed by the Bill; for in 1865 and 1866, when the cattle plague was so rife, it was demonstrated that the chief, though not the sole cause of contagion, was the conveyance of animals along the railways; and during these years the metropolitan market was the chief focus of infection. That was shown by one single fact—that two or three days after the clauses of the Cattle Plague Act became law, which prohibited the carriage of any animal along a line of railway, the disease began sensibly to diminish. He would not further detain the House; but he hoped it would assent to the second reading of the Bill.

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Colonel Jervis) had told them that the opposition to this Bill proceeded from some twenty great cattle salesmen. He should have thought that the length and course of this debate might have assured the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the opposition sprung from much wider and more powerful sources. If he (Mr. Clay) were convinced that the Bill was to be confined to the metropolis alone he would have left the metropolis to the care of her natural guardians; but proxirmis ardet Ucalegon. It was to that source that they must trace the long and determined opposition which the Bill had met. Speaking on behalf of the port which he represented, he did not recollect any legislation which had caused in Hull so much dismay as had this proposal of the Government. The cattle trade of Hull had grown rapidly for some years, and reached its greatest extent in 1865. In that year the importation of cattle to Hull was 41,157 head; but in 1867 that number dwindled down to 16,000 odd; the sheep and lambs imported in 1865 numbered 69,160 head, and only 9,266 in 1867; and the pigs imported into Hull dwindled from 15,000 odd, in 1865, to 3,000 odd in 1867. Those figures showed not a great loss, but the annihilation of the trade. Still it was borne with a most undisturbed patience, because it was felt that the restrictions which caused so much loss were justified by the dire necessity of the care, and because no reasonable man would object to any reasonable means of getting rid of the horrid plague which was inflicted upon us. But it was now proposed that those measures of extreme rigour, which were justified by the temporary cause, should be made permanent, while no one pretended to say that the evil which they were intended to correct was permanent. He believed this Bill was an exceedingly ill-advised one, and much as his constituents had suffered from the restrictions of the Privy Council, he was content that the matter should be left in their hands, feeling confident that they would relax the restrictions whenever it was feasible to do so with perfect safety. He had been asked what reason there could be for the unnatural legislation which was proposed. There had been considerable delicacy shown in this debate as to calling things by their right names, and very great sensitiveness in making any allusion to the old differences of Free Trade and Protection. But he confessed that in his inability to find any other conceivable cause for this legislation he was driven to believe that the unfortunate admission that cattle would be raised £2 a head was at the bottom of the matter; and hon. Gentlemen representing rural constituencies had been unable to resist a prospect so pleasing to those whom they represented. If that were so he should regret it exceedingly. We were now coming to the end of that chapter in our history which would tell the deeds of the Reformed Parliament since 1832. These had given to this country more than thirty-five years of the wisest and most beneficent legislation of which the history of the world afforded any example, no part of its legislation had been be wise or so beneficent as its commercial legislation, and it would be with great regret and dismay that he should see one of the last acts of the last Reformed Parliament exhibiting a return to that policy of Protection the destruction of which had made this country one of the happiest and greatest in the world.

said, in the few observations he had to address to the House, he would endeavour to adopt the moderate tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would also try to contribute to the object they all ought to have in view—namely, the prevention of disease with the least possible restrictions in trade. He thought it was admitted on all hands that even if this Bill passed during the present Session its supposed advantages could not be secured for three years. That was an objection to it; but he also objected to the Bill because he thought it an imperfect measure, and one which could not produce the results which it was intended to bring about. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill (Lord Robert Montagu) had applied very hard words to some of the witnesses who had given evidence upon the subject. The noble Lord charged the French gentlemen who gave evidence as to what course the French Government would take to protect cattle from disease with interested motives, in order that the English markets might be opened up to foreign trade, and the noble Lord also applied very strong epithets to others of the witnesses. But he (Mr. Bruce) listened in vain to hear him mete out even-handed justice to the Duke of Richmond and other witnesses who took the other side, and gave evidence in favour of the removal of the restrictions from the London market. There were, however, some witnesses who were altogether free from the imputation of being interested in the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) had said that the supposed opposition to the Bill on the part of the professional advisers of the Privy Council was to be attributed to a desire to retain their offices. No doubt a desire of that kind sometimes did drive men and Ministers to a very selfish line of policy; but none of the five or six witnesses who gave the strongest evidence as to the utter inadequacy of the measure to prevent the introduction of the disease into this country by means of the present Bill were in any way connected with the Government or with any special interest. Mr. Spooner, a gentleman of so much distinction in his profession that he was appointed a member of the Commission to inquire into the nature of the Cattle Plague, stated his opinion before the Committee that if a separate foreign cattle market were established in or near the metropolis, and the restrictions were taken off, we should be in a much worse condition than we were now, inasmuch as the cattle plague could be readily introduced into the metropolitan market, and communicated thence to the country at large, the infection being easily communicated by means of the clothing of individuals. Mr. Nichols, the senior surgeon of the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, who had had much experience in the matter, gave the strongest evidence in the same direction to show that no sooner would the disease break out in the foreign cattle market than it would be communicated to the metropolis, and would spread thence throughout the country. Mr. Priestman, Mr. Thomas Wills, and Mr. James, all gentlemen of great experience, also gave evidence as to the utter inadequacy of the Bill. It was said that the effect of this measure would be to enhance the price of meat; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that any such result would be balanced by the reduction of the cost of meat at the metropolitan market, and had pointed out that there had already been a great reduction of supply to the metropolitan market, in consequence of the restrictions placed on the removal of cattle. The right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) contradicted the right hon. Gentleman across the Table, and it had come out in the evidence that the number of cattle now brought into the metropolitan market, and sold for use in the metropolis, was greater than the number which had been brought into it before the restrictions. The noble; Lord denied that such was the fact; but if he were right, and that the restrictions in the metropolitan market diminished the supply from the metropolis, would not the restrictions proposed by this Bill in respect of foreign cattle have a similar effect? It was not alone the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had made a very candid recantation of the opinions he held in 1866; but he found that the Committee, which included among its members not only that right hon. Gentleman, but also the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the present Under Secretary for the Home Department, and the Under Secretary for the Foreign Department, unanimously came to the conclusion that compulsory slaughter at the port, like compulsory slaughter at a market, was very expensive to the butcher, would hamper trade, diminish importation, and raise the price to the consumer, and that therefore the separation of the two markets seemed to them undesirable. Lord Salisbury was also a Member of this Committee, and took an active part in its proceedings. What, then, was his (Mr. Bruce's) proposition? He bad already said that this Bill could not come into operation for several years. He would be willing to put up a market in the port of London for the admission of those cattle, and those cattle only, that came from suspected districts. He would admit, as they now admitted into certain of their ports, freely as was now done in France, cattle coming from districts that were not suspected, and treat them in all respects as if they were English cattle. The First Lord of the Treasury had told them that this Bill might have been unnecessary but for the failure of the Privy Council to put the law into operation. He said, with regard to the other parts of the country, there was no difficulty in acting upon the powers of the Privy Council. It rested with the local authorities to set aside a place for the slaughter of cattle imported from the suspected districts; and if he understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, it was impossible to get the local authorities in London to set aside such a place. His answer was, "Apply to Parliament for the necessary powers to deal with the special difficulties of London, and he was sure that even in the present Session, Parliament would give them those powers." [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: Hear, hear !] The noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) seemed to say by his cheer that is what we are now doing. But they were really doing a great deal more, because they were compelling cattle from every foreign country, whether suspected or not, to come to one market; and if the disease broke out in that market they would no longer have the power to remove the market to another place. Why should they bind themselves by a rigid law to have only one market for foreign cattle, no matter whether those cattle came from a healthy or from an unhealthy place? If they did that be was satisfied that on the very first appearance of the cattle plague in their foreign market the Government would have to come to Parliament for the very power of which they were now depriving themselves. What was the objection to arming the Privy Council with the necessary powers? It was the prevailing belief that those powers would not be exercised with sufficient vigour and determination. His answer was, "So it always would be till they reformed these Departments." It was no more incumbent on the noble Lord as Vice President of the Council to have introduced this measure than any other Member of the Government. At the time that he (Mr. H. A. Bruce) was Under Secretary of the Home Department there was a great agitation in the country respecting the importation of cattle that were suffering from the disease of pleuro-pneumonia, and he remembered that the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), who was then Vice President of the Council, coming to the Home Office and stating that it was clear some measures ought to be taken on the subject, as the disease was committing great ravages; but that it was not for him, as Vice President of the Council on Education, to bring in the Bill. The Privy Council, he said, had the power of passing certain Orders which the Government might think for the good of the State, but had no administrative means within itself for giving effect to or carrying through Parliament legislation of that kind, which it was clearly the business of the Home Office to introduce. Then he (Mr. Bruce) received directions from the then Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) to bring in a Bill giving increased powers to the Privy Council in regard to the movement of cattle suffering from plenro-pneumonia; and he might mention that the principal opposition to it came from those Scotch and Irish Members who so highly approved of the present Bill. The language then used was—"What, would you give the Privy Council power to deprive Scotch and Irish cattle from entering England?" And yet only two or three years passed away when the rinderpest broke out, and then the Irish Members held a meeting, and called upon the Government to exercise those very powers they had before opposed to prevent English cattle being carried over to Ireland. He mentioned this to guard the House against the selfishness, he did not say of these Members, but of the districts they represented. So long as they had this large question not under the undivided responsibility of one Department, it could not, in the nature of things, be wisely managed. What ought now to be done was to give the fullest powers with respect to the importation of cattle to one Department, and to make that Department responsible to Parliament, and then there would be no fear that the law would not be put in force as it was in other countries. What was now being done in France, which was exposed to greater risk than we were? Did she insist on stopping all foreign cattle on her frontiers and having them slaughtered there? On the contrary, she admitted thorn freely; but, at the same time, she kept a vigilant look-out as to the health of the cattle in different parts of Europe, and was prepared at once to arrest the introduction of cattle from any country that was suspected; while, in the meantime, she opened up to the population a supply of food drawn from all quarters of the Continent. Why could not they do the same here? After the experience of the last few years in that matter, there was no fear that the Government would show any want of due vigilance or vigour, which would draw down on them a storm of indignation, that no Ministry would like to face. At the present moment the complaint was not that the regulations of the Privy Council were not effectual for their object, but that they were enforced with greater rigour than was necessary. For these reasons he objected to the Bill. Its objects could be more effectually obtained, and without injury to the consumer, by other means. Besides, the Bill was most imperfect. Why should they deal with one port alone, and not have one law for every port in the kingdom. Before long there might be a change of Government, which would remove the restrictions that now existed; and cattle would be imported freely into the ports of Hull, Newcastle, and Southampton, while the greatest restrictions prevailed in the port of London. What they wanted was one uniform system of legislation. They could not pass any measure elastic enough to suit the necessities of all parts of the country, and therefore they ought to give increased powers to the Privy Council, and see that the Council exercised those powers effectually.

said, that the Bill would affect his constituency in two ways—first, as it attacked a portion of their trade, and one which they carried on to a considerable extent; and next, as it taxed their food. He was therefore desirous to learn what were the views of the Government on it. Though the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been good enough at length to address the House, he had carefully abstained from a single remark upon the two subjects which had been specially urged upon the attention of the Government. These two topics were the principle of public policy raised by the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson), and the question of finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say one word on those topics. He (Mr. Ayrton) therefore found himself in as much difficulty as before in these respects. He did not approach this Bill in a spirit of hostility; from the first he had contended that the cattle trade should be dealt with by the joint action of town and country, and from the first he had protested against setting up distinctive interests. He had been called the father of the policy contained in the Bill; but if the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) had only acted on the suggestion which he made last Session, the House would not have been troubled with the difficulties in which it was now plunged. His object had all along been to secure as large a supply as possible of live cattle to the metropolis from the country as well as from abroad. The population of London, as the largest consumers of meat in proportion to their numbers of any population in the kingdom, required supplies of both kinds—home and foreign. The present difficulties and obstructions arose entirely from the course taken by the Vice President and his Colleagues. The Bill had not been properly described as a Bill to establish a foreign cattle market. No doubt the Bill established a market for the supply of the metropolis, yet the market was not to be in the metropolis. It also proposed an establishment for the slaughter of cattle; an establishment for the exclusive landing of all cattle landed within the port of London; so that any vessel coming from between Gravesend and London with cattle would be compelled to go to a particular pier. There were to be also quarantine stations and roads and railways. All the vessels were to go to one port, and all the cattle were to be taken out on one pier and there slaughtered, unless they had undergone the quarantine provided for by the Privy Council, in which case they might be removed. He had never proposed or suggested so large a measure as that. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, two years ago, had first launched the idea embodied in the Bill of slaughtering cattle at a particular spot on the Thames. He had divided the House against the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the House rejected it by a considerable majority. Since last year the Government had tried to embarrass the trade of cattle in the metropolis. Last year he had put a proposal on the Paper suggested to him by his constituents. It was a proposal for a market; but not to restrict the landing of cattle to any particular place. On investigating it, and believing it would act injuriously to trade, he declined to proceed with it. When that restrictive proposal was on the Paper the noble Lord made some comments upon it, and spoke of it as one that would involve the necessity of two markets that would destroy competition, and as a gigantic system of Protection. When the Bill came under consideration he had in the question of dealing with foreign cattle proposed an elastic clause in accordance with the views he had stated, and the language which he had used had been adopted in the Bill which bad actually passed. It proposed that the Metropolitan Board of Works, with the sanction of the ratepayers, should erect a market to which such foreign cattle should be taken as the Privy Council by Order might direct. That was the law which was passed last Session, and which was now in force. He argued that, there being power given under the Act of last Session to the Metropolitan Board to construct a market as soon as applied to by the Government, the application was not made as it ought to have been. His complaint was that the noble Lord did not and would not act upon the statute of last Session. Instead of carrying out a proper policy the noble Lord determined to carry out his own policy, that the market should be constructed by the City of London. They said they were willing, but naturally at once the Metropolitan Board said, "Go and get your market made by the City of London." The noble Lord soon found the difficulties that must result. He was embarked in an entirely new policy; a clause was passed that destroyed the rights of his constituents; compensation was claimed for those who had exercised wharfage rights for four years, and then the City of London said, "We will have nothing more to do with the Bill." He wanted to know from the Government in what position they were placed? Here was a Bill which proposed to do great things for the agricultural interest. There was a provision in the Bill to Appoint Commissioners; but there was no provision made for paying them. He was surprised that Gentlemen opposite should be so intent on making a profit of their beasts as to become the dupes of a measure which, while professing to give them everything, would really give them nothing. The Commissioners would have to purchase land at an enormous price; but where was the Aladdin's lamp which would procure them the necessary funds? Moreover, the object of the Bill would not be attained within four or five years. The powers of the Corporation of London would lapse after a year if they acquired no lands, or after three years if, having acquired lands, they took no further steps, so that for three years nothing would be done. Then a Commission without funds might be appointed, and after three years more their powers also would lapse. Now, he would put it to the Government and to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it was worth while to proceed with a Bill of such a character? Hon. Members opposite perhaps imagined that if they got this Go- vernment to pass a Bill they would be able to get funds from another Government. Beyond the right of the Privy Council vetoing the incoming of foreign cattle supposed to carry the disease, he denied that restriction should exist. To implicate all the activity of foreign traders was simple stultification, and foreign Governments would be estopped from sanctioning the exportation of cattle. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite not to send their "round robins" to the Ministry, to induce them to palm off this Bill, which stopped the very springs of commercial activity. He appealed to the opposite side on the grounds of public justice and public policy. ["Oh, oh !"] But his constituents were placed at a disadvantage in order to benefit the agricultural interest, and he altogether denied the justice of the attempt to make the port of London the scape-goat of other ports in the country. Probably, if any metropolitan boroughs returned Conservative Members, they would be able to prevail with the Government, as the Members for Liverpool had prevailed. But it was hopeless for the Government to expect from the intelligence of metropolitan constituencies the return of Conservative Members. This Bill could not pass in the present Session, for the requisite notices had not been given affecting private property. If even the Bill went up to the Lords, there must be a Committee on the subject, to consider the case of wharfingers and others whose rights were affected by the measure. As to the great question, whether the measure would raise the price of meat, Mr. Bloomfield Baker had stated before the Committee that the Government contracts alone would be increased by £1,000 per week if the Bill became law. But if this were so in the case of 30,000 or 40,000 soldiers, what would not be the result of the measure upon the food of the whole metropolis? On the ground of public policy, and in the interest of the general trade of the country, he hoped that the House would reject the measure.

I hope the House will come to a division upon this stage of the Bill. We have heard in this debate that this measure is the revival of Protection. Remembering that some of the speakers to whom I have listened are distinguished for their knowledge of political economy and their opposition to all artificial systems of restriction, I am surprised that that accusation should be made so freely. We have heard something also about a hustings' cry, and perhaps in the scarcity of the commodity on the other side this stale sarcasm may do as well as any other. Now this is not a question of protection; it is one of precaution. It is a question really between pestilence and precaution. It is a question whether, after the experience we have had of the fell disease to which our herds and flocks have been so fatally subject, it is necessary or desirable that we should adopt some precautionary policy, and whether, on the whole, the measure proposed by my noble Friend (Lord Robert Montagu) is not the most prudent and the most proper? Now it has been asked frequently in the course of this debate, "Why do you propose to do that for London which you do not propose to do for the other ports?" We do not propose to do it for the other ports because it is already done for them. Land has been purchased in those places, and by the clauses of the existing Act we have been able to bring about a state of things which we have not been able to bring about for London. And why not for London? Simply because you cannot avail yourselves of the penalty which was provided by the existing Act in order to enforce the arrangement. What was the penalty? That if in any of those ports they did not choose to purchase the land that was necessary, and establish separate markets, the Privy Council could prevent the importation of foreign cattle. Now, how could you do that in London when you have failed to establish markets, never mind from what cause. No one for a moment could contend that the Government could take upon itself to stop the importation of foreign cattle into London, which is 92 per cent of the gross amount imported. Therefore we have not under the existing Act the means by which we can bring about in London the same results as in the other ports, and it is because we want to legislate practically for the whole country that we ask you to give us those powers which are necessary. So much for the first question that has been asked me. Then there is the other question as to the financial position of the affair, which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) has brought forward, and which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) has adverted to. Now, we must remember that in the Committee on the Bill upstairs, the City of London proposed a tariff of tolls quite satisfactory to the Committee, and that tariff was accepted. Certain clauses were framed to carry the general arrangements into effect, and those clauses were accepted. So much, therefore, for the financial part of the question. But then a misunderstanding arose between the Corporation of the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, and what was that misunderstanding really occasioned by? As far as I can collect it was a quarrel as to who should be entitled to the surplus profits of the scheme. Well, now, if there be a misunderstanding between those two bodies as to the question of surplus profits, I think there is primâ facie evidence that the scheme would be a paying one. It is therefore unnecessary to discussion in order to ascertain how the money is to be provided; but what we want to inquire into is whether it is necessary such an arrangement should be carried into effect; and that we shall be better able to discuss in a further stage of the Bill. What we have now to decide is, whether it is necessary for the public health and the general welfare of the country that a scheme of this kind should be adopted or not. And if it be our opinion that it ought to be adopted, there can be no doubt that means will be devised by which a measure absolutely necessary may be carried out. Then we are told that we are acting in a very different way from how they act in France; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce), who spoke with moderation and authority on the subject, greatly dilated on that topic. But there is very little similarity between France and England on this subject. The importation of foreign cattle into France is very moderate indeed; it is counted only by thousands while in this country it is counted by hundreds of thousands. In fact, France has no ports of importation, except from Algiers to Marseilles, and only two inlets into France for foreign cattle by two railways—the Lille and Sambre. The traffic in France can therefore be regulated with success; for, by the law of that country, everything goes to Paris, and the cattle on arriving there are slaughtered within a very limited period. Therefore the similarity of the circumstances alluded to, and the circumstances urged by the right hon. Gentleman to warn us from pursuing a different course in this country, ought not to have much influence or authority on the opinion of the House. I hope the House, having now discussed the question for some time, is prepared to come to some decision on the subject. The House, when in Committee, will have as opportunity of urging in detail any practical objections, and of then being practically considered. But the great point to be remembered by the House is that the state of affairs upon the subject is most unsatisfactory; that the system of Orders in Council, which I have heard advocated from quarters in which I should not have expected them to find much favour, is one that is attended with great disadvantage to the business of the country; and that not only agricultural pursuits but the commercial interchange of the country are extremely embarrassed and disturbed if the supply to the London market is limited—and considerably limited it is—by the system which exists. I do not think I have collected from any hon. Gentlemen that they are of opinion that the system can go on without considerable modifications. I trust therefore that dismissing from our minds such really idle considerations as that this plan is a revival of Protection; but looking at it as an attempt to establish a system of wise and necessary precaution, the House will now agree to go into Committee. It is absolutely necessary that Parliament should come to some decision upon the subject, and re-assure the public mind; and as the question is precaution against foreign pestilence, I hope the House will no longer delay coming to a vote upon it.

attempted to address the House; but, there being loud cries for a division, said he would move the adjournment of the debate.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will proceed with what he has got to say. I have myself been often received in that manner; but I found the House listened to me when I went on.

I should be very glad if my hon. Friend (Mr. Bazley) were disposed to withdraw his Motion for Adjournment. I am bound to say that in my opinion—especially after listening to the right hon. Gentleman—the financial part of the question has assumed an appearance still more formidable; and it is my intention to raise that question, if no other Member does so, on the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair. With the extensive prospects opened out by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Fordyce) that this is the beginning of a system of which we have had one or two specimens, in the town, of Hull; for example, and that it is intended to go around the country. [Lord ROBERT MOSTAGU: We can at present.] The noble Lord did not hear the Member for Aberdeenshire then. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a measure absolutely necessary for the public welfare, and that consequently the means for defraying the charge must be found—if that be so, why should not the means come from the Consolidated Fund? The whole of this opens up a series of questions so important that a discussion must be had upon them. If my hon. Friend would allow me, as my right hon. Friend has raised the question upon the principle of the Bill to a considerable extent, and as hon. Gentleman opposite are anxious to have an expression of opinion upon it, I would suggest that he would not stand io their way.

said, he was not satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. He hoped that the Bill would be left to he dealt with by the new Parliament.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, that while he disclaimed all intention to annoy Her Majesty's Government he should move that the debate be now adjourned.

I trust the hon. Gentleman will not make that Motion. It will stop all the Business of the evening.

rose to ask what course the Government intended to take? He presumed, however, that after the division which had been just taken they would object to the adjournment of the debate. For his own part he should certainly not press the adjournment of the debate; but he wished to refer to a matter that had been hardly touched on by the Government. It had only been very briefly mentioned by the First Minister, and never until that speech was delivered. He should endeavour to set forth briefly what he had to say on that matter, in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. With regard to the general argument he should say very little, and should touch very briefly on the points that had been brought into view during the present evening. One of those appeared to be that Gentleman opposite had urged in argument that time was of the greatest importance to them in that matter, and that a great advantage was to be gained by pressing forward the present Bill under the circumstances in which they were at present placed. Now, it appeared to him that there was no ground for such a supposition. Under the Bill twelve months were allowed for choosing a site for the new market; but why was twelve months necessary for such a purpose? He ventured to think that if the Bill were discussed six months hence, and if six months only were to be allowed for the choice of a site, no time would really be lost. ["Committee !"] His argument, he might remark, did not refer to any particular clause; but to the expediency of pressing the Bill forward at the present time. He was afraid that the longer the discussion on this Bill was protracted the more it would assume the very invidious, not not to say odious, aspect of a battle of class interests. However much some hon. Gentlemen might exert themselves to divest it of that character, he was sorry to say that the language of others tended very much to give it that character; and when a new Parliament met, it would not be a graceful recollection of the last act of the old one that a measure of that kind was carried into effect that Session. He was persuaded that many hon. Gentlemen were urging forward this Bill under the honest belief that it was a measure of precaution, and he had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly sincere when he said that while there would be temporary inconveniences, the trade would soon be re-organized, and that matters would then go on as well as, if not better, than before. Such a prophecy would have been the more comforting but for the existence of certain facts relative to the effects of a similar system of precaution at Hull. Indeed, he was somewhat astonished that the case of Hull had not been mentioned either by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown. He would therefore briefly re-capitulate the facts. In the first place, however, he must express his belief that the right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government was entirely wrong when he stated that the foreign cattle trade of the port of London was 92 per cent of the whole foreign cattle trade of the country. Of course he could not at the moment quote the precise figures; but his impression was that the out-port trade—to use the expression of the Customs—was about five-twelfths, and certainly more than four twelfths of the entire cattle trade. The right hon. Gentleman's argument therefore fell to the ground. Hull was a port which had a thriving and rapidly growing cattle trade. In 1864 it imported 30,000 cattle, 38,000 sheep and lambs, and 7,000 swine. The next year the figures were as follows:—41,000 cattle, 69,000 sheep and lambs, and 15,000 swine. In 1866 the precautionary measure came into effect, and the result was that the 41,000 cattle fell to 26,000, the 69,000 sheep and lambs to 48,000, and the 15,000 swine to 8,000. Nor was the effect of the measure of precaution then exhausted, for in 1867 the numbers were—17,000 cattle, 9,000 sheep and lambs, and under 4,000 swine. The figures for 1868 were of course incomplete; but he was told that at the present time the cattle trade of Hull exhibited in a yet more satisfactory manner the extreme efficacy of the precautions which had been taken. It was idle, therefore, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suppose that by general prophecies and promises, which he would do his best to fulfil, he was to carry to disturbed, mistrustful minds any comfortable assurance that his expectations for London were to stand against the evidence of facts and figures already in their hands with respect to the case of Hull. He had no doubt that hon. Gentlemen were sincere when they said they did not want protection; but he apprehended that until the facts and figures he had quoted had been answered, it was clear that the operation of the measure would be something like the extinction of the foreign cattle trade. Such was the case with respect to the probable effect of the Bill on the supply of food, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Bruce) had shown that the scientific evidence of veterinary surgeons proved it to be in a prominent degree worthless as a measure of precaution. Then came the question as to the efficacy of Privy Council regulations versus statutory restrictions; and why, he would ask, did the Government not enforce compulsory slaughter in the metropolis on their own responsibility, instead of asking the House to relieve them of that responsibility: and put itself in their place? He, for one, contended that the arrangement of proceeding by means of the Executive Government, subject to the control of Parliament, and the consequent revocation of errors that might arise, was one which was infinitely to be preferred to a rigid system of statutory restriction such as that which was urged on the acceptance of the House. Then they had further to consider the financial question, and if that question had had been formidable before they had heard the addresses of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, it was at present far more formidable. The case presented by the First Minister of the Crown was no case at all. The right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government invited the House to go into Committee to consider the subject in its financial aspect; but he must be permitted to say that no Government measure involving a large outlay had ever been dealt with in that way. It was the absolute duty of the Government, he maintained, to produce before the Speaker left the Chair their financial plan, to show what charge would be incurred under the operation of the Bill, and how that charge was to be met. The right hon. Gentleman sought to put the House off with generalities; but he felt assured that if the measure was passed in its present shape the question of finance would hereafter arise in one shape or another. What, be would ask, were the funds out of which the proposed market was to be supported? As things now stood, the cattle trade of the metropolis was concentrated in a single market, which represented but one source of expense. On the fund by which that market was supported it was, however, sought to throw a double charge, although it was not a fund which yielded a surplus, but one which, on the contrary, was encumbered with a deficiency of £7,000 a year. If that were so, how was the deficiency to be supplied and provision made for the additional charge which would be imposed if the Bill were to pass into a law? What were the sources from which it was conceivable the new charge could be met? It might, perhaps, be thought that it could be met by means of the dues on foreign cattle; but, so far as he could see, we could not levy one penny more on such cattle than on British cattle admitted to a British market. He was of that opinion because of the faith of treaties. A common stipulation in treaties was what was called the equality treatment, which had reference to dues and charges of all kinds. He recollected very well that in 1860, when the French Treaty was entered into, and it was contemplated to levy certain petty charges in the port of London, a special article had to be introduced to prevent their imposition. The Government, therefore, could not hope to raise the revenue required for the new market by taxing foreign at a higher rate than British cattle. The next source of revenue open to them was, as had been stated, the property of the City of London; but the citizens had, he believed, beyond all doubt, washed their hands of the Bill. He, for one, protested against the idea that the ratepayers of the metropolis were to be looked to to defray the necessary charges, and he did not suppose for a moment that they would willingly submit to any measure which would tend to limit the supply of food. The next source to which recourse might be had was the Consolidated Fund. The meaning of the statement of the Head of the Government that this was necessary for the public welfare, and that some means of getting the requisite money must be devised, was that the public must provide the money; and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplated getting those means from the Consolidated Fund? Another mode of getting at the treasure of the public was by way of guarantee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head, and he was glad to understand from the demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman that when he said there was to be no charge on the Consolidated Fund, he meant to include no direct or contingent charge by way of guarantee; but what was said by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was strictly true—that Commissioners were to be set up without any money to bless themselves with. They were about to do that which had been done too often before—namely, to delude the farmers by professing to do wonderful things on their behalf, which, when put to the test, proved wholly futile. If it was intended to deal in an open and trustworthy manner with the agricultural interest, the financial part of the Bill must be made a reality. He hoped that the Government would give a clear statement of their intentions.

said, he regretted that when he before addressed the House he was not aware of the challenge that during his absence had been thrown out to him respecting the financial part of the measure. The points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite are no doubt worthy of attention, and he would take them one by one. The right hon. Gentleman had asked why the Bill was pressed with such urgency? Why could it not stand over till next Session? Because, after it was passed, another Bill, founded upon it, would have to be introduced, giving powers for the acquisition of the site of the intended market; a provisional Motion would have to be passed, and notice to be given to the persons interested in the site. The right hon. Gentleman had next instanced the case of Hull, as an answer to the argument that the Bill would occasion a larger supply to the market. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed to the decline in the number of cattle, sheep, and swine imported into Hull as the consequence of the Order in Council, compelling beasts to be slaughtered at the place of lauding; but he had apparently forgotten that the Order applied only to cattle, and not to sheep, lambs, or swine, unless imported in the same vessel with cattle; and it was therefore plain that the Order in Council could not be held to be the cause of so serious a decline in the importations of Hull. The fact, he believed, was that the restrictive regulations of the various foreign Governments checked the importation from abroad, and also that the French ports during the period in question offered a better market to breeders; for even in London, where compulsory slaughter in a separate market was not enforced, the importation of cattle had fallen from 147,000 in 1864 to 125,000 in 1867. With regard to the financial part of the question, he observed that the Bill in its present shape was not the Bill as introduced by the Government. When the Bill was first introduced the City of London engaged to carry out its provisions, provided it had the tolls under Schedules of the Bill; but when the Bill went before the Select Committee the old rivalry between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City of London broke out afresh. The surplus was, under the Bill, to go to the market authority; but in the Committee the Bill was altered so that the surplus should go to the reduction of the tolls. It was therefore no wonder that there should be some reluctance on the part of the City to carry out the Bill. But if the City declined to do so the Metropolitan Board would become the market authority. At the instigation of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), who was certainly not a supporter of the Bill, the clause relating to the City of London was struck out. That might be a proof of the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman; but it was certainly no reason why a charge should be brought against the Government with reference to the market authority. The view of his noble Friend (Lord Robert Montagu) who had charge of the Bill was to restore it to the shape in which it was when it went up to the Committee, so as to leave it to the City of London to receive the tolls as the market authority, and appropriate the surplus as they appropriated their other funds. But if they declined, the Metropolitan Board would become the market authority, and the surplus would go to them instead of to the reduction of tolls. Independently, therefore, of the Commissioners, they had here two responsible and important bodies, who, if they restored the Bill to its original shape, would be perfectly willing either of them to become the market authority. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) very properly observed that they should not put higher tolls on animals imported under the provisions of this Bill than before. But so far from being higher the tolls were considerably lower. The tolls in the Schedule were 2s. 6d. per head instead of 5s. 11d., as in the metropolitan cattle market.

said, that was not so. Instead of being 5s. 11d. in the metropolitan cattle market, cattle under the same circumstances were only charged 3d. per head.

said, that was a question of fact which might be very easily settled. All he could say was, that if they passed this Bill as presented by the Government, there would be a perfect security that it would be properly carried out in the fact that the City of London would be willing to undertake it as the market authority. It was therefore idle for the right hon. Gentleman to say that financially the Bill would not hold water.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had advised the House not to delude the farmers, and he made a strong statement with respect to Hull, where what he called the foreign trade had been almost extinguished. But had not the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), urged the House to continue the very system of Privy Council Orders which the right hon. Gentleman said had all but extinguished the foreign trade at Hull? Was there not something to delude in that? And then as to the ratepayers of the City of London, were they not also deluded by having the extinction of trade put on them by the Privy Council Orders instead of by statute? Hon. Gentlemen talked of the fettering of trade; but was not trade fettered now? Was the time ever known when the people of the metropolis paid so large a price for their meat as they did now? And why was there such a large margin between the price paid to the producer and the price paid by the consumer? It was all very well for the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets and the Whitechapel butchers to talk upon this subject; but was there no delusion here? The very large difference between the wholesale and retail price of meat was owing to the restrictions which the Privy Council placed on trade. But it was said what was the use of passing this Bill when twelve months' notice was given for purchasing a site for the market? But why should these twelve months not be limited to six? That might be done in Committee. He believed all the financial difficulties might easily be cleared away. If not it would only show what remained to be done by the new Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire said they had no right to deal with such a question, for they were a dying body. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not seem to consider that when dealing with the Irish Church.

I never used the words the right hon. Gentleman is putting into my mouth, nor anything like them.

said, that if they had cleared away the difficulties in the path instead of uselessly protracting the debate by pressing the same speeches over and over again, they would either have carried the Bill through Committee by this time, or else have left it in a condition much more accessible to the legislation of the new Parliament.

said, that the Orders of the Privy Council were sent temporarily, while the Bill would be permanent it its operation. With regard to the question of imports, the cause of the decline was the prohibition on importers to send surplus imports into the country, and the impossibility to regulate the supply to the wants of each particular port. If it were intended to erect the necessary buildings for only two years, they were incurring a monstrous outlay for a very small object. He condemned the Bill as one which would occasion great loss without possessing sufficient compensating advantages.

made an appeal to the First Minister of the Crown. Seeing that the agriculturists of England, Ireland, and Scotland felt so strongly on this question, and seeing that the decision of the House had been marked so emphatically in favour of the Bill, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give his consent to postpone the prorogation of Parliament a sufficient time to enable this truly Protectionist measure to be proceeded with.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now consent to the adjournment of the debate. The Statements which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister, and by the right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the financial part of the Bill were such as to render a further discussion of the main principle of the Bill absolutely necessary. He was not averse to any reasonable arrangement in favour of the agricultural interest; but he protested against the extravagant clauses contained in the present Bill. He made the suggestion that the debate should be adjourned in order to save another division, and perhaps a long series of divisions.

said, he would have consented to an adjournment of the debate before the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) spoke. But as that right hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of which he had availed himself of speaking upon the financial part of the Bill, and as his observations had been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was really no reason whatever why the main principle of the Bill should be further discussed, and why the House should not at once go into Committee upon that Bill. He should certainly oppose the Motion for Adjournment.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had replied to his right hon. Friend, but he had certainly not answered him—["Oh, oh !"]. He had given no answer to the question, where the funds were to come from to carry out the Bill, if the City and the Board of Works had no money, and were not empowered to borrow for the purpose. The question was left exactly as it was left when his right hon. Friend sat down.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) would consider favourably the appeal made to him by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Sir Charles Russell) not to prorogue the Parliament till this measure was passed. Such a step, though it would be a sacrifice of time and trouble, would be appreciated by the country; and if the Bill were passed into a law this codicil to the will of a moribund Parliament would be a legacy gratefully acknowledged by all classes.

said, they had been there for fourteen hours and had to meet again at two o'clock in the afternoon, and he therefore moved the adjournment of the House.

trusted that the House would not embark in these barren and distressing practices which they appeared likely to pursue. He hoped that after the very large majorities which had been in favour of going into Committee, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, particularly as those majorities were furnished not from that side of the House alone. He did not desire to say anything by way of menace; but if the hon. Gentleman persisted in these Motions, he should not continue to oppose them in the present jaded state of the House, more particularly as there was to be another Sitting that day. It was the usual practice of minorities to defer to the opinions of the majority, especially when that majority had been so large as it had been that evening; and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in the course he was now adopting.

said, he had understood from the right hon. Gentleman that he would not have objected to the adjournment of the debate if it had been moved before the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire had been delivered. ["Oh, oh !"] The right hon. Gentleman bad so stated and said so still. ["Oh !"] He trusted therefore that the hon. Gentleman would press his Motion.

said, he thought that both sides of the House should clearly understand the position in which they now were. The opponents of the measure should understand that those who supported it would go into Committee if they continued dividing till two o'clock to-morrow after noon.

said, he could tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Jervis) that he too would sit there, if necessary, till two o'clock to-morrow afternoon.

pointed out to the opponents of the measure that they would be in no worse position if they permitted the Speaker to leave the Chair than they now were. [An hon. MEMBER: Yes, we shall; very much.] He trusted that for the sake of the character of the House the present factious proceedings would not be persisted in.

said, it was not usual when there were Morning Sittings to discuss opposed Business at that hour. He hoped the First Minister would give some assurance that he would assent to an adjournment of the House.

complained that the Bill had been treated in a most discreditable manner by the Gentlemen opposite.

said, he hoped the House would go into Committee that night. He; protested against these continued Motions for Adjournment. There were a great many even on the Liberal side who were in favour of the Bill, and he thought it ought to be proceeded with.

said, there were a number of Gentlemen who were determined to oppose the Bill at all hazards.

said, he had felt strongly opposed to the Bill; but it had been fairly fought in all its stages, and further opposition to the Speaker's leaving the Chair ought now to be discontinued.

called attention to the fact that the First Minister of the Crown had left the House, and asked who was in charge of the Business of the House.

said, that the Prime Minister was willing, supposing the House went into Committee, to report Progress at once, and fix the Bill for Monday.

seconded the Motion.

asked what were the forms of the House. If necessary, those on the Ministerial side of the House would walk continually into the Lobbies till ten in the morning.

made an appeal to hon. Members opposite on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. They were hardly treating him fairly by keeping him in the House at that late hour, mid he hoped they would not press the Motion for the adjournment.

said, he had intended rising to make a similar observation. If hon. Members had no consideration for themselves, they should at least have some consideration for the Speaker, who had, with the exception of the two hours between four and six, been practically in the Chair since twelve o'clock, and it was now twenty minutes to three.

said, he felt obliged to those Gentlemen who had made that appeal in his behalf. But he wished that hon. Members, without any reference to his convenience, should be guided by what they considered proper and suitable and becoming the dignity of the House.

asked why the Irish Registration Bill had been placed after the Bill under discussion? The Irish Members had been pressed to wait for it; and why? Because it was known they were generally favourable to the Cattle Bill, and would, of course, support the Government. ["Oh. oh !"]

denied the statement.

said, he was quite ready to admit the opposition, which had been as industrious as the Government's; but he maintained that indirectly the effect had been as he had stated. He, however, recommended his hon. Friend (Mr. Candlish) not to press his Motion.

, reminding hon. Members opposite it would have been more consistent if they had consulted the Speaker's comfort hours before, withdrew his Motion.