said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Has ''The General Council of Medical Education and Registration," appointed under the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 90, "represented" to the Privy Council, with a view to obtaining the co-operation of that body in improving the mode of educating and examining candidates for medical and surgical degrees, that the Official Reports forwarded to the Council for their information in the years 1865, 1866, 1867, and 1868, by the heads of the Military and Naval Medical Departments, complain of the "ignorance" of a large proportion of the licensed Surgeons and Physicians who annually present themselves as candidates for medical employment in the Army and Navy; and that the tabular Returns recorded in the Minutes of the Medical Council show that within the period embraced in the Reports named more than one hundred and fifty licensed Surgeons and Physicians who were entitled to hold any Poor Law or other Civil medical appointment in the Empire were rejected by the Military and Naval Medical Boards as persons to whom it would be dangerous to entrust the lives of Her Majesty's Forces because of their "ignorance" of the profession of which they are "licensed practitioners." If the Medical Council did not "represent" to the Privy Council that seventeen various kinds of medical and surgical diplomas or degrees were included in the list of those held by the one hundred and fifty candidates rejected for their ignorance of the elements of professional knowledge, did they represent to the Privy Council the case of any one of the licensing bodies who issued their degrees or diplomas with a view to put an end to the granting of licenses to practice, which the Reports and Tables recorded in the Minutes of the Council prove to be delusive as guarantees of practical medical knowledge; and, if the answers to the above questions shall be in the negative, to ask, is the Government prepared to take means to secure to the general public the same or similarly effective guarantees against the licensing of ignorant and incompetent men which are now enjoyed by the Military Forces of Her Majesty?

Sir, no such representations have been made by the Medical Council to the Privy Council either with respect to the medical men, rejected upon examination by the Military and Naval Medical Boards, or with respect to the granting of licenses to the 150 rejected candidates; but I have reason to know that the fact has come under the notice of the Medical Council and excited their serious attention. I am informed that the Privy Council is at the present time in communication with the Medical Council, with a view to considering whether the Medical Act may be so amended as to insure a higher efficiency in the medical profession of the United Kingdom.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his second Question.

said, that no such application had been made as that referred to in the Question.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If any further communications have been re- ceived by the Treasury on the subject of proposals for a reduction of the Wine Duties, in connection with negotiations for Treaties of Commerce with Spain and Portugal; and, if so, if he will object to lay such Supplementary Correspondence upon the Table of the House?

said, in reply, that since the last Papers were laid on the table the subject had continued to engage the attention of the Government. The Correspondence was still going on, and as soon as he could lay the further Papers on the table he should be happy to do so.

said, he must oppose the Amendment, which he thought was unnecessary. Inspection was insured by the Customs Act, and the Privy Council would, of course, immediately on the passing of the Act, define the limits of ports.

said, the Amendment, if carried, would be beneficial to the successful working of the Bill. It was desirable to prevent any cattle disease from being introduced into the country.

said, he thought the debate on the Amendment of the clause was not likely to lead to any satisfactory result. He intended at the proper time to raise the whole question of inspection by moving the omission of the clause.

protested against the permissive character of the Bill.

said, he considered they were rather anticipating another Amendment the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read) had to the clause. The effect of the present Amendment would be to define the ports of landing and no more, and it would not affect the cattle being slaughtered there.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

said, he was afraid the next proposition which he had to make would not be so satisfactorily settled. He proposed at the end of line 38, to add—

"And all foreign animals imported into Great Britain shall be landed only at such ports or the defined parts thereof (unless from countries in which cattle plague or sheep pox shall not have existed during the three years preceding, or through which animals shall not have passed during the same period from countries so affected) and shall not be removed alive from such port or defined parts thereof except for slaughter to some slaughter-house in the immediate neighbourhood, which shall be specially licensed by the Privy "Council, or except after undergoing a quarantine of not less than fourteen days.

"Animals imported from such excepted countries, when imported in vessels which shall not have touched for a period of three months preceding at any port of any country which may have been affected with cattle plague or sheep pox shall be subjected only to such inspection and regulations as the Privy Council may from time to time by order direct."

rose to second the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South-east Norfolk. The agricultural community looked upon this Amendment as of the most vital importance. It was a matter of life and death with the tenant-farmers of Scotland, England, and Ireland; for if rinderpest got into their herds it was utter annihilation. The great increase of late years in the dead meat traffic in this country showed that no hardship whatever would be caused by the compulsory slaughter of foreign cattle at the ports of debarkation. He wished to lay before the House a few statistics bearing upon this point. Mr. Rudwick, of Berwick, the greatest dealer on the Border, killed 2,000 sheep weekly in the season for the London dead meat markets. In Fifeshire, there was an enormous dead meat trade, almost no meat being sent off alive. Coming to Aberdeen shire, we found that the export of live cattle to London was only half as large as it was ten years ago, while the dead meat trade had doubled in the same period. In 1859, the number of cattle sent alive was 20,400, and the quantity of dead meat was nearly 7,000 tons, or more than 23,000 head of cattle, calculating 6 cwt. to each animal. In 1861, the live cattle had decreased to 17,176—a falling off of between 3,000 and 4,000, while the dead meat had risen to 8,168 tons—equal to about 27,220 cattle. In 1865, the export of live cattle was only 13,589, as compared with upwards of 10,000 tons of dead meat, equal to over 33,700 cattle. He had not been able to get the exact statistics since 1865, but at present only about a-third were sent away from Aberdeen alive. During the season about 1,800 cattle were slaughtered there weekly, and only about 600 exported alive. The offals of the animals slaughtered were all consumed at Aberdeen, or within a reasonable distance. It was well known that the best of everything went to London—the best horses, the best oxen, the best sheep, the best grain, the best fish—and why? Because everything fetched the highest price there. If it were not for London and the West-end butcher, they would have but a poor demand for their prime Scots. Now, let them see where and with what did the West-end butchers apply themselves. The late Mr. Thomas Slater, the greatest West-end butcher, retailed 500 sheep a week during the Great Exhibition. His two sons, one at Kensington, the other in Jermyn Street, and Mr. Oakes were now the largest retail butchers in London. Between them they put about 100 cattle and 500 sheep through their hands weekly. Mr. Slater, of Kensington, bought one-half alive, the other half dead meat in the New Market. Mr. Slater, of Jermyn Street, bought every pound dead. And where did this dead meat come from? Three-fourths of it was Aberdeen dead meat. This would be found to apply to the other West-end butchers as well. He regretted to learn that there was a strong growing feeling among the tenant-farmers of Scotland that the Government had hitherto ignored their interests; but he trusted that before the next day of counting and reckoning came they would have no reason to complain that their just claims had been neglected. They feared no competition from abroad, but they feared a second visitation of rinderpest. They wanted no protection, but they wanted preservation from disease, and, therefore, he trusted the House would adopt this Amendment.

said, that he quite agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Read) that it was very desirable that foreign nations should know with clearness and certainty their position in regard to the restrictions affecting the importation of cattle into England; and he, therefore, supported the Amendment. The practical effect of the clause in its present form would be to destroy altogether the foreign cattle trade. That had been established by the clearest testimony. Similar regulations enforced by the late Government had put an end to a considerable portion of the importation which used to be carried on at Southampton, and had entirely destroyed the trade in cattle from Spain, Denmark, and Sweden, in all which countries the cattle were perfectly healthy. The Committee must look this matter fairly in the face, and consider if they were prepared by diminishing the supply to still further enhance the price of meat. How much such a clause as this would diminish it no one could say, because the foreign trade was capable of almost unlimited extension. The opinion of the highest authorities ought to guide the action of the Government. Well, Professor Spooner, Principal of the Royal Veterinary College of England, had declared—

"That it would be a great mistake to do away with the restrictions on the London market if those on foreign cattle were to be maintained."

wished, in a very few words, to state on what grounds he would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South East Norfolk (Mr. Read). He must begin, however, by stating that he differed from the hon. Member, for he had avowed his fear lest the right hon. hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) should be made Vice President. Now he (Lord Robert Montagu) earnestly hoped that he might succeed to that post; for he would not exercise the functions of it for a week without discovering how wrong were all his present opinions and impressions. The Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Foster), as all knew, had entertained prejudices fully as great as those which were now held by the right hon. Gentleman. Yet now those prejudices had all been laid aside; he had adopted five clauses of his (Lord Robert Montagu's) Bill, which had been rejected by the House, and other Amendments of his besides. The right hon. Gentleman had given nearly all that they had asked. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had mistaken the evidence of Professor Spooner. Professor Spooner was strongly in favour of separate markets; and he was so afraid of infection that he had stated that it was absolutely necessary to impose restrictions on the importation of foreign animals. On no account, he maintained, could they do away with the present restrictions. "But," said he, "the chance of infection from foreign animals is so great, and the chance of its being detected is so slight, that I doubt the wisdom of removing the metropolitan regulations, even after that the separate market had been established." This Amendment originated in a compromise. In 1867 a Bill was introduced and referred to a Committee upstairs. The promoters of that Bill desired that all foreign cattle without exception should be slaughtered at the water side, but Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Moffatt, and the President of the Poor Law Board, opposed that wise policy with the most untiring assiduity; so that at last the hon. Member for South East Norfolk, wearied out by the tortuous tactics and interminable arguments of these Gentlemen, proposed this Amendment with the view of putting an end to the bitter opposition which the Bill encountered, and with the hope that it might thus be passed during that Session. The hon. Member for South-east Norfolk thought that the Corporation of London would not be compelled by the terms of the Bill as it now stood to create this market; in that he was mistaken, because sub-section 2 of Clause 28 placed them in reality under a very strong compulsion to do so. If they failed to have completed, within two years, a separate market for foreign cattle, they would lose the monopoly which they at present enjoyed under their Market Bill of 1857. Any person or company might then form such a market for their own profit. He need not tell the Committee that there were a number of hungry speculators and wealthy capitalists who were eager to make such a market on their own account. He saw some of them in the House at that moment. The creation of such a market was, therefore, a certainty; for it would be made either by the City Corporation or by a private company. It was because this was the case that he desired to enact that foreign cattle should not be landed elsewhere than at the separate market; but as this might not be agreed to by the Committee, he supported the compromise of the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk. For this would be the state of things. There would be a foreign cattle market in London; there were already separate markets—or rather places of slaughter and sale of foreign cattle—in all other ports; and by an Amendment of his (Lord Robert Montagu's), which the Vice President had inserted in the Bill when it was committed pro formâ, the Privy Council would be unable to abolish these foreign markets. Well, then, he (Lord Robert Montagu) asserted that every local authority would be anxious for such a clause as that under consideration. Take one of them, that of London, for example. In order to make the market pay, the market authorities would desire to get as many beasts into their market as possible. Let not hon. Members think that those beasts which did not go for slaughter to the foreign market would have to go to the Islington market, for the metropolitan regulations were to be abolished, as the Vice President had stated; in fact, they could not be maintained. Therefore, without such an enactment as that now under consideration, a number of foreign beasts would be driven through the streets in every direction, to the private slaughter-houses of the 5,000 small butchers. This would be a great detriment to the new market. It would be to the advantage, therefore, of the Corporation, to cause as many beasts to be slaughtered there as possible; and the interest of the public was the same, for who, when hurrying to a railway station or obeying the calls of business, had not experienced the nuisance of meeting a herd of bullocks in the street? Besides, these private slaughter-houses are injurious to the health of the public. They are not, and cannot be, under control. They are always in densely populated parts of the town; and the filth, stale blood, and numerous contaminations, poison the air and taint the meat. Evidence had been given before the Commission upon sanitary matters, which was now sitting, to show that the effect of slaughtering cattle at private slaughter-houses was extremely injurious. The evil occasioned by these private slaughter-houses had been always so manifest that in 1844 an Act of Parliament was passed declaring that they should be utterly abolished. In those days, however, property was sacred, and due regard was had to the slightest shadow of a vested interest. The public thereupon agreed to submit to the nuisance and injury for thirty years, in order that the butchers might recoup themselves and make other arrangements. The small butchers had undoubtedly made the most of their thirty years, as the enormous difference between the wholesale and the retail prices of meat showed. Under that Act the interests of the butchers had been amply protected, but the convenience and health of the public had been utterly disregarded. He asked the Committte to protect the public from further nuisance, and their health from further injury. It was now full time to disestablish and disendow the butchers, whose vested interests had been amply satisfied.

said, those who supported the Amendment should be prepared to show that the restrictions imposed during 1865–6–7 had had the effect of preventing the importation of diseased cattle. In his opinion, those restrictions had been utterly futile, the disease having been eventually checked not by means of those restraints upon trade, but by compulsory slaughter. He challenged the noble Lord, or any Gentleman in the House to prove that a single authenticated case of cattle plague was imported into the port of London between July, 1865, when the disease commenced, and September, 1867. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was quite sufficient to protect the agricultural interests, and, at the same time, did not much interfere with the supply of cattle for consumers.

said, he thought that the Amendment would tend to remove impediments to the free importation of cattle from those countries where the cattle plague did not exist, and to prevent the importation of the disease from places where it did exist. He agreed that nothing should be done to interfere with the supply of food for the people; the price of meat was already high enough to satisfy the producer and to render the consumer discontented. But it would surely be madness to imperil the safety of our 9,000,000 of cattle for the sake of the 200,000 which were annually imported from abroad. With regard to the sheep pox, he would merely say that, in the year 1865, it had been introduced into the middle of Northamptonshire by sixty Dutch sheep which had been brought from the port of London; and that it was owing to the unselfish action on the part of the landlord, who, at his own expense, killed those sheep, that the wide spread of the disorder had been prevented. He should, therefore, vote in favour of the Amendment, the terms of which were fully supported by the Report of the Committee of 1866.

said, that he felt it only right to state that he had met with no trace of anything selfish or unreasonable in the demands of the deputations from the country which had waited upon him on the subject. They had made no attempt to treat this as a matter of protection. His short experience of Office, however, showed him that this question was a very difficult one. On the part of the agricultural community there was a most natural fear of anything like a recurrence of the fearful plague from which they had lately suffered; and there was also a natural fear on the part of the consumers in great towns and those by whom they were supplied, lest any unnecessary restrictions should for a moment be encouraged. He did not think that the House would be of opinion that the foreign import of cattle was not a matter of great importance, or that they had not to deal with a great question in either continuing or making new restrictions upon the import of foreign cattle. The hon. Member who had just spoken ought to recollect that if we had 9,000,000 of English cattle, we did not kill all those animals every year. Figures which had come into his possession only a short time before he had entered the House showed that of late there had been a great increase in the importation. He found that in the two first quarters of this year 109,292 cattle had been imported as against 48,934 in the similar time last year, whilst in sheep the imports had been 415,239 as against 180,334 in the same period last year. That large increase, he might add, had arisen chiefly since the relaxation in the Order which the Privy Council had felt it their duty to make in February of the present year. He had no doubt that the Committee felt the same anxiety as the Government to have all the restrictions that were absolutely necessary, but no more. The reason why the restrictions were to a certain extent permissive in the case of foreign cattle, whilst compulsory in the case of home cattle was, because, by the very necessities of the case, discretion must be used by some person or other in applying the restriction to foreign cattle, They could not at that moment define the countries that had the disease in them, and some one must be left to exercise his discretion and the knowledge of the day in putting these restrictions into force. When they came to home diseases, on the other hand, they made the restriction compulsory; because they only came into operation when the disease had actually broken out, and when it was necessary that efforts should be used to stop it. There were three ways in which they might deal with the question of the importation of foreign cattle. They might let them in with perfect freedom, treating them as home cattle, without any restrictions whatever. He did not think, however, that even the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) would go that length. They might, on the other hand, take the precaution of absolutely prohibiting their coming from all countries abroad without being slaughtered; but he apprehended that such a proposition would not meet with general approval. They were driven, therefore, to using some discretion somewhere, and the only question was as to the amount of that discretion. It was their duty do two things. What the Government proposed was, that it should be their duty, on their own responsibility, if they had reason to believe that the cattle plague was raging in any country, to stop the importation from that country altogether; and, in the second place, if they had reason to suppose that there would be any damage in cattle coming in and being allowed a free transit in this country, it should be open to them not to allow such free transit, but, if they thought proper, to oblige those cattle to be slaughtered at the port of entry. Now, how did the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read) propose to deal with the question? The whole of his Amendment turned on the insertion of the three years' provision, but the Committee would, in his (Mr. Forster's) opinion, defeat its own object in attempting to prescribe how men to whom a discretion was to be confided should use that discretion. It was an unpleasant position for anyone—it was especially unpleasant for him—to have any discretion in the matter; but he believed that the best safeguard to rely upon was that those who had the fullest knowledge of the circumstances should have the responsibility thrown upon them of taking the necessary steps to prevent the introduction of the plague. The proposed limit of three years during which a country should have been free from disease would be a most restrictive rule in some cases and a dangerous rule in others; for there might be a country which was the home and centre of the plague, and yet it was quite possible that it might have been free from the plague for three years in succession; while, on the other hand, there might be a country which was, upon the whole, free from the cattle plague, and yet within the three years some isolated cases might have occurred, because it was near to an infected district. His hon. Friend said he could not rely on the regulations of fo- reign countries, and that might be true of some—such, for instance, as the Danubian Provinces; but, on the other hand, take Prussia. Prussia bordered on a country where the cattle plague was indigenous, and yet its regulations were so satisfactory that it was kept free—though of course they could not prevent the plague creeping through now and then; yet it would be absurd and unreasonable to say that Prussian cattle should be excluded because the plague had, in one or two instances, passed across its frontiers. His hon. Friend (Mr. Read) was right in saying that by drawing a certain line north and south they might say that the plague came from the east of that line, while the districts to the west of it were free. Perhaps his right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) would say—"Well, find out the cattle from the east of that line and put them into the restricted ports." But that was just what they were unable to do. He believed, for instance, that they would be perfectly safe in admitting cattle from Prussia, and Schleswig, and Holstein; but before they could admit them they must make some arrangement with the Prussian Government that they should not allow Polish cattle to be sent here instead of Prussian cattle. His belief was that if his hon. Friend's Amendment of three years was carried the effect would be to compel the slaughtering of all foreign cattle at the ports of landing. His hon. Friend said that cattle would come in from Italy, but there had been cases of cattle plague in that country within the last three years. France was just outside the limit. If the terms had been three years and a-half French cattle would be prohibited now, because we sent over the disease to the Bois de Boulogne, and infected some of the animals in the Zoological Gardens there. That showed the difficulties attending any attempt on the part of the Committee to frame rules and regulations for the Government to act upon in this matter. Again, therefore, he said it was better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Privy Council, and to hold them responsible for what might happen. His hon. Friend doubted if the London market would ever be made. But he agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Robert Montagu) that there was no fear of the Corporation making the market, for they knew that if they did not make it other persons would. The noble Lord had said that it was the interest of the Corporation of London to have the clause with the three years' term rather than not. That, however, was not their opinion, and it was a great inducement for them to come into the arrangement that the clause was framed just as the Government drew it up. As to the other ports, he thought that any attempt at compulsion would be resisted. What the Bill did was to make each of those ports understand that unless it formed a separate market for foreign cattle, it would be put to certain inconveniences; but he did not think that that inconvenience would be sufficient to ensure in every case the provision of a market. At Hull it was done because the Corporation happened to have two markets, and they agreed to use one of them for foreign cattle. By arrangement with the Corporation he also saw his way to a separate market for London. But that was done by arrangement. If they had not been able to make that arrangement the Government would have come to the same dead-lock to which their predecessors were brought; because he did not know how he was to have compelled the Corporation to make the market against their will, or how to over-ride their powers, or where to have found the money. And these difficulties would equally apply to other towns. He believed that if the present Bill passed there would not be more separate markets erected, but that cattle from the suspected countries would come into the port of London, where there would be a separate market for them; while the northern and eastern ports would be supplied from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and, if the Government could make arrangements with Prussia, from Schleswig and Holstein. He did not think his hon. Friend had strengthened his case by references to the sheep pox. It would be a dangerous thing for the House to interfere with the enormous importation that was now taking place in sheep; especially when they remembered that the sheep pox was not like the cattle plague, but could be dealt with by the existing regulations, which this Bill would strengthen, and put down as soon as it appeared. Something had been said about the Government dropping the Bill if this Amendment were carried. Now, he was not disposed to turn sulky on the House because he could not have his own way. There was a considerable portion of this Bill which the introduction of this Amendment would not affect so much—the regulations regarding pleuro-pneumonia, foot and mouth disease, and others; but he believed that the effect of the three years' limit, compelling, as it would, the slaughter of all foreign cattle at the place of import would make things worse then they were at the present moment, and that it would be better to have London with a cordon round it, than to have a separate market accompanied with all the inconveniences which it would entail on the other ports.

said, he considered that whatever legislation they adopted on this subject some interest must suffer; but the primary object ought to be to prevent the great calamity of cattle plague ever again occurring in this country. What were the best means of arriving at that end? There were two proposals—that of the Government and that of his hon. Friend the Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read). The disease was not indigenous; it came from abroad by the importation of foreign cattle from an infected country. This fact should be some guide as to the best means of preventing its recurrence. The Bill proposed to invest the Privy Council with power to issue such restrictions as might appear necessary when the danger of the disease was apparent. But they might not be aware of the danger till it was too late. When "the plague had begun," it was extremely difficult to "stay" it. The Amendment of his hon. Friend went to the root of the evil, and by compulsory slaughter would prevent the possibility of the disease being circulated through the country. Prevention was better than cure, and he, therefore, hoped the Committee would join with him in supporting the Amendment.

said, they were all agreed in the desire to keep rinderpest out of the country, and that it was not desirable to place such restrictions on the import of cattle as would prevent people getting meat as cheap as possible. He thought they might arrive at some solution of the present difficulty without going to a division. He thought with his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster) that three years was too long, and he would venture to suggest that that limit might be considerably reduced. The precise limit would remain matter for consideration, but, perhaps, eighteen months would be sufficient.

admitted that the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) was a very conciliatory one, but he did not think the question of time had much to do with the matter. The result of putting in any time whatever would be that the Privy Council would, in a great measure, feel free from responsibility, and be content to throw it on the law which the House in its wisdom gave for their guidance.

said, the Amendment might be so worded as to leave full discretion with the Privy Council.

said, the suggestion of his right hon. Friend had been fully considered by the Government. The Committee would have enormous difficulty if they undertook to save the Privy Council from trouble and responsibility in this matter.

said, that if he had entertained any doubt whether the principle of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend was right he had been convinced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the danger in the clearest terms, but he said—"Leave the matter to the discretion of the Privy Council." Now, it was impossible to look at the network of railways in Europe, connecting those places where it was admitted these diseases were never wanting with other countries, and not to see the impossibility of avoiding the risk of infected cattle coming into this country. There was one sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which shook his opinion as to the safety of intrusting the Privy Council with this discretion. He told the House that if the disease did come the Privy Council would stamp it out at once.

said, he was referring only to the sheep pox.

said, he believed that both sides of the House agreed that no restrictions should be imposed except those which were absolutely necessary. The real question was, whether the Government suggested any precautions which had more safety in them than the Amendment. The Privy Council au- thorities had told the country that more cattle had been taken away from the consumers of this country in consequence of the cattle plague than the number of foreign cattle imported. He should support the Amendment.

said, that the practice in France was precisely in accordance with the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, with the exception of the three years limit. Cattle from all countries having a clean bill of health were allowed to enter France. Cattle from doubtful countries were inspected on the frontier, and if found healthy were allowed to enter. Cattle from diseased countries were all stopped on the frontier and slaughtered on the spot. In consequence of these precautions, France had always been free from the cattle plague, in consequence of its having been arrested on the frontier. We had not displayed the same prudence and foresight, and the consequence was that 285,000 cattle had been slaughtered at an enormous waste of food, and loss of several millions sterling. In Aberdeenshire the moment a disease appeared in any village the cattle were slaughtered, and the consequence was that Aberdeen-shire had suffered less than any other county in Great Britain. If the hon. Member would consent to restrict the time to one year the Government might then be trusted to operate as the occasions arose.

said, he should propose to substitute the words—

"And all foreign animals imported into Great Britain from countries in which cattle plague or sheep pox shall hare existed during the eighteen months preceding, or through which animals shall have passed during the same period from countries so affected shall be landed only at such ports, or the denned parts thereof, and shall not be removed alive."

said, that the Committee could define the ports thus, and give certainty to the trade. Some discretion ought to be vested in the Government; but every exercise of discretion on the part of the Government was Protection in its vilest form. It increased the price, because it created uncertainty and restricted trade. He had been for many years connected with the management of a veterinary College, and all the veterinary surgeons agreed that inspection was a farce unless they could detain the animals for a certain number of hours. If England with the advantage of her insular position were to take the same precautions as were employed by France, there would be no difficulty in keeping out the cattle plague. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member.

said, that France had been referred to as an example to this country. Now, he would point out that the Bill of the Government agreed in every particular with the practice of France. The Government proposed to admit, free from all restrictions, cattle from countries possessing a clean bill of health; to exercise their own vigilance in the case of cattle coming from suspected countries; and to absolutely prohibit the importation of cattle from countries where, in their opinion, the disease existed. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read) proposed that they should prohibit the importation of cattle from countries where the cattle plague had existed within three years; but if that suggestion were to be adopted we should be unable to avail ourselves of perfectly safe markets in the event of single cases of cattle plague occurring in the districts within a period of three years. Under such a regulation no cattle could be imported from Prussia, which was notoriously free from cattle plague, although the authorities permitted cattle from suspicious districts to pass through the country in trains under certain restrictions.

said, he would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) and would amend his Amendment by reducing the term from three years to eighteen months. He begged to move the Amendment of his Amendment accordingly.

said he would take occasion to explain that the Government had not deemed it their duty to divide the Committee on the question of amending the Amendment, because they thought it was only due to hon. Members that they should be permitted to put the views which they held on the point at issue in their own way. He must, however, observe that he was opposed to the Amendment almost as much in its altered as in its original form, because it was impossible for the Privy Council to know whether in a large country—such, for instance, as Prussia;—disease had, or had not existed, within a period of eighteen months.

If the right hon. Gentleman cannot know, the Privy Council ought, and should not have to rely solely upon inspection.

said, that, after the concession made by the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster), he should not move, as he had intended, that the clause be omitted, and he trusted that the clause might be carried into effect without the establishment of a separate market in London.

said, if it was understood that the City of London was not to provide a separate market, he would endeavour to defeat the Bill by all the means in his power.

said, he had an Amendment to the effect that the words in the clause which provide that this power should be exercised in the case of foreign cattle "brought from any specified country or place" should be omitted. He believed that it would be impossible for the Privy Council to determine which was the particular country from which cattle brought to our shores from Rotterdam and other foreign ports had originally come. He moved in page 4, line 40, after "animals," to insert "either generally, or with certain specified exceptions."

said, he should be glad to know what machinery the Government had set to work in order to obtain information as to the existence of rinderpest in foreign countries. What channels of information did they possess, and was the information received reliable? Certainly the impression was that the Privy Council was not very well "posted" in that matter, and that they often knew less about it than private individuals.

said, he was very glad the question had been asked. He confessed he had himself the same notion in past years as to the information possessed by the Privy Council. But since he had been in Office he had found that, very much owing to the care bestowed by the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) the means of obtaining information possessed by the Privy Council were as good as well could be. That fact had already been admitted in the course of this debate; for the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read) admitted the accuracy of the Return which had been given to his right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam). The information was obtained through our constant communication with the consuls resident in those countries where cattle plague was supposed to exist; and during the time he tad been in Office he had never found their information seriously contradicted, or even anticipated by any private information. It was his opinion that the Privy Council was in a position to obtain as much information as could be obtained.

suggested that inspectors should be bound to keep an accurate register of animals slaughtered.

said, he should attend to the suggestion.

said, he would inquire into the matter, and if he found that the clause required amending he would move an Amendment on the bringing up of the Report.

said, this was the most important clause in the Bill, and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation with regard to it.

said, that this clause empowered the Corporation of London to make the market; and it was merely intended to carry into effect the agreement that had been entered into between the Government and the Corporation, under which the latter had undertaken to make the market. He had said on a former occasion that he believed they would be able to make such an arrangement with the Corporation; and nothing could have been more candid, more straightforward, or more business-like, than the proceedings of the gentlemen who represented the Corporation in this matter. In the event of the Corporation not making the market by the 1st of January, 1872, they would by the next clause cease to have power as the local authorities, they would lose their monopoly, and they would lose the additional tolls which under the Bill they would be allowed to levy. Under these circumstances, there could be no doubt that the Corporation would make the market, and would carry out the intention of the clause in a substantial manner.

said, he was quite content to accept on this subject the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, whose conduct with reference to this Bill had been most straightforward and courteous. The Corporation of London appeared to have learned wisdom upon this question, and had discovered before it was too late, that, unless they were content to co-operate with the Government and the House upon this matter they would lose their trade.

moved, in line 21, after "surgeons," to insert "or in their option by one of the inspectors in the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council.'' His object was that there might be some definite authority to declare whether rinderpest existed or not in the country. Dr. Scott, a great authority in Scotland on the cattle plague, attached great importance to the proposed Amendment.

said, he thought it best to rely on the local authorities in the matter, and not let them suppose that a gentleman from London would do the work for them. If, however, Scotch Members attached importance to the Amendment in its application to Scotland, he would be ready to confer with them on the subject before the bringing up of the Report.

proposed at end to add—

"And the charges and expenses of such veterinary surgeon or surgeons shall be expenses of the local authority under this Act."

thought the Amendment would go further than the hon. Gentleman intended, but promised to consider the matter before the Report.

said, he thought the Amendment would go much further than his hon. and gallant Friend meant. The object of the clause was to enable railways to carry cattle through infected districts; but the Amendment would enable cattle to travel in any way, which would be quite unsafe.

moved that the Home Accounts of the Government of India be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts.

said, that far from objecting to his right hon. Friend's Motion he was most happy to accede to it. It did not, under all the circumstances, seem quite proper that they should take the initiative in again this year referring these accounts to a Committee upstairs; but there was no reason in the world why they should not be so referred, if one so able to form a sound opinion as his right hon. Friend thought fit to propose that they should be.

said, he rose to call attention to the statements contained in a Petition [presented 10th June], touching the recent inquiry into the last Election for the City of Coventry. He had no desire to enter into the merits of the trial of the Election Petition, or to throw any doubt upon the decision of the learned Judge. The point he wished to submit was of a totally different character. He would contend that by its rules this House was bound to see that justice was not evaded in Election Inquiries before Judges by the witnesses being tampered with or conveyed away from the place of examination. At the beginning of the present Session certain Resolutions were passed, the effect of which was that, if it should appear that any person had been elected or endeavoured to procure his election by bribery or other improper practices, this House would proceed with the utmost severity against all persons wilfully concerned in such bribery or corrupt practices; and if it appeared that any person had been tampering with witnesses in respect of the evidence to be given to this House, it should be accounted a high crime and misdemeanour, and this House would proceed with the utmost severity against the offender. Now, the Judge in an Election Inquiry was an officer of the House. He reported his finding to the House, and the evidence taken by him during the inquiry was laid on the table of the House. This Standing Order, therefore, entailed upon the House the necessity of vindicating its own law and privileges, if they had been infringed by any tampering with witnesses. It appeared before the trial that a portion of the case against the sitting Members for Coventry arose from certain alleged payments for travelling expenses, and if these sums could be proved to be paid by agents of the sitting Members, those payments would have been corrupt payments under the Act and the Members would have been unseated. Two witnesses swore that they had received payments of money for coming from a distance to vote for the sitting Members, and that these payments had been made to them by a person named John Moore. The question was, was he the agent of the sitting Members? But at the inquiry before the Judge John Moore was not to be found. It was felt on the part of sitting Members that unless he were somehow accounted for there would be a presumption against them. Therefore, when they had to open their case in defence, they produced two witnesses, who swore that John Moore had had nothing to do with the election, and was in no way connected with the sitting Members. A Mr. Seymour, who was admittedly the attorney for the sitting Members, swore distinctly that he knew nothing about Moore, and that the sitting Members could be in no way responsible for his actions. Another man, named William Dickenson, also swore that Moore took no part in the election. This was what Dickenson, who was the manager of a certain ward in Coventry, and who was admitted by the sitting Members to be an agent of theirs, said. He was asked by the counsel for the sitting Members, "Do you know anything of a man of the name of Moore?" His reply was, "I know him." "Had he anything to do with the election?" Dickenson answered, "Not to my knowledge." "Did you give him any directions or authority of any sort?" "No," replied Dickenson. In point of fact, therefore, Dickenson repudiated all connection with Moore in regard to the election. But what was the real truth? He was informed and prepared to prove that this very man had been hand in glove with Dickenson, who constantly employed him during the election in making payments to voters. Three days before the Election Inquiry commenced he induced Moore to go to a village some miles away from Coventry. Afterwards he brought him back again to Coventry one evening during the very time the Election Inquiry was pending, and took him to an inn, where, according to Moore's statement, he had personal communication with the professional agent of the sitting Members. After remaining a short time in the public-house Moore was conveyed to Nuneaton, where he was kept close until the Election Inquiry had terminated, and Dickenson visited him during his concealment. If Moore had been produced during that inquiry it is probable that the judgment pronounced by Mr. Justice Willes would have been different from what it actually was. Judgment was given in favour of the sitting Members, and that, of course, was a matter which could not be re-tried. What, however, was the House to do in a case like the present? It had passed Resolutions to the effect that it was a high crime and misdemeanour to hinder any witness from giving evidence before the House or a Committee thereof. Was this to be regarded as a mere brutum fulmen? If the House was not prepared upon proof of such facts as he had stated to vindicate their own law by punishing those who had contravened it, it would be far better to repeal the Order in question. He apprehended, however, that the proper course would be to ascertain the facts, and, on their being clearly established, to punish the man proved to be offending either by Order of the House, or by instructing the Attorney General to prosecute him in due course of law. The petitioners had, in his opinion, a right to demand of the House that it should vindicate its own character by instituting an inquiry into the, alleged facts. In conclusion, he begged to move for the appointment of a Select Committee.

said, that when he saw the Notice placed on the Paper by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) he carefully read the Petition, and he confessed he was greatly puzzled, as it was almost impossible to make anything of it in consequence of all the names being left out or indicated by asterisks. He took the trouble, however, to read all the Papers on the subject, and he did not dispute in the main the accuracy of the statement just made to the House by his right hon. Friend. Two witnesses, it appeared, swore that Moore had in one case promised and in another case paid £2 10s. to a voter for travelling expenses from London and back. But, on the other hand, it appeared that Moore was in Coventry up to the eve of the election, that he was well known to everybody, that he was not subpoenaed, and that his name was not upon the list of agents which was submitted by the petitioners to the Judge. Indeed, it did not appear that they made any search for him. [Mr. BOUVERIE: They endeavoured to subpoena him.] He did not know how that might be, but there was, at all events, no evidence on the face of the documents to show that they tried to subpoena him at all. At the inquiry the counsel for the petitioners made no effort to cross-examine Dickenson as to his acquaintance with Moore, neither was anything done by either party to secure the attendance of Moore. Now, whatever course was adopted in reference to this Petition, it was quite clear that no step could be taken which would affect the seats of the sitting Members. The House was, therefore, asked to do what it might be called upon to do in every case of bribery from which an important witness happened to be absent. If the House acceded to the prayer of the Petition, it would simply involve itself in inquiries which it was supposed it would have nothing further to do with after these questions had been transferred to the Judges. Supposing it to be true that the agents of the sitting Members had conspired to remove Moore from Coventry they might be indicted for conspiracy; and, on the other hand, if it were true that William Dickenson made false statements he might be indicted for perjury. It would not, however, be expedient to call these persons before a Committee of that House, there to give evidence not upon oath respecting what had occurred, in order that that evidence might be used if a charge were subsequently brought against any of them. Every lawyer would say that that would be a most unjust and unfair proceeding, because witnesses before a Committee might be subjected to greater pressure than could be put upon them in a court of justice. It might indeed be said that the witnesses would not be bound to criminate themselves, but supposing they were to hold their tongues altogether, what an absurd and ridiculous position the Committee would be placed in. In that event the Committee would elicit nothing except the statement of a man who, it appeared from his own account, had been a briber on behalf of some agents of the sitting Members, who had gone out of the way in order not to be examined, and who had now placed himself at the disposal of certain other parties in order to give evidence in their behalf. He was in no way vindicating the conduct of a person who withdrew a witness from an inquiry; but he was decidedly of opinion that the House ought not to interfere in a case of this description, as it had transferred its jurisdiction in these matters to a judicial tribunal. An indictment might be preferred either for conspiracy or perjury, and in his opinion one of these courses would be the proper one to adopt.

said, there was much force in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), but he did not think they entirely disposed of the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman's observations showed that since the Act of last Session the House had less power than it had before to deal with individuals who were charged with such a gross case as the present of tampering with witnesses. Formerly no lapse of time would have prevented the House from bringing an individual guilty of such offences before the Bar of the House, and of punishing him severely. But the power of the new courts ceased with their sittings, and there was no further power to deal with offenders. He thought, therefore, his right hon. Friend had hit a blot in the new legislation, and when the question came again before the House, as it soon must, he hoped this defect would be remedied.

rose, according to Notice, to call attention to the recent Correspondence between the Poor Law Board and the Guardians of the Poor of the parish of Marylebone; and to move—

"That in any case where a Board of Guardians of any parish or union shall have made due provision within the workhouse or district school for the instruction in their own faith of children not of the Established Church, their religious rights being amply secured and the spirit of the law effectually carried out, it is inexpedient that the Poor Law Board should exercise its discretionary power to enforce the removal of such children to schools not under the control of the Guardians or of the parish authorities."

said, that the warmth of the hon. and learned Member rendered it desirable that he should interpose between him and those Roman Catholic Members who would no doubt reply to him. In view of the serious- ness of the subject, anything like sectarian bitterness should be avoided, and it would be better to exclude the particular history of Archbishop Manning from the discussion. The question was how orphan and deserted children were to be dealt with under existing Acts of Parliament, and, further, what was to be done with Roman Catholic children in particular? But other denominations had come to the Poor Law Board also, and desired their children to be removed from the workhouses to schools of their own denomination. The Jews had taken precisely the same course as the Roman Catholics had taken. The hon. and learned Member gave no prominence to the fact that the Act of 1868 which provided for the religious instruction of children within workhouses, gave further powers to the Poor Law Board to exercise its discretion in removing the children of Roman Catholics and others from workhouses to certified schools. The argument used by the hon. Member was that the Act of 1866, giving the power of removal, had been practically superseded by the legislation of 1868; but the Act of 1868 extended that power to orphans, deserted children, and illegitimate children, with the important modification that the removal might be made on the application of others besides parents and god-parents. Therefore, the Act of 1866 did not supersede previous legislation, but the power of priests and ministers of other denominations to visit co-existed with the power of removal. That was a very large power to give to the Poor Law Board, but it was given with the intention that the children should be removed to these certified schools when they were prepared to take them upon the application of those most interested in them. In the case of the day schools they had the Conscience Clause, but it must be remembered that workhouse schools were not day schools, and it was almost impossible to carry out the principle of a Conscience Clause, when there was no home influence behind, and when they had to deal with the fact that the workhouse or district schools were the actual homes of these children? His hon. Friend said that the guardians stood in loco parentis to these children, but it was an extremely delicate and difficult matter when they had to deal with the case of Protestant Guardians standing in loco parentis to Catholic children. In the case of a ward in Chancery the child was always carefully brought up in the religion of its parents. This principle was clearly laid down by the law as the one to be followed where it was possible, and it was the principle upon which the Poor Law Board always acted where they had the power. His hon. Friend had referred to meetings where statements without foundation had been received with cheering, but other meetings had also been held at which statements equally unfounded, in an opposite direction, had been similarly received. The position was this—Subsequent to the legislation of 1866 various religious denominations, the Roman Catholics among the number, thought they would establish schools for the reception of pauper and other children. Of these schools there were four or five certified by the Poor Law Board as fit for the reception of pauper children; and now that these schools had been established by the Roman Catholics and by the Jews—for that body had also taken advantage of the permission granted by the Legislature—was the House of Commons to come forward and reverse the policy which they had adopted, and to say to the schools now being established that the children were not to be sent there. When he had first been appointed to his present Office he had had a careful and accurate Report prepared upon these schools. His hon. Friend had said that these schools were more costly, and that the cost was as 6s. against 4s. 4½d. —the cost in the workhouse school. But the latter amount did not include education or general charges, it was for food and clothing alone, and it would be seen by an inquiry into the expenses of the different Unions, that 6s. per head was in reality a very low figure, and that in most cases the expense was far in advance of that sum, which did not represent any profit to the Roman Catholics. He thought, therefore, that in a pecuniary point of view his hon. Friend had failed to make out his case. The discretion lodged in the hands of the Poor Law Board was never intended to enable that body to over-rule the principle laid down by the Legislature; and it was impossible to contend that at such an early age the religious principles of a child could be as well maintained by the biweekly visits of a priest as they would be by the child being placed among its coreligionists. Would his hon. Friend be satisfied to see a child of his own of the age of twelve years placed amongst Roman Catholics only receiving a visit from a Church of England clergyman twice a week? His duty seemed clear and precise. It was one of impartiality as between the different religious denominations. In matters of religion the authorities of the Poor Law Board ought to act towards deserted children as the Court of Chancery would act if these children were its wards.

said, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would prevent children from exercising that which the law gave them—a voice in the choice of their religion.

begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had been referring to the case of children under the age of fourteen years.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had referred to the case of other children.

said, he had gone into the case of the children in question to show what the facts were.

said, there was no earthly doubt that the law gave the right hon. Gentleman the power to remove these children to certified schools. Dr. Manning meant to make profit out of the rates by speculation in these schools, and the right hon. Gentleman was going to accord with this design. The party which practised proselytism came to the House with an appeal ad misericordiam, although they were always ready to assault their neighbours, fie should be prepared, on another occasion, to state the reasons why he doubted whether there was any impartiality in the dealings of the Government in this matter.

said, he must defend Archbishop Manning and the Catholic body from the imputations of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers). He could understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman had to consult the wishes of a portion of his constituents in adopting the line taken by him that night. All the Roman Catholics wanted in this matter was justice. The Guardians had proselytized these children for four years, and then alleged that the children were four- teen years old. Unless the Poor Law Board exercised its power these Catholic children would have no protection; and he denied that in Spain, or Italy, or any other country there was a more flagrant case than that of these five children.

said, that in other Protestant countries children brought up at the public cost were invariably brought up in the religion of the State. The Government ought not to recognize the pretensions of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this instance.