said, that, under the Bankruptcy Bill, a gentleman of great ability had been appointed, with universal approbation, Judge of the new Bankruptcy Court; but no provision had, as far as he was aware, been made for the increase of his salary. He had had no communication upon this subject with the gentleman in question, who, he had no doubt, would willingly discharge any additional duties which might be imposed upon him without asking for an increase of his salary. He wished to point out, however, that the new Judge would have to bring the whole machinery of the Act into operation, and to administer the whole system thereby created. He thought, therefore, that the Government should consider whether the salary ought not to be increased.

said, he entirely concurred with what had fallen from the hon. Member as to the merits and abilities of the gentleman who was to be appointed the first Judge in the new Bankruptcy Court, and he was personally anxious that he should be liberally treated in regard to his salary. It was probable that that gentleman's duties would be very much increased; but he believed it was generally understood at the time the appointment was made that there was to be no increase of his salary. If it should be found that the gentleman's duties were increased, he trusted that next Session there would be no indisposition on the part of the House to award him a salary suitable to the dignity of his position.

said, he wished to know whether Aberdeen cattle coming by sea would be allowed to be sent to the central market in the metropolis?

said, they would, though he could not inform the House in what part of the metropolis the central market would be established.

said, he had an Amendment to propose, to the effect that the time at the expiration of which a place might be declared free from the disease of pleuro-pneumonia, after the last case, should be extended from ten days to two months, the former period being sometimes too short to allow the seeds of the disease to manifest themselves. He moved, in page 12, line 35, to leave out "ten days" and insert "two months."

said, that the Government were prepared on this matter to accept the opinion of the representatives of the agricultural constituencies. They had put ten days in the Bill on the authority of Professors Simonds and Brown.

said, pleuro-pneumonia, which had caused five times as much loss as the rinderpest, might linger about a place for more than two months.

said, he thought one month would generally be quite sufficient.

said, he would advocate the adoption of the period of two months.

said, he would accept the period of thirty days.

said, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had taken thirty days, rather than ten days or sixty.

said, the period of incubation of the disease was between thirteen and twenty-eight days, and the period of thirty days was a reasonable one.

said, that his clients looked on pleuro-pneumonia with greater dread than they looked on the cattle plague.

moved, in line 35, to leave out "ten" and insert "thirty."

said, in the absence of his hon. Colleague (Mr. M'Laren), he had to propose an Amendment in line 4, after the word "place," to insert "or sale yard, whether public or private." This emendation had. been proposed by the Town Council of the city he represented (Edinburgh).

proposed, in page 14, line 13, to insert after "shall" the words "at its own expense." His object was to insure disinfection being thorough, which he was afraid it would not be if the expense were charged on the owner of the premises. The inspectors would, in that case, be constantly annoyed and obstructed in enforcing the Act; but if charged on the local rate the expense would be trifling, and the inspector would be independent.

said, he understood the object of the Amendment to be to make it clear that the local authority paid all the expense under this clause. The clause, however, was so framed as to give to the local authority power to pay the expense, if it thought fit, and he thought that the matter had better be left to the discretion of the local authority.

said, he thought that a great deal of carelessness was often shown by farmers them- selves, and he did not see why the local authority should be obliged to pay for it.

said, he thought that, as the slaughtering of diseased cattle was for the public advantage, the public ought to pay for it.

said, he had an important alteration to propose. In common with all the Members of the House he was anxious that the Bill should be made the means of preventing the suffering which was often undergone by cattle in travelling by railway. Clauses having the same object had been introduced into former Bills, but the subject was a difficult one, and it was found that they did not work. He had at first thought it would be sufficient to enable the railway company to charge the expense of feeding and watering the cattle, and to make the beasts a lien for such charge. Several hon. Members had, however, told him that the clause ought to be made compulsory, and he preferred it in that shape. He had put himself in communication with the chairmen of the lines of railway principally concerned, and they had assented to the compulsory clause now framed. It provided, in the first place, that the railway companies should be obliged to find food and water at such railway stations as the Privy Council might direct. In the next place, they were obliged to give food and water to such cattle at those stations as they might be requested to give by the owners of such cattle, either by writing on the part of the consignors, or by word of mouth from the person in charge. It would be necessary to follow that clause by two provisions, one making the neglect or omission to provide food and' water a penal offence on the part of the companies, and another to meet the case of the consignors or the drover in charge not requesting the company to give food and water, in which event they also would be guilty of an offence. It was thought desirable that these offences should be limited to cases where the cattle were in transit for thirty hours and upwards. As the result of his inquiries on this subject, he found that cattle could travel longer without suffering than he had supposed. In America twenty-eight hours had been fixed upon as the term during which cattle could travel without food or water. He also understood that on short journeys it was very difficult to persuade the animals to take water in trucks, and while they were travelling. Mr. Thompson, who had taken great interest in this question, had told him that he had recently gone to some cattle that had been in a truck twenty-four hours, and he found that while in the truck they could not be persuaded to take water. He moved in Clause 63, page 15, to leave out from commencement to "then" inclusive, line 28, and insert—

"Every Railway Company shall make provision, to the satisfaction of the Privy Council, for the supply of water and food to animals carried by the Company, the same to be supplied at such stations as the Privy Council direct, on the request in writing of the consignor of any animal carried, or on the request of any person in charge of any such animal, and."

said, if he were convinced the clause would carry out what they all desired, he would not move the Amendment of which he had given notice, but he was by no means satisfied that the beasts would get either food or water under this clause. The railway companies were to be free from responsibility, unless there was a request from the consignor or the man in charge. So long as there was a certainty of their being re-paid, he did not see why it should not be compulsory on the companies to supply food and water, whether requested to do so or not. He saw that the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. M'Combie) appeared to take a different view, judging by the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, limiting the provision, as far as regarded fat cattle, to the case of animals conveyed on longer journeys than fifteen hours. Everyone knew that the hon. Member himself took every care of his beasts, and that they always reached the market in first-rate condition; but other persons were neither so prudent nor so humane. He intended to move, as an Amendment, in line 39, after "person," to insert—

"And if any Company on any occasion fails to comply with this enactment, such Company shall on every such occasion be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act."

said, he doubted whether it would be possible to get a conviction under this clause against either the consignor or the man in charge. All depended upon the nature of the food upon which the cattle had been fed. Turnip-fed cattle would go a long time without taking water, while if they had been fed upon hay and dry meat, they would want it in much less time. Would there not be a difficulty in obtaining a conviction under such circumstances?

said, that the clause was purposely framed to take any discretion out of the hands of the magistrates. It would be an offence if, after the cattle had been thirty hours in transit, a request was not made upon the railway company for food and water. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would be sure to see that the Act was carried out.

stated that animals would not drink in trucks after a journey of twenty hours, although they would eat dry hay. This showed that they did not suffer from thirst.

said, that great difficulty would arise in laying down any rules for feeding and watering animals on. a journey, in consequence of the various droves not being put into trucks at the same hour. It was desirable above all things that the animals should be conveyed with as little delay as possible.

said, that unless it was the interest of the owners of the cattle to prosecute, in the event of the cattle not being properly fed and watered on their journey, he had no confidence that any prosecution would be undertaken. If the carrying out of this clause were left in the hands of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, he did not think it would be very successful.

said, that if any animal, whether biped or quadruped, were kept for thirty hours without food, it must necessarily become exhausted, and the quality of its flesh as food must be greatly deteriorated. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.

said, he was afraid that an animal in the state of suffering inseparable from its being conveyed in a railway truck would, in all probability, refuse food and water, even if placed before it during the journey.

said, it was an easy matter to provide that the railway companies should supply water, but not so easy to lay down rules as to the points at which the animals should be un-trucked and water given them. This was an experimental clause, and if it did not answer something else could be framed.

said, that in his opinion the railway companies would not find much difficulty in giving the cattle water at nearly every station. He begged the House to remember that lean cattle were conveyed by rail as well as fat ones, and that trains of cattle going from fair to fair were often delayed for a great number of hours without any person being in charge of them. Such cases as these ought to be considered.

said, he thought that by riding the humanitarian hobby too hard we should bring about the very evil we desired to obviate. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (the Vice President of the Council) would carry his proposition.

said, that if the hon. Baronet's (Sir Robert Anstruther's) Amendment were carried, a task would, be imposed on the Privy Council which that Department would find it extremely difficult to perform, while other persons would be relieved from a responsibility which they certainly ought to bear.

said, he wished to impose a duty not on the Privy Council, but on the railway companies.

said, that the railway companies were only common carriers, and ought not to be burdened with a responsibility which properly belonged to the owners of the property conveyed.

suggested that the Amendment should be amended by providing that the food and drink be supplied at such stations as the Privy Council direct.

said, he wished to know why steamboats were excluded from the operation of the clause.

agreed that there was much more need of legislating for steamboats than railways.

said, it was difficult to meet the case of steamboats coming from foreign countries, because if certain provisions for the relief of suffering cattle were made obligatory, they would cease to come in British ships and be transferred to a foreign flag. In the case of Irish steamboats any regulations must be made obligatory at the port from which they sailed.

said, he could answer for the Aberdeen steamboats, on board which cattle for London were well supplied with water, hay, turnips, and other food.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to do something to meet the case of cattle coming from Ireland. The London and North-Western Company had a line of steamers which carried on an immense traffic. Great complaints were made as to the manner in which the cattle were treated. When they arrived at Holy-head they were put into the company's premises without food or water. They were afterwards put into trains and conveyed into the midland districts, still without food or water. He should like to see some Amendment introduced into the clause, with respect to steamers. The Committee were not now dealing with foreign boats, but with Dublin boats, and he trusted Irish Members would turn their attention to this grievance, which was a real and not a sentimental one.

said, he could fully confirm the statement. Pleuro-pneumonia was occasioned by the shameful way in which cattle were packed in the Irish steamers. He wished that the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a special clause on the subject into the Bill. The value of the cattle was reduced 10 per cent by this mode of transit. He had known cases in which cattle had been brought from Dublin to Peterborough without food or water, having been kept in the trucks fifty hours.

said, that the question was one entirely for Irish agriculturists.

said, the grievance was patent, but he doubted whether it would be possible in a Bill which was intended to apply to England and Scotland only, to make provision for the treatment of cattle in Ireland and on their embarkation to ports in Great Britain. He hoped the present measure would be followed next Session by an Irish Bill, in which the requisite provisions could be made. If, however, the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. Serjeant Dowse) could devise a clause which would meet the ease of the carriage of cattle by steamboats, he should be glad to consider it on the Report.

said, he had heard that the Irish beasts were much more unruly than any other beasts, and that the Irish drovers were rather more harsh to their beasts than any other drovers.

said, that the question of the precautions to be taken against sheep pox had received the careful consideration of the Government. The conclusion at which they had arrived was that the powers they had already taken to isolate sheep were sufficient to enable them to deal with the matter. He therefore did not recommend the Committee to adopt the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.

said, he thought that compensation should be made in the event of the compulsory slaughter of sheep.

said, this clause and the postponed Clause No. 7 involved two questions of considerable importance, and it would be necessary for him to raise them both now, or else lose the opportunity of doing so. One proposal of which he had given notice, as to the more correct mode of raising the money required for compensation, related to a tax, and, consequently, could not be brought forward by a private Member. He was, however, at liberty to raise the question as to the amount of compensation, and who should pay it. It appeared to him that as the cattle plague was a national calamity, the compensation for animals slaughtered ought to be contributed by the country at large, and not by particular localities. The local authorities were very curiously defined. A borough was defined to be a town which had quarter sessions held within it, and the result was that the town of Bradford, which had no quarter sessions, was included within the county, and had to pay a contribution of £1,400 on an assessment of £508,000, while Leeds, having a court of quarter sessions, paid nothing at all. Many other instances of a similar character might be given, and they proved that the local authority, as provided in the Bill, could not be maintained on any principle of justice or equality. The Report which had been laid upon the table as to the amounts paid in different places showed the vast discrepancies between different counties, although it did not show fully the differences between towns. It would require a rate of something like 7s. 6d per head to pay for the loss of the cattle which had been slaughtered in Cheshire alone. Now the mode of meeting the difficulty of the case, which he should propose, was very simple. While the individual farmer who lost his cattle could not afford to bear the loss, the infliction caused by the disease, to which the owners of cattle generally were liable, ought, in his opinion, to be met by a system of mutual insurance. Whatever loss the disease had occasioned to particular persons, there could be no doubt that the price of meat had been greatly enhanced in consequence of the slaughter of cattle which it had brought about, so that cattle dealers in localities which had not been affected by it had been considerable gainers in the result. There was every reason, therefore, why a system of insurance might, with advantage, be resorted to. He would not give the full value of the cattle lost in each case, be- cause he did not wish to hold out any inducements which might prevent proper precautions being taken against disease; he had no desire, therefore, to go beyond the proportion mentioned in the Bill. A charge of 1s. per head per annum on cattle, and 1s. per annum on each ten sheep, in the shape of insurance, would, he thought, be found a good mode of meeting the case; and if a proposal of the kind were not adopted, he should move, at the proper time, that the compensation given be a general charge on the whole country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, in page 16, line 14, to leave out "local authority," and insert "there shall be paid."

said, while thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council for the pains which had been bestowed in the preparation of the Bill, there was one portion of it with which he did not feel at all satisfied. He alluded to the provisions by which compensation was thrown on the local authority for that which was a public calamity. The total amount of compensation for which the country was liable was, he believed, £800,000; and for 33 per cent of that amount Cheshire was liable; and why, he should like to know, should the compensation for the 37,000 head of cattle which had been slaughtered in that county for the public good be thrown exclusively upon it, instead of being borne, as it ought to be, by the country at large?

said, he wished to point out that the proposal for an insurance at 1s. a head had already been tried in a particular instance, and that it had produced in five years only£7,495, while the value of the cattle lost by pleuro-pneumonia alone was £16,925. It was clear, therefore, that the plan had not been successful. A proposition for assurance, at the rate of 2s. 6d. per head, would be entitled to more favourable consideration.

said, he wished to state in a few words why the Government could not adopt the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) had given a sketch. It was true that the expenses connected with the cattle plague had not been paid according to principles of perfect equality, but the same might be said of any tax. The hon. Gentleman next stated that insurance was the most desirable principle, because the cattle plague was a matter which concerned the whole country. In like manner it might be said that the relief of pauperism was a matter which concerned the whole country, but, nevertheless, it was considered that a local system insured the most economical and efficient mode of raising and distributing the money. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that in respect to the cattle plague the future was likely to resemble the past, for everyone must allow that if cattle plague were to come into the country now, there would not be anything like the same percentage to pay for losses consequent on it, and that whereas it had been a question of pounds in the past, it would be only a question of pence in the future. The House must also consider the inconvenience of adapting the insurance principle to the whole of the country, for the machinery requisite to carry it out would be very extensive, and the money which would be raised by the plan of the hon. Gentleman would amount to more than £300,000 a year, and this to insure a fund for compensation when it was hoped that in future no necessity would arise for the payment of any compensation at all. With regard to Cheshire, all must have regretted to hear how much the farmers in that county suffered from the cattle plague; but that was a matter of the past, and did not affect the present Bill, the object of which was to make provision for the future.

said, the proposal made by the hon. Member (Mr. Cawley) wont further in principle than at first sight it appeared to do. It was impossible, if they were to take the whole area of the country for these kinds of demands, but that the same principle must be applied to the poor rate and every other burden. He was sorry to say that everything was tending to what was called a national rate. That was pressing on in every direction, and he did not wish to help it forward, for he believed that such a system would lead to very wasteful expenditure. He, therefore, could not give his assent to the proposed Amendment.

said, he entirely disapproved of the Amendment, the adoption of which would cost some of his constituents £100 a year.

said, he feared that if the local authorities had a common fund to resort to they would become lax in the performance of their duties. He must observe, too, that that would be a capitation tax, and not an ad valorem one, and that it would therefore bear unequally on the poor with their inferior cattle, and the rich with their highlybred animals.

said, he considered it desirable to rely on the existing machinery for giving compensation, endeavouring to extend the area of rating so as to include many boroughs of a semi-rural character.

said, that the present question was the omission of the words "local authority," and there was no advantage in entering now upon the question what the local authority should be?

said, that voluntary assistance failed because it was not national. When the cattle plague swept over a district the cattle and the assurance went together. His present purpose was served by the discussion that had taken place. The discussion could be renewed on a clause that had been postponed.

moved, page 16, line 16, to leave out "twenty," and insert "thirty." The clause, he said, already provided that the compensation should not exceed one-half of the value of the animals, and as there were many animals worth £60, he did not think that £30 would be too high a figure to adopt as a maximum.

said, he did not attach much, importance to that point; but he should be prepared to adopt the Amendment if it should meet with the general approval of the Committee.

said, he thought £20 would be a sufficiently high sum for a maximum of compensation. The adoption of the Amendment would hold out an inducement to local valuers to rate cattle at an excessive amount.

said, he must oppose the Amendment.

said, he thought the figure of £20 was high enough.

said, he would recommend that the Amendment should not be pressed, as it did not appear to meet with the approval of the agricultural Members.

moved, page 16, line 17, to leave out "one-half," and insert "two-thirds." He had a long experience as chairman of the Aberdeen-shire Rinderpest Association. They sat weekly for nine months, and had the credit of being the first to stamp out the disease, and their system was followed throughout Britain. But although they gave liberal compensation they found people unwilling to give information of outbreaks of disease among their stock. It was to be expected that if they only offered a man one-half the value of his animals he would say to himself—"I will rather run the risk of the disease spreading than have them killed." But offer him three-fourths of the value for animals affected, and full value for sound ones which had been in contact, and there would be no temptation to conceal.

said, he did not think the alteration of the amount would produce the effect anticipated by the hon. Gentleman.

said, that the terms upon which compensation was to be made were merely defined, but not provided for, by the Bill. In the event of the cattle plague unfortunately breaking out again, the question of providing for compensation would have to be taken into consideration.

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that at an early period of the cattle plague in this coun try cattle were slaughtered without any compensation being made to the owners.

said, that in that case the cattle must have been slaughtered without the authority of the Privy Council or of any of the recognized local authorities.

said, he thought that the words of the clause would give the Privy Council power to apply the Act to any disease that could be called infectious.

said, he thought it would be advisable to retain the clause as it stood, but he would give the whole matter his attentive consideration before the bringing up of the Report.

said, he wished to call attention to the refusal to pay compensation in the county of Chester, on the ground that the appointment of an inspector was invalid, and that there existed between the 20th of February and 4th of March, 1866, no authority to slaughter cattle and to award compensation. He proposed an addition to the clause with reference to the disposal of any balance—that compensation should be given out of it for any cattle slaughtered by direction of an inspector, in order to prevent the spread of the disease, between 20th February and 15th April, 1866, and for which no compensation had been given.

said, he rose to move—'"That, in the opinion of this House, the grating in front of the Ladies' Gallery should be removed." He brought that subject forward because, in his own opinion and in that of other hon. Members, the existing accommodation for ladies who wished to listen to their discussions was most inadequate. The First Commissioner of Works had declined to take upon himself the responsibility of removing the grating which obstructed the view from the Ladies' Gallery. He, therefore, wished to test the opinion of the House upon that question, more especially as that was a Reformed House of Commons, in which the matter had not been previously discussed. The Ladies' Gallery was divided into three parts. The first part was properly and rightly given up to the Speaker. Behind it was a very comfortable tea-room, with, which, however, they had nothing to do. Then there was the part which was assigned to the wives, daughters, and friends of Members, and which comprised the remaining two-thirds of the Gallery. The Gallery was very dark, very hot, and very low-roofed. The temperature there. was always nearly four degrees higher than in the rest of the House. [Laughter.] It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but they were there for their pleasure, while the ladies came to listen to them; and it was a very poor compliment to the ladies to put them in a place in which they were to be confined—in what had been called a chamber of horrors, where they had to breathe the air that passed through all the lungs of the House. All that was really a disgrace in this age of civilization. If the ladies wanted tea or any refreshment they could only get it in the small room of the door-keeper, who was obliged to go out, so that if any "row" took place in the Gallery, he was not there to suppress it. It was but the other day that complaints were made by the reporters of a noise in the Ladies' Gallery; but this would not have happened if the ladies had a proper tea-room. It was said that the ladies would fidget about, would applaud, and would attract the attention of hon. Members. But no one could have witnessed the recent great debate in the House of Lords without observing how quiet was the demeanour of the large number of ladies who were in the Galleries. The throng of beauty did not attract the attention of noble Lords in the other House, where the ladies were accommodated with seats in which they could see and hear comfortably. No inconvenience was experienced by speakers in the other House from the presence of ladies, neither, he was convinced, would any be experienced by speakers in that House. He agreed with what Lord Palmerston said—that if the Gallery were once opened, in a week hon. Members would forget there was a Gallery. Better accommodation should be provided for ladies in that House. He begged to move the Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said, it had been objected by some that the presence of the ladies in the House under circumstances in which they could be seen would set the hearts of speakers fluttering and palpitating; but he asked whether they could really lay their hands on their hearts and say that when they rose to address the House they ever gave a thought to the presence of the ladies? He had, indeed, heard of an hon. Member who said he never got up to speak without casting a propitiatory glance at the Ladies' Gallery; but that hon. Member had now been removed to another, and, he hoped, a better place. That noble Lord had spoken frequently in the other House, and the presence of ladies there did not seem to have the slightest effect on his speeches. Thirty-five years ago it was said that the debates would be much longer if ladies were admitted to listen to the debates, because hon. Members would speak who did not speak before; but the answer given was that the debates would be much shorter, because Members who then talked very uselessly would be ashamed to do so in the presence of ladies. Mr. O'Connell said the presence of ladies in the Irish Parliament had been of the greatest advantage, because in former days hospitality was exercised to such an extent that many Members of the Irish House of Commons were in the habit of coming there drunk. The remedy proposed was that ladies should be admitted to the Gallery, and from that time no drunken man ever appeared in the House. Mr. Villiers took a most cautious line, hoping that the matter would be discussed in all the populous towns of the kingdom, and declaring that the question was so complicated that he did not think they could consider it in all its bearings and make up their minds in fewer than three Sessions. Mr. Grantley Berkeley modestly disclaimed ulterior views. Now, his ulterior view was to get rid of this Black Hole of Calcutta into which ladies were put when the House repented of putting them into the '' ventilator." He was told by his predecessors of both sexes—[Lauglder]—by those of a former generation, then, if the House preferred that expression—that in some respects the "ventilator" was better than the present arrangement, because when the debates were dull—if debates there ever were dull—there was an open space in which strangers might walk about and talk with Members of the House. A few strokes of the hammer and chisel would get rid of the grating, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would give them some assurance that the object in view would be accomplished.

begged the House not to be carried away by the fervent eloquence of the two hon. Gentlemen, and not do that which he believed seriously—and he did not see why the matter should be treated as a joke— would neither be conducive to the dignity of this House or be considerate to the feelings of those for whose professed benefit the Motion was made. The ladies might be comfortable or not with or without a grating, but it was not in good taste to deal with this as a mere matter of fun. The accommodation of the ladies was just as serious a matter as their own, but in behalf of the ladies themselves he must represent that it would be a cruel kindness to take away that barrier. There were two sides to every question, and to a certain extent the grating impeded sight and sound. But ladies were thereby admitted in that recognized yet not too obtrusive position which best conduced to their own comfort. What was the object of a Ladies' Gallery? Was it to enable a certain number of ladies to add one more to the number of evening parties, and come down here in their best dresses, or was it to allow ladies to enjoy one or two hours of rational, intellectual enjoyment in their morning dresses and bonnets, without being molested by impertinent glances? In behalf, therefore, not of a few fashionable ladies, but of the general ladyhood, and of those who really wished to be able to see and understand the working of our constitutional system, he should oppose the Motion. It was a fact that when the late Member for Westminster (Mr. Mill) was urging woman's rights, a high authority asked him whether he would bring his muse to bear on the removal of the grating, and his answer was that if that grating were removed his daughter would never again come to the House. As to the other House, it must not be forgotten that the wives or daughters of Peers were admitted, not by order, but by right, and that was a totally different question from the admission of ladies to this House by entries in a book or by order. He hoped that they were not going to add a flirting lobby to the House. At all events, by throwing down the barrier they would not add to the dignity of the House, and would bestow a cruel kindness on the ladies. If the hon. Member pressed his Motion he would divide the House.

said, that perhaps the admission of ladies to the Gallery was not an inapt subject for a maiden speech. He was surprised at the line taken on this subject by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the jocular way in which the remarks of the two preceding speakers had been received; but he would beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that the laughter did not come from the advocates but from the opponents of the measure, which had been brought forward in a serious spirit, The hon. Gentleman had said that if the grating were removed many ladies who now visited the Gallery would do so no longer. He disagreed with the hon. Gentleman, and he thought that if the grating were removed it would prevent some subjects from being treated in a manner not at all conducive to the dignity of the House. With regard to the assertion that ladies would not come if the grating were removed, because they would have to appear in evening dress, he did not think that argument applied for a moment, because it was the custom in society for both sexes to appear in full dress or neither. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he believed he was quite correct in what he had stated, and it was no more necessary for a lady to come in full dress than for any hon. Member to appear in evening dress. As to the impertinent glances which, according to the hon. Gentleman, would be directed at the ladies in case they were visible, he did not think it was customary for an assembly of gentlemen to indulge themselves in that manner; and this was not likely to be done in this any more than in the other House of Parliament. The Ladies' Gallery had been called by so high an authority as the Chief Commissioner of Works a "Chamber of Horrors." He thought that was a sufficient reason why some alteration should be made in it. He had frequently been there himself and he had always found that the atmosphere was really unfit for breathing. The grating was, for all practical purposes, perfectly useless, and there could be no earthly reason for not removing it. If his hon. Friend should press the Motion to a division he should certainly vote for it.

said, he did not quite gather from the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. A. Herbert)—whose interests he advocated in the Motion he had brought forward— whether he wished the grating removed for the advantage of the Members of the House, or in. order that those who occupied the Ladies' Gallery might have a better opportunity of witnessing the proceedings of the House. The question naturally divided itself into two parts— what might be convenient to hon. Members and what might be most convenient to those who occupied the Gallery. Now, he had thought it advisable to inform himself as to the real feeling of the ladies, for, after all, that was a matter that ought to be taken into consideration. And, although, he might not have so large an acquaintance with ladies as his hon. Friend (Mr. H. A. Herbert), still he had the pleasure of knowing some; and he had taken the means of ascertaining what was the opinion of the ladies on this subject. Now, he must say the result had been to him most unexpected. He might safely say he had asked at least 200 ladies whether they wished the grating to be removed, and, curiously enough, out of that number only two ladies had stated that they were desirous it should be removed. He had received a letter from a lady, which put the matter so clearly that he thought the best thing he could do would be to read it to the House. The letter was in these words—

"July 1,1869.

"My dear Mr. Layard,— I do hope you will exert the weight of your official authority to preserve for us the protection of the grating in front of our Gallery, which some hon. Members, no doubt, prompted by feelings of mistaken kindness, are disposed to remove. I fully appreciate the chivalrous zeal of Mr. Herbert, but if you have an opportunity I hope you will tell him how many more effectual ways there are of defending our cause in Parliament and earning our gratitude. Do not suppose that I mean to say that the Ladies' Gallery could not be improved. The occasional visits we receive from our friends in the House of Commons are too short for them to be able to judge of our sufferings up there, or of the quality of the air which you provide for our lungs. But the removal of the grating would be no remedy; on the contrary, the protection we derive from it enables us to sit as we like, to talk together, to hang up our shawls and bonnets, and dress as we please. These are many advantages, for you know we are compelled to sit quiet not to lose our places while bores aré addressing the House. You will not take it amiss, dear Mr. Layard, if I say that there are some bores in the House of Commons. You cannot feel for us, because on these occasions you can go and talk to your friends, and write letters in the library. The grating also enables us to leave the Gallery in the middle of dull speeches, which we would otherwise be compelled to sit out patiently, especially if the orator were an acquaintance, and had obtained our seat for us. And, then, the grating is of enormous advantage to hon. Members themselves, who could not come and stretch, and sleep, and snore as they do immediately below us in the Galleries if they saw that we saw them. And last, but not least, do you not think that a good many ill-natured re marks and suppositions are made impossible by the interposition of this objectionable grating? Who can say now that Mr. —said so-and-so because Lady—was in the gallery, or hat Sir— always stammers and breaks down when Miss—is present?

said, after the remarks made by the Chief Commissioner of Works, he should not call on the House to divide on the subject.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the attention of the Government has been called to the report which has appeared in the public Press of a meeting held at Enniskillen on Friday last, at which Mr. John Brien, J. P., D. L., and High Sheriff, presided, described as consisting of between twenty and twenty-five thousand persons, marching with fife and drum bands, playing party tunes, Orange flags flying, and the tells of the church chiming in sympathy with the cheers of the brethren; if so, is it true, and if it is, is it the intention of the Government to remove Mr. Brien from the Commission of the Peace, the Deputy Lieutenancy, and Shrievalty of the county; and to remove Messrs. Madden and Sankey from the Commission of the Peace, they having marched at the head of a procession to said meeting, carrying flags and banners, and accompanied by bands playing party tunes, in violation of the Party Processions Act? The Government of a former day had removed gentlemen from the Commission of the Peace for having become Repealers; and the late Mayor of Cork had been punished in the same manner for having contributed to a charitable object. He would ask the Chief Secretary of Ireland, why the same course of action should not be pursued towards those gentlemen in the North of Ireland who had joined in an open violation of the law and insulted their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen? If the law in the North of Ireland could not be enforced, because those who were appointed to administer it took part in its open violation, it was the bounden duty of the Executive to apply a remedy.

said, that as he had the honour to represent the town where the meeting had been held, and as he had taken part in it himself, he wished to be allowed to say a few words before his right hon. Friend should reply. A few days ago, when upon looking by accident at the Notice Paper, he perceived the Question of the hon. Gentleman, he wrote at once to the two magistrates whose conduct had been impugned, and to the High Sheriff of Fermanagh, asking for particulars. That very morning he had received a letter from Mr. Sankey: from the other gentleman he had got no reply, owing probably to absence from home. He admitted that there were Orange emblems at the meeting, that flags were displayed, a few drums beaten, and party tunes played. The meeting consisted of 25,000 people, and he did not know whether it amounted to a breach of the Party Processions Act. He had always thought it the duty of the Orangemen to agitate for the repeal of that Act; but as long as it remained the law, he held it ought to be observed. The hon. Member was altogether under a misapprehension in describing this as an Orange meeting. The high sheriff, in a letter upon the subject of the Question, described the meeting as having been called to consider the Irish Church Question, at which he presided as a matter of course, and signed the Resolutions come to, adding that it was gratifying to see the country so united. Could the hon. Member say that it was illegal or unconstitutional to hold such a meeting, when hundreds of such meetings were presided over by officials in all parts of the country? He had letters from the secretary of the committee, too, assuring him that those who managed the deputation anxiously strove to keep it free from anything of a party character; and with reference to the second part of the Question, he had a letter from Mr. Sankey, who said he and Mr. Madden were at Enniskillen on the day of the meeting, and went there accompanied by several hundred of tenantry, none of whom wore colours; but they met others with drum and flags, who asked them to join in procession, but he declined. He trusted the House would deem his vindication of the character of those accused perfect, and he thought that if the hon. Member for Cork, instead of animadverting upon that meeting had exerted himself to prevent Fenian displays in other parts of the country, he would have employed his time more profitably. He only regretted that the hon. Member was not present on the occasion in question, because he would then have seen a gathering of 25,000 loyal men, a sight not to be seen every day, or in every county in Ireland.

said, he was glad his reply had been prefaced by the candid statement of the noble Viscount, which must have been satisfactory to both sides of the House. In considering the question put to him it was necessary to bear in mind the main feature of the whole transaction, that it was a great public meeting called together to discuss a subject before Parliament of surpassing interest to those forming the meeting. This should not be lost sight of in considering minor events in connection with this transaction; but as far as his information went, and it was confirmed by the noble Viscount's statement, neither the high sheriff nor the magistrates mentioned had committed any breach, of the Party Processions Act in the course of that day, whatever others may have done. He trusted this was the case, because it would be perfectly monstrous if any man holding Her Majesty's Commission was found committing a breach of the law, whatever his opinions might be on the law in question.