rose to call attention to a case which had occurred in the Union of Market Drayton, in Staffordshire, in which compensation had been disallowed by the quarter sessions, on the ground that the inspector, Mr. Duff, by whose order cattle had been slaughtered, was, owing to some technical informality, not legally appointed, and that between the 20th of February and the 4th of March, 1866, there was no legal power committed to any inspector to order the slaughter of cattle. Those, he said, whose cattle had been slaughtered had surrendered them freely in obedience to the orders of a person whom they had every reason to believe had been duly appointed inspector, and he trusted that, under those circumstances, a mere legal informality would not be allowed to stand in the way of doing that which was simply an act of justice. There was at present in the possession of the quarter sessions the sum of £1,300, being the surplus of the amount collected to pay compensation for cattle slaughtered. It was objected that this £1,300 was the property of the rate-payers, and ought to be restored to them; but he could not admit that view, or that his Amendment would open the door to fraudulent applications. He had been particularly careful to guard against the latter danger. It was also said that it would be establishing a bad precedent, and that it was ex post facto legislation; but, on the contrary, he thought the worst principle they could establish was that when persons sacrificed their property for the public benefit, the House should not keep faith with them. With the purpose of carrying out the views he had expressed, he proposed, as an Amendment, to leave out in page 21, line 34, after the word "fit," all the words to the end of the clause, for the purpose of inserting the following words:—

"Dispose of such balance, or any part thereof, as follows:—(1.) They may apply such balance, or any part thereof, in compensation for cattle slaughtered by direction of an inspector between the twentieth day of February and the fifteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, in order to prevent the spread of cattle plague (for which cattle no compensation has been paid by any insurance office or company), although such inspector may, in relation to such slaughter, have acted outside the district for which he had been appointed inspector. (2.) They may carry such balance, or any part thereof, to the credit of the ordinary account of the local rate, to be applied for any of the purposes for which the local rate, when levied under any Act other than an Act repealed by this Act, is applicable."

, in supporting the Amendment, said, the farmers who had given up their cattle to be slaughtered believed that they were acting in strict obdience to the law, and therefore if some technical difficulty had been experienced in the way of granting that compensation, it was only reasonable that the local authorities should be enabled to compensate these persons for their losses out of the funds to which they had contributed. They did not ask that a new rate should be levied for the purpose, and if the Amendment was passed it would do no wrong to any one, but would do justice to those persons.

said, he had placed an Amendment on the Notice Paper which, he thought, better explained the point at issue. It was as follows:—

"(1.) They may apply any part of such balance in compensation for cattle slaughtered between the passing of the Act twenty-ninth and thirtieth Victoria, chapter two, February twentieth, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and the appointment of Inspectors under that Act, by direction of a person whom the owner of such cattle had reasonable ground to believe to be the authorized Inspector for the execution of the Act."

In this case the farmers were induced to put their cattle to death in obedience to the directions of a man whom they had every reason to believe to be an authorized inspector to carry the Act of Parliament into execution. The question was whether that House ought not, in justice to cure the blot, if there were any blot in the law.

said, Aberdeenshire was exactly in the same position as the district now alluded to, and if the Amendment were carried he must put in a claim for Aberdeenshire.

said, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose the Amendment. The effect of the particular clause in the Bill under consideration was that when there was an unappropriated balance of the fund raised for compensation, it should be returned to the ratepayers, and he did not see how the Committee would adopt any other enactment. There was no legal claim for the slaughter of these cattle, as they were killed by an inspector not authorized to kill by the Act of Parliament. He had received a letter from the chairman of the petty sessions, now chairman of quarter sessions, before which the case was considered, and after stating the particulars, the writer observed that the Amendment, if passed, would give an undue advantage to those persons whose cattle were killed by Mr. Duff over those whose cattle were killed by others before the Act of 1866 came into operation, and would cause great dissatisfaction among the rate-payers. With regard to this particular case he did not deny that it was a case of hardship, but it was only one among a vast number of other cases of hardship. Before the passing of the Act of 1866, a great number of cattle were slaughtered, amounting in value to something like £100,000 and if it were once admitted that there was a bonâ fide claim for compensation for cattle killed, not in accordance with the conditions of that Act, he did not know where they could stop.

, as one of the ratepayers of Staffordshire, said, that he not only thought it fair that this Amendment should be carried, but he should think it very unfair if it were not. The whole mistake appeared to arise from the inspector being appointed to inspect Market Drayton Union instead of certain petty sessional divisions; but that mattered not to the owners of the cattle, who believed that their cattle were slaughtered according to law, and who had, therefore, a right to expect compensation.

said, there were quite as many hard cases by cattle being allowed to die, as by cattle being killed, and if exceptions were to be made in one county it would be well to consider claims from all parts of the country at the same time.

said, that as a matter of justice there could be no reason for ex- tending this favour to this limited class of persons while it was denied to others in the same situation whose cattle were destroyed previous to the date fixed in the Amendment.

considered that the Amendment should be adopted.

said, that there was a clear distinction between the two dates mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce).

said, if they put these words into the Bill they could not in consistency oppose the claim of all those parties whose cattle were killed by order of quasi authorities prior to the passing of the Act of 1866. To do that would involve, according to one calculation which had been made, a cost of £100,000; and if it was desirable to pay this large compensation it should be done by special legislation and not by interfering with the provisions of the present Act.

said, the clause only applied in cases where there was an unappropriated balance, and this made all the difference.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment and adopt that of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley). He had no affection for the words of his own Amendment; they were supplied to him by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster).

rose to explain. He must not be held responsible for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. He simply allowed the Government draftsman to draw the Amendment, in order that the discussion might be taken upon words ranged in proper legal form.

moved, at the end of the Amendment last carried to add—"Or they may return such balance to the original contributors." Where a fund was raised for a special purpose, it was desirable that the money should be returned to the original contributors. His Amendment only gave permission to the local authorities, if they thought it desirable and convenient, to return the balance to the contributors.

said, if the local authorities tried to put the Amendment in force they would be defeated by the circumstances of the case. The rate-payers might very fairly be considered the representatives of the contributors of three or four years ago.

said, this clause raised the whole question of rate-paying, and he would, therefore, move that it be omitted. It was much to be regretted that the House had legislated on this subject before they had thoroughly discussed the principles of the Bill. The arrangements respecting the prevention of the spread of disease had indeed been carefully discussed; but, unfortunately, there had been no debate on the principle by which money was to be raised for compensation. The Bill, of 1866, originally contained a provision that all boroughs in England and Scotland should be exempt from the payment of county compensation, and that principle was a just one, inasmuch as boroughs were consumers and not producers of cattle; but the justice of the principle was lost sight of in the progress of the Bill through Parliament, and a clause was inserted providing that boroughs, having a court of quarter sessions, should only be obliged to compensate for animals slaughtered within their own areas, but that boroughs which had no quarter sessions should be liable to pay compensation for any cattle which might be slaughtered within the county. That was a most absurd distinction, which was founded upon no principle, and it was perpetuated in the Bill now before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman made this difference between the old Acts and the present Bill, that he proposed that compensation should never exceed a rate of 9d. in the pound, and that when it reached that amount a rate in aid should be granted. Cheshire, which the cattle plague visited more severely than any other county, lost 38,000 cattle, for which no compensation was paid, and subsequently to the passing of the Act, it lost 25,000 cattle, which were compulsorily slaughtered to prevent the spread of the disease. It was estimated at the time of the cattle plague that the fortunate holders of healthy cattle received a profit of £35,000,000 sterling by the increased value given to their cattle. They were the parties, therefore, who ought to have paid for the slaughter of the cattle that were killed to keep them in health. But it appeared that several counties in England paid no compensation whatever. The sum paid for compensation in all the counties in England was £630,000, of which no less than £249,000 was contributed by Cheshire alone. These figures were given in a Parliamentary Return, dated 7th of June, 1869, which also showed that six counties paid no compensation at all; that seventeen paid less than 1d. in the pound, ten less than 3d., and five less than 4d.; that six paid 6d., one 7½d., and one (Lincoln) 9½d. The boroughs in Cheshire having quarter sessions, exclusive of Chester, paid £1,835, whereas Salford, which lost only five cows, but which had no quarter sessions, paid £1,985, or more than all those boroughs put together. In like manner Preston, which lost two cows, had to pay £1,195, while Halifax, which lost none, had to pay £867. He might enumerate many other instances to show the unequal incidence of the law. His own borough, Stockport, or that part of it which was in Cheshire, was heavily taxed, and in addition it was estimated that the borough—assuming each inhabitant consumed ¾lb. of animal food in a week, which was very moderate—paid a tax of £13,000 on the enhanced price of food. During the time of the cotton famine Stockport had suffered great distress, and it had to borrow £64,000, while now it was proposed to saddle it with the payment of a large sum per annum for a period of thirty years for the purposes of compensation. Oldham, which had no quarter sessions, paid seventy times, and Salford, which had none, paid 100 times as much, as all the boroughs in England that had quarter sessions—

said, he would remind the hon. Member that they were discussing Clause 96, which had relation to the mortgaging of rates, and he did not see the relevancy of the hon. Gentleman's present remarks to that clause.

said, this question was not discussed on the second reading; but he distinctly reserved to himself the right of discussing the question in Committee, and he now claimed that right.

Then it is my duty distinctly to inform the hon. Gentleman that he cannot discuss the principle of the Bill on Clause 96.

Then I beg to move the omission of the clause.

said, he regretted that his hon. Friend was precluded by the forms of the House from giving expression to the views on the subject which he wished to lay before the Committee. If his hon. Friend's intention was to replace the local rate by a national rate, he did not think he would be in Order in making that proposal, inasmuch as the House had already asserted the principle of a local rate. Having assented to a local rate, he imagined that the Committee generally would be in favour of the principle of a rate-in-aid, and this clause was merely intended to give effect to that principle.

said, he wished that, instead of a limited area, as proposed, the whole of the unions of England should be called on to contribute to the payment of compensation.

said, he should like to know whether the Committee were precluded from dealing with the question of the propriety of having a national rate in discussing the clause under consideration?

replied in the affirmative. The clause related simply to the mortgage of local rates in certain cases.

protested against the principle of the adoption of a national rate for the purpose of giving compensation for local losses. Each county ought, he thought, to be left to take care of itself.

Am I debarred from taking any other course than merely moving that the clause be negatived?

The hon. Member can either move that the clause be amended, or that it be negatived, with the view, if he thinks fit, of introducing new clauses on the Report.

said, he could not agree to the Amendment, so far as it sought to make the rate-in-aid available for all the purposes of the Act, as well as for compensation. He thought it was not advisable to make a rate-in-aid available for less than 9d. in the pound; and it would not be right to allow one locality to appeal to another for aid if the rate were only 3d. in the pound. As to the proposal to make the accounts annual, instead of half-yearly, he had no objection to accept that, on the understanding that if there were any sound objection to it on the part of the framers of the measure he should be at liberty to revert to the original provision on the Report of the Bill.

said, it was dangerous to legislate on the assumption that we should never have a 9d. rate. Had not the right hon. Gentleman himself spoken of a plague even more malignant than the cattle plague; and what would be our position if that visited us?

, on re-consideration, must decline to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Cawley). The whole clause related merely to compensations.

said, he objected altogether to the principle of a rate-in-aid. The owners of cattle should provide against accidents by insuring their property, just as the owners of horses and ships were obliged to do. But if any rate-in-aid was to be imposed it should be a rate on the whole country, or on the Poor Law Union as in Ireland.

said, he thought this clause very much depended on what was done with Clause 7. He considered the principle of a rate-in-aid very objectionable, and that it required great care on the part of the Committee. If a call was to be made upon any other district it ought to be made on a wider area.

said, he would be quite prepared to deal with Clause 7 when they came to it. In the meanwhile he might say that the definition of the word "borough," which would be adopted by the Government, would be "any municipal borough, or any borough having its own police."

observed that it was quite different to give power to the Poor Law Board to levy a rate-in-aid for cattle plague and for distress under the Poor Law Act. In the former case the cattle plague might extend so far as to render the adjoining district worse next year than that in the aid of which it had to contribute, whereas in the latter case distress under the law of Elizabeth was not at all likely to extend in that way.

said, he thought it would be better to give the power to issue orders to the Privy Council instead of the Poor Law Board. It was so in other parts of the Bill.

was of opinion that cattle ought to be insured by their owners.

said, he thought this the most important clause of the Bill. A great deal depended on what meaning was attached to the words "adjoining districts." They might comprise four, five, or six counties. It would be better to postpone the clause, or to adopt the same rule as in Ireland.

said, that the debate on the question whether there should be a rate-in-aid or not had very unexpectedly arisen. He did not wish to prevent that question from being fully considered, but it had taken him rather by surprise, because no Amendment had been put on the Paper on the subject. He trusted that the Committee would allow the remaining clause to be taken now, so that the question of the rate-in-aid might be discussed on the Report.

said, he thought it worthy of consideration in the meantime whether the Privy Council was not the proper authority to act in the case. The Poor Law authorities had no connection with the local authorities of county or city districts, but only with the Poor Law Unions.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, consider whether if a rate-in-aid were adopted it should not be collected from the larger area of the whole of the country.

said, that the rate-in-aid in Ireland extended over the whole of the country, and was not contingent upon its being more than 9d. in the pound. Before the Report he would consider the whole question of the rate-in-aid, and also the suggestion relative to the Privy Council.

, as the Lord Lieutenant of a Scotch county, begged to say that he had no objection to the Amendment.

said, he thought it would be highly desirable to obtain the advice and co-operation of the tenant-farmers in carrying out the objects which this measure sought to attain. He had grave doubts, however, whether such advice and co-operation could be attained by the machinery proposed in the Amendment.

said, there would be considerable difficulty in carrying out the Amendment without additional machinery.

said, that in the part of Scotland with which he was chiefly connected the principle on which this Amendment was based had been fully considered, and had been generally, if not unanimously, approved. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.

said, there could be no objection to the object of this clause, which the hon. Member (Mr. Miller) proposed to insert, which was to give representation to the local tenantry. The only objection was to the machinery, and he would suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment, and bring up the clause on the Report, during which time they could consider how the object which the hon. Member had in view could best be carried out.

said, he had no objection to act upon that suggestion.

said, the object of the Government was to frame the Bill so that it should be as acceptable as possible to those who would have to work it.

said, there was no objection to the Amendment, provided the £100 qualification was adhered to, as persons below that qualification were not persons whom it would be desirable to have in such a body.

said, the Bill had been brought forward for two main objects—first, to put the foreign trade in a better position, and secondly to prevent, as far as possible, certain other diseases, besides cattle plague, and more especially home diseases, among cattle. It had not originally been their intention to make any alteration in the existing law with regard to the area of compensation or the mode of levying it, but when it was thought desirable that that should be a permanent Consolidation Bill, the objections to the present Act naturally assumed new force. There had been differences in our past legislation with regard to the definition of the words "local authorities." When the Act of 1866 had been introduced, every municipal borough was considered to be a borough; but, while the Bill was under discussion, an alteration was made which confined the application of the word to the comparatively few boroughs in which quarter sessions were held, leaving other boroughs, whether they happened to have corporations or not, to be dealt with as parts of counties. The result of that change had been great inequalities of taxation for the purposes of providing compensation for the slaughter of cattle, as between one kind of borough and another. Such inequalities would, he believed, never arise again, because he did not think it likely that the large sums hitherto paid would have to be paid in future, and that, as he had said before, instead of being a matter of pounds it would be a matter of pence. There could be no doubt at the same time that in places such as Birkenhead and Stock-port, which had to pay large sums in the shape of compensation, the law had been found to press very heavily. In considering the propriety of making a change in that law the Government had to take into account the suggestions which had been made by several hon. Members, the first of which was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) who had suggested that all boroughs should be abolished for the purposes of the Bill, while the area of rating should be the whole county. Then came the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) which was to restore the Bill to the state in which the first Act upon that subject stood, and to allow every municipal borough to be considered a borough. Next, there was the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) framed with a view to meet the peculiar position of that town, which, though a Parliamentary borough was neither a quarter sessions borough nor a municipal borough. They had before them also the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) to substitute for local rates a general cattle insurance; and there afterwards came the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) to re-place local rates by a national rate. Now, taking the last proposition first, he had to observe that in the opinion of the Government it was very desirable that the local authorities should have all the stimulus to economy and personal exertion which generally accompanied local responsibility. The question they had, then, to consider was, whether they should leave the Bill as it stood, or whether they should adopt some such proposal as that of the hon. Member for Oldham, and have no borough at all, or as that of the hon. Member for Stockton, and allow every municipal borough to be considered a borough under the Bill. There was this practical objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, that it would be a very difficult and almost unknown proceeding to levy a county rate on boroughs that had for a long time had quarter sessions. The chief point to be kept in view was the efficiency of the Act, and, as the Committee was aware, municipal boroughs, especially those which were of any importance, and had not quarter sessions, generally speaking had police of their own. To have a double jurisdiction in the case of such a force was almost always attended with failure, and if the Act was to be worked efficiently, it would be better, he thought, that the carrying out of its provisions should be in trusted to the police of those boroughs rather than to the police of the county. As to places which had not turned themselves into corporations, they could hardly expect to obtain the advantages without undertaking the burdens of a corporation. But the object of the Act was to get the most efficient working, and therefore he should be inclined to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Laird) in addition to that of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). The result would be that every municipal corporation would be considered a borough for the purposes of this Act, together with every other place which was of sufficient importance and size to maintain a police force of its own.

said, he was satisfied, on the whole, with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and would not press the Amendment of which he had given notice.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for adopting the Amendment of which he had originally given notice.

said, he hoped the Amendment would be unanimously adopted.

said, the practical effect of the Amendment would be to take almost every borough out of the counties. He apprehended, however, that in the years to come the compensation to be given would be small, and therefore he had no objection to the proposal. In point of principle, however, he strongly differed, for it was surely for the benefit of the towns that foreign cattle should be imported, and foreign cattle brought the cattle plague here, and yet in future the towns would pay next to nothing for stamping it out. Its introduction was not an act of Providence, it was an act of man; and if it ever came again the whole responsibility would rest upon the Privy Council.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the clause. The Privy Council would endeavour to carry out the object which he had in view. It was not desirable to have one Inspector for England and a separate one for Scotland, because the evidence and documents upon which the Inspector would have to rely, in dealing with the cattle plague, were all sent to the Privy Council Office, and would not be easily accessible to the Inspector in Scotland. When the Act became law, he promised to give the subject his serious consideration, with the view of carrying out the object of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire.

said, that what was wanted was a permanent official for Scotland, who would be responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act.

remarked that the object of the proposed clause was to have a person on the spot, to whom application could be made in ease the carrying out of the Act was neglected.

stated that the Act, as it stood, gave the necessary power to have the Act properly and efficiently administered both in England and Scotland.

said, he had intended to move, after Clause 60, the following clause:—

(Mode of carriage of animals to be subject to Privy Council directions.)

"Every vessel, steamboat, and railway shall provide such space and ventilation for each animal carried by them, and also shall undertake to forward such animal to the place to which it is consigned in such reasonable time and in such manner as the Privy Council may from time to time direct;"

but if the Vice President of the Council promised to take up the matter he would not persevere with his intention. He held, however, that it was essentially necessary that something of this sort should be done, as steamboats were very fruitful causes of cattle disease.

said, that since the interesting debate on last Friday in reference to the clauses accepted by the railway companies, he had been looking more closely into the state of the cattle traffic by steamboats, and he had a Report on the subject drawn up by Professor Simmons, which he hoped would be in the hands of Members by Thursday or Friday morning. He thought that Report would convince the House that it would be hardly possible to pass a Bill of this kind without taking some power in reference to the cattle traffic by steamboats. He could only say that it was a difficult matter to determine how the evil complained of in connection with the steamboat traffic was to be stopped; but it was only justice to the owners of steamboats to say that he had no reason to suppose that they wished to expose the animals to unnecessary suffering, or to do anything which might propagate disease. They would be ready no doubt to avail themselves of any assistance which the Government might offer for making better regulations. He was not now in a position to propose any clause for the purpose in Committee; but he would give notice to-day or to-morrow of a short alteration in one of the clauses, giving power to the Privy Council to deal with the matter, and this alteration he would submit for consideration in bringing up the Report of the Bill.

said, he was sorry he could not adopt the clause. They had already in the Schedule adopted stringent regulations for inspecting infected places, and they must be careful not to discredit the Act by over interference.

thought that after the clause which had been passed, the proposed clause was not wanted. He regretted that the hon. Member was not present on Friday, when the question was discussed; but he had already taken powers with regard to the watering of cattle at railway stations.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the proposed clause to be inserted. It would be no hardship on railway companies if they were bound to provide a supply of water at stations at which, animals were embarked, and he should also like to see coverings provided for the trucks.

said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed, because it was weak as compared with the clause that had been passed on this subject. It would be well not to overdo the thing, or public opinion, which was now in favour of legislation in favour of the animals, might undergo a change.

said, he would withdraw the clause, but trusted that the railway companies would have water troughs not only at their large stations, but at every station at which cattle were put into trucks.

said, he must appeal to the Committee. He should be sorry to check discussion on these matters; but unless they got the Bill through Committee that day, he did not know, in the present state of Public Business, when they should be able to accomplish that object; he trusted, therefore, that the Bill would be allowed to go through Committee that day, and any discussion which it might be thought desirable to have in reference to any point might be raised on the Report. It was not right to make regulations in an English Bill respecting what might happen in Ireland. Although they had taken no powers to regulate anything that was done in Ireland, they had taken very strong powers to check disease.

said, he would communicate with the Customs, but he did not apprehend there would be any difficulty in furnishing the Returns.

remarked that this was a measure for checking disease in cattle, and not one for checking disease in men. The Nuisances Removal Act would, he believed, suffice to meet the case referred to in the Amendment.

said, he would withdraw the Amendment, and re-introduce it on the Report.

I think it necessary, Sir, to call the attention of the House, in the interests of the commercial community trading with China, to the present state of our relations with China in reference to the revision of the Treaty of Tien-tsin of 1858. Those relations may be expressed in a very few words—namely, that there is not any permanent security for the persons or property of foreigners in China. British merchants and missionaries even in treaty ports and in other places are exposed to personal outrage, to robbery and attempted assassination, without obtaining redress, unless by military demonstration or by military operations; and that the obligations of the Treaty of Tien-tsin of 1858 are still unfulfilled. This may seem a sweeping assertion, but I shall be able to prove—not from hearsay or newspaper reports, but from Parliamentary documents—that the statement is founded on facts, and that this mischievous and unsatisfactory state of affairs is the necessary and inevitable result of the weakness—indeed, impotency—of the Central Government of China. A few preliminary remarks on the constitution of the Government of China will assist to explain my views. Although of great antiquity, its origin being referable to 265 of the Christian era, no less than twenty-two dynasties have risen and disappeared since that date; two, three, or more contemporary rival Emperors have contested the supremacy, each change being accompanied by anarchy; rebellion has succeeded rebellion, but up to 1646 the Chinese contests had been confined to themselves, with one exception; but in that year they were invaded by foreigners—the Mantchow Tartars, of whom is the present Imperial family. The resistance of the Chinese was desperate, and at Canton alone 100,000 persons were put to death; and the feeling of hostility to their foreign rulers gave rise to the secret Triad Societies, which, by their intrigues and lawlessness, created constant terror in society. The Tartars endeavour to hold their own by garrisoning some of the great cities by troops of the Eight Banners, but the Tartar troops are always separated from the people of the cities by walls, as is the case at Pekin itself. But the country at large is under abortive military control, as is manifested in the constant rebellions co-existent in the provinces, and sometimes menacing the capital itself. Sir Harry Parkes, on the 24th of March, 1862, stated, at a meeting of the Geographical Society of London—"that he recollected some years ago a memorial to the Emperor, in which it was stated that ten rebellions were going on at the same time in different parts of the Empire." Mr. J. B. Robertson, in his letter to Consul Medhurst, February 13, 1869, speaking of the weakness of the Central Government, says—

"Now this might prove a serious embarrassment to a weak Government like that of China, which has to confront rebellion on occasion of every deficient harvest or overflow of the banks of the Yellow River."

, writing from Tien-tsin, April 28, 1868, says—"The rebels are burning villages in the neighbourhood of Tien-tsin." Mr. Burlinghame, the Ambassador from China to the Governments of Europe, had personal and painful experience of their presence by his detention on his journey from Pekin to Tientsin, from which he was only released by the blue-jackets of Her Majesty's gunboat Dove. The Imperial Customs Commissioner, Mr. Fitzroy, in his Re-port, March 15, 1867, from Shanghai, to the Imperial Superintendent of Customs, Mr. Hart, uses the following language:—

"Periodically during the winter the Nien-fei, who have existed from the time of the Ming dynasty, scour the neighbouring provinces, upon which they levy black mail. They are not to he despised, and if the Imperial Government does not display more than its usual energy, they may (the Nien-fei), at no distant day become formidable successors to the Taepings."

To these Taepings it is not necessary, with the information before the House, to say more than they maintained their rebellion for thirteen years, established their government at Nankin, and would have extended it to Pekin, as our Ambassador, Sir Frederick Bruce, states, had not the British interfered and slaughtered them at the very time the British and French troops were marching upon Pekin. But testimony to existing rebellion in Shensi, or elsewhere, is given by a recent proclamation affixed to the walls of Shanghai, raising the war tax—which had existed from the date of the Taeping rebellion—30 per cent; and these new rebels are not designated, as of old, the Nien-fei, but, as a separate class, are called the Wei. These rebellions sufficiently testify to the weakness of the Central Government, but the proofs extend much further. One source of weakness is described by Sir Ruther-ford Alcock in his despatch to Lord Stanley, October 1, 1867, in which he says—

"The want of money for the payment of their armies is a main cause of continuous insurrection; whole divisions thus go over to swell the ranks of those who make all government impossible."

With respect to provincial government the Viceroys of the eighteen provinces are appointed by the Central Government, which, however, takes little notice of their acts. They obtain their offices through intrigue or money and they are left to squeeze the people as far as they dare. The Central Government occasionally sends an edict terminating with the usual formula—"Tremble and obey." If it suits the interests of the Viceroy he obeys; if not, he quietly puts it aside and the Central Government rarely has power to enforce obedience. A man of vigour like Pseng-kwo-fan, however, occasionally establishes a temporary despotism in his viceroyalty, but he dare not proceed beyond certain lengths, owing to the constitution of society in China from the division of the people into "clans" like the Scottish Highlanders. The people of each clan have a common surname, have a community of interest, and when acting together they paralyze the authority of the Provincial Toutai or Prefects, and even at times that of the Viceroys. For years past the power of the Viceroy of Canton has been paralyzed by clannish feuds. The great Taeping rebellion originated in the neighbourhood of Canton with the clan whose surname was "Hung." There has been a chronic hostility between the Hakkas and Puntis of the province of Canton, which successive Viceroys have been helpless to put down. At this moment there is an illustration of this clannish power about thirty miles from Macao. The Hong Kong Daily Press of March 23, 1869, says—

"The outbreak in the south of this province, which for some time has been going on, appears to be assuming alarming proportions. The clan Chiang of over 10,000 men are the belligerents, and are opposed by other combined clans. The Viceroy of Canton, two months ago, sent a force to quell the disturbance but failed."

At Katshan, near Canton, a new tax was laid upon the people some years ago, who rose, drove the Mandarin authorities away, and the Viceroy was obliged to remove the tax. In the Cockchafer affair, eighteen villages near Swatow had long been in a turbulent and in- subordinate state, and beyond the control of the Toutai, and the reducing them to order and obedience by Commodore Jones' squadron, with considerable loss of life, so far from being offensive to the Central Government no complaint was made of our interference, nor that an appeal for redress had not been previously made to the Central Government which, no doubt, together with the provincial authority, were thankful that we had done that for them which they could not do for themselves. The fortified town of Choo-chi on the Han River near Swatow defied the Toutai or Pre- feet of Swatow, and plundered boats coming down the river, and fired into the provision boat of Her Majesty's gunboat Bustard. Lieutenant Johnstone demanding redress, was candidly told by the Prefect that he had no power over Choo-chi; but if the gunboat would assist him he would try to reduce the place. The assistance was given, but failed, until the arrival of the Drake, when the combined operations of the two gunboats succeeded. Choo-chi was taken and found full of plundered property, grain, rice, sugar, &c. &c. This helplessness was not confined to the Toutai of Swatow, but extended to the Toutai of the great provincial city of Chao-chow-foo, who had been equally unable to repress the piratical operations of the people of Sinlao and other villages on the banks of the river Han to the injury of British trade. At Banca, in Formosa, the Mandarin had no power to redress a series of outrages on British subjects of so serious a character that Consul Holt on the 14th of October, 1868, wrote to Sir Rutherford Alcock that—

"All remonstrances had been in vain; in fact, our very lives are now threatened by people whose recent course of action has been so atrocious as to prove that the will is not wanting to murder us."

In fact Messrs. O'Kerr and Bird were not only robbed but nearly murdered. Mr. Holt attributed these outrages to hostile "clans," which had a monopoly of the camphor trade, and the Mandarin authorities either dared not or could not control them. Mr. Holt sent to Foo-chow for a gunboat—the Janus—and the American Consul in the gunboat Aroostook also came over. This demonstration alone insured immediate redress, as reported on the 27th October, 1868. The outrages at Tamsui similarly originated in the camphor monopoly, and the Presbyterian missionaries had nothing whatever to do with it. Had the Mandarin authorities possessed the power or the will to give redress for the robbery of Mr. Pickering's camphor and his attempted assassination, and that of Mr. Hardie, the lamentable loss of life that occurred would have been avoided, as was the case at Banca, by Mr. Holt's firmness and tact. Another instance of the impotency of the local authority is exhibited in the case of the Rev. Mr. Wolfe, who had purchased a piece of land for a sanitarium at Sharp Peak Island, near Foo-chow-foo, in January, 1869, with the consent of the authorities of Foo-chow-foo. A native gentleman, however, induced the villagers to drive away Mr. Wolfe's people and seize his building materials; and the presence of the gunboat Janus was necessary to insure the treaty rights of Mr. Wolfe, and enforce the authority of the Mandarin at Foo-chow. Even the case of the Algerine, Lieutenant Domville, off Namou harbour, testifies to the helplessness of the sea-board authorities, not only to put down piracy, but smuggling. Lieutenant Domville was accompanied by a Mandarin, and entrapped into the belief that he was to attack pirate junks off the harbour, in which he was confirmed by the junks refusing to show their papers and firing upon him, and it was not until he had captured one of them that he found they were supplied with papers from Hong-Kong, and were, in fact, notwithstanding their papers, opium smugglers, which the Mandarin, as a Chinese authority, would have been entitled legally to seize in case he had the power; but neither he nor any Chinese Mandarin along the whole coast of China have the power to enforce the law, as the so-called merchant junks are heavily armed, defy the authorities, and do not scruple, when free from British observation, to exercise their power for piratical purposes. A writer in the North China journals says—

"But for the British fleet on the coasts of China—if that fleet were withdrawn the Mandarins would be driven by pirates from the seaboard within three months."

In the taking of Ning-po from the Taepings, the Parliamentary Papers say that Captain Roderick Dew availed himself of the services of the pirate fleet under Apak. These instances of helplessness of the seaboard authorities could be greatly multiplied, of which I have numerous records, were I to go farther back in time. In the case of the outrages upon missionaries, however, I fear the Mandarins, and Literati or expectants for office, and gentry are the instigators of the ruffian mobs. There are not any people on the face of the earth, of any religious persuasion, who are more tolerant than the Buddhists; they are free from all the exclusiveness of caste; they do not attempt to make con- verts; and their readiness to adopt the religious opinions of Christians is manifested by the hundreds of thousands of Taepings who adopted the Bible and New Testament, and established presses to multiply copies of our sacred books. In Burmah and Ceylon they live in harmony with the missionaries, and the missionaries equally do so in China, where the people are not incited by the authorities against them. The China Mission at Amoy and Swatow have sent to me, for some years past, their Annual Report, and the thirteenth is now in my hand. I learn from it that the earlier persecutions have ceased, and that the Mission, in 1868, had eleven stations, some of them in provincial cities, and that as the missionaries passed through villages from one station to the other the people stopped them to hear the doctrine, as they called it. Even in the great provincial city Chin-chow, the seat of the Literati, the chapel, which had been destroyed at their instigation, had been re-built, and not since molested. From the Foo city Chaou-chow, Dr. George Smith writes, on the 20th of March, 1868—

"I have now been here ten days, and you will be glad to learn in peace and comfort, undisturbed and unmolested. A great change has come over the people here both in their feelings and conduct since I was last in the place. I made two attempts last year to re-visit this city, but on both the acting Consul prevented my coming. This time, that I have come, no obstacle has been thrown in my way by Consul or Mandarins, but I have made this visit just in the same way as going to any other town of the department. Moreover, I have had no police or other officials to escort me, nor any need for them. I have had daily meetings with the people, who have come in groups varying from twenty to eighty, and have behaved quite orderly and respectfully, and, after listening and discussing for a while, have afterwards gone away quietly. On asking them to disperse, when wishing to stop from speaking, they have been quite submissive; hence there has been no pressure of undue excitement, but all has gone on smoothly and pleasantly."

Even in the affair at Yang-chow the hostility against missionaries did not originate with the people, but with the Literati; the authorities, if not encouraging, at least conniving at the outrages upon them. Redress having been obtained by Consul Medhurst, with the aid of the naval authorities, the missionaries have been quietly reinstated in their house, the populace ceasing to manifest hostility, the Mandarins no longer daring to incite them. Sir Rutherford Alcock, in the China Paper, No. 3, says—

"With respect to the feeling against missionaries in China—it is certainly not actively hostile, unless they are worked upon by interested authorities into believing monstrous stories that the eyes of children are scooped out, converts poisoned, &c., &c. The outrages at Chef-foo and Taiwan and Tamsui in Formosa originated in this manner."

On the 24th of April, 1868, Mr. Jamie-son reports from Taiwan that a Roman Catholic and Protestant church, had been destroyed about six miles from Taiwan. Mr. Jamieson, appealing for redress, was told by the magistrate that he was helpless; but that everybody believed that poison was given to Chinese to induce them to become converts, and the Consul must investigate the matter. At Chef-foo, the Rev. Mr. Laughter's agent hired a house as a shop, two miles from Afoo, but intended it for a chapel. This fraud was very properly resented, but Mr. Alabaster, on the 9th of May, 1868, induced the villagers to atone. In short, in every instance the hostile action of the people is traceable, not to a spontaneous movement, but to the incitement of interested officials. In respect to foreigners, not missionaries, the published travels in the disturbed province of Szecheun of Mr. Cooper, those of Mr. Ellis to the Yellow River, of Mr. Tarrant from Ningpo to Shanghai, and the testimony of excursionists from the sea ports on shooting parties, and that of the Basil missionaries in the South of China, on every occasion speak of the civility of the villagers. Canton, which in former times prohibited the entrance of foreigners, now locates them in houses in the city; and Consul Robertson has a mansion and park within the walls. I have now fully proved that the difficulties in our relations with China originate not in the hostility of the people, but in the hostility of the central and provincial authorities. I come now to the commercial aspect of our relations. The foreign trade with China, as detailed in the Report of the Imperial Commissioner of Customs, Mr. Hart, for five years, was as follows—this was sent by Sir Rutherford Alcock, from Pekin, 7th April, 1869, and has become a Parliamentary Paper:—

, in seconding the Motion, said, that the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member, involving, as it did, a large and lucrative trade, was of considerable importance at the present moment when our relations with China, as defined by the Treaty of Tientsin were about to undergo revision. The Papers moved for could not fail to be interesting, inasmuch as all Chinese correspondence was eminently sensational. A succession of Papers had already been laid before that House, containing details of armed landings, bombardments, military occupations, and other acts of war, which were of a very interesting, although, perhaps, of rather an alarming nature, and it had been very satisfactory after reading them to hear our Foreign Minister in the House of Lords state, in April last, that there was not the slightest cause for anxiety upon the subject, inasmuch as our relations with China had never been on a more satisfactory footing than they were at the present moment. The language and the tone our Foreign Minister had held in condemning the transactions to which he referred deserved the approval and the support of the country; because it was clear that if we desired to continue our present peaceful relations with China we must adopt some new system of diplomacy with regard to that country. He rejoiced to think that a new era was about to commence in our dealings with a community with whom we carried on a gigantic trade. They had had six distinct narratives of transactions, which had occurred in less than nine months, of differences with the local authorities, and in no case except one had they been settled without recourse to arms, and that, too, in a time of peace. He hoped that those who were to per- form the task of revising our treaty relations with China would not forget that the existing Treaty of Tien-tsin had been exacted from that country by fear and under the pressure of force, and that, therefore, it was only just that they should not insist too rigorously and absolutely upon all its stipulations. He was satisfied that concessions to Chinese interests, and, perhaps, on some unimportant points, even to Chinese prejudices, would promote the general interests of trade. It had been said that in dealing with Oriental nations it was unwise to make concessions; but he thought that justice could never be misplaced or conciliation mistaken, and if reasonable concessions on our part were accompanied by a firm, a determined, and even perhaps a peremptory demand for the strict fulfilment of treaty stipulations affecting our trade, no misunderstanding would be likely to arise as to our motives. He trusted that they might be able to establish a system which would prevent exactions by the Mandarins, and thus reconcile the governed class to the governing, and at the same time secure to the native trader that freedom which was so important to him and to us. Our peculiar position in China ought not to be forgotten. England was only one among the nations who were struggling for the greatest of prizes—an industrial trade in the interior of China. He was not going to flatter the United States of America, but the United States of America were entitled to our admiration and imitation in their intercourse with China, and they had invariably shown a conciliation, a prudence, and a conception of Chinese feelings which fully entitled them to any authority or influence they undoubtedly possessed over that nation. It was therefore important that we should observe International Law instead of violating those rights by which our policy in China had been marked. America, in consequence of the special protection which her trade received in China, and by virtue of the special treaty she had recently concluded with that Court, was bound, by all obligations of honour, to protect China in the observance of international rights. It was a dangerous thing for England in her transactions with China to violate international rights, and if America proved true to herself, she would maintain her compact with China, and if we wished to avoid awkward relations in that distant part of the world, we should treat China as we treated other nations. Without wishing in any degree to cast blame upon our Consuls or our naval officers in China, the difficulties of whose position he recognized, he condemned that system of diplomacy which always had recourse to force for the redress of any injury done to British subjects in China, instead of making proper application to the Court of Pekin on the matter. He, therefore, highly approved the principles lately laid down by Lord Clarendon for the guidance of our Consuls in China, by which, in future, any resort to force was not to be permitted excepting under circumstances in which life and property were in imminent peril; and our agents were instructed invariably to address remonstrances to the proper quarter—namely, the Central Government in Pekin. On the other hand, Lord Clarendon stated that the observance of treaty rights and a friendly reception to British subjects resident there were to be exacted from China. Those wise precepts would, he trusted, continue to be faithfully enforced by the Foreign Office. In conclusion, the prospect opened out to our trade in China was almost unlimited, and he sincerely hoped that the opportunity now offered us for placing that important trade on a peaceful, and, therefore, a permanent footing, would not be thrown away.

said, the Chinese Government had never admitted that it was responsible for outrages committed in Formosa in as high a degree as for those committed elsewhere; nor, indeed, was it really any more responsible for them than we were for the outrages perpetrated by the Maories in the north island of New Zealand. In regard to the revision of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, the two main points insisted upon by the Chinese Chambers of Commerce in the treaty ports were, residence in the interior of China, and the affirmation of the transit duties clause. There were difficulties involved in the question of the transit dues, as Lord Elgin, writing to Lord Clarendon, after the treaty was made, himself recognized. Those duties were imposed on the goods of both natives and foreigners; and, it should be remembered, that the roads and canals in China were kept up by the Government. But it had not been shown that the transit dues clause had been generally, or even in any case, broken. The Chinese authorities had always drawn a distinction between transit dues and special taxes levied at certain places after the goods reached those places. As to the other point, of residence in the interior, the matter was by no means so clear as his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) would make it. He had stated before, and would venture to repeat now, that the right of residence was not asserted in any treaty; and Lord Russell, in a despatch on the subject, used these words—"that the specification of the right to reside in the treaty ports implied the exclusion of the right of residence in other towns." He would not go into the question that certain persons resided in various parts of the interior, because the Chinese themselves drew a distinction between residence as a matter of privilege and as a matter of right. The London Missionary Society had laid it down that their missionaries should never claim residence in the interior as a right, but ask it as a favour. It would not be wise for Her Majesty's Government to demand this right for the future, for it would imply that "extra territoriality" should be given up, and agents should be placed in every town throughout that vast Empire. The Chinese had conceded the dues; they had stated their readiness not only to revive the tariff, but to provide bonded warehouses, to make the draw-backs payable in ready money, to open new ports, to put forth a proclamation enforcing the transit clauses, and that the right of lodging shall be conceded to all foreigners passing through the country with passports, which was a very important point. In short, the Chinese were prepared to grant everything consistent with the safety of their country, and Sir Rutherford Alcock had said that every- thing had been granted which could be granted at the moment, and that it would be worse than a waste of time to postpone the revision of the treaty, for all was obtained that we could with justice hope to gain.

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) had suggested a policy to be followed in our treaties with the Chinese Government from which he must express his entire dissent. His hon. and gallant Friend assumed throughout that it was necessary to deal with the Chinese Government and nation in an exceptional manner in consequence of the weakness of what he termed the Central Government. But let the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the position of that Government and of the Chinese nation. Within the last thirty years the Chinese Government had to sustain three great wars. Two foreign armies had landed in China and marched to Pekin, and the palace of the Emperor had been sacked. The country had, in consequence, been more or less in a disturbed state. Was it to be wondered at, under these circumstances, that the Government should not possess all the power and concentration that was to be desired, and that its authority was not obeyed like one that had not undergone such vicissitudes? What was the policy recommended by his hon. and gallant Friend? Not to strengthen the Government in any way, but to proceed, on all occasions whenever there was any real or supposed wrong done to a British subject, to take the law into our own hands and delegate the operations necessary to recover compensation, or to enforce what we considered a right, to the naval and military officers stationed in that country. Was that a wise or a just policy? Why it was our interest to strengthen in every way the Central Government, and on that point he had heard with pleasure the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Liddell) with regard to the views of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Lord Clarendon had always, so far as he was informed, maintained the same policy, and it was only that very day, in looking over a file of China Papers, that he came upon a very curious fact which illustrated the views entertained by Lord Clarendon some fifteen or twenty years ago. He would not read the case to which he referred, because the opinion of the then Law Officers of the Crown, the present Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Lord Westbury, would illustrate what those views were. Having been consulted with reference to the opinions of a gentleman who filled the office of Acting Attorney General of Hong Kong, they said—

"We do not agree in the conclusion of the Acting Attorney General that the Chinese are to be considered as beyond the pale of civilized nations."

It was because Lord Clarendon did not agree with the opinion of the Acting Attorney General of Hong Kong, that the Chinese were to be considered as beyond the pale of civilized nations, that the case to which he (Mr. Otway) referred came to be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown in England. If our conduct was not to be regulated by customs which governed our relations with civilized nations, it was impossible for our dealings with China to continue on a satisfactory footing. Reference had been made to our trade with China, which, by the Board of Trade Returns, appeared to amount to some £40,000,000 per annum. What would interfere with that trade? Anything like warlike operations would do so, and his hon. and gallant Friend advocated a policy which must lead sooner or later to war. That gunboat policy must, however, some day cease. The Chinese nation in course of time would possess gunboats of its own—in fact, they were now manufacturing and purchasing them—and did his hon. and gallant Friend think that his policy could be successful in the face of a nation so numerous, when that nation possessed the means of self-defence? The hon. and. gallant Gentleman had forgotten to allude to the fact that there were four or five other European nations possessing treaty rights with China, and in our arrangements for the revision of the treaty we must consider not only how we ourselves would act, but what might be the possible action of those other powers? If England demanded that her citizens should have power to reside under exceptional circumstances, in China, with ex-territorial rights, all the other nations having treaty rights would demand the same thing, and they would have inextricable confusion, tending to the disorganization of the Empire. He was aware that his hon. and gallant Friend, who was in the habit of speaking of "his friends the Taepings," wished to see the Empire disorganized; but that was not the view taken by Her Majesty's Government and by those interested in the Chinese trade. There was no hesitation on the part of the Chinese Government to allow missionaries or any other men to reside in China, if they would conform to Chinese laws and customs; but what nation would concede claims put forward which no one in this country acquainted with China attempted to justify but the hon. and gallant Member? The hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to the uncomplimentary term of "Min-Jin" or "fellow" applied to Englishmen on their passports when travelling in the country, but really he did not attach any importance to that. He read that day an interesting journal by Mr. Alabaster, who had travelled hundreds of miles into the interior of China, in which he stated that wherever he went, although never molested, he was sometimes called, "His Excellency the Devil." Such things must be expected in a nation as strange and as exclusive in character as the Chinese. Two important points, however, had been raised with reference to the Treaty of Tien-tsin—internal residence and transit duties. He (Mr. Otway) was prepared to allow that it was originally intended that goods should be allowed to penetrate into the interior of China with no further charge than that of the 2½ per cent ad valorem duty; but the Chinese authorities were compelled to make a change in consequence of the discovery that Chinese traders were fraudulently obtaining certificates from English merchants, and were by such means carrying on operations to the prejudice of their own countrymen. No doubt these matters were the subject of very serious consideration. When the time arrived last year for the Government to write and claim a revision of the treaty, they had first of all made themselves acquainted with the opinions of the mercantile classes in England, of Mr. Burlinghame, the gentleman who now represented China in Europe, and of some high English officials in the East. All these opinions concurred in recommending that every reform introduced by European nations into a vast Empire like that of China must be of a very gradual kind, because it was obviously necessary for the Chinese to comprehend the advantages of such appliances as the telegraph and steam before they could be induced to adopt them. Nor should it be forgotten that with regard to railroads they wore of less importance in China than in any other country, because the water communication there was the most vast and perfect in the world, and it was no light matter suddenly to deprive the many thousands of persons of the means of living which they gained by it. Another reason for deprecating haste was that the Chinese Government was at present in a state of transition. The young Emperor would in four years' time attain his majority, the same period determined the treaties with European Powers, and the wiser course would be to wait until the new order of things was established before steps were taken to secure any extension or alteration of treaty rights. In the meantime our relations with that country were gradually improving. There had been, and there always would be, outrages of the character referred to; and such outrages did not occur in China alone; it might happen even to hon. Members to be stopped or robbed before reaching their homes when they left that House. The matter had been fully considered by Lord Clarendon, and Her Majesty's Government had determined upon adopting the policy which had been already enunciated in the House. That policy was, in all cases in which British subjects were wronged, to look to the Central Government for redress, to make that Government responsible, and to abstain altogether from those acts which would relieve the Central Government of responsibility, and throw it upon the minor officials in the provinces. There was every desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to consult the wishes of the mercantile community in China and at home; but the Government were satisfied that the best course was to make demands gradually, and to wait for the expiration of the treaties with the other Powers, and the majority of the Emperor, when, perhaps, we might be able to give a greater development to trade. There was no objection to produce the Papers asked for; in fact, they had already appeared in the Shanghai Gazette, but those referring to negotiations that were in progress could not be given.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the distress occasioned by the Cattle Plague to the Ratepayers of the county of Chester entitles them to the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to some remission of the heavy debt incurred for the amount of compensation"—

said, that he would have to go back as far as the year 1865. There could be no doubt that it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to stamp out the disease the moment it was found to exist in the metropolis, and had the Government of the day only done its duty, the disease would never have reached the county of Cheshire. Owing to the course pursued by the Government, however, the disease did reach that county, and before the passing of the Act, in 1866, no less than 38,000 head of cattle had been slaughtered under the authority of the Privy Council, for which no compen- sation had been made, the owners not even being permitted to realize the £2 per head, which was the value of the hides, horns, and hoofs, while they were obliged to bury the carcasses six feet below the ground, which was a very difficult and expensive matter in Cheshire, where the soil was a stiff clay. He might mention that during the debate upon the Act of 1866 the right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Poor Law Board expressed an opinion that hunting ought to be put a stop to, as being calculated to spread the disease. In Cheshire, however, they had not the heart to hunt, and therefore there was no necessity for putting a stop to it in that county. Since the passing of the Act of 1866, the county had borrowed the sum of £270,000 from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at 3¼ per cent interest, to be re-paid by instalments spread over thirty years. £14,000 would be due in November of the present year, £28,000 was payable next year, £28,000 in the following year, and £14,000 per annum for the following twenty-five years. Besides that a sum of £30,000 had been raised by public subscription to relieve those who had suffered by the slaughter of the 38,000 head of cattle before the passing of the Act, £25,000 of which. was subscribed by the inhabitants of the county, and principally by those landlords who had suffered so severely by the loss of their cattle. Deputations from the county had waited upon Members of the last and the present Government, and they had invariably been met with expressions of sympathy; but he asked from the House on that occasion not only sympathy, but consideration. The case of Cheshire was this—their cattle had been killed, not for the good of that county merely, but for the good of the country at large, and therefore the loss thereby sustained should be borne by the nation generally, and not left to rest upon the inhabitants of that unfortunate county solely. On the Motion for the first reading of the Act of 1866, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, the then Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) said that—

"The principle on which his (Mr. Banks Stanhope's) proposal was founded, I believe, is perfectly sound—namely, that the losses occasioned by the slaughter of diseased animals, and the expenses requisite for carrying into effect the provisions of the law for checking the disease, ought to be borne, to a certain extent, by the whole community, because the whole consuming and producing population are interested in checking the disease; but that a special burden may be fairly thrown upon those on whom the loss primarily and immediately falls. He proposed, therefore—and in principle it is what we recommend—that in counties the county rate should furnish part of the fund out of which the compensation should come, and in boroughs, the borough rate; that the proportion in which the burden should fall on these funds should be two-thirds, and that the remaining one-third should be borne by the cattle owners."—[3 Hansard, clxxxi., 379.]

In the course of the debate on the second reading the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said—

"The object of this Bill is not to compensate for what persons have lost, but for what they have lost by the direct agency of the Government, in taking possession of and destroying their property for the public good, and for the public good alone. Is that a new principle? If it is necessary to destroy houses to fortify a town, or to destroy any other property for a public purpose, there is no civilized Government in the world that does not compensate the person whose property is taken."—[Ibid. 484.]

Again—

"In my opinion, it is out of the funds of the entire country that compensation ought to come."—[Ibid. 485.]

He was perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman was not in Office when he made those observations, but he thought he might claim the support of the right hon. Baronet and of the right hon. Gentleman for the Motion he was about to make. He would quote a few figures to show that the case of Cheshire was an exceptional one. It appeared from a Parliamentary Return of June, 1869, that the total amount of compensation for loss of cattle slaughtered and expenses incurred in England and Wales, was £830,363, of which Cheshire had paid 32 per cent, or £266,502. The same Return showed that, after excepting the counties of Cheshire and Cumberland—which latter county had borrowed £26,900, and had levied a cattle rate of 6d. in the pound—fourteen counties had paid no compensation whatever, sixteen had paid less than 1d. in the pound, eight less than 1½d., five less than 4d., two less than 6d., five less than 7½d., and Lincoln and parts of Lindsay 9½d. He thought these figures worthy of the consideration of that House. The annual return of the burden that this county would have to bear would be felt as a great grievance by the consumers of beef, butter, and milk, and princi- pally by the poorer inhabitants of the boroughs. A Petition he held in his hand from the borough of Congleton, in the county of Chester, stated that the factory operatives in that town would suffer very severely by that tax. They did not ask for the remission of the whole burden which had been cast upon them, but thought they had some title to a remission of part of it. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said, this was an exceptional case, which required an exceptional remedy. Cheshire had suffered more from the cattle plague than any other county in the kingdom. No county was now liable to pay more than 9d. in the pound; but the rate, if levied in Cheshire, would be 3s. They did not ask for sympathy, but the House of Commons had committed an injustice; the cattle in this case had been slaughtered for the public good, and he thought it was only fair that something should be done for the rate-payers of Cheshire.

said, that representing a county which had suffered more severely even than Cheshire in proportion to the number of its cattle, and having himself been a great sufferer, he felt much sympathy with Cheshire, but he could not support this Motion. He had proposed what he still thought would have been the fairest plan—namely, that the compensation should be thrown in the first instance on the Consolidated Fund, and that the Government should recoup itself by levying a rate on cattle over the whole country, his theory being that the owners of cattle in the distant parts gained more by the suppression of disease than those districts where the rinderpest was raging, However, Parliament had decided that those who lost most should pay most. If this Resolution were carried, he should ask, on behalf of Forfarshire—and other Members would, no doubt, ask on behalf of other parts of the country—that Parliament should give com- pensation for all the losses which had occurred there. But such a proposal would never be carried, and, therefore, he could not see his way to allow part of the burden of Cheshire to fall upon his constituents in addition to their losses.

said, the people of Cheshire did not, as the hon. Member said, ask to be compensated for all the losses they had sustained. They were quite ready to bear the full extent of the loss which had been borne by any other county. They did not object to bear a 9d. rate. But Cheshire had lost from 70,000 to 80,000 cattle, valued at £800,000, and inasmuch as the House had declared that no county should sustain a loss of more than 9d., that rule should extend to Cheshire. The Act of 1866 was passed a great deal too late for Cheshire. The cattle there were doomed when the Act came into operation, and no benefit arose to the county from it. Under these circumstance, he hoped that the House would do justice to Cheshire, and not allow such an enormous burden to fall upon that county.

said, he could quite understand that many persons might feel this to be a very exceptional Motion. At the same time, this was a very exceptional case. A great calamity fell upon the country, and a larger share was borne by one particular part of the country than by any other. Was the Government of the day wholly free from blame in the matter?—because that was a consideration which weighed on his mind in deciding this question. The cattle plague was known to be coming here in the middle of the year. The Government of the day were pressed to act, or to call Parliament together if they did not choose to take upon themselves the responsibility of acting. The experience of a similar outbreak a hundred years back told them that there was only one thing to be done—namely, to kill. They commenced acting with a feeble hand, and with a still feebler mind had scarcely commenced acting before they withdrew the Orders which would have stamped out the disease and prevented much of the loss which fell upon the country. If ever, then, there was a case in which the Government might depart from the strict rules which ought to guide them generally, this was such a case. If in the early part of the autumn the Govern- ment had put in force, or called on Parliament to put in force, the measures which were enacted in February, no one could doubt that this calamity, serious as it would have been, would not have fallen anything like so heavily upon this unfortunate county. He therefore thought that the Motion was entitled to favourable consideration, and that the Government would do well to act on the side of kindness, instead of standing upon strict rules.

said, he regretted the calamity which had fallen upon the people of Cheshire, and if it were possible to benefit them by a mere remission—that is, by letting them off from some burden without putting it on other people's shoulders, he should be glad to do so. But he must beg the House to consider seriously not only the particular case, but the very large, important, and far-reaching principle which the case involved, and which it would for the first time establish. This was a matter not to be discussed in a spirit of anything but the calmest, coolest reason and reflection. By indulging compassion the House might be doing great mischief, unless they examined the principle on which they acted, and were prepared to defend it, not upon the ground of an exceptional case, but of constitutional principle and precedent. The Motion itself was an evasion of Parliamentary practice. It was the rule of the House that private Members should not propose to increase the burdens of the people; but it seemed that this could be done indirectly in the form adopted by the noble Earl—that of a general Resolution expressing a wish that the Government should increase them. This itself was a very serious step, because it was a direct infraction of the rule which' alone was a protection of the public purse in this country—namely, that increased expenditure should only be proposed to the House by those Departments which were responsible for expenditure. The first evasion of principle which the noble Earl invited the House to make was to coerce the Government, in whom the Constitution placed the control of the expenditure of the country, to incur an expenditure which they were not of themselves willing to incur. The proposition presented itself in the most objectionable form conceivable. The county of Chester had borrowed from Government about £260,000, of which it had paid neither principal nor interest; but in November next the first instalment was to be paid, and now the persons who had borrowed the money asked the House to put a stress on the Government in order that they might be relieved from the obligation they had deliberately incurred. That was a transaction which could not be justified in private life, and in respect to public life he asked anyone to point out a single precedent for it in the annals of Parliament. [An hon. MEMBER: Ireland!] Well, he asked, was there any precedent in respect to Ireland, of that House by a vote forcing the Government to remit a loan? but even if such a precedent could be adduced he denied that a precedent with respect to Ireland was binding on them. Everybody knew that numerous things were done for Ireland which no persons dreamt of asking for themselves. In this country the police were partly paid out of the Consolidated Fund; but in Ireland the whole of the expense of the police was paid out of the Consolidated Fund, because it was an Irish affair. But what he wanted was a precedent of the House of Commons forcing, after deliberate debate, the Government to remit a loan to Ireland which the Irish Members and people had deliberately contracted. It was, then, a perilous proceeding to wrest the control of the expenditure from those who were responsible for it, and to transfer it to those who were not responsible; and he had a right to demand some precedent to be produced before they departed from the ways of their forefathers. How was it that Cheshire borrowed the money in question? In 1866, different plans were suggested to compensate those whose cattle were killed on account of the plague, and the plan adopted happened to be the one which he had advocated. The noble Earl had read a portion of a speech of his, in which he expressed an opinion that in the abstract this burden should fall on the Consolidated Fund; but he went on to say that though that might be abstractedly the merit of the case, yet it would be too dangerous to make compensations out of the general funds of the country, as such a course would take away all motives in the different localities for the inhabitants to do everything in their power to abolish the disease. He at that time added that he thought that such were the overpowering advantages of giving to localities every inducement to use their utmost exertions to put down the disease, that the expense ought to be paid by certain circumscribed districts. The House adopted his view, and it was under the Act of Parliament which was then passed that this money was borrowed and spent, and before they could take the burden off Cheshire and spread it over other counties, which had also greatly suffered, they must repeal that Act of Parliament, and pass a fresh Act. That was a serious course of proceeding, for which he was entitled to ask for a precedent. The Members for Cheshire and the people of that county had been willing to borrow £260,000 under the law, and that law ought to be maintained until the money was returned. If it was not maintained a most fatal blow would be struck at a system which was found most useful in enabling assistance to be afforded by the Government to individuals. The proper way of looking at this matter was not as a remission but as a grant. If the House would not have voted a grant, it would, under the name of a remission, be doing the same thing, and much worse, because the money was borrowed from Government under the understanding that it was to be re-paid; and when the first instalment was about to become due, then a pressure was put on the Government and Parliament to cancel the debt. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) spoke of this as being an exceptional case and constituting an extraordinary burden; but the question was, were the resources of Cheshire so bad as not to be able to meet the burden. The rateable income of Cheshire was £2,295,000, and the amount of the debt was £266,502, or about 11 per cent on the rateable income. Nothing had yet been demanded in re-payment, but in one or two years £28,000 would have to be re-paid, and £14,000 a year for a limited time after that period. He was sorry that Cheshire should have to bear such a burden, but it did not appear to be so great that, in order to get rid of it, much valuable principles and good faith should be trampled under foot, and that an attempt should be made to impose the burden in defiance of the Act of Parlia- ment, on other people. He did not wish to reproach the unfortunate when things in Cheshire made it very subject to cattle disease, and it was likely never to escape. But when they were asked to put this burden on a portion of the people at large, particularly on those who had already suffered heavily from the cattle disease, he must be allowed to read a few lines from the Report of an Inspector under the Cattle Plague Department of the Privy Council. The date of the Report was February 9, 1866, after the disease had been in Cheshire about four months. The Inspector stated that he had visited the undermentioned places in the vicinity of Chester, Upton, Whitby, Pulford, Nantwich, Poole, and other places, and his attention was directed to several instances of positive nuisance arising from dead carcasses. In all cases he had ascertained that the Order in Council relating to disinfection and burial had not been carried out. In some instances, a want of ordinary care and caution had been manifested in the burial of carcasses in porous soil, and near the source of water supplies. Disinfectants were rarely applied to carcasses or manure, and healthy animals were commonly herded with the sick and dying. So far as his observation extended, a lamentable apathy appeared to prevail among the owners of stock. Not only were the Orders in Council ignored, but ordinary precautions which common sense would dictate were neglected. In the face of these difficulties the police, under the orders of the chief constable, had exerted themselves with praiseworthy activity. Under these circumstances, the Inspector added, he had addressed a communication to the chief constable, directing attention to the facts, and suggesting remedies for the existing evils. When they were called to make an order cancelling this debt at the request of those who had deliberately incurred it, he thought they ought to have some answer or explanation to such a statement as that. The object of the Act was to make those persons in the immediate neighbourhood of the disease anxious and eager in checking it, and the effect of the present Motion would be necessarily to frustrate the whole Act, which would then become a dead letter. They were asked virtually to break down the rules which regulated the expenditure of the public money. They were next asked to bring the power of the House of Commons to bear on the Government to induce them to cancel a portion of debt which had been deliberately incurred. They were also asked to repeal the Act which imposed the charge, and cast it on the shoulders of persons who had not had the opportunity which Cheshire had to some extent neglected of checking the disease. In conclusion he would say the words he had formerly used on this subject were that—

"It is absolutely necessary that the money which we expend should be most carefully expended—more carefully than any other, because it may become a double prodigality. If people are careless and remiss, they will first of all slaughter cattle which ought not to be slaughtered, and then pay for them. Therefore, you require a check upon them, and what check so good as that those who order the slaughter should feel that they themselves will have to pay for it."—[3 Hansard, clxxxi. 620.]

That statement was made on the 16th of February, 1866. He was very sorry to have so invidious a duty to perform. It was very desirable not to be wanting in sympathy, but it was still more desirable to maintain the great constitutional principles on which that House had always acted.

said, the people of Cheshire considered that in this matter they laboured under a grievance and an injustice which was not the less felt because the county was wealthy. They had been told that the Act had not been properly carried out; but the only proof of that was an extract from an Inspector's Report, dated before the Act was in operation. The loan was forced upon Chester in 1866, in order to keep faith with those whose cattle were slaughtered under the Act. The distress of the county was so great that it was impossible at that time to levy a rate. It was an injustice to have to pay what they ought to pay whether the county was rich or poor. It was a great hardship to call on the towns to levy the rate for the repayment of the loan. Many cattle were carelessly slaughtered and buried; but that arose from the great loss, with the limited number of men on the farms to put the Act into operation to prevent the spread of the disease. The Act was passed so hurriedly that the rate-payers of Cheshire had no power of protesting against it.

opposed the Motion. Lincoln had raised £94,000 by rates for the destruction of cattle, and if an allowance was to be made to one county it ought to be made to another.

supported the Motion. The injury was exceptional, and it was the duty of the House to consider it.

said, he thought that this was an exceptional case, in which a rate-in-aid ought to be granted from the Consolidated Fund. The losses in Cheshire were so great as compared with Lincolnshire that the latter county had no claim on the Consolidated Fund.

, on the part of the consumer, protested against any remission being made to Chester. He opposed the Motion.

said, the answer given to his right hon. Friend had been that a loan had been forced upon Cheshire at £3 5s. per cent. If so it had not been forced by the Government, which could not afford to lend money at £3 5s. per cent. [Mr. J. B. SMITH: It is £3 10s.] No loan of that amount either had been forced upon Cheshire by the Government. It appeared, however, that the inhabitants of a single county, who now came to Parliament for a further grant of public money, had to meet an addition of 1½d. in the pound to the taxation of the county extending over a period of thirty years. But then it was said that it was not a question whether the county was rich or poor, but that the charge was unjust. If it was a question of justice, every county in England and Scotland was entitled to make the same demand, for the circumstances of each county were precisely the same, as far as Parliament was concerned. He denied that it was the duty of the Government to prevent people's cattle from falling ill; and it would have been well if the example of Aberdeenshire had been generally followed elsewhere. He deeply regretted the burden which rested upon Cheshire, but, heavy as it was, it was not to be compared with that which had fallen upon Lancashire during the cotton famine, from causes quite as independent of its own control. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the Report of an Inspector to show that there had been negligence on the part of the farmers in regard to the spread of the disease, and then proceeded to meet the argument that this was an exceptional case. It was, he admitted, a very exceptional case, but exceptional in a very different sense from that in which the plea was urged by the noble Earl (Earl Grosvenor). At this moment the rates of Cheshire were supplemented in a very peculiar manner—namely by a tax levied from the consumers of salt throughout the country. The tolls on the Weaver navigation derived from the commodity of salt amounted, in ordinary years, to £20,000 per annum, and this year, owing to exceptional circumstances, they had fallen to £12,000, or within £2,000 of the amount of the loan which Cheshire had to pay on an average of years. He congratulated Cheshire on the possession of that valuable resource, which seemed as if it had been intended to meet this very exigency.

, as representing Birkenhead, which would have upwards of £40,000 of the debt to pay, protested against the injustice of asking Cheshire to bear the whole burden of the loss. They asked nothing for Cheshire except that it should not be asked to pay for cattle destroyed after the Act was passed, by order of the Government and for the national good.