asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, notwithstanding the special constitution and objects and the very wide powers of Queen Anne's Bounty Board, the affairs of that trust are still, as reported by the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1868—

"Practically under the management of a small number of the Bishops, with the occasional assistance of a few laymen;"

And, whether any steps have been or will be taken to give effect to the recommendations of that Select Committee, regard being had to the fact that the season is approaching when the meetings of the Board are usually suspended for a period of four months?

in reply, said, the composition of this Board was fully set out in the Report alluded to by the hon. Member. The Board consisted of a large number of laymen as well as Bishops. The Select Committee, in their Report, expressed regret that a large number of lay members did not take part in the proceedings of the Board; but they added that the business of the Board appeared to be carefully and well conducted. He might add an expression of his personal regret that the lay members of the Board did not take a larger share in the work which it had to do. He thought it would be well if summonses were issued to all members of Board.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is proposed to pay over to Turkey the Tribute of Cyprus, or whether it is to be retained to meet the amount owing from the 1855 Guaranteed Loan?

I presume that, by the expression, "the Tribute of Cyprus," my hon. Friend means the amount which is to be paid, as being the ascertained amount of the excess revenue over the expenditure in Cyprus, upon the average of the last five years. That amount has not yet been ascertained; but, of course, steps will be speedily taken to ascertain it. It will be a matter for further consideration in what form the payment shall be made by the one Government to the other; but, of course, when there are charges upon one Government and charges upon the other, there will no doubt be some arrangements made by which the operations will be facilitated and made more simple.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the inquiry into a municipal election at Carlisle, commenced on the 26th of March last, and to the Report of the Commissioner to the effect that numerous persons, including an alderman and a councillor of the borough and a guardian of the poor, had been guilty of corrupt practices within the meaning of "The Corrupt Practices (Municipal Elections) Act, 1872;" and, whether it is his intention to direct a prosecution of the persons named in the Commissioner's Report; and, if not, why not?

in reply, said, that all the Papers had been laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, and he had not yet received a Report from them concerning the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If Her Majesty's Government will undertake to deal with the case of juvenile criminals refused admission to reformatory schools, by providing some central reformatory to which such children might be sent?

in reply, said, he had consulted the Reformatory Inspector in reference to the subject of the Question, and that gentleman had informed him that, in his opinion, there had not been a sufficient number of refusals to admit to justify the proposal of the hon. Member. He should be very happy to place the Report confidentially in the hands of the hon. Member if he wished it.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he has made arrangements to allow the men called out in the Army Reserve to return to their families and work; and, whether he will arrange that their first quarter's pay shall be issued in advance so as to enable them to maintain themselves while they are seeking employment?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I am happy to inform him that Her Majesty has been pleased to command that the services of the First Class Army and Militia Reserves may be, until further orders, dispensed with. A special Army Circular was issued on Saturday, which provided that the men should be settled with up to the 31st instant; but that those men who were desirous of rejoining their families, or have got employment they could at once resume, may be allowed at once to go from their regiments without further delay. General officers and others commanding have been instructed to make such arrangements as shall insure regularity and order, and the men will be marched in parties to the rail or to the steamer, as the case may be. They will be given a free passage home; and in such cases where their families have accompanied them a point has been stretched, and free passage will be given to those families also. The men of the Army Reserve will receive plain clothes, or, where plain clothes cannot be furnished in time, a sum not exceeding £1 per man, for the purpose of providing plain clothes. Perhaps I may be allowed, at the same time, to answer a Question standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and to say that, with the view of avoiding any cases of distress until the men re-enter their old employment, directions have been given to advance, on their return to their stations, the remainder of this quarter's reserve pay. I think that these provisions will be considered sufficiently liberal to meet, in all equity, the circumstances of the case; and I believe that, in a very large number of instances, the men have had their private employment kept open for them.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress, if any, has been made by Her Majesty's Government in the negotiations with Roumania in rerence to a Commercial Treaty or Convention with that country?

Mr. White, Her Majesty's Consul General at Bucharest, has commenced negotiations for the conclusion of a Commercial Treaty between this country and Roumania; but, owing to the absence of the Roumanian Minister at Berlin, no progress has as yet been made in the negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the state in which the main body of the Royal Cumberland Militia marched through the streets of Carlisle on the 8th instant, when, according to the report in the "Carlisle Journal" of the 9th July, "several of the men had to be supported by their comrades," others fell to the ground, and were "escorted through the station door by two policemen," "one was so drunk that he lamed his hand, and had to be taken to the hospital besmeared with blood," while "others wandered about the station in such a bewildered state that they had almost to be dragged into the carriages;" and, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

in reply, said, that his attention had not been called to this statement until he saw the Question of the hon. and learned Member. The commanding officer of the district, however, appeared to have noticed the statement, and to have called for a Report, from which it was evident there had been considerable exaggeration in the account of what had occurred. The men had to assemble at Carlisle, where they received their clothing and equipment, and then they had to march to the railway station to proceed to Appleby. When they paraded at the castle in Carlisle the men were steady, though on the march some half dozen men, who might have had some drink, fell out, for the day was very hot. There was no delay, however, and the man who was taken to the hospital, having fallen over a stone and cut an artery, was able to proceed to the camp the same night. Under these circumstances, he was inclined to think no further steps need be taken in the case.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Indian Troops sent to Cyprus are now to be added to the permanent forces of the United Kingdom; on what footing they will remain at Cyprus, whether that of the Indian or the English Army; whether it is intended to fill up the Indian Army to the same strength as before the withdrawal of these Troops; and, whether it is intended to introduce this Session any Bill to regulate the employment of this force?

With the permission of the hon. Member, I will answer the Question he has put. In the first place, it is not intended that the Indian troops sent to Cyprus are to be added to the permanent Forces of the United Kingdom. They will remain at Cyprus on the same footing as during their stay at Malta. I believe it is not intended to fill up the Indian Army to the same strength as before the withdrawal of those troops. I think it follows, from these answers, that it will be unnecessary this Session to introduce any Bill to regulate the employment of those Forces.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there are to be any guarantees for the performance of the promises of Turkey for the good government of the Christian Provinces and the faithful execution of the Provincial Constitutions granted; and especially, whether, after the three months allowed to a Commission to settle the Constitution of Eastern Roumelia, there is to be any "Commission of Control" corresponding to the Commissions of Control proposed by the last paragraph of the summary attached to the proceedings of the eighth meeting of the Conference of Constantinople, and which were to be charged

"to watch over the execution of the regulations, and to aid the local authorities in measures affecting order and public security"

in the several provinces dealt with? I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the refusal of these guarantees by Turkey was almost the sole cause of the war which subsequently ensued. I may add that since the Question was put down, I have observed in the Papers circulated to-day that in the earlier part of the proceedings in the Congress, Lord Salisbury very strongly dwelt upon the necessity of these guarantees.

All that I can say at present, in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, is that under the 18th Article of the Treaty of Berlin, it is provided that a European Commission shall be appointed, and all the provisions which may be made for securing the organization of Eastern Roumelia will entirely depend upon the decisions of that Commission.

I beg to give Notice that when this question comes before the House I shall move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, no European territory should be restored to Turkey without at least the guarantees deemed necessary by the Conference of Constantinople."

asked Mr. Attorney General, If he would be so kind as to inform the House under what law British soldiers may be tried and punished in time of peace by Court Martial in Cyprus or other Crown Colonies if, as has been asserted, the Mutiny Act does not extend beyond the British Isles?

The Annual Mutiny Act, and the Articles of War made there under, apply as well in time of peace as in time of war to all soldiers in Her Majesty's service, both at home and abroad, except the Indian Native troops, who are subject to Articles of War framed under the Indian Mutiny Act. It is a mistake to suppose that I ever asserted that the Mutiny Act does not extend beyond the British Isles. What I said in a recent debate was that the provisions of the Bill of Rights with regard to standing Armies were confined to Great Britain. I beg to add that Cyprus is not a Crown Colony.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the stipulations of the San Stefano Treaty, not abrogated or modified by the Treaty of Berlin, have the force of Treaty stipulations between the Governments of Russia and Turkey?

I can only say, with regard to the Question of the hon. Member, as I said just now, that this is a question of International Law arising between two foreign countries, and upon such question Her Majesty's Government have not, at present, expressed any opinion.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to proceed this Session with the Telegraphs Bill; and, if so, if they will refer it to a Select Committee?

in reply, said, he did not at present see any reason for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in case of satisfaction not being speedily made by the Russians for the insult to the British flag, he will order Admiral Horn by to make reprisals, and to hold them until reparation has been made?

I must remind the noble Lord and the House that I stated to the House on Friday last that Admiral Horn by had sent his flag captain to see General Todleben on the subject, and that General Todleben expressed his very great regret at the occurrence, of which he was entirely ignorant. General Todleben also stated that he would send at once an officer of the staff to the Gulf of Saros, to make inquiry, and to put him in a position to offer such explanation as might be possible. We have not received any further information. The noble Lord is aware that the distance would make it almost impossible for the officer to have gone and returned by this time. But I may state that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs directed the Ambassador to make a representation of the circumstances of the case to Prince Lobanoff, the Russian Ambassador, and to request an explanation; and I have no doubt we shall receive a satisfactory explanation.

An explanation, then, has been demanded? Of course, the British flag will be saluted?

An explanation has certainly been demanded. What the result will be I am not able to say.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Russian troops now occupy parts of Turkish territory other than those where they have a right to be in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano, or the Treaty of Berlin; and, if so, for what reason they remain there; and, whether any representations have been made to induce them to withdraw from the territories of an allied sovereign in time of peace, where their presence presents frequent occasions of dispute or war?

All I can say at present on this subject is, that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to say how far the occupation of the territory referred to in the Question of the noble Lord is inconsistent with Articles 25 and 26 of the Treaty of San Stefano.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my Question—whether any representations have been made to induce the Russian troops to withdraw from the territories of an allied Sovereign in a time of peace?

I stated that we were not prepared to say that the Russian troops, being where they were, was a violation of certain Articles of the Treaty of San Stefano; and it may be inferred from that answer that Her Majesty's Government have not made any representations founded upon any construction of that Treaty, or the Treaty of Berlin. Undoubtedly, it will be seen from the examination of one of the Protocols, that one of the earliest representations made to the Congress of Berlin was with the view to the withdrawal of the Russian forces from the positions which they have occupied in Turkey.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to his statement that the employment of Charles Marvin (a writer engaged at wages by the hour), in connection with the Memorandum of Count Schouvaloff and Lord Salisbury, was inconsistent with the rules of the Foreign Office, but that while the matter was the subject of judicial investigation it would be contrary to precedent and injurious to the public interests that any explanation of the circumstances should at that moment be made to Parliament, Whether now that the judicial investigation has terminated, he will state under what circumstances Charles Marvin was so employed?

I have to state, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that Charles Marvin was employed, with respect to the Memorandum in question, for the sake of despatch; and he was so employed under the belief that, as he had been for more than a year in the Foreign Office, he was trustworthy. I am sorry to say that that belief afterwards turned out to be erroneous.

You must not say that, for he was acquitted.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If the report circulated by the public prints that forty-eight of Her Majesty's soldiers at Malta had been poisoned by carbolic acid, given by carelessness instead of lime juice, should prove correct, he would institute a very searching inquiry, with a view to the punishment of the culpable parties?

I am sorry to say there is some foundation for this report. I have caused inquiries to be addressed to the authorities at Malta. We have not yet received an answer. If the matter should turn out to be as serious as the hon. Gentleman represents, and as the report assumes, of course a very searching inquiry will become necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the terms of the Admiralty and War Office Regulation Bill of 1878 will be extended to those departments of the Civil Service where the lower division of clerkships has been introduced under the Playfair scheme?

It is not the intention to extend the terms beyond the four corners of the Bill, which embraces only the two offices mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can now lay upon the Table Mr. Sargeaunt's Report on the Financial Condition of the Transvaal Territory; and, whether it is his intention to apply this Session for a Supplementary Vote in aid of the expenses of its government?

in reply, said, it was not his intention to apply this Session for a Supplementary Vote. With regard to Mr. Sargeaunt's Report, that gentleman had been actively engaged since his recent return from South Africa in preparing such Report, which had not yet been received at the Colonial Office. Until he saw that Report, he could not promise to lay it upon the Table of the House.

said, he was sorry to have to ask, for the third time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, On what day he will state to the House the provision required for the additional expenditure proposed since the Budget?

I am quite as sorry to have to answer the Question as my right hon. Friend is to put it; but I am still obliged to say that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty have not yet completed their Estimates. I hope they will be on the Table before the close of the week, and when they are no time shall be lost in making the proper statement.

I will put the Question again on Friday next.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it is true that Sir Bryan O'Loghlen has accepted the appointment of Attorney General of Victoria; and, whether he can inform the House of the date of such appointment, and what salary, if any, attaches to the office in question?

I cannot state the precise date of this appointment; but a short time ago I heard from the Governor of Victoria that Sir Bryan O'Loghlen had accepted the office. The salary has been altered recently, but I understand it is now between £1,600 and £1,700.

I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall move—

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland for the holding of a new election for the County of Clare, in the room of Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, who, since his election, hag accepted the office of Attorney General of Victoria."

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can recommend some alteration in the Warrant by which the half-pay service of those Officers promoted to that list, (1) as a reward, (2) placed thereon owing to reduction, counts disadvantageously, and is reckoned towards compulsory retirement?

was bound to say that, on looking at the clauses of the Royal Warrant, he should, if he answered the Question at once, be driven to a conclusion adverse to the officers in question; but, inasmuch as the words of the Warrant were not wholly free from doubt, he had desired other Papers to be looked at, by which it would be seen what were the intentions of the Warrant when it was originally framed. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not receive any communication from him, perhaps he would be good enough to repeat his Question on a future day.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state what course he proposes to take with respect to the Bill to amend the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, seeing that the Lords have decided to insist on their Amendments?

said, that as he had declined, in deference to the suggestion of the Speaker, to press a Motion with respect to the Privileges of the House, as affected by this Bill, he would ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in considering the Amendments introduced by the Lords, they would consider them in connection with the Privileges of this House?

I am aware generally of the point to which the hon. Baronet the Member for Christchurch refers in connection with this Bill. I am not unacquainted with the position of the measure in connection with the question of the Privileges of the House of Commons; but, as I understand, you, Sir, have thought it not desirable that that question should at present be raised. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Not to-day, as I understand.] Well, not to-day; and that being so, I do not know that I can venture further at present with my answer to the hon. Baronet. With regard to the Question of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Mellor), he is aware that the Government have supported, and that I have more than once expressed my personal support of his Bill, and that I have regretted to see the Amendments which have been introduced into it by the other House of Parliament. It does not lie with me to propose to take any particular course with respect to the measure, because it is one which is in charge of my hon. Friend; but I should be prepared—and the Government should be prepared—if he thinks fit to insist upon what has been agreed to by this House, to support him.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would be able before the debate on the Resolution of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) came on for discussion to place in the hands of Members any further Papers connected with the Anglo-Turkish Convention, and notably the reply of our Ambassador at Constantinople to the despatch of the 30th of May? There were no Papers before Members with respect to that Convention, except that despatch; and he should like to know what reply had been made to it by the Turkish Government?

I shall be happy to answer the Question to-morrow. I am sure that the House will see that it is one which I cannot answer without consultation with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state when he will be able to arrange to give me an opportunity of bringing forward the Resolution of which I have given Notice with reference to the Treaty of Berlin? I have put down the Resolution for Thursday as the earliest day it would be favourable to bring it forward; and I should like to know whether it will be in the power of the Government that the discussion should be taken on that day?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I may be allowed to express the hope—and I think I may say the unanimous hope—of the Irish Members belonging to all Parties in this House, that nothing will be allowed to interfere, if possible, with the coming on, as already arranged, of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill on Thursday next?

There is no doubt that at this period of the Session it is extremely difficult to make arrangements that will not occasion inconvenience to hon. Members on some subjects. Undoubtedly the promise which has long been made to Irish Members and others interested in the subject—that we shall proceed with the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill on Thursday—is one that ought not lightly to be overlooked. In these circumstances, I am afraid it will be impossible to offer the noble Lord an earlier day than Monday next. I have given the matter considerable study, and I think that that course will be the most advisable, both with regard to existing engagements, and with regard to the importance of the subject which the noble Lord will bring forward—a subject on which it is desirable that hon. Members should have time to consider the Protocols. With reference to the arrangements of our Business, I think it would be the best economy of time that the Resolutions of the noble Lord should be taken on Monday.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is to be the course of Public Business this week?

We propose to-night to go on with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, and I hope it is not impossible that it may be finished before we adjourn. To-morrow is given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) for his Motion on the Vernacular Press Law of India. On Wednesday we may have some remainders of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill to get through; if not, other Government Business will be taken. On Thursday we propose to take the Committee on the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill. In speaking of the course of Public Business, I ought also to refer to that which is an unfortunate necessity of our position. We stand very badly with respect to Supply, and that more particularly with regard to a very important Vote—the Education Vote. I hope that we may soon be able to get that Vote; but, in consequence of the pressure of Business, I think that it is not improbable that before the end of the week we may be obliged to ask for a Vote on Account in order to enable us to carry on the Business of the Education Department.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to Sub-section xix. of the clause, because it had rather an important bearing in connection with the discussions which they had had in Committee on the Bill. The words of the sub-section were—

"For prohibiting or regulating the holding of markets, fairs, exhibitions, and sales of animals."

The first sentence of the clause said—

"The Privy Council may, from time to time, make such General or Special Orders as they think fit, subject and according to the provisions of this Act,"

for, amongst other things, what he had just now mentioned. Owing to the intervention of the Irish Members, they had had a great deal of conversation on the subject of the powers to be granted by the Bill with regard to the holding of fairs and markets, and it appeared to him not to have been a very important conversation; because, in point of fact, under the clause they were then considering, apart from Clauses 22 and 25, the Privy Council had absolute power, in the words of the sub-section, to prohibit or regulate the holding of fairs, markets, exhibitions, or sales of cattle. The effect of that was that the Privy Council might, if they thought fit to exercise it, put a stop to the holding of fairs and markets in any position or part of the country, without declaring an infected district. They had a deal to say the other day about the Privy Council declaring the district in which the Bill should operate with regard to its restrictions; but, practically, under that sub-section the Privy Council would have ample power to prohibit any market they thought fit. That seemed to him to be a matter of serious consequence, inasmuch as there were no governing words in it to restrict the power of the Council, and they had not heard from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, up to the present time, what was to be the policy of the Privy Council in respect to that very important matter. Of course, if the Privy Council chose to deal carelessly with markets, perhaps they would decide not to interfere with them, except in case of prevalence of disease in any given district. Then, he said, they would not carry out the recommendations of their own Departmental officers. Now, he thought that it was really important that they should bear in mind that the Veterinary officer of the Privy Council entertained a very decided opinion as to the course which ought to be taken to put a stop to foot-and-mouth disease, and he really must ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, to satisfy them as to whether the Privy Council, carrying out the important powers they were now asking the Committee to give them—whether they did intend to exercise that power on the advice of the Veterinary officer, or whether they meant to give him the go-bye, and treat his advice as if it was worthy of no attention at all? He thought they would see very soon why it was important that they should get from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury an absolute statement as to the policy which would be carried out by the Privy Council. It was quite evident from the Report of the Committee which was presented to the Privy Council last year, that Professor Brown was very decidedly of opinion that if they wanted to put a stop to foot-and-mouth disease in that country, they must deal with markets and fairs in a very stringent manner. Professor Brown said the one absolute essential thing was to stop the movement of animals from premises where foot-and-mouth disease existed, and for that purpose it was necessary to effect changes in the present system, and that fairs and markets must be placed under competent supervision. Now, that was the recommendation of the Veterinary Inspector of the Privy Council. Of course, it would be necessary for the market authorities, in exercising control, to have the power to prohibit the holding of markets. The point he wished to get at was this—Would the Privy Council take that course or not? Were they prepared to act upon the advice of their own officer, and, in the event of disease appearing in a market, were they prepared to take steps to prohibit markets, and to insist upon the slaughter of all the animals that might be present? If they were prepared to do so, he knew that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would raise such an outcry that the Government would not care to meet it. Evidently, they were not prepared to do it, and he wanted the Committee to understand that, practically, the Bill, so far as foot-and-mouth disease was concerned, was a sham. Some people seemed to think that isolation of the infected animals would suffice; but foot-and-mouth disease was so insidious in its character, that if a flock were sent into a fair or market, and two or three of the number were found to be diseased, nobody could tell how far the infection might spread. He thought that, under the uncertainty which existed, he was quite justified in asking that the Government should make it clear what policy they intended to pursue. Was it intended, in the event of an outbreak of disease in a market, to carry out the recommendation of the Veterinary officers of the Privy Council, and insist upon the slaughter of the animals? If it were not intended to adopt such a course, the Privy Council would, he repeated, fail to carry out measures which, in the opinion of their own officers, were most essential as a means of stamping out disease. During the sitting of the House of Lords' Committee, Professor Simonds was asked if he agreed with the opinion of Professor Brown, and he replied that he did. The Professor said—

"I agree generally with it. There might be a difficulty with regard to slaughtering all the fat animals—perhaps that might be thought a strong measure; but when the object is to stamp out disease, I hardly see how you can stop short of that."

He wished to know whether the Privy Council were prepared to throw over those opinions—the opinions of the two most distinguished veterinary authorities in the country—or not? He was not recommending them to adopt those opinions; but he again said that the Committee were clearly entitled to know what the intention of the Government was in the matter. He could tell the Secretary to the Treasury that if the Government were not prepared to adopt those opinions with the view of stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, he should claim different treatment with reference to foreign imports than the Government had yet shown a disposition to concede. The Government were evidently on the horns of a dilemma.

:I understand the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) intends to close his speech by moving an Amendment to the clause. If he does not propose to move an Amendment, he is clearly departing from the Rules of the Committee.

said, he ought, perhaps, to have said the commencement that he was prepared to move the omission of the 19th sub-section he had read. He was sorry to trespass upon the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, upon whom he feared he was inflicting his remarks—as, indeed, upon the House—in vain. The hon. Gentleman would find, by referring to the clause, that it provided that the Privy Council might make such special or general Orders for prohibiting or regulating the holding of fairs and markets, exhibitions and sales of animals, as they deemed expedient. His (Mr. Rylands') object was clear. It was to ascertain what was likely to be the policy of the Privy Council. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would say that the Government did not intend to prohibit the holding of markets, nor the slaughter of all the fat cattle that might be present, in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, he should quite understand what the Bill was, and so would the Committee. The Government proposed to give great powers to the Privy Council, and they refused to give the Committee an idea as to how these powers would be exercised. Unless some explanation was vouchsafed, he, for one, should decline to give the Privy Council the powers they asked. He begged to move, with the view of raising the question, the omission of the words—

"For prohibiting or regulating the holding of markets, fairs, exhibitions, and sales of animals."

hoped that if the Committee intended to make any progress with the Bill they would not too often revert to former discussions. The whole of this question was raised the last time they were in Committee, and was thoroughly debated. He stated then, as fully as he possibly could, the answer which the hon. Member now sought. He stated, in reply to an hon. Gentleman from Ireland what the Government proposed to do with regard to the restraining powers of local authorities in case of a sudden outbreak of disease in any fair or market. On that occasion, he referred the Committee to the general powers which existed under the Act of 1869, by which the Privy Council, and the local authorities with power delegated from the Privy Council, could stop fairs and markets in districts where disease prevailed. He also alluded to the 75th section of the Act, under which the Privy Council might from time to time make such orders as were deemed expedient for certain purposes, including prohibiting or regulating the holding of markets, fairs, exhibitions, or sales of animals. Under that the local authorities had powers for prohibiting or regulating markets, fair, &c., within their district; when authorized so to do by the Privy Council. Those powers were re-enacted in the 19th sub-section of the present clause, the powers being those which the Privy Council possessed when disease was rife in a particular district; while the regulations to be issued under Clause 26, guiding the action of local authorities and their Inspectors, would take effect in case disease broke out suddenly in any market or fair. That was the explanation which he ventured to give on the last occasion, and he believed it fully showed what was the law applicable, at the present moment, to markets and fairs when infection was rife in a particular district.

observed, that whatever the powers of the Privy Council might be, their practice had not been to stop fairs or markets on account of foot-and-mouth disease. At one time their powers were so great that they could do almost anything; but they had never attempted to put those powers in force. He was not surprised at the question which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), but he hoped it would not be pressed to a division. The Government had now shown quite clearly what it was their intention to do. They had accepted the principle that the Schedule for foot-and-mouth disease and for pleuro-pneumonia should be the same, and the result would be this—that no market, fair, exhibition, or sale of cattle could be held in any place or district where foot-and-mouth prevailed, except by licence of the Privy Council.

believed the local authorities had stopped markets in his own immediate neighbourhood.

hoped the Government would not lay down hard-and-fast rules for foot-and-mouth disease, as there were a great variety of circumstances under which it might arise. It might be advisable to slaughter animals in isolated cases, so as to effectually prevent the disease from spreading; but if the cattle over a wide district were affected, slaughtering would be absurd. He hoped, further, that no invidious distinction would be made between fat and store cattle. If fat cattle carried disease, he was sure store cattle would; and he did not see, therefore, why they should be treated differently. As long as fat cattle and store cattle were subject to the same regulations, the position, of Ireland and England would be identical; but if fat cattle were placed under a disadvantage, it was clear that the Irish farmers would suffer unfairly. ["Divide, divide!"] He begged to inform hon. Members that he would speak on this subject as long as he chose. Coming, as he did, from, the second largest county in Ireland, he was entitled to be heard, more especially as this was the first time the important question of fat and store cattle, which affected Ireland so closely, had been raised.

believed the whole difficulty arose from the concession made to the Irish Members the other night. The English and Scotch Members had expressed no jealousy of the interference of the local authorities; but the Irish Members entered a protest against it, in consequence of which the Government took fairs and markets out of the control of the local authorities. The Privy Council was now made the responsible body; but still the Irish Members were not satisfied. His object in rising, however, was not to point out the difficulty of satisfying Ireland, but to ask what guarantee they had that the Privy Council in Ireland would follow the same rules as the Privy Council in this country? There was no power taken in this Bill to compel the Irish Privy Council to follow the lead of the Privy Council here; and he, for one, after the strong protest made by Irish Members against fairs and markets being interfered with, had not the slightest confidence that the authorities in Ireland would venture to take as strong measures in regard to fairs and markets as would be taken by the authorities here.

thought the clause was better as it stood. There might be reasons for the Amendment; but it seemed to him to unduly limit the powers of the Privy Council.

was prepared to stand by the clause as it was; but the object of introducing those words into it was merely to call the attention of the Privy Council specially to the fact that uniformity was the principle upon which the Government wished the Act to be worked.

wished to know how far the principle of uniformity was to be extended as between the different borough and county authorities? The complaint hitherto had been that one local authority had one set of regulations, and another another.

said, the Privy Council, in laying down regulations for the guidance of the local authorities, would keep in view that uniformity of action which was so strongly recommended by the Committee of last year.

called attention to Sub-sections 32, 33, 34, and 35 of the clause, all of which he thought extraordinarily vague. Sub-section 32, moreover, appeared to be unnecessary, because it was really contained in Subsection 4. The definition of diseases in this clause and these sub-sections was so extended as to become no definition at all, and the definition of animals was equally comprehensive. It would be quite as well, indeed, to pass the Bill without any definition at all of either animals or diseases. When they came to the Schedule dealing in general terms with animals and diseases, they would really be dealing not with the diseases and animals mentioned in the Bill, but with all diseases and all animals whatsoever. The words of Sub-section 33 gave power to extend—

"For all or any of the purposes of this Act, the definition of animals in this Act, so that the same shall for those purposes comprise any animals, in addition to those mentioned in this Act."

Then, Sub-section 34 extended—

"For all or any of the purposes of this Act, the definition of disease in this Act, so that the same shall for those purposes comprise any disease of animals, as defined either by this Act or by Order of Council, in addition to the diseases mentioned in this Act."

Sub-section 35 was, if possible, even wider. It provided—

"Generally, for the better execution of this Act, or for the purpose of in any manner preventing the introduction or spreading of disease (whether any such Order is of the same kind as any kind specified or enumerated in this Act or not)."

It seemed as if they were to make provisions for diseases of all kinds, even those affecting human beings, there being no limiting words whatever. In order to raise the question in a convenient form, he would at present only move the omission of Sub-section 32. It was certain that Sub-section 32 and Sub-section 34 could not both be necessary. He was aware that the case against Sub-section 32 was less strong than against 33, because the former only stated the existing law; whereas Sub-section 33 established an entirely new order of things. But the existing law, as stated by Sub-section 32, was so vague that it had better not be incorporated into the Bill; and, therefore, he begged to move that that sub-section be omitted.

hoped the Amendment would not be accepted by the Committee. Sub-section 32 continued to the Privy Council the power they at present possessed of dealing with other diseases and other animals than those specified in the Bill. The hon. Baronet described that and the following sub-sections as proposing to deal with every imaginable disease and every imaginable animal. If, however, the hon. Member would refer to the Act of 1869, he would find that very similar powers were there given to the Privy Council. Clause 75 of that Act, after reciting the different Orders which the Privy Council might from time to time make, went on to say—

"And generally, any Orders whatever which they may think it expedient to make for the better execution of this Act, or for the purpose of in any manner preventing the introduction or spread of contagious or infectious disease in animals in Great Britain."

That Provision gave the Privy Council power to deal with any known or unknown disease that might arise; and the object of the present clause was to leave that power to the Privy Council. He trusted the Committee would not deem it wise to hamper the discretion of the Privy Council in this matter. The clause did not prejudice anyone; and should any new disease arise, it would enable the Privy Council to deal with it, without coming to Parliament for additional powers.

said, he had read the sub-section quite differently from his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The Committee had already passed, with little objection, a clause which gave the Privy Council most extraordinary powers. That clause—the 28th—gave the Privy Council the power, which was really enormous, of slaughtering any animal for any disease. As he read the present clause, it was a sort of instruction to the Privy Council as to how they should interpret Clause 28, and served to limit and define the extraordinary powers which that clause conferred upon them.

preferred the provisions of the old Act, which not only included the ordinary contagious diseases of animals, but also glanders and farcy, and gave power to the Privy Council to add to the number of diseases dealt with. It also defined animals so clearly that none could be included which were not alluded to in the Act; whereas the present clause gave power to the Privy Council to include, under the word "animals," anything they pleased. He could not help thinking that it would be better if the Definition Clause of this Bill followed the old Act, or, at all events, if it included glanders and farcy, and contained words enabling the Privy Council to extend the definition of disease.

agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the form of the old Act would have been better than the present clause. It was a mere question of drafting, however, and did not much matter. With regard to the 28th clause, he begged to remind his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that it did not authorize the slaughter of all animals, in the usual sense of the word, but of what the Bill defined as "animals." He did not well see how the Committee could withhold from the Privy Council the powers proposed to be conferred on them by Subsection 32, which only stated the law at present existing; and, therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

urged that the Privy Council should have power, if necessary, to stop the running of hounds, or the passage of drovers' dogs through infected districts, as there was no doubt that these animals could carry disease.

was of opinion that the 32nd sub-section was unnecessary, as both Sub-sections 34 and 35 were infinitely more comprehensive.

reminded the Committee that they were only giving the Privy Council power to apply the Act when, in their discretion, it became necessary to do so, without making the exercise of that power imperative.

said, he would not, of course, divide in view of the opinion of the Committee; but should propose to divide against Subsection 34 when it was reached. He maintained that Sub-section 32 was unnecessary, if Sub-section 34 was to be passed.

said, that Sub-section 33 extended the definition of the term animals, so that it it would apply to any kind of animals, and thereby rendered Clause 5 of the Bill altogether unnecessary. He moved the omission of the sub-section.

reminded the hon. Baronet that the 5th clause of the Bill was inserted for the purpose of limiting the action of the local authorities; while the sub-section under consideration intrusted the Privy Council with powers to take action in case of the introduction to this country of any fresh description of disease, or of any fresh manifestation of disease. He also reminded the Committee that animals were contemplated by the Bill which did not come under the definition contained in Clause 5. It was possible that, under the Quarantine Clause, such animals might introduce to this country a new disease; and the Privy Council were, by the sub-section, intrusted with power to extend the Act to animals other than those contemplated by Clause 5.

said, they were apparently legislating in panic. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) seemed to be of opinion that some extraordinary and unexpected danger might arise, of which they had no experience, and the nature of which they could not anticipate. To pass a clause of the kind under consideration, embracing all descriptions of animals, at the discretion of the Privy Council and with the view of protecting themselves against dangers which never had existed, seemed to him legislation of a character that ought not to be supported; and he should certainly vote for the rejection of that most objectionable clause. The Privy Council ought not to be intrusted with unknown powers for unknown purposes. He thought the powers given to them were, moreover, without any limitation whatever, and trusted that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would divide against the sub-section.

characterized the powers conferred upon the Privy Council by the sub-section as the most extraordinary he had ever known. They amounted to enabling the Privy Council to pass an Act of Parliament without going through the formality of consulting the House. The powers conferred were absolutely unlimited. Of course, it would be said that they would not be used; but it was most objectionable in principle to grant powers for the reason that they were not to be made use of.

could not help thinking that the hon. Baronet would not press the clause, which was really not wanted. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought he could hardly consent to it. They were passing an Act for the stamping out of contagious diseases amongst cattle; and it seemed to him hardly correct to introduce lines including a perfectly different set of animals. It would be seen by the dictionary that the term animal had a very wide interpretation. Cats and dogs, no doubt, came under that interpretation; but if they were to have a cat and dog Bill, it was desirable that the Committee should know it. The necessity for the clause would exist only in the case of some new disease being communicated to cattle, sheep, and swine, by other animals; but if the Department really thought it necessary to have a protection against a theoretical danger of that kind, it would be easy to say they should have power to regulate the importation of animals likely to give disease against which the Bill was directed. He thought the clause would have to be withdrawn.

would have been willing to fall in with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had he understood his proposal. He believed the objection of the hon. Member was to the wide definition contained in the sub-section; but he would remember that the existing Act gave power to extend the definition in cases of expediency. He was ready to consider whether the words in question were necessary, and to withdraw the sub-section.

hoped the Government would obtain for the Privy Council complete powers with reference to the matter then under discussion. He asked the Committee to remember that the cattle plague, which was previously unknown in this country, was introduced in 1865, and that an enormous amount of damage was done by it before it could be dealt with. He was desirous that the Government should have power to deal summarily with any new disease that might at any future time be introduced, as well as with the animals themselves; because, if an Act of Parliament were found to be necessary, irreparable damage might be done before the disease could be dealt with. He hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would retain in the Bill powers that would enable the Privy Council to act efficiently under such circumstances.

thought it quite possible, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Suffolk (Colonel Barne) had suggested, that infectious diseases might be conveyed from one part to another by the movement of hounds or other animals. He therefore hoped that power would be retained in the Bill for dealing with any unexpected disease that might present itself. He believed it to be beyond the power of man to prevent the wandering of cats; but considered that a plan could be carried out which would, when necessary, restrict the movement of dogs. He merely wished to enforce the view of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), that the Government should retain the power of dealing efficiently, quickly, and summarily with any new disease.

said, the present interpretation of the clause no doubt included the whole tribe of ferœ. It was well known that, in the North of England, there were cattle and other animals running wild, and that red deer were on the hills in many parts of the country. It seemed to him necessary to possess the power of dealing with new diseases, and to include animals of the kind referred to.

believed there was a deficiency in the law with respect to the power of dealing with mad dogs that should receive attention from the Government.

thought that any re-modelling of the clause should be in the direction of limiting its operation.

hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would be prepared to tell the Committee what were included in the term ruminating animals. He understood that the 2nd sub-section enabled the Privy Council to include the human subject as well as human disease; and it would certainly be convenient to make some provision with reference to these. He was not in favour of leaving out the sub-section as proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. (Sir Charles W. Dilke).

said, he now proposed to leave out Sub-section 34, which stood on the same footing as Sub-section 33, inasmuch as it widened the definition relating to disease, while the former widened the definition relating to animals. It was not desirable to retain a clause of so vague a character to be applied by the Privy Council.

thought the words proposed to be introduced in the next Sub-section (35) by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would, practically, cover all that it was desired to obtain. He thought that the Privy Council should have power to deal with any fresh disease that might arise outside the ordinary diseases at present known. He believed that such a power would be obtained by adding to Sub-section 35, after the word "order" in line 32, the words or "such disease."

did not see how the Government could get on without Sub-section 34, to which he saw no objection, whilst Sub-section 35 appeared to him rather too strong, and, therefore, open to considerable objections.

thought it would be better to let the sub-section remain, because the definition contained therein was not the same as under the existing Act.

considered it unadvisable to get rid of Sub-section 34 at the cost of being obliged to adopt Sub-section 35. He had no great objection to the former sub-section, although there might be some objection to extending the definition of the term animals.

was of opinion that Sub-section 34 might be very useful, while he objected altogether to Subsection 35. He would retain the former, and give up the latter clause.

thought if the Committee desired to make progress with the Bill, it was a matter of perfect indifference which of the two sub-sections was retained.

said, he should be very sorry to see the words contained in the sub-section—namely, "generally, for the better execution of this Act," struck out. The Privy Council ought to have power to make regulations with the object expressed by the words, and he therefore asked that the sub-section should be retained.

had no objection to the words in question if the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) wished to retain them.

thought the sub-section should remain as it then stood. The words of the 75th clause of the existing Act were—"and generally any Order whatsoever for the better execution of this Act," and the wording of the subsection in question was—

"Generally, for the better execution of this Act, or for the purpose of in any manner preventing the introduction or spreading of disease (whether any such Order is of the same kind as any kind specified or enumerated in this Act or not.")

So that, in Section 75 of the existing Act, they had precisely the same powers expressed in almost the same words as those of Sub-section 35 of the present Bill. The provisions of the existing Act were in respect of the words, "Any orders whatsoever," wider and more comprehensive than those contained in Subsection 35 of the Bill then under discussion. He hoped the sub-section would be retained.

said, there was a great difference in the clause proposed and in the clause of the Act of 1869. That provision of 1869 was proposed in ignorance of what was necessary to be done, and only eight special powers were given to the Privy Council. Up to the present time, however, there had been a good deal of experience, and the brains of the Secretary of the Veterinary Department had been exercised to find out what would be necessary. The result was that they had before them the 25th section. He had looked into the matter carefully, and with what knowledge he had, and it appeared to him that everything which was wanted was included without Sub-section 35, the wide powers of which were not required. Therefore, he thought, the sub-section might be very easily omitted.

said, in the case of the Act of 1869 the Privy Council were only allowed to make Orders of the kind contemplated by the Act, which was a very different thing to the proposal now before the Committee. The present Bill would give the Privy Council power to pass an Order which had nothing to do with the Act. Such a proposal was, in his opinion, going too far. It was no use to answer his objection by saying that the Privy Council would not use the power. If they did not want to use it, they need not seek to get it.

said, the hon. Baronet would see that a subsequent sub-section to the clause would really apply to everything which ought to be done in the direction he wished, inasmuch as it provided for the supply of water to the persons in charge of the animals. By Sub-section 4 the Privy Council had power to alter the limits of the time during which water should be supplied. Under those circumstances, he thought the greatest precautions had been taken.

said, the point of the Amendment was that at present there was no power to punish Railway Companies if cattle had water every 30 hours; whereas it was proposed to punish them if the animals were not watered within that period.

said, if his hon. Friend carried his Amendment, it would make Railway Companies provide water for animals every 12 hours. That was almost an absurdity in itself; because, if so provided, they could not make the animals drink, and many would not do so at such frequent periods. Those who were acquainted with agriculture knew that the worst thing which could be done for an animal was to give it water every 12 hours. Such a proceeding would be likely to bring on all kinds of diseases and complaints. At the present moment he did not know how many hundred Orders there were as to the provision of water at stations for cattle; and on the railway of which he was a Director every Order of the Privy Council was carried out as directed. Each animal had a supply of water, and if any would not drink it in the trucks, they were taken out and attended to. That being so, to pass such a provision as that contained in the Amendment would do more harm than good.

said, if the present regulations for watering cattle were kept in force after the passing of the present Bill, he should be satisfied without the adoption of the Amendment.

thought there was no necessity for watering the cattle every 12 hours. The great object of requiring the provision of water at all was to make the Railway Companies carry the cattle with expedition; and, if they did that, they could carry them any distance within Great Britain in 30 hours.

objected to the fixing by the Bill of such hours for the supply of water as must necessarily give torture to the beasts. He had that day been talking on the subject with an eminent agriculturist, who said an animal could not be kept for 30 hours without water, unless sustaining injury.

supported the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was, he believed, responsible for the 30 hours' Order; but it was made at a time when the Privy Council were informed that such a period was not too long for an animal to wait without water. Since then, he had been told that 30 hours was too long to keep beasts without water, and that Railway Companies could provide it oftener without inconvenience. Hence he hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment to a division.

said, he had no objection to substitute 24 hours for 30 hours, if it was the wish of the Committee that that should be done.

said, that would meet his wishes, and he would withdraw his Amendment.

regretted that the Secretary to the Treasury should have agreed to such a compromise. The alteration of the clause would make it peremptory on Railway Companies, or the consignors of cattle, to see that they were watered within 24 hours. It might, under some circumstances, be advantageous that cattle should be watered in summer during 24 hours; but he did not think such an advantage would accrue in the winter. Therefore, he hoped the Government would not give way, especially as it was in the power of the Privy Council to alter the time for watering beasts to every 24 hours if they so chose. As the Privy Council already had discretion in so many more important matters, surely they might be allowed the same in such a subject as that of watering animals. He was fully persuaded that to give cattle water every 24 hours would do more injury to them than allowing them to go without for 30 hours.

did not wish to raise any objection to what the House had done with regard to the hours for water; but he had a very strong impression that when his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. W. E. Forster) originally fixed 30 hours, he did so after a complete inquiry as to what was the practice and what was convenient. Therefore, he made this suggestion to his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), that he should point out the reason for originally adopting 30 hours, in case any alteration should be proposed on Report.

said, if sheep were to be considered as animals which were to be watered every 24 hours, he could safely state that many would not drink within that time, even on the hottest day.

hoped the Government would consent to the proposed subsection.

did not think it would be necessary to insert the words proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet, as the object he had in view was met by Sub-section 17.

said, that being the case, he would withdraw his Amendment.

could not agree to the Amendment. He was quite aware that it had been asserted, and proved, that a form of typhoid fever had resulted from drinking milk which had been under certain conditions contaminated. But he believed the words of the clause as it stood were quite sufficient to enable the Privy Council to take means to prevent the sale of milk which was contaminated; and if they used those means, the results of consuming contaminated milk would not arise.

said, he attached the greatest importance to the whole clause; but he did not think the words proposed to be inserted by the hon. Member for Glasgow would be of any advantage. For instance, scarlet fever and dyptheria resulted from drinking contaminated milk as much as typhoid fever; and therefore he could not see why one disease should be singled out to be dealt with.

said, his Amendment contained the words, "as well as other disease," and, therefore, it was not limited entirely to typhoid fever. However, after the expression of opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Amendment.

consented to the postponement of the clause.

thought it would be very unreasonable to give the Privy Council power to set up any other local authority in counties than the one now in existence.

could not gather from the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury why the power sought for should be given, and he opposed the new paragraph.

thought the proposal of the Government went too far, giving the Privy Council power to do as they liked throughout the country.

offered the strongest opposition in his power to the proposal. He could not at all understand why power should be given to create bodies to take the place of those already existing. The House did not at all know who were to take the place of the local authorities. The new bodies might be nominees for all the House knew. As his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) was not present, he would suggest to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury as that place was so much interested, whether it would not be well to postpone the Amendment until the hon. Member was in his place.

said, he was quite willing to leave out this Amendment. He had consented to it because the hon. Member for Liverpool drew his attention to the subject; but as objection had now been taken to it, and the hon. Members for Liverpool were not in their place to defend the clause, he would not press it. Of course, it would be competent for the hon. Gentleman to bring the clause up again on Report, if they desired it should be accepted.

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It would interfere with the principle of the Bill. After they had provided for the due inspection of localities, and for the making of a proper attempt to deal with disease as it broke out in the homesteads, both in Ireland and England, if they were now to proceed on the idea of treating Ireland as a foreign country, they would depart from the principle on which the Bill was founded.

hoped that the Amendment would not be withdrawn, but that it would only be postponed until they saw that the arrangement which was made in respect to Irish cattle was satisfactory.

said, the hon. Baronet had given an undertaking that he would revise the tolls; and he hoped, at the same time, he would consider the effect of this clause. It appeared to him to give unlimited power to the City of London to charge what tolls they pleased. As regarded existing tolls, he believed they had to obtain some sanction; and he suggested that, in future, it should be necessary that they should obtain the authority of some Department before they were allowed to impose them.

promised to consider the suggestion just made.

desired to know whether there was anything in the Bill which prescribed the locality in which the burial-ground for the cattle was to be placed; because the movement of diseased cattle was most important. No doubt, in some harbours and ports, it was difficult to get land where the bodies could be buried; but there ought to be some provision as to the distance and mode in which the animals were to be carried.

said, those were matters which were amongst the powers of the Privy Council; and as difficulty had arisen to find land immediately near the spot where the diseased cattle were slaughtered to bury them, this clause had been put into the Bill for the purpose of giving power to acquire land.

asked whether the Government would take into consideration the propriety of not placing the bodies in the river, but burning them?

hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, because he believed it would lead to great inconvenience, and, in some cases, to hardship. There were an enormous number of regulations contained in this Bill, which, as soon as they became law, the local authorities would be expected to study. Now, it seemed to him very probable that some one of these authorities might, inadvertently, fail to carry out the provisions of the Act, and then under the clause, as it was proposed to be altered by the hon. Member, the Privy Council should be compelled to supersede the local authority, and put in an officer to carry out the Act. This, he thought, would be limiting the discretion of the Privy Council in an absurd manner, especially after the large amount of discretion they had already given that Department. If the hon. Member insisted on his Amendment, he should certainly divide the Committee against him.

said, his Amendment was scarcely of the character which had been described. What he contemplated was that where the local authority, when the Privy Council had directed attention to their failure to carry out the Act, still refused to carry it out, then steps should be taken by the Department to enforce the Act. He should not object to words being added to the clause to meet any case of inadvertence.

confessed he had sufficient reliance upon the Privy Council to be assured that they would put the Act in force in cases where they found a local authority was not doing so. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment, because it might lead, in some instances, to hardship.

contended that there was already sufficient discretion left with the Privy Council, and that in this matter the performance of the duty ought to be made imperative on them.

considered that it would not be wise to bind the Privy Council down in this matter.

said, he opposed the Amendment, on the ground that its practical effect would be to place the Metropolitan Police under the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Metropolitan Police were a distinct body, acting under the Secretary of State; and he was of opinion that no such authority as that which it was asked to confer on the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to be introduced in a Bill of this kind.

asked, whether it was the case that the not giving of notice was made an offence; and, if so, where?

said, he thought his right hon. Friend would see that under Section 30 the Privy Council took power to make rules prescribing and regulating the notice of diseases, or of the illness of an animal to be given to, or by, any person or authority.

said, he did not know whether this was the time to do it; but he did not think it ought to be left concealed under any possible rule. He thought there ought to be somewhere in the Act a positive statement. Perhaps the hon. Baronet would undertake to bring up such a provision on Report.

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment for that very purpose. He hoped that before they passed the Bill they would not simply leave the matter to the Order in Council, as the Bill proposed at present.

said, he thought that this was a matter that ought to be left to the discretion of the Privy Council. When a man failed to report disease, it was difficult to say whether it was from ignorance or design. He had known cases in which an animal had been attended by a Veterinary Inspector for a week or two before he was able to determine that it was pleuro-pneumonia. In fact, a case came to his notice only a week or two ago, in which an Inspector had been attending an animal for two or three weeks, and was only then able to discover that it was pleuro-pneumonia. It was an exceedingly difficult matter; and he thought it would require to be a very carefully-drawn section. It would be necessary, while putting a certain amount of onus on every owner of cattle, to prevent a person suffering from mere ignorance.

said, the way in which the Government proposed in the Bill to meet the difficulty suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was by the combined action of the 2nd subsection of Clause 54 and the 1st subsection of Clause 30. By the 1st subsection of Clause 30, the Privy Council might make general and special Orders for

"prescribing and regulating the notice of disease, or of the illness of an animal, to be given to or by any person or authority."

And then Sub-section 2 of Clause 54 said—

"If, without lawful excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him, he fails to give, produce, observe, or do any notice, licence, rule, or thing which by this Act or by an Order of Council or by a regulation of a local authority, he is required to give, produce, observe, or do."

If the person neglected to do that which, referring back to Clause 30, was required in the case of the disease or illness of an animal, he was guilty of an offence against the Act. He believed the combination of those two sub-sections would effect the object of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he did not think the interpretation of the Act ought to be left to the magistrates.

said, he would look into the matter.

said, he had a rather strong opinion that they ought to have the declaration on the face of the Act. The great point was to make it incumbent on every person who had a diseased animal, whether it was suffering from foot-and-mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia, to give notice to the Veterinary Inspector, in order that they might prevent the spread of disease.

said, he should like to ask the hon. Baronet whether Sub-section 2 was entirely in accord with Sub-section 1? In Sub-section 1, a penalty of £20 was prescribed for each offence; but by the 2nd sub-section the penalty was limited to £5 each animal, where there were more than four animals. So that if there were five animals, the fine would be limited to £5, although the offence in each case was just as great as where there was a single animal for which the penalty was £20. He should also like to ask the hon. Baronet whether he thought it would be wise to subject offences committed in relation to manure or litter to penalties according to the weight? Surely, the sooner the litter and manure were put out of sight the better, without waiting to ascertain the weight. He wanted the Bill to be as good as it could be; and as it was desirable that dead carcases, manure, or litter, which, created an offence, should be put out of sight as soon as possible, he did not think they should be suffered to remain till the exact weight was ascertained. He trusted the hon. Baronet would see what his object was, and perhaps he would take the point into consideration.

said, he would promise to consider the matter. At the same time, he imagined that the method proposed had been found by experience to be the best method of carrying out the Act. It was not so much a question of weighing the manure in the manner the hon. Member suggested, because the carts which were employed in its removal generally carried a fixed quantity and weight.

said, he wished to know whether the hon. Baronet desired that his Amendment should apply to Orders in Council only?

withdrew his Amendment, and moved to insert after the word "authority," line 24, page 27, the words "made under this Act."

said, the words were perfectly superfluous, and, if introduced, would only create an ambiguity which did not exist without them.

asked, if this applied to the regulations of local authorities made under an Order in Council? If the words were not introduced, the clause would apply to both cases; but, seeing that the Amendment limited the matter to "this Act," there might be some doubt about it, and the decisions of country magistrates could not be expected to be very deep.

said, he confessed that he ought to have been better informed upon the matter, and ought to have resisted the Amendment before; but all he could do now was to point out to the hon. Baronet where the object he had in view was met in the Bill, and he thought it would be necessary to give Notice to reject on Report the Amendment which had just been introduced. The object aimed at by the hon. Baronet was provided for on page 20 of the Bill, line 39.

said, the place where he first moved to insert these words was after the word "Council," in line 24, page 27; and that was not in the least met by the observations of the hon. Baronet. He wished to insert them after the word "Council."

And after the word "authority?"

Yes; but, in the first place, after the word "Council." I withdraw the Motion to insert the words here, in order to move their insertion after the word "Council."

said, he must resist the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. If the Amendment was necessary, it could be made on Report; but he could not consent now to the introduction of words which would cause confusion in many other parts of the Bill.

said, he could not help thinking that without these words the clause would be vastly too wide. There were two classes of penalties for an offence which was a breach of an Order in Council without any limiting words at all. He thought they ought to have some legal opinion on the point.

said, the word "Council" occurred frequently in this clause and in other clauses; and if it was necessary to insert the proposed words in one part, it would be necessary to insert them in all. If such an Amendment was necessary at all, it ought to be done as a separate clause.

said, he could not believe that these words were necessary. If they were necessary here, they would be necessary in other parts of the Bill. He should say, put them in if they were necessary; but he had been assured by one of the best authorities that with the words "Order in Council" there was no necessity for them.

did not like to allow the clause to pass without these words. The point was this. The words "Order in Council" occurred repeatedly, and they were creating penalties for offences which consisted in a breach of certain regulations. They were described as—

"Things done in contravention of this Act, or of an Order in Council, or of a regulation of the local authority."

The words "Order in Council" ought to be limited by the words "made under this Act."

saw no objection to introducing the words "under this Act" after "Order in Council." If the hon. Baronet persisted in saying the words ought to be inserted, then, for the sake of expedition and peace, let them be inserted.

thought that the powers of the Privy Council were limited by the 1st section of Clause 8. This point had been carefully considered, and he could not consent to alter the Bill in the way the hon. Baronet suggested.

pointed out the inconvenience arising from bringing forward Amendments of this technical character without having previously placed them on the Paper, and hoped that the hon. Baronet would defer them till the Report.

was inclined to think that the words of the 8th clause met the objection of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. The words were—

"In this Act Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council is referred to as the Privy Council, and an order of the Privy Council under this Act is referred to as an Order in Council."

Therefore, an Order in Council was an Order in Council under this Act.

desired to point out to his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire that he thought his object was already met by the Bill. In the 1st sub-section of Clause 55, it was enacted that "if any person does any of the following things he shall be guilty of an offence," and then followed a list of the offences. Whenever a person committed a fault as against this section, he was guilty of an offence, and was liable to penalties. If he repeated the offence he rendered himself again liable, and there was no necessity to prove a previous conviction.

The hon. Baronet does not understand my Amendment.

did not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury understood the point. Clause 54 said that certain things were in contravention of the Act, including the questions of notice, licence, &c. Clause 55 said that certain other things were against the Act, such, for example, as doing a thing licensed after the licence had expired. But they were all special, and for these offences there was to be, or might be, imprisonment. What his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire proposed was that a person committing a second offence against the Act under Section 54 should be punished by imprisonment, instead of, as at present, by a fine only.

hoped that the Government would not assent to the Amendment, which might be made an engine of oppression in Ireland.

failed to see the force of the objection which had been raised to his Amendment by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury; because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had pointed out, the offences under Section 55 were specified, and referred to ordinary licences and certificates. But what he (Mr. Pell) wanted the Committee to observe was this—that the movement of cattle was to be regulated by Order in Council or by the regulation of a local authority; and that to commit an offence against the orders of the local authority, or of the Privy Council, or in reference to the moving of cattle, and bringing them into an open place, was nothing more than an offence against the 54th section of the Act, punishable only by fine. It was the practice of some people, who were well known, to convey diseased animals about the country; and in the part of the country where he lived, a vast amount of disease had been generated in that way. For instance, under Section 30, the Privy Council might make Orders for the isolation or separation of animals in an infected place; and if a person disobeyed such Orders, he could but be fined. If Parliament had really made up its mind to stop the movement of diseased animals in the country, it would be necessary to put into the hands of the Executive the power to imprison a person who repeatedly committed one of these offences. He should have no objection to add to his Amendment words providing that it should only refer to cases where there had been a conviction within 12 months. [Mr. PEASE: Six months.] He (Mr. Pell) was sure that, on reflection, it would be seen that it was not sufficient to impose a mere fine for neglecting to isolate infected animals, or for moving them over roads, and bringing them into the market. Merely to fine a man for carrying on an illicit trade under one's nose seemed to him to be not an adequate punishment, and in practice it had not proved to be so.

begged to support the view of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. The reckless way in which diseased animals were moved about the country was a scandal; and there was no doubt that the imposition of a fine was not sufficient to put a stop to it. Only the other day, a man brought a cow very ill with pleuro-pneumonia into open market. If that man knew that imprisonment would follow the detection of such an offence he would not be likely to commit it. He sincerely hoped that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire would press his Amendment.

hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. He thought it was hardly necessary that for a second offence they should imprison a person in the class of life of those whom the Bill would affect. He had no objection to the pecuniary penalty being made more severe.

thought the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had rather forgotten that the infliction of the punishment of imprisonment was not compulsory. It was simply left to the discretion of the justices to inflict imprisonment or not. Taking into consideration the serious nature of the offence mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew-shire (Colonel Mure), he thought the Bill would be inefficient, unless the magistrates had power to inflict imprisonment. He would ask the hon. Member for South Leicestershire whether he would object to include the word "knowingly" in his Amendment? He should certainly support the Amendment in case the hon. Member went to a division.

had no wish to resist the feeling of the Committee generally if it was in favour of the Amendment; but while accepting the principle of the Amendment, he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire to allow him to consider the words which he had placed upon the Paper, and to see where they ought to be introduced into the clause.

I presume the Government agrees to the principle?

I should like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury accepts the principle of imprisonment, or of a heavier fine for a second offence?

What I said was, that I accepted the principle of my hon. Friend, and I understand that carries the punishment of imprisonment for a second offence. What I asked him was to allow me to consider the words, and the exact place where they should be introduced into the Bill.

apprehended that farmers would be held responsible for the acts of their servants; and, under Clause 54, they might be fined for any inadvertent act of omission or commission which any of their servants might commit on their farms. He quite agreed with the general view of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, that confirmed breakers of the law, and those who broke the law wilfully, should be punished by imprisonment; but how was he going to discriminate between a farmer whose servants transgressed and that class of offenders? They must keep in mind that under this Act a great many orders might be made by the local authorities; and he knew that at one time it was utterly impossible for farmers to know what was or was not the law without consulting a lawyer.

thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire meant this—that for a second offence the magistrate should be obliged to send the offender to prison. ["No!"] He hoped that was not so, and that the magistrate might be at liberty to impose a fine.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) was under quite a mistake as to the use of the word "discretion." What was here left to the magistrates was only a discretion as to the extent of the punishment. If a man was convicted, the magistrate would be bound to imprison him, the term of imprisonment not to exceed three months.

said, that if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Synan) would read the paragraph of the clause which followed his Amendment, he would see that the punishment was not of necessity one of imprisonment—

"And in every case in this section specified he shall be liable, on conviction, in the discretion of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction before which he is convicted, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour, in lieu of the pecuniary penalty to which he is liable under this Act."

understood that the Committee were not now discussing the exact words of the Amendment, the principle of which had been accepted by the Secretary to the Treasury. The Amendment was really intended to apply to those people who speculated in bad beasts, knowing that a fine could be paid out of the difference between the destruction of the beast and the sale of it.

remarked, that, as he understood the question, the magistrate, under Clause 54, could only fine. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire wished to extend the power of the magistrate, so as to enable him to imprison, where a man wilfully or knowingly offended again. He (Lord Elcho) thought that was a salutary change.

said, he fully understood what was in the mind of the Committee. In accepting the proposal of his hon. Friend, he accepted the principle of giving to the magistrate, on a second offence being proved under Clause 54, the alternative of imprisonment in lieu of fine.

should like to read one portion of Clause 54, which the Government proposed to make penal—

"If he does or omits anything, the doing or omission whereof is declared, by this Act, or by an Order of Council, to be an offence by him against this Act."

He would undertake to say that there would not be one farmer out of 100 who would know what was in this Act, or in an Order in Council; and yet they were exposing that man to the risk of being summarily sent to prison for some slip which he, or some of his servants, might make, if it were discovered that he had previously offended against the law. He knew one man in his own county who was paying £800 a-year rent, and who did not speak English. If the Committee sanctioned this Amendment, they would be putting a new engine of oppression into the hands of the justices in Ireland, who were hostile in religion and politics to the people.

remarked, that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) seemed to forget that the magistrates of Ireland had taken an oath to discharge the duties of their office without fear, favour, or affection. He had no doubt that, in administering the law under this Act, they would take into consideration the circumstances of each case; and, in his opinion, a conviction under this clause did not necessarily entail imprisonment. A magistrate would have the power to order imprisonment where he saw that a flagrant and wilful breach of the Act had been committed; but he did not believe there was a man on the Bench in Ireland who would imprison a man who had offended in ignorance of the Act.

believed that the power which it was now proposed to confer on magistrates would be very often unjustly used in Ireland. Unfortunately, there was not the same amount of confidence between the farming class in Ireland and the magistrates, as existed in England; and he objected to placing in the hands of the latter a summary power of imprisoning for a second offence, which a man might not know he was committing. He should feel it his duty, on the Report, to take a division against the proposal.

said, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he thought it was his duty to offer his opinion as to the controversy between the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). He was not personally disposed to bring a wholesale charge of dishonesty against the Irish magistrates; but, at the same time, he knew, of his own knowledge, that there were a good many among them who were not praiseworthy. The fact was that they were so prejudiced, and had so little sense of justice, that really they were not competent to give an impartial opinion on a simple proposition; and, for that reason, he thought, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was quite right in proposing to withdraw his Amendment. He should like to have an assurance from the Government that they did not intend to bring this question forward on the Report. If so, they would oblige him to move Amendments to every line, not only of Clause 54, but of Clause 55. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway had alluded to one sub-section of the clause, and he (Mr. Biggar) would refer to another—

"If, without lawful excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him, he does anything which by this Act, or an Order in Council, to be an offence by him against this Act."

If he failed to give, produce, observe, or do any notice, or refused to an Inspector, or other officer, acting in execution of the Act, or of an Order in Council, or of a regulation of a local authority, admission to any land, building, place, &c., the unfortunate man, who was liable to three months in gaol, would be called upon to prove a negative. He would have to prove that he did not know he was committing a breach of the law. He might have no means of doing so, and would, therefore, be liable to be imprisoned. The whole thing seemed to be so preposterous, that unless the Government gave some assurance that a man would not, under such circumstances, be imprisoned, he himself would move Amendments to each of the sub-sections that had been referred to.

thought that before the Amendment was withdrawn, the Committee ought to know the mind of the Government, if, indeed, they had any mind at all upon this question. The question, undoubtedly, was one of considerable importance. The punishment of imprisonment, as proposed by the Bill, was a serious matter, although it might be reserved by the Government for offences of a very special character. Now, the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) proposed to extend the punishment, if offences were committed a second time, which offences were not offences originally when committed the first time, and which did not carry with them the punishment of imprisonment. He thought that when the Committee came to consider how the law would stand after this Cattle Diseases Bill, they would see that they had introduced a great variety of regulations, which had never existed previously, in connection with the stamping out of cattle disease. They were putting foot-and-mouth disease under the operations of the Act. If they made it penal—if they punished a farmer by imprisonment, especially under the new prison rules, which were of a severe character—he believed that many of the farmers in Ireland would not be so much obliged to the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) as he himself seemed to suppose they would be. Under all the circumstances, he thought the Committee had a right to know in what way the Government regarded this Amendment. Was a man to be imprisoned if it should happen that he committed one of the trivial offences contemplated under the 54th clause of the Bill, a second time over; or was imprisonment to be reserved for the more heinous offences named in the subsequent clauses?

said, that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had been in the House when he spoke, he would have perceived that he did not advocate the adoption of imprisonment to farmers. He took objection to something that was said with regard to the magistrates by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan). What he (Mr. French) said was, that there were no magistrates in Ireland who would send a farmer to prison except he willingly offended against the law.

said, that if the hon. Member for Roscommon did not say anything in favour of imprisonment, he certainly did not raise his voice against it. The tendency of his argument, certainly, was in support of the clause.

thought the Committee was being misled by those who represented the farmers of England. The farmers, generally, supported the Members for the counties, and the Members for the counties, therefore, represented their views, and the principle of both was the same. Quite a different thing existed in Ireland. The farmers sent Members to Parliament, and it was well known that many of them were opposed to the magistracy. If the English Representatives of the English farmers, therefore, insisted on forcing the clause on the Irish farmers, they would be doing a serious injury to them. They would make the Bill a political Bill—they would bring in political oppression, and that popularity which the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) seemed to conceive existed in Ireland would disappear altogether. He (Major Nolan) admitted there were many good magistrates in Ireland; but, on the whole, they were not such an excellent body of men as the hon. Member for Roscommon seemed to think they were.

thought there had been a great deal of unnecessary discussion as to the difference between the English and Irish farmers. It was satisfactory to hear that those who represented the counties were willing to abide by the clause. He would not say that if a farmer offended against the law he ought not to be punished or subjected to the same penalties as those persons who sent dead meat that was diseased to London or elsewhere; but he conceived that the power which it was proposed in the Bill to give to the magistrates would be very useful. If the penalty was only a fine, the offence would become a matter of speculation, and a man would do all that he could to smuggle bad meat into the markets. He did not think that the power of imprisonment would prove a hardship upon offenders; and, therefore, he should support the Amendment. Another advantage, he believed, would be derived from its adoption. The magistrates, who had to carry out the law, would see that the parties who had to publish the Orders, whether those Orders were issued by the Privy Council or the local authorities, did their duty; and, therefore, people would not have an opportunity of pleading ignorance of the subject. It would make people more careful in their transactions, and so it would carry out the object they all had in view—namely, to stamp out and remove cattle disease from this country.

said, that before the Committee passed the clause, he should propose another Amendment to the effect that no offender should be imprisoned unless he had been tried before a jury.

who intimated that he had a prior Amendment on the Paper, said, that he should move the insertion of the words "to a penalty not exceeding £50." All the principles of the Act, he believed, would be guarded by the infliction of a heavy fine, instead of imprisonment as proposed. No man in his senses would, intentionally, do any of the things spoken of in the clause; and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to allow a magistrate to send a man to prison for three months for doing that which he never intended to do. According to the new prison rules, it would be a serious thing to send a man to prison to lie for a month on bare boards. It seemed to him that the parties who were promoting the Bill were desirous of making it as unpopular as possible. He should move, as an Amendment, to strike out all the words in line 36, from the words "after conviction" to the end of the clause, and to insert "a penalty not exceeding £50."

could not assent to the Amendment proposed. The penalty of imprisonment would not be inflicted except in certain specified cases. It was not proposed to go beyond that. He believed in the soundness of the principle laid down in the Bill, that if there was a serious case committed knowingly by a person who had offended before—if he by his acts was likely to render all attempts to bring about a remission of the disease—if he really prejudiced the effort that was being made in that direction—there ought certainly to be a right of imprisonment under the Act. It was no novelty to give summary jurisdiction to a magistrate in a matter of the kind. With regard to one of the Amendments which had been withdrawn, and which had reference to a previous clause, he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had stated distinctly that, whilst admitting the principle of the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire—that imprisonment in lieu of a fine might be given, when the offences were serious—and they would become serious when a man offended the law wilfully—he was quite prepared to limit the power by the insertion of certain words, so as to make it a fact that breaches of the law should be committed wilfully and with a guilty knowledge—two or more breaches within a given time. It would be pointed out to the magistrates that they should act carefully and with discretion, and only inflict imprisonment in the worst cases that might come before them. To deprive the magistrates of the power which they already possessed in so many analogous cases, would be striking at the root of that which Parliament was anxious to do—namely, to get rid of the cattle disease in this country. It would certainly be injudicious to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and he must dissent from it.

wished to support the Amendment, and to point out its position at the present moment. He himself, and some other hon. Members, thought that three months' imprisonment should be imposed for 12 specified offences under the Act. He was quite willing that three months' imprisonment should be imposed for any offence against one of these definite provisions. But what the Government did when the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) moved his Amendment was to go back to Clause 54, and for an indefinite offence to give three months' imprisonment on a second conviction, and without an appeal to a jury. He strongly objected to imprisonment being put into the clause at all, or, at any rate, so much as three months, and especially to its being awarded, if they were to interpret the administration of the law by the terms of the reply which the Secretary to the Treasury gave to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. At the present moment, it was quite possible for the Government to do away with imprisonment for indefinite offences. He disapproved, also, of the system of appointing magistrates in Ireland, though he wished to convey no imputation against the great majority of that body generally. In many cases the magistrates were no friends to the farmers, having been entirely selected from one class of society. As the Bill stood, he did not so much object to the clause as to the indefinite term in which offences were stated by the Secretary to the Treasury. If the hon. Baronet would let them know exactly what he was awarding imprisonment for, he would be disposed to agree to it. He should support the hon. Member for Cavan; and if his Amendment were not accepted, he would himself endeavour to bring up words to give effect to it.

said, that the Amendment really meant imprisonment for the poor man and fines for the rich man. A rich man probably would not care for a fine; but a poor man would have no option but to go to prison if he were fined £50.

said, in looking over the clause, it seemed to him to be perfectly preposterous. He had understood that the punishment of three months' imprisonment was for a second offence; but it seemed, under Clause 55, that a man was liable to the penalty without the magistrate having any discretion to fine at all, and for offences, too, which seemed to him to be of the most trivial nature. There were certain subsections in the Bill that covered very serious offences—offences so serious that in many cases they would amount to forgery. The 3rd sub-section provided for the offence of using an instrument which purported to be a licence, and which was not really so. Of course, in that case, a man would be liable to a very severe punishment; but he believed, at the same time, that, without that Act at all, a person who used a document which was evidently forged would be liable to very severe punishment under other existing Acts. But in the 1st subsection there were three specific offences provided for—namely, for doing a thing which was not permitted by Order in Council, or by the local authority, or by the Act. There were three things for which the unfortunate man was liable without the option of showing that he had not seen a notice; and he was supposed to know what was in the Act of Parliament, what was in the Order of the Privy Council, and what was in the local regulations. Now, he thought it was preposterous to say that the magistrate should be called upon to imprison a person for such a matter as that. To take the case of a licence being required to move cattle along a road in a district where cattle disease was supposed to exist; in such a case, he thought, where a man had failed to comply with the regulations of the Privy Council, the magistrate should not have the power to send him to prison unless there were shown to be very bad circumstances attending the case. The 2nd sub-section was almost as bad. It provided a penalty in the case of a person neglecting to renew a licence. Now, it was quite possible that the licence might only have expired one day, and it was quite possible that it might not clearly state on what day it should be renewed. Supposing the licence was only for 14 days, and the man by some mistake allowed it to run over a day, the result would be that he would be hauled before a magistrate and sent to prison. Well, the 3rd sub-section amounted to forgery, and he thought it was legitimate enough to punish a man severely for that. But to send a man to gaol for what was really a trivial offence seemed to him to be rather hard. There was one provision in particular which made it penal to make a statement which was false in any particular, unless it could be shown that a person did it in ignorance. It was true that the mistake might involve something material, but that might not arise from wilful falsehood. Such a case would be if a man obtained, or endeavoured to obtain, compensation under a false pretence; and unless he could show that he did so unknowingly, he would be liable to imprisonment. That rendered the case particularly hard, for every hon. Member knew that it was a difficult thing to prove a negative; and it depended entirely upon the extent and nature of the suppression of the truth, whether or not a man should be punished; because everyone must know that in making a statement he could not recollect all the matters that ought to be stated. There was another case he might mention, which was claiming compensation under a false pretext. Now, he would show that that was perfectly unreasonable; because, according to the evidence which had been given before the Committee, there were two sorts of lung disease—namely, pleuro-pneumonia and simple inflammation of the lungs, and they resembled each other so closely that it was difficult to distinguish them one from the other. Well, according to the proposed law, a man might claim compensation for beasts slaughtered on the supposition that they were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; and should a veterinary surgeon swear that the animal died, not from pleuro-pneumonia, but from inflammation of the lungs, the man making the claim would be liable to be sent to prison, unless he could prove his innocence, which would be a very difficult matter. Sub-section 11 seemed to him to be reasonable enough, because it was an enactment against digging up animals that had been buried; but that was a thing which might be easily avoided. In all the cases he had cited it was assumed that everybody must know every order of the local authority, of the Privy Council, or the Act of Parliament; and, unless a person exercised a constant supervision over all those things, he was liable to these severe penalties, and, at the same time, it was not possible to fine him, because the magistrate had no option in the matter; and he, therefore, hoped that the Committee would make the alteration in the clause that he suggested.