, who had a Notice on the Paper of his intention to move—

"That the Bill be referred to the same Committee to which Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bills Nos. 1, 4, and 5 are to be referred; That all Petitions against the Bill, or Orders, be referred to the said Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petition, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions,"

said, he was anxious to know whether the Bills were opposed. He was told they were not, and, therefore, that it was not proposed to refer them to the Hybrid Committee already appointed to consider various other Electric Lighting Bills. He understood the view of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), and it was one in which he (Sir George Campbell) concurred, that Parliament had quite enough to do without discussing unopposed Bills, and, in ordinary circumstances, he would quite assent to that view; but this was a very new subject, and he understood that they proposed to hand over to the Brush Electric Company a very large portion of the Metropolis, almost one-half of it. The Local Government of London was in a somewhat weak state, being unable to make up its mind on the question—especially the Vestry of Kensington which represented him. They had been refused further time, and were required to come to terms with the particular Company to whom their district was assigned, by an arrangement made between the large Companies which had at present a monopoly, in order to prevent anyone applying for similar powers after the passing of the Bill. He decidedly objected to such an arrangement. He should be quite content, if he thought the interests of the ratepayers were sufficiently guarded, either by their own local government or by the Board of Trade. But what he had been much struck by in the matter was the extreme difference between the terms extorted from the Vestries of London and those which Municipal Bodies were able to make for themselves. When he compared the Metropolitan Bill with the Birmingham Bill—and they understood the principle of local government thoroughly in Birmingham—he found there was an enormous difference. The Birming- ham Scheme was set forth in the Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Under the present Bills, the Brush Companies had obtained six months in which they could hawk about hundreds of Provisional Orders, selling their privileges wherever they could; and they would suffer no penalty if they did not succeed in selling them. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN dissented.] That was what he understood. They had powers to carry out their works in a certain area named; and the only penalty, if they did not succeed, was that their powers would drop. In this instance, the only sum they proposed to set by as a guarantee for the completion of their works was £10,000. Let the House compare those conditions with the terms Birmingham made for itself, and they would find there was an extraordinary difference. There was an A area in the Birmingham Bill, and no B area at all; and, instead of laying down £5,000 or £10,000, a sum of £100,000 was secured, so that, while the area of the Birmingham Bill was confined, the security for the bonâ fide construction of the works was very large. He had addressed these observations to the House, in order that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade might make the matter perfectly clear. He did not propose to move the Resolution which he had put upon the Paper.

said, his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) was acting entirely within his right of raising the question; but not in calling on the House to go into all the details of schemes which had been deliberately relegated to a different tribunal. Both of these Bills were unopposed, and the details of them had been settled between the Companies concerned, and the local authorities, who had been fully heard, and were satisfied with the concessions which had been made. There was no longer any opposition at all, and yet his hon. Friend proposed that the Bill should go before a Hybrid Committee, to which the ordinary Standing Orders of the House would not apply, and which would be required to hear the opposition of everybody, however factious it might be. Such a course would destroy altogether the value of a Provisional Order, because the whole object of this legislation was to cheapen the tremendous cost of obtaining Private Bills; and in a case like this, where there was no opposition on the part of the authorities, it would be most unwise to tempt opposition from other persons. His hon. Friend had gone into a number of details, which it would be very difficult for the House to appreciate, and he had stated that the terms in these Bills were different from those in the Birmingham Order. Of course, every one of these things had to be considered separately, according to the conditions of the locality. But the information which his hon. Friend had given to the House was entirely inaccurate. He said that the Brush Company had obtained an Order which would enable them, for six months, to hawk Provisional Orders about the country for sale to the highest bidder. They had no power to do anything of the kind, and they themselves would come under an obligation to carry out such Orders as they obtained; and it did not at all follow that the Board of Trade, or the local authorities, would be willing to accept the nominees of the Company, although they would be willing to accept the Company themselves. It was also a mistake to suppose that Birmingham would have to put down £100,000 and this Company only £5,000. The proposal of the Board of Trade was that a sum should be deposited and drawn out as the works were completed; but the London authorities objected to that proposal, and asked that a certain sum should be left perfectly idle until the whole of the work was completed, and that it should not be drawn out during the progress of the construction. That was the proposal of the local authorities, and not of the Board of Trade, and it had been inserted in this and other Orders to satisfy their wishes. In either case, the intention was not to load the Company with the necessity of keeping a large amount of capital idle, but of taking some security that it was intended bonâ fide to proceed with the work, and that an application for a Provisional Order was not made for the purpose of keeping other persons out. There were other points; but he did not suppose the House would desire that he should enter into an elaborate discussion upon the matter. No injustice would be done by allowing these Bills, which were unopposed, to go before the Chairman of Ways and Means. On the last occasion when the question was before the House, they were dealing with an opposed Bill; and then, although a little against his own judgment, he had yielded to the desire expressed by the House, and had agreed to refer them to a Hybrid Committee. Any other opposed Order would be treated in the same way; but a really unopposed Bill should go through the ordinary course.

said, he proposed to move an Amendment confining the meaning of the expression "entertainment" to "food, drink, and lodging." Although that had been the old meaning of the word which had been so used in all early Acts of Parliament for hundreds of years, he feared that, under the present Bill, unless the Amendment were accepted, it might have a larger scope, and be made to include entertainments of a spectacular or dramatic kind, as well as concerts, operas, and oratorios. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had retained the word in the Bill, he wished to restrict it to its proper meaning, and to exclude the idea that Judges might attribute to it that any sort of entertainment of the kind he had described was intended by the Bill.

said, the Committee had, on many occasions, reason to complain that Amendments of this kind were not put on the Paper. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) must have had this Amendment in his mind, because he told the Committee yesterday that there were many additions necessary to this clause; and therefore he (Mr. Gorst) thought, out of courtesy to the Committee, that he might have given Notice of the Amendment he had just moved. It was impossible to deal without Notice with matters which involved purely verbal and technical distinctions; and therefore he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would not entertain the hon. and learned Member's proposal without full consideration. He (Mr. Gorst) believed the meaning of the word "entertainment" had been settled by legal decisions; and anything in the nature of a definition being now introduced into the Act would primâ facie raise the probability that the legal definition was to be altered, that the present reading was obsolete, and that some new meaning was to be attached to the term. Of course, in a matter of this kind, the Committee must trust entirely to the hon. and learned Attorney General, who was alone competent to decide upon it.

said, he could assure the Committee there was no want of courtesy on his part in not placing the Amendment on the Notice Paper. It was only natural that, after having hurried through the Bill at an unusual rate, some verbal Amendments should be found to be necessary in Clause 61. If his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Gorst) would supply any other definition, which would confine the term to its actual meaning, he (Mr. Warton) should be willing to accept it; but his fear was, that when the word once changed its moaning, its scope had a tendency to become enlarged. The word "entertainment," however, was not a legal term; it was an old English term, which meant food, drink, or lodging; but it was now understood by many to be some kind of amusement. He was certain that, 100 years ago, no one would have understood the meaning of "entertainment" in that sense, because that was quite a new application of the word. ["Divide, divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who now interrupted him with cries of "Divide!" might one day have their elections declared void, because some Judge interpreted the word in a sense different from that in which it was now understood, and because the framers of the Bill had not been careful enough to guard against a change of meaning. For his own part, he should be very much amused if some hon. Members found that this undefined term worked against them, because they withheld the small amount of care and attention which would have saved them from the consequences he had described.

said, there was a great deal in what the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had stated with regard to the use of the word "entertainment." Everyone acquainted with Irish villages, must have seen upon the sign-boards of certain small houses the expression, "Entertainment and lodging." The use of these words was exceedingly common in Ireland; and they conveyed, in a great measure, the meaning put upon the word "entertainment" by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. Therefore, he (Mr. Biggar) thought that, if the hon. and learned Member would use the two first words of his Amendment, without the word "lodging," he would give a thoroughly correct definition of the term. There was no doubt that the word "entertainment" might be made to apply to places of amusement; but he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would say that a theatrical entertainment would be an illegal practice under the Act. In the form he (Mr. Biggar) had suggested, he should be willing to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport.

said, before they went to a Division he thought it desirable the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should state to the Committee exactly what was his opinion as to the meaning of the word "entertainment." It would be in the recollection of the Committee that this point had been raised at an earlier part of the Bill, when the hon. and learned Gentleman, unless he (Mr. Hicks) had misunderstood him, stated that, in his opinion, the word "entertainment" was to bear its own meaning of "food and lodging." He (Mr. Hicks) thought the meaning attached to the term by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be clearly expressed in the Bill; on the other hand, if he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman, and it was the intention of the Government that the word should bear a larger meaning than it had 200 years ago, then that should likewise be made clear on the face of the Bill. In either case, the pitfalls which lined the path of hon. Members should be removed.

said, that the word "entertainment" did not always mean food and lodging in Ireland; where there was no food, the phrase over the houses was generally "Dry lodging."

said, that he proposed to leave out the words at the commencement of the clause which made the Bill apply to Ireland. He did not regard this question from any partizan point of view, nor did he trouble himself much about the Act; because, while he expected from it no particular inconvenience, he felt sure that it would neither add to, nor diminish, his election expenses. Over the greater part of Ireland the expenses were always much less than the maximum scale annexed to the Bill, and, therefore, he did not think the Irish people were much interested in that part of the subject. There was, however, a good deal of bribery still existing in the North, although, substantially, it did not affect the balance of Parties. It was the custom in some of the counties in the most Northern parts of Ireland, to throw away money at elections in the most extravagant manner; but with that matter, also, the people of Ireland had very little concern, because, if gentlemen would throw away their money foolishly and incur the heavy penalties which the Bill imposed upon them, they must be allowed to do so. But the great objection he and his hon. Friends had to this Bill was the great number of difficulties which it created, and the risk there might be of a Member being unseated for some trivial act which was not worthy of the name of bribery or corruption. For that reason he thought still that the Bill should not apply to Ireland at all, although he knew it was much needed in England; and it was, no doubt, well that it should also be applied to Scotland.

said, he would point out to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that his Amendment would effect the very opposite result to that which he intended. The clause was for the purpose of showing the modifications with which the Act should apply to Ireland. The hon. Member had always supported the view that there should be equality of legislation in matters of this kind with reference to the Three Kingdoms, and he (the Attorney General) trusted he would stand by that view now. That principle had been affirmed by a large majority, and therefore he could not accent the Amendment.

said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would assist his fellow Law Officers of the Crown in settling what would be the corresponding Court in Dublin to the Central Criminal Court, London, so that it might appear on the face of the Bill. The question was raised on the 47th clause; and it was mentioned at the time, that there should be some provision made, so far as Ireland was concerned, with regard to cases of certiorari. He hoped, before the Bill was passed, the hon. and learned Attorney General would condescend to answer questions from that side of the House, and indicate what was the corresponding Court.

said, after the explanation of the hon. and learned Attorney General, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman, in referring to what had taken place with regard to the Bill on those Benches, was in error in saying that he (Mr. Biggar) and his hon. Friends had made wholesale charges against the Bill. He had certainly confined his criticism to one or two points in it; his description of the Bill having been that it was not intended to check corruption so much as to reduce expenditure. He had never said that the Bill was an exceedingly bad one, although he had stated that it would create litigation, and make plenty of work for the lawyers.

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had distinctly stated that there should be some provision made in reference to cases in certiorari in the Irish Courts. ["Oh, oh!"] He (Mr. Warton) thought it due to a Member of that House, that when a point was taken, with a view to assist the Bill in its progress through Committee, it should be met by some better argument than a howl from hon. Members opposite. He felt confident that hon. Members on the opposite Benches would, some day, regret having passed this Bill without giving it the amount of attention it required.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), when they were on the 47th clause, had suggested that this point should be considered when the Irish clause was reached. The Committee would see that, if he (the Attorney General) had substituted any words, without giving Notice and without drawing the attention of Irish Members to it, they would have had the right to complain. Therefore, he proposed to give Notice of the words to be substituted, and to bring them forward on Report.

said, he wished to impress on the Committee, that when hon. Members on those Benches made a point in good faith for the assistance of the Committee, it was only right that they should receive a reply from the hon. and learned Attorney General. It was quite clear to him that the later clauses of the Bill had been run through too rapidly.

asked, whether the registration of the Bill, if it passed into law this Session, would influence in any degree the question of registration dealt with in Sub-section 3?

said, he also wished to know, if, when the Registration Act became law, it would be necessary to make any change in the 3rd sub-section? He had already opposed the extension of the Bill to Ireland, and he should do so again, because he had heard nothing since it was introduced to make him alter his opinion.

was understood to say that no alteration would be made in the clause in consequence of the passing of the Registration Bill.

said, he did not know whether there was any occult reason why the period of 1888 should not be put into the Bill. It seemed to many hon. Members—who obviously esteemed this measure more highly than did Her Majesty's Government—that, having spent so many weeks over the Bill, they ought to allow it to continue in force at least over one General Election. Of course, he knew, very well, it could be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act; but, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could show them that it was necessary that it should be so treated, and that it should not be continued longer than a year, he would ask the Committee to express an opinion upon the circumstances. If the hon. and learned Attorney General could show there was some real reason for the period fixed in the Bill, he (Mr. Ernest Noel) should be happy to withdraw his Amendment; otherwise he should insist on his proposal.

said, he was not at all surprised at his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel) having brought forward this Amendment. He (the Attorney General) had explained the matter to many hon. Gentlemen in private; and he readily admitted that it required some explanation, as it looked somewhat like an absurdity that, after all the expenditure of time and trouble which had taken place upon the Bill, they should only leave it in operation for 12 months; but, as the hon. Gentleman had suggested, an occult reason for the limitation adopted in the Bill really did exist, and that reason he would explain to the Committee, if he could. For some cause or other, all the Corrupt Practices Acts had been made of a temporary character—he would not say all, however, because there might be Acts to which his attention had not been called, with which a different course had been pursued. The Act of William III., and others dealing with this subject, had been of a temporary character. They had been generally passed for a period of three years, at the expiration of which period they became Bills requiring to be renewed from year to year. There was the Election Petition Act—the Act of 1868—under which, as the Committee would recollect, jurisdiction was taken from the Committees of the House in the matter of Election Petitions, and conferred upon certain of the Judges. In that Act there was no clause providing for the continuance of the measure for any considerable period—the duration of the Act was limited to three years. That Act, together with the Act of 1854, was, on the expiration of the three years, inserted in a Continuance Act, for the reason that, in a matter relating to its own affairs, the House wished to keep to itself an opportunity of recalling its jurisdiction. He did not say whether or not that was a wise system. It might be a wise rule for the House of Commons to stand upon what was its Constitutional right, and give only a temporary jurisdiction to the Judges in matters which intimately affected its health. Whether or no, such had been the practice of the House in the past, and such was the practice now; and he, of course, had to deal with things as he found them. If the Committee would turn to the Bill they would find that a great many past Acts were incorporated in this measure. In Section 10 matters were dealt with which brought into play the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, and dealt with the Election Court existing under that Statute. The Bill, therefore, had incorporated in it a general Act, which would expire, according to the existing practice, on the 31st December, 1884; and if he were to allow this Bill to become a permanent Act, what would become of it in 1884, when the Act which it incorporated expired? If this Bill did not repeal an existing Act, but incorporated its provisions, and that Act were allowed to expire, surely this measure would become a chaos, and only half workable. The result, therefore, was that it was impossible for him to go beyond the period during which the previous Acts were continued—it was on that period that this measure depended. He could not carry his Bill beyond the Continuation Act; and, therefore, for that reason, and that reason only, the date the 31st December, 1884, had been inserted. The measure was, as all Corrupt Practices Acts which had been passed had been intended to be, part of the permanent law of the land. The Act of 1868, which they renewed every year, was part of the permanent law. He might suggest to the Committee that the time had almost come when the House might take the view that they need not be very jealous of losing their privileges, and, for that reason, continuing these Acts from year to year. Might it not be well for them ere long to consider whether all these Acts, including the Act of 1868, could not be extended over a long instead of a short period—in fact, could not be rendered permanent?

said, they ought to be very much obliged to the hon. and learned Attorney General for the clear manner in which he had explained this matter, because there could be no doubt that the public at large, at all events, knew nothing about it. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the time had come when they need not be so particular about guarding their privileges by only continuing these Acts from year to year. They could not render the Acts permanent this year; but it might be a matter for consideration another year whether it would not be necessary to render all Acts relating to Parliamentary Elections permanent.

said, that it was important that the Act had been limited by the Government to 1884, because it was not judicious to pass an Act which would bind future Parliaments. No doubt, in due deference to public opinion out-of-doors, it was only right to apply an Act dealing with the corruption of candidates and Members of Parliament to those persons who were at the present moment interested. In 1884 they would see the end of the present Parliament—a consummation most devoutly to be wished—and, under the provisions of this Bill, they were not likely to see very many of the present Liberal Members—certainly not many of those below the Gangway—returned to this so much desired haven. It was not necessary to continue this Act, as the next Parliament would be so pure that it would be wholly unnecessary to have such a measure in the future, cleared, as the House would be, of all Scotch philanthropists and Radical purists.

said, he would ask whether the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel) would withdraw his Amendment, in order to allow the Committee to take a Division upon another Amendment which stood in his (Mr. Francis Buxton's) name? As the hon. and learned Attorney General had pointed out, this measure incorporated several Acts dealing with corrupt practices, all of which had been continued from year to year. But because a wrong had been done in the past, he failed to see why it should be perpetuated in the future. He could not but hope that, if the Bill were made perpetual, by the leaving out of the clause dealing with continuance, the Renewing Bill, to be passed at the end of the Session, would deal with all further matters which required renewal. If the clause were left in, and the Bill were only to continue to the end of the next year, to be continued from year to year, what might happen in the next Parliament? Why, they might have the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) Attorney General, and he would, naturally, at once drop this measure altogether. The method of dealing with corrupt practices at elections bad been looked upon as an open question; and the fact of the Bill being renewed from year to year was the reason why pub- lic opinion had been somewhat doubtful upon it. It seemed to him that it would be better for the sense of the Committee to be taken upon his (Mr. Francis Buxton's) Amendment—to leave the clause out altogether—than upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel). Before sitting down, he would call attention to the fact that the words "Fourth Schedule to this Act" should be "Third Schedule to this Act."

said, he considered it very inconvenient and objectionable to pass Acts of this kind for so short a period; that inconvenience having been illustrated in the case of the Ballot Act. Whenever it had been thought necessary to render that measure permanent, it had been blocked in this House; and if this Bill were put into a Continuance Bill, no doubt it would be blocked in the same way, or by a pressure of other Business. The sooner they broke through the present practice the better. He was inclined to think that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Ernest Noel) was a good one, as it would save them from the necessity of renewing the Bill from year to year.

said, he was happy to find that there was at least one clause in this Bill to which he could give a cordial assent, and that was the present clause, which limited the operation of the measure to 12 months. He did not know that there was any way out of the difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had explained to the Committee; at any rate, he sincerely hoped there was not. It would be desirable, in the interests of the purity of elections, that there should be an opportunity of trying back, supposing they found this instrument did not act quite so cleanly and fairly as some hon. Members expected. For his own part, he delighted in the idea that they were not going to inflict this enormity on candidates and agents for more than 12 months without an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. He should certainly vote for the clause as it stood.

said, that, after the very clear explanation they had had from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, there could be no doubt that this clause must stand part of the Bill. In a matter of this kind, by which so many alterations were effected in the law, and with regard to which so many difficulties might arise in the future in carrying out the Act, it was only right that they should have an opportunity of seeing how it worked before they rendered it permanent. If there was to be a General Election shortly—and upon that point right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench would know more than anybody else—hon. Members would have an opportunity of finding out how the measure worked. He was convinced there was not one man in the House who, if the Act did not work as they expected it would, would not be glad that they had made the Bill temporary, instead of permanent. If the Act was found to work unsatisfactorily, they would be in a much better position by its being temporary than they would be if it were permanent.

said, at an earlier stage, he had moved an Amendment for the purpose of giving an unseated candidate an appeal. He had understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was not opposed to the principle of the Amendment, and that he would himself bring forward a proposal on the subject. Well, he (Mr. Macfarlane) did not find that the hon. and learned Gentleman had put down any clause on the Paper on the subject; and he would, therefore ask him if he intended to make any arrangement in the nature of an appeal in the case of an unseated candidate?

said, the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was so clear, that there could be no doubt it was desirable that this Bill should, in the future, be put in the Schedule of the Expiring Acts Continuance Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last but one (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and who had just left the House, was in error when he said that, inasmuch as the measure was to be placed in a Continuance Bill, it could be amended from year to year. It was clear, that when a Bill of this nature was placed in a Continuance Bill, it could not be amended when it was renewed from year to year. There was nothing in the shape of difficulty in connection with the Continuation Bill. He would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should insert the Acts which were renewed in the Continuance Bill, from year to year, in the Schedule of the present Bill.

said, that, no doubt, the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman was very clear; but it was clear in this sense, that he could, if he had chosen, have granted the request made in this Amendment, because he had given several instances where analogous Acts had been passed primarily for three years. What he (Mr. Ernest Noel) had asked was that the Bill should be passed for five years, so as to carry them over the next General Election. If his proposal had been adopted, before the expiration of the measure—that was to say, before 1888—they could put into the Schedule those Acts which were continued from year to year, and which were incorporated in the Bill. It appeared to him that the feeling of the Committee was against his proposal; and as he did not wish unnecessarily to put them to the trouble of a Division, although he should have been glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted the proposal, he should ask leave to withdraw it.

said, he had given Notice of opposition to the clause, and must confess it seemed rather illogical that a measure which had occupied so much time in passing should only come into operation for a year. The explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General very much influenced his opinion, however, as to whether it was desirable to continue it in force for a longer period; but it would be absurd to an outsider, who did not understand the details of Parliamentary work, that the measure should only continue for 12 months. He was not at all certain that, from the point of view of the Government, they were quite right in insisting that it should only last for that period, even after the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was quite possible that, at the end of 1884, or the beginning of 1885, a new Parliament might be in existence, and perhaps a new Government, and that that Government should think it undesirable to renew the Bill, and should simply let the whole matter drop, and let things stand where they were. Then, if the hon. and learned Gentleman once more came into power, he might think it desirable that the measure should be re-introduced, and, in 1886 or 1887, they might have to go through all the labour and occupy all the time which they had been doing lately upon this matter. He really did think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should invent some plan by which they could get out of this difficulty, which he had raised for himself by proposing that the Bill should not be of a permanent character. It was a very awkward plan to have a great number of Acts of Parliament on the same subject, and it seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that it would be requisite before long for some Minister to bring in a Consolidating Bill, dealing with all measures relating to corrupt practices at elections. That should be done, so as to enable candidates to know really what the law was, or, at any rate, to enable them to make a guess at it. A candidate, or his agent, should be able to find out what was the law by referring to one Act, without being put to the necessity of going over a large number of Statutes, which it would now be necessary for him to do, in order to form his opinion as to what was a corrupt practice. The present system of having a large number of Acts of Parliament dealing with one subject was a most unsatisfactory method of proceeding, and it was especially so with regard to Parliamentary candidates, seeing that these gentlemen would, in a great many cases, have to be their own judges as to what their conduct ought to be. A candidate would not always have a lawyer within call to give an opinion as to the legal bearings of a matter of this sort; besides, even attorneys and barristers would not know exactly what was forbidden by the Bill, and he must say it seemed to him preposterous that these Acts should be in existence, making it difficult even for a lawyer to find out what the law was.

said, he now had to move the first new clause which he proposed to add to those already accepted in the Bill. It might save the time of the Committee if he stated the nature of the circumstances under which he had decided upon submitting this new clause to their consideration.

here rose.

Does the hon. Gentleman rise to a point of Order?

said, he wished to ask the Chairman a question. Without at all desiring to deprive the hon. and learned Attorney General of his privilege, he wished to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman was making an addition which was to be inserted in the Bill after Clause 16; and, as he (Mr. Newdegate) had to propose a new clause after Clause 2, he should like to know whether, by now accepting the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, he would not be precluded from moving his clause?

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is in charge of the Bill, and he, therefore, takes precedence in the matter of bringing forward new clauses.

It will not preclude me from moving my clause?

Certainly not.

said, he was about to represent to the Committee, when interrupted, that when, some time ago, they were discussing Clause 4, which dealt with a voidance of the seat in consequence of a corrupt practice on the part of an agent, there was some debate, and many hon. Members expressed the view that it would be a great hardship to inflict upon candidates the consequence of being deprived of their seats for some trifling corrupt practice on the part of another person. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) bad desired the insertion of an Equity Clause, dealing with bribery, treating, and undue influence. It was thought that a middle course might be taken, by agreement, to exonerate candidates, in certain cases, of corrupt practices by agents, leaving out all allusion to bribery. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton made a proposition; and afterwards, by the direct appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), supplemented by a statement from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, it had occurred to some of them that this middle course might be taken, and that whilst they could not sanction any relief in the case of bribery, it was possible to give it in the case of treating and undue influence. When they got into detail in this debate, he should be again prepared to state the reasons why they made this distinction; but that suggestion having come from hon. Members who had taken a conspicuous and responsible part in the passing of this Bill, he had at once felt that there was good reason why their view should be accepted. After their view had been accepted, there were still those who wished to extend this elastic clause to cases of bribery, and he had thought at the time that there had been a little misapprehension as to the source from which the suggestion had come; it had been within the right of every Member of the Committee to divide on the question, whether bribery should be included or not. Votes had been secured for the proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, by the knowledge that the Government would introduce an elastic clause. The principle having been accepted, he had to accept the words of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and endeavour to carry out his views with regard to treating and undue influence. It would be remembered that, at the time, he had objected to the words of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, as he thought they required some alteration, and, also, that they did not quite carry out the hon. Member's object. He had taken the words of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and, having amended them, had put them into a clause which he thought would carry out the view of the Committee. The words he had decided upon were these—

"Where, upon the trial of an election petition respecting an election for a county or borough, the election court report that a candidate at such election has been guilty by his agents of the offences of treating and undue influence, and illegal practice, or of any such offence, in reference to such election, and the election court further report that the candidate has proved to the court—(a.) That no corrupt or illegal practice was committed at such election by or with the knowledge and consent of such candidate or his election agent; and (b.) That such candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt and illegal practices at such election; and (c.) That the offences mentioned in the said further report were committed contrary to the orders and without the sanction or connivance of the candidate or his election agent; and (d.) That the offences mentioned in the said further report were of a trivial, unimportant, and limited character; and (e.) That in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt or illegal practice on the part of such candidate and of his agents; then the election of such candidate shall not, by reason of the offences mentioned in such further report, be void, nor shall the candidate be subject to any incapacity under this Act."

He did not know whether there would be any exception taken to the wording of the clause; but he thought it carried out the views of hon. Gentlemen in giving some safeguard in the direction they desired: indeed, he thought it went further than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He saw two Amendments on the Paper; one in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), whose endeavour it seemed to be to reverse the recent decision of the Committee, and to make this elastic clause apply to bribery—to include bribery as well as treating and undue influence. When the Committee voted upon this question it had arrived at a decision with regard to it. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: No, no.] He was in the recollection of the Committee upon the matter. A Division had taken place on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; and, without discussing the words of that proposal, in substance it was the same as the present clause, only it applied to bribery as well as undue influence. After two discussions, that Amendment was refused by the Committee. Now, having carried out the whole of that Amendment and more, with the exception of the word "bribery," the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) sought to insert the word "bribery;" therefore accepting, in its entirety, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, which had been negatived by the Committee. Now, he made no complaint against the course hon. Members proposed to take. If they chose to express a second time their opinion, it would not be becoming for him to raise a question about it; but he had to ask at least that those who agreed with him on the first occasion would see a still stronger reason for doing so now, after what had occurred. He hoped they would accept the clause as he proposed it, and would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He could give stronger reasons than he had given before why they should not include bribery; but he would only say that there was no subject in this Bill upon which he had received so many communications as he had every day received upon this matter. Persons experienced in election affairs expressed the strongest hope that there would be no case in which bribery would be looked upon as trivial in this Bill. There was one other view that he wished to refer to. These words had been framed for the purpose of dealing with cases of treating, undue influence, and illegal practices. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) took the clause as to treating and undue influence, and crudely introduced into it the word "bribery." Well, he asked every Member of the Committee, who was a supporter of the Bill, whether to a greater or a lesser degree, not to accept that Amendment. It would be a backward movement which had never been acknowledged before, and would, he was sure, be most injurious to the interests they had mainly to consider—namely, the interests of the constituents. On the other hand, he had to deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who desired to amend the clause by striking out the word "not," and to insert after the word "void" the words "but the candidate shall not be subject to any incapacity under this Act." The effect of that would be that a candidate could be unseated for a trivial case of treating or undue influence on the part of an agent, but would not be incapacitated from becoming a candidate in the future. What would happen if that were agreed to? Why, a candidate, after being unseated for some trivial act, would have the sympathy of the constituency, and, after being unseated, he would offer himself for election again, and would be elected, simply in consequence of that trivial act of treating or undue influence. The Amendment, in fact, asked him (the Attorney General) to depart from the undertaking he had given, not only to introduce this clause, but to provide that the seat should not be voided in consequence of some trivial act of treating or undue influence. He should, therefore, be breaking his word if he were to acquiesce in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich. He adhered to his clause in both its aspects. He could not carry it further, because he believed it would be injurious to do so; and, on the other hand, he could not fall back from his position. Whilst he did not run away from anything he had said on the main question, if this matter was to be gone over again, he must reserve to himself the right of saying what he might believe to be necessary in the future. He merely contented himself now with calling attention to what had taken place on a former occasion, and begged to move the insertion of the clause of which he had given Notice.

said, he did not wish to raise a discussion upon the principle of the clause on the Question that it be now read a second time, if the Committee were adverse to that course; but, to his mind, it was preferable to raise the discussion on its principle on second reading, and then afterwards to go into details; still, in this matter, he was in the hands of the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not care for "Hear, hears!" from hon. Members opposite. If the hon. and learned Attorney General thought it better to take the discussion after the second reading, he should wait until the clause had been read a second time.

said, that, before going into any discussion upon the matter, he wished to state to the Committee that he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert the words "bribery or," in the third line, before the words "treating and undue influence." For the purpose of simplifying the matter, however, instead of moving that Amendment, he would move to leave out the words "treating and undue influence, and illegal practice," and insert the words "corrupt practices."

said, that would include personation.

said, his object was to include personation. The hon. and learned Attorney General had told the Committee that he (Mr. Labouchere) was asking to reverse its decision. Technically, it was true that he was doing that; but, in point of fact, he was not doing that. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted that a good many had voted with him, or rather against the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), because they were anxious to see the clause the Government would bring up. As he distinctly understood, from what fell from the hon. and learned Attorney General, there was a feeling in the Committee that, as a clause was to be brought up dealing with this special matter, hon. Members, on this question, should reserve their judgments. He (Mr. Labouchere) was rather sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had taken a Division on the occasion referred to, because he had thought at the time it might prejudice the case; at any rate, he thought any hon. Member was perfectly free to vote on the matter as he thought right. The hon. and learned Attorney General said he had received communications from various parts of the country requesting him not to yield on this matter. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere), on the other hand, could say that he had received communications from his constituents on the subject. It had been said that his constituents would at once misunderstand them. His constituents had held a meeting, and what was the resolution that they passed on this question? Why, it was this—"Keep your eye on the Attorney General." They said—"Particularly oppose this and every other clause which you regard as dangerous to a free, pure, and independent constituency. He was, therefore, so far as he was concerned, strictly within his duty in keeping his eye on the hon. and learned Attorney General, and in moving this Amendment against the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause. What really did happen on the last occasion? [Cries of "Agreed!"] He understood the anxiety of the Committee to get to the end of this matter; but the question was so important that he really thought they ought to look into it, and look into it most seriously. What took place on the last occasion? As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, they had a very large preliminary discussion upon the definition of the word "agency." The hon. and learned Attorney General told them that he could not, although a lawyer, define what an agent was. The reason of that was, so far as he (Mr. Labouchere) could understand it, not being a lawyer, that whereas, in other matters, an "agent" was a person employed or acting for another person; in electoral matters, an agent was a person who was an actor in a common cause with a candidate for a specific end. Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not prepared to give them any species of limitation to his agency. So far as he (Mr. Labouchere) understood it, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not prepared, that when an Association took an active part in an election, every single member of it became an agent of the candidate, and that if any member of such an Association engaged in a corrupt practice the candidate was responsible for it. They had had decisions in different ways. Lord Bramwell had distinctly stated that he had been obliged to do an injustice to candidates because he had no Equity Clause. The hon. and learned Attorney General himself would, no doubt, remember the Taunton case, in which a Conservative candidate, or rather Member, had been held to be liable for what a political Association had done. But a remarkable circumstance was, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had interfered, and had said that the Judges already had this equity jurisdiction. According to the right hon. Gentleman, this jurisdiction, which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said would open the door to bribery, was already possessed by the Judges. Well, after the clause was adopted, that equity jurisdiction would not in any case be possessed by the Judges, because this clause placed those who thought the Judges ought to have that jurisdiction in a much worse position than they were in now. It laid down specifically that Judges might have an equity power henceforth in matters of treating, undue influence, and illegal practices; but by leaving out bribery and personation, or by not substituting for the limited words in the clause the general term corrupt practices, it directly told the Judges that they had no equity jurisdiction in regard to bribery, and in regard to personation. Well, he asked the Committee whether they were in favour of that—whether they thought it was desirable or not? The hon. and learned Attorney General told them he had taken a middle course—those, he thought, were the words the hon. and learned Gentleman had used. But he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he had not knocked the bottom out of his now tub by yielding in the matter of treating? Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell him any distinction which existed between giving a man the money to pay for a glass of beer, or any food, and giving him the actual beer and the actual food? He remembered that the hon. and learned Attorney General had endeavoured to draw a distinction. He said—"When you treat, you do it generally openly; but when you give money, you do it secretly." He (Mr. Labouchere) did not know what that distinction had to do with the present case. He denied that there was such a distinction. What happened in the matter of treating? Why, at an election, beer was apt to flow in all public-houses. If there was a brewer in the place, he would be on one side or the other, and his beer was used largely, and he would not collect his accounts until the end of the week, so that it was a much easier thing to treat secretly than to give money; and that, it seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere), was a much more prevalent corrupt practice at the present time than the other. The effect of the ballot had not been to change human nature; people were just as ready to take money now as they always were. All the ballot had done, if it had done anything in this matter, had been to cheapen the votes. There were a large number of persons in that residuum, of which they had so often heard, who belonged neither to one Party or the other, and who had been, in past times, ready to accept 10s. or 5s. for a vote; but who were now ready to accept not only 10s. or 5s., but even a pot of beer. There should be no distinction between treating and bribery; if they were to say there was to be no equity in the one, they should say there should be no equity in the other. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General told them himself that it was absolutely necessary, in order to prevent injustice being done, that the Judges should have an equity power, that statement was equally applicable to small cases of bribery as to small cases of treating. He could not help thinking that the hon. and learned Attorney General did not quite understand these large popular constituencies. These places were perfectly pure; but, at an election time, there was a very great deal of excitement. At such a time as that a man might be so utterly carried away by his feelings that he might, in his excitement, give away 2s. 6d. or 5s. to some other person to go somewhere with, without any intention of wrong doing, and that would be bribery. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Hear, hear!] At any rate, a man by doing such an act as that might think he was doing wrong, but he might be carried away by his feelings. The hon. and learned Gentleman said "Hear, hear!" It was perfectly horrible that such an act should be visited with all the consequences of bribery. No doubt, it was right that the man who was guilty of such an error of judgment, or such misconduct, should be punished; but what he (Mr. Labouchere) objected to was that the candidate should be punished also. Let them take the case of Northampton, where there was a large Liberal Association and a large Conservative Association. He believed that the Liberal Association numbered about 1,000 individuals, and it undertook everything in connection with an election. The members of the Association took an active part in the election, as agents in every sense of the word. Suppose some member of the Association said—"Smith won't vote;" whereupon another member went to the man, urged him to vote, and slipped half-a-crown in his hand. Was that to be held to be bribery, which would affect the position of the candidate? He (Mr. Labouchere) was of opinion that the man ought to be punished for bribery; but he could not understand why the candidate should be punished on account of an individual act like the one he had cited. Let them suppose there was a traitor in the camp, either on the Liberal or Conservative side, and that he said—"I have got a particular dislike to the individual who is coming forward; I belong to an Association; I will give a voter half-a-crown; I will then let it be known in some sort of way, and the candidate will not only lose his seat, but be prevented from sitting for the constituency for the next seven years." Why should such a power as that be placed in the hands of any individual? He (Mr. Labouchere) could not understand why, for the act of a traitor or a fool, they should accept the consequence themselves, and not only lose their seats, but be prevented from sitting for a constituency for seven years. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said that a constituency would not suffer in any sort of way. He (Mr. Labouchere) denied that. When a constituency had had a contested election, it did not want another in two or three months Generally, working men, to vote, had to give up a portion of their time, and they objected to do that very often. If, because of the individual act of one black sheep, an act which did not in the slightest degree affect the election, and of which the candidate or the Association might know nothing, a constituency was to be forced to waste a considerable amount of time in conducting another election, he considered a punishment was inflicted on the constituency; and he confessed he was a little surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the constituency would not be punished. He (Mr. Labouchere) maintained, too, it was a punishment upon the Member. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Oh, no!] The hon. and learned Gentleman said "Oh, no!" but it was quite possible that a Member could not get a seat anywhere else. He (Mr. Labouchere) doubted very much whether a man could get another seat under such circumstances. Let them take the case of a man who had never been in Parliament before. Possibly, he was not a well-known man; he succeeded at his election, but was immediately turned out, because some member of an Association, who was acting for him, had bribed in a trivial manner. Did the Committee suppose that any other constituency would have him? Another constituency would say to him—"There are just as good fish in the sea as you; there are others who want to stand here; you are, no doubt, a victim of circumstances, but we do not want such a man." Take the case of Leeds, for instance. Did not the hon. and learned Attorney General remember that at Leeds, at the last General Election, an Association, numbering 900 persons, brought forward the Prime Minister, and undertook the whole business of the election. The Prime Minister had nothing to do at all with the election; yet if one of the members of the Association had been a fool, or a traitor, and had given improperly half-a-crown, what would have happened to the Prime Minister? He would have lost his seat, and he would have been tainted with the stigma, and would not have been allowed to sit for Leeds for a certain given time. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have alluded to such a state of things with very great pleasure; and after a while, when people had forgotten the details, they would say—"Talk about Gladstone being a high minded man; he is not even allowed to sit for Leeds!" What would happen in the case of the majority of hon. Members? This clause would do them—very humble individuals as they were—the very greatest injury and the very greatest wrong. His main object in opposing the clause was not the wrong which might be done to a candidate, was not the time occupied in a second election; but it was that in striving to do one thing they did a worse thing. It used to be the habit that a small clique, composed of one or two agents, had the whole election in their hands. A better system now prevailed, for candidates were anxious that the people themselves should take an active part in the election. Now, he asked, if this clause—if this pitfall for every hon. Member—were passed, would it be possible for a Member to encourage the electors to take an active part in the election? A man would be afraid to do that, and therefore he would have to fall back upon the old system of two or three agents, or a small committee managing the election. Such a thing would be most undesirable. Personally, he considered that Conservative and Liberal electors should take an active part in an election—as active a part as possible—and that they should be, in every sense of the word, partners and agents of the candidate; and it was for that reason mainly—though he considered the other reasons he had assigned would have been quite sufficient—that, as far as he was concerned, he should oppose this clause to the bitter end, unless the hon. and learned Attorney General was willing to accept the Amendment which he now begged to move.

said, that if the Amendment were carried out, he did not see any great good the Bill would be for the prevention of bribery and other corrupt practices at elections. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had given a history of the clause; but the Committee must remember that when the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was put down, there were several Amendments upon the Paper having the same object in view. There was that, for instance, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), which he (Mr. Jesse Collings) thought was far more potent to secure the object in view, and, at the same time, to prevent the abuse of that object, than the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. There was also an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke); but, for some reason or other, all the Amendments were passed over except the one of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, upon which a Division was taken. The hon. and learned Attorney General, in obedience, he (Mr. Jesse Collings) granted, to the wish of the Committee, that the candidate should be protected, but not in obedience to the wish of the Committee, that the constituency also should be protected, agreed to bring up some clause to deal with the matter. But he (Mr. Jesse Collings) ventured to say that, in this clause, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not kept within the bounds of safety, having regard to the object of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made the clause elastic for treating and undue influence. Why should the Bill be so elastic for treating and undue influence? The experience which led to the passing of the Ballot Act was, that a great instrument of corruption in the larger boroughs was treating and undue influence. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) could not agree with the hon. and learned Attorney General in his estimate of the small amount of treating and undue influence which took place, or as to its comparative unimportance as compared with bribery; though he admitted that treating and undue influence were carried on in a less dangerous manner, perhaps, than bribery. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken a middle course, and he had landed in a difficulty which all middle courses lead to—namely, the difficulty of defining the difference between bribery and treating. It was impossible for them to have one law for bribery and one for treating. To his mind, treating was a most dangerous form of corruption. It was the most dangerous form of corruption, because it assailed a class of voters who were more open to temptation than any other class, on account of their poverty, or on account, oftentimes, of their habits. What did the clause really provide? Under Section "A" it was provided—

"That no corrupt or illegal practice was committed at such election by or with the knowledge and consent of such candidate or his election agent."

Now, that was totally worthless, because no corrupt practice was ever committed within the knowledge and consent of any candidate. Then, again, Section "B" was to the effect—

"That such candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt and illegal practices at such elections."

Every candidate and his agent always had done that, and always would, so far as any assertion of that view on their part was concerned. Then came, perhaps, the worst and most demoralizing provision of all—namely—

"That the offences mentioned in the said further Report were committed contrary to the orders and without the sanction or connivance of the candidate or his election agent."

Now, if the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was introduced, they would admit that there could be such a thing as trivial and unimportant bribery. They might as well say that there could be trivial and unimportant forgery. They might as well make a law to the effect that forgery ought to be an offence of no importance when small sums such as £5 or £10 were involved, and that it only became a serious crime when large sums were at stake. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had trotted out the one black sheep. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) did not believe in the one black sheep theory, because one black sheep was always an indication that there were other black sheep; and, although the presence of one black sheep might be sufficient for the purposes of the Judge, generally speaking they might conclude there were many other black sheep. The action, however, of one black sheep could be dealt with by a Judge under the present law. A Judge might decide in the direction of preventing any injury being done by that one unfortunate or foolish man; and if a Judge could not be depended upon, either on account of his partizanship, or for some other reason, the real way to get over such a difficulty would be to have two or three Judges instead of one, because it was not very likely that two or three Judges would be swayed by partizanship, or by any particular motive, or by any objectionable motive. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) should, of course, vote for the Amendment, because it would lessen the evil of the clause as it stood; but, after that, if the Amendment were defeated, adopting the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), he Mr. (Jesse Collings) should move the Amendment which stood in his name, because he felt sure that it would give all necessary protection to a candidate without relinquishing the protection to the constituency.

said, he wished to make a few remarks before they proceeded to a Division, on account of the remarkable speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). He (Mr. Edward Clarke) would not address the Committee at any length, because he considered that the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had treated them with perfect frankness and fairness in this matter. He (Mr. Edward Clarke) cordially appreciated the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had kept the promise he made to the Committee. It was perfectly clear that there were some hon. Members of the House, who accepted their law from the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt), and had accepted from the right hon. Gentleman that for law which was not law at all. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Jesse Collings) appeared to have been impressed with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) made, to the effect that the Judges had at present this equitable authority. When the right hon. Gentleman was challenged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to put it in the Bill, he turned round, and with great emphasis, said it was impossible to put common sense in the Bill; and it appeared to be thought in some quarters of the House that the right hon. Gentleman know the law, and was stating the law. The one instance of the one black sheep would undoubtedly unseat a candidate, and the reason that this discussion had been important was that the Judges themselves had complained of the hardships upon them in having to unseat a candidate for a single act. The bitterest complaint on this matter was made by Lord Bramwell in the case of Mr. Robinson at Bristol. The facts of the case were, no doubt, familiar to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich. There was no charge of bribery at the election itself; but it was shown in evidence that, at the test ballot to decide who should be the candidate, the small bribe—he believed of two or three shillings—was given to a man to vote at the test ballot for Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson was elected Member for Bristol; but Lord Bramwell felt bound, on account of the one act of bribery in the case of the test ballot, to unseat the Member, and they had never seen that Gentleman, who was the victim of that unfortunate occurrence, in the House of Commons since. Lord Bramwell complained that he was bound by law to unseat Mr. Robinson for that one individual act. If the clause now proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General were accepted, and put in the Bill, and if, three months hence, a precisely similar case of hardship to that of Mr. Robinson's came before a Judge, that Judge would have no option whatever but to unseat the Member. A Judge had no equity power whatever, and whe- ther a fool or a traitor gave a half-a-crown or five shillings, in a case, perhaps, where the majority was numbered by hundreds, and where the act of bribery could not possibly have affected the election, a Judge would be obliged to unseat. He (Mr. Edward Clarke) thought it was doing the work of this Bill imperfectly to leave this obvious and confessed mischief unredressed. He was glad to find the principle of an Equity Clause admitted; and although he should be obliged to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, at the same time he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had treated the Committee very fairly.

said, he would like to explain the position in which he stood in reference to this matter. Some days ago, he moved an Amendment, which covered the cases now contemplated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He still held the opinions he expressed during the debate on his Amendment, and he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) that a most cruel injustice had been committed. In the course of that debate, a distinct offer was made to him (Mr. H. H. Fowler), to the effect that the hon. and learned Attorney General was prepared to draw a distinction between bribing, treating, and undue influence; and, exercising his own discretion, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) accepted the compromise of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. The Committee did not see fit to grant leave to withdraw it, but compelled a Division to be taken. He considered that the hon. and learned Gentleman had wholly fulfilled his pledge to introduce an Equity Clause, referring to treating and undue influence; and, therefore, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) considered that he must honourably adhere to his compromise with the hon. and learned Gentleman as regarded it.

said, he hoped they would hear something with regard to the merits of this precise Amendment, because it really raised a question itself, and not the larger question which had been dealt with by more than one speaker. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) proposed that this equitable jurisdiction, which was to be given to the Judges who tried Election Petitions, was not to be confined to cases merely of treating and undue influence, but should extend to all corrupt practices. He (Mr. Raikes) was bound to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had made out an unanswerable case in favour of his contention. For his own part, he did not wish, on this Amendment, to discuss the morality or expediency of the clause as a whole; but it did seem to him that it would be extremely unjust if they were to allow a candidate to escape in a case of treating or undue influence, but left him to suffer for bribery or personation, to which, it was clear, neither he nor his agent had been parties. He (Mr. Raikes) was glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had moved his Amendment in the present form; because it struck him that it would be extremely hard if, for a single case of personation, an election should be set aside. He (Mr. Raikes) could not believe that a candidate ought to be deprived of his seat if one of his supporters had attempted to vote twice in the same election. It very frequently occurred that there were isolated cases of personation; it was extremely easy for a traitor, for instance, to get up a little conspiracy to indulge in personation, and thus defeat the election of a candidate; and, therefore, he was very glad that the Amendment was so framed as to include personation as well as bribery and undue influence and treating. He offered no opinion as to what would be the general result of the working of this Bill with this clause in it. He wished now to confine himself to the precise Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton; and he (Mr. Raikes) would only venture to suggest that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was in search of equity in this clause, he did not quite know where he was seeking for it. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be ready to accept the Amendment.

said, he had seen many unjust cases under the law as it now stood; and, after every Petition, the Press of the country were unanimous in calling upon Parliament to alter the law. Mr. Charles Harrison was elected for Bewdley, and he was notoriously scrupulous. His expenses did not amount to more than £250; but a Petition was successful in his ease, simply because a bailiff of his had lent one of the tenants a farm drill. A good deal had been said about the loss of a candidate's seat; but there was one point which had not at all been noticed. This Bill was supposed to enable comparatively poor men to become Members of Parliament; but it might mean to poor men simply ruin. He (Mr. Lea) supported an Election Petition once, because he believed that if the individual elected were allowed to sit he would be a disgrace to the House of Commons. The Petition resulted in his (Mr. Lea's) favour, and the costs were given also in his favour, and yet he had to pay out of his own pocket £5,000. Had he lost the Petition, he would have been compelled to pay as much as £12,000 or £15,000. He asked the Committee if they were prepared to consider that a just law and a just state of things? A man might become a candidate for a borough or a county; he might be elected; but through the indiscretion of someone over whom he had no control he might lose his seat, and be mulcted in costs amounting to several thousand pounds. The law at present was unjust, and called urgently for alteration. All that was asked was, that there should be purity of election accompanied with justice. He (Mr. Lea) believed if the clause were passed as proposed to be amended by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) it would provide for just and pure elections.

said, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not at present in his place, because he (Mr. Stanhope) wished particularly to address his observations to him. The object with which he rose was chiefly to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton whether he would not move his Amendment in the form in which it originally stood—namely, to insert "bribery or" and not "corrupt practices?" He (Mr. Stanhope) quite admitted the strength of the reasons assigned by the hon. Member for the alteration he had made in his Amendment, and he also admitted that the matter was one of considerable doubt and difficulty. At the same time, he did feel very strongly that there was a great difference between the offence of personation and the offence of bribery; and he was inclined to think that, in the case of bribery, they might perfectly well extend to the candidate and his agent the same indemnity that was extended by the clause of the hon. and learned Attorney General to treating and undue influence. He thought they were going too far in stretching the clause so as to include such offences as personation. He (Mr. Stanhope) appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton whether it would not be better, and attain the object a great many of them had in view, if they were to take a Division upon the proposal to insert "bribery," so that personation would not be included?

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would adhere to the clause as it stood. It ought to be remembered that this Equity Clause was the result of a compromise and a concession made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in order to disarm criticism in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Complaint was made that a man might be unseated for a single act, and, of course, it would be a hardship for a man to suffer for some isolated act; but they must remember that, whether they were dealing with the Law of Agency, as applied to Parliamentary elections, or dealing with any other branch of life, there were many cases in which men had to suffer severely for the acts of their agents. He (Mr. R. T. Reid) did not think, however, that any lawyer would say for a moment that, because an Association was working for a candidate, it followed that every member of that Association was the candidate's agent at law.

said, that when the Amendment was put, he should refrain from voting, not because he was not very much opposed to the Amendment, but because he considered that the whole clause was so intrinsically bad, and would so weaken the Bill, if added to it, that they had better make it as bad as possible, rather than set up a distinction between bribery and other corrupt practices; for he thought treating was, if anything, worse than bribery. He (Mr. Evans Wil- liams) believed that the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) himself was very unwilling to introduce this clause; and he thought it would have been far better, when pressure was put upon him to introduce an Equity Clause of this sort by Gentlemen who were not in favour of the general principle of the Bill, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had said he would withdraw the Bill, because advantage was taken of its progress to weaken the present law, rather than weaken it by the insertion of such a clause as that. The present Amendment endeavoured, not only to relax the severity of the Bill, but to relax the law, even as it at present existed. He had had some experience in electioneering, and he certainly would prefer to contest a constituency under the present law than under the Bill, if the clause now under consideration were added to it. He was satisfied that the result of adding that clause to the Bill would be that a candidate would be able to get some "man in the moon" to come down and corrupt all round, and that the candidate would afterwards be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Election Judges that he was quite innocent in the matter. If they were to have a clause of that kind, let them be consistent, and have all corrupt practices included. He believed it was possible for personation to be practised with the sole purpose of spiting a candidate. Therefore, he considered that personation ought to be included in the operation of the clause. At any rate, he trusted that a protest—and he hoped a successful protest—would be made against this fatal clause.

said, as the Representative of a large constituency, he desired to say that he supposed that at the next election he would have some thousands of agents. He believed that, under the existing law, if a Judge had no common sense, he could unseat every Member in the House. He (Mr. Bryce) was not at all, in the least, afraid of the Bill, because he believed Judges had common sense, and that the people in constituencies had common sense. He believed, also, that where it was known that an election was substantially pure, there would be no intention of presenting Petitions. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would not accept any Amendment to this clause. They ought not to take the starch out of the Bill. He submitted there was a clear distinction between bribery and treating. Treating was a thing which necessarily involved a great number of people; it was not a thing worth doing on a small scale; it was not a thing which could be done secretly to any appreciable extent; and, therefore, it was far more important that they should apply a strict rule with regard to bribery than to treating.

said, he was glad the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had recognized the principle of common equity and justice. He did not, however, agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in making a distinction between bribery and illegal practices, for the sole reason that the limitations in the clause were so strong. Now, paragraph "b" ran as follows:—

"That such candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt and illegal practices at such election."

Now, corrupt practices included bribery, and although a candidate and his election agent might take all possible means of preventing bribery, if an isolated act of bribery were committed, a candidate would, under this clause, lose his seat. The clause ought certainly to extend to bribery.

said, that perhaps he might be allowed, in the presence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), to repeat his suggestion. There were some Members of the Committee who found a considerable difficulty in including personation in the clause, while they thought bribery might be justly included. What he (Mr. Stanhope) had to suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton was, that they should be allowed to express their opinion in a Division upon the question of the insertion of the word "bribery" instead of "corrupt practices."

said, he was quite willing to agree to the wishes of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanhope); and, in order to do that, he would now ask leave to withdraw the present Amendment.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would do nothing of the sort. He (Mr. Raikes) could not understand why, in the case of personation, a Judge should not have the same equitable power as in the case of bribery or undue influence. He thought it was very likely that personation, in many cases, would be practised by some treacherous person.

said, he thought the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) must lead some hon. Members astray. One of their most distinguished Judges—Lord Bramwell—had, in the presence of a Committee of the House of Commons, pointed out how cruel the law was at present, and how necessary it was, in the interests of justice, that some such alteration as this should be made. He (Mr. Lewis) could not see the least logical distinction between the proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and that of the hon. and learned Attorney General. These were all, more or less, corrupt practices, and capable of being committed by persons who assumed the character of agents, without any knowledge on the part of the candidate; but, because of some refined distinction which the hon. and learned Attorney General saw between these two things, he asked the Committee to draw a line, tight and irretrievable, on the subject of bribery and undue influence. He (Mr. Lewis) should be far more inclined to restrict undue influence than treating; but he thought they might thank the hon. and learned Attorney General for having gone as far as he had with a view to getting a good Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think he was going further than he had promised; but he (Mr. Lewis) understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that when he brought forward this moderate clause he would include illegal practices in it. He (Mr. Lewis) had an Amendment with reference to giving a dispensing clause; but he had not moved it, because he had in his mind the promise of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

, in reference to a statement made in the course of the debate that the Judges now had a kind of equitable jurisdiction, said, he thought it would be better to give them a jurisdiction which was strictly defined. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) had said there was no such thing as equitable jurisdiction, and that common sense was entirely excluded from the Act. His (Mr. J. R. Yorke's) vote would depend, to some extent, upon the explanation he got upon this point from the hon. and learned Attorney General.

said, he thought the Amendment might be withdrawn, and the word "bribery" substituted. He had refrained from entering into this question, because he had given his reasons on a previous occasion.

in opposing the addition of the new clause, said, that a great deal had been heard of the possibility of unseating a largo number of Members by this Bill; but he ventured to say that if the Bill became law as the hon. and learned Attorney General had drawn it, there would be very few Petitions presented against any Members after a General Election; while, if this clause was adopted and added to it, there would be a considerable number presented, because, although he would not say it would open the door to bribery and treating, it would make a great hole in the Bill. He knew a borough—and it did not stand alone—in which a candidate was the owner of a large number of public-houses; and it was known that, although there were only trivial cases to prove it, there had been considerable drinking going on. As this clause stood, there would be no interest in a candidate to personally attempt to stop that practice; but, without the clause, there would be a common interest in all parties—candidate, agents, and electors—to prevent everything in the form of drinking or any corrupt practice. Therefore, even in the interest of the candidate, it would be better not to have this clause than to adopt it unamended. The object of the Bill was, or should be, to make corrupt practices as serious an offence as felony, or any other offence against which society warred; but, by the clause, half the inducement to a candidate to prevent bribery was taken away. There was a danger on the other side that the candidate might suffer; but that was a danger of the smallest kind, for no Petition would be presented against a candidate who had been doing his best to prevent corrupt practices. Therefore, in the interest of the candidate, as well as for the prevention of treating, it was better that this clause should not be agreed to, unless it was amended.

said, he had now to deal with an entirely different subject—namely, the prohibition of the employment of hackney carriages. He need not, he thought, remind the Committee how this new clause which he now proposed came into existence; for the Committee had already discussed the question whether the conveyance of voters should be allowed or not. Originally, the conveyance of voters was illegal in boroughs. It occurred to him that a mere prohibition should not be allowed to continue, and in the closing days of the discussion in 1880 the question was discussed, and it was decided that the localities should allow conveyance of voters; and so boroughs and counties were placed in the same position. That was a much better position to occupy than the prohibition of conveyances; but it was thought afterwards that all conveyances should be made illegal. That view had been carried out in this Bill, and there had been a strong concurrence of opinion in favour of prohibition altogether. A large number of voters, who took an interest in the Bill, had expressed an opinion in favour of prohibition with all its inconvenient consequences; but the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and some other hon. Members had opposed mere prohibition. They wished to go further. They said the power of carrying voters was being handed over to those who had private carriages, and they asked that there should be a prohibition against the voluntary lending of carriages. That view was urged very strongly, and seve- ral hon. Members wished to insert a Proviso that no person should be allowed to convey a friend or neighbour to the poll. That was a view which, he thought, the majority would not have agreed to; but while the discussion was going on, it was pointed out, with great force, that there would be hired carriages, for which, if there was no payment at the time, there would be some return. Under these circumstances, he proposed this new clause.

said, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney General not to press this clause; because he (Mr. Whitley) could not help thinking that it would bear very injuriously on the working classes. If the Amendment he had moved upon the matter had been accepted, he should have been quite content; but this clause would operate very hardly on many voters, by practically precluding them from voting at all. He had received several telegrams stating that, by such a clause, the working men in Liverpool would be disfranchised, because they would not be able to vote during the polling period. In counties the farmers generally had some means of conveyance, and so had the tradesmen in small constituencies; but in densely-populated places there were no conveyances that could be used; and therefore large constituencies would be placed at a great disadvantage by this clause. The practice hitherto had been for these voters to be taken to the poll in parties of 40 or 50 at a time; and what would there be to prevent 40 or 50 such electors clubbing together and chartering an onmibus, paying, say, 3d. a-piece to be taken to the poll? It would be impossible to find out what any one man contributed to the cost. One might pay £1 and another 1d., and they would all say they were going to vote. He thought a clause which was likely to be broken was not wise. Believing that the clause would bear harshly on the working classes, he should oppose its insertion in the Bill.

said, he would suggest that the words, "or by several electors at their joint cost, for the purpose of being conveyed," should be inserted.

said, he objected to the clause on principle, and he hoped the Committee would not assent to it. It was a shameful inequality. In all legislation, and particularly in election legislation, it was most important that all men should be treated alike, and that no special favour should be shown to the richer classes. He did not think anybody but a Whig Attorney General, or a Whig Government, could ever have devised a proposal which put rich and poor men on so absolute an inequality as this clause proposed; and he was certain that, if the hon. and learned Attorney General had been inspired by the Liberal and Radical feelings which were represented in the Cabinet, that would have preserved him from the error of proposing such a clause. If this clause were passed, what would be the state of affairs? A wealthy nobleman, possessing a number of carriages, would be allowed to use them to increase his political influence. He might lend his horses and carriages, and employ the whole of his stud, and the whole strength of his stables, to drive electors to the poll; but a more humble elector, who happened to be a livery-stable keeper, or a cab proprietor, and who was a citizen just as much as the nobleman, and had just as much right to use his position and property for the advancement of his political principles, would be placed under a peculiar and special disability. He was not to be allowed to make use of his own property, at his own expense, to increase his political influence, and make himself of weight in a contested election. That was giving influence to a Whig nobleman, and denying it to a Conservative livery-stable keeper. Against such a principle he must enter his earnest protest. But the case was worse than that. The humbler individual was not only not allowed to lend his carriages or cabs, but he was not to be allowed to employ them himself; so that there might be the spectacle of a Whig nobleman riding in his own carriage, and driving electors to the poll; while the livery-stable keeper, or the man who possessed a cart which he was accustomed to let out for hire, was not allowed to indulge in that luxury. This was not a question of Party or of politics. It was a question whether one man was to be as good as his neighbour or not. At election times, at all events, one man was as good as another; and he must protest against so gross and shameful a piece of class legislation as this clause.

said, the clause was the outcome of an Amendment he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) had moved at an earlier stage. He had moved, and the Committee decided, in accordance with the decision of the Government, that all conveyances should be forbidden. His proposition had not been entirely adopted, and the result was a compromise, which was fairly open to the criticisms of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst). But the hon. and learned Attorney General had only fulfilled his pledge. He believed the clause would be inoperative. It was not likely that a job-master would lend his carriages; if be did he would be paid for them at some future time; but, so far as the hon. and learned Attorney General was concerned, he bad simply fulfilled his promise.

said, he knew that his views were unpopular; but, while he sat on the Conservative side, and cried out for liberty, hon. Members on the other side would tie up electors and put them in manacles. What was the principle of this Bill? The principle was to encourage voluntary effort; but, directly that became disagreeable or unmanageable, the hon. and learned Attorney General said that was not the principle of the Bill, and that, at all events, they must control and limit voluntary effort. In this clause, and in many other clauses, there was no principle, except tyranny. That, he believed, was the main principle of the Bill. A strong picture had been drawn by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); but it was not over-coloured. The liberty of the subject was to be confined in one class; but it was to be unrestricted in another. It was not necessary to go into the wording of the clause to show the effect of it; but, before it was parted with, he hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Williamson), who bad suggested a practical Amendment, would adhere to it. In regard to persons clubbing together to hire vehicles, if the hon. Member would move the Amendment he had suggested, he (Mr. Lewis) thought he would meet with considerable support from both sides of the House. In point of fact, it was only a commonsense Amendment, and the Committee would be disposed to look at it from a logical point of view. He believed the Government bad taken up an illogical position, and that they were placing a restriction upon liberty which was altogether unjust.

said, it would be better to divide on the second reading of the clause, which raised the principle of the clause itself; and if the second reading were assented to, they could then discuss the details in Committee. So far as the words "a person" were concerned, in legal construction they included the plural. Therefore, the words "any person" being already in the Bill, there would be no object gained by accepting the Amendment suggested. He would not at present discuss the question raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). The point would be, whether a person was simply carrying on his trade. It might be very easy for a job-master or a person engaged in the business of letting public carriages to supply vehicles for the polling day on the principle that "one good turn deserves another," and that the good turn would come very soon after the election was over. If there were any doubt as to the legal construction of the words "a person," be would gladly accept the Amendment which had been suggested; but he did not think there was.

thought the clause was objectionable in principle, and said be intended to vote against its being read a second time. Indeed, be thought that the hon. and learned Attorney General was hardly satisfied with it himself; and, having regard to the cool manner in which it had been received by hon. Members below the Gangway, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the clause, and would not divide the Committee upon it. The hon. and learned Gentleman was always conjuring up phantoms; and, in reply to some of the objections which had been made, the hon. and learned Gentleman said there would always be some job-master in the neighbourhood who would allow his horses and carriages to be used, with the certainty that he would afterwards be paid. He did not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman had any foundation for that assertion, or that, in any of the numerous cases which had taken place in regard to the use of conveyances, any instance of this kind had been proved to have occurred. The hon. and learned Attorney General had accepted the suggestion thrown out to him; but at the bottom of the compromise there was the principle of disfranchising voters throughout the country. The clause would positively disfranchise a considerable number of men all over the country; and the spirit which pervaded it was that certain persons should be prevented at an election from making use of their votes. He wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the second branch of the clause, which, in his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) opinion, was most objectionable. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to provide that—

"A person shall not hire, borrow, or use for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, any carriage, horse, or other animal which he knows the owner thereof is prohibited by this section to let, lend, or employ for that purpose, and, if he does so, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice."

He would take this case. Supposing one of the rich noblemen who had been referred to, or some other person in the possession of carriages, wished to invite a party of friends to his house, who he thought were not very well off in the world, and that, in order to save job hire, he sent carriages to convey them to his house to dinner, and to take them back afterwards. Would he not, by that process, put a certain sum of money into their pockets? Of course, he did not actually give them money; but he saved them the expenditure of money, and the same principle which was considered to stand good in a small instance must hold good also in a larger and more important one. As the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had pointed out, they were establishing an inequality between the man who had carriages at his disposal and the man who had not. He trusted that the Committee would negative the clause, which he really did not think the hon. and learned Attorney General himself in his heart approved.

said, he entirely approved of the clause, because it was simply to make general that which was the law now in the boroughs of Scotland. Hon. Members would remember that when the Act of 1880 passed, the House exempted Scotland and Ireland from the provisions of that Act; and he wished now to point out that the evils which had been indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) were simply theoretical. They were not at all real, and they were not practical, because, if they were, they would have existed in Scotland, and must inevitably have cropped up in that country ever since the Act was passed. That had not been the fact; and he was satisfied that nothing of the kind would occur in England if this clause were passed. Hon. Members might depend upon it that the clause would not produce the effect anticipated from it, but that it would be advantageous to insert it in the Bill.

said, he should vote against the clause, because he did not think it could possibly be made to work. He would take the last part of it, which, in particular, was thoroughly impracticable. It said—

"Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to, or hired, or used by an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll."

The English of the clause was somewhat peculiar. They would, most undoubtedly, have people who would hire carriages for themselves in order to go to the poll; and, that being so, were they going to make it illegal if, while the carriage was going along the road, the voter saw two or three friends walking along the same road, to pick them up and take them along with him to the poll? A man might hire a carriage who had lent his own carriage for the work of the election. He would have a perfect right to drive himself to the poll; but if he hired a carriage and picked up another voter on the way to the poll it would be held that he was guilty of an illegal practice. Such a provision would be entirely impracticable, and would, undoubtedly, be evaded. Therefore, as it was only calculated to bring about litigation, and probably void the election, he, for one, would vote against it.

said, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider whether it was wise to press this absurd and ridiculous clause. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) dissented.] He saw that the hon. and learned Attorney General shook his head. They were absolutely going to provide that a job-master was not to let out a carriage or a horse if he knew that it was going to be used in an election. There were dozens of job-masters in London who sent down horses to all parts of the country at election times. Were they going to propose that, whenever an election took place, no man should hire out a horse to a person of strong political feeling, because he might be likely to use it in an election? He undertook to say that if a General Election took place in November next he could point out one man in London who would send down at least 100 horses to the country, to be used by various gentlemen in different parts of the country for bringing up voters to the poll. Were they to allow that to be done? ["No, no!"] They would either make it penal, or they would not. If they made it penal, all he could say was that they would be using the clause in order to deprive a very valuable class of men of the liberty, to which they were fairly entitled, of carrying on a legitimate business. But there was another point he also wished to call attention to. They said they would not allow a man who had hired a vehicle, and who had, perhaps, driven it for a distance of five miles, to give a poor neighbour a lift on the way. The hon. and learned Attorney General asked them to read the clause a second time, and then promised to tell the Committee what he proposed to do with it. But he (Mr. Brodrick) thought it would be perfectly ridiculous to accept the clause at all. If four or five men banded themselves together to hire a vehicle to carry themselves to the poll, were Parliament going to assert that each individual ought to pay his share, and then to provide that, if another voter was subsequently taken in, it would be an illegal practice? What it might come to was this—that they might have one rich man paying 19s. 10d., and four poor men being conveyed with him who were only required to pay a farthing each. The principle of the clause was not to allow men with strong political feelings to assist by money, in any way, the power of the electors in getting to the poll. On the same principle, they ought to deny to any person who owned a large house the power of asking a number of people to stay with him on the day of an election, in order that they might have facilities for recording their votes. On the same principle, they ought also to refuse to permit a man to give a dinner or a luncheon to any person who might happen to be an elector on the day of election. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, then, if that were so, let the Government put it in the Bill, so that the Committee might know what they were doing. He thought it was an absurd thing to make a point of a small matter of this kind. In Scotland it would be absolutely necessary, in the case of a large number of poor voters, if they were to go to the poll at all, that they should be conveyed there; and he altogether disputed the necessity, under the pretence of putting down illegal practices, of inserting such a provision as this in the Bill.

said, the clause was the logical consequence of two propositions which had been very strongly resisted by the other side of the House. The first was, that the conveyance of voters to the poll should be allowed to go on as it had done. He knew there was a strong objection entertained to that practice on both sides of the House, and a considerable number of county Members had voted with the Government, insisting upon the Government doing away, in every shape, with the expense of conveying voters to the poll. That principle having been adopted, a large majority on that (the Liberal) side of the House, asked for equality, and called upon the Government to prohibit the hiring and lending of conveyances also. "No!" said hon. Members on the other side of the House, "that would put us to a disadvantage; we claim the right of running our carriages, our breaks, our drags, and our waggonettes. We claim the legitimate influence of wealth." He thought the general opinion of the Press in all parts of the country had already been expressed in favour of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) declaring, on the principle of common justice, that the hiring and lending of conveyances should be prohibited. The Committee had positively prohibited the hiring of carriages, and now they were asked to prohibit the lending of them by private individuals. That was how the question stood at that moment. The hon. and learned Attorney General had gone a step further. A possible injustice was presented to his mind, and he desired to prevent collusive arrangements between a job-master and a candidate for the use of horses and carriages. It was possible that an arrangement might be made with a large job-master or omnibus proprietor to this effect—"Of course, we cannot pay for the use of your carriages, and we do not propose to hire them; but, if your cabs and omnibuses are placed at the disposal of the Committee, there will be a reciprocity of patronage in due course of time, which will compensate you for whatever loss you may sustain on the day of election." Now, he ventured to say that if this clause were not inserted in the Bill, there would not be a horse nor a carriage which would not be used at an election time, and it would be far better to allow the legitimate conveyance of voters to the poll. The Conservative Party opposite concurred in the desirability of doing away with the payment of the carriage of voters to the poll; and hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House were of opinion that they ought to carry the provision still further, and not leave the law in a position which would be favourable to the upper-class candidate and against the working-class candidate. The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Brodrick) put the question in the same category as giving a breakfast, or a luncheon, or a dinner, and objected to the clause, because it aimed a blow at what he considered to be a legitimate mode of spending money and exercising wealth. That was what the clause was intended to prevent. The only legitimate way of dealing with the question was to prohibit the use of carriages altogether in any shape or form; and as the Bill did not go quite as far as that, he should certainly support the clause.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had forgotten one proposition which had been put before the Committee—namely, that if it was necessary to do anything at all, it was necessary to guard against the evasion of the law. That was the foundation of the clause; but the hon. Gentleman had entirely forgotten to answer it. Indeed, no one could answer it. It was assented to by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that any number of people could club together to hire a cab; and if so, the Act, if necessary, might be easily evaded by one elector paying a sovereign, and having a number of gentlemen conveyed with him at the cost of one halfpenny per head.

said, the Government had not yet accepted an Amendment to that effect.

said, the clause itself made that provision, when it said that—

"Nothing in this section should prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to, or hired or used by, an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll."

He presumed, if one elector could hire a carriage, two electors could hire it; and then they came to this absurdity—that if one elector hired a carriage and two went by it, without both of them contributing to the expense, it became an illegal practice. Three or four electors could hire a carriage, and arrange among themselves how the expense was to be paid. On the day of an election, they might find an omnibus full of electors going along the road to the poll. Someone might say—"There is an illegal practice going on;" but the answer would be—"We have hired the 'bus;" but if another omnibus came along containing the same number of men, of whom one might, have been picked up without paying his share, then that was held to be an illegal practice. He contended that they were opening the door to fraud and evasion by the manner in which the clause was drawn.

said, he thought there would be no difficulty in dealing with such cases as had been suggested by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick). Any Judge who tried such a case would pronounce the transaction illusory, and an evasive hiring as far as the Act was concerned. If one man paid 2s. and another man 2s. 6d., there would be a joint hiring; but if one man paid a sovereign, and another only a halfpenny, the Judge, as a matter common sense, would decide that there had been an evasion of the Act.

said, that either the Bill would entirely prevent a large number of the working classes from recording their votes at all, where the place at which they worked was distant from the place of polling, or it would be evaded by wholesale. In his own district, it was no exaggeration to say that on the polling day every available carriage would be hired by working men, and upon what terms? Did any hon. Member suppose they could get behind the terms upon which 20 or 100 men hired conveyances? He would engage to say that it was impossible to get behind those terms, and this provision would be evaded by wholesale, without any possibility of getting at the facts. He therefore thought it was undesirable for the House to pass a measure which would either be entirely impracticable, or would prevent the working classes from recording their votes.

thought it was the best point in regard to the clause that it would be evaded. The practice of carrying people to the poll, somehow or other, would go on just the same as before, except to this extent—that the candidate might probably not be mulcted to the same amount. If the election was likely to be a close one, they would not find people left behind, because there were no conveyances to take them to the poll. There were certain persons whom they must of necessity convey to the poll—people who were ill, or too old, or too infirm to walk; and this sort of squeamish morality would never persuade the ordinary Englishman that he ought not to provide the means of conveying voters, under such circumstances, to the poll. Somehow or other, the friends of the candidate, or some members of his party—not the agents, for they would take care to keep their hands clear of anything of the kind; but independent electors, sufficiently well off, would provide these things. It might be illegal; but as long as it did not vitiate the seat, nobody would take the trouble to interfere with it when it was done, for the object of the Bill was not to send men to prison for misdemeanour. It had long been provided by law that the agents of a candidate should not vote at an election; but, as a matter of fact, the paid agents did vote in every borough that he had been connected with. There might be exceptions; but, as a rule, they voted. So far as he was personally concerned, he objected to agents altogether, and he had never had an agent in any election he had contested. He believed an election agent to be a mischievous institution. Whether they inserted the clause or not, if it were necessary to convey voters to the poll who wished to vote, no Act of Parliament would be allowed to stand in the way of their exercise of the franchise. It was all very well to frame Acts of Parliament in these days; but only very recently they had been told, in "another place," that if people wilfully disobeyed an Act of Parliament they would do nothing morally wrong, and that all their illegitimate bastards ought to be made legitimate by Act of Parliament. When the people were openly taught such a lesson, could they be persuaded that there was anything wrong in a matter of this kind? Somehow or other, voters would be conveyed to the poll, and the passing of this Act would not make a shade of difference whether the practice was rendered legal or illegal. He should vote against the clause; but, at the same time, he did not care one fig whether it was inserted in the Bill or not.

said, there was one case he should like to put to the hon. and learned Attorney General. If the Amendment proposed on the other side of the House were carried, he wished to know if it would be legal for a coach proprietor or a hackney-carriage proprietor to bring into a district a certain number of such hackney carriages, and undertake to carry voters to the poll for one penny a-head? If that were done, would it not be a joint hiring of vehicles from such a proprietor, who could put on omnibuses or carriages for the purpose of conveying voters to the poll for a nominal sum? Would not that be a joint hiring, and perfectly legal, under the clause which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to insert in the Bill?

said, that it would not be legal, because it would be an evasion of the Act.

said, there was a serious omission in the clause. As it was at present drawn, it referred only to conveyance by land, and left out altogether conveyance by water. It appeared to be forgotten that there were constituencies placed on the banks of rivers, and on certain arms of the sea; and he wanted to know why it should not be illegal for a boatman to let out a boat in order to convey voters so circumstanced to the poll? There was another suggestion he wished to make. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Attorney General was acquainted with the law in regard to stage carriages or not; but an interesting question arose upon that point. The law in regard to stage coaches was that any person had a right to book a place; and there was nothing to prevent a man going the day before an election and booking a place. They were told that no such conveyance was to be driven to and from the poll; but, in the case of an omnibus, might it not stop 100 or 200 yards from the polling booth? He saw no provision that would deal with a case of that kind. Then there was another remarkable omission. An elector was allowed to hire a carriage, or a horse, or other animal to take himself to the poll; but there was nothing said of bringing him back again. He threw out these suggestions for the consideration of the hon. and learned Attorney General. He wanted to know if it was the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to allow a voter to hire a carriage to convey himself to the poll, and not to allow him to be driven back again in the same carriage? He thought it would be the most prudent course for the hon. and learned Attorney General to stay his hand, and not go a step further. There were other parts of the clause which deserved attention; but he would not weary the Committee by raising further objections.

said, he really hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would reconsider the clause before it was finally incorporated in the Bill. He presumed that the Committee would divide upon the second reading of the clause now, and that the subsequent stage would be taken later, probably tomorrow. He sincerely hoped, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the ridiculous and absurd consequences in which the Committee would be allowed to involve itself if it placed upon the Statute Book nonsense like this. A clause more abounding in absurdities and nonsense he had never seen. They were asked to hamper a man engaged in a lawful occupation in such a manner as not to be able to pursue that occupation, and in the third paragraph of the clause the hon. and learned Attorney General tried to free the Statute Book from the absurdities involved in the two previous paragraphs. The third paragraph certainly made the two preceding paragraphs almost illusory. If they intended to provide that a party of electors might club together and hire a hackney carriage, nothing would be more easy than to evade the requirements of the first part of the clause. It would be quite competent, if the clause passed in its present shape, for a crowd of electors, for their own purposes, to employ hackney carriages to convey themselves to and from the poll, and it would be impossible to ascertain upon what terms the arrangement was made.

said, the question put to him had reference to the payment of a nominal sum by some of the persons conveyed; and he had declared that that would be an evident evasion of the Act.

said, he could not see why it could not be done; and although the hon. and learned Attorney General had used the words "nominal sum," the question put was, whether a crowd of electors would not be able to pay a small sum among them? They all knew that the principle of small profits and quick returns was often acted upon as a very proper mode of dealing with ordinary business transactions; and, unquestionably, if this clause passed, they would find men who, at an election time, would let out hackney carriages, cabs, and omnibuses to groups of electors for very small sums. The transaction would be a perfectly bonâ fide one, and he did not see what was to prevent it. After the Division which he imagined would now be taken, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would consider in his own mind whether he had not sufficiently redeemed the pledge he was under of bringing forward this clause. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with having occupied a couple of hours that evening in the discussion of the question, and that before to-morrow he would consider it right to allow the clause to follow Clauses 38 and 40, and to be relegated to some indefinite place from which it was never likely to emerge.

said, he represented a larger number of working men than many hon. Members of that House; and he had received representations from his constituents that the effect of this clause would be to disfranchise one-half of the men who held small freeholds. Now, he was of opinion that a man who held a small freehold—he did not mean a freehold purchased for the purpose of conferring a vote, but a small inherited freehold, was as much entitled to a vote as any man could be. That class of men performed legitimate functions between the middle and the working classes; and in his constituency, although there were many railway stations, these men would, notwithstanding, find themselves at considerable distances from their polling places, and they could not avail themselves of the power of evasion, which was suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General. They could not, by any legitimate process, club together in order to hire a conveyance to take them to the polling place, and they would be practically disfranchised. He should, therefore, vote against the clause.

said, that it had been more than once stated, in the course of the debate, that many Conservative county Members had voted in favour of prohibiting the conveyance of voters to the poll. He had been somewhat startled at that statement; and on referring to the pages of Hansard he found that there had not been a Division on the abstract question of the convey- ance of voters at all. The only substantial Division was one which took place on an Amendment moved by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), which was restricted to the boroughs. In that Division 19 Conservative Members voted against the noble Lord, of whom only 9 were county Members.

said, that he rose to call attention, for the second time during the present Parliament, to the continued prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in various districts of the country, and to the grievous injury it had inflicted, not only upon those who were more immediately engaged in the pursuit of agriculture, but also on the interests of the community at large; and he should conclude with a Motion expressive of his views upon the subject as follows:—

"That this House desires to urge on Her Majesty's Government the importance of taking effectual measures for the suppression of foot-and-mouth disease throughout the United Kingdom; and it is of opinion that while for this purpose it is necessary that adequate restrictions, under the powers vested in the Privy Council, should he imposed on the movements and transit of cattle at home, it is even more important, with a view to its permanent extinction, that the landing of Foreign live animals should not be permitted in future from any Countries as to which the Privy Council are not satisfied that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein, are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals which are diseased."

In making that Motion his contention would briefly be—First, that the whole of the losses which had been incurred by foot-and-mouth disease since the month of September, 1880, very shortly after this Government came into Office, must be traced to the landing of foreign live animals in England from countries infected with that disease abroad; secondly, that as long as that importation was permitted and continued we never could expect or hope to be permanently free from it in the future; thirdly, that it was the duty of the Government to take whatever measures might be in their power to effectually eradicate it from the country; in other words, to enforce adequate domestic restrictions in order to stamp it out at home, and to prohibit the landing of live animals in England from any infected country whatsoever, in order to prevent its re-introduction again from abroad; fourthly, and lastly, he should maintain that in taking that course Her Majesty's Government would be acting in the best interests, not only of the producers, but of the consumers of meat in this country, and of the general community at large. Before making good these propositions, he desired to call attention to two or three points in particular, which were raised early in the Session, in opposition to his views, by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), representing the Department which was specially responsible for dealing with the question. The first of these was one on which he (Mr. Chaplin) was under the impression that all difference of opinion had long ago practically ceased, and that was, whether foot-and-mouth disease was indigenous to this country or not? The right hon. Gentleman stated, on a former occasion, that he had grave doubts upon the matter, and that he was by no means sure how far it was so. If there were any sufficient ground for believing that foot-and-mouth disease was indigenous to this country, then his (Mr. Chaplin's) position would be proportionately weakened. But, surely, it was impossible for anyone who had studied the volumes of evidence which had been forthcoming on the question to deny that the overwhelming mass of that evidence was totally adverse to that conclusion. He was aware that there was one case, certainly, it was true, of foot-and-mouth disease occurring in this country in 1839, at a time when the landing of all animals was prohibited by law, and had been for some considerable time; and that was sometimes adduced as evidence of its being spontaneous. But, unfortunately for his opponents, that argument would not bear the test of examination; for, although it was true that the landing of foreign live animals was prohibited, that prohibition, it appeared, did not extend to the landing of cattle from the surplus stores of some of our ships; and he believed that, in the opinion of men most competent to judge, it was as certain as anything could be, short of actual demonstration, that the disease at that time was introduced into this country in that way. He could give a long list of gentlemen of scientific attainments who were agreed that the disease was not indigenous to this country, but imported from abroad; and, unless very different evidence was produced, the assumption was justified that this disease was of foreign origin, and of foreign origin alone. But the right hon. Gentleman made another statement which he heard with even more surprise, and that was to the effect—

"That the evidence given to the Privy Council showed that breeding was not stopped by foot-and-mouth disease."

That was diametrically opposed to the practical experience of every farmer who had had the misfortune to suffer from the disease.

I never said so.

said, he had read the copy of the speech in Hansard, where it was given; but he was glad the right hon. Gentleman did not maintain that.

said, he had denied it over and over again; he had said exactly the contrary.

said, the quotation in Hansard was as he had given it; but he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge the accuracy of the statement, which had startled him (Mr. Chaplin) in no slight degree. He would, therefore, not pursue it further; but there was another statement which he wished to notice, of infinitely more importance, by which it was probable that the public had been much misled, and for which there was no solid and no just foundation. He alluded to the statements made, early in the Session, by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, and repeated continually by those whom, he suspected, were more or less interested parties on many occasions outside—namely, that the effect of this Motion, which he (Mr. Chaplin) asked the House to accept, would be to enormously increase the present price of meat. Some had put it at 2d. or 3d. a-pound; others had stated—and the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), if correctly reported, was one of them—that it would double the price; and the Vice President of the Council himself had not scrupled to state from that Bench that if his (Mr. Chaplin's) proposition were accepted, it would raise the price of meat to famine rates for the population of this country. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Hear, hear!] Now, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he believed it to be impossible to imagine a grosser exaggeration than that statement, or one more utterly devoid of foundation or incapable of proof. If it were really so—if even there were grounds, reliable grounds, for believing that it might be so—he confessed that he, for one, should be greatly shaken in his views; and he should think, as often as the Prime Minister was reported to have said on one occasion, that he would think about abolishing the House of Lords before proceeding with this Motion; but he held an exactly opposite opinion, and he would state at once his reasons for doing so. What were the facts of the case? Let him ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to fairly and impartially examine them. It was not, and ought not to be, a Party question. He had no disposition to make it one; and if they would approach it in the same spirit, he was convinced that their opposition would be greatly modified, if it did not altogether disappear. How did the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President support his assertion? The right hon. Gentleman began by stating that the effect of his demands would be to exclude a supply of meat from abroad for home consumption here to the value of more than £9,000,000 sterling. Well, that statement, to begin with, was not quite correct, because it represented the total value of all our live imports at the present time, and it took no account of the animals which would still be permitted to land alive under the terms of the Motion. The House would perceive that it was only upon animals coming from infected countries that he desired to place any restriction; and, under the terms of his Motion, they would still be permitted to land from any countries as to which the Privy Council were satisfied with the general sanitary condition of the animals therein. Those countries at present were as follows:—Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and British North America. He would explain to the House fully, before he concluded, how this arose; but, for the moment, it was sufficient to point out that the value of animals which came from those countries, according to the last Return he had, for 1881, amounted to £2,761,502. Now, if that sum were deducted from £9,200,000, which was said to be the total value of imported live animals, it would leave, roughly speaking, foreign live animals of the value of £6,400,000, and that was the total value of the imports at the present time with which he really proposed to interfere. He quite admitted that even £6,400,000 appeared, at first sight, and taken by itself, to represent a large amount of food with which to interfere; and so, no doubt, it was, until they compared it with the annual consumption of meat by the people of this country, and the moment they did that, they would then see that it was astonishing how small, how exceedingly trifling a proportion of the whole it represented. That was a point to which the attention of the public had not been by any means sufficiently directed, and as to which they had been very much misled. He remembered, at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President made his statement, that he asked across the floor—"What proportion of the whole of our annual consumption does your £9,000,000 represent?" But there was no reply. The right hon. Gentleman passed it by; and, probably, he was not in a position at the moment to say. He (Mr. Chaplin) was not at all surprised at it, because the annual consumption, of the country was not very easy to arrive at. There were no official statistics or calculations that he was aware of on the subject; but there had been various calculations by different authorities which might be taken, he believed, as approximately, if not substantially correct; and the House would, perhaps, allow him, therefore, to submit to them some of the results of these calculations as applied to the figures of to-day. Now, what was the annual meat consumption of the country? It might be divided under three heads—first, the meat produced at home; secondly, the meat imported alive from abroad; and, thirdly, the meat which was imported dead. The first of these, of course, was more or less uncertain, and a matter of calculation; but the last two could be given exactly from official Returns. With regard to the first, calculations, as he had already said, had been made before, and he saw no reason why they should not be made approximately correct again. Estimates, he found, had been made upon this subject at different times by Mr. H. M. Thompson, afterwards Sir Henry Thompson, and at one time President of the Royal Agricultural Society of England; by Mr. J. A. Clarke, and by Sir James Caird—by Sir Henry Thompson in 1871, by Mr. Clarke in 1871, and again in 1873 and in 1875, and by Sir James Caird in 1878. At first, in their estimates, there was no great difference between any of the three, although, in his later estimates, Mr. Clarke made the amount considerably less. But, taking the first Returns of each, what he found was this—that by an elaborate system of calculation, based upon the official Returns of all the animals in the country, but the details of which would occupy too much time to give to the House, Sir Henry Thompson, in 1871, estimated that the number of homegrown animals which went to the butcher every year represented 1,266,000 tons of meat; Mr. Clarke made it 1,214,000 tons, and Sir James Caird 1,225,000 tons. Now, applying the system of calculation adopted by Sir Henry Thompson to the Returns of 1882—and he had purposely taken the highest because the Returns were notoriously less than the real number of animals in the country, for many people still neglected to make any Returns at all—he arrived at this result—With regard to the first head of our whole consumption—namely, that of home-grown meat—it amounted to 1,175,000 tons at the present time. With regard to the second, the total live import amounted to 105,000 tons; and with regard to the third—namely, the import of dead meat—it came to 204,667 tons, making a total of 1,485,702 tons, as the gross annual consumption of meat in the country at the present time. Now, let him ask the House to consider how much of this supply he really proposed to interfere with by his Motion. The total live imports for the year 1882 came, as he had shown, to 105,000 tons. But from that must be deducted the animals which would be still permitted to land alive, under his Motion, from Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and British North America. According to calculations he had made, the weight of the animals which came from those countries in 1882 would represent about 46,000 tons; and, if that were so, that would reduce the amount of live imports which he interfered with from 105,000 tons to 60,000, and 60,000 tons represented certainly not more than about 4 per cent of the whole annual consumption of the country. Now, that was literally all that he proposed to interfere with, and even that amount, small comparatively as it was, would not by any means be necessarily lost to the consumer; for it was quite possible, and in his judgment exceedingly probable, that the greater part of it would come to us in the shape of dead moat instead. Now, if that were so, and if his comparisons between the amount of meat produced at home and the amount of live meat imported from abroad were correct in any degree whatever—and he fully believed they were—was it conceivable, upon the facts and figures he had put before the House, that this Motion could by any possibility have the alarming effects upon the price of our meat, which were so freely attributed to it by some of the most ardent of their opponents? That disposed, he hoped, of the main arguments which had been used, and now let him ask what was the case in support of the Resolution? He ventured to think that their case, always a strong one, had been greatly strengthened by recent events; for not only had we suffered much in England, but, during the present outbreak, this disease had spread with most unfortunate and disastrous results to both Ireland and Scotland, which were free from it immediately before. What was his first proposition? It was this—that the whole of our losses since September, 1880, must be traced to the landing of foreign live animals in England from countries infected with that disease abroad. What was the history of the present outbreak? It distinctly bore out his first proposition; for he would point out, as he did two years ago, that for a period of nine months in 1880, this disease had been stamped out, and we were actually and entirely free from it altogether. At the end of that period, it was, unhappily, re-introduced by the landing of a diseased cargo, or cargoes of animals at Deptford from France. That had never been denied, although the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had gone so far as to say he could not admit or acknowledge it had been proved. But he (Mr. Chaplin) thought he could set the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest on this point by quoting, as a witness, a gentleman whose authority he felt certain he would not deny. He referred to Professor Brown, who presided with so much ability over the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. This was what Professor Brown said. He (Mr. Chaplin) took it from a pamphlet on the history of foot-and-mouth disease, written by him for one of the Agricultural Societies of England—the Bath and West of England he believed—and this was what he said; after showing that the disease had been actually stamped out for nine months, he wrote as follows:—

"The tenth outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease commenced on October 1, 1880, when the affection was discovered in a London dairy, and there can he no doubt that it was re-introduced by a cargo of animals from France, among which it was detected when they were landed for slaughter at Deptford on September 20."

Now, that statement, coming from that source, conclusively established the fact that, at a time when we were free and had been for nine months, it was reintroduced from abroad, and we had never got rid of it since. But what was the extent and character of these losses, which might have been so easily prevented? Since September, 1880, there had been very little short of 12,000 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in different parts of the country, and the number of the animals attacked, though he had not the actual figures, must amount to many hundred thousands. To give the House an idea of how serious these losses were, he would quote a letter which he had received only a day or two ago from one of the leading agriculturists in the East of England, Mr. Herbert J. Little, a gentleman well known in this House, and this was what he said—

"On the 24th of May, foot-and-mouth disease was introduced to my farm by my sheep, which had been sent to the nearest wash dyke, no intimation having been made, and no suspicion existing in my mind that the disease existed in the neighbourhood. The whole of my sheep, about 600, became infected in a few days. Great loss of condition followed the attack. From the sheep it was transmitted to my cattle and pigs. The latter died off—so far as young ones were concerned—pretty quick, and I soon buried about 30. But it is among my cattle that the principal loss has occurred. Twenty of my cows were valuable shorthorns, all in full milk. One of these, a pedigree cow, of a valuable strain of blood, died of the disease. The remainder of this lot are so maimed and crippled from the disease that I cannot tell, at present, how far the immediate loss may go to, to say nothing of the certainty of many of them being permanently injured, and perhaps destroyed for breeding purposes. About 30 more heifers were rearing their own calves in the fields. These latter were beautiful animals, the pride of my farm, and in fine condition. I have already lost about half of them; but, as they still keep dying, I cannot tell the ultimate loss in this case any more than among the cows. Now, Sir, add to these losses the total failure of the milk supply, and the forced realization of a number of fine fat cattle, which were sent away lest the disease should reach them, and by which forced sale I was a loser of about £80, and you have a very unpleasant state of things, for which I must count the Government responsible. As I sit writing this letter, and listening, as I have to do day and night, to the melancholy lowing of my disconsolate animals, and, further, as I contemplate my own serious losses, and the deathblow which this attack has given to my efforts as a breeder, I ask myself why I and my class should be singled out for these penalties? We are engaged, under no ordinary difficulties, of late years, in a useful and honourable occupation; and we expect the protection of the Government, at least, against preventible disease,"

In that expectation he (Mr. Chaplin) entirely and cordially concurred. A calculation was made for him, about two years ago, by one of the leading farmers in Lincolnshire of the average direct loss which might he said to have arisen from an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease among the stock on his farm. His calculation was as follows:—That on every 100 beasts, averaging, say, £15 a-head in value, the loss must be estimated, in one way or another, at £4 a-head; and on every 100 sheep, worth £3 apiece, the loss could not be less than £1 a-head. From the inquiries he had made, he (Mr. Chaplin) believed that was by no means an extravagant estimate. Now, applying that standard to Mr. Little's stock, he was afraid his losses would amount to at least £1,200. If that was so, he could only say that he had his entire sympathy. But the House must remember that Mr. Little's was not by any means an isolated case. There had been, as he had said, nearly 12,000 similar outbreaks since 1880; and if they multiplied Mr. Little's losses by 12,000, they would arrive at a loss in millions, which it was positively appalling to think of. At any rate, there was no doubt that the direct losses of agriculturists during the last three years from this cause had been really enormous; and to these must be added the indirect losses they had undergone from the stoppage of movements of stock, from loss of markets, through discontinuance of the holding of fairs all over the country, from forced sales, and the general restrictions placed upon them, which were far greater than hon. Members had any idea of. And all this loss had been incurred, it must be remembered, at a time when farmers had been suffering from exceptional distress, and when it might have been so easily prevented, if only it had been thought right to do that which he asked the House to urge upon the Government to do at the present time. That was his first proposition. His second was that, as long as importation from infected countries was permitted, we never could hope to be permanently free from the ravages of this disease in future. It was the fact that, since September, 1880, in spite of the mischief which they knew had arisen from the landing of one cargo at Deptford, and in spite of their continued and incessant remonstrances with the Government respecting it since then, no less than 307 cargoes of live animals infected with foot-and-mouth disease had been allowed by the Government to be landed in different parts of the country from that time to the present. When they knew the disastrous results of the landing of a single diseased cargo in Deptford, in 1880, it needed no arguments to show—although it might be impossible to trace it, as at Deptford, when the country was otherwise absolutely free—that in all human probability the disease had been repeatedly introduced afresh since then, and it would continue to be introduced undoubtedly, from time to time, as long as the importation from infected countries was permitted. Then his third proposition was this—that it was the duty of the Government, as far as a Government could do, to free the country from this state of things in future. How was that to be done? In his judgment, it could be done in one way, and one way alone—namely, the Government must take measures which would be sufficient to stamp it out again at hon. home as it stamped it out before, and prevent its re-introduction from abroad. That it could be stamped out they knew from experience, and they were supported in that view by great authorities, such as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard). But the House must remember that doing this entailed great loss and great sacrifices on the farmers; and, although the farmers were willing to submit to them, and did cheerfully submit to them, in the hope of the final extinction of the disease, all their sacrifices had been rendered vain by the deliberate importation of infected animals. They could not be expected to undergo all these sacrifices again; and he, for one, would be no party to continuing the restrictions on them, harsh, severe, and injurious as they were, unless, at the same time, the Government gave them the most effectual guarantee in its power against the re-introduction of the disease from abroad. He maintained that the Government ought to do this, at the present time, and that they had ample power to do all that was necessary under the law, as it existed at present. The existing law gave to the Privy Council, under Section 35 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, absolute discretionary power to prohibit the landing of animals from any specified country, or any specified part of it. And it further provided, by the 5th Schedule of the same Act, with regard to all animals that were not prohibited from landing by the Privy Council, that they were not to leave the wharf alive, but were to be slaughtered at the port. Then the law gave a further discretionary power to the Privy Council to exempt animals from compulsory slaughter at the port, if they were satisfied that the general sanitary condition of the animals, and the laws relating to animals in the country from which they came, were such as to afford reasonable security against the importation of disease. Now, how had the Privy Council exercised that two-fold discretionary power which was vested in them by the law? On the one hand, they had absolutely prohibited the landing of animals altogether from Austria, Italy, Greece, Russia, the Dominions of the Sultan, and some other countries besides, until the Order for their prohibition was cancelled. Those were countries from which there was always danger, more or less, of importing cattle plague. On the other hand, from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and British North America, they not only allowed the animals to land alive, but so satisfactory was the general healthy condition of those countries, that they also exempted the animals from compulsory slaughter at the port when they did land. Then, besides that, they had recently, within the last few weeks, issued an Order prohibiting the landing of all live animals whatever from France, because there was so much foot-and-mouth disease in that country at the present time. That was how the powers vested in the Privy Council were exercised at present; and all that he asked the Government to do by his Motion was this—to go a little bit further than they had gone at present, and to deal with every other country from which there are the smallest fear of importing this disease precisely as they were dealing with Prance at the present time. The law was quite sufficient, he believed, to enable them to do so; but if it were not, then let it be amended as quickly as possible. But he could not think that was necessary; there was foot-and-mouth disease in France, and the Government prohibited animals from landing. The disease had also been prevalent in Belgium, in Spain, the United States, and other countries during the present year; and if the Government were able to prevent the landing of animals from France, what was there to prevent them from prohibiting the landing of animals from other countries from which there was reason to fear the introduction of disease? That was a question to which they were entitled to have a very explicit answer from the Government. In the interests of the public, that was what the Government ought to do. We had a growing population, and a daily-increasing demand for meat. Where were we to look for an adequate supply? Not to America, for there, undoubtedly, the surplus supplies were being contracted every day, and the country had little more than it required for its own consumption. Neither could we expect any large permanent additions to our supply from Europe, except it was from Russia, and from that country we had always the fear of importing the cattle plague. It certainly was satisfactory to know that the fresh meat imported dead, for the first half of the present year, showed an increase of 27 per cent as compared with the corresponding half of last year, and that the live imports also showed an increase of 19 percent. He thought it very satisfactory that this increase of live imports was mainly due to one of the clean countries—namely, Denmark, with which he would not in any way interfere. For a large and permanent additional supply of meat at reasonable prices, such a supply as he desired to see available for the people, there were only two sources to which we could look with any certainty and assurance for the future. One of them was our own production at home, and the other was the development of a large dead meat supply with our Colonies—with Australia and New Zealand, for instance—from which large quantities of meat came. The present high prices of meat were, in his opinion, mainly owing to the greatly diminished stocks in our own country, caused chiefly by the losses arising from foreign disease, and, above all, by the cattle plague many years ago. It was certain that, with adequate security against the re-introduction of these diseases in the future, our flocks and herds would be largely developed and increased. The evidence given by witness after witness before the Royal Commission was so conclusive upon this point that advanced Radicals, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), and Pro- fessors of Political Economy, like Mr. Bonamy Price, were constrained to support that view. He knew well that, in moving his Resolution, he was rendering himself liable to much misrepresentation. He had often been accused of a desire to make food dear for the people of this country. But ungenerous and untrue charges of that nature in no way affected him, for nothing could be further from his wishes than to raise the price of food. Standing in the House of Commons, he declared that he advocated this measure, because he believed it was in this direction only that they should be able to secure large, abundant, and cheap supplies of meat. He proposed his Resolution, not in the interest of any particular class, but in what he honestly and conscientiously believed to be the interests of the whole population of this country; and he submitted it with confidence and hope to the verdict of the House of Commons. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in rising to second the Resolution, said, that he did so in the belief, as expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin), that he was advocating what was for the benefit of the consumers of this country, and not for that of the agricultural interest alone. Although representing a county, he (Colonel Kingscote) believed he was returned, not by the agricultural interest in that constituency, but by a large mining population; and if, in any way, he were to advocate measures which would enhance the prices of meat, he did not think his seat would be worth very many hours' purchase. However, if means were not taken to stamp out cattle disease, a state of things would soon be reached in which no one would devote that attention to the question of cattle breeding which ought to be given to it in this country. In 1880, England was nearly free from cattle disease; but in that year it was introduced from abroad through the Deptford Market, and since then it had prevailed to an extent which could not but cause the gravest anxiety. It had spread throughout the length and breadth of the land; and at that moment all over England, Scotland, and Ireland the agricultural community was suffering from the different restrictions imposed upon it by the outbreak. Those restrictions made by the local authorities varied in the most remarkable manner. Scotland was practically shut off from England, and so were Northumberland and Westmoreland from the other English counties, in consequence of the importation of foreign animals through Newcastle-on-Tyne. The restrictions were carried out in what he must call a nonsensical manner, seeing that every county had regulations of its own. Jobbers were allowed to accumulate their animals in different places; and, while those in which the disease had shown itself were left behind, others were taken around the country, and to the waterside markets, and so disseminated disease. He could assure those who thought that foot-and-mouth disease was a very trifling disease that it was not the farmers only, but the whole community, who were sufferers by it. The country was suffering more than any statistics could show from the disease, which destroyed not only the fertility of cows, but their milking qualities, and ruined the farmers who owned these animals and depended on their produce. Professor Brown, in his evidence before the Committee in 1877, said that one of the most important amendments of the existing system would be a uniform scheme applicable to the whole country, to be carried out by Privy Council Inspectors stationed in each district. And the Report said that, provided there was security from the importation of disease from abroad, the farmers of the country would be willing to accept any regulations. In fact, the farmers had suffered by the regulations without a murmur, and how had they been rewarded? He would say, without the least hesitation, that since 1877 the disease had been distinctly brought in from abroad. The Government were asked to-night not to shut the stable door after the steed was stolen, but to take those precautions that would prevent foot-and-mouth disease from coming here from countries abroad where it was known to exist. If we did not know how to take care of ourselves, foreign countries knew how to adopt measures for their own protection. Our American friends had at last awakened to the danger, and to the necessity of restricting the importation of animals from countries in which disease existed; and their Legislature had recently, by a clause in the States' Tariff Bill, prohi- bited the importation of hides or neat cattle under a penalty of $500 fine, or a year's imprisonment; but provided for the suspension of the prohibition, when the Secretary to the Treasury should signify that importation from any particular country might take place without danger of the spread of disease throughout the States. He only asked the Government to take those precautions which the United States had taken now. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Chaplin) had said that the dead meat trade could be easily carried out in this country. He (Colonel Kingscote) endorsed that opinion, and maintained, with his hon. Friend, that if the Government prohibited the importation of live stock tomorrow, we should, through the dead meat trade, not suffer a bit as regards the price of meat. He could say, having sat throughout the Committee of 1877 and the Royal Agricultural Commission, that the dead meat trade could be very quickly and efficiently developed if it were only forced upon the trade. There was no use in denying that the trade would resist to the utmost the introduction of the dead meat system, because there were two middlemen who would have to be done away with; but if they were to be done away with the price of meat would be very much reduced; and experience had proved that it would be perfectly practicable to rely solely on that source for the foreign supply of this country. It was ridiculous to say that the dead meat trade could not be carried on in hot weather. What was the use of the telegraph and all our other appliances if it could not? America and Australia could send us meat; but a deat set had been made against the dead meat trade, and prejudice had been excited against it, merely because the middlemen felt alarmed. But as long as disease was allowed to run its course through the length and breadth of the land, agriculturists would not breed sheep and cattle. In fact, cattle breeders in this country were becoming few and far between; and he contended that every encouragement ought to be given to live stock breeders, otherwise they would soon disappear altogether. As for the two Amendments on the Paper, of which Notice had been given, he did not see much difference between that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) and the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford merely said that, while continued and vigilant exercise on the part of Her Majesty's Government of the powers entrusted to it was called for, the House did not consider it necessary to make further provision by legislation on the subject. But further provision by legislation was not asked for. The powers the Government had were sufficient, and what the supporters of the Resolution wanted was, that the Government should take precautions against the introduction of the disease which was known to exist in other countries. As to the other Amendment, that of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), to appoint a Select Committee upon the subject, for which a good deal might have been said earlier in the year, what, in the name of fortune, was the use of proposing a Select Committee in the month of July? What could a Committee do in the matter at that time of the year? He did not know what could possibly be the object of the hon. Gentleman, unless he thought that the whole House were simple and idiotic, or else he wished to make fools of them all by urging upon them such a proposition. With the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford he found no fault at all. It was not much more controvertible than the statement that two and two made four, and that was all he could say of it. He believed that the Act of 1878 gave the Privy Council power to do all that was desired; and he called upon them to do it, and supported the Resolution of his hon. Friend for that one object. The recent action of the Government with regard to this question had very much disappointed him. It appeared that there was not a Minister, but that a new Agricultural Department had been formed—a Council of Agriculture; and the result was this—that after more than one deputation had been received, not only courteously, but also satisfactorily, the Lord President of the Council told a deputation of salesmen and others that they "had given him power to resist further demands" on the part of the agricultural interest. In the present state of things, deputations were received by the Lord President, Questions in the House were answered by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Vice President of the Council was, he believed, to represent the Government that evening. It seemed to him that, amid all this uncertainty, the agricultural interest was tossed about in a way that was not at all satisfactory. He cordially supported the Motion of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Chaplin), and in doing so he spoke on behalf of the consumer, as well as the agricultural interest; and he believed that if the disease were allowed to go rampant throughout the land, both the farmers and the general body of consumers would be most injuriously affected.

, in rising to move the following Amendment—

"That the recent prevalence of foot and mouth disease calls for the continued and vigilant exercise on the part of Her Majesty's Government of the powers entrusted to it, not only with reference to the movement of live animals at home, but in regard to their importation from abroad, but this House does not consider it necessary, under present circumstances, to make further provision by legislation on the subject,"

said: I am glad to think that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) has given great advantage to my case; for he has, in the frankest and most complete manner, accepted my view of the question by declaring that no legislation is required; and, in order to confirm that, my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Kingscote) has, with even greater emphasis—and there are no two greater authorities on the subject in the House—unhesitatingly accepted the proposition I now submit to the House. Another advantage which I have is that, although myself inferior in authority, I am able, without imputing any unworthy motive to the hon. Gentleman opposite, or questioning the sincerity of his purpose, to say what he (Mr. Chaplin) could not say in this matter—namely, that I rerepresent no less an interest than that of the great body of the people. ["Oh, oh!"] If any hon. Members doubt that, I will give them an invitation to Manchester, or any other large centre of population in this Kingdom, and ask the people to judge then and there between them and me. The hon. Member comes forward, at a time when the price of meat is very high, with a policy which I shall contend would probably make it much dearer. He represents most ably, I admit, but avowedly, that which he conceives to be the interests of the producers of meat in this country. I shall endeavour to show that the agricultural interest will not be well advised if it presses this Motion. He brandishes before the eyes of the House the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission on Agriculture. Perhaps it is due to modesty—I will so assume—that the hon. Member has not informed the House how he triumphed over that Commission in this matter, as I hope he will not triumph in the House this evening. Is it not a fact that he forced the Duke of Richmond to surrender his judgment in this matter? The Duke was the author of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill of 1878, which was relieved of its most intolerable proposals by the Liberal Opposition in that year. When the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire brought the proposal which he makes to-night before the Commission on Agriculture, I believe I am right in saying that the Duke of Richmond, together, I think, with Lord Vernon and others, opposed it, because the Duke of Richmond felt that, if he had been still President of the Council, he could not, in accordance with his views of duty, act upon the policy of this Resolution without legislation; and that he was not disposed to bring forward such legislation as would be needful to prohibit the importation of live animals for immediate slaughter from all countries which were not entirely free from the common diseases of such animal life. I beg to inform the House that the Report of the Royal Commission, which the hon. Member presents with such confidence, is not, in reality, a unanimous Report; I believe there was a division upon the point of policy embodied in the hon. Gentleman's Resolution, and that the noble Duke the President, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and others, were defeated by the zeal of the hon. Member, and by the fervour which he inspired in the minds of other Gentlemen who had seats on that Commission. The House is acquainted with the composition and the career of that Commission. It lost the co-operation, first, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) and of Lord Spencer; then it lost Lord Carlingford, and domestic affliction deprived it, to a large extent, of the attendance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. Its Report is a compromise; and while I desire to speak with nothing but respect for the Commission, I feel quite able, upon unquestionable grounds, to ask the House not to accord undue weight to the conclusions contained in that document. I firmly believe I might appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw this Resolution in the interests of agriculture. An hon. Member of the Conservative Opposition, speaking to me the other day of this Resolution, said, very frankly, that he questioned the policy of the hon. Member. "For," said he, "I think the price of meat is high enough." More explicitly, I would venture to warn the hon. Gentleman and his Friends not to press their advantage too far. The people of this country, as anyone may see, are very long suffering. The fact is that, owing to their divorce from the soil, which is peculiar to this country, they are slow to interfere in these matters. The hon. Member who makes this Motion is more than suspected of dislike for the law which established Free Trade in corn. He and the right hon. Gentleman his Colleague of North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) dally with Protectionist doctrines; and the result is that the House is somewhat incredulous when the hon. Member disclaims any such leaning or intention in his present movement. It is not wonderful the House should assume this attitude, when we regard the effect of the hon. Member's Motion. I do not know what course Her Majesty's Government would take if this Resolution were carried; but this I can say, with certainty—that, if legal sanction were given to his proposal, no live animals could be imported into this country for the food of the people, except from Canada and the petty Kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. I am much surprised to hear the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire speak of the salt beef, pork, and bacon which come into this country, when the question is limited to that of fresh meat. Although there is some exaggeration and some unconscious misrepresentation in the hon. Member's account of the ravages of disease, I am quite willing to admit the great importance to the interests of the population of the extirpation of disease. I not only admit the necessity of dependence for the larger part of our supply of meat upon the flocks and herds of this country, but I will acknowledge a strong desire that we should be more largely than at present dependent upon that chief source of supply. We must, in this connection, remember with reason and sympathy the recent losses of British agriculture—though such losses have been by no means confined to this country. I have no doubt that it is not foreign importation, but rather the miserable character of recent seasons, which has given such fatality to animal disease. But it is not only the bad seasons from which our agriculture has suffered. Farmers have lost much more than £100,000,000 of capital, and the consequence has been that flocks and herds have suffered from poor feeding, in seasons when a generous feeding was peculiarly needed. Disease has spread from that cause, and no wonder there has been a serious decline in the cattle and sheep of the United Kingdom. For the general purposes of agriculture the climate of this country is one of the best in the world; but, under a severe strain, our agriculture has shown but little power. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire wants to administer a modicum of Protection. I wish to give all reason able immunity from disease; but I must confess that the want of power shown by our domestic agriculture, under the stimulus of very high prices, forms a strong argument against the Resolution. As to the Act of 1878, Clause 35 gives the Privy Council power to make any Order, restricting the import from foreign countries; and, in face of their powers under that clause, I cannot understand how any hon. Member could desire to go beyond the Amendment which I shall presently move. But the action of the Council must be governed also by the words of the 5th Schedule; and we find there that, except in case of the presence of cattle plague, there is a strong obligation to admit animals for slaughter at the foreign animals' wharves from all countries. As to foot-and-mouth disease, the condition of the United States last year would probably have justified the Council in admitting animals not merely to these wharves, but to the interior of the country, because that Schedule requires nothing but "reasonable security against the importation of diseased animals;" and if there is not that "reasonable security," then the cargoes are to be landed at the several wharves for immediate slaughter. I need say no more to show that legislation is unnecessary, or that it would be necessary, if the policy of the hon. Member was to be adopted. I would now ask the House to look at the circumstances of the present import of live animals. In spite of all restrictions, in spite of all the difficulties of carriage, in spite, also, of the improvements in the method of preserving and carrying beef and mutton, the importation of live animals is a growing trade. That is a very remarkable fact. The total number imported last year from foreign countries—1,483,838—is larger by 200,000 than the total of any previous year. It is customary to compare the number imported with the total of our flocks and herds, and to call it insignificant. But the home supply of meat represents but a small proportion of the total of animals in the land; and I believe that, of the animals killed for food upon this Island, the imported supply, including that from Ireland, largely exceeds 80 per cent. I have shown that this is a growing trade. But I will also show that it grows more rapidly than the dead meat trade. While the total of live animals imported last year was the largest, the import of fresh beef fell more than 40 per cent. from 812,000 cwt. to 460,000 cwt., and the import of 188,000 cwt. of fresh mutton does not bring up the total to the former figures. In the first six months of this year the import of fresh mutton has not increased. Even with very high prices, the import of beef is less than in 1881; while the import of live animals in the first half of this year has increased by 50,000. Contrast this with the last Report of the Australian Frozen Meat Company, which shows a loss of £3,080 on the importation of 21,641 carcases of mutton. A few days ago I saw the latest importation of frozen sheep from New Zealand. In the summer air the exposed carcases were becoming moist and flabby; but there can be no doubt that the frost of 112 days had not deprived this meat of all quality as good food. I obtained the opinion of the person to whom the largest consignment of this meat was made. He himself, interested constantly in its sale, does not pretend that the meat has or can have the quality of meat which has not been frozen. Much of the natural flavour and quality has, he says, gone out of it in the freezing. It is obvious that, in freezing, the vessels containing the juices of the meat must burst, and lose their contents upon thawing. But those who are interested in the trade tell me that that is not all the loss. One of them illustrated it in this way. He said—"If you want to know what is the difference in frozen meat, take two bottles of port wine, and taste both after one has been frozen for three months." These are the opinions of men who are every day engaged in selling frozen meat, and they are, I think, conclusive. There is great risk in the trade, not only from fluctuations of price in the New and Old Worlds, but also because, while the cost of fitting a ship with refrigerators involves some thousands of pounds, that outlay is liable at any moment to be wasted by the invention of some superior process. I mention these facts to show that the import of live animals is a matter of much consequence to our food supply, and that the House must not assume that a dead meat supply would arrive, sufficient to prevent a great rise in price, if the landing of live animals were prohibited. In the first six months of this year, while the import of fresh beef was less than in 1881, that of live cattle and sheep was greater by 50,000 than in 1882. In the last 20 years the price of mutton has risen by more than 3d. a lb. It has been officially stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) that, if the policy of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire were adopted, there would be a further addition of 3d. per lb. to the price of meat. Now, I wish to point to another matter which tends to the increase of the im- port of live animals, and that is, the improved methods of carriage. I observed that, when the Duke of Richmond, since his conversion by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, spoke of this question the other day, his Grace referred to the enormous waste of animals by casualty at sea. The Duke of Richmond was, however, careful to quote only the losses in 1879 and 1880, the two years together showing a loss of more than 30,000 animals. That represents a fearful waste and suffering. But I have no fact to lay before the House more encouraging and remarkable than that, in the two succeeding years, the loss has been reduced to 9,000 in 1881, and actually to 3,000 in 1882, including shipwreck, and every form of casualty. We see, thus, that in only four years, and with increasing imports, the loss at sea has been reduced by the enormous improvement of 80 per cent. Such are the conditions of the import of live animals. Even under severe restrictions it is a flourishing trade, one with which, in the interest of the consumer, it behoves this House to be most careful not to interfere unadvisedly. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire is aimed at the annihilation of this trade. If his policy were carried into law, it means the prohibition of all imports of live animals, with a temporary exception for Canada and the three Scandinavian Kingdoms. Now, let us pass to consider what are the reasons why this policy which he recommends should be adopted? He alleges that foot-and-mouth disease is spread throughout the country from these foreign animals' wharves. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not deny the possibility; but I assert there is no positive proof in any case of the spread of disease from these markets. And the extent of foot-and-mouth disease in these markets has been extremely small. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire would prohibit at one blow the importation of animals from the United States of America; but, while no fewer than 231 cargoes, containing more than 100,000 sheep and cattle, arrived from the United States in 1882, not a single case of foot-and-mouth disease was reported. He (Mr. Chaplin) would prohibit entirely the landing of sheep from Germany. But, out of 507 cargoes of German sheep, containing nearly 500,000, there were only 57 sheep landed in 1882 with symptoms of foot- and-mouth disease. These are landed at foreign animals' wharves, such as Deptford and Birkenhead—places which are treated strictly as infected places—for immediate slaughter. The hon. Member would abolish these markets, and one of the consequences of his policy might be to bring upon the Exchequer claims for compensation amounting, I should say, to £1,000,000 sterling. The City Corporation alone have spent nearly £300,000 upon their Market at Deptford. Three years ago I said in this House that I thought the management of Deptford Market left much to be desired. Now it is more careful, and the accommodation has been greatly enlarged. I do not think they can be too careful at these markets. A case of foot-and-mouth disease may arise any day. But the question for this House is, whether the risk, which is extremely small, is worth the danger to the interests of the consumer? I feel sure that it is well worth the risk, and that, while we ought to make every reasonable effort to check and to extirpate disease, we can never expect to gain absolute immunity. We receive every day straw, vegetables, and material in a hundred forms which may convey the contagion of disease. Hundreds of people pass in and out, to and from the shores of Europe and America. If there were none but a dead moat trade, our butchers and dealers would cross in large numbers to the Continent, without any of those precautions which are now taken at the foreign animals' wharves. You can only get utter security from contagion at the cost of an intolerable isolation. In 1839, when one of the most extensive outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in this country, there was no such intercourse, and the importation of foreign animals was, and had for years been, prohibited. The last Report of the Privy Council contains some interesting facts, showing that a dead meat trade does not follow the prohibition of the import of live animals. Since 1877, the importation of cattle from Belgium and Germany has been unlawful. Formerly, we drew annually about 25,000 head from those countries; that is, about 175,000 cwt. of beef. But now the fact is that, since the prohibition of live cattle, we have imported less beef from those countries than they used to send when the import of animals was permitted. At one period of last year foot-and-mouth disease appeared in 26 of our counties; and this extension was probably due to the wet seasons, which favoured the extension, and to the low condition of the stock owing to the impoverishment of the farmers. I have now shown that the importation of live animals is a large trade, and is not a declining trade; that you cannot stop that trade without causing a material increase in the price of meat. I have also shown that the risk of infection from abroad is one which cannot be wholly avoided, and that it is probably reduced to the smallest possible dimensions at the foreign animals' wharves. I would like to add a word as to the decrease in our flocks and herds, and especially in the sheep stock. Within the last nine years the decline in the number of sheep in this country has been no fewer than 6,000,000. That has been caused largely by a disease which is consequent upon excessive damp and low feeding. But it has taken place, and the reduction remains under two conditions which it is most important for the House to bear in mind; the first is the continually rising price of mutton; and the second is the decline in the production of food for stock by the conversion of arable land into grass land. I was glad to see that the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), in the Recess, drew attention to this sad decline in the agriculture of the country, and bade his hearers remember that, owing to this conversion, the soil is producing less food every year. It is one of the most inveterate fallacies that all land will produce more meat under grass than under tillage; and the indiscriminate conversion of land into grass—due, as I hold, to the absence of economic law from our land system—is a great evil. Before I sit down I should like to say that I am not sure our foreign animals' wharves are well placed. I think it would render contagion less possible, and I am certain it would greatly improve the condition of the meat, if foreign animals coming to this country for slaughter were placed for a day or two after landing in good air and upon pure food, which cannot be had in the reeking atmosphere of such a place as Deptford Market. I am certain—and I presume to speak on this subject as one who, for some years, has spared no pains and labour to master a question so important to the food supply of the people—that in their interests it would be well if we admitted more liberally the importation of foreign animals under the condition of slaughter at the place of landing. But I would not have the landing-place and slaughter-houses in populous places, where the liability to contagion is increased, and where the condition of the animals and of the meat suffers by impurity of the atmosphere. In my opinion, the best imported cattle come from the United States. When they arrive in the Thames there is a charge of about 9s. a-head for conveying them in the City Corporation boat and for standing in Deptford Market until slaughter, which is compulsory within 10 days. Now, I should like to see Deptford, converted into a dead meat market in connection with the foreign animals' wharf, removed to some place like Thames Haven, with an area of 100 or 200 acres of land, and with every reasonable precaution for sanitary isolation. I am surprised at the very excellent condition in which foreign animals land at Deptford—better, certainly, than after a long journey by railway train. But if they passed a few days after landing in an open station in the Kent or Essex marshes, and if the carcases were allowed to cool in that purer atmosphere before being sent by boat or rail to Deptford, there would be an immense improvement in the quality of the meat. It should be remembered that 918,082 foreign animals were killed last year in Deptford Market—that is, for five days in the week more than an average of 3,500 per day. The Resolution of the hon. Member would prohibit the import of this vast supply. Neither live nor dead, not one of that million of animals would have come to our shores if legislative effect had been given to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. I should like to see slaughter conducted in a better atmosphere, but so near that the cooling of the meat should not take place in transit. I am certain that the carcases could be sent into London far more cheaply than the cost at which the animals are now conveyed, and that the risk of contagion, small as that now is, would reach an irreducible minimum. When that is done, I should hope that the import of live animals might be doubled by a more liberal policy and by the firm establishment of a trade which it is clear must not be prohibited. We cannot ignore the interests of British agriculture; but it is a perilous demand which is made in the interests of agriculture that we should help to raise the price of meat to 1s. 6d. a lb. The success of the hon. Member would in time be deplored by those who now support his movement. To show how far-reaching in other trades would be the consequences of the policy of exclusion, I may mention that if, in 1882, the desire of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had been enforced, there would hare been a loss of 50,000,000 lbs. of tallow, and of 1,500,000 hides and skins to the markets of this country. I find in the doctrines of the hon. Member an insidious revival of the policy of Protection. [Laughter.] I have warrant for that suspicion. Lord Carnarvon is not a less cautious man than the hon. Member; and Lord Carnarvon, addressing, the other day, his neighbours at Newbury, let the cat out of the bag. He said—"He believed they did not object to the importation of foreign dead meat." Believed! I am sure Lord Carnarvon spoke from honest belief, that it is open to doubt whether the supporters of this movement in favour of dear food would be satisfied, even if the importation of live animals were prohibited. I am sure that policy of prohibition will not be sanctioned. I would entreat hon. Members not to be misled in this matter, and especially hon. Members from Ireland, to whom I have a peculiar right of appeal. In the borough of Salford, the annual sales of Irish stock amount to a value of more than £3,000,000. There is no equal business with Ireland in any other town of Great Britain. The compulsory slaughter of Irish cattle on the other side of St. George's Channel would, perhaps, be the next advance of those who are behind the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. And I say to the Irish Members that it is for the interest of their country that they should resist this movement. Hon. Members who represent the landed interest are sometimes very unwary; I think I remember that one of them proposed to admit store stock from Ireland, but to exclude fat cattle. That, however, was too barefaced to go forward; but it serves to illustrate the ideas which are in the minds of some, at least, of the supporters of the Resolution. I do not believe that the agricultural interest would be benefited by the success of the Motion. I do not question the sincerity of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire; it is his prudence which is, I think, at fault. He is overdoing the part of the farmer's friend, and his success would be followed by a strife between the people and the producers, which, I am confident, will not be to the advantage of the latter. Sir, the question before the House is one which must and should be determined by the interest of the consumer. I trust that what is called the landed interest—a term which I never employ, and I do not acknowledge, because I know not how to separate the interests of the people from those of the soil—I trust that the producers of food in this country will not seek their advantage in any limitation of supply; but that, while vigilant, as we should all be, for the avoidance and extirpation of disease, they will always be ready to render allegiance to those wider and general interests which should control and direct the action of the Legislature. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.

, in rising to second the Amendment, as one affecting the interests of his constituents, said, he desired to do nothing to prejudice the agricultural interest, or to lessen the importation of foreign cattle. The fact that the Motion made by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was seconded by an hon. and gallant Member on the Government side of the House, and that he (Mr. Giles) had seconded this Amendment showed that this was not a Party question, as it ought not to be, having reference to the supply of food for the people. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire was attempting to do that which he (Mr. Giles) conceived was an impossibility. He was not quite sure what they were contending for; but the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Resolution (Colonel Kingscote) said at once that he did not wish for any alteration in the law, and that that was the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). His (Mr. Giles's) own idea of the precautions necessary in order to stamp out the disease was simply that the landing places should he isolated, and that the infected cattle should he slaughtered at the port of debarkation. At some eight or nine of the principal ports of the country over £500,000 had been spent in providing means for the reception and isolation of cattle, and the expenditure upon shipping, as applied to this purpose, would reach fully the same amount; so that a sum of at least £1,000,000 sterling would be lost if the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire were carried. There were many other weighty reasons why the landing of live cattle should not be prohibited. Professor Brown said that no exporting country was free from one or more of the diseases coming within the terms of the Act of 1878 as affecting live stock; and he also said that if we were to shut out the importation of live animals from suspected as well as from infected countries, we must be prepared to sacrifice the annual importation of no less than 344,000 cattle and of 1,114,000 sheep. Out of that large number imported it was proved that only 859 were diseased. This fact deserved very serious consideration; for surely it would be preferable to submit to that slight risk and loss rather than to imperil the supply of food. And it should be noted that, although the stock of live cattle was not increasing, the population was constantly increasing—in fact, the number of live stock in England, Wales, and Scotland since 1882 showed a decrease from 36,000,000 to 32,000,000 head. They all knew that meat was dear enough now, and if further restrictions were imposed the price would probably be increased by 15 or 20 per cent; and in the interest of the million, rather than that of a class, he would point out that the stoppage of the supply of foreign meat would deprive the poor of a very large portion of their means of subsistence. To such a proposal he was sure they would never willingly submit; and he, therefore, begged to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford.

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts 1869 and 1878, and specially as to whether it is possible to take further steps for preventing the introduction of contagious diseases from Abroad, without unduly interfering with the supply of food; and also whether the provisions for preventing the spread of disease can be made more effective,"

said, he fully agreed with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) in asserting the right of the farmers of the country to call on the Government to protect them, to the full extent of the powers entrusted to them by Parliament, from the introduction of infectious diseases from abroad. He must say, however, that he did not fully understand what was the object of the Resolution which the hon. Member had submitted to the House. It seemed to him (Mr. J. W. Barclay) that the hon. Member must mean one of two things—either that the Government had not acted with sufficient vigilance and care, or that he asked the Government to adopt a new policy, and to go beyond the powers which had been entrusted to them by the House. In the first instance, he should have expected that the hon. Member would have moved a Vote of Censure on the Government for their laxity; and, in the other case, the hon. Gentleman should have pointed to further legislation; and, if so, he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) should have been, in that case, happy to support him. The powers possessed by the Government were clearly stated in the discussions on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill in 1878. The general provisions in respect of the powers of the Privy Council were embodied in the 5th Schedule of that Bill, and were to the effect that all foreign cattle were to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation; but if the Privy Council were satisfied that no disease existed in the country whence the cattle came, they were to have discretionary power to remit the Slaughtering Clause, and admit the cattle into the country. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire referred to the first portion of Section 35 as giving power to the Privy Council to prohibit the importation of animals from any country they thought proper. But it was well understood that that clause was introduced for the purpose of giving the Privy Council powers to deal summarily with any new disease, and specially for the purpose of dealing with rinderpest. But if any doubt existed on that point, he wished to point out that a precisely similar clause existed in the Act of 1869, Clause 16 of which provided that the Privy Council might, from time to time, by Order in Council, in relation to foreign animals, prohibit their landing generally, or at any particular ports. That was precisely the clause which appeared in Section 35 of the Act of 1878; and if the view now advanced was correct, the Conservative Government which passed that Act might have exercised the same powers under the Act of 1869. It seemed to him clear that the Government had no power to exceed the restrictions they had already placed on the importation of foreign animals; and if there was anything to be done, the Resolution before the House should point to now legislation, for the purpose of carrying out the views which the hon. Member was advocating. He, therefore, could not look upon the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire as one that could be followed by any practical results, because the Government could not act in contradiction of the views expressed by their own officers. Neither could he support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), for the reason that he did not consider the existing legislation with regard to cattle disease perfect. After referring to the various Committees that had sat on this subject, the hon. Member said they were now asked to take what was clearly a new step by the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. That, he thought, was a step well worthy of the consideration of the House; but it seemed to him that this was a question which ought to be discussed upon a Bill to be introduced by the Government, and that before they proceeded to that step further inquiry should be made. If they were to proceed further in the suppression of foot-and-mouth disease, they should have a Committee to inquire into the experience of the working of the Act of 1878. There were several Amendments that occurred to him as desirable in the existing legislation. One Amendment that he would suggest was, that the local authorities in England should be representative, and not the Quarter Sessions. In Scotland, the representative bodies acted with very great promptitude and decision, and the action of the local authorities in Scotland had been attended with very great success. Were it not that disease was imported from time to time from the South—in the case of his own country particularly by Irish cattle—there would be no disease; and if they could prevent the introduction of those diseased animals from Ireland the existing state of the law would be perfectly satisfactory to the farmers in Scotland. Another defect in the existing legislation was, that in every county in Scotland there were many local authorities who sometimes issued contradictory regulations. It certainly would conduce very much to simplify the restrictions for stamping out disease, if there were only one local authority for each county, the burghs being represented on that local authority. He thought it ought to be the duty of the new Agricultural Department to see that the Act was carried out by the local authorities, and if they failed, the Department should step in and carry it out at the expense of the local authority. Another point to which he wished to invite the attention of the House was, that fawners were very deeply interested in the importation of store cattle from abroad. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire pointed at the total prevention of the introduction of store cattle from abroad. He looked forward to great advantage from the importation of store cattle from America. He quite admitted that, in the present state of affairs in the United States, it would be unsafe to allow the importation of store cattle; but the United States Government were beginning to take such measures as he hoped would have the effect of exterminating these contagious diseases. When that was accomplished, it would be a great advantage to the farmers of this country if store cattle were permitted to come from abroad. It was very desirable to encourage the breeding of cattle; but, as between breeding and importing store cattle, it was really a question of profit, and all depended on whether it was more profitable to breed or to import store cattle. He was in favour of allowing the British farmer to get the advantage of store cattle from abroad, if he could possibly do so, without the risk of disease being imported at the same time. If the Resolution of the hon. Member was passed, they should be just precisely where they were, unless it was intended as a Vote of Censure upon the Government, because, if the Government had no power to go further, it was necessary that they should have legislation. It was, of course, impossible to carry any Bill on the subject through the House this Session. The Select Committee could commence its Sittings at once, and lay out the ground which it proposed to investigate, and legislation might take place next Session on the Report of that Committee. That, he thought, was the proper course to adopt in the circumstances, and likely to have results most quickly.

I am afraid, Sir, after what fell from the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote), that I ought to apologize to the House for taking part in the debate, and that the duty of replying upon the Resolution should be left to the person who is now responsible for the Agricultural Department; but I think that, as I have only recently been relieved of the duties connected with the Department, and as I have been in charge of it for nearly three years, if there is any blame attached for any laches or shortcomings on the part of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, I am responsible for, and at least ought to be able to answer for, those laches. I have had, what I shall ever regard as long as I live, the honour and the great privilege of serving under Lord Spencer as President of the Council; and I am certain that no man who ever occupied that position ever devoted himself more thoroughly to the work of the Department than Lord Spencer did. The noble Lord is himself a practical farmer, and has the greatest sympathy with all questions relating to agriculture; and, moreover, he brought to bear upon the discharge of his duties a zeal and earnestness which I believe have never been, and never will be, surpassed. I can safely say that whatever credit may be due for anything which has been done in carrying out the Act during the last three years is entirely due to Lord Spencer. I can say that, for my own part, I brought no special knowledge, and no experience, to the work of the Department; but this I did bring—a resolution to support loyally my Chief in any measure he deemed necessary for dealing with disease, and a determination not to shirk any responsibility, either from any unpopularity it might bring from my own side of the House or elsewhere, in carrying out measures, however strong or rigorous they might be, for the purpose of stamping out the disease. During the two years before May, 1882, the Act was administered entirely under the personal control and superintendence of Lord Spencer himself, and my noble Friend succeeded the Duke of Richmond, who was the author of the Act. If any man was determined to make the Act a success, it was the Duke of Richmond. The noble Duke also was a practical farmer. He had thorough sympathy with farmers, and no man ever brought to the discharge of his duties a greater determination to stamp out disease than the Duke of Richmond did when he passed the Act in 1878. At that time he had the very able assistance of Professor Brown, of the Veterinary College, and Mr. Lennox Peel, the Clerk to the Privy Council. Mr. Peel was the right hand of the noble Duke, and one of the best public servants we ever had. Lord Spencer brought the same practical knowledge and the same sympathy with the agricultural interest to bear upon the subject as his Predecessor; and, what is more, he devoted to it his great power of work, and that mastery of all details, which is one of his great characteristics. His ambition was, I am certain—because I was in daily communication with the late Lord President—his one ambition was, to free the country from disease. Lord Spencer, as the Head of the Department, acting upon the experience of his Predecessor, and with the aid of an admirable Staff, and with arrangements already made for carrying out the system—by his own vigorous administration, by the import- ant improvements he introduced into the Metropolitan and Provincial markets, by the series of Orders by which he completed the machinery of the measures for suppressing disease—has brought the Act into a state of efficiency which is only now beginning to tell on the disease throughout the country. I am satisfied that Lord Carlingford is proceeding on the same line as my noble Friend (Lord Spencer) and that he is devoting himself to the new Agricultural Department. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, indeed, some hon. Members behind me, will only give the Act time to prove its efficiency—it has only been in work for four years at present, seeing that it began in 1879—if they will only give the Act time to show itself, I think they will find that it will give the country the maximum of security with the minimum of restriction on the food supply of the people. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have intimated by their cheers and by their speeches that the Privy Council of the present Government have been wanting in their devotion to the protection of the agricultural interest. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) read a letter, in which the writer said that he placed all shortcomings at the door of the Government. [Cheers from the Opposition.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer that sentiment. Let us see if there is not a witness somewhat more impartial than the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire and Mr. Little. I am about to quote from a speech made by the Duke of Richmond in the House of Lords, on the 16th of April last. The noble Duke said—

"I am quite prepared to admit that Her Majesty's Government have done all in their power to check this disease. The Lord President has carried out the Act in the most energetic manner, by placing severe restrictions upon the farmers of the country, and by shutting up fairs and markets. The Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, which I had the honour to re-organize under the direction of Professors Brown and Cope, has been all that could be desired. I doubt, indeed, whether I should have been able to carry out the severe restrictions which the noble Lord (Lord Spencer) imposed."—(3 Hansard, [278] 277.)

The fact is that the Duke of Richmond himself, in the handsomest manner, has again and again admitted to me that he could not have done more than we have done, and that we have gone beyond what probably he would have been permitted to do. The reason of that is very obvious. We have been able to enforce restrictions, because we have not been suspected of any desire for Protection; and it is well known by every hon. Member that our only object has been to prevent disease. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire suggests that the repeated Motions which have been brought forward indicate a want of success, and the dissatisfaction which exists in regard to the action of the Privy Council, and their administration of the Act of 1878. For my part, however, I maintain, on the contrary, that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman to-night, and the other Resolutions which he has repeatedly moved, together with the speeches he has made, are themselves tributes to the success of the Act of 1878. For the last three years foot-and-mouth disease has almost been the only disease mentioned in this House. Was that so in 1877 and 1878? In those years, almost every Member in this House thought solely of rinderpest and pleuro-pneumonia, and foot-and-mouth disease was almost spoken of with bated breath as a secondary question. I am speaking within the recollection of every Member of the House who was here in 1878, when I say that pleuro-pneumonia was the fatal disease then spoken of; and it was mainly on account of pleuro-pneumonia that the Act of 1878 was passed. Foot-and-mouth disease was treated as requiring much less consideration than pleuro-pneumonia. Then let me show what the Act of 1878 has done, and what the arrangements of the Privy Council have done for the restriction of pleuro-pneumonia, which, it must be remembered, is a fatal disease. Animals once attacked by it never recover from it. [Mr. CHAPLIN: This is a debate on foot-and-mouth disease.] No; it is not a debate upon foot-and-mouth disease alone, and what I wish to show is, that the Act of 1878 has worked well on behalf of the agriculturists of the country generally; that it is still working well; and that if hon. Members will only give it a fair trial, it will do the work which it was originally introduced to do. In Great Britain, in 1877, there were 2,077 outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia, and 5,330 animals were attacked. In 1878 there were 1,721 outbreaks; in 1879, 2,170; and they gradually diminished, until in 1882 there were only 494 outbreaks against 2,077 in 1877, and the number of animals affected was reduced from 5,330 to 1,200. I believe that we have every right to expect that in two or three years from this time, if the local authorities will only use the powers invested in them, and slaughter the animals that have been in contact with beasts infected by pleuro-pneumonia, the disease will be altogether stamped out in this country, as it has been in Holland. Is that no small praise to the Act? Holland was the great focus of pleuro-pneumonia. It was the scourge of Holland down to 1871; and in that year there were no less than 6,079 cases of pleuro-pneumonia in the small stock of that country. Then they commenced to do what we are now doing, and what has been the result? They began in 1871 with 6,079 cases; in 1872, there were 4,009; in 1873, 2,479; in 1874, 2,414; in 1876, 1,723; in 1878, 698; in 1880, 48; in 1881, 99; and in 1882 none. Through the operation of the Act, pleuro-pneumonia has been reduced in this country by 75 per cent. and we have not had a single case of rinderpest. Not even a single case of sheep-rot had occurred; and, although we have been subjected to an attack of foot-and-mouth disease, even that has been kept within limits, compared with all former attacks. That, I think, will prove that the work of the Act has been successful. The hon. Member spoke of hundreds of thousands of attacks. There have been only 12,000 outbreaks, and 200,000 animals have been affected in three years, out of 32,000,000 which exist in the country. Far be it from me to depreciate the importance of foot-and-mouth disease to the farmers. I never have done so, and the hon. Member has misunderstood the effect of anything I have ever said with regard to breeding. The worst case that ever came to my knowledge happened to a personal friend of my own in North Nottinghamshire. He got foot-and-mouth disease among his ewes, and he lost 800 lambs. That was the worst case I ever knew, and I have not been in this Department for three years without knowing something about this matter. But what I have pointed out is surely no insignificant result of four years' working of the Act; and it is not fair to come down to the House and make an attack, which is virtually an attack upon the Government, for not having performed their duty. [Cries of "No!"] That is all very well; but I have heard responsive cheers from hon. Members opposite, and I know the signification of them; and, if it is necessary, I can produce a letter from Mr. Clare Read, who is not an unimportant authority in this House, and also from other authorities, thanking us for the courage we have displayed in standing by the restrictions imposed by this Act. I will just refer to what Mr. Clare Read wrote on the 27th of July, 1882. After sending me a letter of thanks, he said—

"We have in Norfolk only one infected place of pleuro and one of swine fever, and no other case of any sort of contagious disease. We have not had such a clean hill of health in Norfolk for 30 years. Since the markets were stopped, we have only had one fresh outbreak of foot-and-mouth, and, telegraphing up to your office, you promptly declared an infected district, and the disease did not escape from it. Norfolk has been entirely free from that disease for some time past."

What did Mr. Clare Read say at a deputation a short time ago?

I have not seen Mr. Clare Read at a deputation; but I know that Mr. Clare Read is the last man to deny his own handwriting. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chaplin), on a recent occasion, declared that the Act of 1878 was one of the best and wisest measures ever passed for the benefit of the agricultural community. He now calls on the House to subvert the Act entirely. [Mr. CHAPLIN: No; to carry it out.] Instead of asking us to carry it out, the hon. Member calls upon us to destroy it—to eviscerate and emasculate it, and to deprive it entirely of its main principle. The principle advocated from one end of the opposite Benches to the other was the principle of slaughter at the ports. Here is a description of what were the objects of the Act, and how they were to be accomplished. This is a speech delivered by an hon. Gentleman, on the 27th of June, 1878, when the Act was passed. The hon. Gentleman said—

"Its object was to stamp out diseases at home, and to prevent their re-introduction from abroad, and it sought to attain its objects by imposing severe restrictions at home, and enacting compulsory slaughter at the ports. It was not intended by compulsory slaughter to stamp out disease, but to prevent disease from coming in, and it had not been shown that the object would not be attained. Of course, it was the common object of all not to restrict, but to enlarge supply, and not to increase, but to lessen, the cost of food to the people."—(3 Hansard, [241] 345.)

Who was it who, on that occasion, told the House that the object of the Bill was to enact compulsory slaughter at the ports? It was the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire himself, and, in the opinion of the hon. Member, the whole object of the Act was to enact compulsory slaughter at the ports. Tonight the hon. Member asked the House to abolish compulsory slaughter altogether, and to substitute for it total prohibition. [Mr. CHAPLIN: I say that compulsory slaughter has failed.] In that case, the hon. Member should come down with a Bill, and not with an abstract Resolution. He should ask us to legislate. Let us have a plain, straightforward statement, not for compulsory slaughter, but for total abolition. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said, in 1878, that he doubted if we could anticipate the period when foot-and-mouth disease would not prevail, even in the healthiest countries. He added that it might be necessary to enforce compulsory slaughter at the ports, as it was only by that means we could get rid of the disease. And the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who had charge of the Bill, must have made 50 speeches on compulsory slaughter; all declaring that the object was not the restriction of importation; that that was the last thing contemplated; but that what was contemplated was the regulation of importation by slaughter at the ports. In short, I might almost exhaust Hansard if I were to read all the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the same effect. I cannot believe, therefore, that it is the intention of the House to-night to pass this Resolution without inquiry—to see how, wherein, and why, the Act has failed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) says that it is too late to inquire. If it is too late to inquire, it is evidently too late to legislate. [Mr. CHAPLIN: We do not want legislation.] Then, what does the hon. Member propose? Does the hon. Member intend that the Privy Council should violate the whole spirit and intention of the Act of Parliament? [Mr. CHAPLIN: No.] I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the nature of the Act that was passed. The contention, as expressed in the Resolution, is that slaughter at the ports has proved ineffectual; and, therefore, it is necessary to have total prohibition. ["No, no!"] Let me show hon. Members what the Resolution does mean before we go further. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Read the Resolution.] The Resolution is exceedingly plausible, and most ingenious; but it means total prohibition. ["No, no!"] Let me show the House how it runs. The main principle of the Act of 1878 is that all animals should be slaughtered at the port of landing, subject to two exceptions. What are those two exceptions? They are that the Privy Council should have power to prohibit absolutely the importation of animals from exceptionally diseased countries; and it is further required that the rule of slaughter should be suspended in the case of animals from exceptionally healthy countries. The rule is slaughter at the ports. The exceptions are total prohibition and free admission. Now, from all countries subjected to cattle plague the universal rule established by our Predecessors, and also for all countries likely, on account of their proximity, to be affected, has been to prohibit all importation—for instance, from Russia, the Turkish Provinces, Germany, Austria, and other countries where cattle plague constantly exists. Those are cases in which you would be entirely justified in having recourse to prohibition; and prohibition was enforced, long before the passing of this Act, in regard to those countries. Thus, in the exercise of the discretion vested in the Privy Council, they have, in exceptional cases, brought temporally under Schedule 5 certain other cases; and, because they have done that, the hon. Gentleman comes down and says—"You ought to prohibit universally." ["No, no!"] I say yes; and let me explain. The Privy Council could not work the Act unless they had this discretion, in exceptional cases of outbreak of disease, to come in and suspend importation. Let us take the first case that happened. Portugal, for instance, sent her animals here. She was an exceptionally healthy country, and the animals she sent were admitted into the interior of this country. But before the Government were aware of it we discovered that they had foot-and-mouth disease in Portugal. It was discovered by a veterinary surgeon who was travelling in that country. We made our own inquiry, and at once said—"The disease itself exists, and your animals must be slaughtered at the port." Before a single diseased animal came in, we condemned them to be slaughtered at the ports. That was a stage downwards; but there are stages upwards. We compelled them to be slaughtered at the port, and then the disease became so bad that the wharves at Oporto became impregnated with disease. The ships became impregnated with disease; and, that being the case, we said—"We shall have nothing but disease if we allow it to go on. We will, therefore, suspend the importation for a month, in order that you may inspect and disinfect your landing stages, wharves, and vessels, and provide means for sending us healthy cattle." We suspended the importation for a month or two, and the result of the very stringent measures that we adopted was that perfectly healthy cattle were obtained, and we have received healthy cattle ever since. Indeed, I may say that there are no fatter, or more useful, cattle now in the market than the Peninsular cattle. But the hon. Gentleman opposite would not allow them to come in. His Motion is to prohibit them altogether; and when next they are allowed to come in, they will be permitted to go straight into the country. ["No, no!"] I say, yes; because you destroy the intermediate stage. The importation from Canada and other countries has been restricted. The hon. Gentleman, in his estimate of the Returns, said that there had been a large increase of healthy stock from America. Let me warn the hon. Gentleman against the danger of prophesying. In 1878, the hon. Gentleman omitted America from the Bill, because he said it was a healthy country, and free from disease. But what was the result? In less than one month after the Act came into operation the whole of the American supply of cattle had to be slaughtered at the ports of debarkation. How is the hon. Member to know, if he carries his Resolution to-night, and it comes into operation to-morrow, that the three countries, which he says to-day are free from disease, may not be infected to-morrow? We should then be in this condition—that we should not have a single foreign animal entering our ports. What I want to ask the House is this. The hon. Gentleman has condemned the words of the Schedule which compel us to admit foreign animals, when in a healthy condition, and he has inverted them so as to compel us to exclude all animals, on the slightest suspicion of their not being free from disease, so that we should be surrounded with difficulties. If we are not satisfied, if we have the slightest suspicion that disease exists in any country, we are to prohibit the importation of live animals from that country. That is not the Act, and it is contrary to the spirit of the Act, and the intention of the Act. The Resolution says—

"That this House desires to urge on Her Majesty's Government the importance of taking effectual measures for the suppression of foot and mouth disease throughout the United Kingdom, and it is of opinion that, while for this purpose it is necessary that adequate restrictions, under the powers vested in the Privy Council, should be imposed on the movements and transit of cattle at home, it is even more important, with a view to its permanent extinction, that the landing of Foreign live animals should not be permitted in future from any Countries as to which the Privy Council are not satisfied that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein, are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals which are diseased."

What conditions are there there? Total prohibition, and free admission. What has become of compulsory slaughter? What animals are you to slaughter, if diseased animals are to be prohibited, and healthy animals are to be admitted freely? What are you going to slaughter? I want to know what would be the effect of this Resolution? I am prepared to show—and I think I shall be supported in my contention by those who have had the daily administration of this Act—that the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman, if carried into practical operation, would be as disastrous to the producer as to the consumer. In 1882, the total exports from foreign countries, including sheep and swine, amounted to 1,483,858. Of that number, if the Resolution were carried, no less than 1,169,776, would come under the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman, and would at once be excluded from the country—upwards of 1,100,000 out of 1,400,000, and these would be not the poor inferior cattle, but fine large fat animals from America, animals weighing not from 500 to 550 lbs., but from 1,000 to 1,500 lbs. What would be the effect on the people of this country of excluding four-fifths of the whole of their foreign meat supply? These four-fifths of the entire supply would go at once, and there would be only one-fifth left, and that would follow immediately when the first suspicion arose that there was a single diseased animal among them. So that it is within the range of possibility that, within a month after the passing of the Resolution, we shall have the total prohibition of the importation of foreign animals. How would that affect the consumer? The hon. Gentleman says it would not affect them at all. I was astounded to bear the hon. Gentleman say so, for I never heard a greater statistical blunder in my life, that the amount of meat to be excluded only amounted to 4 per cent of the whole consumption. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Of the whole annual consumption.] Doss the hon. Gentleman include foreign meat, and bacon, and pork of every kind? He first drew attention to the home production, and then he came to the foreign importation, and he said that 4 per cent was the only amount excluded from the fresh meat supply.

What I said was that the whole annual consumption of meat in the country might be divided under three heads—first, home-grown meat; secondly, meat imported alive; and, thirdly, meat imported dead; and, in the dead meat, I expressly include fresh meat, salt pork, and all other meats except hams.

The hon. Member is still very much in error. Four per cent is 1–25th part of the meat supply of this country. The hon. Gentleman says that only comes to £6,250,000. Now, 25 times £6,250,000 amounts to something like £160,000,000; and therefore it means that £160,000,000 are spent in meat in this country. Does the hon. Member stand to that? If he does, he is a greater authority than Sir James Caird, or any other man I ever heard of, who has made a calculation. I never heard of £160,000,000 a-year being spent in meat in this country. [Mr. CHAPLIN: I never said it was.] But the hon. Member said 4 per cent. and I am prepared to say that the importations of the last six months were at the rate of from £10,500,000 to £11,000,000 a-year. The Resolution of the hon. Member would exclude £8,500,000 of that importation, and, multiply that by 25, you get more than £200,000,000. [Mr. CHAPLIN: What is the actual weight?] I can give you the value very much better than the weight. The average weight of the animals, however, could be ascertained, and the figures added up accurately. In 1878 Sir James Caird estimated that our home supply of meat and dairy produce, exclusive of milk, but including butter and cheese, amounted, in value, to £100,000,000. Since that time he estimates that, owing to the great falling-off in sheep, the meat supply has been diminished by something like 10 per cent. so that about £9,000,000 now represent the home supply. Now, the foreign supply of live meat alone is over £10,000,000. I have heard an hon. Member say that it was diseased; but I am sorry to say that it is much healthier meat than our own, and out of 30,000 animals imported within the last six weeks only six were found to be diseased. I wish we could say we could export 30,000 animals and only have the same amount of disease. After the most careful investigation I have been able to make, and after consulting Sir James Caird, and Mr. Giffen, and Captain Craigie's Reports two or three times over, I find that one-sixth of the fresh meat consumed in England, and one-ninth of the fresh mutton, are supplied to us from abroad. I should like, only the hour is so late, to trouble the House with some extracts from a letter from Sir James Caird. I made inquiries of Sir James Caird as to the increasing supply we are happily getting in this country from the earlier maturity of meat. There is no doubt that, owing to that fact, an increased supply is brought to the market, during the last 30 years, much earlier than it used to be. As far as cattle are concerned, they come into the market a year earlier than they used to do, and the sheep very much earlier also. An hon. Friend opposite told me recently that he had sold a lot of Dorset lambs at 72s. a-head, and that meat was produced in the market at a very much earlier period than was the custom in former times. Sir James Caird writes to the following effect:—After corroborating what I have already mentioned, as to cattle arriving at maturity at a much earlier age than they used to do, he goes on to say that any change in the laying out of arable land in grass is more than counterbalanced by the great increase of population, which increase has brought an increased demand for supply that has required, since 1872, an addition of one-tenth to our home stock of cattle, or, that failing, an equivalent import of animals from abroad. Ireland did not send us a single bad animal during the whole of my experience. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire ridiculed the idea, which I threw out on a former occasion, that the effect of the falling-off in the supply would be to raise the price of meat 2d. or 3d. per lb.

I did not. The statement I complained of was this—that it would raise the price of meat to famine rates.

And I contend that 2d. or 3d. per lb. higher than the present price of meat would be famine rates to a considerable portion of our population. At this moment, the two things that press the heaviest on the earnings of the working man are the cost of rent and the price of meat. I am satisfied that, in speaking of 2d. or 3d. in the lb., I am within the mark. I say there is no instance on record of the supply of any article of ordinary consumption having been decreased by one-tenth where an increase of more than 2d. or 3d. in the lb. was not brought about; a decrease of one-tenth in the supply of corn, cotton, coal, or almost any article of daily consumption, means an increase of at least three-tenths in the cost. What proportion of the foreign supply of meat is sold in London? Of all the animals sold at the London market more than 50 per cent of the cattle are foreign, more than 61 per cent of the sheep are foreign, and 94 per cent of the swine. That, by the most moderate calculation, would supply fresh meat for the whole population of Scotland; and certainly it could not be taken out of the supply of this country without the most serious risk of a meat famine arising, especially amongst the poorer classes of our population. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire says we shall have a dead meat trade if this trade in live animals is reduced, and that is the contention of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. James Howard). Well, I am surprised at that, after the statements that have appeared again and again about the results of our prohibitions in Germany and Belgium. If the hon. Member will only turn to the last Report of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, he will find that Professor Brown states that during the six years before 1877—that is to say, the six years of the prohibition in regard to those two countries—we had lost about 25,000 head of cattle annually from Germany and Belgium, representing something like 1,000,000 cwt. of beef. Such has been the effect of total prohibition in Germany and Belgium. We prohibited live cattle coming from Germany and Belgium for fear of the rinderpest, and we had six years experience of that prohibition. We did not receive, in exchange for that prohibition, one single pound of dead meat. It is said—"If you stimulate the dead meat trade, you will benefit the Colonies, as you will then develop the supply from New Zealand and Australia." It is also said—"Cannot you have a dead meat trade with your Colonies;" but hon. Gentlemen who say that do not have regard to the facts of the case. What are the facts with regard to the Australian and New Zealand dead meat? The meat goes to the refrigerators at from 8s. to 10s. a-head, and it has been sold in this country at from 5½d. to 6½d. per lb. How much does the Australian grower get for his mutton? Why, if it sells at 6d. a-lb. he gets exactly 2½d., 3½d. going to the cost of refrigeration, carriage, and sale in the London market. Could you expect America and the Continent of Europe to send us meat when their prices are so near to ours? They would not send us meat at prices so near their own, but would send it to the markets nearer their doors. How could you expect them to send their meat, and lose what the butchers call the fifth quarter—namely, the offal? The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire says that if the Government will only prohibit the importation of live animals we shall be able to produce all the meat we require at home; but I do not credit that. I believe we have produced all we can at home, and of that I am assured by the very best judges. There is a great difference of opinion upon this question, and my own is worth nothing; but I hear from men who are well informed on this question that now-a-days a farmer has every inducement to send stock to market, but that yet the supply has fallen off, not so much on account of the foot-and-mouth disease, as from causes which are not preventible. The country lost in 1879–80 nearly 3,000,000 sheep from fluke and river-rot; and this is not the only nation that suffered. In Prussia the stock decreased from 19,000,000 to 14,000,000, owing to bad seasons; and Now Zealand, Australia, and America have also lost vast quantities of sheep and cattle owing to the prevalence of wet seasons. All over the world the inclement weather has had the same effect. How long do you think it would take the farmer to overtake the constantly-increasing demand if no adequate supply is coming to this country? Why, it would take many years and £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 to overtake the demand. This country can take all the foreigners can send to market, besides all it can obtain from homo growth. We are adding to our population a Leeds or a Birmingham every year, and these people have to be fed. What would total prohibition do? Would it secure that entire immunity from contagious disease that the hon. Member anticipates? In 1871 we had no less than 65,000 attacks of foot-and-mouth disease, and the number of animals affected was something enormous, as much as 650,000, I believe. During the last three years we have had 12,000 cases, and 200,000 animals attacked. As a matter of fact, in one month in 1871 there were more animals attacked than in the whole of the last three years. Look at the condition of the country now as compared with what it was in 1841. If you could not keep the disease out in 1841, how are you going to keep it out now? It is admitted that the foot-and-mouth disease is the most infectious and most insidious disease that you can possibly have; and you know that the infection can be carried, not only by animals, but by drovers and others. It has recently been conveyed to Ireland by other means than an animal. ["No, no!"] Well, I know all about the bull; I have a full Report here from Lord Spencer and the Head of the Veterinary Department, and I know that the bull had nothing to do with it—he took the disease when he got there. The disease was taken by the drovers and dealers that go from England. The hon. Gentleman says it has been taken out at Deptford. The disease is so subtle that one hon. Member was reduced to the supposition that the infection had been taken to his animals by the sea-gulls. The hon. Gentleman was not far wrong in supposing that the germs of the disease are conveyed with the greatest possible ease, and that it is with the greatest possible difficulty that you can eradicate them. The market produce which comes from France—hides, hoofs, horns—all these may carry the disease with them; even the ships that convey them may bring the disease. How, therefore, can we hope that we shall escape, even if we stop the importation of live animals? Every ship that comes into our ports is, in itself, a centre of disease; but the greatest danger of all that could be set up would be that which would be established if the hon. Gentleman succeeds in what he desires. The plan of slaughtering animals abroad would not answer the purpose, for the consequence would be that large dead meat markets would take the place of the Deptford Market in France, Boulogne, Ostend, and other parts. We should have our butchers and dealers passing backwards and forwards to those markets day by day, bringing home the disease with them; and, bear in mind, there would then be none of those regulations in force which are now applied so effectually. I believe the more the House inquires into this proposition the more it will be found to be fraught with danger, both to the producer and the consumer. If the hon. Member will move for a Committee of Inquiry to ascertain what should be done, I believe that good ground could be found for it. I have never seen a Notice of that kind on the Paper from him, however. We have had five years' experience of the working of the Act, and it is quite possible that it might be amended. I think, and I have always thought, that it would be an excellent thing if we could, by some means or other—I am only throwing out the suggestion—that it would be a good thing if, when a cargo of animals arrives, there were some place separate—an island in the Thames, for instance—to which they could be taken. At any rate, the Act has been five years in operation, and it has been worked with the utmost rigour by the Privy Council Department. The Department has acted in accordance with the lines laid down in that Act; and we cannot go beyond the law, although we are as anxious to do everything in our power to eradicate the disease as the hon. Gentleman himself can be.

I desire to address a few observations to the House with regard to the vote which I am about to record. My right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) has thrown out a suggestion that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), instead of the Motion before the House, would have done well to move for a Committee of Inquiry. Three or four months ago I placed upon the Order Book of this House a Notice of Motion upon that subject; but I received so little encouragement from the Government that I allowed the Notice to drop. I should not have said one word as to the administration of the Act of 1878, if it were not for the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, who has challenged inquiry as to its administration; and, therefore, I would ask why, when the outbreak took place from the Deptford Market, in a certain cattle-shed in London, the Government did not exercise the power which the Act gave of slaughtering the animals in contact with those diseased?

said, the disease was not carried out by animals, but by men?

There can be no question that the disease escaped from the cattle market; and it is also a fact, that cannot be denied, that the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council allowed the disease to escape into the country. If the Department had exercised the powers which the Act gave them, of "putting out the fire" in that particular shed, we should not have been debating this question at the present moment. I would also ask why the Government, when foot-and-mouth disease had been reduced, as it were, to a nutshell in the country, did not exercise the power conferred by Clause 29 of the Act, which empowers the Privy Council—

"To slaughter, and pay compensation for animals, other than those affected with pleuro-pneumonia and cattle plague."

This is the third occasion on which the subject of cattle regulations has been brought before the present Parliament. The first occasion was on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who proposed to relax the existing restrictions; with the view of allowing imported animals to be moved inward. I thought it my duty to oppose that proposal, and I did so on two grounds—first, because of the danger of such a step to our own flocks and herds; and, secondly, because it would have disturbed a compromise arrived at, after long contention, only two years previously. There were three parties to the settlement of the question in 1878. One of those parties maintained the necessity of total prohibition of live animals, of slaughter at the port of embarkation; and another party upheld the doctrine of unrestricted importation; while the third—and, as I thought at the time, the more moderate and wiser party—contended for slaughter at the port of debarkation. The Act of 1878 was based upon this principle. It was thought by hon. Members on both sides, when that Act was passed, that it would be sufficient to safeguard the owners of the flocks and herds of the Kingdom, and that it was an arrangement satisfactory to the great bulk of the farmers. The next occasion on which the subject was discussed was when the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, in the subsequent year, brought forward a Motion very similar to that which he has proposed to-night, and which I felt compelled, reluctantly, to oppose. I opposed that Motion precisely on the same ground that I had done that of the hon. Member for Salford—namely, that an Act of Parliament, which had been passed with great difficulty only two years previously, containing some 88 clauses and 7 Schedules, should not be lightly disturbed; that, since the Act was passed, the country had been subjected to only one outbreak; and that the circumstances were not sufficiently serious to take the step indicated in the Resolution. I said on that occasion—

"That it was too soon to upset the compromise arrived at, after years of contention, between the great centres of population and the agricultural interest;"

and I was further influenced at that time by an expression of opinion from Professor Brown, the Head of the Veterinary Department, who had assured the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society that the Act of 1878 was sufficient, if it were vigorously enforced. Two years have elapsed since that Motion was discussed, and experience has proved, either that the opinion of Professor Brown was erroneous, or that the Act of 1878 has not been vigorously enforced. Whether that opinion was erroneous or not, and whether the opinion since expressed by the Lord Chancellor, as to the insufficiency of the Act, be sound or not, the fact remains that the farmers of the Kingdom and the cattle trade have been subjected not only to a vast amount of inconvenience, but also to frightful losses. What is still more serious is, that we seem to be no nearer to the extirpation of this troublesome disease than we were in 1880; and I believe that Professor Brown entertains little hope of stamping out the disease within a reasonable time, unless invested with far greater powers. When times were tolerably good, farmers endured the losses without making any great complaint; but now, when it has become a simple struggle for existence, there is no wonder that they demand—as they have a right to demand—more efficient means for stamping out the disease and preventing its importation from abroad. I have suffered great losses from time to time in my own flocks and herds, and can therefore sympathize with others, and I believe if hon. Friends near me had been subjected to similar losses, their sympathies would also have been extended more than they are to the struggling tenant farmers. It is quite true, as the Vice President of the Council has said, that the Act of 1878 has been most efficacious, so far as pleuro-pneumonia and rinderpest are concerned; but it is equally true that the Act has been a failure in respect of the troublesome disease which we are discussing to-night. Nor is this disease so innocuous as some of those middlemen, who are connected with the cattle trade, would lead the public and Parliament to believe. Foot-and-mouth disease is an eruptive fever, and although it is not so fatal as some other diseases, it is highly contagious, and inflicts frightful losses on the country. Cows affected with this disease speedily lose their milk. They are apt to become barren, and the disease leads also to abortion. In fact, foot-and-mouth disease strikes at the very root of food production. "Oh! but," say some of those interested men in the cattle trade, "this disease does not come from abroad; it is generated at home; it existed in this country long before there was importation." That also was the tendency of the observations of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council; but, with the permission of the House, I shall, in a few minutes, show the utter groundlessness of that assertion. It is true that Dr. Layard, as long ago as 1747, chronicled an outbreak of cattle murrain in this country; but, although it was of an eruptive character, it is evident from his statements that it was not the troublesome disease with which we now have to contend. I shall quote an extract which will show that it was of foreign origin. What said Dr. Layard as long ago as 1747? He said—

"Care and time may extirpate the disease; at least, such devastation as has happened of late years may he prevented. But, of all cautions, prohibiting the importation of infected cattle and hides is of the greatest importance; since, for want of due attention, this distemper may repeatedly be introduced."

That extract conclusively shows it was the prevalent opinion of the time that the disease was of foreign origin. Now, I would call attention to a few facts which tend to show—if they do not conclusively prove—that our native cattle are not liable to outbreaks of contagious disease. I am in possession of the library of a distinguished agriculturist, the late Mr. Fisher Hobbs; and, looking through that library, I discovered a number of essays and books on the epizootic diseases of this country. In none of the books published in the early part of the present century can I find the least mention of any of the contagious diseases now prevalent. In Pearson's House, Cattle, and Sheep Doctor, published in 1811, the author, a veterinary surgeon of long experience in the grazing county of Leicester, treats of some 60 diseases of cattle and sheep, and of their remedies; but no mention whatever is made of either foot-and-mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia. Clater was a great authority on cattle diseases, and no mention is made of those two diseases in the early editions of his Cattle Doctor; but in the 10th edition, published in 1853, I find the following remark:—

"Since the eighth edition of this work was published, a new disease (foot-and-mouth) has appeared among cattle and sheep, and for the last 12 years has spread through the Kingdom, scarcely sparing a single parish."

As to the origin of this disease, after careful investigation, I have come to the conclusion that Professor Youatt was right, when he traced the first outbreak to certain lots of the bovine species, which were imported in 1839 for the Zoological Gardens, after which foot-and-mouth disease was immediately discovered in the suburbs of London. As to the alleged spontaneous origin of this disease, this is also a question of great importance. Take the case of Ireland. In giving evidence before the Select Committee of this House in 1877, I ventured upon a prediction. I said that although Ireland was a hot-bed of foot-and-mouth disease, if it were once stamped out, it would never appear again until it was re-imported. That has been the case. After the Act of 1878 was put in force, not a single case of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in that country, which was formerly a hotbed of the disease, until re-introduced by a bull sent there in the present year. The Vice President of the Council has said that it was taken by drovers. At all events, whether taken by drovers or by the bull from Liverpool is not material to the argument that foot-and-mouth disease was stamped out in Ireland, and that no case occurred until it was re-introduced. Then take the case of England. After the outbreak of rinderpest in 1865, foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia were all but stamped out in this country, and no serious outbreak occurred again until their re-importation. Then, after the Act of 1878, foot-and-mouth disease was completely extirpated in England, and not a single case occurred in any part of the country until that unfortunate cargo of animals was landed at Deptford. Evidence was adduced, in 1877, to show that animals themselves are the chief carriers of disease. Evidence was also given to show that there were remote places in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, in which this disease had never been known. The explanation was that these remote places were not importing, but exporting districts. For the assertion that these diseases are generated by dirt, exposure, or from any other natural cause—although alleged by interested middlemen—there is not a particle of foundation. There is not an atom of evidence to show that those diseases are indigenous in our native cattle, and no veterinary surgeon of any eminence in this country or Europe has ever given in his adhesion to any such theory. These contagious diseases are no more indigenous to the cattle of this country than are yellow fever or leprosy or cholera morbus in the human family. Seeing the danger of those imported diseases to the flocks and herds of the country, it behoves Members of this House to look calmly and deliberately at the extent to which we are dependent for our meat upon foreign sources, and more especially at the extent to which we are dependent upon infected sources. In 1875, when writing Our Meat Supply, I went into minute calculations of the relative supplies of home and foreign meat. Those calculations were very widely published, and they formed the bases of some of the calculations referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. The average consumption of meat per head of the population of this country is about 100 lbs. Of that, 78 lbs. are supplied by animals bred in the United Kingdom, 15 lbs. are supplied in the shape of foreign dead meat, 3 lbs. came in live animals from countries which are free from disease, and 4 lbs. from countries which are infected with disease. Therefore, of every 100 lbs. of meat consumed, we are only dependent upon foreign live animals to the extent of 7 lbs. These are facts which I defy the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) to gainsay. Ireland sends us double the number of live animals and twice the weight of meat that is imported from all foreign countries put together. Looking to the relative proportions of our supply of meat and to the extent which those foreign diseases lessen the home supply, and looking to the difficulty—almost the impossibility—of stamping out those diseases when they get a hold of the country, I have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when we should say to other countries—"Till you can show a clean bill of health, you must slaughter your animals on your own side." Nor is this a recently-formed opinion. When examined before the Select Committee in 1877, I stated as follows:—

"I think that the country would not submit to the slaughter of cattle at the ports of embarkation, though I have no doubt that that would he the safer plan, because there would be less fear of conveying the disease by the animals themselves, and there would be less to fear of convoying it by means of hay, straw, and manure, and by persons going on board those ships in our own ports. But, as I say, I do not think that the country is quite ripe for such a step as slaughter at the ports of embarkation. I am clearly of opinion, however, that in the interests of the community it would be very desirable, so long as these diseases exist upon the Continent, to slaughter all fat animals at the port of debarkation."

Those who argue that by thus checking the importation of live animals we shall be re-introducing the principle of Protection, forget the fact that the surplus meat of the world must find a market either alive or dead. Meat does not differ from cotton or any other product in that respect. As a Free Trader, I protest, when we ask what is merely a question of proper sanitary regulations, to have fiscal questions dragged in. Breeding facilities are neither increased nor diminished by such regulations. Some people seem to imagine that meat can be increased the same as other products; but that is altogether a mistake. The number of animals which can be produced in a country depends upon the number of mothers. If you tell me the number of cows in the country, I shall be able to tell you what the production will be for 20 years to come. It should be remembered that there is no demand for the exclusion of dead meat, or for the exclusion of live animals if they come from countries free from disease, and therefore it is idle to twit farmers with a desire to return to Protection. If meat were 6d. per lb. instead of 1s. there would be some ground for the suspicion. I probably know the opinion, the inner thoughts of the farmers of England, as well as any Member of this House, and I say they demand nothing in the shape of Protection. The demand for greater safeguards against the introduction of disease comes from Liberal farmers just as strongly as from Tories—and I am very glad to say we have an increasing number of Liberal farmers in the country. The farmers of the Kingdom demand—and they demand as with one voice—that there should be greater security against the introduction of disease; and if the present Government resists that demand, they will find out their mistake at the next General Election.

said, that considering the length of time at which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Howard) had addressed the House, and looking to the lateness of the hour (1.5 a.m.), he should not attempt to follow his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) through the numerous lanes into which he had led them in his discursive speech. There were one or two points, however, in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) upon which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) wished to touch very lightly. As he understood the Motion of his hon. Friend, it did not imply that total prohibition which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council attempted to make out. What he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) understood the Motion of his hon. Friend to mean was, that the Privy Council should, in any case where, to their knowledge, there was a likelihood of disease being imported from a country into England, they should prohibit the importation of live animals from that particular country; and the speech of his hon. Friend pointed distinctly to that very fact, because, when he stated that he asked for this prohibition, he, at the same time, pointed out that a large deduction had to be made from the tonnage, which he estimated the foreign trade at in respect of those countries which were free from disease, and which, therefore, this Motion would not affect in the slightest degree. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) aright, his argument was that the Privy Council had not the power, under the Act of 1878, to do as the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire desired. But surely the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the powers given him by the Act of 1878. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had, as the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council knew perfectly well, something to do, not only with the drafting, but with the carrying of the Act through the House; and he ventured to say there was clear and absolute power given by that Act to the Privy Council to prohibit the importation of live animals from any country where disease existed. The words of the Act were—

"The Privy Council may, from time to time, make such general or special orders as they may think fit for prohibiting the landing of animals," &c., &c.

But, if he wanted an additional argument as to the powers of the Privy Council, he would point to the action of the Privy Council itself, and to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman made that evening. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in justification of the action of the Privy Council in carrying out the Act of 1878, that in the case of Portugal, when it was found that the slaughtering at the ports had failed, they introduced prohibition, and thus stamped out the disease. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) understood that that was all his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire desired by this Motion. He might even go a step further in showing the powers of the Privy Council, for it was not very long ago that they prohibited the importation absolutely from France, for the very same reasons that prompted them in the case of Portugal. All his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire desired was, that in cases where a country was shown to be not free from disease, the importation of live animals from that country should be prohibited; and he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) maintained that the Act of 1878 fully empowered the Privy Council to do that. They themselves had exercised that power in two particular instances, and there was nothing in the Act itself to prohibit them from carrying it out in every case in which they believed there was a danger of the importation of disease from abroad. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council laid great stress upon the loss there would be to the consumers, if the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire were pursued. They could only judge by what had happened in the past, and he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council for 1881. The right hon. Gentleman would there find that it was stated that, though there was a reduction of supply, on account of the restrictions which were then imposed—a reduction of live stock, amounting in that year to 37,992 animals—there was no marked increase produced in the price of meat. That was what happened in 1881; and they might venture to say that, if in cases of countries similarly situated to France and Portugal, the Privy Council carried out a like provision, there would not be the terrible consequences anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had only one or two more remarks to make. One was with regard to what had always been said about the impossibility of the dead meat trade. The evidence given before the Committee of 1878 went to show that the dead meat trade did not exist, simply because uncertainty existed in the quarantine arrangements. If there was any idea that there would be a general stoppage of the importation of live animals into this country, whenever disease was suspected, all witnesses agreed that the dead meat trade would increase rapidly. Now, the second point to which he wished to allude was the appointment of a Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council hinted that if this Motion had taken the form of the appointment of a Committee the Government might have assented to such a proposal. Now, the Motion had been before the House of Commons and the public very nearly since the beginning of the Session; and if the Government had intended to adopt the course which the right hon. Gentleman hinted at, they ought to have moved for a Committee. It was an absolute farce to propose in July the appointment of a Committee to sit in July for the purpose of dealing with a question to which the agricultural population of the country attached such vast importance. The suggestion on the part of the Government for the appointment of a Committee appeared to him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to be nothing more or less than the shelving of an inconvenient subject.

said, he would not detain the House many minutes; but there was a point to which he wished to refer before they proceeded to a Division. The hon. Baronet who had just sat down (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said they could not proceed with a Committee on this subject in July. If it was too late to proceed with a Committee of Inquiry on this subject in July, it certainly was too late to legislate on this subject. [An hon. MEMBER: There is no legislation proposed.] He (Mr. Dodson) maintained that the Resolution could not be carried out without legislation; and his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had entirely misconceived and misconstrued the Resolution which he had endeavoured to interpret. In a few words, what was the basis of the Act of 1878? The general rule laid down in the 5th Schedule was, slaughter at the ports of debarkation of animals which came from abroad. To this rule there were, however, two exceptions. One was a mandatory direction to the Privy Council to admit animals free from countries as to the sanitary laws and conditions of which they were satisfied; the other was a discretionary power, conferred on the Privy Council by Section 35, to prohibit the importation of animals from time to time from specified countries, under certain circumstances. What was the effect of the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)? It was entirely to do away with the general rule of the Act of 1878. There was to be freedom of admission on the one hand, or absolute prohibition on the other. The hon. Baronet who had just sat down (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) stated twice, if not three times, in the course of his speech, that the effect of the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire was only this—that the Privy Council should be directed to prohibit the importation of live animals from countries in which they had positive evidence that disease existed. But the reverse was exactly the case. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, with great ingenuity, had taken from the Schedule of the Act the words embodying the conditions under which the Privy Council was required to admit animals free from certain countries; and, reversing them, he called upon the Privy Council to prohibit the importation of animals from all countries that did not satisfy those particular conditions. These were the words of the Resolution, and he would read them for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen opposite. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen who were going to vote for this Resolution, perhaps, would rather not hear a different interpretation to that given by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) put upon it. The words of the Resolution were—

"The landing of Foreign live animals should not he permitted in future from any Countries as to which the Privy Council are not satisfied,"

as to three things. The first was, if they were not satisfied that the laws of any country relating to the importation and exportation of animals were such as to afford reasonable security against the importation of disease therefrom; the next was, that the laws thereof relating to the introduction or spreading of disease were such as to afford reasonable security against the importation of disease; and the third was, that the sanitary condition of the animals therein was such as to afford reasonable security against the importation of disease. Therefore, they were to be satisfied as to two points with regard to law, and then as to the sanitary condition of the animals; and, whenever the Privy Council were not satisfied as to these three conditions, they were to be called upon in future to prohibit the landing of foreign live animals. Now, that was an actual prohibition of the importation of live animals into this country, except in the case of countries from which they were bound by the Act of 1878 to admit animals absolutely free. He maintained that they could not carry this out without legislation. The Government would be quite ready to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), that the Privy Council should be both vigilant and firm, at home and abroad, in carrying out their powers. They would be ready to agree to the Motion for a Committee; but, without inquiry, they could not agree to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, which would necessitate legislation. The Act of 1878 was one which ought not lightly to be disturbed. It was a compromise arrived at after careful inquiry, not between two Parties in that House, but between two competing interests, the producer and the consumer. It was an equitable arrangement; and he believed it resulted in powers being conferred on the Privy Council which, if they were properly exercised, were reasonably sufficient for the protection of the country. He would say only one word in conclusion. He did not accuse any hon. Member who supported this Resolution of any intention of establishing Protection. He was not one of those who suspected the farmers of seeking the re-establishment of Protection under the name of Reciprocity, or Pair Trade, or whatever other alias it might assume. He did not believe it would be from the agricultural interest that the first suggestion would come. What the farmers sought for, and what they were justly entitled to, was protection against cattle disease. Well, the Privy Council had large powers entrusted to it in that respect. They were using, and intended to use, so far as they thought they could justly do so, all the powers they had to prevent the importation of disease into this country; and he thought he might claim, since the establishment of an Agricultural Department, with which he was connected, that they had given proof of the sincerity of their intention to work in that direction. They had forbidden the importation of animals from Prance, and had put pressure upon Germany as to importation from that country—so much so, that the German Government had revised its regulations as to the exportation of sheep from that country; and he believed it had resulted in greater security in the case of animals exported from Germany. He had no wish to detain the House any longer, except to say that, for the reasons he had stated, the Government could not, and did not, think they would be justified in accepting the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire.

said, many statements had been made in the course of the debate to which, under ordinary circumstances, he should have been greatly tempted to reply. At that late hour of the night, however, he would altogether forego the temptation. One word he might be permitted to say, in reply to an observation of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Dodson). The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Motion could not be carried out without further legislation. If that were so, then further legislation let there be. But that was not his (Mr. Chaplin's) opinion; it was only the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. All he asked for was that they should deal with all foreign countries, from which there was a fear of importing foot-and-mouth disease, precisely in the same way as they were dealing with Prance at the present time; and no Member of the Government had ventured to tell him what prevented them prohibiting animals from Belgium and Spain, whilst the same law prevented their landing them from France. The right hon. Gentleman complained that he had taken the words of the Schedule of the Act for his Motion. He had done that advisedly. The right hon. Gentleman said he called upon the Government to do three things negatively. He called upon the Government to do what they had a right to do at the present moment—he called upon the Privy Council to satisfy themselves as to the sanitary condition of the countries from which live animals were imported, and, having satisfied themselves, then to take certain steps—that was to say, to act in a manner different to the way in which they were acting now. The right hon. Gentleman said he was ready to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). He (Mr. Chaplin), however, was not prepared to accept that Amendment, because it meant nothing. There had been more than one Select Committee to inquire into this question; and, in addition to that, he would remind the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, which sat for three years, and had only just finished its labours. It did appear to him that the proposal to appoint a Committee was only a plea for delay. Under those circumstances, and in consequence of the reply of the Government, he had no alternative whatever, except to take the sense of the House on his Motion.

, who rose amidst loud cries of "Divide!" was understood to say that he regarded the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Privy Council was most delusive. He had represented that all the animals imported were heavy fat cattle, weighing from 1,000 to 1,500 lbs., whereas by far the greater proportion were sheep.

rose, and was also received with marks of disapprobation.

The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that he has no right to make a second speech.

I did not intend to make a second speech, Sir; but, with the indulgence of the House, I wish to make an observation. [Loud cries of "Divide!"]

The object of the hon. Member is simply to ask leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment; and this is certainly the first time within my recollection that an hon. Member has been refused permission to make such a statement.

I wish to say that I have no objection to an inquiry; and I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said, he would only express his regret that the Government had not made up their minds to grant an inquiry sooner. He would move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name.