I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that on the 18th May the magistrates granted one licence to cover two houses, situated 140 yards apart from each other; whether he is aware that one of the aforesaid houses is situated on a portion of Whitley Links, which is used as a public park; and if he can state whether any notice was given to the public, and adjoining property owners, of any intention to apply for a licence for this latter house; and, if not, will he take such steps as are necessary to protect the interests of adjoining property owners?

My attention had not previously been called to the case, but I am informed on inquiry that the County Justices have recently granted a licence to some premises at Whitley, consisting of two buildings which are about 100 yards apart. Both buildings stand in the same private estate, and the Justices, in coming to the decision they did, acted, I understand, on the advice of counsel. I am also informed that the usual notices required by statute were given when the provisional licence for the premises was granted in 1893; these notices do not require to be renewed when the provisional licence is made final. I have no authority to take any steps in the matter.

May I ask whether it is not the fact that the plan was considerably altered for the new building after it was sanctioned by the Licensing Board, and whether it is not also a fact that the Justices refused to hear witnesses who opposed the granting of the licence on the advice of the Clerk of the Justices?

With reference to the last Question I have no information at all. With reference to the first part it is quite true that there was substantial alteration in the premises; on that point the opinion of Queen's Counsel was taken, and it was decided that there was no such structural alteration in the premises as to prevent the licence being granted.

As this is such an important question to some of my constituents I shall call attention to the question on the Estimates.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir EDWARD GOURLEY), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if all the Consuls representing Great Britain in Venezuela are American, and that as a consequence when difficulties arise between the British and Venezuelan Governments the Consuls as a rule resign? and whether, in future, he will endeavour as far as possible to give the appointments to British subjects?

None of the Consular officers representing Great Britain in Venezuela are American. In the selection of such officers preference should be given to British subjects, if such persons possessing the requisite qualification can be secured.

On behalf of Sir EDWARD GOURLEY, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that prior to the Nile expedition for the relief of the late General Gordon, the Naval and Military advisers of the Egyptian Government recommended that a flotilla of ironclad monitors, armed with quick-firing guns, should be built for the purpose of patrolling and holding the Nile as far as the Bahr Gazelle; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to construct and dispatch in time for the next rising of the Nile craft of this description, and suitable for passing the rapids wholly or otherwise, for the purpose of assisting in the capture of Dongola, Berber, and Khartoum?

Three stern-wheel protected steamers are now being built for the Egyptian Government for service on the Nile, and are to be delivered in the course of the next three months. They are specially designed for this service, and will have an armament of quick-firing guns.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the Government of India issued a Resolution in 1882 in which they expressed a desire that all possible encouragement should be held out to the development of sugar cane industry in the Bombay Presidency, and the Government of Bombay, acting upon this instruction, held out hopes in 1883 and 1884 to the proprietor of a sugar refinery in Poona that he would be allowed to effect retail sale of rum (which is a bye-product of sugar manufacture) under similar conditions to those which were adopted in Madras and other parts of India, and that in consequence of this privilege being withheld the sugar refinery at Poona had to be closed in 1892, whether, as a means of reviving and developing this industry in Bombay, he would recommend the local Governments to give all sugar refineries the privilege of selling rum under the same conditions as prevail at Madras and elsewhere?

I have no complete information about the Poona sugar factory to which my hon. Friend refers; but a copy of his Question will be forwarded to the Government of India, and their attention will be drawn to the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been drawn to statements recently made in the Pioneer to the effect that a large illicit trade is carried on in ammunition between the regular Afghan soldiers and the tribesmen in Hindu Kush, and that during the Chitral campaign a consignment of Kabul made ammunition was sent into Bajour from the Sipah Salar's camp beyond Asmar; also that as regards Martini-Henry rifles the tribes had an abundant supply of cartridges, the majority of which had not come from India; and, whether any measures can be taken by the Government of India, through His Highness the Amir of Afghanistan, to check or prevent such transfer of munitions of war to the tribesmen?

I have been unable to trace the statements in the Pioneer to which my hon. Friend refers, nor have I any official information on the subject. I will, however, make further inquiries.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, seeing the difficulties of such Amendments of Clause 4 of the Education Bill as have been suggested from both sides of the House are financial rather than educational, he would consent to receive a private deputation of Members only, to discuss Amendments to Clause 4, with a view of saving the time of the Committee of the Whole House in the discussion of Amendments when Clause 4 is reached?

I do not think I can quite accept the definition of the diffculties of Clause 4 of the Education Bill suggested in the Question, because there seems to me a very considerable difference in the position of Board Schools which are enabled to draw from the rates and of Voluntary Schools which are voluntarily supported. I could not consent to receive a deputation on the subject of a single clause of a Bill of which I am not in charge, but I understand that the Lord President proposes to receive a deputation on this subject, and he has asked me to be present.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether it is in contemplation, or whether steps have been taken, to institute at any other port or ports on the Continent arrangements for the transmission home of seamen's wages similar to those inaugurated at Dunkirk; and, if so, at what port or ports?

My right hon. Friend has for some time had under consideration the question of extending to other Continental Ports the scheme for the transmission of seamen and their wages which is now being tried at Dunkirk. An officer of the Board of Trade has been engaged in making inquiries for this purpose at Havre, Antwerp, Hamburg and Rotterdam, and as soon as my right hon. Friend has received and considered that officer's report, he expects to be in a position to judge whether the transmission scheme can with advantage be extended to any of those ports.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, before a new code of fog signals at sea is promulgated, by means of an Order in Council or otherwise, it will be necessary to obtain the adhesion of the other maritime powers who are parties to the existing International regulations; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has taken steps to secure or have secured such International agreement?

My right hon. Friend is advised that any new regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea promulgated by Order in Council under Section 418 of the "Merchant Shipping Act 1894," would in the absence of International concurrence, apply only to British ships and to Foreign ships within British jurisdiction. He is considering, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, what further representations respecting the proposed revised fog signals should be made to Foreign powers, but he is not at present prepared to make any definite statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state how many applications to fix fair rent in respect of the second judicial term have been received from county Cavan, also how many tenants in county Cavan are now entitled to apply to have judicial rents fixed for the second term; whether he will consider the desirability of publishing townland or district lists, giving the names, addresses, and particulars as to the area and rent of all tenants now entitled to apply in respect of the second judicial term; and, whether he is aware that this information would enable them to fill up their originating notices with accuracy, and thus tend to the convenience of the Land Commission, and save the farmers the cost of obtaining copies of the judicial orders or agreements?

Applications to fix fair rents for a second statutory term have been received in only three cases from the county Cavan. I am informed that the Land Commissioners have not got the data for the compilation of an accurate statement of the number of tenants in the county who are now in a position to apply to have judicial rents fixed for a second term, and under the circumstances I am afraid it must be left to the applicants themselves to fill up their originating notices.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he can now state the decision at which the Commissioners have arrived respecting the preservation of the Trinity Almshouses, in the Mile End Road?

The decision of the Charity Commissioners respecting the Trinity Almshouses in the Mile End Road, and the reasons for it, are stated in a letter to the Secretary of Trinity House, dated May 23rd, which was published in The Times last Wednesday. The hon. Menber will probably read that letter, but perhaps I may be allowed to quote one sentence from it. The letter says:—

"The Commissioners, while fully recognising the fact that the Corporation have framed their proposals in what they conceive to be the best interests of the beneficiary class, are of opinion that a sufficient case is not made out for any material reduction in the number of existing almshouses."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will lay upon the Table any Dispatches from Her Majesty's Government relating to East African affairs, which have recently been laid before the Italian Parliament.

I shall be happy to lay upon the Table any Dispatches which answer the description of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not, however, think there are more than one or two.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, (1) whether Her Majesty's Government have given attention to the Green-book recently published by the Italian Government, containing correspondence relative to Italian proceedings in Africa; (2) whether, on 19th February 1896, Her Majesty's Government submitted confidentially to the Italian Ambassador in London the draft of a Dispatch proposed to be sent by Lord Salisbury in reply to a letter from Ras Mangasha, the son of King John of Abyssinia; (3) whether, at the request of the Italian Ambassador in London, Her Majesty's Government corrected the draft Dispatch, and on 28th February 1896 submitted to the Ambassador another and different draft, containing the declaration that Italy is the friend and ally of this country; (4) whether the consent of Her Majesty's Government to the publication of its Dispatches and drafts was asked for and obtained by the Italian Government before publishing the same; and, (5) whether Her Majesty's Government propose to lay before the House the correspondence relative to the Italian operations in Africa, including any Dispatches which passed between the Italian Government and Lord Rosebery's administration?

The answer to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. In answer to the third pargraph, Her Majesty's Government is on friendly terms with the Government of Italy, and also with the Government of Abyssinia; but it would clearly be improper that we should at the present juncture lay before the House the language which we have used in any attempts we may have made to improve the relations of those two Powers. The answer to the fourth paragraph is in the negative. In reply to the fifth paragraph I have to say that the present opportunity is not a fitting one for laying Papers on the Table of the House dealing with operations still pending. When peace is restored the Government will be happy to consider what Papers can properly be laid.

With regard to the third paragraph of the Question, I think there is some confusion. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can answer categorically that paragraph?

That is the paragraph I have already answered and no further reply is necessary. [Laughter.]

That is no answer at all.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in December 1895, Her Majesty's Government received a request from the Italian Government to allow Italian troops to be disembarked and to pass through Zeila in order to operate against the Abyssinians, which request was supported by Count Hatzfeldt, the German Ambassador in London; whether the India Office opposed the giving of this consent, but was overruled by Lord Salisbury; whether Lord Salisbury, on 25th February 1896, telegraphed to Aden to authorise the examination by Italian officers of Duncareta roads as an anchorage for Italian vessels of war; whether the delay of this authorisation to that date was due to the opposition of the India Office, which was overruled by Lord Salisbury; whether he can say on what grounds the India Office opposed the landing of Italian troops at Zeila and the examination of the anchorage at Duncareta, and on what grounds Lord Salisbury overruled the opposition; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to lay upon the Table of this House the Correspondence on these subjects?

Certain facilities were asked for by the Italian Government, which involved a permission to pass through some portions of Her Majesty's Somali Coast Protectorate. After consultation with the Indian Government, Her Majesty's Government expressed their willingness to concur in this suggestion subject to the limitations necessary to prevent it from trenching on the rights of other Powers. No final conclusion was arrived at, but the details of the negotiations involved questions at issue with the Governments of Italy and France, and the de facto Government of Harrar, and I do not think the matter is one on which the House will require me to give fuller details.

With regard to all these Dispatches, did I not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say in the discussion yesterday that he would lay in the Library of the House the Italian Green-book, which contains every Dispatch which the right hon. Gentleman says he will not give to the House of Commons?

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in both the statements which he has made. I said I would lay the Green-book if I found that there was more than one copy at the Foreign Office. I find there is only one copy, and that is under examination by myself. [Laughter.] As to the second part of the Question, the Dispatches which I have promised to lay on the Table are those asked for by the hon. Gentleman which have already appeared in the Italian Green-book, and of which I think there are but one or two.

I wish to ask whether he has also received a second Italian Green-book?

I have done more than that; I have received three. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether any railway inspector has yet visited Longford to inquire into the dangerous state of the Royal Canal Harbour there to the public safety; and, if so, what report has been made to him on the subject?

One of the Inspectors of Railways has visited the Canal Harbour at Longford and has made a Report to the Board of Trade, who are in communication with the Midland Great Western Railway Company on the subject. My right hon. Friend will be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the Report and correspondence in due course if he desires it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will, before Thursday, lay before the House any telegrams that have passed with the Government of India as to the dispatch of an Indian force to Suakim?

Although I could not give the telegrams, yet Her Majesty's Government consider that the House should be in possession of the views of the Indian Government before any discussion takes place upon the dispatch of Indian troops to Suakim, and I am considering how that object can best be attained.

I may say that I only put the word "telegrams" in the Question, because I understood the noble Lord the other day promised my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends behind me that the telegrams should be produced.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has arranged with the Home Government that all charges for extra allowances, pensions, or gratuities to officers or soldiers of the Indian force sent to Suakim, and charges for pensions or gratuities to the families of officers or soldiers of the force killed or disabled during the expedition, should be paid by the Imperial Exchequer; and whether, to avoid loss by delay in the settlement of accounts between the two Governments, he will secure, as was done when the Indian troops went to Malta, an advance from the Treasury to cover temporary outlays by India on Imperial account?

It has been arranged that all extra expenses shall be borne by the Treasury Chest, which term includes such as are mentioned in the first part of the Question. As soon as an estimate can be obtained from India as to the amount of any extra expenses incurred on Imperial account, application will be made to the Treasury for an advance.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the nature and number of the force of all arms that was being sent from India to Suakim?

The force consists of one regiment native cavalry, 13 British officers and noncommissioned officers, and 500 natives of all ranks; one native mountain battery, five British officers and non-commissioned officers, and 265 natives of all ranks; one company sappers and miners, seven British officers and non-commissioned officers, and 168 natives of all ranks; two regiments native infantry, 26 British officers and non-commissioned officers, and 1,474 natives of all ranks—Total, 51 British officers and non-commissioned officers, and 2,407 natives of all ranks.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether a communication was received by Her Majesty's Government on 10th March from the Italian Ambassador in London, to the effect that the Governor of Massowah had telegraphed that 10,000 Dervishes were said to be hovering around Kassala, and asking whether Her Majesty's Government would decide to make a diversion by an advance on the Nile; whether the next day telegraphic orders were sent to Lord Cromer directing him to make a military diversion towards Dongola; and whether, before this advance was ordered, the Egyptian Government had been consulted on the matter and expressed its approval?

Some time before the communications alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, the question of an advance against the Dervishes had been under discussion with the Egyptian Government, who were anxious that such operations should be undertaken in order to insure the security of Egypt. With respect, however, to the time and circumstances of the action which Her Majesty's Government sanctioned, we were undoubtedly influenced by the representations which we received from the Italian Government of the danger to which the Italian position at Kassala wan exposed, the fall of which place at that time would have involved a serious menace to the security of Egyptian territory.

Do we understand that Her Majesty's Government had under consideration communications from Egypt as to the threatened advance of the Dervishes before the 10th of March—that is to say, before the Italian Ambassador waited upon Lord Salisbury?

Yes, Sir. There had been communications between Her Majesty's Government and Lord Cromer on behalf of the Egyptian Government prior to that date as to the danger to Egyptian territory if a Dervish victory or a Dervish advance occurred.

Are the Government, under present circumstances, still of opinion that Lord Cromer's Dispatches cannot be laid before Parliament?

I do not understand how that Question arises, and I do not think it desirable to depart from the ordinary custom in regard to this matter.

It arises out of the answer just given. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to Dispatches communicated through Lord Cromer as to the views of the Egyptian Government in regard to an advance by the Dervishes. Cannot they be laid before Parliament?

No; I cannot depart from the answer I have previously given.

My noble Friend the Under Secretary for India communicated to me, after Question time last night, that he had received a telegraphic message from the Indian Government earnestly pressing that no decision should be come to by Her Majesty's Government as to the cost of the Indian troops until their views were in the possession of her Majesty's Government. That is a request which we cannot refuse, and, under these circumstances, I must ask the House to depart from the arrangement made for next Thursday, and to allow some later day to be assigned for this discussion.

Of course, the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in respect to conformity in the wishes of the Indian Government is one Which we are bound to respect; but we ought to understand that as early a date is possible should be found for the discussion of the subject of the employment of Indian troops without the consent of Parliament, apart from the views of the Indian Government as to the charge. ["Hear, hear!"]

The right hon. Gentleman will see that it is absolutely impossible for me to do more than undertake to fix the earliest possible day after the Dispatch has been received from the Indian Government and due time given to my noble Friend to consider it.

I understand that a Dispatch is coming. How long will it take to reach this country?

A fortnight or three weeks.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say we shall have no opportunity of discussing the Dispatch of troops to Suakim apart from the question of who is to pay, which is a subsidiary question altogether? We desire to have an opportunity of discussing the subject of the dispatch of the troops.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he cannot ask the Government to give two days to this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that under his own Government in 1885 the troops were actually engaged before a Resolution was brought before the House at all. [Laughter.]

Then I beg to say that it is not beyond the bounds of probability that we may take a day. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lietenant of Ireland, if it is now the intention of the Government to go on with the Irish Education Bill?

I stated on the introduction of this Bill that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with it if it should prove contentious. Up to the present no intimation has reached me from hon. Members from Ireland as to the view they take of the Bill; but after the pronouncement of the Roman Catholic Bishops the other day, I can hardly imagine it will be treated as an unopposed Measure. I should still be willing to drop the contentious part of our proposals and proceed with the non-contentious part, if there was a general desire that this course shall be adopted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the urgent necessity for the better housing of Irish labourers, he will provide facilities for the passing of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill during the present Session?

It is my earnest desire to see the Labourers (Ireland) Bill become law, and I trust I shall receive the assistance of hon. Members opposite in securing its passage during the present Session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the attention of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests has been called to the recent serious disfigurement of Swinley Woods in Windsor Forest, owing to the destruction of timber which is taking place in consequence of the fumes arising from the kilns of a local brickmaker; whether these kilns have been erected, and added to from time to time, under the sanction of the Department; whether the conversion of a large portion of this ancient Royal demesne to commercial uses is in accordance with the terms of the Act for the inclosure of Windsor Forest; whether he is aware that the destruction of the subsoil in the process of digging clay involves an interference with one of the principal roads in the district, namely, the highway leading from Ascot Heath to Bagshot Park; and whether the Commissioners propose to take any action in the matter?

The Commissioner of Woods, from a recent personal inspection, is satisfied that no material injury is being caused to the Crown woods at Swinley by the brick works, which are in other ways beneficial to the land revenues. They were established on Crown land, let for the purpose about 35 years ago. Further land has since been let, the last increase in area being made in 1880; but about 18 months ago the area let was varied by the surrender of part not suitable for brick-making purposes and the letting of other land of equal area instead. The land now let for brickmaking was not acquired by the Crown under the Windsor Forest Enclosure Act (which, however, does not prevent lands enclosed thereunder being used for commercial purposes), but was purchased by the Commissioners of Woods. The interference with the highway consists of its being used by carts, barrows, etc., conveying clay to the works. The highway is not under the charge of the Commissioner of Woods, who considers further action on his part to be unnecessary.

said he rose to move that the House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday, the 4th June, in no jocose spirit, and with no view of cracking jokes such as they had heard cracked with great ability in bygone days. He intended to deal with the question in a serious spirit, and he thought he should serve his Church and his country by explaining that spirit to the House. He had an appeal to make to his Friends of the Church Party. He would not be in order in discussing the details of the Measure it was proposed to bring before the House to-morrow, but he might go as far as to say that the Benefices Bill was a national Measure, connected with our great National and Established Church, and as such was worthy of being dealt with in a bold and courageous manner, and not smuggled through the House on such a day as the Derby Day. [Laughter.] If they were to deal with the National Church and with the discipline of that Church—and he yielded to no man in his love for the dear old Church, and in his desire to see that disciplinary reform of which she stood in such great need—[Opposition cheers]—the Measure by which they dealt with it should be passed in a full House, and by a great majority, and neither could be obtained to-morrow.

seconded the Motion. As to the Benefices Bill, which had in some extraordinary manner been mixed up with the proposal for the Derby adjournment, all he and his constituents had to do was to vote against it.

said he had not ventured to trespass upon the House very much this Session—[laughter]—but he would like to say one or two words in opposition to the present Motion. To support the adjournment simply to obstruct and stop a particular Measure did not seem to him to be a proper way of approaching the subject. He approached the matter from a standpoint very different to that taken up by the hon. Gentlemen who had just addressed the House. During the years he had had a seat in the House he had heard many speeches on the question of the adjournment for the Derby. Some of them had been most entertaining. The most interesting was that of Lord Elcho, and if any speech could ever have convinced him to vote for the adjournment, that speech would have done. Unfortunately, Lord Elcho came down on the eve of the next Derby Day, and made another excellent speech, but on that occasion he proved conclusively that they ought not to adjourn. That year they decided by a large majority not to adjourn, but on the day the Derby was run a House was not made. Such incidents were very unsatisfactory; but he thought they had something more important to do than to consider the question of the adjournment of the House of Commons for the Derby race. He did not object in any way to sport. He was too old and not sportive enough to enjoy this kind of thing—[cries of "No, no!"]—anyhow he had no time for sport except the sport of the House of Commons. He did not object to see the Derby; he had seen it once, and if he could go comfortably there and back he would not object to go again. But the question really was whether it was not time to do away with the farce of adjourning the House for the Derby. ["Hear, hear!"] As a Conservative he did not see why they should adjourn. The idea of adjourning for the Derby was a new and somewhat Radical idea. The proposal was first made about 1847, but he asserted that the time had now come when they should do away with this folly. Either the business of the House was a serious reality or it was farce. In view of the amount of work before them this was not the moment to adjourn the House for any pleasuring such as a horse-race. But if they did adjourn for the Derby they ought to do so properly and bodily. They ought to request Mr. Speaker to go to Epsom himself. [A laugh.] They ought to take the mace there and have a grand stand all to themselves, and really do the thing properly. [Renewed laughter.] If they did that he might possibly stretch a point and attend the race. In his book "Democracy and Liberty," the hon. Member for the University of Dublin asserted that the House was deteriorating. If the House was deteriorating, hon. Members had now an opportunity of doing some little to retrieve their position. He hoped that the question of adjourning for the Derby would now be permanently settled. There was a time for all things. No doubt there was a time for horse-racing, but it was not on Wednesday when the House had plenty of work to do.

said that, unlike Lord Elcho, he had opposed the adjournment for the Derby whenever it had been moved. The hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion, gave no reasons why they should adjourn over the Derby, but simply talked about some Bill that was to be brought on to-morrow. He read in The Times that morning that "the question of the adjournment for the Derby will be determined with very little regard to the real issue." He desired to put the real issue before the House, and it was whether it was rational, desirable, seemly, or even decent, that a great national assembly should give up its business and adjourn for a horse-race. What claim had a great gambling festival to the sanction, support, and patronage of this House? It seemed to him an extraordinary tiling that they should only give up two hours on Ascension Day and give up the whole of their time on Derby Day. [A laugh.] If they wanted a holiday why should they not take it on some decent occasion? Why not take it when the All England Eleven play the Australians? ["Hear, hear!"] He would vote for that. ["Oh!"] Well, he would not oppose it very strongly. [Laughter.] There would be a great deal to be said for that, because cricket was a noble and national game, which had not yet, he believed, been corrupted by the canker and cancer of gambling. ["Hear, hear!"] This was not only a Legislative Assembly, but it was an assembly to which the nation looked for guidance. Could anyone say it would either directly or indirectly tend to improve the conduct or the condition of the people in any way if they gave their sanction to this Motion? There was not a clergyman, not a minister of religion, not a person who visited the poor, who would not tell them that at the present day this vice of gambling was eating into the very life of the people. ["Hear, hear!"] And yet this great Council of the nation, was called upon to do something that looked very like spreading its protecting wing over these abominations. He hoped his Radical Friends would behave respectably on this occasion. [Laughter.] He saw his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton sitting below him. He looked like mischief. [Laughter.] He and his hon. Friend agreed in most political matters, and the main object of their political lives was to make this House paramount and supreme—and to get the better of the other House. [Laughter.] He wanted to increase its power, its dignity, and its influence for good, and did anybody think that they should raise the character of the House in the public estimation by carrying such a Motion as this? He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton would think better of what he was going to do to-day. [Laughter.]

And to-morrow. [laughter.]

I hope he will be able to carry his Radical Committee with him—[loud laughter]—and that I shall see him in the right Lobby turning away from his wickedness, and doing that which is lawful and right. [Laughter.] Continuing, the hon. Baronet said he would also appeal to his Conservative Friends. Lord Salisbury had said:—

"It is the improvement of the daily life of the struggling millions and the diminution of the sorrows that so many are condemned to bear, which is the task, the blessed task, that Parliaments are called into existence to perform."

said he was very fond of a horse. Next to a ship—[laughter]—a horse, he thought, was about the best thing that had been invented. He had also a toleration for horse-racing, but he agreed that this matter was not one to be settled on the merits of the Derby or of the occupations in which the people engaged who went to the Derby. The question was whether the House ought to interrupt its business on this particular day. In his opinion it did not consort either with the gravity of the House or with the importance of its business to adjourn over the Derby day on account of the race. It seemed to him that the arguments were against adjourning over to-morrow. That was in the abstract, but he came to the concrete. He had passed his Whitsuntide Recess in the study of those numerous Blue-books which were sent to them in such overwhelming numbers, and he admitted that he had been appalled by a Bill to which it would be out of order to refer, but which he had in the deepest recesses of his mind, and which he considered it would be unfortunate if it should pass. He had signed a memorial, he believed, against the adjournment over the Derby, but he had been placed in a very awkward position, because, on the one hand, he felt he had committed himself against the adjournment; and, on the other hand, he had during the Recess conceived it was absolutely his duty to do all he could to procure the adjournment. [Laughter.] He had reluctantly come to the conclusion that he must support the Motion, but he supported it in order to avoid a worse evil. He was, as it were, between two difficulties. He was between the Derby and the deep sea. [Laughter.] He was between the racecourse and he benefices, and of the two he preferred the Derby and the racecourse It was a very unfortunate position, and he had deemed it right to explain his vote in consequence of having signed the memorial. He should, with great reluctance, but as a case of conscience, go into the Lobby in support of the Motion.

said in consequence of the speech they had just listened to, he hoped the House would allow him to say a word. He would carefully avoid discussing the advisability or non-advisability of passing a certain Bill, nor was he going to discuss the Bill itself. He would, however, point this out to the House. A very important Measure—and whatever view they might take upon the matter they must agree that it was an important Measure—was carried by a large majority on the Second Reading. It was of a non-Party character; it was referred to the Standing Committee, and was adequately discussed there. A very great deal of time had been spent upon it, and there was now only one opportunity of getting the judgment of the House upon it as it stood. It would, he asserted, be absolutely destructive of the whole procedure of that Committee if, after all this time had been spent upon it, after an interest had been created upon it, the House should, upon such an occasion as was going to take place to-morrow, adjourn for a holiday. ["Hear, hear!"] Not upon the merits of the Bill but on behalf of the House, of Commons itself, he made a most earnest appeal to his hon. Friends to see that the efforts made to pass this Measure, which was promoted by a most important section of the Tory Party, and which was looked upon with favour by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, were not rendered absolutely futile, by the carrying of this Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he must invite the hon. Member to approach a little more closely to the Amendment he was going to move. He was now travelling beyond it.

said his argument was that it was not desirable to keep up this condition of uncertainty in trade, and that the foreign carrying industry should not be developed to the detriment of the agricultural interest in this country. Feeders in the country who were suffering most from agricultural depression and the continued uncertainty should be helped, that in the end and at no distant date cattle might be introduced into this country for feeding purposes enabling us to compete with the trade in foreign cattle. The responsibility of administering the Act of 1894 should be removed from the shoulders of the Board of Agriculture; the best scientific advice should be obtained; and the present uncertainty in the regulations ended in the best interests of agriculture.

said the arguments in favour of the Amendment were unanswerable. All that the Amendment sought to do was this—that prohibition should only run while disease was known to exist. The object of the Bill was to make permanent the exclusion of all live cattle from being imported into this country whether diseased or not, whether from Canada or a foreign country.

Except for slaughter.

said of course, at the present moment they could not prohibit the importation of dead meat. The Amendment sought to modify the Bill in this direction—that the Government of the day might be enabled to permit live stock cattle to be imported so long as there was no disease. It was alleged that in Canada disease scarcely existed at this moment. If there was a suspicion of disease there would be no difficulty in our Government acting jointly with the Government of Canada in taking such steps as would practically secure this country against the importation of disease. The Canadian Government would gladly co-operate with Her Majesty's Government in having the most thorough examination of every animal before it was put on board, so that it would be practically impossible for disease to be shipped in Canada. During recent years great developments had been made in the provisions for the carriage of store cattle, and all this went to show that if care was taken at the port of embarkation none but healthy animals should be allowed to be shipped, and if a similarly exhaustive examination was made again at this end of the journey, there need be no fear of any harm resulting from the importation of live cattle. Inspectors might go on board cattle ships as they were coming up channel and make their examination before they entered port. If the Board of Agriculture had not the means of supplying a sufficient staff for the purpose, he was sure the House of Commons would provide them.

reminded the hon. Member that he was not keeping sufficiently close to the Amendment.

said he only desired to assist the right hon. Gentleman to come to some more reasonable view. What was absolutely necessary for a large proportion of the farming industry of this country was that they should have an ample and unrestricted supply of store cattle at reasonable prices. Without that ruin stared them in the face. This Amendment sought to make it easier for them to procure store cattle. The right hon. Gentleman's Bill excluded them for ever. It was not sufficient to say the Bill could be repealed. The right hon. Gentleman put that argument forward in the sure and certain faith that his Friends in another place would always be on the alert to prevent the reconsideration of the Bill. All that was asked was that the right hon. Gentleman should reserve to himself the right by Order in Council to close or open ports when it was thought necessary for the welfare of agriculture. Nothing more reasonable or conservative could possibly be conceived, and he could not imagine why the right hon. Gentleman had taken up the position he had. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the earnest appeal made to him by the deputation of Eastern Counties' farmers which waited on him a week or two ago, to withhold this Bill for this year at least, in order to give the farmers a little more time to study what was being done to interfere with their trade, and to reintroduce it next year if the Government thought proper. If the right hon. Gentleman had told that deputation that he would accept this Amendment, he would have satisfied a large body of meritorious, industrious, and struggling farmers; and he hoped he would to-day see his way to accept in principle the Amendment of his hon. Friend. If he did so, he thought it was possible that much of their objection to the Measure would be removed.

thought the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the hon. Gentleman who supported him could hardly have realised what would be the result of the Amendment. They had indicated that their object was by giving some elasticity, to get rid of the permanent prevention of the importation of live cattle. The proper way to have attained that object would have been to defeat the Bill on the Second Reading. ["Hear, hear!"] It was proposed to transfer the discretion which now rested with the Board of Agriculture to the Privy Council; and the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment told the Committee that one of its objects was to relieve the scientific advisers of the Board of Agriculture of the duties which were imposed on them at present and to get a new body of officials to carry them out. But the hon. Gentleman forgot to say how such a new body was to be created. The Board of Agriculture would be the only body to which the Privy Council could appeal, and if discretion was to be exercised, it must be on the advice of the responsible Minister of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a good-humoured speech, and he was sure the farmers would be very grateful to him, although there was a very large body of farmers—indeed, the great majority of them—who did not desire the Amendment and who had urged on the Government the desirability of resisting any such alteration in the Bill. In his view, the Amendment would make things worse than they were now. At the present moment the discretion rested with the Board of Agriculture, and anyone who knew anything of the scientific advisers of the Board knew very well that they were thoroughly efficient to discharge their duties to the Board and to the country. ["Hear, hear!"] It was suggested that the Privy Council should have the power the Board of Agriculture now possessed. The result of that would be that while the Board of Agriculture was responsible for the administration of the Cattle Diseases Acts, to the Privy Council should be remitted the responsibility of saying whether or not live cattle should be admitted. He could not help thinking the hon. Gentleman had moved the Amendment without realising what the exact effect of it would be. [Hear, hear!"]

said the Bill proposed to make it absolutely prohibitory on the Board of Agriculture to allow cattle to come in from any country whether it had a clean bill of health or not. It was proposed, therefore, to place the Privy Council as a sort of buffer between the Board of Agriculture and agriculturists. If that was done the Board of Agriculture would have the advantage of placing any blame or responsibility they wished to avoid on the Privy Council. What the opponents of the Bill wished to know was what was the real object on which the Bill was based. There was, in their opinion, every possible protection against disease under the present law, and they wished to know whether the Bill was proposed as a protection against disease or as a protection in favour of the producer. It seemed to him that this could be only the real principle on which the Bill was founded. If the Government could see its way to impart elasticity to the Bill so that there might be at some future time, without having to repeal the Act or to go to the House of Lords to get the law repealed, some means of suspending the operation of the law, the concession would be of some value. As the Bill at present stood it was really a Protective Measure in the interests of breeders of home cattle. He supported the Amendment.

regretted that they were unable to defeat the Bill on the Second Reading, but he promised the right hon. Gentleman that the attack would be renewed on the Third Reading. Though the sanitary advisers of the right hon. Gentleman were men of long experience and great knowledge, he thought they were scarcely up to date in the present scientific methods of dealing with cattle disease. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman called into consultation with his scientific advisers some eminent veterinarians on points of doubt and difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the class of evidence at his disposal, and referred to the landed proprietors who had been his chief advisers; but his opinion of the quality of those gentlemen was not strengthened by what he had since heard. It was well known that they were Tories and Protectionists in the North. The County Council of Aberdeen, the County Council of Kincardineshire, and other districts in the North had petitioned strongly against the Bill in the best interests of agriculture. If he was persuaded that the present powers of the Department were not sufficient to prevent the importation of disease, he should be one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Bill; but what were the facts of the case? Under existing legislation disease had almost been stamped out in this country. It was said that this Bill was intended to relieve agriculture, but his belief was that it was intended to relieve the Minister of the worry, responsibility, and difficulty of considering awkward questions now brought up in Parliament. He supported the Amendment because he thought it referred to one of those classes of cases which ought to be brought now and again under the examination of Parliament. When the Bill was passed, what would the Minister for Agriculture have to do? His occupation would practically be gone. His impression was that it was a time to plead for relaxation rather than for the tightening of restrictions. In referring to the Canadian question, he reinforced the statements made by Sir Charles Tupper, Lord Ripon, and Lord Aberdeen, to the effect that the Canadian Government never had any pleuropneumonia in that country.

I think the hon. Member must be aware that he is not in order in dealing with this question. The question before the Committee was solely whether the Order should be made by the Privy Council.

said the suggestion made was whether they should send out a body of experts to acquire on the spot in Canada knowledge as to whether there was any disease or not. In his part of Aberdeenshire people were somewhat divided in opinion on this question, though not so much as he thought. Opinion was becoming stronger and almost unanimous in favour of restrictions. They wanted more store cattle in Aberdeenshire simply because it would not pay to breed them. At present prices and in the present condition of agriculture, it did not pay to breed store cattle for the market.

I must remind the hon. Member that he is transgressing my ruling. The only question is whether any relaxation of this Act would be possible by allowing an Order in Council to pass. The hon. Member must strictly confine himself to the point.

asked whom this Bill was really intended to benefit? Was it supposed to benefit the breeders? It might do so only for a limited period; it might benefit the ports of landing.

I must request the hon. Member to resume his seat.

said that the law at present was that all cattle should be allowed in except those excluded by the Agricultural Department. This Amendment only proposed in future to keep out all cattle except where the Privy Council thought it necessary and important.

Whereas the discretion now rests with the Board of Agriculture, this Amendment, if adopted, would allow it to rest with the Privy Council.

It is rather a difference of discretion. It is a discretion to allow a few cattle in from a few places instead of a discretion to keep cattle out.

said that after all there might be a certain amount of agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and those who differed from him on the Opposition side of the House. The question before the Committee was not whether there should be any elasticity in the Bill or whether it was possible for any authority to repeal the Bill as far as certain parts of the world were concerned, but what authority should be allowed to deal with the point. It had been said that this was a Bill for shutting out all foreign cattle for ever. The right hon. Gentleman had repudiated that view almost with indignation, but he admitted that there might be circumstances in the future rendering it necessary to repeal the whole of the Bill or, at least, a part of it. In this they were in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman; the only point of difference was which authority ought to be allowed to do so. The question at issue was whether the Privy Council or Parliament was the more suitable authority to repeal certain parts of the Measure from time to time. That the Privy Council should be the authority did not please him, but he believed that the Privy Council in this matter would rely upon the Minister for Agriculture, and it was that Minister who ought to be the authority in his opinion. The President of the Board of Agriculture was far more likely to err on the side of keeping cattle out than on the side of letting cattle in, for he knew that exclusion could only inconvenience a limited class for a certain time, whilst admission might result in the decimation of our flocks and herds. There could be no better authority to whom to entrust the power of loosening the bonds imposed by this Bill when it was expedient to loosen them, and there could be no worse authority for the purpose than Parliament, which was not fitted to decide the delicate questions upon which the admission or exclusion of cattle depended. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.

hoped the Government would reconsider their decision respecting this Amendment, or consent to limit the time during which the Bill should he in force. The Measure was really one for the exclusion of animals, and ought not to be permanent. [Opposition cheers.] It was entirely unnecessary, because the Minister for Agriculture already possessed sufficient power of exclusion, and as a result of the exercise of that power almost complete immunity from disease had been secured. The Government were going out of their way for no earthly reason to injure the working classes and the consuming classes generally. If the Bill were permanent in its character it would prevent any fall or reduction in the price of meat. The Measure conflicted with the interests of his constituents—[Opposition cheers]—and he should continue to oppose it by every means in his power. The House of Lords would never permit the Bill to be repealed. A permanent Measure of this kind would be nothing else than thinly veiled Protection. For every producer of cattle in this country there were 5,000 consumers of meat, and the interests of these consumers were being disregarded in order that the producer might be benefited. He trusted therefore that the Government would agree to an Amendment by which the period of the operation of the Bill could be limited independently of the House of Lords, which was an assembly composed of Gentlemen who were largely interested in keeping up the price of meat.

had every confidence that the Government would not listen to any such suggestion. The Amendment would be a very serious alteration of the Bill. The Central Chamber of Agriculture, which was composed of men of every shade of political opinion, had expressed a strong desire that the Bill should be passed without any material alteration, and every petition which he had presented on the subject contained an expression of the same hope.

said he had no doubt that the Central Chamber of Agriculture would pass a unanimous vote in favour of every form of Protection.

observed that the Chamber had refused to have anything to do with Protection.

said that as a matter of fact this particular Measure was not supported by all the Associated Chambers of Agriculture. The Norfolk Chamber, for example, was against it, and so would be the Chamber of any county where the feeding of imported stock was an important factor in the farmers' industry. The opponents of this Measure now offered the Government a golden bridge. By the adoption of the Amendment amity would be secured, and the prospect of the Bill's passing without the consumption of any further large amount of time would be greatly improved. The chief objection of the Government to the Amendment would probably be that it would create a condition of some uncertainty. The right hon. Gentleman opposite would say that it would be impossible for the breeding trade to increase very largely in this country as long as there existed any uncertainty upon the question of importation of live cattle from abroad. If that was the view of the Government it would seem that this Bill was Protection and nothing else. In fact, their supporters in the country made no bones about the matter. The right hon. Gentleman himself, it was true, said that the Protection sanctioned was only protection against disease, but in the country nobody took that view, and the farmers believed that the Bill would raise the price of store cattle, and accordingly they liked it. They knew perfectly well that there was no chance of any repeal of this Measure by the House of Lords. Their Lordships were one and all—or nearly all—gentlemen who would be strongly in favour of a Protectionist Measure of this kind, even though there was no disease at all in Argentina, or Canada, or elsewhere. By this time the Government must know that the opposition to this Bill was really serious, not only from a large section of agriculturist at home who believed it meant ruin to them, but also on the part of some of our Colonies. The hostility of both parties would be mitigated if there were some better means of getting rid of the restrictions than an appeal to the House of Lords. The position of the President of the Board of Agriculture himself would not be so serious, because his responsibility would be lightened. A certain solemnity attached to a decision of the Privy Council which did not apply, if he might venture to say so, to the Minister for Agriculture, and there might thus be greater security against disease in an appeal to the Privy Council. On these and other grounds he hoped the President would see his way to accept the Amendment, and in that case he could promise that the subsequent discussion of the Measure would not be as long as otherwise it would be.

hoped the Opposition would be met in some way in regard to the Amendment. He felt strongly against the Bill. He did not attach great importance to the argument about Protection, because, though they might be protecting the price of stores, they would not raise the price of the finished article so long as they let in foreign meat free. What they would do would be to get rid of the trade of buying foreign stores and fattening them, and they would at the same time seriously affect the relations between this country and foreign countries, especially some of our colonies. That being so, he held very strongly that there was a great difference between absolute permanence and making the new law operative only for a limited time—having what had been called a certain amount of elasticity. There had been an unpleasant amount of friction between the Board of Agriculture and Canada in regard to the exclusion of Canadian cattle, and it would be judicious to let that feeling quiet down for a time. It would, in his opinion, be a great mistake for the House to make a final and decisive pronouncement on the whole subject at present.

said the feeling in that part of the country was that even healthy animals, when they stepped into the hold of a hot ship and were landed on the cold quays of Liverpool and other ports, contracted the disease, and so it was carried into the country. That being their opinion, the farmers in Yorkshire wanted, not a temporary Measure but a permanent one.

hoped the Government would accept the Amendment—[Opposition cheers]—or, at any rate, some modification of it. He was surprised that it was necessary at all, because the word "foreign" was used with regard to this Bill, and animals reared in Canada were not "foreign," and there was something repellent in the use of the word. [Opposition cheers.] If Canadian and colonial cattle were to be included under the head of foreign cattle, he hoped the Government would see their way to some limitation in the case of the colonies. To put Canada and the Argentine on the same footing was an insult to Canada, having regard to the able and careful way in which Canada carried out the arrangements for the inspection of the cattle that were shipped. The Canadian Government took the greatest pains to prevent the introduction of cattle disease from the United States, and they prevented any animals that were suspected of having been in contact with others that were diseased from being shipped to England. The President of the Board of Agriculture, with his large sympathy, would recognise all the efforts that the Canadian Government had made in this direction. Another ground on which he was glad to support this Amendment, moved from the Front Opposition Bench, was that it showed that the Leaders of the Opposition were in favour of a preference being shown to the Colonies over foreign nations. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept the Amendment, it might be necessary to insert words to prevent cattle being taken across the frontier from the United States and shipped as Canadian cattle, when they were not bonâ fide such.

said he had had conversations with persons connected with the trade. They told him that cattle were shipped in Canada in a healthy condition. On board they were put between decks, where they did not stand up, and soon became unable to eat. They caught what was technically described as "sea chill," which produced inflammation in the nostrils corresponding with human catarrh. They were given condensed water which had in it certain oily matter that affected the stomach and the intestines. The consequence was that, entirely apart from anything like dirty weather, they were in such a condition, that inspectors deemed them to be suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, when all that they were suffering was aggravated sea sickness and cold. In that condition they were not fit for human food, and, instead of killing them, we ought to keep them for a fortnight or three weeks, during which it would be seen whether they had pleuro-pneumonia or not, and, if they had not, they would have returned to a natural condition, and could be usefully disposed of. If the right hon. Gentleman would introduce an Amendment to allow this course to be adopted, it would facilitate the passing of the Bill.

said he desired to respond in the fullest possible manner about the Colonies, and to assure the Mover of the Amendment that the Government were absolutely at one with him in the desire to do nothing which could in any way inflict injury on the Colonies, or that should even appear to be in the direction of treating them unfairly. In introducing this Measure the Government were acting only on a strong sense of duty, and in the belief that there was no other means by which the safety of our flocks and herds could be maintained. An exhaustive Inquiry into the question of the health of Canadian cattle was held by his predecessor in Office assisted by Sir Henry James and Mr. Burdon Saunderson, and any one who read the evidence taken by those gentlemen could not but come to the conclusion that it was clearly established beyond all doubt that contagious pleuro-pneumonia existed amongst cattle imported from Canada. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had said that since the Inquiry no fresh outbreak of the disease had taken place in Canada. But it was the duty of the Agricultural Department to have regard only to the condition the cattle were in when they were landed in this country. He would not enter into the disputed question whether or not contagious pleuro-pneumonia existed in Canada. He was confident that the Canadian Government did their best to save their herds from infection; but their great difficulty was that they had a frontier thousands of miles in extent, and that on the other side of that frontier, in the United States, pleuro-pneumonia existed, as the Canadian Government admitted. The Canadian Government did their best to protect themselves from the importation of the disease from the United States; and the Government of the United States took exactly the same view of the action of the Government of Canada as the Canadian Government took of the action of the Imperial Government—namely, that contagious pleuro-pneumonia did not exist in their country, and that the prohibition of their cattle was unnecessary and harsh. But it was not the fact to say that there had been no cases of the disease discovered amongst Canadian cattle since 1893, when the Inquiry was held. Eight cases were discovered in 1892 and 1893, six in 1894, and two in 1895. There could be no doubt whatever, from the evidence of the scientific advisers of the Board of Agriculture, that the disease found amongst those cattle was not, as the Canadian Government asserted, simple pleuro-pneumonia or transit pneumonia, as the hon. Member for Gateshead contended, but contagious pleuro-pneumonia, and that being so, it was impossible for the Agricultural Department, in justice to the stock owners of this country, whose interests they were bound to safeguard, to accept the Amendment. He did not share the fears of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the passing of the Bill in its present form would either injuriously affect the trade with the Colonies, or would lead to bitter feelings between the Colonies and the mother country. He could safely say that the negotiations with the representative of Canada had been carried on in the most friendly manner, and there were indications that when the Colonies adapted themselves to the restrictions, as they were now doing, a considerable increase in the trade would follow.

said he had never heard a feebler case than that advanced by the right hon. Gentleman in opposition to the Amendment. But he would not argue the case against the Bill solely on that ground. One of the chief objections against the Bill—to use the language of the hon. Gentleman opposite—was that it debarred the farmers in England and Scotland from pursuing a profitable industry which they had carried on for a great length of time with advantage to themselves and to the nation. What he and many other hon. Members desired was that the farmers should be at liberty to import their raw material in order that they might work it up into the finished article for home consumption. That was an idea which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had thoroughly failed in grasping. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to take narrow views of this subject—he wished that the right hon. Gentleman would give himself up a little more to the study of agriculture, and would take broader views of this question. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were accustomed to the rejection by the Government of all Amendments which they might propose, but he thought that after the statesmanlike, far-reaching, and Imperial views that had been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield—whose position in that House, although great before, had been considerably enhanced that night—the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill might accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for Gateshead had made a very sensible suggestion in the interests of the community. The hon. Member, who had had a large experience on the subject, had shown the Committee the lamentable condition in which animals arrived in this country after their long passage across the sea, and that the slaughtering of them immediately on their reaching our ports, without their having an opportunity of recovering from the effects of the voyage, would fill our butchers' shops with diseased meat. If the animals were allowed to be imported alive and were then permitted to regain, a healthy condition before being slaughtered, profitable employment would be afforded to our farmers, whilst cheap and wholesome food would be available for the people. That was the view that had been taken on this question by several hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, while professing the most friendly feelings towards our colonies in general, had not condescended to express them in favour of any colony in particular. Hon. Members must have noticed, with peculiar regret, the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies throughout this discussion. It would have been very pleasing to those hon. Members who were interested in this question to know what urgent public business had occasioned the absence of the right hon. Gentleman whilst the Government were endeavouring to rush through that House this Bill, which was of such vital interest to our colonies, and which proposed to inflict such great injury to their trade. He felt almost disposed to advise his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Opposition side of the House to take no further part in the discussion of this Measure in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. He sincerely hoped that his hon. Friends and the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield would support his very moderate Amendment in the event of the Government not accepting it, because he could not help feeling the Amendment would be received with great appreciation by our colonies. If the hon. and gallant Member went to a Division, he should certainly support him.

said that he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had already spoken, because there were one or two arguments that might in some degree have influenced his decision upon this question. He was convinced that this Bill was intended solely to prevent the importation of cattle disease into the United Kingdom, and also that it was not intended to keep out healthy animals. He, however, did not think that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman had met their argument. It was the fact that for years the Government had had ample power to keep out cattle disease, but, of course, if there was any necessity for strengthening the right hon. Gentleman's hands, the Conservative Party were willing to give him additional powers. They, however, did not wish to see any legitimate trade in healthy animals interfered with, especially when that trade was of vital importance to our colonies. In his view one effect of this Bill, unless the Amendment were accepted, would be to increase very largely and rapidly the importation of dead meat. He quite felt that one great object of the Bill was to introduce finality into this subject. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see that there were some grounds for accepting this Amendment, which would give our great colonies a free hand in sending healthy animals to this country.

thought that the Government were mistaken in their view that this Bill would not have the effect of keeping out healthy animals. He admitted that, so far as Suffolk was concerned, Canadian cattle were not used for store purposes so much as in Norfolk, yet the custom had been coming into vogue during the last few years previous to 1894. He had recently made inquiries among the farmers locally. In one case he asked a farmer whether any Canadian cattle were used for store purposes on his farm. The farmer said he did not use any, but he was opposed to this Measure because, he said, almost all his store cattle were Irish cattle, and he was very much afraid that if the Bill became law, after a few years the same principle as was to be applied to Canada would be applied to Ireland. He also argued that the effect of excluding Canadian cattle would be to raise the price of all the cattle bought, and the cattle which he sold would come into competition with the increased importation of dead cattle and meat, to which an impetus would be given by the passing of this Measure. That was a specimen of the views which were very largely held, not, of course, among the cattle breeders, but by that section of the farming community engaged in the industry of grazing. The Amendment deserved the support of the House from the Imperial point of view. They would have an opportunity of giving effect to the recommendations of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was the originator of this policy. Almost all the arguments used on the other side seemed to have been from the point of view of the cattle breeders, and the point of view of those who obtained their livelihood from the industry of cattle feeding had not been adequately considered. This section of the community could not be ignored, and the injury which would be inflicted upon them if such an Amendment were not embodied would, he was convinced, more than neutralise any benefit they might derive from the Rating Bill.

said the views expressed by his hon. Friend were held all over the eastern counties. The effect of this Bill would be to very largely increase the price of store cattle, and in that case the industry of feeding cattle in Norfolk, on which there had been an enormous expenditure of capital, must die of inanition. The injury to Norfolk would be very great, as they were feeding there about 100,000 cattle every year. In that county the industry of grazing employed more labour than was employed in any other kind of agricultural industry except the hop industry. Labour was employed not only in connection with grazing, but with the cultivation of turnips and other food material for the cattle, and the tending of the cattle when they were stalled together in enormous barns. He had been present at one of the most important deputations which had ever come up from Norfolk, which had waited on the right hon. Gentleman, from whom, however, they did not get very much satisfaction. The suggestion was made that the right hon. Gentleman should institute a full Inquiry on the spot in Canada into the subject of this disease, but he said that they did not know what to inquire into, and that all they had to do was to see that the disease was not introduced here. They had endeavoured to prove to the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not seem to have appreciated it yet, that the pleuro-pneumonia which they had over here, although it undoubtedly simulated the pleuro-pneumonia contagiosa, was not the real disease, but was a transit pleuro-pneumonia caught on the voyage. It was incredible that a disease like pleuro-pneumonia should have existed in Canada for 3½ years, and that there should be no local manifestations of it. About 130,000 cattle came over here from Canada every year, and yet they had only had these 16 cases of supposed disease.

said there might have been other cases, as except during the special examinations, the discovery had been purely accidental.

said that no doubt during the last two years the examination had not been very systematic, but if the disease existed in Canada it would not have escaped notice during the severe winters over there, when the cattle were housed. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are left on the ranch."] He had one official authority showing that the practice was as he had described it. The hon. Member might have been on a ranch or range where the practice was different. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he thought the reason why inquiry was not extended to Canada was because it was felt it would turn out that there was no disease. The fact was that the whole body of opinion behind the right hon. Gentleman was against the idea. His supporters would be sorry to discover that disease prevailed there, for they were anxious to sell their store cattle for more than they had been used to; and the Veterinary Department were afraid that they might be proved to be wrong. Ever since the Canadian cattle ceased to be imported, there had been very short supplies of good stores. Thus, no doubt, as last year and the year before, there would be nothing decent to be bought after the middle of November. The result was that there were thousands and thousands of tons of roots lying rotting on the ground because stores were too dear to buy, or in the second place too bad. The breeders of England were making a great mistake in this matter. If they imagined they could force up prices and make them pay what price they pleased for stores, they would soon find out their mistake. The strain had very nearly reached the breaking point, and if it broke the breeders would find that they had killed the goose that had laid the golden eggs. Whatever had happened in the way of disease it was not due to any Canadian cattle. They had just got the Irish Returns, and although there had been little or no pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland before, there had been a large number of cases since the restriction on the importation of Canadian cattle. When they were talking about the bringing in of Canadian stores, they should recollect that Irish stores were more affected by disease than Canadian stores. He understood that the charge of the Board of Agriculture against Canada was that they had not taken proper means to show the Board of Agriculture that disease did not exist. He did not take that view himself. It seemed to him that they had done everything that they should have done. He had in his hand the Report of the Debate in the Senate on the 8th April last in Canada, and the representative of the Board of Agriculture spoke strongly on this matter. The hon. Member then quoted extracts from the speeches in the Canadian Senate protesting against the action of the Home Government in this matter, and said that the answer was to his mind a strong answer. It was interesting to read the evidence on which this great injury had been done to Canada. If the Canadian people did not bear any ill-will to the right hon. Gentleman they really must be a very forgiving people, because the injury done to them had been done on evidence which was not by any means satisfactory. Undoubtedly the original appearances of the disease were so like those of pleuro-pneumonia as to fully justify the Board of Agriculture in insisting upon a temporary exclusion of Canadian cattle, but what had since happened had completely altered matters, and whereas the burden of proof was in the first instance on the Canadian Government, it was now upon our Agricultural Department, and they would not grant the Inquiry which was asked for. At the Inquiry referred to by the right hon. Gentleman there were 17 witnesses examined. Three were veterinary advisers to the Board, four were connected with the Board of Agriculture at the various ports, two were connected with the Royal Veterinary College, and eight were eminent authorities. There was a great diversity of opinion as to whether the affection was pleuro-pneumonia; indeed, it was quite impossible to decide whether the disease was that of pleuro-pneumonia upon such an Inquiry as the Government allowed. The only grounds on which the witnesses had to go were the appearances; there was no outside evidence of actual disease; microscopic examination was not made at once, and there was no attempt to isolate the bacteria to see what the disease really was. It was as well to refer to a few questions put, and answers made, at the Inquiry, to show the spirit in which the Inquiry was conducted, because, in his opinion, the Inquiry was started to show that we were right and the Canadians were wrong; that surely was not a proper spirit in which to enter upon, an Inquiry. He took it that what we ought to have done was to inquire in a most sympathetic spirit. Canada was our largest colony, and a very loyal colony. She was deeply interested in a certain matter, and yet we entered upon an Inquiry respecting that matter in such a way that it should be proved we were right and she was wrong. That might be satisfactory to the Board of Agriculture, but it was very unsatisfactory to those who suffered, and there were many agriculturists in this country who were suffering from the present regulations.

Does the hon. Gentleman know that the Inquiry was conducted by the then chief of the Department who, at the time, sat on his own side of the House?

said, he was not concerned to defend anybody who sat on his side of the House. He objected to the method pursued. People were prepared to show there was no disease in Canada, and yet the right hon. Gentleman would not give them an Inquiry—an Inquiry on the spot. Whatever might be the actual fact, there was no question that every Statesman and expert in Canada believed there was no disease in that country. The strongest criticism had been made in Canada upon the Inquiry. Professor Adami, who was a scientific expert connected with the Cambridge University before he went to the Dominion, had spoken in the strongest terms; he said the Inquiry was not conducted at all on proper scientific lines, and he took exception to the Imperial Government appointing men who had not the necessary scientific training to decide the matter which was at issue. He wished hon. Members would read these reports for themselves, and if they had done so he should confidently expect their support in the Lobby. Those who had read the reports must come to the conclusion that it had absolutely not been proved that pleuro-pneumonia did exist in Canada, and that they ought at least to have a very much more complete and satisfactory Inquiry. They had absolute protection under the present system, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept the Amendment.

desired to call attention to the extreme importance of this question from the colonial point of view. He should not advert to the fact that the part of Scotland which he represented felt that this Bill would inflict very grave injury upon an important branch of industry, nor to the question of whether or not there was a case of pleuro-pneumonia in Canada. He wanted the Committee to realise what a set-back, what a hindrance, and an obstacle to the endeavours made to cultivate a closer connection between this country and the colonies the passing of this Bill would be. Many proposals had been made for an Imperial Customs Union. A suggestion had been made for tariff arrangements under which the products of the colonies should enter this country on favourable terms, so that a fund for Imperial defence might be raised; and the Secretary for the Colonies had gone so far as even to countenance a plan—which, he was bound to say, he saw no prospect of carrying out—under which preferential tariffs might be imposed on behalf of the colonies. Let them contrast these efforts and the sentiments from which they sprang with the disability and injury which would be put upon the colonies by this Bill. How could they expect that any confidence would be felt in the offers of commercial advantage they were prepared to make to the colonies when, in a matter where they had already gained an important branch of trade, they were going to cut them off completely? If it had been necessary to do this for the absolute protection of their own cattle-breeding industry, he should not for a moment object to it. If their herds and flocks were threatened with disease which only the passing of this Bill could avert, then he should frankly admit they would have to tell the colonies that an injury so great as that was sufficient to induce them to inflict an injury upon them. He had no doubt the colonies would admit the justice of that course, but that was not the case. At this moment they had complete protection, and they had had complete protection for the last three years. The late Minister of Agriculture was very strongly pressed to relax those restrictions, but with the concurrence of his colleagues he resolutely set his face against any withdrawal which could expose the cattle of this country to the slightest danger. There was no danger whatever at present, and so this Bill was produced, not to avert danger, but to give a kind of satisfaction to certain interests in this country who said they would feel easier if they knew they had the protection of the House of Lords, instead of merely the protection of the administrative Government of the day. He confessed he should be very much surprised if there was not a feeling of great irritation and annoyance in their colonies if this Bill was passed. As regarded New Zealand, there was not even a pretence that disease was there. As to Canada, the question was, to say the least, extremely doubtful. The Canadian Government itself entertained no doubt, while the Canadian Parliament protested in plain and unequivocal language against the legislation which they were proposing. The feeling of Canada on this subject was very strong. Canada was confronted by the United States, which had imposed a protective tariff against her, and the probabilities were that that tariff would become still more severe and that Canada would more and more be led to depend on the market which she found for her products in the mother country. That was the moment they chose for debarring her from a very important branch of her trade. He looked upon the Bill with the greatest regret, and he confessed to a very earnest desire that the right hon. Gentleman should find himself able to draw a distinction between those foreign countries in which danger admittedly existed and their own colonies where it was quite sufficient to leave the protection to the administrative Government of the day.

said he desired to altogether repudiate the charge of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that in bringing forward this Bill the Government were taking stops which must tend to estrange Canada and their other loyal colonies from the mother country. They were not interfering with the trade which Canada was at this momont carrying on and which she would continue to carry on when this Bill was passed. As a matter of fact, the trade of Canada had considerably increased ever since these restrictions were imposed. Canada had now recovered the position she held; and, whereas the imports last year up to the end of May were only some 800, they had this year already reached to 5,000, showing that Canada had adapted herself to the new features of the trade. He believed that, so far from injuring Canada's existing trade, they were opening up a new trade which would be as prosperous as, if not more prosperous than, that which had hitherto existed. From information which had reached him from more than one reliable quarter, he believed that Canada herself found this trade more profitable and prosperous than the exportation of store cattle. ["Hear, hear."] He did not admit for a single instant that the gloomy forebodings of the right hon. Gentleman were in any way justified, but he would remind the Committee that, even as against so loyal and important a colony as Canada, they were compelled, in duty to those whose interests they were there to safeguard, to act in what they believed to be the best interests of agriculture all over the country.

said he could not join with his right hon. Friend in the remarks he had made just now. He looked at this Bill more from the point of view of the English consumer and the English agriculturist, and although he should be sorry if the Measure tended to estrange any of their colonies, he still believed that charity began at home. It was from that point of view he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position, and see whether he could not accept the Amendment and admit live cattle into this country from those colonies whore it was proved that no disease existed. The Bill purported to be a Measure to keep out diseased animals. Ample protection already existed for that purpose, and the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment was practically an admission that he had some other object in view. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the Bill was to give a certain amount of security and certainty to their breeders. That was an admission on his part that breeders were not able to compete with the colonial producer under present conditions. There was no doubt the refusal to permit the free importation of store cattle from their colonies was Protection, and from the English agriculturist's point of view he contended it was the wrong sort of Protection. It was protecting the introduction of the raw material while admitting the manufactured article free. He was further prepared to contend that the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment was inevitably to impose Protection against the natural order of things. The larger tracts of land in Canada, and land of much less value there than here, enabled the Canadian farmer to breed much cheaper than they could in this country. With the President of the Board of Agriculture he desired to assist agriculture, but what would be the result of refusing to admit Canadian Store cattle from the point of view of the farmer? It must inevitably increase the price of store cattle to the farmers of this country, who would also have to compete with an improved dead—meat market owing to the provisions of the Bill. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to agree to the Amendment and allow Canadian cattle to be admitted free.

said the case for the Amendment had been most fairly and moderately put. The Government wished to deal with the matter in the most friendly way. He recognised the moderate and able manner in which the case had been put by the Danish Minister. His representation would have been acceded to had it been possible. The suggested freedom of Iceland from disease was not quite in accord with the experience of the past. He himself and the Solicitor General had carefully considered whether this exemption could be made, having regard to the most-favoured-nation clause; but, as they construed that clause, Iceland came within it. The solemn obligation into which this country had entered must be respected. He and his learned Colleague had considered the matter absolutely, impartially, and they were driven to the conclusion that they could not advise the Government, in justice to our treaty obligations, to provide for the suggested exemption in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman went on rather to indicate that neither France nor Germany would take any objection. In reply to that, it was not for him to do more than to say that he did not see the slightest warrant for the suggestion that foreign nations who had contractural rights under the most-favoured-nation clause, would raise no objection.

explained that he only said that he thought that the circumstances of the case would make it probable that France and Germany might not object; and his suggestion was that if power was taken to admit sheep from Iceland, the Foreign Office might endeavour to ascertain whether France and Germany would object.

said the right hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between taking power to break a Treaty and the breaking of a Treaty itself. Her Majesty's Government could not take power to break a Treaty in respect of this particular matter in the hope that countries, who otherwise might object, would be prepared to agree not to insist on their rights. The right hon. Gentleman asked that special exception should be made in the case of Iceland, and urged the Government not to consider that that would be met by the argument that such a privilege would amount to a breach of the most-favoured-nation clause. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman the possibility of that position had not been overlooked by those who had had to consider the matter. The knowledge that this Amendment was going to be moved had led to the most careful consideration of the position, and he was in a position to say that the Government could not, having regard to the position taken up by certain foreign countries, justify a special exemption in favour of a particular country. It was for that reason that he was obliged to indicate that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment, though he wished to associate himself with everything the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to Iceland. After all said and done, the responsibility was a grave and important one. They were face to face with the fact that this country was under an obligation which must be observed, and it would be holding out delusive hopes to suggest, that Iceland could be excepted.

said that after the remarks of the Attorney General it was clear that there was no chance of special advantages being given to Iceland; but he wished to point out that this seemed to him one of the strongest arguments against the provisions of the Bill as it stood. It supported the contention that the Bill was totally inelastic, and that it would be impossible for the Government of the day to meet the case of countries which, like Iceland, were free from disease. This was a point on which it seemed to him they might very well ask die right hon. Gentleman whether he could not still, at this time, introduce some words which would give a certain amount of elasticity to the Measure?

said he had a profound pity for the Icelanders and felt that the remarks of the Attorney General meant a sentence of death to them. Nothing lad stopped emigration from Iceland but the development of their industry, and now that the industry was to be killed, Iceland would be killed with it. There was no real argument in favour of the special exception of Iceland except that of pity and of charitable and sympathetic interest in a poor and struggling community. It had been found that the argument could not weigh for certain legal reasons. He believed the Government would have made the exception if they could, but as it was found that an exception could not be made it was not necessary to trouble the Committee any further in the matter.

said he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment, as it was quite evident the Government could not accept it in its present form. As there was a feeling of sympathy for the Icelanders, and as he believed the feeling of the Board of Agriculture was not quite the same with regard to sheep as with regard to cattle, he would like to move to leave out all the words after "sheep." No doubt that would leave the sub-section in rather a bald condition, but he did not know that it would be any the worse for that. Without admitting the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in Canada, there was no doubt that it was a very serious disease; and much more serious than scab. As a matter of fact, there was plenty of scab within, the borders of the United Kingdom already, and therefore he did not think there was any necessity to be particular about foreign sheep. Last year, for instance, there were 28 counties in Ireland in which outbreaks of scab were reported. It was clear that no very serious evil was caused even when a considerable amount of scab disease existed. Scab was certainly a far less serious disease than pleuro-pneumonia. Believing that there would be but little objection on the part of agriculturists to the importation of sheep, that the dread of the introduction of scab disease was not nearly as great as the supposed dread of the introduction of pleuro-pneumonia, and that unless the Measure were widened the interests of countries like Iceland would suffer greatly, he begged to move his Amendment.

thought that it could hardly be maintained that the disease of scab was not regarded as a very serious disease which ought to be stamped out if possible. When sheep infected with scab were imported and distributed about the country, it became very difficult to trace them. Since he had been in Office, a great many complaints had reached him of the introduction of foreign and colonial sheep infected with scab. In spite of the vigilance of the port inspectors, sheep having the disease had, on more than one occasion, been passed as healthy. Cases had occurred in the Metropolitan market, at Chertsey, and in Somerset. Scab in sheep was a disease almost as difficult to detect as pleuro-pneumonia in cattle. He might say, with reference to Iceland, that, although he should be very reluctant to cast any general slur upon the health of the sheep in that country, rumours reached him as soon as he entered Office that the health of the sheep was not as satisfactory as it ought to be, and these rumours had been confirmed by subsequent inquiries.

said that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Amendment.

The Amendment of the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Price) is not in order, on the ground that, as the Committee has refused to Her Majesty in Council the power of modifying the Act, it is obviously impossible for the Committee to agree to give any such power to a County Council.

said that in objecting to the clause as it stood, he did so with no political feeling, because he had even more strongly objected to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor with regard to the slaughtering order than he had done to the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself. From the very beginning he protested against this manner of dealing with the alleged pleuro-pneumonia. He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would pay some attention, not merely to the suggestions which were repeated from this side of the House, but to the successive appeals made to him during the discussion from his own side to introduce some degree of elasticity in the character of the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman had assumed a non possumus attitude: he had turned a deaf ear to every such appeal. From the beginning he (Sir John Leng) had objected to the slaughter order, when it was merely of a temporary character, and had criticised the Board over which the right hon. Gentleman presided, holding very strongly that they had never scientifically proved the genuineness of contagious pleuro-pneumonia. There was a strong feeling in Scotland, and had been all through, that the methods taken by the Board of Agriculture were not scientific—that they had not adopted those means which were known to scientific men to test the disease—[''hear, hear!'']—and offers to test it had been made to the Board over and over again. Farms had been placed at the disposal of the Board to turn the alleged infected cattle into them. Now, intelligent farmers would not run such a risk if they had any doubt on the subject. But no advance from the Scotch farmers in that direction had ever been accepted by the Board. And in the same way, when the Government of Canada had made offers that Commissioners should be sent out at the expense of Canada to ascertain, whether this disease existed, when a desire had been expressed that experts like Monsieur Nocard should be consulted, no heed whatever had been given to any of these reasonable proposals. [''Hear, hear!"] The Board of Agriculture early adopted certain conclusions with regard to the question, and they seemed to think it a point of honour, reason or none, to uphold these conclusions. Then he had strongly objected to this method of dealing with the subject on the ground that it was inflicting a serious blow on a large number of intelligent Scottish agriculturists. There was no doubt whatever that in the counties of Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, in a part of Perthshire and in Fifeshire, cattle feeding had been to the farmers a most profitable business. They were able to buy these Canadian cattle, which were landed in large cargoes at Aberdeen and Dundee, several pounds cheaper than they could buy corresponding Irish stores. They found that these cattle quickly laid on flesh, and that when they were sent to the butcher the food was healthy and palatable and popular. They made £3, and £4 and £5 profit upon every head of cattle, and then suddenly this blow was struck, and by an act of administration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, it was declared that these cattle were not to be freely admitted on the hoof as they had been. This had not only seriously affected the agriculturists of Scotland. Shipowners, too, who had built lines of steamers and fitted them up and equipped them in the most admirable manner, having regard to the health of the cattle, who did all in their power to meet the requirements not only of the Board of Agriculture, but of good sense and good feeling—they had had serious loss inflicted on them by the stoppage of their trade. [''Hear, hear!"] Then, in several of the seaports the port trustees had gone to great expense in building wharves and lairages—["hear, hear!"]—and practically the whole of their expenditure had been sunk and its value destroyed. He objected from the first on grounds such as these, and he objected to this clause now on this ground. Hitherto there had been a swinging door which the President of the Board of Agriculture could either shut or open at any time. An hon. Friend near him said that door was now to be barred. More than that, it was to be built up. A stone wall was to be erected in the place of the door, and that stone wall was not to be taken down without the consent of the House of Lords. That was one of his strongest objections to the Bill. Hitherto, although they had not succeeded in persuading the predecessors of the President of the Board of Agriculture or the right hon. Gentleman himself, they still had the prospect that the time might come when the position of trade would be so different, when all doubts as to the existence of the disease would be removed, and when, by the judgment of the President of the Board of Agriculture himself, and with the consent of his Board, the slaughter order might be removed. But now it would be a matter of indifference who was President of the Board of Agriculture. He would not have that power, and it did seem a most extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman should refuse to accept at the hands of the House the power which his predecessors exercised, and that he was so determined and persistent in denuding himself of that power and practically transferring it to the House of Lords. [Cheers.] Then he objected to the Bill because it was quite unnecessary. So long as there was any real necessity for the slaughtering Order, it depended upon the right hon. Gentleman and his Board to maintain and enforce it. Why should the Government so gratuitously go out of their way, seeing the strong position in which their predecessors were, and in which they were themselves? The thing which the Bill contemplated doing was at present already done, and so long as the Board of Agriculture determined, they could maintain the existing Order against the admission of live cattle. Why, then, bring in a Bill to make a cast-iron regulation. The figures which the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee showed that the cases of pleuro-pneumonia had diminished in number. There were eight cases three years ago, six two years ago, and two last year.

That is not a fair deduction from the figures, The numbers of the first year were the result of a special Inquiry; the numbers of the last years were accidental.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had a very able staff of inspectors, they were competent to deal with other diseases such as swine fever and scab in sheep, and it showed a distrust of their efficiency when the right hon. Gentleman resorted to this extraordinary measure of establishing an impasse against the admission of live cattle. If the right hon. Gentleman had shown any willingness whatever to adopt some method by which his Board would have some dispensing power when they were satisfied, or their successors were satisfied, that all cause for apprehension had ceased to exist, those who opposed the Bill might have been satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman had said that what they desired might be done by Act of Parliament. But that was difficult. They believed that to expect that an Act of Parliament would be passed by the House of Lords after this Bill had become law, was altogether out of the question. He regretted very much that they had not seen the Secretary for the Colonies during the discussion. He was informed that at that moment the right hon. Gentleman was within the precincts of the House, in a far more agreeable and sanitary part than that chamber. [Laughter.] But they all knew what the right hon. Gentleman had recently said about developing trade between the mother country and the colonies, and yet here was a Measure which tended to destroy an existing trade, and against which the colonies had protested with all the earnestness, determination, and reiteration of which they had been capable. He should say that the profession of the Colonial Secretary and the practice of the President of the Board of Trade were entirely antagonistic. One right hon. Gentleman expressed a strong desire to develop the best relations between the colonies and the mother country, and the other right hon. Gentleman proposed to place the mother country in the position of a stepmother. For one he could not allow the clause to pass without making a strong protest against it.

said they were all in entire sympathy with the avowed object of the Bill. That was, to keep cattle disease out of the country. He was prepared to keep out disease in the most drastic way, but he did not think it was necessary, in order to secure that object, that every animal that arrived at a port should be indiscriminately slaughtered. He felt that the objection to the Bill had not been put in quite the proper way before the House. There had been a considerable amount of talk about Protection and the raising of the price of meat. That, he thought, was an unfortunate way of dealing with the question. In a certain sense the Bill was protective, but it was not essentially a protective Measure. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite said "hear, hear," but he believed they thought in their hearts it was a protective Measure, and that it would raise the price of beef. The President of the Board of Agriculture shook his head, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would have dared to bring in the Measure if he thought it would lower the price of meat.

That will be the result.

said that the right hon. Gentleman was so enlightened on those matters that he would accept his statement; but if hon. Gentlemen opposite thought the result of the Bill would be to lower the price of meat, few would follow the right hon. Gentleman into the Lobby, for low-priced meat meant low rents, and high-priced meat high rents. But he, for his part believed that a clause which provided for the indiscriminate slaughter of cattle would eventually lower the price of meat, and lower rents would eventually injure the breeder as well as the feeder, and would not only injure the farmer but the landlord as well. It was not a protective Measure. If it excluded cattle altogether, it would be protective, and would raise the price of meat and the standard of rents. But the Bill only stipulated the form in which meat should reach this country, and it had chosen the very worst form for the farmer. The prosperity of the country depended more on staple than on anything else. Cotton was staple. Raw cotton was imported, and Lancashire and Yorkshire spun and wove it. The difference between the price of the raw cotton and the calico which Lancashire and Yorkshire sold meant prosperity to Lancashire and Yorkshire. What would be thought of a Government which said, "Don't send raw cotton, send calico!'' The result of such action would be the ruin of Lancashire and Yorkshire. That was precisely what this clause did for the British farmer. It said, "Don't bring us staple to this country, but bring as much of the finished article as you like." Say that a ship arrived from Canada with 500 lean cattle which were sold, say, for £8 per head. That made £4,000 that Canada received for the shipment. Under this Bill Canada must send the cattle fed. Say it got £12 a piece for its fat cattle. That was £6,000. The difference between £4,000 and £6,000 was £2,000. Who got that £2,000? The Canadian. And who lost it? The British farmer. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that things would adjust themselves, that the lean cattle trade was gradually disappearing, and the dead meat trade increasing by leaps and bounds. The lean cattle trade might not be a very large one, but it made money for the British farmer. On every fat ox that reached this country there was a distinct loss to be calculated to the British farmer and the British landlord. He did not believe Canada would suffer. Although the Canadian did not wish to take up the fat cattle trade, he would do it, and, by and bye, an immense number of fat cattle would come to this country from Canada, and the increase in that trade was the precise measure of the loss to the British farmer. It was said the Bill would be good for the breeder. It might be so for a little time, until things adjusted themselves; but cattle were bred for the butcher, and the price the butcher could afford to pay must rule the price the breeder could get. The price for which the American could send his cattle to this country would rule the price in Smithfield Market. Americans and Canadians would send their cattle to this country, and so long as there was a penny profit in the pound, the price of dead meat and live cattle would fall in this country. This Measure would ruin not only the feeder—that it would do at once—but it would ruin the breeder also. He believed that the only connection the farmer would have with the meat trade would be to lean on his fence and watch the dead meat from America rolling up to London by the railway. He had given intense consideration to this matter, and he believed he was right in what he said, and that in a few years the Government would perceive the great mistake they had made.

said that a false idea had been running through the whole of the Debate in connection with the Canadian trade. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had dwelt on the great importance of the market for store cattle, and on the great importance of the provision of store cattle from Canada. Store cattle were simply a bye product of Canada. The Canadian took all the precautions against disease he had taken in order to get his fat cattle into this country, and he realised that when fat animals arrived they were worth £2 a head more than American, which must be slaughtered at the port, whilst the Canadian could be passed into the country and would be there slaughtered next day and sold as English meat. When the hon. Member for Market Harborough said that cattle could not be fattened in Canada, he should imagine that the hon. Gentleman had never been in that country.

said he had no intention of making such a statement. All he said was that this country was better adapted to fattening cattle than Canada was.

said he could only answer for what he had seen in 20 years' experience in Canada, and as he had fattened 150 cattle every year for ten years, he thought he might speak with some knowledge. The fertile plains of Canada certainly had pastures equal to anything in England. His experience of the live cattle trade across the Atlantic was that in fine weather cattle gained on the voyage, and arrived in this country in good order and quite fit for butchering; but in stormy weather the cattle suffered greatly, and he hoped to see, as one of the results of this Bill, the dead meat trade substituted for it. With regard to the passing of this Bill being an offence to Canada, he acknowledged that there would be a good deal of irritation, and he was very sorry to hear the President of the Board of Agriculture emphasise so distinctly his belief that he had evidence to justify him in saying that disease came from Canada. He was satisfied that the Canadian was satisfied that there was no disease in that country at all. It had been pointed out that strong expressions of disapproval had come from the Canadian Legislature; but that Resolution expressed the full belief of the Canadian House of Commons that it was the duty of the English Parliament to legislate for the English people. It also expressed regret at the ground for their legislation. They claimed that the opprobrium of disease ought not to attach to Canada and so spoil their trade with other countries. Therefore they were anxious that inquiry should be made as to whether there was disease in Canada by the Government of this country before laying the stigma upon them. They were told that if this Bill passed there would be a want of elasticity about our policy connected with this question. They were told, also, that it would bring about a rise in the price of store cattle. But hon. Members opposite forgot that not a single store animal had been imported during the last three and a half years. This Bill would give permanence and finality to the policy which we had adopted during the last few years. It was said that this Bill embodied the policy of the landlord class in this country. On that point he would ask leave to refer to the statistical Year Book of Canada, in which it was shown that the principal ground of complaint of the Canadian Government was the unreasonable delay on the part of the late Government, which certainly did not represent the landlord class in this country, in answering the communications of the Canadian Government. Under this Bill a definite finality would be given to the policy which had been pursued in this country for the last three years with regard to the importation of cattle alive. The policy of the late Government was to give no answer to communications and to leave everything open and indefinite. He did not believe that the latter policy would receive the approval of the people of Great Britain. It was beyond dispute that the Canadian people were adapting themselves to the present state of things, and were prepared to paddle their own canoe and to fight their own battles. The Canadian Parliament did not object to the Parliament of Great Britain legislating in the interests of this country, but what they did object to was the stigma that their cattle were diseased. From what he had seen in Canada during recent years, he believed that they were settling down to a policy of slaughtering their own cattle on their own shores, and of making use of cold storage to send the meat to this country. No doubt that would have the effect of lowering the price of meat over here, but surely that could not be properly described as a landlord's policy. It was, however, said that the price of meat would be lowered if this Bill passed, and as the observation came from hon. Members opposite it must be true. If that were the case his constituents would be glad to hear it. It would be far better to give finality to our policy in regard to this matter, because it would enable both English breeders and Canadian feeders to know what they were about, and to make sure of a market for their animals, as it took at least three years to breed and grow an animal ready to be fed for the butcher. Hon. Members opposite said that another effect of the Bill would be to cause a great variation in the price of store cattle. But there was a considerable variation in the price of such cattle under the existing state of things. For instance, in his own constituency, store cattle were selling two months ago, when there was plenty of fodder, at £2 per head more than they fetched now, when fodder was scarce. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had been sufficiently strong not to yield to the great pressure that had been brought to bear upon him on this subject.

said that he must congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down upon his attempt to please both his English constituents and his Canadian friends. Then the hon. and gallant Member had said that what the Canadian Government complained of was that a stigma had been cast on the health of Canadian cattle by this Bill, but, he pointed out, that had been the main contention of hon. Members on that side of the House. If they were going to do a big stroke of Protection in this manner, let them admit it in so many words, and take the responsibility as honest straightforward men. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to suggest an Amendment as to the title of the Bill. He had appealed to the House in the most pathetic terms, and had said that if they were acquainted with the agony that beasts underwent in the transit from Canada——

Excuse me, I remarked that they suffered when they were washed overboard, and I said that they gained flesh on the voyage in fine weather.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to correct his statement—[Cries of "Order!"] I understand that what he spoke of was the effect of the voyage to live stock. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not profess that it was a Bill to lessen the sufferings of the cattle, and surely fat beasts would suffer as much as lean beasts. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was, in fact, supporting a policy which would be the means of bringing beasts to this country in a condition in which they would suffer much more acutely in their passage across the sea. They were not fighting solely on the ground of cheap or dear meat, they objected to a hard-and-fast policy which would close the door for ever against the importation of live beasts into this country, except such as were slaughtered immediately on being landed. They desired that the English farmer might have the opportunity of profiting by purchasing lean cattle and selling them when, fattened—a profit which this Bill would reserve for farmers and feeders in other countries. He knew that formerly good Canadian store cattle of the most profitable kinds were bought freely by the North-East Coast feeders in English markets at £8 a head, but to-day for their Somerset or Herefordshire store cattle they were giving £11 or £12, if not £13 a head. [An HON. MEMBER: "What age?"] Excuse me, they are about the same age. [Loud laughter.] The difference was on an average to the farmer about £4 per beast, and there was a further difference of £1 or £1 10s. per beast, because the cattle from the West and South-West of England were not worth so much as feeding beasts as were the Canadian cattle. He had always understood that the Conservative Party and the Agricultural Party in that House were anxious that this country should grow its own food to the largest possible extent. [Ministerial cheers.] What was the meaning of this Bill? Was it in that direction? ["Yes."] Did they want to wait each morning for their chops, or for the arrival of a steamer from Canada or Argentina before they could get a leg of mutton? Suppose some one went one better, and declared that they should import no wheat and no flour in a raw condition—[laughter]—that they should only have it imported as biscuits and bread. They were on the down grade, and they did not know where the stopping point was. The Government were being lured on by their enthusiastic supporters behind them. [Laughter.] He condemned every line in the Bill, as it was pernicious from beginning to end. They should place the iniquity of this Bill before the country, so that their constituents should be in a position to see what was going on at the instigation of the Government.

hoped the Committee would now come to a decision on this clause, which had afforded ample opportunity for a discussion from every possible point of view. He was not going to follow the hon. Member in his very animated speech. When it was said they were going to destroy the northeastern ranges, they seemed to forget the condition of things at present. It was an exaggeration to describe the Bill as calculated to ruin the agricultural interest in the north-east of England and Scotland, but he made no complaint of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He knew that the Member for Dundee, for instance, felt keenly, and that his constituents felt keenly. He hoped the Committee would now be allowed to come to a decision on the clause.

said although his constituents felt keenly interested in this Bill, he had not ventured to rise till now because he recognised that the Bill in itself was such that it could not be amended, and the whole Bill was in this clause. He did not quite agree that all the various aspects of the Bill had been treated to-night. Look how it affected different localities—how it affected Scotland as compared with other localities. How had those localities been represented in the Division Lobbies? Scotch Members had been in a majority of two to one against the Bill, and an hon. Friend said more than that. He believed that the Bill introduced a principle that was pernicious and that, so far as it was a practical Bill, it was useless. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had shown by his own confession that the Bill was no better than the law as it at present exists—that the law now enabled him to do what the Bill would let him do in the future. The attraction was that the Bill was supposed to give a protection or favouritism to home-grown meat against foreign-grown meat. He admitted that his constitutents in East Aberdeenshire were not absolutely unanimous on this subject; the feeders no doubt were resolutely opposed to the proposals in the Bill, and the breeders were inclined to favour the Bill. What, however, he wished to point out to those persons who approved of the Measure was that its operation would not, in the opinion of the President of the Board of Agriculture, tend to raise the price of home cattle or meat. It was within his knowledge that the supporters of the Bill believed that foreign live cattle would be permanently excluded from this country, and that, as a consequence, the price of their beasts and of their meat would be increased. He hoped his constituents and others would take note that according to the right hon. Gentleman that was a delusion. He believed that from the point of view of the supporters of the Bill, the Bill would have a serious detrimental effect. He was afraid men would urge Members of the Government—and he believed they would find only too willing support—to extend the principle of Protection to home productions. He believed that the Bill would disappoint in a large degree those who supported it, and that, politically, it was a very unwise Measure, inasmuch as under the existing law there was all the power one could possibly desire.

could not help expressing some disappointment at the hard and fast attitude adopted by the President of the Board of Agriculture. Appeals had been made to the right hon. Gentleman, not from the Opposition side of the House only, but from the other side as well, to the effect that some elasticity should be given to the Bill. Concession might reasonably be made with regard to space and with regard to the means by which the Act might be determined. A great objection to the Measure was that it could not be determined by the House of Commons or by the Government responsible to the House, or by such a body as the Privy Council; it could only be determined by a body sitting in another place, and it was perfectly clear what the result of an appeal made to that body would be. Surely it was desirable that there should be some elastic arrangement whereby the Measure should be brought to an end when it was found that no disease existed. As the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment moved earlier in the evening providing that the Privy Council should have the power of putting an end to this Act, would it not be possible for him, between this and the Report stage, to consider whether some other body could not fittingly be entrusted with that duty. For his own part, he rather advocated the Privy Council, not because that would be a slur on the Board of Agriculture, because, no doubt, they would use the advisers of that Department, but because they were accustomed in one capacity to consider and to adjudge matters as between the Colonies and the Mother country, and between one colony and another. In addition to the experts of the Board of Agriculture, they would also be able to take into consideration other facts affecting the graziers, the consumers, and the colonies, and matters which it was obviously impossible for the Board of Agriculture to take into consideration. He earnestly trusted that as the President of the Board of Agriculture had adopted an attitude of non possumus with regard to these important Amendments, he hoped he would be able now to give some assurance that the purport of them would receive consideration between this and the Report stage.

supported the clause, on the ground that they should have more time to experiment with regard to this contagious, or so-called contagious, pleuro-pneumonia, about which there was very conflicting evidence. Cases in which pleuro-pneumonia was suspected should be thoroughly tested by scientific experiment. He contended that the time limit proposed in the Amendment was reasonable.

thought it wise that there should be a limit of time, though he doubted whether the Bill would be much benefit to the farmers. Many of the farmers did not think it would do any good; others were of opinion that it would positively do harm. To be in operation for a year or two was not a sufficient test of its efficacy. There ought to be practical proof of the working of the Bill for four or five years before it could be said to be for the benefit of the farmers or otherwise. It was natural that the farmer should think that if all cattle were excluded he would benefit. It would benefit the dead meat trade, and no doubt it would stimulate that to such an extent that he might be sorry this Bill was passed. He got something out of feeding and fattening cattle, but he would get nothing out of dead meat, and perhaps he would rather have cattle brought over alive than slaughtered at the port of entry. In 3½ years it would be fully seen whether the Act was detrimental or beneficial.

said the Amendment would make the Bill experimental. The Government adopted the principle of experiment in the Agricultural Rating Bill by limiting it to five years. There had been much irritation on that side of the House from the proposals of the Bill. It was a small Bill, but it had excited a great deal of hostility. The Government would be wise not to stimulate this, but make a little concession that would allay it. Such a concession was proposed by the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had used an extraordinary argument, namely, that these experiments up to the present had tended to lower the price of the produce of the farmer.

I said that the imposition of restrictions had been followed by reductions in the price of dead meat.

Yes; and now the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make the restrictions permanent. The farmer would be only too glad to see the Bill made experimental in order to see whether it would do him good or not, and the consumer who said it would raise the price of meat would be equally pleased. The name of the Bill, too, was all in favour of its being made experimental. It was called the Diseases of Animals Bill, and the one cheerful thing about diseases was that they were not permanent, but came and went. On these grounds, he thought the right hon. Gentleman might well bring the Debate to an end by making this one concession.

hoped that his right hon. Friend would not give way on this point. The farmers, with the exception of those in one county, were unanimous in hoping that the Bill would become law. It was said that the Bill could be renewed if required, but if the House was to have the same trouble in renewing as it had had in passing it, there would be great difficulty in that, whereas, if Parliament saw that the Bill was a harsh one and ought to be repealed, it could repeal it. He hoped that the Bill would become law as soon as possible, as he believed it would do a great deal of good.

expressed the hope that the Government would see their way to treat the Amendment with some measure of respect. After all, the right hon. Gentleman would get all he wanted if he accepted the Amendment. If the Bill was passed for three years, and at the end of that time it was shown to have been a useful experiment, there would be no difficulty about renewing it. One of the great objections the Opposition had to the Bill was that it practically took the question out of the hands of the House of Commons, and he thought that was a matter which might receive consideration. There was also a feeling in the country that the Bill was brought in as a sort of Protective Measure, and he thought that that suspicion would be removed if the Amendment were accepted. What would be the financial and economic results of the Measure had yet to be ascertained. If it should be clear after three years, or some period of the kind, that the Measure was a success it could be renewed. There was no desire at all to obstruct the Bill, and that being the case he trusted that the Government would consent to do something to meet the strong objections that were felt to the inelasticity of this legislation. If a limit of time were agreed to the disapprobation of Canada and other colonies would disappear. A country ought not to be prevented for ever from sending cattle into England.

said that he had no reason whatever to complain of the way in which hon. Members opposite had conducted the discussion that evening. But that was hardly sufficient ground to justify his departing from the cardinal principle of this Measure. In the interests not only of the farmers, but of the general community, it was desirable that the Bill should be permanent and not temporary. Reference had been made to the concession granted by the Government in the case of the Agricultural Rating Bill, to the operation of which they had agreed to put a limit. The reason for that concession was that the Bill dealt only with a portion of a very large subject, which the Government had declared their intention of dealing with comprehensively later on. There was no similar reason for limiting the period of the operation of the present Bill. He could not view the Bill as being experimental. He knew by experience how desirable it was to reduce cattle disease, and the Government believed that if this Measure was passed the risk of disease would be reduced to a minimum and ultimately disappear. At present those who were interested in the importation of live cattle believed that by bringing pressure to bear upon new Governments and new Ministers of Agriculture they would always be likely to obtain relaxations of restrictive rules. When they realised that there was a permanent law on the subject they would adapt themselves to the circumstances with profitable results. Something had been said about the impossibility of inducing the House of Lords to repeal the Measure if it should be found desirable to repeal it. For his part he had no doubt that the House of Lords would consent to repeal it if the sinister prognostications of hon. Members opposite were fulfilled. They could not, however, all come true, for, whilst some hon. Members said that the Bill would ruin the farmers by lowering prices, others said that it would ruin working men by increasing prices. The Government, for their part, held that the Bill would conduce to the health of the stock of the country, and that it would not interfere with the trade of the farmer or the interests of the consumer

said the Bill might have a disastrous effect, and quoted as a parallel case the abolition of the Malt Duty, for which farmers were now sorry.

, who had an Amendment on the Paper providing for the repeal of the Act by an Order in Council after an address from either House of Parliament, said this Amendment followed the precedent of 1887, in which an exactly similar Motion was allowed to be in order, was discussed, and was replied to by the First Lord of the Treasury on the Criminal Law Procedure Bill. He understood the Chairman had some doubts about the Amendment being in order on account of the Resolution which the House had come to a short time ago. But he respectfully submitted that in substance the Motion which he wished to make was entirely different from that which the House had condemned. The House had decided that an Order in Council alone should not affect the operation of the Bill; he asked that an address from either House of Parliament, followed by an Order in Council, should have that effect.

The clause is not in order on two grounds. First, because the Committee have already decided that an Order in Council, and without stating how that Order has originated, shall not prevail as against the Bill. The hon. Member proposes in this clause that an Order in Council shall not only suspend, but shall actually repeal an Act of Parliament. [Mr. E. ROBERTSON: "Not suspend."] At all events, in my opinion, that is against the decision already arrived at. The hon. Member contends that his clause is different, because under it the Order in Council does not come into force until an Address has been presented by one of the Houses of Parliament; but that is immaterial. That which actually suspends the Act is the Order in Council, however it may have originated. On that ground the clause is out of order. I also think it is very doubtful from the Constitutional standpoint whether it would be in order to admit a clause which proposes that the Address of one House of Parliament shall have the effect of repealing an Act of Parliament.

said that he could find no information as to the amount or form of the guarantee in the Orders of the Day; and, therefore, he moved to report Progress.

said that he was perfectly ready to give a full explanation. It was a proposal to guarantee the interest on the capital of a railroad, about forty miles long, to run from Fort William to Mallaig Bay, and also to provide £30,000 to construct a harbour at the latter place. This proposal was initiated by the Conservative Government in 1892, and was supported by the late Government also. The scheme was originally suggested by the Western Highlands and Islands Commission in the year 1890; and in 1891 an expert Committee appointed by the Treasury to consider railway schemes for the West of Scotland strongly supported the proposal. In 1892, the Government said that in the following year they would bring in a Bill, the proposals of which were intended to be the same as the proposals of the present Measure—namely, to guarantee 3 per cent. on £260,000, which was the capital of the company, and advance £30,000 towards the construction of a harbour at Mallaig. There were four conditions imposed. The first was, that the promoters should themselves obtain an Act for the undertaking. Next, that the promoters should make an agreement with the North British Railway Company to work the line for 50 per cent. of the gross receipts. These two conditions were carried out by the West Highland Railway Act of 1894. The next condition was, that 50 per cent. of the gross receipts must be applied, in the first instance, towards the payment of the 3 per cent. on the £260,000. That was settled by an agreement between the Treasury and the promoters in the present year. A further condition was, that the harbour to be constructed should receive the approval of the Government. That, also, had been settled by the same agreement. All the conditions had, therefore, been carried out. In 1895 the late Government moved the preliminary Resolution for a similar Bill, but the Dissolution prevented any further steps being taken in that session. The present Bill, therefore, carried out the intentions of both Governments.

said that in this matter the late Liberal Government had felt themselves bound to carry out the intentions of the previous Conservative Government.

It was the late Government who actually made the agreement, though the offer had been made by the previous Government. The late Government gave notice for the introduction of Bill which circumstances prevented them from carrying out, and we succeeded to their undertaking.

said that it came to this—an offer was given and was made by the Conservative Government in 1891, and when the late Liberal Government came into office they considered that they ought to carry out the pledge of the previous Government. But it was not worth while splitting hairs. What he wanted to make clear was that this proposal originated with the Conservative Government of 1891. Practically, the Government were asking the Committee to advance over a quarter of a million to this railway company to provide a railway in a very small area. This proposal was all the more extraordinary, having regard to the fact that under the Light Railways Bill now before Parliament, only £100,000 was applied for light railways through the length and breadth of Scotland. [Ministerial cries of "Divide!"] As a protest against the interruptions he moved that the Chairman do report Progress.

supported the Resolution. He had gone over the whole district of the proposed line, and could assure hon. Gentlemen that it was most needed, and that the proposed harbour was also required in the interests of the fishermen. What was a quarter of a million to spend for the benefit of the Western Highlanders? Did not they deserve it, if it would enable them to get their fish to market? They still supplied the best men for the British Army. It was a small boon to enable them to send their fish to the Glasgow market. Was there any Englishman who would object to it? He sincerely hoped that the Motion for reporting Progress would be withdrawn for the sake of the Celts.

said, if there was any traffic to be got, the railway would be made by capitalists. [Mr. W. ALLAN: "It is a poor country."] Yes; and the railway would never pay. If railways were to be made to develop trade, there would be no end to it. The truth was they were making railways for the benefit of landlords. If they were to make railways for the development of fisheries they would have to do it all over the country. ["Hear, hear!"] This railway would benefit the landlords in the district, but it would not benefit the people who had to pay the taxes out of which the grant was to be made. Harbours were wanted in other parts of the country as well as in the Western Highlands. This railway was really suggested by the former Conservative Government, and was simply taken up by the late Government at the point at which it had been left. The House ought to pause before it carried further the policy of granting subsidies, in which they were doing a good deal that Session. He therefore hoped that the Motion to report Progress would be persisted in.

said he was exceedingly sorry that no Member representing a Scotch constituency had arisen. He could ascribe it only to one cause, which was that they were in favour of the Government. He was not astonished at it, because it was a matter which had been carefully considered by two Governments. He was astonished that those who were in favour of local self-government should oppose the granting of this assistance to the poorest district of Scotland.

said the Resolution proposed to give a guarantee of a quarter of a million for a single railway, which was exactly the sum allotted to light railways in Great Britain. The scheme had varied very much from year to year. He was strongly opposed to the construction of a harbour where there was no population and no fishing. [Cheers.] They ought to have from the Government a pledge that the Second Reading should be taken at a tune when the Bill could be fully discussed.

protested against the adoption of this Resolution without any adequate explanation from the Government.

said he accepted the Motion for the Closure, because it was a purely formal Resolution which was before the Committee.

asked if the Government proposed to do anything with the Bill? If so, he would suggest that the present stage should be taken, and the Bill then referred to a Grand Committee.

agreed that the Bill ought to go to a Grand Committee, and with that object he would move that the Bill be now read a Second time.

hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in this Motion. At the same time he could hut regard this as an obnoxious clause, and it was a very serious thing for a private Member to move a clause in a Government Bill of this description. He expressed a hope that the clause would not be pressed.

intimated that he could not withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

said he did not rise to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to withdraw their opposition, as he recognised that would be of no use. He thought, however, the time had arrived when it should be pointed out that this Bill which would materially benefit 12,000 men in the metropolis, was obstructed and prevented from passing night after night by hon. Gentlemen who did not represent any of the divisions where the men affected by the Bill lived, who could advance no argument whatever against the Bill, and who without any reason but that of obstruction would not allow a beneficent Measure to pass into law.

put the question that the clause be read a Second time and declared the Motion agreed to, there being some cries of "No."