public act of his life for the last twenty years which had not been condemned by that right hon. gentleman. He denied that he had prejudged the case of Governor Eyre. The Tory Press it was which had done so, encouraged as it was by several members of that party, of which Sir John was admittedly one of the leaders. The opinion which he had formed of Governor Eyre's conduct was based upon his own deliberate statements; and from those statements he declared that there was not a single judge in the three kingdoms who would not say that Mr. Gordon had been murdered. The hon. gentleman concluded by saying: "If law be not law to the negro in Jamaica, how long will law be law to the working people or any of their friends in this country? I say that the right hon. gentleman has allowed, it may be, official sympathy for Governor Eyre to weigh with him in this matter, and he has thought it right to give me notice that he would come down to the House and pronounce a solemn censure upon my conduct. I tell him that in all the public speeches I have made-and they have not been a few, as the House knows-there are none, there are no passages in those speeches to which I will to my last hour more adhere than to those which the right hon. gentleman has commented upon. There is nothing in them that I have to condemn myself for, and there is nothing in them that I retract; and if the same circumstances were to happen again I would repeat those passages; and, if God gave me power, with a more burning indignation would I condemn atrocities which have cast a foul blot upon the character of English governors."

Mr. Cardwell deprecated further discussion on the subject of Jamaica pending the result of the present investigation, but observed that he had received the highest character of Governor Eyre for courage and humanity.

Mr. Bouverie observed that he was glad to learn that the Government intended to stand or fall by the contemplated Reform Bill. He hoped it would be such a measure as would deserve the support of the House.

The subject to which the new Parliament directed its earliest attention was the formidable cattle disease, upon which the general voice of the members of both Houses connected with agriculture earnestly pressed for legislation. The Government were prepared to meet the demand, and very shortly after the opening of the session the Home Secretary introduced a Bill in the House of Commons. The securities against the spread of this fatal malady which it was proposed to enact were described by Sir George Grey in moving for leave to bring in his measure. He believed, he said, it might be taken for granted that all means of cure had failed, and that the time had arrived for stopping all transit of animals by road and rail, and for destroying all animals infected with the disease, or which had come into contact with animals already suffering from it. The Bill would empower local authorities to direct cattle to be killed, and to prevent their removal by road and rail,

except by licences, and even then only by daylight. Power would also be given to local authorities to declare certain districts to be infected, and all fairs and markets for fat and store cattle would be suspended for a limited period. As to cattle brought by sea, they would be slaughtered at the port of arrival, with the exception of cattle coming from Ireland, which would be allowed to be removed by road or rail after a licence had been obtained for that purpose. Having explained various other provisions of the Bill, framed with a view to its general application, the right hon. baronet said the Government had admitted the principle of compensation in the proportion of two-thirds of the value of the animals lost, but in no single case to exceed £20 per head. In the case of healthy animals destroyed from the apprehension that, having been brought into contact with diseased ones, they might contract the disease, threefourths of the value would be given, but in no single case to exceed £25 per head. It was proposed that the funds out of which the compensation should be paid, as also the expenses of carrying out the Act, should be formed partly by local rates and partly by a special burden to be imposed upon those who had suffered by the loss of their cattle. The money would be raised by a rate levied in the proportion of one-third in counties, one-third in boroughs, and one-third by a cattle rate. The funds would be locally raised and locally distributed. The right hon. gentleman then detailed at length the provisions made in this Bill forbidding the opening without a licence of any market for the sale of fat cattle to be slaughtered, and also the sanitary regulations as to disinfectants, the cleansing of railway trucks, &c. He added, in answer to a question put to him, that the Bill would provide that the tenant should be permitted to deduct half the amount of the special rate levied upon him from his rent, and so divide the burden with his landlord.

The proposed Bill met with considerable criticism from various members, all of whom agreed in the necessity for granting such powers as were proposed, but some thought the measure did not go far enough, and complained of a want of vigour and promptitude on the part of the Government in dealing with the emergency. Among these Mr. Ward Hunt took a prominent part, expressing his belief that the safeguards proposed were insufficient, and that no law would be effectual for the suppression of the disease which did not altogether interdict the moving of cattle by railway for a definite period. He announced his intention of proceeding with a measure of his own of which he had given notice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the willingness of the Government to consider Mr. Hunt's Bill when laid upon the table. He thought, however, that the country was not prepared to tolerate so stringent a measure as Mr. Hunt proposed.

On Sir George Grey's Bill being discussed a few days afterwards in the House, Mr. Hunt again objected to it as not being framed with the requisite stringency. A debate of some interest took

place upon the principle of compensating the owners of cattle which might be slaughtered under the powers of the Bill for their losses, and the question was argued with much ability by some of the leading speakers.

Mr. Bright said that in the present emergency he quite agreed in the absolute necessity, so far as farms were

con

cerned, of enforcing a rigid isolation; but he differed from the proposal in the Bill which left the power of widespread and indiscriminate slaughter to the local authorities. With compensation he believed that the slaughter would be unnecessary and monstrous in amount. It was contrary to the principle adopted by Parliament on past occasions of public suffering to vote money out of taxes to remedy a misfortune of this kind; and it was a grievance which every taxpayer would complain of, if his money were applied to the compensation of well-to-do farmers and rich landowners who might suffer from the affliction. If that principle were carried out it would tend to greater improvidence on the part of farmers than in past times. They would fancy that they were a class or order in the community that had especial claims upon the House - an opinion which, twenty years ago, was destructive of their independence and energy; and to encourage such an opinion among them would be most unfortunate.

Mr. Lowe deprecated Mr. Bright's habit of setting one class against another. As to the Bill of the Government, and especially the compensatory portion of it, the object was not to compensate people for what they had lost, but what they had lost through the direct agency of the Government by the destruction of their property for the public good. He recommended, however, to omit the clause granting compensation retrospectively. As to slaughter he thought the Government had taken a wise course in making the slaughter of diseased animals compulsory, and the slaughter of animals only exposed to infection an optional thing with the local authorities. As to the movement of cattle, he would prohibit it altogether, for a limited period throughout the country, with certain exceptions, and would not allow local authorities to open fairs and markets. If the recommendations he offered were not adopted he feared that the Bill, which was to last for six weeks only, would be like many excellent people in the world-it would die before it was thoroughly understood.

Mr. Stuart Mill concurred generally with Mr. Bright's observations. As to compensation, however, he did not object to it on principle, because no one proposed that farmers should be compensated merely for what they lost, but only for that which it was proposed to destroy under the Act; and any juster claim for compensation than that could scarcely exist. But the more reasons there were for granting compensation, the greater was the reason for taking care that that compensation should not be excessive; and he thought if the infected animal were shown not to be worth two-thirds of what, if healthy, it would fetch in the market, that

except by licences, and even then only by daylight. Power would also be given to local authorities to declare certain districts to be infected, and all fairs and markets for fat and store cattle would be suspended for a limited period. As to cattle brought by sea, they would be slaughtered at the port of arrival, with the exception of cattle coming from Ireland, which would be allowed to be removed by road or rail after a licence had been obtained for that purpose. Having explained various other provisions of the Bill, framed with a view to its general application, the right hon. baronet said the Government had admitted the principle of compensation in the proportion of two-thirds of the value of the animals lost, but in no single case to exceed £20 per head. In the case of healthy animals destroyed from the apprehension that, having been brought into contact with diseased ones, they might contract the disease, threefourths of the value would be given, but in no single case to exceed £25 per head. It was proposed that the funds out of which the compensation should be paid, as also the expenses of carrying out the Act, should be formed partly by local rates and partly by a special burden to be imposed upon those who had suffered by the loss of their cattle. The money would be raised by a rate levied in the proportion of one-third in counties, one-third in boroughs, and one-third by a cattle rate. The funds would be locally raised and locally distributed. The right hon. gentleman then detailed at length the provisions made in this Bill forbidding the opening without a licence of any market for the sale of fat cattle to be slaughtered, and also the sanitary regulations as to disinfectants, the cleansing of railway trucks, &c. He added, in answer to a question put to him, that the Bill would provide that the tenant should be permitted to deduct half the amount of the special rate levied upon him from his rent, and so divide the burden with his landlord.

The proposed Bill met with considerable criticism from various members, all of whom agreed in the necessity for granting such powers as were proposed, but some thought the measure did not go far enough, and complained of a want of vigour and promptitude on the part of the Government in dealing with the emergency. Among these Mr. Ward Hunt took a prominent part, expressing his belief that the safeguards proposed were insufficient, and that no law would be effectual for the suppression of the disease which did not altogether interdict the moving of cattle by railway for a definite period. He announced his intention of proceeding with a measure of his own of which he had given notice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the willingness of the Government to consider Mr. Hunt's Bill when laid upon the table. He thought, however, that the country was not prepared to tolerate so stringent a measure as Mr. Hunt proposed.

On Sir George Grey's Bill being discussed a few days afterwards in the House, Mr. Hunt again objected to it as not being framed with the requisite stringency. A debate of some interest took

place upon the principle of compensating the owners of cattle which might be slaughtered under the powers of the Bill for their losses, and the question was argued with much ability by some of the leading speakers.

Mr. Bright said that in the present emergency he quite agreed in the absolute necessity, so far as farms were concerned, of enforcing a rigid isolation; but he differed from the proposal in the Bill which left the power of widespread and indiscriminate slaughter to the local authorities. With compensation he believed that the slaughter would be unnecessary and monstrous in amount. It was contrary to the principle adopted by Parliament on past occasions of public suffering to vote money out of taxes to remedy a misfortune of this kind; and it was a grievance which every taxpayer would complain of, if his money were applied to the compensation of well-to-do farmers and rich landowners who might suffer from the affliction. If that principle were carried out it would tend to greater improvidence on the part of farmers than in past times. They would fancy that they were a class or order in the community that had especial claims upon the House - an opinion which, twenty years ago, was destructive of their independence and energy; and to encourage such an opinion among them would be most unfortunate.

Mr. Lowe deprecated Mr. Bright's habit of setting one class against another. As to the Bill of the Government, and especially the compensatory portion of it, the object was not to compensate people for what they had lost, but what they had lost through the direct agency of the Government by the destruction of their property for the public good. He recommended, however, to omit the clause granting compensation retrospectively. As to slaughter he thought the Government had taken a wise course in making the slaughter of diseased animals compulsory, and the slaughter of animals only exposed to infection an optional thing with the local authorities. As to the movement of cattle, he would prohibit it altogether, for a limited period throughout the country, with certain exceptions, and would not allow local authorities to open fairs and markets. If the recommendations he offered were not adopted he feared that the Bill, which was to last for six weeks only, would be like many excellent people in the world-it would die before it was thoroughly understood.

Mr. Stuart Mill concurred generally with Mr. Bright's observations. As to compensation, however, he did not object to it on principle, because no one proposed that farmers should be compensated merely for what they lost, but only for that which it was proposed to destroy under the Act; and any juster claim for compensation than that could scarcely exist. But the more reasons there were for granting compensation, the greater was the reason for taking care that that compensation should not be excessive; and he thought if the infected animal were shown not to be worth two-thirds of what, if healthy, it would fetch in the market, that