cattle, the holding of markets and fairs, | mingham (Mr. Bright) points over the way, and the disinfection of trucks. At present but I do not know who may be Her I do not intend to touch upon the question Majesty's next advisers. Perhaps one of of compensation, because that is a separate them may be the hon. Member for Birmingquestion, and one which I think ought to ham himself. At all events there would have been embodied in a separate Bill. If, be a Ministerial crisis for a few days, and however, it is retained in the present Bill, I think it would be impossible to carry it can be discussed in Committee. I have any measure relating to the cattle plague gone into the subject of the Bill at great under those circumstances. I wish to length, because I believe that hon. Mem- deal frankly with the Government in regard bers have had no sufficient opportunity of to this question. I have no objection to considering its provisions. Judging from tell them that I regard their tenure of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, office as a thing likely to be disadvantathe House could hardly have been aware of geous to the country. I have not been in the extent to which permissiveness was to the habit of opposing Government upon all run through the Bill. I think it a bad questions. I have supported them at times Bill-bad in form and bad in substance, when I thought they were right, and opand I may be asked, "Why do not you posed them when I thought they were wrong. move its rejection upon the Order for the I have not been a very hot or eager partisan, second reading?" I will tell you why. If but I confess that I acquiesce in their this were a question which could wait, I tenure of office much less willingly since would not have had one moment's hesitation the removal from among them by the hand in moving the rejection of the Bill, and I of death of that noble Lord who, by his wise would even have done so if this had been and moderate counsels, so long conducted the 14th of December, instead of the 14th the affairs of this House to the satisfaction of February. But I am fully alive to the of Members on both sides of it; and I tell danger of delay, and I dare not take upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite that I believe myself the responsibility of delaying any the loss they have sustained by the retireGovernment Bill even for a single day. ment of one of their number, who among With that understanding I undertook to all the Members of Lord Palmerston's late consent to the second reading of the Bill to- Government was the one least liable to day, on the understanding that my own Bill pressure, with the exception of Lord Palshould also be read a second time. But merston himself, (Sir Charles Wood), is far there would be another danger. Moving greater than they have as yet appreciated. the rejection of the second reading of a Go- And if, as rumour says, the right hon. vernment Bill on important occasions is Gentleman the Secretary of State for the generally considered as a party Motion. Home Department (Sir George Grey) is What, then, would have been the conse- likely soon to seek repose and rest from the quence of moving the rejection of this Bill? cares of office, the Chancellor of the ExThe Government would say, as I am sorry chequer will find that, notwithstanding the to remark a portion of the liberal press new hands on board, he will find increased has said already, that this question of the difficulties in steering the Government boat cattle plague had been seized upon by the through the troubled waters. But with Conservative party as a means of opposing these views, and while saying unreservedly the Government. Some of the hon. Gen- that I should have no objection to see the tlemen opposite might also think so, and displacement of the present Government, give their support to the Government in always supposing that a good and a strong order to prevent a Ministerial crisis. If Government could be put in its place, I the principle of the Government Bill were could never consent to let a question of affirmed by a large majority we might get this sort become a party question. I shall a bad principle affirmed in this Bill instead never aid any attempt to use the question of a good one; and, on the other hand, if of the cattle plague as a means of displacing there were a majority against the Bill, the the Government; and, therefore, in taking Government might say they must go out. the part which I have done in reference to What, I ask, would be the position of the this matter, my sole object has been to get cattle plague if there were the chaos which such an Act of Parliament passed as may always exists during a Ministerial crisis? do something to check the spread of the It must have been most detrimental to the cattle plague, without reference to political national interests. We should have no one objects or party considerations. Under to guide us. The hon. Member for Bir- these circumstances, I would ask the House to consent to-day to the second reading of the Government Bill, bad as it is. I see the difficulty of dealing with it in Committee, and I am not aware of the course which the Government intend to adopt, but I think if they persevere with it only one course can be taken in Committee namely, to postpone all the clauses up to the 21st, and to strike out all the clauses relating to the removal of cattle in order that more stringent provisions may be inserted. I would refer for a moment to a meeting which took place in the tea-room yesterday afternoon, and which was attended by Members of both Houses of Parliament, irrespective of the side of the House from which they came. Three resolutions were passed-the first two unanimously. These two resolutions were entirely in accordance with the Bill which I have laid on the table. They were to the effect that, for a limited period, the movement of cattle by railway or road should be entirely prohibited. The second proposed that movement on the high roads ought also to be prohibited by law, with certain statutory exceptions as to cattle moved short distances, under rigid regulations; the third was that the Government might declare certain districts free from disease, and permit_cattle to be moved in such districts. The third resolution was passed in a hurried way, as the meeting was about to break up. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Hear, hear!] The first two resolutions were passed after due consideration and without hurry; the third was passed in the hurry of breaking up, and, though no hand was held up against it, it was not so much considered as the other two. That third resolution was an infringement of the principle of this Bill. That resolution allowed an exception in certain districts to the strict restrictions by road, but not by railway; but then it threw the responsibility on the Government. Now, I confess I do not like even this exception, but, if others think it absolutely necessary, I do not say that nothing would induce me to consent to it; but I would only consent to it on this condition, that the Government alone should declare the exception. I say also that the conditions under which the exceptional movement of cattle is to be permitted in such districts ought to be defined. Even then, however, it would be necessary for the Government to act with the greatest promptitude, as in the case of the Order issued for Ireland. It would not do to Mr. Hunt have a week's notice before orders could be drawn up, another week before they could appear in the Gazette, and another before they came into operation. If this power were left to Government the inspectors should have notice by telegraph, as was done in the first case, and at once proclaim the district. That Order, indeed, was so good that I cannot understand how it could have proceeded from the same Government which issued the other Orders. After the passing of the resolutions at the conference yesterday, I hope that the Government may be willing to modify their Bill, and I trust that some Member of the Government will give us some intimation to that effect. If not, I shall, when the Bill is in Committee, raise the issue of statutory prohibition or not. MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I am really sorry for some of the observations made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), because, notwithstanding his disclaimer to-day, it appears to me that there was a good deal of party feeling mingled with the anxiety he evinces with regard to this distressing question. Now, I think nothing could more lower the estimate of the House of Commons in the eyes of everybody outside its walls than the mixing up of any political and party feeling with a question of this nature. I have read the Government Bill with some minuteness, and I have come to the conclusion-which is confirmed by what I heard fall from the hon. Gentleman on the former occasion and to-daythat the House is doing what is generally a very unwise thing—that is, about to legislate on a panic. There is hardly anything more common, and for myself I do not think anything is more absurd and pernicious, than a panic. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has, I think, been rather hustled in this matter, and I doubt whether he, and, still more, whether his Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, entirely approve some portions of the Bill. We are now on the second reading, and though I shall mention one or two things which are matters of detail, yet they are at the same time matters that can only be discussed at this stage of the measure. On looking over the Bill, it appears to me to involve three things-first, an attempt at isolation, in which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) thinks it does not go far enough; secondly, a general provision to slaughter cattle which are either attacked by the disease, or likely to be attacked, or suspected of being ill; and thirdly, the principle of compensation which is admitted-and admitted, I suspect, for the first time in the lifetime of any Member of this House, into any matter of this kind. Now, I agree to a very large extent with the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the necessity of a very rigid system of isolation. I think, however, that isolation cannot be carried out absolutely, because if it were attempted, so great would be the inconvenience and suffering, that it would probably be much worse than anything which could possibly arise from the cattle plague itself. But if isolation on farms could be carried out with great strictness, I do not see myself the necessity for an indiscriminate permission to slaughter. Now, according to this Bill, in every small district there would be what is called a "local authority." That local authority is not very accurately defined, but in every one of those districts, by the authority of the local powers, and by command of their inspectors, on every farm where there may be a single beast suffering from this malady, that beast must be killed, and, at the pleasure of the inspector or of his masters, the whole herd of cattle on the farm may be destroyed. Now, I think that the more the process or practice of isolation is adhered to, the less necessity can there be for a general and almost indiscriminate slaughter. We know, in fact, from our present experience, as far as it has gone, that in this country there is a percentage of diseased cattle which recover, and it is quite probable that as the disease runs its course in the country-and it is even now running its course-it will become tractable and more subject to curative efforts. That is observed, I believe, with regard to all complaints of cattle, and likewise to all complaints of the human family. Therefore, I say that this power of slaughtering indiscriminately is a power which it would not be wise to grant; but, coupled with compensation, it would be followed by a massacre of cattle altogether unnecessary, and when the figures are at a future time laid before Parliament they will, I think, be regarded with astonishment by those who have supported this Bill. Now, if you give this power of slaughter-first of all, that every beast that is ill shall be slaughtered, and every beast near it may be slaughtered-I do not think it likely that any farmer or owner of cattle would be disposed to try curative means of any kind-so that everything like experiment and everything like science, even patience and precautions and ordinary care and cleanliness, would be abandoned. The farmer would submit to fate he would get one-half or three-quarters of the price of his cattle, and there would be a great cessation of the efforts to discover the nature of the disease, to cure it if it appeared, and to prevent its approach when it appears in the neighbourhood of any farm. Now, the compensation will necessarily have a very strong effect in that way; and I think that if compensation is to be conferred the sum proposed in the Bill is excessive. Nothing can be more monstrous than the notion that the public ought to be called upon to make up to private persons all losses in consequence of accident, or, as it is called in this case, of a visitation of Providence. We are introducing a principle which I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept; but he is reconciled to it in this instance because it will not affect his Budget, though it will the taxation of the various counties. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) has referred to a great meeting held at Northampton some time ago. Now, I want to ask him a question which may excite disapprobation on the other side of the House. In the instructions issued in Ireland particular reference is made to the possibility of contagion being carried by dogs. I have no opinion myself on this matter. This question of contagion or infection seems absolutely mysterious to all of us, and I think a man would be a foolish man who would say positively that the disease may or may not be carried in some particular way. I said that according to the instructions for Ireland, "any local authority may make orders as to shutting up of dogs in any infected place, and as to their destruction if found coming out of the same;" and in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, the 22nd clause says— Every local authority shall have power by order to prohibit altogether or to impose restrictions or conditions on the introduction into its place within its district, first, of animals or any district, and also on the removal from place to specified description thereof, excepting for a distance not exceeding 200 yards from part to part of the same farm." Understand me, not to maintain that these poor curs are likely to be guilty; but, if this be a proper regulation, if it be necessary, I should like to ask the opinion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire of a resolution passed at that large meeting in Northampton with regard to the possibility of the plague being spread by the practice of the sport of hunting. Bear in mind, this question of the cattle plague is a very serious one, or it has no right to be in this House at all; it is a very serious question, or no Member has a right, for a single moment, to dream of asking Government to impose these unbearable inconveniences upon the people, and the large expenditure which will fall upon somebody if the Bill passes. If it be so serious a matter, and if these humble curs are suspected, and are to be shut up in infected places, for fear they should carry the disease, I put it to the country gentlemen, who have so powerful a representation in this House, whether they will stand well with the owners of cattle, the great body of the tenant farmers of this country, if the sport of foxhunting be pursued during the next month, when this Bill is to come into operation, seeing that the matter appears to have assumed so great a gravity? I said I would not give any opinion of my own on this point, because I have not any; but I have seen in several newspapersin Liverpool papers-letters written from the county of Chester, complaining of this matter. The Northampton meeting, at which the hon. Member for the county was in the chair, and at which I am told 2,000 persons were present-[An hon. MEMBER: No-only 500.] I am sorry that more interest was not displayed, but I was told that the room would hold 2,000 and that it was filled-that meeting passed a resolution upon this very subject; and yet any gentleman may see in a newspaper published in that town notices of the meeting of no fewer than fifteen packs of hounds that were to run in one week, a total of between sixty and seventy times. They would course over 10,000 to 20,000-Oh! far more-acres in that county; and if this disease be so subtle, if it can be carried by almost everything that flies and everything that creeps, why should it not be carried by something that runs. Northamptonshire clergyman who lives in the midst of the Pytchley Hunt, says in a letter quired how he thought it had heen introduced, and his reply was that his only way of accounting into bis farm by the foxhounds which crossed his for its appearance was that it had been brought fields about a week before." Now, I repeat, I have no opinion upon this matter-I cannot say anything about it as to whether it is so or not; but I say, if that be possible, is it conceivable there is any gentleman in England who would consider it necessary to continue-what, after all, is not an essential of life-sport during the short time the season will last, if it be possible any harm can happen to the farmers of England from this cause? I shall say no more about that, because it is not a subject I am very well qualified to discuss, beyond what I have said with regard to it, except to maintain that if there be anything any of us can give up, the giving up of which would tend to lessen or remove a calamity which must reduce many hundreds of farmers, probably, to poverty, we ought to give that up with the greatest possible pleasure. I want to say one word on the question of compensation, which is rather an important part of this measure. I said before that I think the effect of it will be to cause a great amount of slaughtering of cattle which, under the system of isolation which the Bill intends, would not be necessary, and would really be pernicious and a grievous loss; but I should like to ask, why is compensation to be given by means of an Act of Parliament, and a public rate? I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself would be able to give a good reason for the proposals in this Bill. Now, I can understand that if the landowners and farmers had no interest in what is called the "stamping out "of this disease by the slaughtering of cattle, and if it was simply done in the interest of the public, that then there might be some claim upon the public in some cases for compensation. But, bear in mind, all the demand made to the Government in favour of this excessive, and, as I think, almost senseless slaughterAing has been made by the country gentlemen and the farmers whom they represent. If ten beasts be slaughtered on one farm to save ninety on the same farm, and presuming that if Government did not order the slaughtering, the farmer himself would think it necessary, I do not see why the farmer or landowner should come to Parliament for compensation. Now, I maintain, as far as I know, as far as my memory goes, as far as my reading of late years has gone, that this is a new principle which is "The inspector of my district told me distinctly, a week or two ago, not only that in his own opinion (that of a graduate of the Veterinary College) foxhunting might, but that it had, in some instances, introduced the murrain from infected into healthy districts. I met, on my return from Northampton, on Saturday last, a farmer whose brother, living in our neighbourhood, had recently lost some cattle from the plague. I in Mr. Bright of the taxes? I believe it will have an effect that will be most unfortunate and pernicious. I should like to read to the House an extract from a letter I received yesterday from a grazing farmer in Scotland, who farms extensively under a Member of the other House of Parliament. There is one passage in which he agrees with me entirely, that if you have rigid isolation you need not have the compulsory slaughter. He goes on "I look upon it that the House of Commons will consider this visitation as a loss in stock in trade of a class, and that such measures as they pass are for the ultimate benefit of that class, and that any losses sustained from those measures must be paid by the class interested and not from taxation or rates." Bear in mind that this is an extensive cattleowner in Scotland, and he continues "The loss is a farmer's loss, generally speaking, and cannot be paid out of the public purse any more than an unusual series of disasters at sea introduced in this Bill. There are many posite what will be the effect on the farmers classes of persons who will suffer. There themselves of giving this compensation out is the rich man, for example I have heard of one in this House-I could mention his name, but it is not necessary I should do so -who has lost 150 or 200 head of cattle. Well, that will be an expense to him of £2,000, £3,000, or £4,000, according to their value. But he may be a man who has an income of £15,000 a year. Is it proposed to go to all the towns and villages, to all the non-agricultural and non-landowning classes, and to collect rates from them to compensate this rich man for his loss? The loss which this man has suffered, is only the same kind of loss which periodically visits almost every other industry in the country. Why, there was an hon. Gentleman sitting near me the other night when this Bill was being discussed who, I know, lost in one winter £40,000 by shipwrecks. He had taken his own risk for twenty years, and he had found it answer; in one winter —a winter like this through which we are passing-£40,000 of his property went could be paid to the shipping interest. I consider down; but there was no proposition of that the tenantry have it in their power to help themselves, and were they to help themselves, and compensation from Parliament. Take the were they to unite in forming a general system of position of Lancashire during the last four epidemic stock insurance, they would be able to years. The sufferings of that county-I meet losses and secure themselves as effectively am not speaking of the poorest people and as shipowners now do through their underwriters." of the workmen, but of the spinners and If this system of paying out of taxes be manufacturers, the owners and the occupiers established, you will probably put an end of mills-have been great, far beyond any-in future to all kinds of providence on the thing the public have any conception of; but there has not been a single farthing either of taxes or of compensation in any shape given to those persons. I do not forget that a magnificent subscription was made for those of the sufferers whose daily bread was taken away. In this case, what I would have suggested would have been this-that, with regard to all those small farmers with very little capital, or those nearly the whole of whose capital was invested in their stock, there should have been some great public effort made in order that they might not be ruined; and I would rather give five times as much in a subscription to a fund to relieve those humble and much suffering people, than I would pay anything to a county rate to compensate rich men in this House or out of it. I will not state it unfairly-to whom this calamity, grievous as it is, comes in the shape of a bad debt, or of a shipwreck, or of a cotton famine such as we have passed through in Lancashire. Now, we are on the principle of this Bill, and I am on the particular question of compensation. I ask hon. Gentlemen op part of farmers. They will feel that they can come to this House in case of any calamity of this kind, and they will have less inducement than ever before to establish and to support insurance societies. The farmer I have quoted continues "I venture to hope that you will use your influence to prevent the House of Commons from agreeing to recompense in any way the loss that may arise from measures passed to arrest the progress of the rinderpest. I do so under the thorough conviction that such losses are in many cases quite unnecessary, particularly where slaughtering is resorted to, and that as the class who lose could cover their losses by adopting such precautionary measures as are practised in other trades, you will confer a benefit upon us by making it a virtual necessity our mutually providing against loss by insurance, which will only be done when we find we can get no assistance elsewhere." That is the argument advanced in the letter of a respectable tenant farmer, an owner of stock, who himself may be visited by the calamity which has now traversed, certain parts of the country. Now, I have been told-I do not give it on mean authority-I have been told on fair authority, that the disease during the last twelve months has not killed more cattle in the |