THE CATTLE PLAGUE.-RESOLUTION. MR. FORDYCE: I rise to move the Resolution of which I have given notice"That this House is of opinion that the County of Aberdeen should receive the proportional amount of the Grant which the owners of cattle slaughtered under the compulsory Orders in Council would have received, in accordance with the Privy Council Regulations, had no Cattle Assur ance Association been formed within the same." It will be in the recollection of the House that during the prevalence of the rinderpest in this country, very arbitrary powers were given to the Privy Council. In August 1865, the Privy Council issued an Order making it compulsory upon the owners of cattle to slaughter their animals without compensation. During the course of the present Session, a grant of £55,000 was made to defray the expense of the cattle which had been slaughtered. Upon Aberdeenshire sending in its claims to a share of this money, to the extent of £824, the claim was disallowed. It was not denied that the cattle had been slaughtered in accordance with the instructions of the Privy Council and the Order of the Government Inspector; but the Privy Council said because there was a Rinderpest Association in the county by which the farmers had been paid, therefore they could not make any further payment. I venture to say-and in this I shall have the support of all the Scotch county Members-that if it had not been for the existence of the Aberdeenshire Rinderpest Association, £1,000,000 would not have covered the amount of loss which would have been sus tained. They have therefore felt it to be their duty to apply for this grant. They used their best exertions to enable the Government to carry out their powers, and they have therefore a right to share in the compensation which other counties have received. It is a fallacy to say that the farmers have been re-paid by this Assurance Society. For every £100 which they received for slaughtered cattle they had paid so many pounds beforehand. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have been re-paid. It may be said that if Aberdeenshire is to receive this compensation, other counties in similar circumstances must also receive compensation. I do not see why they should not all receive compensation. From the Return which has been laid upon the table of the House it appears that the tota! number of cattle slaughtered during the existence of the Order of the Privy Council was upwards of 75,000, and if we take the value of these at £10 per head, and pursue the mode of distribution adopted by the Privy Council-namely, given one-half of the value, we get at a sum of £35,000, which is within the sum granted this for compensation. year [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: The sum was £25,000.] At all events, the Government would not require any very large additional sum to meet all the claims, and it would be preferable to vote this additional sum rather than perpetrate an injustice. COLONEL SYKES, in seconding the Motion, said, the question was whether a distinction was to be made between different portions of the kingdom. The course pursued was to give compensation to those who followed a system, and to withhold it from those who invented it. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, that the claim made by the Aberdeen Association for refunding to them the compensation paid by them, rested upon two grounds. One was the general ground that unless the amount of compensation were refunded the Government would be offering a premium to imprudence, by com. pensating those who were careless and imprudent, and refusing compensation to those who had had foresight, and had provided funds to meet the exigencies of the case. The other was the special ground, that the Association was not a Mutual Assurance Association; but was formed to carry out the Orders of the Privy Council and to stamp out the plague; and that compensation had been offered merely to induce persons to give information when their animals were attacked, and induce them to co-operate with the society. It was urged that the Association was not formed for purposes of insurance, but was established simply for the purpose of inducing the farmers to consent willingly to the slaughtering of the cattle. No doubt the duties of the Government inspectors | refund the money to the local rates and to had been much facilitated while the com- the landlords? The principle now advopulsory slaughtering Order was in force, cated by the hon. Member would lead to a by the establishment of this Association. whole host of new and unheard of claims And after the compulsory Order had been upon which there could be no check, and withdrawn, the Association had bought up the difficulties which would result from diseased cattle and had killed them. But acting on it were sufficient to induce the it should be borne in mind that this Associa House to pause before agreeing to the tion had refused to compensate those who Motion of the hon. Member. were not members of that body. There were two instances of such a refusal. From this it appeared evident that the Association was really a Mutual Assurance Association. This view was supported by the Constitution and Rules of the Aberdeenshire Rinderpest Association, August 1865." Rule iv. is in these words "The objects of the Association are, 1st, The Extermination within the county of the Cattle Disease, commonly known as the Rinderpest,' and 2nd, The Indemnification of Sufferers by this Disease, to the extent and subject to the Rules and Conditions after mentioned, or such Rules and Regulations as may from time to time be issued by the Central Committee." And Rule xii. runs thus "Sufferers by this disease who are not members of this Association, or members who shall infringe any of the preceding rules or regulations, or the rules, regulations, or precautions which may be issued under any Order in Council, having reference to the Rinderpest, or by the Central Committee, shall have no claim on, or right to the funds of the Association, but the Central Committee shall have power to indemnify such parties to such extent, and in such manner as they shall deem advisable for the public good." He now turned to the general ground. This, as the hon. Member had acknowledged, would apply equally to all counties, and not to that of Aberdeen alone. In fact, it involved a question of the propriety of the Order of Council of December 1866. The £25,000 which had been granted by the House, had been estimated on the assumption that, under that Order, no associations would be refunded. If that Order was to be annulled the House must be asked to vote £10,000 more. In dealing with other cases on the same principle as it was now proposed to deal with the case of Aberdeenshire great difficulties would present themselves. In Norfolk and Warwickshire the farmers had been compensated from the local rates, and in some counties those farmers who had suffered losses were merely excused from the pay ment of the regular rates; in others the landlords had compensated the farmers; and would it, then, be proposed now to MR. FORDYCE said, that he only desired that compensation should be given on the same scale as that which had been laid down in other cases. MR. R. W. DUFF said, he had been unable to discover any valid argument in the speech of the noble Lord why Aberdeenshire should be excluded from the benefits of the compensation fund because it had established an Association of its own. It was notorious that, among the crowd of schemes for the suppression of the cattle plague which occupied the attention of the House in the early part of last Session, the system adopted in Aberdeenshire was considered to be the most effectual, and it was ultimately adopted. It had worked excellently well in the county itself, and had preserved the northern districts of Scotland from the plague. The only reward that they had received at the hands of the Government was a refusal to allow them to participate in the benefit of the money voted for the compensation of sufferers from the disease. This was really placing a premium upon the carelessness, idleness, and indifference of those who had taken no pains to stamp out the plague. MR. READ said, he should support the Motion. Ile admitted that his views were not altogether disinterested in doing so, for if the present proposal received the sanction of the House he should take an early opportunity of bringing forward a similar one, substituting "Norfolk" for "Aberdeenshire." The case of the two counties was precisely similar. On the outbreak of the plague an Association was established in Norfolk, £25,000 was subscribed. Rules and regulations for the extirpation of the disease were enforced. Infringements of the Privy Council Orders were prosecuted. Though the Government rendered no aid, and could not stop the fairs, so that the disease was repeatedly re-introduced after being stamped out, the loss of stock was confined to 6,000. for the Association, 50,000 out of the 100,000 head of cattle in the county would have been lost. The return for all this energy, was that the farmers of Norfolk But Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. were refused any compensation for their | however, that the Government would relosses. The funds voted for the purpose consider their decision. were entirely distributed among those improvident or indifferent persons who had stood by with folded hands while the disease was making its greatest ravages throughout the kingdom. DESIGNS FOR THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.-RESOLUTION. MR. LANYON said, that he desired, as SIR WILLIAM STIRLING - MAXan old member of the Royal Institute of WELL said, he thought that the hon. Member (Mr. Fordyce) had made out a Institute of Architects of Ireland, to Architects and as President of the Royal good case. Scotland, and, indeed, the of make a Motion with reference to the country in general, owed a great deal to the farmers of Aberdeenshire for their advisability of adding professional men pointing out the manner in which the to the judges of designs for the new plague might be met. But the noble Lord Law Courts. He did not wish to make had clearly shown that the question was any imputation upon the judges at presurrounded with difficulty. The hon. sent appointed, or offer them any slight in taking this course. The competing Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) had made a strong claim for his county, and, doubt-dence in the judges as men of honour, architects had the most implicit confiless, others could make an equally strong claim for theirs. Although he should vote with the hon. Member, he would prefer to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. He had promised to represent the case of Perth to the House. It had happened that the lord-lieutenant of Perth died just as the Cattle Plague Bill was passed. During the three weeks that elapsed before his successor was appointed, although the disease was rife in the district, the local machinery could not be set to work to stop it, or compensate the losers. All that the people of Perth, however, asked, was that the county should have power to assess its inhabitants for the re lief of the sufferers at that time. He hoped that the Government would not re fuse so reasonable a request. MR. GRANT DUFF said, he was still of opinion, as he was last year, that it was unadvisable to meet the cattle plague by a public Act and rate. But he was bound to say that it seemed hard that those districts which had exhibited a disposition to help themselves should be permitted to suffer most. He hoped there would be no division, and that the matter would be left in the hands of the Government. MR. M'LAREN said, he had been applied to to support the cause of Aberdeenshire, and had thought it an isolated case. The Vice President of the Council (Lord Robert Montagu), however, had given unanswerable reasons for refusing the request; and as the public revenue had already suffered far too much from the cattle plague, he should vote against the Motion. MR. FORDYCE said, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion. He hoped, VOL. CLXXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] but feared they would be wanting in technical knowledge. If the Solicitor General had a great question with reference to the procedure of Chancery, would he bring it before a committee of architects? Or if a question of trade was to be decided on, tribunal? He was aware that two profeswould the bench of Bishops be the proper sional men had been appointed to advise the judges. That was a step in the right direction, but it did not go far enough. Those two professional gentlemen were approved by the competing architects. They had every confidence in them, and it was have the same power of voting in the final desired that these two gentlemen should It would be only fair towards the judges decision as the fully appointed judges had. that they should be assisted in their deliberations by able and competent professional colleagues, as their decision, however righteous and impartial, must unavoidably be criticized by eleven disappointed men. To the public it would likewise be more satisfactory that the judges who were to decide upon this great work, one of the most important ever submitted to competition, should not wholly lack the professional element. He trusted the Government would re-consider the matter, and satisfy the reasonable desire of the competing architects. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that two professional architects should be added to the Committee appointed for the purpose of selecting a Design for the New Courts of Justice,"—(Mr. Lanyon,) instead thereof. 3 T Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, that as the mouthpiece of the Society of British architects he had already communicated to the Treasury the wishes of that body. The claim had been made before, and its justice had been admitted. What was urged against it was that it came too late. He could not see that it was too late to make the alteration suggested. One word of assent from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) on the part of the judges, would free the hands of the Government, and materially strengthen in public and professional estimation the tribunal of which he was a member. clusion from the tribunal of professional opinions would not increase their confidence in its decisions, that declaration was entitled to the utmost consideration. The reason why the Committee originally was composed exclusively of unprofessional men was that it was supposed they would be unbiased in their opinions by any of those predilections or prejudices which professional training almost necessarily engendered. He thought that, under the circumstances, no objection to the proposal need be anticipated from other members of the Committee. After what had been said by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hunt) there was no necessity for pressing the Motion to a division. MR. BENTINCK said, he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had come to his senses on the subject since he had left office. He thought it highly desirable that whenever considerable sums of money were expended in connection with Art, the advice of professional men should be secured. MR. LANYON said, he would withdraw his Motion. After what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury he was quite prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SCOTLAND-REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. OBSERVATIONS. MR. HUNT said, Her Majesty's Government had no wish in the matter save that of obtaining the best designs of competent architects. The five gentlemen, who, as at present arranged, were to constitute the judges, with the aid of two professional architects as assessors, were selected before the present Government came into office, as the result of conferences which took place in 1865. Though his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) exerted himself last May to procure the addition to the tribunal of some professional members, he let the matter drop without effecting anything practical. [Mr. BENTINCK: I beg pardon. The matter dropped in consequence of the dropping of the Reform MR. MONCREIFF said, he rose to call Bill.] At all events, from May, 1866, till attention to the absence of information as the present time the matter was never to the intentions of Government relative mooted, and the Government naturally to the Representation of the People in supposed that the House acquiesced in the Scotland. When an inquiry was recently arrangement made by the late Govern- addressed to the right hon. Gentleman ment. If the gentlemen appointed as the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the judges were of opinion that they would subject, his reply was that it was desirable derive assistance from the appointment of further progress should be made with the additional members in the manner now English Reform Bill before that for Scotproposed, the Government would offer land was brought in. He was anxious, if no opposition to that course. But it was possible, to induce the Government to alter one which they could not sanction without the determination on that point at which previous communication with the gentlemen they seemed to have arrived. He thought who had been already appointed, and had it extremely desirable that before the Engundertaken to act. Under these circum-lish Bill made any further progress, the stances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Motion. MR. COWPER said, that as one of the Committee of five appointed to adjudicate upon these designs, he could entertain no possible objection to the proposal. In any case, very serious and onerous duties must be entailed upon the judges, and as the competitors had declared that the ex House should be made acquainted with the provisions of the Scotch measure. It was hardly reasonable to ask the representatives for Scotland to vote on the question of the English borough occupation franchise while they were kept in complete ignorance as to how far the principles of that franchise were to be applied to their own country. Setting aside differences of detail, the general principles of a Reform Bill appli- | hold suffrage, without any restriction, or cable to England must be applicable to was the sharp, hard line of a £4 rental to Scotland also. On the three former occa be drawn as defining the qualification in sions on which a measure of Reform had boroughs. It would be singular if a £4 been read a second time, in 1852, 1860, rental should be adopted in Scotland as and last year, the Bill for Scotland was the basis of the borough franchise after all introduced before that for England went the tremours and fears that were expressed into Committee. The Chancellor of the last year about a £7 rental suffrage. He Exchequer could hardly forget that on a should express no opinion as to whether former occasion his hon. Friend the present the proposal to give Scotland substantially Under Secretary for India (Sir James Fer- household suffrage, pure and simple, was a gusson) brought forward a Motion-which sound one or not, all he meant to contend was debated for three nights-while the for was that if such a proposal was to be English Bill was in Committee, to the effect made it was time the fact should be known. that its further progress should be stopped He did not say they were going too far, until the Bills for Scotland and Ireland but they might be going too fast. He were introduced. That Motion, though not would put it to the right hon. Gentleman made in form, because it could not be so in and the House to say how long if houseaccordance with the rules of the House, hold suffrage, pure and simple, were granted was strongly supported by the right hon. to Scotland it would be possible to retain in Gentleman, and he trusted he would in the England even a shred of those restrictions present instance see the propriety of acting which they had been engaged in discussing as far as possible in accordance with the for the past few weeks. He hoped the views he then advanced. He was the right hon. Gentleman would be able to more anxious that the Scotch Bill should give an answer to his remarks which would be at once laid upon the table because a be regarded by the Scotch Members as great deal of light might be reflected on satisfactory. the question of the borough franchise for England by the proposals it would contain. The peculiarity of the proposal with regard to compound-householders did not apply to Scotland, because there there was no Small Tenements Act, no compounding, and nothing corresponding to the rates in this country. The poor rate and other rates were, of course, levied there. But those charges were levied by separate bodies under separate statutes. The poor rate was not levied in every parish, though the number in which it was not was inconsiderable. That being so, it would be impossible to apply the principle bearing upon the case of the compound-householder to Scot land. In other words, the personal payment of rates was in that country the universal rule, and in its case, therefore, household suffrage with payment of rates would be nothing less than household suffrage pure and simple. There was, it was true, a provision that where the value of a tenement was under £4 the proprietor should be liable to pay the rates, and should be entitled to recover the amount afterwards from the tenant. But with that exception there was nothing at all which corresponded with the requirements of the English law on the subject. That being so, he should like to know how the case of Scotland was to be met in any Reform Bill which might be introduced. Was there to be house THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman who is a distinguished Scotch Member should feel a natural curiosity about the measure which the Government proposed to introduce with respect to the representation of Scotland. I am still less surprised that, having been also a distinguished Member of the late Government, he should take a fair and legiti mate opportunity to make some criticisms on the past and probable future conduct of the Administration. As to the instance which he has adduced as an argument to prove that it is our duty to bring in a Scotch Reform Bill at an early period-I mean the Motion of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir James Fergusson), which was discussed at considerable length at the time, and which led to an important division-I can only say that I do not think it tells exactly in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's position, inasmuch as the Motion was unsuccessful. That being so, and wishing always to profit by experience, I must protest against the supposition that we, sitting on these Benches, are bound to adopt all those proposals which were unsuccessful while we sat on the Benches opposite. But nothing is more reasonable than the wish of the right hon. Gentleman that the House should be made acquainted with our inten |