The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-06-29 00:00:00

IMRERIAL PARLIAMENT,

In the Hotlsis op Loam, June 24, owthe motion that the
Poor Law Amendment Act (1376) Amendment Bill be con-
aidered in Committee,
Lord Fortescue objected to the measure on account of its
Riving a bounty to one particular kind of thrift, by pro-
tiding that the 23rd clause of that Act should not apply to
Money to whites a pauper might be entitled as a memuer of
MY friendly or benefit society.
Lord Redesdale concurred in Lord Fortescue's observa-
tions, believing that the present Bill was contrary to every
principle on which relief was Oven.
lhe Duke of Richmond and Gordon said that Friendly
Societies had been of great benefit to the labouring classes,
and objected to any legislation calculated to operate in.
ilirioutly on them.
Lord Kimberley agreed that Friendly Societies were do-
tterel/1g of encouragement; but he questioned whether they
ought to be supported at the expense of the poor rate.
Lord Grey thought any departure from the sound prin-
ciples of the Poor Law would be an evil of a formidable cha-
racter.
The House then resolved into Committee on the Bill, when
Lord Fortescue proposed an amendment to omit the words
declaring that the 23rd clause of the Poor Law Amendment
Act of 1876 should not apply to money which a pauper might
be entitled to receive from any friendly or benefit society.
Lord Shaftesbury strongly objected to the amendment,
Which on a division was negatived by 45 to 44.
The Bill then passed through Committee.
The Truro Chapter Bill also passed through Committee, and
their Lordships adjourned.
. In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Colonel Arbuthnot gave notice
of a Resolution in favour of such an alteration of the law as
Will remove all doubts of the power of the Crown to make
Pee of the Indian Army or the Colonial Forces in any part of
the British dominions.
Sir H. James gave notice that on the motion for going into
committee on the Criminal Code Bill he would move that
the House go into committee on that day six months, not for
s the purpose of aefeating the Bill, Out in order to give the
Rouse an opportunity fully to consider the principles and
details of the code.
„ In answer to Mr. B. Cochrane, Mr. W. H. Smith said that
' is Was hoped the Eurydice would now soon be raised if the
_Weather continued fine; and Mr. D. Jenkins gave notice of
li,is intention to move a Resolution on the subject on going
Into committee of Supply.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question
from Mr. Ashbury, said that the Government had no measure
us hand for taking powers to bring over the ludian troops
, from Malta to England.
Mr. O'Clery having asked whether Ireland is to be relieved.
Of the £BO,OOO which she now pays annually for the main-
salience of the English and Scotch Volunteer Corps, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not see how it
could be done, and Mr. O'Clery thereupon moved the ad-
°liniment of the Howse, in order to make some observations
0,0 the refusal of the Government to permit Volunteer Corps
us Ireland. The Speaker being appealed to, said that
though this course was highly inconvenient, it was not dis-
,crderly, and he could not atop it. Major O'Beirne and Mr.
•clgear also spoke at length on the topic, and a division was
taken on the motion for adjournment, which was negatived
by 806 to 12.
Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson then moved the second reading of
Lite Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, which had passed the
LLoUse of Lords, was founded on the report of the select com-
"'Atte of last year, and was intended to remedy the defects
of the Act of 1869. The Bill gave power to the Privy Council
to.„ order the slaughter of cattle sent from countries where
Lieu's had broken out at the port of debarkation, but
Waimea arriving from places where there was no disease
Would be allowed to be moved to any part of the kingdom
titter twelve hours' detention.
„ Mr. W. E. Forster moved, as an amendment, "That, in
*nes_ opinion of this House, the slaughter at the ports of land-
g of all fat cattle from the Continent would restrict the
`QPPIy and increase the cost of food, and should therefore
llot be made compulsory under all circumstances by Act of
arliament." He refrained from moving the rejection of
s'lie Bill altogether, because, although he strongly objected
60 its chief provision, he considered it contained some minor
Dotata of a useful character, and which he should regret
hot to see passed. (Hear, hear.) This was a measure
Which, at all events, would not be fought out on the
tnitial party lines, and he hoped there would be an
kvoidance of anything like class feeling between town
Poi country, (Hear, hear.) He admitted that the oh-
of the Bill was not protection, though he believed
hat that would be its result. (Opposition cheers.)
had no disposition to make light of these cattle
Zuleasee, forthey were so serious that if he believed this Bill
Zoilld stamp them out he would advise consumers to submit
su its inconvenience. But his contention was that the Bill
otild not stamp out disease at all, whilst it must tend to
crease the price of meat The average import of live
s_ahllisals from the Continent during the last five years
Tmo, tinted to 210,000 cattle. 900,000 sheep, and 66,000 swine.
r Was impossible to say what proportion that import bore
•the total consumption of the country, but he should guess
!pat it would be about 14 per cent. However important
"&t import trade was now, it was no measure of how im-
'•
„portant it might become; but by this Bill they would pre-
sent the natural growth of the imports to which we
°light to look as a protection against the increasing price
Irneat. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet had suggested
,oat they should cultivate the importation of dead meat;
oat there was this great difference, that a live animal
, could await the market, whereas dead meat was a perish-
le article, and the forced sale of a perishable article
'ecessarily diminished the profit. (Hear, hear.) He
'ealculated that this Bill, if passed, would diminish the
ontinental supply 25 per cent, at least. But it was
"What about 50,000 cattle in a country where there
pre 6,000,000?" In actual meat supply it would be a
Punution to an extent that would give one million of
tieult men alb. of meat per day for two months. (Rear,
. etars) By decreasing the supply they placed the coieutner
, the mercy of the holder of the stock. The price of meat at
L. re present moment was a very serious question, and as there
U,d been a diminution in the supply it had not gone down,
:iotwithstanding the depression in trade, and the consequent
:114 that there was not now as much to spend in meat as
:Qere had been. The effect of the Bill would simply be to
increase the cost and diminish the supply. Then came
ce inquiry, Would the Bill check disease ? So far as
2,gard• the foreign import, the Bill left this disease
:mere it found it. The measure applied mainly to the
pot.and-mouth disease. It could not be mainly for stamp-
;lug out pleuro-pneumonia, for sheep and swine which
elailt,lier caught nor gave this disease were subjected to
Rhair provisions. He believed foot-anelmouth disease ori-
FallY came from abroad, but it was now acelimatisesl.
? regulations as to foreign import would have the slightest
;meet unless we were prepared to stamp it out at home. It
Impossible to show that the spread of foot-aud-mouth
rease in this country was due to foreign importation, and
it 1875 and 1876, when we had the largest import from abroad,
a disease had almost left us. It would be wiser to divide
111110 kingdom into districts, in case of an outbreak to pro-
bit movement of animals out of that district, and
toh. insist upon the detention and isolation of all ani-
Zala that had been in contact with those, affected,
etiether the contact had occurred at fair, market, or farm.
,lassin was the least that ought to be done. [Mr. C. S. Read:
•elear, hear."] He submitted that the regulations, even as
lginally drawn up, were not sufficient to secure the stamp-
out of the disease; that the Department had found they
soare too severe, and had been forced in the House of Lords
reduce them; that what ware left could not be carried
0,„
et"" ; that, as far as home restriction was concerned, the bill
eilae really a sham ; that simply interfering with the foreign
sePIY would only direini-h the supply of meat and increase
e,,e cost ; and, that being the case, the measure would be-
-110, though though it might not be intended to be one of pure
, tection. It was on these grounds that he proposed his
,Pototiel Kingscote, in supporting the bill, repudiated any
to return to protection. The only protection he wished ,
title a protection from disease. As it was admitted that the
tie dieease had cost the country a very large sum of
4t Was was it not the duty of Parliament to try to get rid ef it
ees'ace ? On behalf of a large number of agriculturists in the
D sri74r.Y, he assured the Government that the farmers were
Pared to submit to severe restrictions provided they
gsasre given to the protection of a law that would cause all
e;•eliels animals to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation.
deal of foot-and-mouth disease undoubtedly came
54;411 Ireland, and in his opinion stricter supervision should
serarerciaed over the cattle trade of that country, bothin re-
lessaCce to the port of embarkation andthe port of debarkation.
Is tone thing, cattle boats should be prohibited from carrying
10—*, angers, le maintained that, with the scientific apparatus
to' preserving carcases which were now to be had, the dead-
sseat trade was capable of development sufficient to meet
'P the necessities of the population. He regretted that
;nserica awl Canada had been struck out of the Bill as it
origingly presented to Parliament, for the reason that
ee,lle drat-mentioned country cattle disease of various kinds
4,srailed ; whilst there was an utter absence of any veteri-
en' or sanitary precautions on the part of the authorities.
"ter, hear.)
VP, Kavanagh remarked that he liked the Bill as a whole,
i',._there were points in it which he disliked, and they were
liesu_ouserious a nature to induce him to give it an unguen-
t° Pport.
teotf Lush urged that what was wanted was more intern-
use of the elastic power now in the hands of the Privy
lekal:nll rather than any fresh legislation, the only result of
h could be to increase the price of meat.
kr
tilt, —W. Egerton pointed out that in the meat supply of
lesseolintry the most important point was to secure the
%salinity of our cattle from disease—a condition which, he
ended would be fairly attained under the Bill.
kis
kttec„ Whitehouse remarked that this was a question
ap".4 the wage-earning population, who ran the risk
the shnes of being overlooked. He must strongly oppose
ilisess•ste Peel argued that if they were anxious to stop these
aial.7es there was plenty of legislative material already
ong,
thletiel Harcourt, in a maiden speech, stated that the Bill
kasZLt go so far as he Wished, but ha would accept it as an
"uent. (Hear, hear.)
lislollel Walker regarded the Bill as unfair and unjust.
toe:: limits denied that all diseases came from foreign
ttoti:rie or that it was possible by legislation in that
a to Prevent disease.
kr
• Ritchie supported the Bill.
tle'rei H., • Vivian denied that the Bill was a case of protection
~, tsgtdee.
.14., Ricks-Beach complained that while the Bill was a
Zttri, iand comprehensive one, the whole discussion had
ae %lea(' on only one of its proposals, that foreign cattle should
unhtered at the port of debarkation. He denied that
lt • tii:ileasure had anything of ths character of protection in
stltiees..Ct insisted on the right of our farmers to look to the
Ment for security from the importation of foreign
'.ieee'es geeing that they had to submit to severe restric-
-055 the home trade. He showed that the measure
tllly tl,ot one promoted by the present Government,
!!leet lit that it was based on the recommendations of a
„`otre committee representative of all parties, and of both
irtt :I'd country. It should be remembered that all
~qeees an Proposed by the Bill was that live animals, de-
at certain defined ports, should he slaughtered at
tee," ,Ports. Thsre was no time specified within which
/40 08010111 d be slaughtered' and therefore there would be
teeol:ree(l market. In asking the House to give the Bill a
51D15 reading the Government only desired that its prin-
'Me ''"auld be assented to, as the mea-nre had been con-
-61:1
t in the interest of any particular class, but in the
Ale—, that it would be for the welfare of the whole country.
. re)
tke d
al -abate was adjourned, on the motion of Mr. Itathbone.
ti
eejilmedidic Health (Ireland) Bill was read a third time,
s.
noe:s3 :Aber Bills were forwarded a stage, and the House
s'n d at ten minutes past one o'clock.

1
.

; th
llorsE or LORDS, June 25 on the motion for the
II -eading of the Public Healtl Act (1875) Amendment
th,tercn
'l%-grd r,a War moved an amendment to postpone the
1/41113--"Vng for six months, stating that on the second
,ttotlir,e, et the measure it was pointed out that its effect
to increase the existing difficnities in the way of
L'ave laFettages ; and it was also objected that the Bill
.""litr"ers over property to persona wnose education and
1114QT:sin life made them hardly qualified for the exercise
tor powErs.
th,s OVKiraberley trusted that the Bill would be passed, for
Ziaply",,V it was nothing more than to provide that where a
e'Liltthelesome water could be supplied at a moderate
Should be supplied.
ara
—4N tim„erldrilent was negatived, and the Bill was read a
and passed.
11 A Metantnents (Metropolis) No. 2) Bill was reported
.treeladments.
ettghwaYs (South Wales) rill was on the motion of
'r wdor,'
read a second time.
Zord'r° Chapter Bill was read a third time and passed.
th,et toAberdeen presented a Bill to remove doubts with re-
qties. the annlicatio Act t S • timid of the "Prisons Autha.
,187 A n o Le
.0"le Is
tirneo. - waa read a first time, and their Lordships ad-
ate
ROUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. 31 Stewart gave notiee
kb/ " this day four Weekshe would call attention to the
t e Cheefoo Convention with China, and move a
,Lot,l
' Rand°
„ la, replying to Mr. Isaac, said he had been in
kfiuw,ty eLlon with the directors of the South-Western
L_ Prk„e,inaliatly with regard to the lamentable accident to
^4e betrThfi ohimid, and would have great pleasure inlay-
ttn, atom copies of the correspondence.

I

The adjourned debate on the Contagious Diseases (Animals)
Bill was resumed by Mr. Rathbone, who contended that it
was unnecessary to lay down, a statutory obligation to
slaughter all animals imported from abroad, and that it
would have sufficed to give the Privy Council a discretion.
In the course of his speech the hou member said
We had no really reliable statistica of what the home
supply was. We must not compare the imports with the
total amount of home stock—the two things were totally
different; it was like comparing capital with interest. We
wanted statistics of the number of cattle slaughtered for
home consumption, and to compare them with the number
of fat cattle imported. The working classes would im-
prove in self control as they became accustomed to higher
wages; they would eat more and drink less; and
It would be impossiole for this country to supply the food
they wourd require. It was fallacious to treat ft
foreign supply which was in its infancy as being of no im-
portance. It would be a great mistake to pass any Sill
which would unnaturally raise the price oh food to the
people, many of whom would draw deductions which it was
undesirable they should draw in the present state of feeling
in some parts of the Continent. It was said that indis-
criminate slaughter would not stop imports, but the very un-
certainties inseparable from the operation of the Bill would
seriously discourage trade. The losses on compulsory slaugh-
ter varied from £2 Os. 3d. in winter to Li 10s. sd. in summer.
The experience of years taken singly might be mis-
leading, but when six years of free import pro-
duced 112,000 head and seven years of restriction only
21,000, it was clear that restriction had a considerable
effect. A strong reason why we should not interfere with
imports was that they came just at the time when we most
wanted them, when our own supply of stall-fed cattle was
exhausted, and before grass-fed cattle came in. We were
at present carrying on a struggle to maintain our mercantile
pesition as large exporters, and it was no time to call upon
the working- classes for any sacrifice that could be avoided.
The bulk of the evidence went to show that such a system
as that laid down by the Bill could not be carried out,
and that rendered it all the more objectionable to take
away the discretion of the Government to allow,
cattle to come In from comktries free from disease
and protected by efficient precautions against it. All
the committee but one reported against compulsory
slaughter, and that one committee passed its report
by a narrow majority. . . . Whatever might be the
Intention of the Government, this Bill would have the
effect of showing the country that there was a desire to
raise the price of food by Act of Parliament. It would be
most unwise for the Government to allow themselves to be
pushed on by the more extreme portion of their supporters
to deprive themselves of the powers of facilitating the im-
port of food from those countries where disease did not pre-
vail to any serious extent, and where great precautions were
taken to prevent disease." (Hear, hear.)
Sir W. Barttelot urged the great importance of reading the
Bill a second time in the interest both of consumer and pro-
ducer.

Mr. J. Holms did not oppose the second reading, though
he would rather the Bill failed than that it should pass with
the powers of compulsory slaughter, and went largely into
figures to illustrate its injurious effects on foreign supplies.

Mr. M. Stewart maintained that the Bill was for the real
interests of consumers, and that the safety induced by
slaughter would increase the aggregate supply of food.
Mr. S. Howard thought the resolution premature, as the
points which it raised could be best dhcussed in Committee.
The evidence showed that it would be possible to stamp out
disease, and it was well worth trying The home restrictions
in the Bill, he admitted, were not sufficiently stringent, and
unless they were improved the foreign regulations would be
comparatively useless; but he should support the second
reading in the hope that these objections would be removed
in Committee.

Mr. Pell admitted the inexpediency of interfering with
trade; but contended that in this case there would be com-
pensation in an increased supply of food, showing from the
statistics that in 1877 the increased importation of dead
meat very nearly equalled the falling-off in the foreign live
supply.

Lord F. Cavendish, while approving some of the details of
the L'ill, strongly objected to compulsory and universal
slaughter, which, he contended, would limit the importation
of live cattle.
Lord Bandon admitted the obligation on the Government
to take every precaution against a rise in the price of meat,
but pointed out that the prevalence of disease caused an
increase in the price of other articles, such as butter, cheese,
itc. Dwelling on the great losses which had been sus-
tained by the country from these cattle diseases, he argued
that restrictions would increase the home supply without
any corresponding check on foreign imports, and among
other results he anticipated a development of the dead meat
trade which would amount to a revolution in our food
supply. As to making exceptions in the order for general
slaughter there were grave objections, but as the United
States and Canada were left entirely open it was absurd to
treat the Bill as a measure of protection to native industry.
No doubt-the Bill might cause inconvenience to the whole
class of middle men, but the consumer would benefit by
being brought into closer relation with the producer. The
Government would be glad to listen to any suggestions for
Improvement in Committee, but, with regard to the general
object of the measure, they must rely on the justice of their
Intentions and the goodness of their cause. •
Mr. Synan spoke against the resolution until ten minutes
to seven, when the debate was adjourned until Thursday.
At the Evening Sitting, the House was counted out before
any business was done.

In the HOUSE ;OF COMMONS, June 26, Sir W. Lawson
formally naoveu the second reading of the Permissive Pro-
hibitory Liquor Bill.
Mr. Wheelhouse, in rising to move its rejection, expressed
his pleasure at seeing Sir W. Lawson able to come down,
after a severe illness, to do battle for the Bill, lie con-
tended that the Bill was not endorsed or supported by tke
country; and that its effect, if adopted, would not be an im-
provement of social order; and that its annual aiscussion in
this House was unnecessary, inasmuch as the result was a
•
foregone conclusion.
Mr. A. Hardy, in seconding the amendment in a maiden
speech) contended that such a measure, if it were to have
the attention of the House, ought to be both just ami
effectual, and this Bill posses-ed neither of those requisites,
After a discussion, in which Sir A. Gordon, Mr. W. James,
Sir George Campbell, Mr. C. Parker, and several other hon.
members took part,
Sir W. Lawson, who was cheered on rising, said the Bill re-
appeared every year in the same form, because its supporters
believed it to be a just and practical measure. Those who
complained that this Bill was not practical should bring in
one that was, but it was much easier to make speechea. Look-
ing at the state of trade, with one person in thirty a pauper, it
was dreadful to think that £140,000,000 was annually spent
in drink. The hon. baronet pointed out that the House
Lad already affirmed the permissive principle in the case of
the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and all that was now asked
was that English towns and villages which were ready to
accept this measure should have liberty to do so. He asked
the House, as a measure of justice, to trust the people in
this matter. It might tend to damage a great vested in-
terest, but it would conduce to the welfare of the country.

Sir M. W. 'Ridley, on behalf of the Government, opposed
the Bill, contending that it was not a practicable measure,
and did not commend itself to the common sense of the
people. The evils of excessive drinking were very great, and
it was the duty of the Legislature to endeavour to minimise
them, but this Bill was not calculated to carry out that ob-
ject.
The House then divided—For the second reading, 84;
against, 273 ; majority against, 194. The Bill was accordingly
rejected.

The other orders were then disposed of, and the House ad-
journed.