The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-16 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

Tms DAY.—Morning, 2h. 45m.—Afternoon, 3h. 3m.
To-htoßnow.-Morning, 3n. 22m.—Afternoon, 3h. 4 Im.

447
---Z.:4/`,4* axun

LONDON, FRIDAY, FEB. 16, 1866.

The Cattle Disease Bill again engaged the atten-
tion of the louse last night, and a great deal of
discussion took place. In consequence of the great
confusion made by some opponents to the Govern-
ment measure, Mr. GLADSTONE proposed to alter
the clause so as to give compensation up to one-half
of the value of the animal. This proposition was
finally accepted, although many hon. members
pointed out the inconvenience of the change. Mr.
DISRAELI wisely advised his friends to accept the
amendment, while, at the same time, he declared
that the inconsistency of the Government placed
them all in a very awkward position. The right
hon. gentleman said that he spoke as regarded
the interests of the country generally, and did
not confine his remarks exclusively to the benefit
of his own constituents, who are perhaps the greatest
sufferers by this calamity. Nowhere is the cattle
plague more severely felt than in Buckinghamshire,
because there is so much grazing land there. " They
have thousands of acres, which not merely in the
memory of man, but for countless generations, have
never been mowed, of the richest and finest land in
England." As Mr. DISRAELI stated, her MAJESTY'S
Ministers must have arrived at their original deci-
sion after much thought and scrupulous investiga-
tion, and it was not the thing to change
our legislation in a harunz scarum manner.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was no doubt
mortified himself at having to depart from the
original idea of the framers of the bill, but of course
he had to consider the question as to whether it
would pass in its first state without much delay.
Some people are never satisfied, among them we
may rank the hon, member for Birmingham as first
and foremost. Notwithstanding the sop thrown to
CERBERus, in theshape of the change in the rate of
compensation, Mr.
BRIGHT again made a desperate
onslaught upon the bill, and
to the effect that the sla proposed an amendment
ugh of the cattle herded
with diseased animals should not take place without
the consent of their owners. The hon. member did
not, however, succeed in impression
wr„Dy others, for he was defeatedhis views on
by a majority of
course
pur e ELI
338, having only 50 on his side. Mr
showed the inconsistency of the c
by asking, ,4 if it required an
act su E
ef
Parliament to produce the effect
Bought
for by should
the hon. member for Birmingham, he
fancy that any animal might be slaughtered with the
consent of its owner." It is in some degree a satis-
faction that Mr. BRIGHT should have proposed this
amendment, because it enabled the House to show,
in a very decided manner, how little they cared for
his objections ; and indeed it was essential that a
protest should have been made to the course pur-
sued by the hon. member for Birmingham in this
matter. He has gone out of his way to mix up the
engrossing topic of the cattle plague with all sorts of
extraneous subjects, and contrived to introduce party
questions and class interests of a vexatious character.
Buell conduct cannot be too much condemned, and