IMPORTATION OF CATTLE—ILL-TREATMENT IN TRANSIT.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 30 April 1875)

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he disputed the accuracy of the statements referred to. The name of the vessel in connection with which the ill-treatment was alleged to have occurred had not been given: but, on seeing the letter in The Times of the 22nd of April, he directed the Inspector of the Privy Council at Deptford—a very experienced officer of 25 years' standing—to inquire into, and make a special report on, the case. The vessel referred to appeared to be one which brought from Antwerp about 200 head of cattle. These beasts were landed at Deptford as usual under the superintendence of the Custom House officers, and remained in charge of an officer of the Privy Council until they were taken away to be slaughtered. The Inspector had himself seen them, but had failed to observe any indications of their having suffered ill-treatment on 1891 board ship. They were described as having been packed "like herrings in a barrel;" but the plain truth of the matter was that they were ranged closely side by side with their heads tied up to the side of the vessel—an arrangement which was necessary both for their own safety and to prevent danger and inconvenience to the passengers and crew. With reference to the absence of water, he was informed that it was very difficult indeed to induce cattle to drink on board ship until they had been at sea for a much longer period than appeared to have been taken up on the present voyage—namely, 22 hours. He was informed that during that space of time the discomfort was not unusually so great that quadrupeds as well as bipeds were not much disposed to drink. The Custom House officer, too, stated that he was present during the whole of the landing, and that he saw no acts of cruelty on the part of the drovers, which he should have done had they occurred. Again, at the landing-stage at Deptford the officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were present, with whom would he the duty of the institution of a prosecution if they were aware that the animals had been cruelly treated. The Inspector of the Privy Council, he might add, concluded his report by stating that in the course of the frequent inspections which he had made of the carcases of animals at the slaughterhouses at Deptford, he found them to be generally free from marks and bruises resulting from blows, and that he had no cause to suppose they were subjected to ill-treatment. As to any cruelty on the part of the drovers, he could only say he had been informed that those men were respectable persons licensed by the Corporation, and he believed that so much care was taken to prevent anything like ill-treatment that the Corporation regulated the size of the goads. He came to the conclusion, as the result of the inquiry, that not only there was no cause of complaint on the particular occasion in question, but that animals were subjected to no more inconvenience in transit than was absolutely unavoidable. He would conclude by calling attention to a letter which had been addressed by the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. In it he stated that 1892 he had seen Captain Stanley early in the morning of the day in which his letter appeared in The Times, but that he could not identify the person in charge of the cattle or any of the actors in the scene which he had described; Captain Stanley added that he did not wish to appear as a witness in the case, and no prosecution, therefore, could well be instituted by the Society. That being so, he was not prepared to take any further steps in the matter, or to make any regulations beyond those which at present existed.