HL Deb 16 April 1883 vol 278 cc273-93
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

, in rising to call attention to the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom, and to the continued importation of that disease from abroad; and to move for any Correspondence with Foreign Governments on the subject, said: My Lords, the great importance of this subject must be my excuse for trespassing for a short space upon your Lordships' time. The subject is of such great importance that it has been under the consideration of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, a Society consisting of some 8,000 members, having a Council of which the average attendance is 40—a Society dealing with all questions of agriculture, and comprising Members of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons; comprising a large number of owners and occupiers of land, and the most eminent Professors in veterinary science. I mention this to show that the interest on this matter and the feeling on this subject are widespread throughout the country. The Society have asked the Prime Minister, in conjunction with my noble Friend the Lord President, to receive a deputation on the subject; but I regret to hear that the Prime Minister is unable to be present. Without being discourteous to my noble Friend opposite, as representing agriculture in this country, yet I may say that the Royal Agricultural Society would have been glad to lay this most important question before the Prime Minister himself. The Highland and Agricultural Society has also applied for an interview on the subject. I merely mention these facts in order to show your Lordships that this is a question which attracts the attention of the agriculturists of the United Kingdom. I am glad to bring this question before your Lordships, because I consider that in an Assembly of holders of land, many of whom are actual occupiers of land, and many of whom are also practical agriculturists, I may very fairly bring the matter under consideration; and I think they are a body competent and able to deal with it, notwithstanding the sneers of Mr. Chamberlain at this Assembly, to which I will not condescend to further allude now, because I do not think his views are entertained by any class in this country, or even by any of his Colleagues. This question is, I think, one of universal importance. It affects the consumers of meat as much as the producers, for anything that affects the producer of meat must affect the consumer; and I am glad to think that the greater part of the population of this country are consumers of that article of food. This is a question closely affecting three classes of persons connected with the land—the owners of land, the occupiers of land, and the agricultural labourers; because, notwithstanding the unscrupulous assertions of agitators, I have always thought that their interests are identical, and that what is hurtful to one of those classes must be hurtful to the others. Therefore I think the question is one of universal interest. The question may be considered as two-fold. In the first place, there are those diseases affecting animals caused by wet seasons, and absence of sun, and other natural causes. There are diseases with which we have no power to deal; and if disease arises in a large manner from causes over which we have no control, it behaves us to keep greater watch over those diseases with which we are, to a great extent, able to grapple; and these latter diseases are of foreign importation. The principal diseases of that character are three in number—first, there is cattle plague; secondly, there is pleuro-pneumonia; and, thirdly, there is foot-and-mouth disease. As to the two first, I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with many observations, because cattle from countries infected with cattle plague are slaughtered on the Continent, and are not allowed to come here, and cattle suffering from pleuro-pneunomia are subject to compulsory slaughter in this country. With these diseases I need not trouble your Lordships. The disease to which I shall chiefly refer is the foot-and-mouth. In 1877, when the cattle plague prevailed in this country, the attention of the Government, of which I had the honour to be a Member, was called to its ravages; and, in consequence, a Committee of the other House of Parliament was appointed, composed of men who took a practical view of the subject, and presided over by my hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). The recommendations of that Committee formed, to a very great extent, the basis of the Bill which afterwards became an Act in 1878, and which has certainly had very beneficial results. The Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture testifies to the success of that Act. The Commissioners say— The evidence to which we have already referred proves that the effect of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act has been most beneficial. Wherever the local authorities have carried out its provisions with strictness it has been successful in checking the spreading of disease. Under that Act we carried out very severe restrictions, and made arrangements in all parts of the country. There was a severe outbreak in Cambridge-shire before we left Office. The provisions of the Act were put into force, and the disease was stamped out. When we left Office there was no foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom, and that result had been mainly brought about by carrying out with great severity and strictness the provisions of the Act. In the Report of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, published in 1881, I find this paragraph— It was further pointed out that up to September, 1880, the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had been for some time, so far as the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council could ascertain, free from foot-and-mouth disease, and that the strongest evidence existed that its re-introduction was due to the landing of diseased animals from abroad. There was an immunity from the dis- ease, therefore, up to September, 1880; and I wish especially to call attention to this date, because, on the 20th of September, 1880, a cargo of diseased animals was landed at Deptford from Prance. Shortly after the 20th of September the disease made its appearance in the City of London and in some of the adjoining counties, and gradually spread throughout the country; and, from that time to the present, the country has not been free from foot-and-mouth disease. I am sure the Lord President will not deny that the disease from which we are now suffering is due to the importation of diseased animals from France. I will read to your Lordships what Professor Brown says in the Veterinary Report of 1880— From the circumstances of the case, the foreign origin of the outbreak of 1880 was more clearly apparent than on any occasion of the appearance of the disease since its introduction in 1839. It is true that no actual proof exists in either instance of the direct intervention of a diseased foreign animal, or even of the transmission of the infective matter from a diseased foreign animal to home stock; but the fact that on both occasions the stock of the country was free from the disease which was known to exist on the Continent leaves no room for doubt as to the source whence the infection was derived. We have, therefore, the evidence of Professor Brown as to the foreign origin of the disease in 1880, and I will tell your Lordships what progress it has made since. In 1880, 38 counties were affected with foot-and-mouth disease; there were 1,464 fresh outbreaks, and 32,378 animals were attacked. In 1881 the number of counties affected was 49, there were 4,833 fresh outbreaks, and 183,046 animals were attacked. In 1882 the disease existed in 49 counties, there were 1,970 fresh outbreaks, and 37,950 animals were attacked. After the facts to which I have referred, no one will, I think, deny that the disease is of foreign importation; but I wish to draw attention to its continued import from abroad. The serious nature of foot-and-mouth disease is beyond dispute, and it affects both breeding and fat stock—fat stock, it is true, not so seriously as breeding stock. But in the case of fat stock, if this disease makes its appearance when an animal is nearly ready for the market, it cannot be brought ripe so soon, and it costs the farmer more expense in food to bring it to a state fit for the butcher. In the case of breeding stock, it destroys the breeding powers of the cow; and, while hilling the lamb, so diseases the udders of the ewe that she cannot breed any more. Therefore, I say that this disease affects the meat supply of the country by injuring the breeding stock of the country in the way I have described. The Report of the Cattle Plague Committee of 1877 states— It was abundantly proved in evidence that the ravages of cattle plague since the Act of 1S69, and the diminution of the breeding herds of the Kingdom from the fear of breaking out of cattle plague, are as nothing compared with the losses inflicted and the enterprize checked by pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth complaint. In addition to the losses to the community of animals actually destroyed by either of those diseases, or slaughtered to prevent the spread of pleuro-pneumonia, the agricultural and other witnesses laid great stress on the fact that, whatever loss fell upon the farmer from the deterioration of his stock through foot-and-mouth complaint, re-acted injuriously on the consumer by the diminution in the number of fat stock which the farmer was able to place on the market in a given time. I come now to the numbers of diseased animals imported. In 1880, 155 animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease arrived here from abroad; in 1881 the number was 4,977; and in 1882, 592. In the first six weeks of 1883, from the 1st of January to the 19th of February, there was imported into this country from abroad an average of 10 diseased animals per day. These animals came in contact with thousands of others, and thus the disease is spread throughout the country. I am quite prepared to admit that Her Majesty's Government has done all in their power to check the disease. The Lord President has carried out the Act in a most energetic manner, by placing severe restrictions upon the farmers of the country, and by shutting up fairs and markets. The Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, which I had the honour to re-organize, under the direction of Professors Brown and Cope, has been all that could be desired. I doubt, indeed, whether I should have been able to carry out the severe restrictions which the noble Lord imposed; but, notwithstanding, the disease still goes on. Therefore, I say, we must do something which has not yet been done; and I have indications of what may be done by the act of the Lord President himself. I have said that he has been acting energetically. In Prance there was a great quantity of disease. What does the noble Lord do? In the first place, he shuts up Boulogne. But I apprehend the noble Lord soon found that shutting up the Port of Boulogne was not sufficient, because that does not prevent disease coming from France. Then, what does he do? Acting under the powers of the Act of 1878, the noble Lord says—"No animal at all shall come from France." That being so, I ask the noble Lord—"Why do you select France, because, by a Return which was moved for by Mr. Duckham in the other House, I see that this year there were more diseased animals in one cargo from the United States than in all cargoes from France put together?" If it is necessary, in order to keep out disease, that you should prevent animals being imported from France, I say it is equally necessary to prevent them coining from the United States. I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen a Report of the Chief Constable of Cumberland and Westmoreland, who has kept disease very much under in that part of the country, and has paid the greatest attention to the subject. In his Report to Quarter Sessions he comes to these conclusions— All practical experience proves beyond any doubt that the disease is preventable, and that the three things necessary to keep it out are—(1), that its importation from foreign countries should be prevented; (2), that the power to local authorities to regulate the introduction of animals from Ireland into their districts should be continued; (3), that local authorities should be empowered to treat first or isolated outbreaks similarly to cases of cattle plague, instead of leaving them to be dealt with by subscription or the generosity of individuals. Well, then, there is another matter with regard to these animals from America, and that is the enormous waste and loss that every year takes place in the transit of animals from that country. Your Lordships would probably scarcely believe the state of things which goes on in the passage between America and this country. In 1879, according to a Return of the Veterinary Department, 14,024 animals were thrown overboard, 1,249 were landed dead, while 455 were so much injured or exhausted that they were killed at the place of landing—making a total of 15,728 which were either lost on the passage or so much injured that it was necessary to slaughter them on landing. In 1880 there were 13,619 animals thrown overboard, 540 landed dead, and 384 so much injured or exhausted that they were killed at the place of landing—making a total of 14,543 which were either lost on the passage or so much injured that it was necessary to slaughter them on landing. So that positively there were no less than 30,000 animals in two years lost on the passage between America and this country. Now, this appears to me to be an enormous waste of food, to say nothing of the suffering to which the animals were subjected. The farmers, as I well know, are perfectly ready to submit to all necessary restrictions and regulations; but anybody practically acquainted with agriculture knows that they are a very great interference with the business of the farmer. They interfere greatly with the manner in which he has to carry on his trade. For instance, when an Order relating to markets is brought into operation, if the farmer takes his stock to market it must be slaughtered within six days, so that the farmer is, in that case, entirely at the mercy of the butcher, who can give him what price he chooses. But, suppose the farmer does not choose to send his stock to market, he is likewise at the mercy of the butcher who may come to the farm. Of this, however, the farmers do not complain; but they say—"If you interfere so materially with the manner in which we carry on our business, and prevent us getting the prices we ought to get, then we, on our part, have a right to demand of the Government that they put into operation all the powers they possess in order to prevent disease coming from abroad, which disease renders these regulations necessary." That is what the farmers say, and I confess there is justice in the views which they so urge. I believe that if we had perfect immunity from disease the breeding of cattle would go on much more satisfactorily, and to a much greater extent than it has done during the prevalence of disease. I hope I have made clear the case which I particularly wished to bring before your Lordships—of the great amount of disease existing in the country, of the continued importation of it from abroad, and the great damage this does to the agricultural classes of this country. I am not speaking my own sentiments only, but those of all classes of the agricultural community; and perhaps few people have better opportunities than I have of becoming acquainted with the views of the whole agricultural classes of this country. My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that a feeling of deep disappointment exists among the agricultural classes at the great importation of disease from abroad, and the utter failure of the attempts of the Government to check the disease. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for any correspondence with Foreign Governments on the subject of the continued importation of foot and mouth disease from abroad."—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

LORD VERNON

said, he wished to join in what was the well-merited praise bestowed by the noble Duke upon the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. He was sure no one of candid mind would deny for a moment that agriculturists of all classes throughout this country were exposed to exceptional risks. Of the uncertainty of the seasons he would not speak, because it did not bear on the subject; but that the diseases of stock were very contagious was proved conclusively by the Reports of the Veterinary Inspector of the Privy Council. In the Report for 1881 the Inspector said— Owners of stock are bound to endeavour to prevent the spreading of infection by keeping diseased animals separate from healthy ones, and they may not unreasonably be called upon to remember that every diseased animal is a manufactory of infectious matter; and he wont on to add— In fine, if local authorities and stock owners could be induced to act in concert with the Privy Council in carrying into immediate effect the provisions of the Act, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease might easily be arrested. That was a serious reflection on the local authorities, and he would not say it was not deserved. He would take the opportunity of reading a paragraph in the Animals Order— All animals being in or on the market, fair, &c, or other place aforesaid, at the same time, with an animal found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease, or swine fever, shall be dealt with in all respects as if pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease, or swine fever, had not been found therein or thereon. If the Veterinary Inspector pointed out to the head of his Department that this disease was so extremely contagious, he wanted to know why an Order existed which established the rule that animals which were brought into contact with diseased animals might he removed? The law was decidedly defective, and should be remedied. The noble Duke had pointed out what were the effects of the disease on the farmers and producers, and also on the consumers. On the same point he might quote from the evidence of two competent witnesses—Professor Brown and Mr. Bowen Jones—to show that if the farmer could be protected against the disease he would be able to produce more meat than at present, and that the benefit of this would be felt by the consumer as well as the producer, and that the disturbance of the markets under the existing state of things was very injurious to the farmer's business. In his evidence before the Royal Commission on Agriculture, Mr. Bowen Jones said— Restrictions placed on farmers with regard to contagious diseases of animals cause great inconvenience. Markets are disarranged, the result being pecuniary loss in the case of fat stock amounting to from £5 to £8 per head; in the case of sheep very disastrous when it breaks out among ewes going to lamb; in a breeding flock of, say, 300 ewes it may be estimated at £1 per head. Farmers consider they have a right to demand that the landing of all live animals should be prohibited from any countries not known to be free from contagious disease. Breeding of cattle and sheep has been very much discouraged by fear of disease. If free from contagious diseases, there is no doubt that very much more meat would be produced. The effect of disease had been to limit the production of the best quality of meat, and on this point our Assistant Commissioner had recorded the condition of things in America, expressing the opinion that the demand for the best quality of meat was as large there, and was increasing as largely as in this country, and that unless the farmer exerted himself he would be left behind in the competition. If this were so, it pointed very clearly to the necessity for encouragement being given to the farmer by the removal of any obstacle which could be reasonably removed to the conduct of his business. He was quite aware of what the difficulties of the Government might be in dealing with such a question; but whether it was the case of the farmer or the trader, the course of his trade should not be interfered with in any way. If it could be proved at all, as he thought the noble Duke had proved, that the consumer's interest lay in the protection of our own cattle from disease, it pointed to the desirability of prohibiting the importation of live cattle from infected districts; but if the Government did not see their way to go as far as that, he certainly thought that the law relating to cattle disease might advantageously be strengthened; and if he was asked in what way, he would say that it would be desirable to bring about more united action among the local authorities, urban and rural. It was not for him to say how that was to be done. He knew it was a very difficult task; but he felt sure that it was quite impossible to administer the law properly while they had one authority trying to close the market, and another authority, equally strong, trying to open it. All markets should be licensed, and if the disciplinary order of the market was not thoroughly well maintained, it might be a question whether the Privy Council should not close it for some time. Licences also might be given to inspectors, drovers, salesmen, and others. Having thought over the matter some time, it appeared to him that the whole question resolved itself under three heads. The central authority, although working with the most praiseworthy energy, was powerless, under all circumstances, to prevent the introduction and spread of infection. Secondly, the rapid transit of stock and their conveyance by railway had led to the transmission of infection from one centre to many sub-centres in a few hours; and, thirdly, there was a conflict of practice between local authorities which ought to be remedied. He had only one more remark to make, and that was in reference to an opening remark by the noble Duke. As a member of the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society of long standing, he certainly very much regretted that it was not within the power of the Prime Minister to receive a deputation on the matter from the Society. The noble Lord the Lord President of the Council was, no doubt, aware that for many years the Privy Council and the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society had been in constant communication in reference to the subject of cattle disease; and he was quite confident that the action taken by the Society, supported as it was by the energy and accuracy of their secretary, Mr. Jenkins, was a very great assistance to the Privy Council, and he repeated that he much regretted they could not have the honour of being received in deputation by the Prime Minister.

THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORD

desired to say only a few words in corroboration of what had fallen from the noble Duke and the noble Lord who had just sat down. He had the misfortune to live in one of the Midland counties, a part of England that had suffered more than any other from the agricultural disasters of the last seven years. The tenant farmers found that their only hope of recovering from those disasters was in breeding much more stock; but they declared that this could not be done unless the foot-and-mouth disease was averted from their homesteads; and although no inconvenience could exceed that of having the markets interrupted as they had been by the existing regulations with regard to the importation of disease from America, they did not see why, if the disease could be prevented from coming from France, it could not equally be prevented from coming from America. There was a very strong feeling among farmers that they, as a body, were and had been neglected by Parliament; and, therefore, he did feel it his duty to press, both upon Her Majesty's Government and on all sides of the House, the necessity of doing everything they possibly could for the farming interest. He hoped the Government would take up the question so well brought forward by the noble Duke, and that they would do their very best to extirpate foot-and-mouth disease, by putting into effect the proposals made by the noble Duke.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

My Lords, I wish, in the first place, to recognize the grave importance of this question of cattle disease to the agricultural interest; and, in the next place, I wish to thank the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) for the language he has used with respect to the action of the Council, since he left it, in the administration of the Act of 1878, under the direction of Lord Silencer first and afterwards of myself; and also for the language he used as to the able and ex- perienced gentlemen who assist with their invaluable services the head of that Department. My Lords, this question of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease is a matter of no small difficulty. I say this more on behalf of the permanent officers of the Department than on my own; but it is a matter of far greater difficulty, and requiring more constant exercise of discretion and responsibility—conflicting responsibilities very often—than the task of dealing with the more grave and fatal diseases of cattle. In the case of those diseases, with which I hope and trust we shall have no need to deal, the danger is so great that powers of the most stringent kind are intrusted to the Government; but in the case of this disease—the foot-and-mouth disease—serious as its consequences are, the danger is so much less, the actual loss of animals is so trifling, and the impossibility of using those extreme powers is so clear, that the ordinary daily dealing with this disease under the powers of the Act is one of no small difficulty and requiring no little discretion. However, the noble Duke, as I understand him, contends in fact, although he was cautious in all his statements, that the Act of 1878, as administered both by himself and by his Successors, has now been proved a failure, so far as the exclusion of foreign contagion is concerned. My Lords, the Act of 1878 has not stamped out the disease; indeed, I do not know whether it was expected that it would succeed to that extent. Certainly a great many people did not believe it; and I know that in this House, when that Bill was under discussion, that opinion was strongly expressed even by those who were very anxious that the Bill should pass. The noble Duke will remember that Lord Ripon, while objecting to the first form of the Bill and its extreme rigour, afterwards modified in the other House, said he did not believe it would be possible actually to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease under the powers of the Bill, nor that it was desirable to use such extreme powers as alone could have the effect of stamping out the disease. My Lords, what has happened since that time? As the noble Duke said, in the course of the year 1880 the disease had dwindled almost to nothing; but in September of that year it appeared again, and there is every reason to think that the noble Duke is right in the cause he assigned, and that it was introduced by a cargo of French animals. Another theory was, indeed, broached in "another place," and that was that the cause was to be found in the return of Mr. Gladstone to Office; but I believe the arrival of the French cow at Deptford has been generally recognized as the cause. Since then the noble Duke says that foot-and-mouth disease has existed, more or less, in this country. There has, no doubt, been far too much of it; but one question we have to consider is, how much of it has there been, or how much is there likely to be? I am far, indeed, from wishing to underrate the gravity of the matter, and I know the great amount of inconvenience which is occasioned by the restrictions to which farmers and dealers are subjected, and how considerable is the loss, and, of course, in many individual cases, how grave and serious the loss is; but what we have to ascertain, with a view to solving the noble Duke's question of a remedy, is the amount, upon the whole, of national loss and evil caused by the existence of this foot-and-mouth disease. My Lords, I will ask you for a moment to consider the figures, and I take the outbreaks that have occurred upon particular farms and premises in the last few years. In 1881 the number of outbreaks on farms and premises was 4,833, and the number of animals attacked with the disease 183,000. In 1882 there were 1,970 outbreaks, and 37,950 animals attacked. My Lords, those are the figures; but, to consider their importance as a national question, one must first remember the proportion between the 37,000 animals attacked with foot-and-mouth disease and the total stock of animals in this country, which amounts to a larger number of millions. In the next place, I should like your Lordships to compare these numbers with what would be possible, as it has before happened, supposing we did not enjoy the protection of the Act of 1878, an Act which I consider of great importance, and to which its author, the noble Duke, has hardly done full justice to-night. In 1871, before the passing of that Act, and when no such protection practically existed, the number of outbreaks amounted to 52,164, and the number of animals attacked to 691,565. That is a comparison of what happened before we had the benefit of the Act of 1878 with what has taken place since. Let me compare with this the loss caused by a very different disorder, the fluke in sheep. What was the loss in sheep during the last two years? It has been enormous, amounting to 10 per cent upon the whole stock in the country, something like 3,000,000. I only make the comparison for the purpose of giving a clear idea of the extent and amount of the national loss caused by the existence of foot-and-mouth disease. Last summer there was very little of it. I remember a letter from Mr. C. S. Read, read by my right hon. Friend Mr. Mundella, in the House of Commons, on the subject—Mr. Read belongs to a county which suffered most of all—and that letter stated that at the time ho was writing the flocks and herds of this country were freer from disease than at any time during the last 20 years; and, although that statement was not quite accurate, it was not far from it. Towards the end of the year, however, there was a fresh outbreak—that is to say, the amount of disease in some parts of the country increased. These is no reason to attribute that increase to any foreign importation; and, although it is impossible to say that foot-and-mouth disease may not have made its way into the country from abroad, there is no proof whatever that such was the case. The disease increased at the end of the year, and at the beginning of the present year the weekly number of outbreaks became very high—that is, what we now consider very high—namely, 200 or 300 a-week during February and March. Now we have got them down to 100, under the influence of those restrictions which the Privy Council have imposed upon those engaged in the cattle trade of this country. Now, I do not underrate the inconvenience of those restrictions; but it is an entire mistake to suppose that the country gains nothing from them; on the contrary, much is gained, although the disease is not completely stamped out. Let me, again, take some statistics from 1871. Instead of there being 200 or 300 outbreaks, which we now complain of having to endure, we had then 3,000 or 4,000 a-week, and the number of animals attacked amounted to between 40,000 and 50,000 per week, so that the number of animals attacked in one week was greater than the whole number attacked in 1882. That is a comparison quite worth while taking notice of. As I said just now, I think the noble Duke hardly does justice to the effects of an Act for which he himself is responsible, and for which he deserves great credit. I contend that that Act has been a great success; it has almost extinguished pleuro-pneumonia; and, although it has not extinguished, it has enormously diminished the ravages of foot-and-mouth disease; and I should like, in justice to the noble Duke, to state that all the prophecies indulged in with regard to the interference the rule of slaughtering at the ports would occasion in the foreign meat trade have been entirely disproved. The system of slaughtering at the ports has, in that respect, been a complete success, as the figures I will place before your Lordships will show. The number of foreign animals in the two Metropolitan markets, the free live stock market at Islington, and the foreign animals' wharf for slaughter at Deptford, in 1878, was 126,000, of which more than half came to the free market alive. In 1882, 157,000 animals came altogether, of which only 28,000 came to Islington, the remainder being slaughtered at Deptford. The Act, therefore, in that respect has been successful; but still the evil exists, although it exists in a limited form, and the question is, what is the remedy? The noble Duke, as I understand, recommends as a remedy the rule of prohibiting the importation of any foreign live animals into this country. That is, at all events, the recommendation of the Royal Agricultural Commission. The Report of the Royal Agricultural Commission says— That the landing of foreign live animals should not he permitted from any countries as to which the Privy Council are not satisfied that they are perfectly free from contagious disease. Well, that amounts very nearly to a prohibition of all live animals. The loss involved at the present time in such a regulation would be a loss of no less than 1,500,000 animals, valued at something like £9,000,000. The noble Duke himself pointed out in 1878 the gravity of such a loss, and we have no reason to suppose the gravity less now; on the contrary, it would be greater, for the value of the animals, and the demand for meat, has increased. The noble Duke insists that the remedy is to be found in the dead meat trade. That would be a very desirable trade to encourage, not only because the danger of infection would be lessened, but on account of the diminution in loss of animals while on their way to this country. But we have no reason to believe that our prohibition would convert the Continental trade in live animals into a dead meat trade—indeed, experience points the other way. And, at all events, the only way in which it would be possible to establish it in the way the noble Duke suggests would be by showing our firm determination to prohibit permanently the importation of live stock; and, to render such a sacrifice worth making, it ought to be shown to be morally impossible for the disease to enter this country under those circumstances. The reason why we should never have the certainty of safety is because of the daily communication with the Continent. Besides this, the daily communications between this country and thousands of farms and dairies abroad are enormous, so that there are a hundred ways in which infection could still be introduced. And I need not say that if the dead meat trade should spring up, as it is hoped it would, as the only compensation for the loss of the live meat trade, such dangers would be enormously increased. Men would be engaged at the port of export in handling and slaughtering diseased animals on one day, and might be in the London market on the next. It is not to be forgotten that the foot-and-mouth disease was first introduced into this country in 1839, at a time when an absolute prohibition of foreign animals prevailed and had prevailed for years before. Therefore, under the old system we did not enjoy anything like perfect immunity from infection. The noble Duke says that the Privy Council must use the powers conferred on them to a far greater extent than they have hitherto done; and he has referred to the Order recently issued under my direction as to the prohibition of importing from Trance. I say simply that I have used the discretionary powers conferred on the Privy Council by the Act of 1878. The same thing was done before with beneficial results by Lord Spencer in the case of Spain and Portugal. When the noble Duke draws a comparison with the United States, I would point out that the case is really different. No doubt there was lately an infected cargo which arrived from the United States. But the fact is, there is very little foot-and-mouth disease in the United States, and some say there is none at all. But the noble Duke must remember that two or three animals put on board would have time to infect the whole cargo before its arrival in Liverpool. Then the noble Duke says we ought to have used what he assumes to be the powers of the Act of 1878 for the purpose of a general prohibition of foreign live animals. That subject has been very carefully considered, and I am satisfied that the Privy Council would not be justified in using the powers of the Act of 1878 for that kind of wholesale prohibition. We do not believe that is the spirit of the Act or its intention. If we were to adopt the advice of the noble Duke we should entirely do away with the ordinary general rule of the Act and confine ourselves to the exceptions. We have the highest legal authority for saying that such a course is not within the spirit of the Act. If the advice of the noble Duke wore to be acted on, the Privy Council could only act with the assistance of fresh legislation. I am bound to say that the Government are not prepared to introduce legislation for that purpose. I can only say that the obligation rests upon myself and the Privy Council of using all the powers we possess under the Act for the purpose of reducing foot-and-mouth disease to the narrowest limit. I need not assure the House that for that purpose all such powers shall be used. I should like, however, to point out that it is of the last importance that we should have the active co-operation of the local authorities throughout the country. They can do far more than the central authority in many cases, especially in dealing with individual outbreaks when the disease first shows itself. If each outbreak could only be isolated there could be no doubt that that mode of prevention was the most effective and the least obnoxious. The local authority has not hitherto had the power under the Act of declaring an infected area, and very considerable delay and circumlocution has often occurred before the necessary definition of an infected area has been obtained, and in the meantime any movement of animals of a most mischievous character may take place, and has taken place. I hope to remedy that defect by an Order which is now framed, and which will provide that from the moment the Inspector has declared an infected place, that declaration in itself shall create what the Order will call an infected circle round that place of about half-a-mile radius, so that from the moment that infected place has been declared by the Inspector, no movement can take place out of or into that district, at all events. Of course, that will be a temporary matter, because as soon as possible the local authority will in the ordinary way recommend the proper boundary which the Order in Council will determine, and in that manner dangerous movement will be prevented. Matters have been complicated by the fact that foot-and-mouth disease has found its way into Ireland, where the disease has been combatted with great energy by Lord Spencer and the Irish Privy Council, and it is hoped that the evil will be got over; but it has added to our danger. In Scotland, where unluckily they have got foot-and-mouth disease of late, coming, I believe, from Ireland, the local authorities have taken such vigorous measures that they have reduced the number of cases to almost nothing, and with every prospect that in a very short time the whole of Scotland will be again free from the disease. Some English local authorities have acted as efficiently, and what has been done by some of those authorities could be done as effectually by all. I have been looking very carefully indeed into not only the regulations, but the practices at the foreign animals' wharves, with the view of increasing as much as possible the stringency of the rules there and their effect in keeping the disease within those wharves. And with respect to the prohibitions in specified cases of the importation of foreign animals—as to which I shall be glad that the Papers moved for by the noble Duke should be seen by your Lordships—we shall be most ready to use the powers to the utmost that we believe we possess, not to the extent the noble Duke recommends, but in every case in which we think, within the powers of the Act, they can be usefully exercised. As to the importation from specified foreign countries, as in other matters, I can only say that under a strong sense of responsibility no effort shall be wanting on our part to deal with this most troublesome and mischievous disease, in the repression of which the agricultural classes of this country are so deeply and naturally interested.

LORD DENMAN

said, he did not understand that the Royal Agricultural Society wished to exclude animals imported from any countries but those infected with foot-and-mouth disease. He believed that declarations of soundness might accompany all animals imported; and expressed a hope that mutual facilities would be afforded by foreign nations and by the authorities in this country to check that disease. It was a great loss to an importer when his animals had to be slaughtered. In East Lothian the flock of an eminent breeder, some of whose rams were worth more than £20, were attacked. He was glad to hear an intimation from the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council, that infected areas would be defined by distance rather than by so large a space as a Petty Sessional Division, when they were the districts of a local authority; and it was to the interest of every country to check this disease.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

, in reply, said, he was afraid that the agricultural community would read with dismay the remarks of the noble Lord the President of the Council. They certainly thought that the disease was of far greater gravity than the noble Lord seemed to admit. The noble Lord had, he thought, said that the actual losses from it were trifling. [Lord CARLINGFORD expressed dissent.] One of the paragraphs in the Report of the Commission over which he had the honour of presiding was to the effect that the evidence as to the discouragement to breeders of cattle and sheep in Great Britain, and the consequent diminution of the supply of meat, which arose from the extensive prevalence of disease in this country, appeared to them to be conclusive. It was owing to the fact that the farmers of this country were not satisfied that their flocks and herds would be free from disease, that they did not enter into breeding with the spirit and energy they otherwise would exhibit. He was glad to have it now admitted that the late Government had done something for the farmers, because that had been denied by some who were high in Office. The noble Lord the President of the Council said that the Act which was passed through Parliament by the late Government had been a complete success. It might, therefore, be assumed that on that occasion they had acted in the interest of the farmers. If the noble Lord thought he had not the necessary powers, and that they ought to be secure from having disease imported into this country, ho ought to apply to Parliament and ask it to legislate for the purpose. The noble Lord told their Lordships that they could not have a perfect immunity from disease. That might be so; but of one thing lie felt perfectly sure—namely, that if animals were slaughtered at the ports of embarkation they would minimize the risk to the smallest possible amount. It seemed to him that they must take more stringent measures than they had hitherto taken. The agricultural body looked with the greatest interest to the remarks of the Lord President; they would hope that by some means or other they would be no longer subject to that disease, which he could assure the noble Lord was one of the greatest inconveniences to all who were engaged in agriculture.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)

said, he should be sorry to be misunderstood. He did not intend to treat this question or the loss to agriculturists as a trifling one. On the contrary, he endeavoured to treat it as a very serious matter, and his object was to arrive at some estimate of the total national loss and mischief for the purpose of comparing it with the alternative which lay before them in the exclusion of a very large amount of their food supply.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he wished to correct what seemed to be an impression of the noble Duke. The Lord President had not said that there was not ample power under the Act to exclude importation from Germany or the United States, as he had made an Order with reference to France. All that his noble Friend had said was that he could not make a sweeping universal Order to exclude permanently importation from all countries, subject to particular exceptions of countries which were supposed to be perfectly secure and free from disease. That might, or might not, be within the letter, but it certainly was not within the spirit of the Act. To pass a universal Order in Council, either specifying by name all the countries of the world, or excepting some particular country, or embracing in more general terms every country, if it were not founded on particular reasons applicable to each country, would be legislation and not administration of the law.

Motion agreed to.