RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 14 March 1876 vol 227 cc2017-73

MR. CLARE READ

, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act Committee, 1873, and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, the general orders and regulations for the stoppage of disease should cease to be varying or permissive, and should be uniform throughout Great Britain and Ireland, said, it would be in the recollection of those hon. Members who had a seat in the House during the last Parliament, that in the year 1873 he moved for a Committee, and that by the courtesy and support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that Committee was granted. He (Mr. Bead) had nothing to do with the nomination of that Committee. As usual, it was appointed by the Whips on both sides of the House, and he found himself in rather a hopeless minority. But there were two very important Resolutions which were passed unanimously by that Committee. There were only two, and those were to his mind of great moment. They were, first— That an endeavour should be made to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia by the slaughter of diseased cattle, and that the owners should be compensated for their loss, and the other was— That the orders for the stopping of disease should cease to be varying and permissive, and should be uniform throughout Great Britain and Ireland. Now, no sooner was the Report of that Committee published, than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford issued an order for the slaughtering of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia in Great Britain, and the compensation of the owners of half their value. He had said, on a previous occasion, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had acted in a "great hurry." He had since been given to understand that that expression had caused pain to the right hon. Gentleman. This being so he desired to withdraw those words, and he would say instead the order was issued without full consideration. There were four recommendations upon this point made by the Committee; but of these the right hon. Gentleman adopted only one. One recommendation was that the slaughtering should be universal; but as would be seen Ireland was omitted from the order. The next was that compensation should be extended to three-fourths of the loss. The other was that animals should be isolated for two months instead of one month. Well, he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying that it was his intention to remedy these deficiencies if he had remained in office. But shortly afterwards that Government went out and the present Ministry assumed power, and great was the delight of the English farmers when they knew that the Duke of Richmond was to be President of the Council. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, very great was the delight of the farmers, because they knew his Grace was a practical agriculturist, a man of unusual good sound common sense, and a politician of a high order. But things seemed to go on in the same way after the change of Ministry. In the month of May it was considered necessary that a friendly deputation should wait upon his Grace and impress upon him the necessity of carrying out some of the recommendations of the Committee. He (Mr. Read) made one of that deputation, and urged upon his Grace that the slaughter for pleuro-pneumonia should be. extended to Ireland, or if that could not be done, that the order in force in Great Britain should be rescinded. They were told, however, that it was almost impossible to do what they wished. There was the spectre of the emaciated Irish cow, which seemed to frighten the' Council and was held up to frighten them. They, however did not see the spectre in that light. The result was that constant Petitions were sent up to the Privy Council asking them to ex-tend the order or to rescind it. Amongst others, two were sent from the quarter sessions in Norfolk, and an eminent veterinary surgeon, Mr. William Chambers, from the Privy Council at Dublin, was appointed to investigate the matter. He made a Report which went to show that their complaint had not been groundless. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had asked in the House for Mr. Chambers Report, and he was told that he could not have it unless he also wished to order a Report which had been made by the Chief of the Dublin Veterinary Department. In the Report referred to, Professor Ferguson said there was really no pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland of any consequence, and that as regarded the disease in Norfolk, it was engendered in consequence of cattle being housed in the winter, and kept in boxes and strawyards. Now, Professor Ferguson, he believed, held the opinion that pleuro-pneumonia originated spontaneously, and he had also advised that when foot-and-mouth disease broke out in a herd that was just ready for market, the best thing to do was to keep the animals at home that were actually diseased, and send the others to the next market. And what did that mean but most probably sending them to England? On the first day of the Session, he (Mr. Clare Read) laid upon the Table of the House a Resolution, which was to the effect that this slaughtering order should be extended to Ireland or rescinded. A very few days after that Notice was put upon the Paper, the Duke of Richmond, in "anotherplace," stated that the request would be granted. He (Mr. Read) therefore had to withdraw that Resolution and he did it with a great deal of pleasure, and he was only sorry that it took two years to produce such an effect upon his Grace. The Government sought to accomplish this with a small Bill of 12 clauses, which one would have thought could have passed in March, 1874, as well as in March, 1876. He (Mr. Read) had then to alter the Motion which stood in his name, and it was to the effect that there should be uniformity of regulations throughout the United Kingdom. There were three sorts of orders issued by the Privy Council, and he only wished to interfere with one. As far as regarded their local and foreign orders, he had no desire to say anything against them at the present moment, and if they wanted to issue special orders he should be very glad to trust them with even greater powers. If, for instance, a new disease should break out in "Wiltshire—and it was within the bounds of possibility for such a thing to take place—they should have powers to issue stringent orders for the stoppage of that disease; and, again, if a cattle plague were to be introduced into Hull, they should have powers to issue an order stopping fairs and markets in the East Riding of Yorkshire, without applying to the whole of the county. They were told that this was the Irish difficulty again, that somehow always cropped up, but here it seemed to be more imaginary than real. The Irish Cattle Defence Association had passed the following resolution:— That it is most desirable that the regulations with regard to contagious diseases in animals should he uniform in Great Britain and Ireland. He presumed, therefore, that this matter would not be looked upon as an Irish difficulty, and that his Motion would have the support of the Irish Members opposite. His opinion would always be considered that of a narrow-minded farmer, and that he was peculiarly prejudiced in this matter: he would, therefore, refrain from giving his own views, but would quote those of wider and greater authority. A few days ago an eminent veterinary surgeon connected with the Royal Engineers, Mr. Fleming, read at the Society of Arts a most exhaustive paper upon contagious diseases amongst cattle, and this was what he said— We require a more energetic, responsible, enlightened, and efficient central administration. There should he no permissive legislation for the control of contagious diseases by local authorities, who often have no interest in their exclusion and suppression, but more frequently have every inducement to wink at their existence, in order that they may obtain credit for keeping down county rates and filling their markets. Whatever measures may be necessary should be universally applied throughout Great Britain and Ireland, and, if possible, with more vigour to those parts which export. What had the Privy Council done to carry out this recommendation of the Committee of 1873? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford at once adopted the recommendations and rescinded the orders then in force; but the Duke of Richmond, in 1874, re-enacted them, because considerable pressure was put upon him by owners of stock. The reason that was given in the Report of the Veterinary Department was, he thought, singularly illogical. It was said that it was in consequence of the general prevalence of the disease that they issued the orders. It might be useful on the first outbreak of a conflagration to bring out a garden engine, or to use it to smother the dying embers; but it would be powerless when the fire was at its height. So when the whole country was reeking with infection, and when there were not only thousands, but tens of thousands of local outbreaks, it was absolutely ridiculous to suppose that these permissive orders would have the effect of stamping out the disease. When asked by the Monmouthshire Chamber of Agriculture to make some more stringent regulations, the answer given by the Privy Council was in entire forgetfulness of the fact that they had disregarded the recommendations referred to, and that they had re-enacted orders that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had rescinded. He would quote from a scientific record, which said the policy of the Veterinary Department "was vacillating, timid, half-hearted, timeserving, and contradictory," and he might add that he endorsed that view. Further, he would add that the Veterinary Department seemed to imagine that they could extirpate disease as easily as the Turnpike Act Continuance Committee could abolish a turnpike trust. Speaking of the Act of 1869, Mr. James Howard, in a sound and most useful practical paper read last month at the Farmers' Club, said— Its great defect was that it left too much power in the hands of the Privy Council Department. At all events, I am sure you will concur with me that the powers given under the Act have not been as wisely used as they might have been, or as Parliament had a right to expect. Mr. Howard continued thus— The present Government would seem to have left themselves completely in the hands of their intractable and incompetent permanent officials. Now, in the Committee they had strong evidence from the officials of the Department that they had at least one article of faith, which was faith in inspection;—inspection to discover diseases which everybody admitted had an uncertain period of incubation, varying from a few days to several months. On this matter, Mr. Fleming said— I have no faith in port inspection for the detection of contagious diseases, and am convinced that it is a fallacy. It is impossible for any Inspector to detect diseases in a latent form, or to discover if apparently healthy animals have herded with those which were sick; and unless he can do this, in a very many instances his services must be worse than useless. Since the Report of the Committee it might be asked what had the Veterinary Department done to enlighten them and to stop the spread of the disease? Why, in their last Report they published an experiment made outside the office by a veterinary surgeon, not an official, upon inoculation for pleuro-pneumonia. He fancied he had read that months previously in a veterinary journal. The Professor came to the remarkable conclusion that inoculation was "dubious," and so he thought were a great many things that were issued from that Department. In a special Order issued from the Department the authorities throughout the kingdom were told how they might detect the incubation of the disease by the application of the thermometer. But in 1865 Professor Gamgee had written to The Times making this matter quite clear. Well, if this was all they could tell them 10 years after that letter had appeared in The Times on the subject, he might answer by saying it was impracticable, for the reason that whatever they might be able to do in a London dairy where the cows were as docile as pet lambs, it would be more difficult to carry out this scientific examination under other circumstances. He would like to see some Members of the Council go into a marsh where there were a lot of wild Irish cattle, or even into a straw yard with some lively shorthorns, to apply this scientific test. He admitted that they had been fairly successful in keeping out the cattle plague, and he mentioned it with much pleasure. From 1842, when foreign cattle were first admitted into the country, up to 1865, they had had only one outbreak, and since then—within the last 10 years—they had had only one other visitation. In 1865 there was a Cattle Plague Commission appointed. It was not selected with any idea of balancing parties, but seemed to be chosen for the purpose of ascertaining truth. There were on that Committee the right hon. Members for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) and Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), and a large number of scientific men, well versed in the practice of medicine and the pathology of diseases. And he could well remember the storm of indignation with which their first Report was received. Some people called the Commissioners barbarous and unscientific, and contended that the disease had originated from the filth and the want of sanitary precautions in the London cow-houses. The cattle plague was stamped out by listening to the recommendations, pleuro-pneumonia was almost got rid of, and for 18 months they exterminated foot-and-mouth disease—it was not until foreign sheep were turned out of the Metropolitan Market suffering from that malady that there was a return of it in the country. The second Report of the Commission was one which, if it had been attended to at the time, would, he was convinced, have led to their now having a clean bill of health. The second Report was that— Mere inspection is an imperfect defence. There is, in fact, but one class of precautions likely to be effectual: to restrict importations absolutely to a certain number of ports, to cause all fat cattle to be slaughtered there, and all store cattle to undergo a period of quarantine. This was not a resolution passed by a Chamber of Agriculture or a Farmers' Club, but by the Royal Commissioners, the great body of whom were scientific and learned men. The Select Committee of 1873 learned from the evidence of officials that they depended very much for their information as to cattle diseases in other countries upon official correspondence. With regard to cattle plague this was easy enough, because as any one who read the foreign newspapers would know that the regulations in different districts were published, but let them come nearer home and see what information the Veterinary Department received with regard to these two diseases—pleuro-pneumonia and the foot-and-mouth. Take Belgium and Holland. Everyone but the Privy Council knew that the foot-and-mouth disease was rampant in those countries during the year 1874—not a word of this reached the Department, and yet we had imported 342 cases from Belgium and 418 from Holland. Pleuro-pneumonia was rife in the latter country, and there were annually no fewer than from 2,000 to 6,000 cases in 1,500,000 head of cattle. Belgium and Holland were only separated by a road or a ditch, and yet no Report was furnished to this country as to any pleuro-pneumonia existing in Belgium. Germany was in a better position and was well informed, and had prohibited cattle imported from Holland, Belgium, and Luxemburg. What he wanted to ask the House was this—was it fair, was it right to the agriculturists of the kingdom, that if they were going to make a costly experiment—a harassing experiment also he should call it, for the extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia—was it just to them to neglect to take reasonable precautions against the re-introduction of the disease into the country? What were the precautions and the protection now adopted? Simply this; a detention of 12 hours to find out a disease that veterinary surgeons told them was in incubation from three weeks to two months. It was impossible, therefore, that the disease could be detected in the time allowed, except by the merest accident. He had moved in the Committee, that if this experiment was to be tried, all those countries where pleuro-pneu-monia was in existence should be scheduled; but he was defeated by a majority of one. If necessary, in the ease of Dutch cows, he considered that they should be quarantined 28 days, and inoculated. The best London dairies always adopted that plan, they never thought of taking them into the stalls without they had been quarantined and inoculated. Therefore, he would say, it would be no hardship if this course he advocated were made general and compulsory. Then with regard to store stock, it was well known that very few stores found their way into this country, unless they were starved out on the Continent. On the Committee they had before them some evidence as to the percentage of the foreign supply. Some years ago he made a sort of random shot—a rough guess that it was not more than 5 per cent. The Veterinary Department, in 1871, made a calculation that brought it to 14½ per cent, but he saw that last year they had reduced it to 10 per cent; but he much preferred the more accurate calculation made by Mr. John Algernon Clarke. That gentleman had said that the percentage of live meat introduced into the country was 5 per cent, that of dead meat 12 per cent, and the home production of meat 83 per cent. And yet for the sake of this 5 per cent, the 83 per cent that was produced at home was constantly in danger. The supply of foreign cattle was mainly to London, and he would ask the House to consider what were the regulations in force in the metropolis. When the Deptford Market was opened, the tolls at Islington were doubled. Deptford, though a most excellent market, had no railroad accommodation, and it must be almost impossible that the cattle slaughtered there could be sent into the provinces and manufacturing towns without some extra cost and considerable delay. And then with regard to the foreign trade; most people knew what the regulations were—that if one animal from an unscheduled country happened to be diseased, the whole of that cargo was to be sent to Deptford Market, so that when the cattle had been landed on the North side of the river, and one was found diseased, the whole had to be re-shipped and sent to Deptford, and this was a matter of serious complaint. Mr. G. A. Robinson, who was a large dealer in cattle, and likewise a considerable shipowner, had said that in the case of even Spanish and Portuguese cattle it would be better if they went direct to Deptford. If any hon. Gentleman would go into the Metropolitan Market at Islington, any Monday, they would see whole lots of foreign stock which were there bought by butchers from Deptford. These cattle had been landed on the North side of the Thames, and were detained there 12 hours in most uncomfortable lairs. They then had to walk, or were sent by rail to the Metropolitan Market, and after being there some time, they were put into lairs, and taken back through the crowded streets of the metropolis to Deptford Market, within half-a-mile, in all probability, of the place where they were landed. With regard to the carriage of dead meat, it was very desirable, indeed, that every facility should be given for its extension, both on sanitary grounds and in the cause of humanity. If Aberdeen could furnish a supply at a distance of 540 miles, there was no part of England from which meat could not be sent to the metropolis; and he was happy to say the supply was increasing. During the cattle plague restrictions it was generally supposed that some of the Midland Counties would be starved; but they were never better supplied than at that time, and he had heard from Mr. Odams that from his wharf dead carcases were forwarded to Manchester at less cost than live animals. Once more he would quote Mr. Fleming— Animals fit for immediate slaughter should, if they must he carried alive to our shores, be killed at the port of debarkation. There need be little difficulty in this. No country in the world is better situated for the carrying out of such a proposal. With numerous excellent ports studded in most favourable situations all round our coasts, and railways traversing the country in every direction, there is no reason whatever why the present inconvenient, and only too often very cruel system, of conveying ship-exhausted and perhaps diseased cattle long distances in railway trucks all over the land, and at a great risk to home stock, should be continued. To abolish it should tend to cheapen flesh. from foreign sources, diminish the chances of introducing fresh supplies of contagion, and would certainly prove most humane and economical. The Bill which was passed last year gave new life to the slaughter-houses in London. Thirty years ago slaughter-houses were condemned by a Bill passed through Parliament by Sir Robert Peel; but a Committee, of which Dr. Brewer was Chairman, was appointed, and they reported that slaughter-houses were most healthy and pleasant places. The result was a Bill was passed for the continuance of these slaughter-houses, whilst in almost every other country, and in some of our provincial towns, they had been abolished. With regard to the regulations for the extinction of pleuro-pneu-nomia, they were not in the first place yet extended to Ireland, though they were to be shortly. Then the isolation of suspected stock was not increased to two months as the Committee had recommended. Further, the compensation for slaughter, which was one-half of the full value, had not been extended to three-quarters of the loss, as the Committee had stated should be the case. With regard to this he might say that some people might contend that three-fourths was too much, but considering that the regulations would be more stringent, and that the cattle would be isolated for two months instead of one, he thought they would find that the compensation would not be too heavy. They should not only pay the absolute loss, but should offer inducements to stockowners to endeavour to give the earliest notice of the outbreak, and so put a stop to disease. He thought another inducement would be to allow the salvage of some of the best beasts slaughtered. A man should be allowed to make as much as he could out of a good beast, and the meat was not unwholesome in the slightest degree during the first stages of pleuro-pneumonia. The disease was then nothing more nor less than inflammation of the lungs, and did not extend to any other portion of the bullock. When the foot-and-mouth disease became much advanced—and this was frequently the case with cattle slaughtered in London—it was believed the condition of the meat to be worse than pleuro-pneumonia if the animal was at once killed. With regard to the compensation and salvage, he would give a few statistics from his own county—namely, Norfolk. In 1874 there were 892 cases of pleuro-pneumonia, and the compensation paid was £4,838, whilst the salvage amounted to £6,675. In 1875 the number of cases was 446, the compensation amounted to £2,282, and the salvage to £3,100. This gave a total amount of salvage of close upon £10,000. They had taken the precaution to have the meat thoroughly examined by gentlemen who were expert in the use of the microscope, by learned doctors and men who had great experience as sanitary Inspectors, and they all pronounced the meat to be perfectly sound and good. But as to the salvage, that he thought was a question which might be very well left to the local authorities because, in his opinion, it had nothing whatever to do with the spread of the disease. The veterinary Professors told us that as soon as the breath was out of a bullock all infection was stayed—therefore, he did not see the use of burying the carcase. The result of the one-sided experiment that they had tried for two years and nine months was not, on the whole, unsatisfactory—for we had admitted over 600,000 cattle from Ireland, where the experiment had not been tried, in 1874—the number affected was 7,740, and last year was 5,860. The Privy Council seemed astonished at a rise of nearly 1,000 in the number between 1873 and 1874; but he was astonished that the number was not larger. Last year the number of cases reported in Ireland was stated to be 281, and he was almost positive that next year the cases in Dublin alone would amount to that number, and throughout Ireland to ten times as many. He had reason to believe that Phoenix Park was hardly ever free from this disease of pleuro-pneumonia. When he was there he noticed the quarantine ground, which they in Norfolk would call a pit-hole. The healthy animals pushed their noses through the fences and sniffed the breath of the sickly beasts, and no doubt in that way communicated the disease. Since this state of things had been noted by the Earl of Kimberley, a second wire fence had been put up some distance from the old fence, and he hoped that was but the beginning of better regulations in Ireland. The hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) had said that he was wrong in supposing that there was much pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland, and he believed there was very little in the South of that country. The cattle that went to the south-western portion of England were shipped from that part of Ireland; but he thought he was right in saying that in the South of Ireland, particularly in Cork, there had been many years ago a considerable outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia. It had been stayed by the slaughter of the diseased animals and the inocculation of those that herded with them; and he would submit to the authorities in Ireland that the excellent experiment which had proved so successful should be tried now. To show the ease with which the disease could be communicated to this country, he would point out that if a bullock in Ireland happened to have pleuro-pneumonia there and was knocked on the head very little injury would arise; but if they shipped it, and the animal was put on board with 300 or 400 others which had to breathe the vitiated air for a number of hours, it was possible that the one animal would spread the disease amongst at least 100 more, and consequently when they came to England the disease might break out in 20 or 30 different places. He had been told that he was an enemy to the Irish farmer. Well, he was not aware that he was, and he certainly did not wish to be. The Cattle Defence Association in Ireland he found had adopted his views entirely, and he would say more to prove that he was not an enemy to the Irish farmer—namely, that in Norfolk they imported from 30,000 to 50,000 store stock during the year, and if that importation was to cease, during the spring months a great many towns in the country would be half starved, and Norfolk farmers would be ruined. He only wished that Ireland might be treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom. If Ireland could show a clean bill of health and her cattle were inspected at the ports of embarkation, he would send them straight away to their destination in England. That was what he had said before, and he hoped Irish Members would not think that he was so wild and unjust to the interests of their country as some had endeavoured to make out. With regard to the difference in the spread of infection by animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia and those suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, it was said that pleuro-pneumonia could only be spread by actual contact, but with regard to the other disease that it could be conveyed by a great many means. It required only a short hatching time it was true; but with regard to the idea that it was an epidemic, was spontaneous and came in the air, he would say that he did not believe that it was any more indigenous to this country than cholera or yellow fever. It was a contagious disorder and therefore was a preventible one. Mr. Fleming said— These maladies are 'exotic' or foreign to our soil, and are, or have been, introduced from countries where they are more or less prevalent. They cannot be developed here by any combination of circumstances or conditions, but depend solely for their maintenance on their contagious properties. Then they would ask, "Why don't you try to prevent it?" He feared the country would not stand very stringent regulations. They ought to, and no doubt they would before very long; but at the present time they would not agree to a total stoppage of the fairs and markets, which was the only way to get rid of it. With the existing regulations they had now the maximum of restriction and the minimum of benefit. The hon. Member then proceeded to remark upon the difficulties in the way of putting an end to the disease, offered by the complicated rules, stating that he knew a gentleman who had a farm in three counties, and who had three separate and distinct rules for three different parts of that farm. He was certain these diseases did not originate here; but was also sure of this—that dirt and starvation and foul air, dirty trucks, bad lairs, and overcrowded steamers very much contributed to develop and spread these distempers. Take the case of an Irish fair. They went there and saw healthy, blooming cattle. The beasts stood there all day; were driven hurriedly to the station in the evening; had to stay there in the lairs or pens in all probability for hours, and then were put into trucks which were most likely very far from being clean, and they were then sent to Dublin, the lairs in which they were put being covered with slush and mud for the most part. And here he would say that the lairs ought to be surrounded with sheds properly pitched and carefully cleansed. The animals were then put in the hold of the ship, the ventilation of which must be, from the nature of the case, bad. They were landed at Liverpool, pushed into the train, and sent away, perhaps to Norfolk, and turned into a damp marsh before being brought to market next day. Now, in his opinion, cattle should be rested for the purpose of being fed and watered when landed in England. But on this proposition in the Committee he had only the support of the hon. Member for Leicestershire in what he thought a most humane and reasonable restriction. He was very glad to find that the recommendation of the Committee as to having travelling Inspectors had at last been adopted by the Government. So far these officials had performed their duties effectually and satisfactorily, though he was not aware they did them any better for having been officers in the Army. Proceedings had been instituted against the London and North Western Railway. They had had the General Steam Navigation Company before the Lord Mayor, who had inflicted a considerable fine upon them for a breach of the regulations. Two Companies in Ireland had been warned, and throughout the whole of England the lairs, trucks, and landing places were in a much better state, owing to the exertions of these officials, than they were a few months ago. He wished these travelling Inspectors would do something more. He should like them to come to our fairs and markets, and to see that the local authorities did their duty. If there was not something of this sort, he was afraid that no steps they had taken would be effectual towards the object they desired. The Duke of Richmond, speaking at Chichester, had said that one thing that militated against his (Mr. Bead's) views with respect to Ireland, was the fact that they had so few veterinary surgeons. He found that in England there were 1,700 cattle Inspectors, of which number only 370 were veterinary surgeons. Therefore, he thought if they were to offer greater inducements in Ireland than 10s. a-day, and prevent instant dismissal at the hands of the head of the Department, if he deemed himself offended, the state of things would be materially improved, and veterinary surgeons attracted to Ireland. The Duke of Richmond also mentioned with satisfaction the 400 local authorities in Great Britain, with which he had to deal. He (Mr. Read) contended that this was a great source of weakness. The Committee had thought so too, and had suggested that it was desirable that there should be a fusion of these local authorities in one county Board. He was not aware, however, that any steps had been taken to carry out that important recommendation. Now, with regard to what had been said by certain hon. Members—that the farmers in what they were asking sought to revive protection—he wished to repudiate it most entirely and distinctly, for they regarded protection as dead as Queen Anne. It was the cotton spinner rather than the clodhopper, who would be finding fault with free trade. The cotton spinners complained of an import duty of 5 per cent being put on their goods by the Legislature of India; but how would the Manchester manufacturer like to have a tax of 60 per cent—as in the case of the malt duty—put on their goods when they left their warehouses for home consumption? Why, the farmers were exposed to the competition of the whole world, and they cheerfully accepted it. They had now to contend with growing wheat against the furthermost parts of the earth; but they could hold their own in the production of meat, milk, and butter, and more than hold their own, if their stock were healthy. He would say with regard to Australian meat, that he never heard a farmer complain of that, unless perhaps when asked to eat it. He regarded with satisfaction the importation of American fresh meat, because unless they could go to a cheaper market than New York, that importation could not be a commercial success, and it did dispose of the nonsense that was talked about the transport of dead meat. The last quotation with which he would trouble the House had reference to this very matter, and the views were expressed by a sound Liberal, or, as he had been called, a "thundering Radical." Mr. Howard said— There are few subjects of which I can claim as much knowledge as Mr. Bright; but I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, who is both a political and personal friend, would be the first to acknowledge that upon agricultural and rural subjects, upon the views and the opinions of the agriculturists of England, I have a right to claim as full a knowledge, and even a more intimate acquaintance. I will, therefore, say I deeply regretted that Mr. Bright was tempted to write upon a subject of which he confessed he had but an imperfect knowledge. The other day I saw in a Manchester paper the report of a speech expressing similar views by another friend of mine, Mr. P. Rylands, which was far more offensive than Mr. Bright's letter, because more dogmatical and denunciative. I was sorry to find such a man descanting upon a topic he really knew nothing about. This was really no Party question. It belonged to no class, but was a subject of national interest. We were a meat eating nation, and be was perfectly sure of this—that although the loss from these diseases fell, in the first instance, on the farmer, it ultimately recoiled, with increased pressure, on the consumer. Unfortunately, however, when it hit the farmer it too frequently hit a needy man, and very often had the effect of ruining him; for in his case the stock were not so well kept as those of his richer neighbours, and consequently had less chance of withstanding the ravages of the disease; and he had less opportunity also to isolate and protect his stock. He was somewhat inclined to endorse the recommendation to the Duke of Richmond, which had been made that day, that our cattle dealers should take out a licence. He had not the slightest idea when he rose that he should be obliged to occupy so much of the time of the House, and he had to apologize for the great length to which his remarks had extended; but the matter was one of a very complicated nature, and it was also one of great importance. He might also say that he had always found that when a practical man made either a few observations or a great many to that House, they were attentively listened to, whatever the subject might be or however dull the remarks; and further, when a Member really and sincerely believed what he stated, the House was still more tolerant to him. He could also assert that he had, through evil and good report, maintained the opinions he had enunciated that day. What he wanted to see was an alteration in the uncertainty of the regulations on the subject of cattle diseases. No one could be expected to be wise or perhaps sane who talked so much about bullocks; and therefore he supposed that he was unwise, and it might be insane. But this idea applied with cumulative force to the Veterinary Department, and he had no hesitation in saying that the policy of that Department had been unscientific, unpractical, and opposed to reason and common sense. They must get rid of these half-and-half measures, and they must also do away with the idea of making any compromise with these fell diseases. They must insist on having throughout Great Britain and Ireland one treatment and one set of regulations; and as far as regarded the principle of restriction, they must try and prevent the local authorities of England and Scotland from carrying out the Orders in Council at their own whim and caprice. He trusted, therefore, that the House would back him up in this matter by adopting the Resolution he now had the honour to move.

MR. BEACH

, as representing the Central Chamber of Agriculture, rose to second the Motion, but after the exhaustive speech of his hon. Friend it would not be necessary for him to detain the House at any length on the subject. He was, however, anxious to express the deep sense of the injury which had been inflicted by the prevalence of these contagious diseases. It was almost impossible to realize how serious were the losses which owners of stock had sustained. This was not really a matter which affected the farmers only. Their interests and those of the consumers were identical in this matter. If the consumers relied on the amount of meat brought from abroad as the great source of supply in England it might be futile to ask for stringent regulations at home; but it had been demonstrated that the percentage received from abroad formed a small proportion of the meat consumed in England, and a great part of that was dead meat, and therefore unaffected by any disease. The farmers, therefore, were entitled to ask the consumers to join them in asking for measures which would materially increase the amount of the home supply. The various diseases to which cattle were subject had hitherto been dealt with separately. There was little or no difference of opinion as to meeting the cattle plague; but there were different ideas with respect to pleuro-pneumonia. That, however, had made great ravages, and in Hampshire it had even attacked the swine. It was at one time thought that the disease would not attack swine, but most serious losses had been lately sustained amongst those animals. He was glad to find that pleuro-pneumonia was about to be dealt with in Ireland, and be hoped the measures taken would have a salutary effect. But there was another disease from which the farmers suffered greatly—'the foot-and-mouth disease. It could not be called a fatal disease, because most of the animals recovered; but it did an infinity of harm—very much more than was generally supposed. There were cases in which the disease was not fully developed, and its existence was, if possible, concealed; and yet harm was done, because the conversion of cattle into fat stock was delayed for months. It also interfered greatly with the breeding of animals. This year, for instance, in Hampshire the lambing season had been remarkably bad, and the increase much less than the average, which was very much in consequence of the foot-and-mouth disease prevalent in that county. It was true the Committee of 1873 decided that the foot-and-mouth disease need not be dealt with in the same peremptory manner as pleuro-pneumonia; but they said it was impossible to extirpate it without stringent regulations, and they thought it unwise to enact them. That was scarcely a legitimate conclusion. Whatever regulations were adopted they ought to be uniformly enforced throughout the country, for the permissive system had proved a failure. If isolation and prohibition of movement should be adopted the local authorities must act on the same principle, and on the same lines. Inspection hitherto had not been entirely effective. A veterinary surgeon might come and inspect certain stock and find no disease in them. He most likely would be a competent man, but at some stages it was impossible to detect the disease. The stock might thus go to a fair with a certificate of freedom from disease, be purchased and taken home, and then the disease might break out. The seller would be irresponsible for the misfortune which had befallen the purchaser, who would have no remedy. The present regulations were harassing and vexatious without being effective. He hoped that uniform regulations might be drawn up, and that they would have the effect of checking the disease and increasing the meat supply of the country. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in the opinion of this House, the general orders and regulations for the stoppage of Contagious Diseases among Stock should cease to be varying or permissive, and should be uniform throughout Great Britain and Ireland. "—(Mr. Clare Read.)

MR. O'CONOR

said, that the hon. Member for South Norfolk, in the early portion of his speech, had claimed the votes of Irish Members in favour of his Resolution. Speaking individually as an Irish Member, he could assure his hon. Friend he had no objection to his Motion; and although he appeared there in the character of the Mover of an Amendment, that Amendment was in no way hostile to the spirit or substance of the Motion. Indeed, he thoroughly agreed with the Motion of his hon. Friend, and for three reasons. Firstly, because it was in accordance with one of the Resolutions of the Committee of 1873, of which he (Mr. O'Conor) was a Member; secondly, in consequence of its having been adopted by the Irish Cattle Defence Association; and thirdly, because it appeared to him to be consistent with common sense, and was, in itself, perfectly just and reasonable. It must be admitted that restrictions of any kind on any trade were things to be deprecated unless great good sprung from them. He did not think anyone would maintain that a system of restrictions was good which was left to the caprice of local authorities in every part of the country, and which, therefore, might be put in force in one district and not in another. As far, therefore, as the Resolution of his hon. Friend went, he was quite prepared to support it. He agreed to a very great extent with the remarks made by his hon. Friend, who, whenever he spoke out openly on matters of this kind, would always secure the attention of the House. There was one point, however, on which his hon. Friend had not spoken out very clearly to-night, and respecting which he was equally reticent during the discussion which took place in the Committee, and that was as to what he would really propose to do in regard to the foot-and-mouth disease. It was to that subject his (Mr. O'Conor's) Amendment chiefly referred. A great part of his hon. Friend's speech had been devoted to pleuro-pneumonia. On that subject his hon. Friend knew his own mind and had let no opportunity pass of expressing his opinion. During the whole of the Recess he had kept up an agitation upon that question, and many of them upon both sides of the House regretted that in consequence of that agitation his hon. Friend, instead of now sitting on the Treasury Bench, occupied a seat below the Gangway; but he might congratulate him on the fact that although as a Minister he was unable to accomplish what he desired, still by taking the steps of sacrificing himself and placing himself outside the pale of the privileged individuals, he had at last the satisfaction of seeing conceded that for which he had contended. There was a Bill pending before the House upon the question of the compulsory slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia. It would be out of Order for him to discuss the Bill now; but he hoped the Government would give early and ample opportunity for its discussion. His hon. Friend (Mr. Read) had succeeded in compelling the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Committee in regard to pleuro-pneumonia, and to-night he had gone a step further and asked the House to affirm a Resolution in favour of uniform regulation. He (Mr. O'Conor) would ask the House to go still one step further, and adopt the Resolutions of the Committee of 1873 in their entirety, as well as those referring to the foot-and-mouth disease, as those relating to pleuro-pneumonia. The Committee devoted great attention to that subject, and called a large number of witnesses from all parts of the Kingdom, and ultimately they came to this conclusion— They recommend that the Privy Council should cease to issue Orders for the checking of this disease, but that Section 57 of the English Act, which makes the exposure of animals affected with contagious diseases an offence, should continue to apply to the foot-and-mouth disease. Those were the Resolutions which in the terms of his Amendment he asked the House to affirm. The Resolutions of the Committee went on to say that— The owners should he relieved from the necessity of giving notice to the police of the existence of this disease among their stock. That latter clause was not in the original draft of the Committee's Report; it was introduced and supported by the hon. Member for South Norfolk, whose vote, therefore, he might fairly claim on this occasion. As, however, it would require an Act of Parliament to carry the latter clause into action, he was prepared to drop that, and to stand by the resolution which was carried unanimously, with only one dissentient, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), who merely dissented because the resolution did not go far enough. The resolutions of the Committee were adopted by the Government of the time, and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), who was at the time Vice President of the Council, took steps to carry them out. Orders were given for the slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia all over England, but it was found almost impossible to extend the Orders to Ireland. The resolution in regard to foot-and-mouth disease was at once put in force, and the Privy Council ceased to issue Orders respecting it. That state of things went on from 1873 until about the middle of 1874. In the interval there had been a change of Ministry, but there had been no alteration in regard to the state of the cattle diseases. When, shortly after, the new Government came into office, however, a different policy was adopted. The recommendations of the Committee were entirely set aside, and things went back to what they were before the appointment of the Committee. A debate on the subject, which did not receive so much attention as it deserved, was raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), and in the debate there was not a single allegation made to show that the carrying out of the policy recommended by the Committee had been injurious to the farmers of England. It was not pretended that the discontinuance of Orders on the subject had in any way increased the foot-and-mouth disease. Indeed, it appeared that the only reason for a change of policy was that there had been a change of Ministry. The Privy Council Orders were put in force again by the new Government, and what had been the result? Had they had the effect of checking the disease in any way? Why, last year there was as virulent an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease as they had ever before. They had those Orders in force during the great outbreak of 1872, and again during the great outbreak of 1875, and yet they failed in any way to stop it, and therefore they must be driven to the conclusion that those Orders were, to a great extent, useless. Those who had sat on the Committee in 1873 knew very well why the Orders were of little use. It was proved before the Committee to he the opinion of the most experienced persons belonging to the Veterinary Department, that nothing short of the most extreme measures could be successful in any way in checking the foot-and-mouth disease. That disease was so easily propagated—not only by the animals themselves, but by anybody or anything which had been in contact with them—that it was utterly hopeless to expect that those slight restrictions and exceptions here and there could in any way check the disease; in fact, it was evident that if they wished to put it down they must have recourse to far more extreme measures. Was his hon. Friend prepared or not to apply to the foot-and-mouth disease the severe restrictions which were applied to pleuro-pneumonia. He could understand Gentlemen coming forward and saying—"This foot-and-mouth disease is spreading so much that we are prepared to sacrifice anything to get rid of it once for all, and we are quite prepared to go under the pleuro-pneumonia regulation." That would be a fair and legitimate position to take up; but he did complain that Gentlemen who would not go to that extent were at the same time anxious to adopt means which the most scientific authorities declared to be useless and ineffectual, but what at the same time did serious injury to the trade. A great deal had been said about the Irish import trade, and he had frequently heard speeches in that House which sounded rather hostile to the trade. It had been often asserted that but for the Irish imports England would be free from disease, and that the Privy Council Order would be sufficient to stamp out the disease in England if it were not brought in from Ireland as fast as it was got rid of. In consequence of that assertion he was anxious, when the Committee sat in 1873, to see by evidence how far it could be borne out. He was astonished at the sort of evidence adduced. Farmers came forward and said—"We purchased a number of Irish cattle in the market; we took them home, and after a short interval the foot-and-mouth disease broke out among them." They seemed to argue that because the beasts came from Ireland the disease must have come from there also; but they could not tell the Committee how long the cattle had been in England, where they had stayed, or what sort of cattle they had been in contact with. It was quite probable that the foot-and-mouth disease had been existing in the neighbourhood to which the farmers took the cattle, and it was most natural to suppose, therefore, that the cattle sent away perfectly healthy from Ireland, and brought into this country, where the disease was already existing, caught the disease here and did not bring it with them. He did not mean to say that Ireland never had sent any foot-and-mouth disease into England. That would be absurd, because if they had any outbreak in either country it was sure to find its way into the other. The constant communication going on between the two countries rendered it perfectly impossible for them to prevent such a contagious disease from spreading to both. Perhaps England suffered more than Ireland, because she imported more cattle from Ireland than she sent there; but it did not follow that because England did not often send cattle to Ireland that she never sent any disease there, especially the foot-and-mouth disease, which might be conveyed not only by cattle, but by persons who had attended on them, and in many other ways. It was perfectly idle to suppose they could by any system, however strict, prevent the carrying of this disease from one country to the other. The conclusion to which they might justly come was summed up in a paragraph proposed to be added to the Report of the Committee of 1873, as follows— Very many complaints have been made to your Committee by English and Scotch farmers as to Irish imports having caused an increase of pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, but the Committee are of opinion that those complaints had been much exaggerated, and that the spread of the disease has been reciprocal. He thought that really conveyed the truth of the case, and that so far as the spread of this disease was concerned, one country had no right to reproach the other, for when the complaint existed at all it was pretty certain to find its way from one country to the other. Before leaving the subject he would like to say a word as to why the Irish took such considerable interest in this question. It was not a subject to look at entirely from an Irish point of view. It was a question affecting every consumer of meat in the Kingdom. It had this special aspect for Ireland that in that country the lands, which were formerly tilled, had been developing more and more into pasture or grazing lands. Therefore everyone, from the highest to the lowest, from the owner of the largest estate down to the smallest occupier, had to a great extent an interest in this cattle trade, and anything which tended to interfere with it must he serious injury to all classes of the community. It could not, therefore, be wondered at that if proceedings occurred which had the effect of very seriously injuring the trade and imperilling its existence all parties in Ireland should be alarmed, and, as it were, rush to the rescue. Under the Privy Council regulations cases of great hardship had occurred, the case known as "the Silloth case" being a remarkable instance in point, and so long as the regulations were in force there was no guarantee that similar cases of hardship would not again occur. The result of such proceedings must of necessity be to discourage, if not to stop altogether, the export of store cattle from Ireland. No man would be so foolish as to send a quantity of cattle to England if he knew that on their arrival they might be detained there for days or sent back. He might have done all he could to make his cattle proof against disease, he might see them marked perfectly sound, and yet after wards when they landed in England they might be detained because some beasts in another herd in the same ship, with which he had nothing to do, were found to be diseased. If that was to be done no person would have courage enough to run the risk of sending his cattle to England under such circumstances, and they could not be surprised, therefore, at the commotion which had been caused by the Silloth case. He had no desire, however, to base the Irish case against restriction upon what happened at Silloth. Though he agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Read) as to the uselessness of inspection, the Irish traders were most willing to submit to it. For the satisfaction of the English people they were quite willing to have a most rigid inspection at the ports; but they did complain that there should be that system of double inspection, not only at the ports where they were put on board ship, but also after they had crossed the water. The English and Scotch traders could remove their cattle for any distance without any such double inspection, and, therefore, the arrangement was very unfair to Ireland. "With respect to the question of inspection, they ought to take the opinion of those who had had great experience on the subject. Well, Professor Williams was of opinion that a smaller amount of inspection at the port of embarkation would do more good than a larger amount at the point of debarkation. Even the Chief Secretary of Ireland himself in 1874 had admitted that the proper place for inspection was at the port of embarkation. He contended that this was a vital question to the people of Ireland, because the poor farmers would be greatly oppressed by any serious stoppage of the trade. He did not wish to press the question from a local, but from an Imperial point of view. The whole country was interested in the supply of meat, and was also consequently interested in putting an end to restrictions which did no good, but limited the supply. That this was not a purely Irish matter was proved by the fact that his Amendment would be seconded by a Scotch Member, and also by the circumstance that all he asked the House to do was to confirm the decision of the Committee which sat in 1873, and on which all classes of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, were fairly represented. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment, to add— And that it is further desirable that the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1873, in relation to foot-and-mouth disease, should he carried into effect.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Read) that this was a difficult and intricate subject, and this the hon. Member had illustrated by his speech, for he had confined his remarks principally to points on which there was little difference of opinion, and to which he presumed Government would accede, but had failed to express any opinion on the much disputed question as to the best mode of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. Before offering his opinion, he desired to congratulate the hon. Member on the success which had at last attended his efforts to have the mode of dealing with pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland assimilated to what had been carried out in Great Britain for the last two years. He regretted the Government required the pressure of his retirement before bringing in the Bill now before the House for the compulsory slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. If, as the hon. Member stated, the farmers in England were delighted that the Duke of Richmond, as a practical agriculturist, had been appointed to the control of the Veterinary Department, he was afraid experience had not justified their expectations either in regard to the Veterinary Department or to dealing with the question of agricultural improvements. What the country had to complain of was, that the experience of the former Government and the recommendation of the Cattle Disease Committee, founded on the experience of the previous seven years, had been lost, and that the new authority had to learn everything over again at the expense of the country and much to the annoyance and loss of farmers. He hoped they had now again reached the point at which they had arrived when the late Government left office. What had been the policy pursued in regard to cattle disease? After the cattle plague had been successfully dealt with under the provisions made by Parliament, it was presumed that foot-and-mouth disease might be successfully dealt with in a similar manner. But the experience of many witnesses examined by the Committee showed very clearly that the contagion of foot-and-mouth disease was of so subtle and insidious a nature that any regulations which could be enforced were wholly inadequate to prevent the spread of the disease. The facts before and since confirmed this conclusion. In a good many counties the regulations and restrictions had been vigorously enforced in 1872, and yet the disease spread all over the country. The restrictions were removed in 1873, and the disease decreased so that the local authorities in 1874 reported that foot-and-mouth disease then existed to only a small extent. In 1874 the Duke of Richmond gave power to local authorities to impose restrictions, and again in 1875 these powers were extended. Nevertheless, foot-and-mouth disease had during last year spread more widely, he believed, than ever before. He did not say that restrictions caused the disease, but the facts showed that they were powerless to prevent it. In these circumstances they could not avoid the conclusion arrived at by the Committee, that any restrictions which would be submitted to would fail to check the disease. It was easy to impose restrictions; but, in point of fact, existing restrictions were in many counties a dead letter, whilst in others much annoyance had been caused without beneficial results to farmers who, in the multiplicity of rules imposed, withdrawn, and re-imposed, were at a loss to know what they might or might not do. Very few persons indeed, he believed, could at present say in some counties what was the law without careful reference and collation of the various Orders issued. The Order to inform the police of the existence of foot-and mouth disease was of no value, because nothing followed on the information except that the police informed the local authority, who were not called upon even to publish the information. Restrictions had failed, and what was now to be done? For himself, he, after a good many years' experience and observation, had come to the conclusion that the quicker the disease overran the country the more likely was the disease to become milder in type, fewer animals to be affected, and the disease soonest to expend itself. ["Oh, oh!"] That was the experience in epidemics, and he had no hesitation in saying that if a farmer got foot-and-mouth disease in his stock, and could not effectually isolate the animals affected, his most judicious policy was to have the disease overrun his whole herd as quickly as possible. He knew several cases in which this policy had been successfully adopted, and he recommended the practice of some who had had the longest experience of the disease, among others of one who had experience of this disease frequently since its first introduction into this country in 1834. If the disease lingered in a county for six months, a farmer who could exercise vigilance and care for two or three months might be unable to continue his self-imposed restriction for six months, and the risk of contagion was rather in proportion to the length of time over which the disease lasted in a district than to the number of infected farms. He thought it should remain a punishable offence to expose in a market or public place, or drive along a highway, animals labouring under disease, but beyond that he did not see it was of use to impose restrictions, which were the source of much annoyance, and had failed to give any corresponding advantage. It appeared to him that this administration of the Cattle Diseases Acts in England offered a strong argument in favour of the Motion to have elective Boards for county administration. At present the Acts were administered by the magistrates, few of whom were practically acquainted with the subject, and did not know what could or could not be carried into effect. The farmers who were practically acqainted with the subject, if charged with the administration of the Act, would, after some experience, see what it was possible to do by legislation, and instead of embarrassing the Central Government with representations for legislation which could not be practically enforced, would find that they must rely more on their own care, vigilance, and prudence, which he believed would be found more effectual in dealing with this disease than anything legislation could do. Many, no doubt, suffered by the recklessness of others, and it was extremely desirable such persons should be punished; but experience showed that legislation had proved unequal to do so without punishing innocent persons quite as frequently as the really guilty. He seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, To add, at the end of the Question, the words "and that it is further desirable that the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1873, in relation to foot and mouth disease, should he carried into effect."—(Mr. O'Conor.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not pretend to the bucolic experience of the hon. Member who had spoken on this Motion, but having had some official experience in dealing with the question he should be glad of an opportunity to say a few words respecting it. He regretted that any Government should lose the services of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bead); but it was well that the tenant farmers could now rely upon his speaking for them upon a question in which they were so much interested. He felt surprised that the hon. Member should have complained that the late Government had issued certain orders in a hurry relating to the spread of cattle disease, when he (Mr. Forster) had only acted in accordance with the Resolutions of the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman himself was a Member. In carrying out all the recommendations of the Committee he could do without legislation, he certainly lost notime that could be avoided. These questions of cattle diseases were very difficult and complicated. On the one hand, the object was to check the spread of disease; on the other hand, you had to avoid unnecessary interference with the food of the country. Altogether, it was one of the most difficult jobs with which any Government had to deal. As to the complaints against the permanent officials of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, these, in his opinion, were very much, if not entirely, without foundation. The work of the officials was difficult, and he did not believe that men would be found who, upon the whole, would do it better. There were four diseases with which we had to cope—cattle plague, sheep-pox, pleuro-pneumonia, and foot-and-mouth disease. Even the hon. Member for South Norfolk did not suggest much change in Government action respecting the first two diseases. Partly owing to Government action, indeed, there was no sheep-pox or cattle plague in the country, and had not been for some time. Practically, we had to deal with pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease; and he had come to the conclusion that, wherever these two diseases originally came from, they were now English diseases, and completely naturalized here. This being so, we had to consider what could be done to check or extirpate them. He thought that by means of severe, stringent, continuous efforts we might get rid of pleuro-pneumonia. This was so fatal a disease that public opinion would support the Government in taking strong action with a view to stamp it out. He entirely agreed, therefore, with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman as far as pleuro-pneumonia was concerned. Moreover, he was of opinion that we ought to have constant and uniform action throughout the country; that it ought to be uniform both in England and Ireland; and that considering the frequent communication between the two countries, it was almost absurd to have regulations in one country which did not exist in the other. This uniformity of treatment was as necessary in the interests of the Irish stock feeder as of the English farmer. There was really nothing like competition between the two. On the contrary, his hon. Friend (Mr. Read) and many others imported Irish store cattle for the purpose of feeding and fattening them, and would suffer if the supply were checked. The Committee which sat upon this subject made three proposals with regard to pleuro-pneumonia. The first was that slaughter should be compulsory. He issued an order to that effect as soon as he could, and he supposed that slaughter was compulsory now. The next proposal of the Committee was that compensation should be made on a principle different from that laid down in the Cattle Plague Act—namely, on the actual loss to the farmer, instead of on the value of the animal at the time of its slaughter, as from calculation the latter principle had been found to give an insufficient compensation. Why he did not issue an order to that effect was because as he read the Act, it did not give him power to do so. His noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) and the Duke of Richmond had, however, read the Act in a different way, but he did not doubt that the order in itself was a prudent one. Another recommendation was with regard to pleuro-pneumonia—namely, that the isolation should be for two months instead of 30 days. He could not issue an order to carry that out, because to do so would require an alteration of the Act. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to explain why an Act had not been passed for that purpose. With regard to foot-and-mouth disease, there were certain regulations in the Act of 1869 which provided that animals affected should not be exposed in market or taken along the highway; but there was also power given to the Privy Council to issue special regulations for the stoppage and prevention of any infectious disease mentioned in the Act. There was a foot-and-mouth outbreak not long after he became Vice President, and, there being a good many complaints, they first issued rather peremptory general orders throughout the country, but there were great objections to them, and the Department was obliged to discontinue them. Permissive orders were then issued, and these were in force more or less until the Committee sat in 1873. Almost every Member of that Committee was of opinion that there was no middle course between, no restriction, except that of not allowing diseased animals to be exposed in the market or to be taken along the highway—and very stringent restrictions indeed. It was perfectly clear, however, that the farming interest generally would not bear those severe restrictions. The time of isolation to be effectual would be quite six weeks, and it appeared much more likely to be three months, and there would be such an outcry against that as would render it impossible. The Committee, therefore, recommended that there should be none of those stringent restrictions in future; and he must ask his noble Friend to explain why the Government had not only not acted upon that recommendation, but had undone it, and undone it in the worst possible way—namely, by renewing the permissive orders. As to placing England and Ireland in the same position with regard to this question, he would not say anything about that, because the Government had a Bill before the House for dealing with the subject. In justification to the late Government and to himself, he must, however, state that, if they had not become private Members in 1874, they would certainly have brought in a Bill themselves. He was very much surprised that when a Bill relating to cattle diseases in Ireland had been passed in 1874 the clause which was necessary to give this power was not included. However, it was a difficult question, and probably the Government wanted to feel their way and obtain information, and having now obtained it they brought in a Bill. During this debate no allusion had been made to the question which had been raised by the metropolitan consumers, several of whom had waited upon the Duke of Richmond, and also by representatives of artizans, who protested against the regulation which required that when only one animal in a cargo was affected with foot-and-mouth disease the whole should be sent to Deptford. His noble Friend would have to decide between two modes of dealing with Deptford. They would either have to remove the restrictions with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and not to cause any cargo to be sent to Deptford because of the illness of one or two animals, or they would have to require that all the foreign animals imported to London should go there. He was not prepared himself to take this last step, though he had come to the conclusion that there was no middle course between the two. If the hon. Member for South Norfolk went to a division he should vote with him, and if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor) went to a division he would vote with him. The one carried out one recommendation of the Committee, and the other another recommendation. But, perhaps, the Government would make a division unnecessary by adopting the Resolution. He could not sit down without expressing the great pleasure he felt at what had been done in the Department since he left it, by adopting a more efficient inspection of the transit of animals by railway, and also of their import by sea. Both with a view to the health of the animals and the prevention of cruelty to them, inspection was quite necessary; and he was glad his noble Friend had been enabled to carry out a more efficient system than he had been enabled to enforce while he was in the Department.

MR. KAVANAGH

said, with regard to the proposal to make the regulations uniform throughout Great Britain and Ireland, that it was necessary to inquire what those regulations were. In England there were regulations as to foot-and-mouth disease, which he should be sorry to see extended to Ireland, and therefore, before making them uniform for the whole Kingdom, it would be necessary to make them reasonable. That being his opinion, he could not accept the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read), unless it were coupled with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor)—namely, That the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1873, in relation to foot-and-mouth disease, should he carried into effect. In his opinion, it was perfectly useless to attempt to put an end to foot-and-mouth disease by restrictions. The more fully he had inquired into the subject the more he was convinced that the attempt would be hopeless; but even if there were any hope, he believed those restrictions would be so intolerable that the cure would be, in fact, worse than the disease. It was for that reason that he dissented from the recommendation of the Committee of 1873. He would rather the foot-and-mouth disease were struck out of the Act altogether, but he might, perhaps, be unreasonable in wishing to go so far. With regard to pleuro-pneumonia, he believed it was quite possible to stamp it out; and he had endeavoured to impress upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland the importance of extending compulsory slaughter to Ireland, and he was glad the right hon. Baronet had seen his way to bring in a Bill on the subject. There was only another thing to be done, and that was, to make the regulations as regarded foot-and-mouth disease uniform between the two countries—not by imposing on Ireland the restrictions which existed in England, but by applying the rules which existed in Ireland to England. He was not quite certain what rules did exist in Ireland; but he knew that in England the local authorities dealt with the question in very different ways, some being too strict and others too lax; and as long as a system of that kind was continued it was utterly hopeless to expect it to produce any great advantage. In Ireland whatever restrictions existed were uniform, and so far England might take a leaf out of her book.

COLONEL KINGSCOTE

said, that foot-and-mouth disease was most insidious and dangerous, and had a most injurious effect in enhancing the prices of meat, butter, cheese, and milk. Last Autumn, for example, on one farm of 100 acres foot-and-mouth disease broke out in a flock of 320 ewes, the result being that instead of having 400 lambs, which would be the produce of an ordinary year, if there were 200 lambs left alive it would be the utmost that could be calculated upon. In the month of October, on the same farm, out of 36 dairy cows, 32 were down with foot-and-mouth disease, and their milk had to be thrown away. Again, on the same farm, he himself had seen 24 bullocks who, owing to the foot-and-mouth disease, deteriorated at least £3 a-head in the course of two months. Many instances of the same kind could be adduced showing the great loss to the farmers and to the community at large by the ravages of this disease, and he therefore urged the Government to adopt stringent measures, and to make them universal in order to check the spread of the disease. He advocated the appointment of efficient Inspectors, and not the police, and expressed his opinion that the country would support the Government in spending more money to provide a competent staff of officers.

MR. NEWDEGATE

Sir, I feel deeply indebted to the hon. Member for South Norfolk for the trouble he has taken in bringing before the country the importance of dealing with these diseases; and I beg also to express my thorough concurrence in what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kings-cote) with regard to the foot-and-mouth disease. My own experience in the course of the last year has been rather severe with regard to that complaint. It has been spoken of as not fatal, and it is not fatal to the same extent as pleuro-pneumonia; still, the loss it inflicts by actual death is considerable. In cases with which I am acquainted it has amounted to as much as 5 and 6 per cent. But there is another circumstance connected with this disease which ought to be carefully considered. In many instances, after the disease has subsided, it leaves secondary symptoms of another disease—congestion of the lungs—and of a type which is perfectly well known to become hereditary. Another fact is known, and this is, that a disease of the lungs has been spreading among the highest and purest bred short-horned stock in this country. I am very much inclined to connect these two facts one with the other, for within my personal knowledge animals which have been severely affected by foot-and-mouth disease, but did not actually die of it, were left suffering from lung disease. I am inclined, therefore, to connect that fact with the spread of lung disease amongst the highest bred stock in this country. These facts are sufficient, I think, to show the House that when we are dealing by legislation or Governmental Orders with the other diseases, it would be extremely rash to neglect the foot-and-mouth disease altogether. I cannot, however, put into more eloquent or appropriate language the expression of the loss entailed on the consumer by this disease in the course which it ran during the last year, than has been uttered by the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire, by raising the price of meat. I am certain that his statement with respect to his own county, and the losses inflicted by it, could be fully borne out by reference to the losses it has inflicted in the midland counties; and I concur with the hon. and gallant Member when he says that it is simply ridiculous to have so great a variety of administration as exists in this matter. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) sits below me. My county of Warwickshire is separated from Leicestershire only by the Watling Street old Roman road. We adopted certain preventive restrictions in Warwickshire; but the same restrictions were not enforced in Leicestershire, and without mentioning names I may state the effect of a conversation which last summer occurred between a Leicestershire farmer and a Warwickshire farmer. The latter asked—"When you get the foot-and-mouth disease, what do you do?" "Oh," said the Leicestershire farmer—"I am a grazier. I keep my sick stock at home, and send the sound stock at once to market." Now, of course, if there is any possibility of restricting this disease by preventing diseased cattle from being sent to market, the system adopted by this Leicestershire farmer must be calculated to spread the disease, which we in Warwickshire subjected ourselves to severe restrictions to prevent. Let me now notice for one moment what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) with reference to the London market. The right hon. Gentleman says that the importations of foreign cattle, though small, affect materially the price of food consumed by the operative classes in London. But, I would ask, can the price of food in London be independent of the price of food throughout the country? And if the importations of diseased cattle from abroad have the effect, as they undoubtedly have, of enhancing the price of food throughout the country, surely it is but a narrow view to believe that such importations will not similarly affect the London market? I have for years held that the importation of foreign cattle for London ought to be limited to Deptford, or some one port on the Thames, where the most efficient system of provision for cattle and for the inspection might be carried out; because, unless you do this, and your restrictions are consistently enforced, they become absolutely absurd. Let the House suppose that the disease is discovered in one or more animals of a cargo when they reach London; the authorities have then to send them back to Deptford, after the disease has been discovered, and probably disseminated, in this great centre, from which it is almost certain to be spread throughout the country. I believe that no restriction could be more wholesome or effectual than limiting the ports of debarkation, and providing for the proper care of cattle, and for their adequate inspection at the ports of debarkation. The hon. Member for the county of Sligo (Mr. O'Conor) must forgive me when I call his attention to this fact. He complains of the inspection of Irish cattle on their debarkation upon our shores in England; but does not the hon. Member perceive this—does he not perceive that, in their transit in a vessel by sea, there is much greater danger of contagion than under any other circumstances to which the animals could be exposed? Is it not reasonable, then, that after the stock have been brought across the Channel in a vessel, they should be inspected on landing in England from Ireland, for the same reasons and in the same manner as if they had been imported from some foreign country? I hold that it is the character of the transit, and the peculiar exposure to contagion it entails, which justifies the restriction; and I am obliged to tell the hon. Member plainly that though we in the midland counties have not the slightest wish to prevent the importation of Irish cattle—for the importation is very important to us—we are perfectly sensible that, probably owing to their exposure to contagion in transit by vessels, we do receive more disease through the ports of debarkation from Ireland than from any other parts of the country. I trust, then, that the House will not retreat before the difficulty which the foot-and-mouth disease presents by casting aside the precautions which prudence dictates, because there is this fact to be borne in mind, Whilst it is quite right to have uniform protection against so fatal a disease as pleuro-pneumonia, yet pleuro-pneumonia is a disease which is diminishing in the United Kingdom; whilst, on the other hand, the foot-and-mouth disease is extending year by year. There have been few years during which the foot-and-mouth disease was more prevalent than the last; and I observe that several hon. Members who have spoken on the subject in this debate take all their data from the Reports of Committees which sat in previous years, and that none of them appear to have rested their opinion upon the experience of last year with regard to the foot-and-mouth disease until the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire rose in his place, and adduced facts which ought to convince the House that this foot-and-mouth disease is a growing and wide-spreading evil that ought to be grappled with. I concur thoroughly in the Resolution which has been proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk; but I regret that I cannot concur in the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Sligo, for I am convinced of this—that any Government which is rash enough to cast aside the means of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease would incur a very heavy responsibility. I own that it is a difficult question; that it is difficult to convince the public that, by imposing restrictions against the spread of disease, you are providing for the cheapness of food; that it is difficult to deal with importers, who do not suffer from the effects of disease among the store cattle which they bring here, as those must who find this disease spreading throughout their herds and extending to their fat stock; and that it is difficult to persuade the mere grazier who buys and sells stock, keeping them only during the summer months, and has none to care for during the winter, that the heavy losses entailed on the breeders of cattle, whose entire stock is exposed to the ravages of disease throughout the whole year, render restrictions necessary. I know that all this is very difficult. At the same time, I believe that such discussions as we have had to-night are needed to enlighten the country upon this subject, and I hope may induce this House to arm Her Majesty's Government with power to deal adequately with diseases which are rapidly becoming a national evil.

MR. COLMAN

said, that the city which he had the honour to represent (Norwich) was very intimately connected with this question. It was one of the largest stock markets in the Kingdom, situated in the centre of an agricultural district, and he believed that the city authorities had cordially co-operated with the county authorities in carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. He had received several communications from friends of his own in Norfolk who were interested in agriculture, and some of whom were politically opposed to the hon. Member for South Norfolk, desiring him to support the Motion of his hon. Friend. When he entered the House that night he imagined that the Motion would meet with great opposition from many of the Members sitting on his own side of the House, because out-of-doors it had unfortunately been supposed that the interest of the producers of meat and of the consumers were not identical. But he had found that the opponents of the Motion were conspicuous by their absence and under these circumstances he hoped that the Motion would be passed without the opposition which, in the first instance, he had anticipated. No one could have seen the critical position in which the agricultural interest had been placed without sympathizing with those who represented it. He was disposed to think at one time that they had the remedy in their own hands, and that if they kept clear of the sources from which the disease was likely to be produced they would keep their farms and cattle free. But experience showed that they were powerless unless strong and uniform restrictions were enforced. For that reason, he desired to support the Motion of his hon. Friend, for he knew that under the present mode of carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they might have in the county of Norfolk one set of recommendations carried out, and in the county of Suffolk regulations of an entirely different character. He believed that there was a great and general desire that the Government should adopt a uniform system in reference to the cattle disease. He did not think it necessary to go through the arguments which had been adduced in the course of the debate, because he believed they had been all on one side, and that there had been very little attempt to argue on the part of those who objected to the Motion. He preferred to name one or two cases which had been brought under his knowledge. He held in his hand a letter received last night from a gentleman stating that he had farmed about 550 acres; that in 1872 the foot-and-mouth disease was very prevalent, and that in consequence he had 300 sheep and 100 head of cattle down with it. He lost all the summer grazing, and afterwards the lung disease broke out. The result was that he sustained a money loss of £500 in the year 1872. The writer went on further to say that during the past year the disease had broken out again, and that he had lost 15 beasts, which were valued by the local committee at £215 10s. He had received a letter from another agriculturist in his own neighbourhood, who stated that there was a large market for store cattle in his locality, and that it was a common occurrence for one or two animals to be left while the rest were taken to the market, by which means the disease had been perpetuated just in the manner referred to by the hon. Member for South Norfolk. In many instances cattle were brought into districts where no disease existed, and spread the disease to healthy herds, which then took a much longer time to graze, and the meaning of that was, that they consumed provender which might have been devoted to the production of good food, but which, under the circumstances, was literally wasted in being supplied to these diseased cattle, and not only entailed loss upon the agriculturists but upon the community generally. He sincerely hoped that the Motion would be adopted by the House. It was not a question which affected the producer of meat only, but it applied also to the consumer. In the annual Report issued by The Economist there was a striking reference to the increase in the price of butchers' meat. In five years subsequent to 1850 the price of meat rose 8 per cent but during the last five years, as compared with 1850, it had risen 45 per cent. But how was it with regard to the price of corn? In the first five years after 1850 the price fell 13 percent, and taking the average of the last five years, it was still 5 per cent below what it was in the year 1850. Hon. Members who thought that further restrictions were not necessary in the present position of the cattle trade, and the price of meat, had only to contrast these two results. In the one case corn was at a low price, while in the other butchers' meat, with these unsatisfactory restrictions, had risen nearly 50 per cent. Under these circumstances, he gave his cordial support to the Motion of his hon. Friend.

SIR JOHN SCOURFIELD

supported the Motion, and in doing so wished to call attention to a local grievance. A cargo of pigs arrived at Haverfordwest from Ireland, with a clean bill of health, but they were obliged, at the expense of the country, to keep them in quarantine, to the ill-will of everybody concerned. The Irish did not like their animals to be stopped; the local authorities, the railway people, the farmers, and everybody wished them to go, but they had, notwithstanding, to be kept for a certain time. The difficulties by which the subject was surrounded were very great; because the public, while they looked for that plentiful supply of meat which resulted from the free importation of cattle, objected to those restrictions by which immunity from the spread of disease was secured. The Department of the Government concerned in this matter ought to issue more clear, distinct, and definite instructions than had yet been received by the local authorities. When they applied to the Department, they always received most polite replies, but no instructions for their guidance.

MR. MARK STEWART

said, that there were great difficulties in the way of the Government in dealing with the question; and the present debate had not done much to obviate those difficulties. No two speeches had agreed as regarded the remedial measures to be adopted; and science was baffled completely as to how the disease was transmitted. He would mention three cases which had come under his own observation to show the difficulty of tracing foot-and-mouth disease in its origin. In one case the cows were kept in the byre through the winter and were never out of the house, but in April the foot-and-mouth disease appeared amongst them. There was very little in the whole county, and none within 10 miles. In the second case, two flocks of sheep were separated by a narrow pathway six feet wide, and on either side a wall of net. Except that the shepherds were different persons there was no further difference in their treatment in any respect, and yet every sheep in one flock took the disease, and not a single sheep in the other flock had it. In the third instance the disease was carried from one side of the River Dee to the other, not by hares or rabbits but by crows. With respect to the expense of carrying out inspection that would depend upon how it was done. In the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright there were four veterinary surgeons appointed in 1869 and 1870, at a cost to the country of £338, and during the period the disease, instead of diminishing, rather increased. In 1870, 1871, and 1872 the same means were employed, at a cost of £593, but after that it was not deemed necessary to employ veterinary surgeons, and from 1872 to the present time the only inspecting force which had been used was the police force, at a cost to the county of about £20. The law, however, was in a most unsatisfactory state. In Wigtownshire there was a regulation which might be beneficially extended to other counties. It was to the effect that animals infected with the foot-and-mouth disease should not be removed from a farm, or taken on or across any public road which passed through the same. He was Chairman of a local Board, and they were most anxious to keep their district uncon-taminated and isolated from other parts of the county, and they were so successful that up to the middle of September last they had not a single case amongst the 10,000 dairy cows that were there. But 800 lambs were brought from Argyllshire by sea, landed at Stranraer, and distributed amongst several farms. From that moment the disease was rife; but there was no mode of obtaining redress. The Act of 1869 gave them no power to prosecute. The 123rd section provided that— In the event of any person refusing or delaying to comply with the order of a local authority, the local authority may give information thereof, to the Procurator Fiscal of the county or burgh, who may apply to the sheriff for a warrant to carry such order into effect, and such warrant may he executed by the officers of court in the usual way. Thus the power of the local authority was limited by this clause, and the matter left to the discretion of the Procurator Fiscal. When under the Summary Procedure Act of 1864 they sought redress from the farmer resident in Dumfriesshire who sent the lambs, the Procurator Fiscal there refused to prosecute, and applications to the Duke of Argyll as Lord Lieutenant led to no result whatever. There was now an Inspector at Stranraer, whose duty it was to inspect the cattle imported there from Ireland. One night the steamer came in, and among the cattle on board was an animal in the last stage of foot-and-mouth disease. Nobody claimed it, and the animal was stopped from being removed, but the rest of the cargo were sent on by railway, and nobody could tell the extent to which the disease might be spread by their means. What was wanted, therefore, was a remedial clause enabling the local authority to prosecute under the Act of 1869 in such cases. [The hon. Member read a draft clause which he thought would meet the case.] Nobody but those who had had experience of the subject knew the value of prompt action in the case of an outbreak of disease. There could be no doubt that animals killed immediately on the outbreak of disease were, as far as food was concerned, as good as perfectly healthy stock. He called upon the Government to accept the hon. Member's (Mr. Read's) Motion, and make the law as far as possible uniform.

MR. TURNOR

suggested that Article 36 of the Order of Council of June, 1875, should be made compulsory throughout the Kingdom. If this were done, the district affected could be closed up in the case of the foot-and-mouth disease. The advantage of proceeding under this Order was, that it dealt not only with infected animals, but with animals in contact with them. There should also be Inspectors to go through the fairs and markets, and these Inspectors should be responsible to the Privy Council, and their salaries paid, in whole or in part, out of Imperial funds. If these two precautions were adopted, we should go far to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease in this country. Any regulations which should be adopted ought to be, not permissive, but uniform and compulsory, and his hon. Friend had his entire concurrence in his Motion.

CAPTAIN NOLAN

remarked that the question involved was a very serious one, because it was no exaggeration to say that if the cattle trade of Ireland was seriously interfered with the whole population would be more or less ruined. The cattle traders of Ireland had no objection to submit to the same regulations as England; but there was an idea abroad that there was an ulterior object in view. In the county he had the honour to represent in the West of Ireland two or three fairs were held, and he had an opportunity of gathering the views of the dealers. Their idea was that if English farmers simply wanted to stamp out disease they were willing to submit to any amount of inspection, although, of course, they did not like it; but they were dreadfully afraid the restrictions would be made use of to their disadvantage, and that the English farmers wanted to start a trade union system against the Irish farmers. He might be accepted as a fair witness on the subject, for he had done his best to ascertain the feelings of as many of the people as he had come in contact with. He did not say that the English farmers were doing anything they had not a right to do, and possibly the Irish farmers would do the same under similar circumstances. Of course, if the English farmers could keep back one-half or one-third of the supply, they would naturally produce increased prices of meat to their own advantage. He did not mean to say the Irish particularly cared about what the price of meat was in England so long as they themselves were fairly dealt with. It would be for the consumers ultimately to decide between them, and say whether there was not a wish on the part of the English farmers to keep the Irish competition out. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read) had certainly let slip some remarks which rather savoured of that disposition. If they were going to hamper Ireland with special restrictions the result must be to place her traders at a disadvantage. Of course, it was perfectly right to inspect the Irish cattle before they were sent to England, and there would be no objection to representatives of the English farmers attending to see that the animals were sound on embarkation, for he could assure the House there was no wish on the part of the Irish to send diseased cattle to England. But the system of instituting a second inspection after the cattle had arrived in England was objectionable. It would be like subjecting English cattle to a second inspection when they were removed from one part of England to another. In regard to pleuro-pneumonia they in Ireland were willing to submit to any regulations which were in force in England; but foot-and-mouth disease was a different thing, for which the restrictions could not be so easily justified. It was an insidious disease, and they had failed to stop it even in England notwithstanding their regulations. He thought it would be sufficient if they rested on the Act of 1869, which was a very good Act; but if they had certain rules in England and Scotland and they insisted upon applying those rules in Ireland—plus, others, and very stringent ones—he thought Ireland might fairly object. If the English farmers formed a kind of trades union against us, the Irish farmers must entirely go in for the removal of all restrictions. He did not wish to take up that position; but if the English farmers insisted upon pursuing their present course they might be driven to it.

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

, in answer to the Question which had been asked, why the Government had rescinded the Orders of 1873, said that a deputation from the Royal Agricultural Society which had waited on the Lord President had urged that step to be taken, and that he had himself forwarded a memorial from the Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture to the same effect. Those Orders had not had a fair trial, because they were not made compulsory. All the agriculturists examined before the Select Committee were in favour of stringent restrictions in reference to foot-and-mouth disease. Several of the local Scotch authorities were not in favour of abolishing all these regulations, though that course had been advocated by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). The Orders in Council were of no use unless they were carried out uniformly throughout the whole country. Farmers were very much alarmed at the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease last year. Never had there been so concentrated a form of the disease as then appeared. But there had been no Report yet from the Veterinary Department respecting that outbreak. He hoped his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) would take care that the Report would be placed on the Table so as to enable them to discuss the subject before the end of the Session. At present they did not know to what extent foot-and-mouth disease had prevailed during the last. 12 months. To be really useful the Report from the Veterinary Department should be laid on the Table before Easter. He would oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor), but would cordially support the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read).

SIR WALTER BARTTELOT

expressed his surprise at the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan). The great object of Members on both sides was to keep Ireland free from disease, because this country could not possibly do without the importation of Irish cattle. Nothing, therefore, could be more fallacious than to say that the farmers and inhabitants of the United Kingdom were not anxious that Irish cattle should be imported as fully and as freely as possible. Their great object was to allow free importation from any part of the world, provided the cattle imported were free from disease. The House was evidently agreed on the point that, so far as the cattle plague, the sheep pox, and pleuro-pneumonia were concerned, England, Ireland, and Scotland ought to be placed absolutely under the same regulations. The only divergence of opinion had been in reference to the foot-and-mouth disease, which was a disease more difficult to deal with than any other, for the recurrence of the foot-and-mouth disease in the same animal made it predisposed to it, and every additional attack was more severe than the one preceding it; or a kind of lung disease ensued, which was as fatal as pleuro-pneumonia. The consequences were very serious in the effect produced upon animals for breeding purposes, both cattle and sheep. The price of meat was undoubtedly high, and he should be glad to see it reduced; but he did not think it would be reduced by the Government allowing so free an importation of cattle as would admit also of the importation of disease. Too stringent regulations might harass trade and do mischief; but when the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said he thought they should allow the disease to go rampant in the belief that by its spread it would get small by degrees and beautifully less, and in time altogether disappear, it appeared to him that there could not be a greater fallacy. One of the most fatal places for the spread of foot-and-mouth disease was Islington Market, where cattle came from all parts of the counties as well as from foreign countries. Although the number of store cattle might not be very great, still many-were sent to that market, and a large number of calves, and all these cattle went to the same place for water, whether infected or not; and then they were sent from Islington to all parts of the country. It was remarkable that since that practice had been allowed foot-and-mouth disease had increased. It would be altogether imprudent to permit a disease of this kind to spread unchecked all over England; and he ventured to affirm that if foreign cattle were sent to Deptford, and not to Islington, the foreign cattle would materially increase, and there would not be this perpetual demand for fresh regulations. The debate which his hon. Friend (Mr. Read) had initiated would greatly assist the Government, because the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council would have the advantage of hearing the views of hon. Members upon the question. It was necessary to stop the foot-and-mouth disease at the fountain head. An Inspector from the Privy Council had visited the Chichester Market, and, after two successive days' careful inspection, said that he had never in his life seen a lot of cattle so free from disease. But what happened? Two days afterwards, there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease amongst those very cattle that had been sold at the market. That showed the necessity of inspection at the places where the cattle came from. The Government ought to insist upon those places being properly inspected and proper lairs for the cattle before they were embarked. Speaking of Ireland, what could be so disgraceful as the North Wall at Dublin: the holds of ships, and railway trucks, in which the cattle were conveyed should have better accommodation than was now provided. These and other measures within their power he hoped the Government would adopt; and depend upon it, if strict regulations were uniformly applied just where they were required, this disease among cattle might be prevented from spreading over the country.

MR. PELL

said, that while many hon. Members had advocated severer measures for the prevention of foot-and-mouth disease, no one had stated what those measures ought to be. In his opinion, there was no middle course to take. If they stopped short of killing he did not think that any restrictions in the way of quarantine, or sending Inspectors here and there to examine farmers' stock, would be of any avail whatever in checking the foot-and-mouth disease, and compulsory slaughter for this complaint was out of the question. He was jealous of any further regulations until the existing law was better obeyed. Various orders had been issued in different districts, and various experiments had been tried; but no hon. Member had attempted to advise the Government to adopt any particular course. Notwithstanding the enforcement of strict measures had been recommended, no one had ventured to say what those measures ought to be. He had no confidence in veterinary science, or indeed in doctoring cattle generally. Care ought to be taken that the poor animals should be moved about as little as possible while suffering, and that they should have water and fresh air during their long and painful journeys, and that when landed they should be sent to the market as quickly as possible. He should be only too glad if the Government could put a check on that which was not only troublesome and painful, but a disease which cost the farmers a vast amount of money.

COLONEL EGERTON LEIGH

gave his hearty support to the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. They were all fond of meat, and their object should be to make meat cheap, but instead of that they were making it dear. We had not only opened our ports for the admission of cattle but for the diseases brought by these cattle. With respect to the foot-and-mouth disease, it had been proposed that the cattle should be allowed to run wild. That might be a very good plan if they were not liable to a second attack; but it was known that they might be attacked any number of times and were very much weakened by every attack, and the result was that we were gradually obtaining a weakened race of cattle.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

understood that the Government had agreed to concede all that the hon. Member for South Norfolk had asked for—that the regulations with respect to the cattle disease should be uniform and compulsory not only in the United Kingdom but also in Ireland. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member seemed to point to compulsory slaughter, and two years ago he (Lord Robert Montagu) brought in a Bill to effect that object. He did not say that he was now against what was then proposed; but he had seen many arguments on the other side. The chief argument used against compulsory slaughter was that it would raise the price of meat; but he would tell the House of a common fact with which he became acquainted when he was at the Privy Council Office. It was this—At the commencement of the cattle plague the farmers of England, struck with terror, sent all their cattle to the Metropolitan Market. It was a panic like what was seen sometimes in the City; but what was the effect upon the market? Butchers instantly raised the price of meat, and their excuse was because of the cattle plague! Two years afterwards when the plague had died out the farmers retained their stock, and the butchers again raised their price because the stock was not sent to market. The farmers had suffered greatly, whilst the butchers had profited to the extent of about 284 per cent. He thought that disposed of the chief argument with regard to slaughtering cattle at the ports. He regretted that the Government had not known their mind before. They lost the hon. Member for South Norfolk, who was a valuable Member of the Government, because they did not see that he was right; but now they saw this, and that they were wrong. Having acted in this way towards the hon. Member, who was the representative of the farmers in the House, he asked what would the Government do next? Would they turn to the labourers and enfranchise them? The regulations which were made to put down the cattle plague were intended to prevent contagion and contact, and those regulations had succeeded in their object. But as, he believed, only three in 1,000 animals affected with the foot-and-mouth disease died of it, it was contended that, not being so deadly in its nature as the plague, the same precautions against contact ought not to be taken. The farmers of England, however, desired to see certain regulations carried out for the prevention of the foot-and-mouth disease. In Ireland, of course, the farmers too knew their own business—as a Home Rule Member, they would scarcely thank him if he said otherwise—and had a right to express their wishes as to any regulations that might be proposed. They had no right to impose on the farmers of England their regulations, and he thought that each country ought to have its own regulations. As to free importation throughout the land, he looked upon it as impossible, in consequence of those local differences which must be observed. No hard-and-fast rule, in short, could be laid down in the matter, and great latitude must be left to the Privy Council.

MR. STORER

said, that it seemed to be allowed on all hands that the subject was difficult, and certainly the discussion had been full of anomalies; but he did not think there could be any greater anomaly than a Home Rule Member sitting on the Conservative side of the House and voting with the other. He agreed with the hon. Member for South Norfolk as to the great necessity of uniformity of action; and although neither the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) nor any other speaker had satisfactorily explained the proper mode of dealing with the foot-and-mouth disease, they all seemed to agree in the wisdom of at once attacking the chief foci of the disease—namely, the fairs and markets and the ports of debarkation. He was glad to hear, on the authority of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu), who must be in the confidence of the Government, that they had agreed to grant all the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Norfolk asked. Now that they had driven the hon. Member like the scapegoat into the wilderness, bearing the official sins of the Government on his head, there would be for them a time of repentance, and he was glad to hear they were about to return to right principles in this matter of dealing with cattle diseases, and, above all, to uniformity of action.

MR. BRUEN

said, he hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor), which was necessary as an interpretation of the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. That Amendment was backed by the authority of a Select Committee composed of men who knew their business, and who took great pains in investigating the subject. It had also now got the great authority of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), whose speech would be read with gratitude by every person in Ireland connected with the cattle trade. For the purpose of preventing the foot-and mouth disease, attempts at isolation were, he believed, useless, and when the Irish farmers sought to have the recommendations of the Committee of 1873 carried they were acting in perfect good faith.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) had caught something of the temper of his adopted country. He remembered hearing that in former times some of the gallant men belonging to the Sister Isle were rather fond of trailing their coats behind them and daring people to tread on them, in order to get up a quarrel. That custom no longer prevailed in Ireland; but it seemed to him that the noble Lord was trying the same trick for his adopted country, and asking his former Party to tread on the tail of his coat. For his own part, he was not going to fall into the trap which the noble Lord had laid for them. The question was far too important to be treated in a jesting spirit or in a light manner, and he rejoiced that this evening it had been treated, not only as a very grave and serious question, but also as a very difficult one. All who had joined in the discussion agreed that we must face the difficulty, and all expressed a hope that as time went on Her Majesty's Government would deal with it properly. If the subject were regarded from the farmers' point of view, its importance could not be overrated. He was anxious that none of the farmers in the United Kingdom should think Her Majesty's Government underrated their sufferings from the various diseases which of late years had ravaged their flocks and herds. Every one must feel the deepest sympathy and compassion for our farmers if he had seen their beautiful flocks—the pride sometimes of many generations and part of the glory of the United Kingdom—suffering from these loathsome diseases. It was true that many of the diseases had not been in the long run very fatal, and some Members had spoken of the foot-and-mouth disease as if it were a very slight thing. Still he, for one, could not forget what it must be for a farmer, and particularly a small tenant, to see the daily wasting of his stock. It was no slight matter to find the supply of milk suddenly disappear, to find that butter was no longer forthcoming for the market, and to find that when they expected an increase in their flocks and herds the increase was still-born or did not appear at all. It was no slight thing to have the vigour taken away from the animals to which they might have trusted for reproducing their herds. On the part of himself and his Colleagues he begged to express the warmest feelings of sympathy for the farmers of this country in the very grievous sufferings they had undergone. That suffering if it had occurred during the last three years would have fallen on the farmers when they were likewise suffering from very bad times. In England at any rate there had been little margin of profit, and considering that, in addition, they had the devastation of these infectious and contagious diseases, he did not wonder at the farmers appealing in large numbers to their Representatives and to Her Majesty's Government, to see whether the Government could not, wisely and safely, give them some relief. But, secondly, he must look at the question from another point of view, that of the consumer. They all rejoiced that of late years the working people of this country had been able to consume a great deal more meat than previously. In our great towns we now had great fresh-meat consuming populations. He rejoiced that it should be so; but anything which affected the meat supply of these large communities was of the gravest importance. So that any one with responsibility in this matter must feel, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) remarked earlier in the evening, that he was touching a very delicate subject if it affected, or was supposed to affect, in any way the supply of meat. No doubt whatever tended to diminish the flocks and herds would be felt, sooner or later, by the consumer. Still it was most important that we should keep distinctly in view that in any act of the Privy Council with regard to food supply, artificial means were not used to affect the price of food. The position and duty, therefore, of the Privy Council were obvious—they must carry out whatever was done in a perfectly impartial manner between the consumer and the producer. He would now make a few remarks on the interesting speech of the hon. Member for South Norfolk, to whom, if they wished for instruction on this subject, they must look. Speaking for the Ministry generally and for himself he could not but express the regret they felt that he no longer sat beside them as the valued Colleague of the last two years. That chapter was now closed he was afraid, and he would therefore make a few remarks on his hon. Friend's speech. It was based mainly on the importance of securing uniformity in the various Orders and regulations relating to the stoppage of disease. Having spoken of quarantine and isolation of stock, and other matters of importance, he referred to the number of foreign cattle imported, and he appeared at one moment to speak slightingly of the foreign supply. He (Viscount Sandon) therefore felt bound to refer to the figures, which showed that the foreign supply was of importance, as half of it was slaughtered in London for the supply of the great metropolis. There were last year 200,000 cattle and 756,000 sheep imported, and more than half remained in the metropolis. These figures were small indeed in comparison with the flocks and herds of England; but as bearing on the meat supply of London they were of considerable importance. Then his hon. Friend asked why sundry recommendations of the Select Committee had not been carried into execution. One of these had reference to the compensation which the Committee recommended should be extended to three-fourths of the loss of the animal. Well, steps had been taken to raise the compensation to three-fourths of the value, the Department having found it almost impossible to work out what the Committee recommended as to the three-fourths of the loss. Then there came the question of the isolation for two months instead of one month. To effect that change fresh legislation would be requisite, and merely for the sake of such a change it would be considerable risk for the Government to bring in a Bill. Again, the fusion of the local authorities was a large question, which would lead to fresh legislation. He now came back to his hon. Friend's contention that uniformity of the rules and regulations was the great desideratum. He had no hesitation in saying that the Government were completely of opinion that uniformity was an object not only most excellent in itself, but one at which we must aim steadily and perseveringly. Moreover, the Government had already taken steps to effect uniformity. There were two classes of Orders—one relating to severe disorders and the other relating to foot-and-mouth disease. As soon as the Irish Bill had passed they would, in fact, have secured uniformity with regard to severe diseases all over the United Kingdom. This, surely, was a pledge that the Government were most anxious to advance as much as possible the principle of uniformity. When the present Government assumed office in 1874 they were brought face to face with the recommendations of the Select Committee. As to the foot-and-mouth disease, the Committee spoke with very great doubt. They said the opinions on the subject were exceedingly various and conflicting, both as regarded the amount of loss and the measures which had been adopted to meet it; and they further said their conviction was that the only mode of stamping out the disease would be to use the cattle plague regulations. The Committee said that the enforcement of such regulations for foot-and-mouth disease would require a numerous staff of Inspectors, and an amount of supervision by the Central authority which would excite much local opposition and such an interference in the trade in animals as would much affect prices, and would induce, not only the consumer, but the producer, to think that the remedy would be worse than the disease. This was the position of things in 1874, and the Lord President then carefully considered the whole subject of cattle regulations, coming to the conclusion that large changes, especially with reference to Ireland, would probably be needed. He felt, however, that the more he considered the subject the more care was required in dealing with it, and the more time was required for consulting authorities both in Ireland and in England. Meanwhile, numerous deputations waited upon the Lord President, both from the Royal Agricultural Society and from English counties, expressing anxiety that the former regulations as to foot-and-mouth disease should be re-enacted. The feeling seemed to be so widely spread that the Lord President felt bound to allow once more the use of the regulations, especially as he could not hope for a year or two to carry out the larger changes which might be necessary. That there was a considerable wish throughout the country for these Orders was shown by the fact that in 41 English counties out of the 58, and in 21 Scotch counties out of the 34, regulations had been passed owing to these Orders in Council. It was felt to be of great importance to assimilate the Irish law to that of England respecting these cattle disorders. The Lord President had also been arranging with the Irish authorities for a more perfect inspection at the Irish ports of the cattle leaving those ports, and it was hoped that if these arrangements were made, much of the inspection on the English side might be relaxed, which would be a great gain to the parties. Then a new set of Inspectors had been appointed—five travelling Inspectors, whose duty it was to go up and down the country and see that the orders under the Act were properly carried out. The happiest results had followed from the appointment of these Inspectors; and if the Government found that they were not numerous enough for the work, they would apply to Parliament for an increase of the staff, being thoroughly determined that that part of the work should be efficiently done. One part of the duty of these Inspectors was a prosecution of the railway companies and shipowners who had broken the law, and to scatter warnings among the great carriers of the country. Lastly, on the list of remedial measures, arrangements had been concluded with the Board of Trade by which all ships would be inspected by that Board which carried cattle. Thus there would be a fresh security for these vessels being in a proper condition. As the hon. Member (Mr. Read) had said, nothing contributed more to disease than dirt, and the manner he had indicated would be to secure not only cleanliness, but the humane treatment of the stock imported. Such were the steps taken by the Government. As to the future, they proposed to watch carefully during the next few months the changes hitherto made. If, through these changes, the foot-and-mouth disease were diminished, the way might then become clear for the abrogation of the existing Order. This was one alternative. The other was to make the Orders in Council much more stringent. There had been a remarkable diversity of opinion on this point to-night. Almost every one wished for uniformity in the regulations, but there was great difference of opinion as to what those regulations should be. Under these circumstances, the Government believed that it would be the wisest course, while accepting the principle of uniformity, to endeavour to attain it by the mildest means. He hoped the House would be willing that the Government should wait and watch. He would beg the House to remember that all this machinery of inspection, and going into people's yards and fields and telling them that they must not move their flocks and herds, was in itself a very vexatious and undesirable state of things. The system was one which we all disliked, and we submitted to it only as a precaution against greater evils. But the system was not only vexatious, it was also costly, and we ought to keep this object in view; instead of increasing, we should diminish interference with the agricultural population. The Government had, as he had shown, taken some considerable steps forward; they were most anxious to prevent the spread of disease; but they felt that they must keep this in view, that any unnecessary interference either with the meat supply of the people or with the farmer in his daily pursuits would be a great evil. He begged the House to accept the assurance of the Government that they were as warmly in favour of uniformity as any hon. Member, and that they thought conflicting orders in different parts of the country would, if persevered in, become absolutely intolerable, and could not be contemplated as a permanent arrangement. He asked the House to remember the various opinions which had been expressed to-night as to what should be done, land to accept the assurance of the Government that they were most earnest in the matter. The Lord President of the Council was constantly watching over this most difficult subject. He asked the House, then, not to tie the hands of the Government by either of the Resolutions on the Paper, but to allow them to go on with the great changes they had commenced, and in time to propose regulations which would be satisfactory to the House.

MR. CLARE READ

said, after the satisfactory statement of the noble Lord that the Government accepted the principle of uniformity he would not be justified in asking the House to divide. He was very glad to hear that the Government had accepted that principle, and he would merely remark that all they had done to carry it out had been done since November last.

MR. PARNELL

objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment, as he considered the noble Lord's speech unsatisfactory.

Amendment and Motion, by leave,withdrawn.