§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the point of division of the two Counties of Bucks and Middlesex, as on the Uxbridge Road, the Dog Muzzling Order is enforced on one side of the road and not on the other, and why, if the Order is intended to stamp out hydrophobia, this and similar areas of muzzling are so peculiarly defined?
§ MR. CHAPLINAll Orders apply to districts of Local Authorities. The boundaries of districts are not fixed by the Board. It occasionally happens that the boundary line runs down the centre of a road. The difficulty cannot be got rid of without having a special survey in order to define the district to which an Order should apply. I am unable to say in this particular instance whether the hon. Member is right, but probably he is. The case frequently occurs, and for this reason: that the areas are prescribed according to the jurisdiction of the Local Authorities who carry out the Order. I am quite aware of the anomaly, but it is an anomaly which cannot be avoided unless the Order was to be made universal throughout Great Britain.
§ MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can now see his way tort-strict the Dog Muzzling Order in the County of Kent to those parts of the county within the Metropolitan area?
§ MR. LEES (Oldham)I also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is able to give the House any information as to the effect of the Muzzling Orders now in force; whether any appreciable diminution in the number of cases of rabies and hydrophobia has taken place in consequence of those Orders; and whether, in view of the great inconvenience which is caused by those Orders to owners of dogs throughout the country, he is able to hold out any prospect of their being shortly rescinded?
MR. FARQUHARSON (Dorset, W.)I have further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Executive Committee of the London County Council for the quarter ending March 31st last, which states that the number of rabid dogs for the quarter is seven as against two in the corresponding quarter of last year; whether the alleged general increase of rabies in scheduled districts has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the cases of hydrophobia; in how many, if any, of the alleged outbreaks of rabies relied in by the Board of Agriculture, in justifying the Muzzling Order, was the alleged rabid dog under the observation of a veterinary surgeon of experience while still living; whether the remuneration of veterinary surgeons employed by the Board depends in any way upon the number of dogs declared rabid; and whether, owing to the increase of rabies in the scheduled districts, he can hold out any hopes of withdrawing the Muzzling Order?
§ *MR. AINSLIEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in Constantinople there are upwards of 30,000 dogs that are without owners or control; that they have all their young in the streets; and that no case of rabies has occurred among them; and whether these facts have been brought forward in the evidence before the Commission?
§ MR. CHAPLINIn reply to the question which has been put to me last, I am not aware that the data referred to were placed before the Royal Commission or not, but I have referred to the evidence without finding them. Evidence of an opposite character was given before the Commission by Professor Horsley and Sir C. Warren, and the hon. Member will find that in Dr. Fleming's able 144 book upon rabies and hydrophobia. The contention that hydrophobia does not exist in Turkey or Constantinople is disputed, and I think disposed of. In reply to my hon. Friends behind me, it will be convenient to answer both questions at once, and the answer is this: The Returns of deaths from hydrophobia since the Muzzling Order came into force are not at present in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. But I am glad to say, with regard to rabies, that in every county which has been placed under the regulations, and in the country as a whole, there has been a marked diminution in the number of outbreaks since the passing of the Order. For instance, in 1889, for the last two quarters of that year there were 133 cases in the third and 81 cases in the fourth quarter reported to the Board. For the first quarter of the present year they have been reduced to 39, and for the month of April there have only been seven cases throughout England, as compared with 11 for March, 14 for February, and 14 for January of the present year. In the Metropolis and the West Riding, although there has been a large diminution, cases are still of constant occurrence, and there have also been comparatively recent outbreaks in Hampshire and West Sussex, in which latter county a Muzzling Order has been imposed by the Local Authority. With regard to Lancashire and the home Counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey, and Kent, so far as they are not included in the Metropolitan district, no cases have been reported for a considerable period, and if the Reports continue to be as favourable in the case of the home counties as they have been of late I shall hope to be able to modify the Order, if it is not suspended, at no distant time. I may be allowed to add, as it will be of interest to the public, that, since the Order has been enforced, of the rabid dogs seized in public places nine were properly and securely muzzled, and were thus prevented from doing mischief.