§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, will he explain why the West Riding of Yorkshire Muzzling of Dogs Order, made on 14th May, 1897, includes Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax, Barnsley, Batley, Dewsbury, Brighouse, Keighley, Morley, Ossett, 1226 Todmorden, and Wakefield, but excludes Sheffield, Rotherham, and Doncaster, and the populous districts contiguous thereto; how many cases of rabies in the West Riding have been reported since the order was made; has any case of rabies been reported in the West Riding for upwards of nine months, and what was the date of the last case; whether the Muzzling Order for Devonshire, made on 30th July last, was revoked on 18th January following, although a case of rabies in the infected area had been reported within five weeks previously; why the same treatment has not been extended to Yorkshire as was applied to Devonshire; and when the West Riding Order will be revoked?
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTUREIt was unnecessary to apply a Muzzling Order to the three boroughs named and the districts contiguous thereto, because they were much farther removed from any outbreak of rabies which had recently occurred than were the districts placed under the Order. Only one case of rabies has been reported in the West Riding since the Order was made, namely, at Huddersfield on the 12th July last. The Devonshire Order was revoked as stated, but it is to be observed that the case referred to was that of a dog which was known to have been exposed to infection some six months before, and had in consequence been kept strictly isolated. The conditions of Yorkshire and Devonshire with regard to the past history of the disease and the density of their dog population are entirely dissimilar, and although I should be glad to find myself able to withdraw the Order, it is not possible for me as yet to indicate when this can be done without danger to the ultimate success of our operations.