MOTION FOR PAPERS. (Hansard, 31 May 1875)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
rose to call attention generally to the state of the law with regard to the transport of foreign cattle, and to move for Papers relating to that subject. The noble Earl said he would remind their Lordships that recently he had occasion to put a Question to the noble Duke (the President of the Council) as to whether a statement which appeared in The Times of the 22nd of April last relative to the ill-treatment of cattle on board a ship in a passage from Antwerp to Deptford, was correct. The statement had been made by Captain Sloane Stanley, an officer of the Royal Navy. The noble Duke, in his reply, disputed the accuracy of the facts. To that he (Earl De La Warr) could at the time give no further answer, and he felt bound to accept the explanation of the noble Duke; but upon further inquiry upon additional testimony, and upon a second statement by Captain Stanley which appeared in The Times, not only confirming the first, but adding that far from exaggerating, if anything he had understated the case, he could come to no other conclusion than that the facts of the case remained unanswered, and that Captain Stanley's report was in everything substantially correct. He would not trouble their Lordships with a repetition of what had already appeared in the public Press, except so far as to establish the case which he desired to bring under their Lordships' notice. In a second letter to The Times, dated May 3, Captain Stanley said— As the writer of the letter referred to upon the subject of the treatment of cattle, will you allow me to say that, far from exaggerating, I if anything, understated the case? I have no object except that of humanity in acting as I have done, and I have no interest in the matter beyond that I further believe that most Englishmen witnessing what I did would be of opinion that such things should be put a stop to at once 1086 and for ever. I might in my letter have narrated cases of cruelty to particular animals had I not been fearful of encroaching too much on your space, as, for instance, the violent thrashing with sticks, the twisting of the tail, and dragging by the legs inflicted on a beast that had the misfortune to fall on its side after being released from the slings. This case so excited my indignation that I shouted aloud to those who were torturing the animal—' For God's sake let the poor beast alone.' I feel confident that if the superintendent who is 'noted for his humanity' had stood by my side on the foredeck of the vessel, from which position I commanded a full view of all the proceedings, he would, as a humane man, have fully endorsed the terms of my letter, unless his perceptions have become blunted by often witnessing such scenes. But he (Earl De La Warr) had a further confirmation of these facts in private letters from Captain Stanley, which he would, with their Lordships' permission now read— The thirst the poor brutes must suffer from is great, especially between decks, where the temperature is like that of the stoke-hole of a steamer in the Red Sea. I was so moved with pity at the sight of a poor animal that almost dislocated its neck in its frantic efforts to turn its head round to reach with its tongue a part of the deck that was a little damp, that I paid one of the crew to take some buckets of water round to some of the cattle, this one, of course being included. The manner in which the poor creatures plunged their muzzles into the bucket and the eagerness that they displayed in drinking proved to me that thirst might be reckoned as one out of many of their sufferings on board. The commotion that took place among the animals on the man with the bucket of water approaching them was most marked. Their eyes seemed to light up with intelligence, and those who were distant made violent efforts to get at the water. In addition to these, there was the testimony of a gentleman—Mr. Liardet—living at Deptford, who said— Captain Stanley's statements are true, and certainly not exaggerated. On the contrary, the inspectors of police have given me a much worse account of the treatment of the cattle than Captain Stanley's conveys. For instance, that the cattle are kept without water, and one means used by the landing people an arriving at Deptford is to hold a bucket of water close to the head of a beast which is so thirsty that it follows the man up the hold of the ship to the shore, there to undergo the goad and sickening thrashing of sticks……I have travelled several times round the world; I have witnessed the treatment of cattle in South America, and in all the Australian Colonies, and I never saw anything so sickening and cruel as practised at Deptford Market. Such were the reiterated statements of Captain Stanley, supported by other testimony, with regard to this case of ill-treatment of cattle at Deptford. They 1087 were not made hastily or under excitement, but calmly and deliberately, as an eye-witness of what he described; and he (Earl De La Warr) could not understand in what way the noble Duke could have arrived at the conclusions which he did, except on the supposition that official information passed sometimes through a somewhat dense medium, and did not always reflect the brightest light. He came now to the second part of what he wished to ask their Lordships to have laid upon the Table of the House—namely, Copies of the Instructions issued to Inspectors of Ports in the United Kingdom relative to the importation of foreign cattle. He did this as he feared the case to which he had just referred was not a solitary instance of ill-treatment of cattle from the want of proper supervision and inspection. He was certainly somewhat surprised to find—and he thought their Lordships would hardly expect to hear—that in some of our largest ports there was not the most ordinary provision made for the proper transport and landing of cattle. He had statements from experienced and practical men—men who were largely connected with the cattle trade—which showed that there was a total absence of all arrangements for the transport of cattle to secure their proper treatment, and to protect the interests of the trade. He could give as an instance a no less important place than Liverpool—he might say one of the greatest, the wealthiest, and most important ports of the world. On the 1st of May this statement was made by Mr. Richard Hall, well known from his connection with the cattle trade— Last Sunday 870 sheep were landed on the Dock Quay from the Hamburg steamer Westmoreland. They were detained on the quay till Monday at noon, in order that they might he passed by the Inspector appointed for that purpose. The whole number were turned up, and it was found that one of the creatures walked a little lame, so it was declared to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease. Thereupon the whole number were detained upon the dock quay during Monday night, without pens, without covering' or shelter, and a portion even remained till Thursday morning. Monday night was cold, raw, and wet, and here were these helpless animals exposed to the inclement weather, without food, and, so far as we can learn, without drink. But this is not all. They were all condemned to be stuck upon the quay, and in many eases, before the agonies of death were passed, the suffering creatures were thrown into carts and carried to 1088 the depôt at Sandhills, their lifeblood colouring the streets as they were being carted along.…. Similar instances have been very frequent during the last three months, and any appeal to remedy this cruelty and obstruction to trade made to the authorities here has been unavailing. He could add other testimony. He would ask their Lordships to listen for one moment to what was stated by Mr. James Odams—whose name might be familiar to some of their Lordships from his former large connection with the cattle trade. Speaking of Irish cattle, and writing on the 7th of May, 1875, Mr. Odams said— At this season of the year we import thousands weekly for grazing in the Midland and Eastern districts. The state in which they arrive is simply disgraceful. Only on Monday last a considerable number were in the Metropolitan Market pictures of misery. The railway system and Channel transit of cattle require to be thoroughly overhauled, and not left to the mercenary interests of dealers and carriers. He further added— You ask me if the state of things exists now as described in page 4 of my pamphlet. I have no hesitation in saying that it does, and in an extended degree. The Privy Council exercise no power at any of the landing places for cattle with regard to cruelty, feeding, or watering; the only duty they perform is examination as to disease and quarantine. He would trouble their Lordships with the testimony of one more only—that of Mr. T. Rose, a large farmer in Norfolk— Suppose a cargo of 1,000 sheep arrives at one of our ports, and 100 are seen to have the disease; they are slaughtered, and the remaining 900 are allowed to go to any market, thereby carrying the disease.…. The system of in spection is bad, and perfectly useless in staying this frightful malady.…. I imagine that Norwich Market is, if not the largest, one of the largest in the Kingdom. It is virtually an impossibility to buy stock, especially cattle, at that market without their having foot-and-mouth disease.…. Of course, the flesh of sheep and cattle suffering from this complaint cannot be anything like so good as those that are free from it, as they are in a high state of fever. He thought he had now shown to their Lordships, upon testimony which might be relied upon, that there was a case—a pressing case—for some steps to be taken to apply a remedy. The noble Duke had stated that he was not prepared to take any further steps in the matter, or to make any regulations beyond those which at present existed. He need hardly remind their Lordships 1089 that by the Act of 1869 the Privy Council had the power, if he rightly read it, to make regulations which would obviate all existing evils. The noble Duke would, doubtless, state to their Lordships whether he had re-considered this intention to do nothing. Perhaps the blame might be thrown upon the local authorities; but if there was no power to make them act, why not apply to Parliament for a power which would surely be granted? But he believed that if vigorous measures were adopted under the existing law—if there were more stringent regulations and a better system of inspection and of licensing vessels for the cattle trade--much good would be done. Lastly, he might very briefly refer to the grave question which arose both in the interests of trade and in a sanitary point of view. The loss which was sustained by diseased cattle was enormous; and not only was the quantity diminished, but the quality was seriously deteriorated. Large numbers of diseased cattle arrived weekly at different ports. If the disease was apparent, they were slaughtered on landing, and were bought by butchers to be sold for food. By a Return issued in February last by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, it appeared (sec. 9) that 1,619 animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease were landed during the last month at English ports from the Continent, and were slaughtered. These—or, at all events, the greater part—were sold for human food; but as it was now known that animals suffering from this disease were in a high state of fever, a very serious question must arise in a sanitary point of view. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would give the whole question their serious attention. It was demanded for the sake of humanity; it was demanded for the interests of agriculture and of trade; and it was required for the interests of the public.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, he had certainly had no idea on reading the Notice of his noble Friend's Motion, that he intended to go again into the whole case of alleged cruelty to animals landed at Deptford; to which case he (the Duke of Richmond) thought he had given a complete answer on a former occasion. His noble Friend assumed the accuracy of the allegations as regarded the treatment of the cattle in question; but he begged to say that he disputed altogether the accuracy of those allegations. On the last occasion when his noble Friend brought the case under the notice of their Lordships, he (the Duke of Richmond), in reply, quoted the report made by the Inspector to the Department, in which it was pointed out that the facts were not such as they had been stated to be by his noble Friend. He ventured to think that if the gentleman who had written letters to the newspapers and corresponded with his noble Friend had made inquiries of the Inspectors, and, failing to obtain satisfaction from them had addressed the Department, it would have been unnecessary for his noble Friend to have moved in the matter. It appeared from a Paper laid on the Table of the other House of Parliament that on seeing Captain Stanley's letter in The Times the Secretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals applied to him, and stated that the society was ready to prosecute, if the gallant gentleman would come forward as a witness and furnish the Society with the names of the perpetrators of the alleged outrages. The gallant officer declined to accede to that request. He submitted that Captain Stanley put himself out of court by declining to appear as a witness, he being the only person who could have proved the case. His noble Friend had spoken of other reprehensible occurrences at Deptford besides those the subject of Captain Stanley's letter. If there had been such occurrences, it was surprising that nothing had been heard of them at the Privy Council Office. With respect to the cruelties spoken of by Mr. Richard Hall, of Liverpool, he could say nothing of them, because he had not heard of them before, even in the shape of Notice that it was his noble 1091 Friend's intention to bring them forward; but be could not help remarking that though Mr. Hall might have had great experience in the cattle trade, he could not know very much about agriculture. That gentleman complained that in the month of May sheep were exposed to the weather. He appealed to any flock-master as to whether it was customary to have sheep under cover in-the month of May. He should think that sheep would feel very much astonished to find themselves under cover at this season of the year.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
observed that a part of the complaint was that the sheep were left without food.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, he could not reply to that portion of the charge, for the reason he had already stated. He could not suppose that complaints had been made, and made in vain, to the local authorities; because his experience at the Privy Council Office enabled him to say that such appeals found their way very speedily to London and to the Privy Council Office, where, in this case, they would have come under his notice, and he would have directed a searching inquiry. His noble Friend said that official information passed through a dense medium. Well, perhaps, he was the dense medium to which his noble Friend referred; but he could only repeat that the information spoken of by his noble Friend had not reached him at all until he heard the statement of the noble Earl. He (the Duke of Richmond) believed the law was sufficient, and he hoped his noble Friend would be of the same opinion when he perused the Papers for which he had moved, and to the granting of which there was no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government.