Lords Sitting of 22 February 1877

TURKEY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I rise to put a Question to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, of which I have given him private Notice. In the debate of Tuesday night the noble Earl said:—
  "Now, I wish to give to the House the most striking illustration of the complete ignorance that pervaded not England alone, but the whole world, the whole of Europe, and especially those countries nearest to the spot where those atrocities were committed, and whose border populations were, above all others, most deeply interested in the matter. When the three Imperial Powers met to compose the Berlin Memorandum they composed it with an aggravation of all their charges against the Porte, which was a very natural and diplomatic course to adopt, and pointed in succession to every circumstance ad invidiam that had occurred since the publication and failure of the Andrassy Note; and yet, although Germany, Austria, and Russia were the Powers that concocted that celebrated State paper, not a single allusion is made in it to the Bulgarian atrocities, notwithstanding all of them had been perpetrated a fortnight or three weeks before it was drawn up."
  798
  Now, my Lords, since the debate I have referred to the Blue Book, and I find that the Berlin Memorandum was communicated to the Representatives of the Six Powers on the 13th of May, and from the report of Vice Consul Dupuis and other documents it appears that at Batak on May 9—that is, four days previous—there was a wholesale massacre of about 5,000 persons; at Perushtitza on May 13, of 750; and at Boyadjikeui, on May 24, of 149. It is not, indeed, necessary to mention the various dates at which massacres were committed after the 13th of May. I think I have stated enough to convince the House and the noble Earl that there are some inconsistencies, real or apparent, between the facts as they appear in the Blue Book and the statement made by him on Tuesday night. I, therefore, beg to ask the noble Earl whether those inconsistencies are real or only apparent?
  THE. EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I have received from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) an intimation of his intention to make an inquiry, connected with the inquiry of the noble Earl, and I shall be able to answer both inquiries at the same time.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In that case, with the noble Earl's permission, I should prefer to put my Question before he answers it. The noble Earl in the debate said—
  "But the truth is this, we have heard something in these debates about Consular agents, and the information that could be obtained by their means; but the truth is this, that these atrocities were perpetrated in parts of Turkey which are almost denuded of Consular supervision, there being no commercial demands for such agencies, and the Government of a past day—I will not inquire what were their politics, representing a commercial country—having cut off all Consular agencies in that part of the Turkish Empire."
  That is the report of The Times, and it concurs with my recollection of the words used by the noble Earl. As the statement twice said to be the truth of the matter did not coincide with my recollection of a transaction with which I had something to do, I asked the noble Earl whether he could state the names of the places from which Consular supervision had been removed. This the noble Earl was unable to do at the moment, but with his usual courtesy promised the information; and added that he did not

  799
  blame the action of the Government, which had its origin in the House of Commons. In this he was perfectly right; but my recollection does not further coincide with his. In consequence of a Resolution of a Committee of the House of Commons on the Consular Service Lord Clarendon decided to have an inquiry on the spot. This decision I carried out, and Mr. Kennedy, a most competent person, was sent specially to Turkey. He found that an alteration had been made by the Government with regard to the Vilayet system, and that large districts were placed under one Governor, and that these Governors were apt to play one Consul against another; and he therefore recommended a system by which a Consul should reside at the seat of Government with Vice Consuls under him. I concurred generally in these recommendations; and the result was, as regards Turkey, one Consulate was abolished at Janina in Albania, leaving only a Consular Agent there; the Consulate at Monastir, in Macedonia, was reduced in rank and emoluments; and at Varna the emoluments of a Vice Consulate were diminished. In the four remaining cases of changes in Consular establishments in European Turkey, the emoluments were, in different degrees, in each case increased. I am not aware of any action at all in respect of any Consular establishment in that part of European Turkey where the atrocities were committed. I may mention that the Foreign Office was pressed from outside to abolish the Consulship at Adrianople—to which I could not consent, conceiving it would not be for the public advantage. The Estimates carrying out these changes were prepared by the late Government, but they were examined, adopted, and presented to Parliament by the noble Earl's Administration. I therefore take the liberty of asking the noble Earl again which were the places in that portion of Turkey in which the atrocities were committed from which Consular supervision had been taken away?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: With reference to the Questions that have been addressed to me by the two noble Earls, noble Lords will remember—if they can remember the observations I addressed to the House on that occasion—that the observations I made
  800
  on the points respecting which these Questions have been addressed to me were casual remarks, that there was nothing in the Motion of the noble Duke, nothing in the speech which he then delivered, and nothing which occurred in the course of the debate itself, which could have led me to believe that the lamentable incidents which have occurred in Bulgaria or any information which had been received by the Government in reference to those incidents would be made the subject of question in that debate. What happened was this. Before the Leader of the Opposition spoke, a noble Earl, who approved the action of Her Majesty's Government generally in the transactions the subject of the discussion, severely impugned the conduct of the Government in regard to the Bulgarian atrocities, and stated that the agitation which had been excited in the autumn when those atrocities became known had been caused by the Government not having imparted to Parliament and the public the information they had received. My Lords, you must feel that was a very grave accusation to make, and it was impossible for me—although directing my argument to the subject which had been brought under our consideration with great ability by the noble Duke—not to advert to those observations of the noble Earl. Had I been in the least aware that the incidents in Bulgaria and the conduct of the Government in reference to the atrocities would be called in question, I should, of course, have refreshed my memory before entering on the debate by a reference to the Papers on those points; I should have made no statements respecting the Consular Service, or anything else, without having the documents at hand to bear me out. But that was not the position of affairs. The matter was introduced most unexpectedly and suddenly. It was one which I could not have anticipated to find brought forward, and I could speak only from my general knowledge of affairs. I think the principle on which a Minister should answer Questions addressed to him in Parliament is a clear one. He is bound to give Parliament the fullest information in his possession, provided that it is not confidential information or that its communication would not be detrimental to the interests of the State. But authentic information must be information

  801
  received from responsible sources. It would not do for the Government to come down to Parliament and give information merely because it had been received in society, however plausible it might seem, or however authoritative the private communication. I made no answer on these occasions until after consultation with my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and we then imparted to this House and to the House of Commons the information—I am perfectly aware—the slight and vague information on the subject of these atrocities as they were at first reported to us. I am well aware how slight was that information, but we gave all we could; and on subsequent occasions when we had fuller information we gave it also; and therefore I trust we may not be considered guilty of the charge made against us that the agitation in the country was occasioned by our refusing to disclose information. Now, there is not the slightest doubt that Tier Majesty's Government was ill-served on that occasion—they did not receive the information they ought to have received. I beg that in saying this I may not be understood as casting any imputation on the honourable and eminent gentleman who was then and is still our Ambassador to the Court of the Sultan. It must be remembered that Sir Henry Elliot was placed at that moment in very difficult circumstances. This is a consideration which is too frequently forgotten. Constantinople was in a most critical state. Revolutions were impending which afterwards occurred, and incidents were threatening which might have been more serious than those revolutions. The mind of Sir Henry Elliot must have been on the strain during the whole of that time, and I have not the slightest doubt that any one placed in the same position would have acted in the same way. Sir Henry Elliot has a thorough knowledge of Constantinople and the Turks of that city—few men have greater—he was deficient in information as to the Provinces in which these atrocities occurred. That I attributed, and do attribute, to the Consular Service not having been adequate to the occasion, and that it had been improvidently reduced. The noble Earl mistakes me if he supposes that I made any charge against his Government in respect of that reduc-
  802
  tion. Quite the reverse. I did not at the moment clearly remember under what Government it was the Consular Service in Turkey had been reduced. Called on unexpectedly to address myself to the point, I rather thought that the reduction had been made by the Government of which I was a Member. But that matters little—whether it was by a Conservative Government or a Liberal Government—because the reduction had been made on the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, and no Minister would treat the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons on public expenditure but with the highest respect. Therefore, there was no desire on my part to attribute to the noble Earl or the Government of which he was a Member the ill consequences, as I believe, of the reduction in the Consular Service. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) says I stated that the Consular Service had been reduced in that particular part of Turkey where those atrocities were perpetrated. I am not aware that I did so, but I do not dispute it. I never question the accuracy of a report—though I never saw one that was accurate—because I know well that if we were to be entering into controversies as to the accuracy of reports it would be impossible ever to come to a conclusion on any human affair. Therefore I do not dispute it, though I do not remember it. Now, my Lords, I do not know any instance in which the Consular Service was reduced in the immediate scene of the atrocities; but there has been a great reduction of the Consular Service in Turkey. The first Committee on the Consular Service sat in 1858, and it made many recommendations which were carried into effect. Your Lordships will find that in consequence of those recommendations six Consuls or Consular Agents were abolished in Turkey. In 1874 the Consulate at Janina, an important place, was abolished, and there was a reduction in the important post referred to by the noble Earl at Monastir, in Macedonia. There have also been reductions of Consuls to Vice Consuls. I do not wish at all to intimate that because a man is a Vice Consul only ho may not be a very experienced servant of the Crown. I know there are many cases in which they have displayed much ability; but in most cases reductions

  803
  such as those must impair the efficiency of the particular service.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Will the noble Earl state the instances in which the Consulates have been reduced to Vice Consulates?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I have no Papers here, but I shall have no difficulty in giving the names to the noble Earl. But what I allude to is not a solitary instance. It was the remembrance of those circumstances, and speaking, as I must impress upon your Lordships, casually and to a point which I had not expected to have been raised in the debate, which induced me to make the observations I did on Tuesday night. These localities to which the noble Earl has adverted have been and may again become scenes of great interest. They may become scenes of war, or they may become scenes of peace; but in either event they must attract constant attention. I trust they will be scenes of peace; for I do not yet despair of the common-sense of the Porte, and I have much confidence in the wise unanimity of the Great Powers; but whether they be the scenes of peace or the scenes of war, no doubt they will attract and even absorb the attention of the nation, and therefore I am sure your Lordships will hear with satisfaction that the whole subject of the Consular Agents in this part of the world has been for some time under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who intend to make a proposal to Parliament which, whether by changes or modifications, will we hope lead to considerable improvement in that service, and do away with those causes which, in our opinion, now impair its efficiency. I will now say a word in reply to the Question addressed to me by the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) on the subject of Bulgarian atrocities. I spoke from memory; but, speaking from memory, I cannot see any substantial difference between what I stated and the facts. The facts stated by the noble Earl do not seem to be so exact as he described them to be. What happened with regard to the Berlin Memorandum? The Berlin Memorandum was communicated on the 13th of May. The first Bulgarian outrage occurred on the 1st of May; and every day was more or less signalized by excesses. If, then, the 1st of May saw the commencement of
  804
  those outrages, I was not particularly unfounded in my expression when I said that those incidents occurred a fortnight before the delivery of the Berlin Note. The noble Earl referred to the case of Batak. These excesses were not known to Parliament when its attention was first called to the subject. The horrible scene that took place at Batak was not the cause of the indignation which was expressed so unmistakeably in Parliament, and especially in the House of Commons. The outrages and massacres which occasioned that great ebullition of feeling in the House of Commons were those that took place in the early part of May, and Batak, which exceeds them all in horrors and infamy, was absolutely discovered by Mr. Baring on his mission. It had not been reported by the American Missionaries or by Mr. Schuyler himself, who took such an active part in sending information to this country. Though it was undoubtedly one of the most terrible of all the scenes that occurred in Bulgaria, it was not discovered till Mr. Baring's subsequent investigations into those atrocities. When you find that the three Imperial Courts, two of which were intimately connected with that part of the world and had extensive commercial relations with it—when you find that, sitting in council on the 13th, they were not aware of massacres commenced on the 1st of May, it is a proof that however ill-informed the English Government was it was no worse off than the others. It had not the advantage of the two Imperial Courts either from its commercial relations or the presence among its subjects of those who took a very active part in these transactions: is it surprising then that the English Government should have been so ill-informed, when neither the Prussian nor Austrian Governments appeared to be cognizant of these transactions? I have endeavoured to place before you—I trust with the utmost candour—what my views are upon the subject. The spirit of my observations, as I think entirely indicated, was that there has been a large and unwise reduction of the Consular Service in Turkey, and that, though the British Government was imperfectly informed of what occurred in Bulgaria, those who had the greater advantages of position and circumstances were not better instructed.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYobserved that the noble Earl seemed to some extent to have misapprehended his Question. He had asked for an explanation of an apparent inconsistency in the noble Earl's statement that no allusion was made to these atrocities in the Berlin Memorandum, although all of them had been perpetrated a fortnight or three weeks before it was drawn up. The noble Earl's answer only showed that one of them had been committed 12 days before the presentation of that document.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, perhaps as reference has been made to the debate which took place in this House two days ago, I may be allowed—though the noble Duke who opened that discussion (the Duke of Argyll) is not now in his place—to take this opportunity of answering a Question which he then put to me, and to which I was not then able to give him a reply. Your Lordships will remember that I promised to answer him as soon as I had an opportunity of ascertaining accurately what had passed. The noble Duke expressed a curiosity, which, under the circumstances, was not unnatural, to know what was the nature of the communication referred to but not included in the Blue Book, which had been made by me towards the end of December to the Turkish Government, and which had led to a very warm expression of gratitude on the part of that Government. The noble Duke appeared to think that it must have had some reference to the proceedings of the Conference—and, I am bound to say, that was not an unreasonable suggestion. I have been able to refresh my memory upon the subject. I have also communicated with the Turkish Ambassador here, and I find that my recollection of what occurred at the time was quite accurate—namely, that this communication to which so much reference has been made, was one of no political significance whatever. It was simply a verbal expression of congratulation addressed to the Turkish Ambassador here, upon the receipt through him of official information of the accession to office of Midhat Pasha, the new Grand Vizier. It was a complimentary expression of congratulation, such as your Lordships know is not unusual on such an occasion; and on this particular occasion there was
  806
  I a peculiar fitness in it, for whatever has been the result, there was, no doubt, a very general belief that Midhat Pasha was a man who, on his accession to power, would carry out the reforms which had been promised. The communication was verbal, and there was no reference in it to any proceedings at the Conference, or to any political business whatever. It was simply a message of courtesy and compliment, and the expression of a hope that the new Grand Vizier would carry into effect that policy which we all desired to see. So much was it the case that no political significance was attached by me to that communication that I did not keep any record of it; and if I do not produce the document which the noble Duke asks for, it is for the most conclusive of reasons, that no such document is in existence.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In the absence of the noble Duke, I may be permitted to thank the noble Earl for his courtesy in answering the Question, and to say that, in my opinion, his answer would have been satisfactory to the noble Duke had he been present. At the same time, I think it was a very natural thing for him to put the Question, seeing that the telegram had been referred to in another conversation given in the Blue Book.

THE COLORADO OR POTATO BEETLE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he can give any information respecting the progress of the Colorado or potato beetle? The noble Lord said, that as it had been reported in August last that the Colorado beetle had reached Canada, ho thought it possible that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies might be in possession of some information on the subject, and that whatever information he might give would be very acceptable to the farmers of Ireland and the North of England. It would be a satisfaction to them to know that the Government were watching the progress of this pest. He believed that the Government had already taken measures to check the entrance of these beetles at our ports, and perhaps his noble Friend would be able to confirm the paragraphs to that effect which had appeared in the Press. He hoped the

  807
  Government would consider whether it might not be the safer course to prohibit the importation of all American potatoes except those which, being intended for seed, were carefully packed and sent clean and free from the beetles or their eggs.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, there was no doubt, as the noble Lord had said, that the question was one of considerable importance, as the ravages of the insect had been very great in the western part of America, and had created a great deal of apprehension in Canada. There was no doubt that if it were to reach this country and become acclimatized here the mischief might be very considerable. All that was possible he believed had been done. He had communicated with the Board of Trade and the Canadian Government as to the necessity of supervision over those ports from which potatoes were exported. The Board of Customs had issued two Orders on the subject—one in 1875 and one last year—in which a close examination of every ship arriving in the months of August and September laden with potatoes was enjoined. The great danger was that the insect might also be imported from Germany, for it had been found that a similar insect had been discovered in Germany, which was shown, on investigation, to be the same insect which had proved so destructive in America and Canada. All American and Canadian ships were carefully watched on coming into port, and if it should be found necessary German ships would also be watched. The Government were fully alive to the importance of the subject.

OUTBREAK OF CATTLE PLAGUE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in calling attention to the outbreak of Cattle Plague in Essex and Yorkshire, and asking the Lord President what steps have been taken to prevent the spread of the disease, said, that the importation of live cattle was a trade which had sprung up in our own time and was one of the results of the adoption of the principle of free trade. Up to the passing of Sir Robert Peel's free-trade measures this country was free from the formidable cattle diseases which were known in other countries—one of which was known
  808
  as the rinderpest. That disease in former years was not known in England, but was confined to the eastern parts of Europe. But the great facilities for conveyance by railway had brought the disease nearer and nearer, until finally it was introduced into this country. Now, the whole supply of live cattle and sheep to this country was very small in comparison with the immense numbers of the herds and flocks which were reared and kept in it. The last Return—that for 1875—showed that the live cattle in the United Kingdom were about 6,000,000, sheep 30,000,000, and pigs 2,000,000; while only 169,000 oxen and bulls, 58,000 cows, 34,000 sheep, 44,000 calves, and 43,000 pigs, in round numbers, were imported in 1876; so that the whole of those imported were as to cattle about one 24th part of those in this country, as to sheep about one 30th, and as to pigs about one 50th. He believed that the importation of live cattle and pigs, and certainly sheep, was, so far as they were for the purpose of slaughtering in this country, retrograding rather than increasing, for he found that the Returns for last year showed several thousands fewer than in 1875; while, on the other hand, the importation of meat was constantly and largely increasing. His own opinion was that the requests of the joint deputation of members of the Farmers' Club and of the Central Chamber of Agriculture to the Privy Council for greater protection, for foreign animals to be allowed to be landed at specified ports and not removed alive but slaughtered at the places of debarkation, ought to have been granted. Such were the main requirements which were laid before the Lord President by those bodies in June last, and to which the noble Duke returned an elaborate answer. The result proved that what was done inadequately met the necessities of the case. The recent discussions at the Central Chamber of Agriculture and Farmers Club showed that the reply of the noble Duke was considered by the farmers of England most unsatisfactory. But further, after reference to the present importation of meat from America, the Resolution passed at that meeting was that, in view of the altered circumstances of the times, it was very desirable that the slaughtering should take place at the ports of embarkation, and that only

  809
  those animals should be excepted which were intended for store stock, and entered as such, and that these should be subjected to strict quarantine at the port of debarkation. His own belief was that without the slaughtering on the other side of the Channel of all animals intended for immediate conversion into meat, the very valuable flocks and herds in this country would be very inadequately protected against disease. He had been an earnest free-trader long before any of the present and many of the late Government became converted to free trade; but, he contended, that while fully supporting the principles of free trade, and admitting that it might be requisite to allow a certain quantity of store stock to be imported into this country, it was desirable from many points of view that no fat animals should come over for immediate slaughter here, but that they should be killed abroad and come here as meat. In connection with this subject there was another question which he was very earnest their Lordships should consider—and that was the cruelty inflicted upon the animals under the present system. Last year he supported the Bill to restrict the practice of vivisection; but the evils prevented by the Act were small as compared with the sufferings of animals which were imported from the Continent. If any of their Lordships had had the misfortune, as he himself had, to witness a debarkation of stock, and especially of fat stock, they would beyond question have been satisfied that the interests of humanity would be immensely promoted by the abolition of a process which inevitably entailed a dreadful amount of suffering on the poor animals. As many of their Lordships must be aware, when there was stormy weather at sea the hatches of the ships in which stock was being conveyed here had to be closed; and at the end of the voyage a number of animals were frequently found to have been suffocated. Where suffocation had not taken place, the animals were found to have suffered severely; and he could not believe that in the state in which they must necessarily be after a stormy passage they could be very desirable food for consumption in England. Now, when they found that dead meat could be imported so successfully from across the Atlantic, he considered that there could be no difficulty
  810
  in bringing such meat over from Hamburgh, Holland, or France. For his own part, he should rather eat meat so shipped than the Meat of animals whose physical condition had been impaired by being tossed about in the hold of a vessel at sea. Therefore, for the protection of their own herds and flecks, and on the ground that meat from bruised and fevered animals could not be in a good state to eat, it was highly desirable, he argued, that all animals, except those for store stock, should be prohibited from coming alive into this country. He had been told that in one English county alone the loss of property, in the shape of cattle, which had taken place in consequence of cattle disease had amounted to at least £2,000,000 sterling. If that were the case, it would surely be sound political economy, as a simple matter of insurance, to take the precautions which he had indicated. There was another consideration to be taken into account—namely, that in consequence of the existence of this disease the markets of Australia and other countries would be closed against the importations of stock from this country, and so our very profitable export trade of animals, few in number but very high in price, would be seriously interfered with. There had been an outbreak of the disease in the Metropolitan district and another at Hull, and he hoped that the noble Duke would listen to the appeal made by the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He would like to add to his Question on the Paper this—Whether any further steps were intended to be taken by the Government with a view not only of meeting the present outbreak of cattle plague, but of preventing, so far as precautions could be carried out, the importation of it into this country hereafter?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I am not at all surprised at the anxiety manifested by the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) to get information upon the subject-matter of the Question he has addressed to me. It is of such immense importance, and the consequences of this disastrous disease on a former occasion were so dreadful both to the producers and consumers of meat in this country, that it is astonishing to me that similar Questions should not have been put to me earlier in the Session. But while I have no doubt that not one

  811
  only but that many of your Lordships desire to hear some statement on behalf of the Government in reference to it, the introduction of it comes very appropriately from the noble Earl, who holds the honourable position of President of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which includes among its members some of the most eminent agriculturalists in the Kingdom. Reading only the Question on the Paper, I was not prepared to hoar the arguments and the speech of the noble Earl on this occasion as to the prevention of the cattle plague and the origin of its introduction into this country. I think that the noble Earl is not quite correct in one of his statements—that it is only since the year 1846 that animals have been allowed to be imported free into this country, and he will pardon me for correcting him on this point. From 1833 to 1842 there was strict prohibition; from 1842 to 1846 they were admitted on payment of a small duty; and from 1846 to this time they have been admitted free from duty, but, as everyone knows, under certain regulations. I hope the noble Earl will also pardon me if I venture to differ from his statement that it is only since 1844 that the disease known as the rinderpest first appeared in this country. I believe that many years ago there was a complaint which affected the live stock of this country, which if not absolutely the same as the rinderpest was very like it. The noble Earl has referred to an important document which I have received from the Central Chamber of Agriculture. One suggestion made in that document is that all animals shall be slaughtered at the port of debarkation; but the noble Earl proceeded to indicate his opinion that that will not be sufficient—in fact, he would practically prevent the importation of all stock into this country.
  EARL FORTESCUE: No, not all; fat stock.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: So far as I have been able to ascertain up to the present time the great difficulty in this matter has been to distinguish between fat stock and store stock; and to say that we should prevent the introduction of fat stock—that we should only allow animals to come in as store stock—is to declare that a thing should be done which it would be almost impossible, if not quite impossible, to do. The noble Earl is a Freetrader; but if
  812
  such a proposal as that were carried out, it would really be going back to the days of protection—days, however, which I am not here at the present moment to discuss. It is proposed that all animals shall be slaughtered at the port of embarkation; and the noble Earl tells us that slaughter at the place of debarkation will not satisfy him; and then he states that the importation of American meat has solved the difficulty, and that we ought to take measures to insure that all meat, of whatever character, intended for food in this country should be imported in a similar manner. I am far from saying that that would not be advantageous; but up to this time there has not been sufficient experience in respect to the trade between this country and America as to the manner in which the supplies will be brought forward to enable us to say that the experiment has been completely successful. The noble Earl in the course of his remarks alluded to the importation of meat from France. Now there is nothing to prevent France from doing that, and France is a great country for the rearing of stock, and could provide this country with a quantity of dead meat; and certainly as the sea passage need not exceed two hours there is nothing to prevent France from following in the course adopted in America. What I desire now to do is to give a short history of the recent outbreak of cattle plague. The noble Earl says that if all traffic in live animals had been prevented the plague would not have been introduced into England. But there is this remarkable circumstance on record which contradicts that statement. The noble Earl is aware that all animals from this country were excluded from Ireland at the time of the cattle plague. Nevertheless, it did break out in that country. Every endeavour was made to find out how it got into Ireland, but unsuccessfully. The first outbreak this year was on the 15th of January. There was a paragraph in The Times stating that the cattle plague had broken out in Germany; and without waiting for any official confirmation of that report I telegraphed to the inspectors at the various ports to be especially careful in regard to the stock which came under their inspection from abroad. The same evening a cargo of cattle arrived by the ship Castor at Deptford from Hamburg, and unfortunately the

  813
  plague was discovered amongst that cargo. One animal had died on the voyage, and when the ship was inspected other animals were found to be affected by the disease. On the following day I directed all the rules laid down by the Privy Council to be applied and put into operation at once; and the whole of the animals were slaughtered and their carcases destroyed, and all the men who took part in the work had their clothes disinfected before leaving the premises in which it took place. I want the House and the country to know exactly what steps were taken to prevent this disastrous disease spreading over the country. On the same day an Order in Council was passed which scheduled sheep and goats coming from Germany, and they had to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. I issued a Circular to all the local authorities, informing them that the cattle plague had broken out at Hamburg, that an infected cargo had been landed at the port of London, and directing them to examine stock and to make inquiries, and that all doubtful cases should be dealt with without delay. Having caused all the animals brought by the Castor to be slaughtered, I took upon myself—somewhat exceeding, perhaps, my powers under the Act—to request the authorities to detain that vessel until it was thoroughly disinfected. I instructed the Inspector at Deptford to see that the disinfection had taken place; and I induced the owners of the vessel to consent that for the space of one month they would not carry cattle on beard. Then information reached us that sheep and goats might come to this country from Germany through Belgium and France, and that caused me to take another step—namely, to issue an Order in Council scheduling sheep and goats from those countries. Further information having reached my Department that the cattle disease was spreading in Germany, an Order in Council was issued on the 27th January altogether prohibiting the landing of cattle, hides, or meat from Germany, France, and Belgium. These precautions were taken in consequence of the prevalence of cattle plague in foreign countries. Up to that time it was done only by way of caution, because we had no intimation that any cattle plague had appeared in this country except at Deptford. On the 30th January a suspicious case occurred in a
  814
  cowshed at Limehouse, and our Inspector reported to us that it was cattle plague. All the animals in the same shed were slaughtered and their carcases destroyed the same night. A communication was made to the Metropolitan Board of Works, from whom we have received every possible assistance. A cordon was drawn round London on the 31st January, and no animals are allowed to go outside the metropolitan district. That was necessary because of a market which was to be held next day, in order to prevent the possibility of affected animals being taken to any part of the country. On the 1st February I communicated with the Commissioners of Police and the railway authorities and informed them of the Order in Council, so that they should take the greatest precautions to prevent the disease spreading. Then on the 2nd February another Order in Council was passed to prevent any fairs and markets within the district being held except by special licence. On the 3rd February there was an outbreak at Poplar and another at Bow, and then I sent Inspectors to visit all the dairies at Bow, and I sent another Circular to all the local authorities throughout the country stating that the cattle plague was spreading in the Metropolis, and directing them to examine all the stock in their districts, so that in case of any outbreak they might act promptly. There were further outbreaks at Poplar, Millwall, and Blackwall. On the 8th February we heard that a disease had appeared at a place near the frontier of the Netherlands, and though we know that the Government of that country do their utmost to protect their frontier, still we thought it our duty to issue an Order in Council placing the Netherlands in the list of scheduled countries, and prohibiting the importation of cattle, sheep, or goats from that country except for the purpose of immediate slaughter. The disease spread to Hackney Wick, and then we heard of it on the 9th of February at Stratford, outside the metropolitan district. It spread in a very small way, but still it did spread. I then thought it right to issue an Order in Council giving local authorities power to regulate the holding of fairs and markets and the movement of cattle in their districts. We thought it better that they should have that power and act for themselves, as they would best

  815
  know the requirements of the localities, and time would be saved by enabling them to act with promptitude in each case instead of having to communicate with the Privy Council Office in London. To prevent the disease spreading in Essex the local authorities availed themselves of the power so conferred, and in four petty sessional divisions prohibited the movement of all cattle except by special licence. Since the outbreak at Limehouse all the cowsheds had been examined, and I hope the disease has been confined to a certain area. I believe the Orders in Council which have been issued have been sufficient to enable the local authorities to act with promptitude, and I am in hopes that as regards the Metropolis the disease has been or will be stamped out. Unfortunately, however, on the 17th February a case broke out at Hull. We despatched an Inspector to that place, and pointed out that cattle should not be allowed to go into the country, and the local authorities have adopted the advice of our Inspector; but the disease did not stop with one case, as on the 20th or 21st of February other cases were reported from the same locality. Great alarm arose there, and no wonder, as that was the county in which the disease was so disastrous on a former occasion. I took upon myself, therefore, to advise that an Order in Council should be passed at once stopping all the fairs and markets and all movements of cattle in the East Riding of Yorkshire. I took upon myself that responsibility without waiting for the local authorities to do so, not from any distrust of those authorities, but because a large fair was to be held next day in York, and consequently, unless we acted it could not be stopped, as the local authorities would not have had time to do so. This then, my Lords, is what has taken place in the Metropolis and at Hull. Every precaution which could be taken has been taken to prevent the spread of the disease. We have been assisted by one of the most eminent veterinary surgeons in this country, Professor Brown; and we have also been greatly assisted by the Inspectors of the Privy Council—Messrs. Cope, Courtenay, Ricketts, and Captain Tennant—one and all have given their best energies in carrying out our Orders, and in giving information to the various local authorities throughout the country. There-
  816
  fore, in summing up this matter, I will point out the present state of affairs. It is this. From Belgium, Germany, and Russia the importation of cattle is prohibited, and sheep and goats from thence must be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. From the Netherlands and France all animals must be slaughtered at the port of embarkation. Therefore the only countries, from the extreme North to the South of Europe, from which cattle can be admitted at this moment—then to be detained for the space of 12 hours to be inspected, and, if free from disease, to be admitted into the country districts—are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and Portugal:—and it is a remarkable fact that in none of those countries has cattle plague been ever known to exist. Therefore no arrivals can come to this country at present from countries in which cattle plague is known to exist. I hope your Lordships think that every possible precaution has been taken, and promptly taken, in dealing with this most disastrous plague, and that the Department over which I have the honour to preside does not go to sleep, but is always ready to take the most prompt and most effective measures in these emergencies.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, in reference to the disease being in Ireland on a former occasion, when he was Lord Lieutenant, that though it was not possible to trace the manner of its introduction, and though it was not introduced there by the importation of any cattle, yet the supposition was that it was taken across by drovers who passed from one country to the other; and who, having been to the markets in England, carried the disease back with them. It was well known that there was a large exportation of cattle from Ireland to this country. He had heard with much satisfaction the statement of the noble Duke of the active measures taken to prevent the spread of the cattle plague in this country, and he hoped that they would be as successful as the measures adopted in Ireland some years ago, for though the plague broke out in three different places it was prevented from progressing beyond them.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.