Lords Sitting of 16 April 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Beading—Bills of Sale (Ireland) Act (1879) Amendment* (29); Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cummersdale, &c.)*(23).
Third Reading—Army Annual (25), and passed.

LORDS ALCESTER AND WOLSELEY—MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to move that the Messages from Her Majesty recommending pensions to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley for their eminent services be now taken into consideration. Your Lordships will remember that six months ago I had the honour—and I considered it a great honour—to propose to your Lordships Votes of Thanks to Admiral Sir Beau-champ Seymour, and General Sir Garnet Wolseley, and to the gallant sailors and soldiers who were under their orders during the operations in Egypt. I made a statement then of the grounds on which I thought those thanks ought to be given. Your Lordships received that statement in the most cordial manner. That statement was followed by the noble Marquess opposite, who expressed himself in very strong terms of approval, which showed that common ground existed between us in thinking that those distinguished officers were fully entitled to your Lordships' thanks. If I remember aright with regard to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, the noble Marquess stated that I had said nothing in the way of praise which was not due to him for the operations which he had conducted in such a manner as to increase the reputation of England and to assist our Diplomatic Agents. With regard to Sir Garnet Wolseley, the noble Marquess pointed out that he was remarkably active in his marches through the country, and that while he had a complete mastery of details, it, at the same time, in no way interfered with or narrowed the general scope of his views. A unanimous feeling was shown by the Vote which your Lordships gave on that occasion. I have already stated, as your Lordships are aware, that the Queen, acting in concurrence with the feelings that were shown by your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament on that occasion, has conferred various rewards and honours on the Naval and Military officers under their command. Among others, the Queen has conferred the honour of two Peerages upon Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley, who have already been welcomed to your Lordships' House. I read to-day, with very great interest,
  262
  the speech made by a noble and gallant Field Marshal, who himself owes his seat in this House to distinguished military services, and who, referring to the famous wish of Lord Nelson, said that in this, as in former times, men looked forward to a seat in the House of Lords as the highest honour to which they could attain. But the obligation is not entirely on one side. There have been discussions as to whether the existence of the House of Lords in the past, in the present, or in the future, was for good or for evil. But on one thing there is perfect unanimity, and that is, that the House does increase its efficiency and its popularity in the country by the accession of men who have rendered great services to their country. My Lords, I beg to move, in the first place—
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, to thank Her Majesty for the gracious Message, and to inform Her Majesty that, taking into consideration the important services rendered by Frederick Beauchamp Paget Lord Alcester, Admiral in Her Majesty's Navy, in the course of the recent expedition to Egypt, and that Her Majesty is desirous to confer some signal mark of Her favour for those distinguished services, this House will cheerfully concur in enabling Her Majesty to make provision for securing to the said Frederick Beau-champ Paget Lord Alcester, and to the next surviving heir male of his body, a pension of Two Thousand pounds per annum."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise with very great pleasure to second the proposal of the noble Earl, and the more pleasure I feel in supporting it, the more do I feel that many words are not necessary to commend it to the acceptance of your Lordships. It is pleasant to come across a subject on which all are heartily agreed, as we now are, in the duty of paying due honour, and in giving due support to that honour when paid in the case of distinguished servants of the Crown; and I think the noble Earl was very happy when he called attention, not only to the hearty sympathy with which this House especially receives those who have distinguished themselves on the ocean or in the field, but also to the great accession to the influence, power, and dignity of this House, which is conferred by their presence among us when the Sovereign adds them to our Roll. My Lords, the proposal which the noble Earl has made is justified by many precedents. It is in accordance with general usage upon these occasions. There never was a pro-

  263
  vision better deserved by those who have earned it at the hands of the Government and Parliament, and there never was one which will be more heartily supported by the country.
  Motion agreed to.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to thank Her Majesty for the gracious Message, and to inform Her Majesty that, taking into consideration the important services rendered by Garnet Joseph Lord Wolseley of Cairo, General in Her Majesty's Army, in the course of the recent expedition to Egypt, and that Her Majesty is desirous to confer some signal mark of Her favour for those distinguished services, this House will cheerfully concur in enabling Her Majesty to make provision for securing to the said Garnet Joseph Lord Wolseley of Cairo, and to the next surviving heir male of hi3 body, a pension of Two Thousand pounds per annum."—(The Earl Granville.)
  Motion agreed to.

NATY—NAYAL LIEUTENNATS.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House the rates of full pay of naval lieutenants and sublieutenants should be assimilated to that of officers holding relative rank in the Army; the half pay of naval lieutenants and sub-lieutenants should be in all cases the actual half of the full pay, except when length of service entitles them lo a higher scale."
  said, he must apologize for bringing forward the subject for the second time in the same Session. the answers which the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty gave him on the last occasion were not encouraging; but he could not say that he was disappointed, for he bore in mind the proverb, which was said to bean Arabian one—"Blessed is lie that expects nothing, for then he will not be disappointed." He did not doubt the noble Earl's sympathy with the officers of the Royal Navy; but he knew that, as the matter would involve a considerable amount of money, the noble Earl would have, therefore, to consult another Department before action could be taken; and he knew, by long experience, that the Treasury did not indulge in sympathy. The noble Earl, on the last occasion, seemed to admit that the position of the lieutenants was not altogether satisfactory; but he said that there was no difficulty in obtaining a supply of boys to enter the
  264
  Navy. He (the Earl of Belmore) did not doubt the patriotism of rich fathers; but he did not think it desirable that the supply of Naval officers should be obtained entirely from amongst the sons of rich men, who had not the same incentives to work as those who had to earn their living by their own exertions. Poor fathers were at present induced to send their sons into the Navy by the fact that they could obtain a good education for them at a low rate, and boys of an adventurous disposition were glad to leave school; but in after life they often bitterly repented having entered the Service. Besides, everyone hoped, on entering the Service, that he would eventually reach the top of the tree; but it was arithmetically impossible for a large proportion of the lieutenants ever to become commanders. All he (the Earl of Belmore) asked on the present occasion was, that in justice the pay of lieutenants and sub-lieutenants of the Navy should be increased; and he would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to take the matter into serious consideration, with the view of doing something for those officers who still laboured under much disadvantage, not only with regard to pay, but also with respect to slowness of promotion, many of them having their career cut short in the prime of life by retirement. He did not even suggest that anything should be done to interfere with the Estimates of the present year. Other officers in the Navy had had advances in their pay; and he found that in the Estimates for 1882–3 £6,560 was allowed for an increase of pay to medical officers, and £3,560 for increase of pay to engineers. A lieutenant found himself in the ward room among those officers, and, although receiving a good deal less pay than them, having considerably more expense. The responsibilities of lieutenants had very much increased since 1840, owing to the increased size of ships. Then a large ship cost £100,000 or £200,000; now it might be worth £1,000,000. In comparing the position of officers in the Navy with the position of Civil servants in the great Departments, there could be no doubt the Naval officer was the worst off, on the whole, taking the pay and retiring allowances together. He did not make any comparison between our Navy and the Navies of foreign coun-

  265
  tries, because, although lieutenants in the French Navy got higher, and in the American Navy much higher pay, they received no retired pay; and, therefore, a fair comparison was not possible. The noble Earl, on the last occasion on which the subject was before the House, had said that they had provided some six or eight posts in the Coastguard for Naval officers on half-pay. That was all very well as far as it went; but he (the Earl of Belmore) thought that, if he were a Naval officer, that would hardly be any compensation to him for his career being cut short. He had in his hand an extract from a Report of a Committee appointed some time ago to inquire into the expenditure incurred through the large and growing charges for Non-Effective Services. It did not include commissioned officers; but the application might suit the case of the lieutenants well enough—
  "And we would further point out that when increased inducements are proved to be required in order to secure the description of the service wanted, it is frequently bettor that these should be given in the shape of increased pay than in that of increased pensions; for it will often be found that at present increase to an individual or a class is much more attractive and much more appreciated than such deferred advantage in the shape of increased pension as could be given at anything like an equal cost to the public."
  With regard to the matter, as to what he proposed, he found that the number of sub-lieutenants on full pay, under three years' service, was 137. and that would cost £625 1s. 3d., and sub-lieutenants of over three years' standing was 53, which would cost £1,450 17 s. 6d. The number of lieutenants on full pay under eight years' standing was 425, and would cost £12,280 14 s. 7d.; between eight and 11 years' standing, 181, or £11,836 2s. 11 d.; and over 11 years' standing, 90, or £9,855, making a total of £36,048 6s. 3d. He was aware that the plan he proposed involved some increase of expenditure; but if, as an alternative, the increase was limited to lieutenants of eight years' standing and upwards, who ranked as majors, the total cost of the scheme would not exceed £20,000 per annum. He had been careful to avoid in any way attacking the noble Earl or his administration of the Navy. He was quite aware that the matter was an old one, and that he had the sympathy, at least, of the noble Earl
  266
  on behalf of the officers of the Royal Navy. It was undoubtedly an unfortunate circumstance that a large number of those officers must have their career cut short prematurely; and he, therefore, trusted that the small sum he bad mentioned would be awarded them—a sum which would greatly increase their contentment as a class. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Resolution standing in his name—
  Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House the rates of full pay of naval lieutenants and sub-lieutenants should be assimilated to that of officers holding relative rank in the Army; the half-pay of naval lieutenants and sublieutenants should be in all cases the actual half of the full pay, except when length of service entitles them to a higher scale."—(The Marl of Belmore.)
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I am sure that no one could have stated the case on behalf of the Naval lieutenants and sub-lieutenants more clearly and fairly than the noble Earl. The noble Earl's Motion is based upon the assimilation of the pay of Naval and Military officers, and I feel a great difficulty in dealing with it, because the difficulty of making any comparison of the advantages of the two Services is so great as to be almost insuperable. In the Navy there is the great advantage that fathers who send their sons into that branch of the Service are put to much less expense in their education. The Naval officer joins the Service at the age of 13, when he goes on board the Britannia, and his cost up to the time of his joining the Service as midshipman does not exceed £70 a-year. From that period till the time he arrives at the age of 20 or 21, when he becomes a sub-lieutenant, an allowance of £50 a-year, in addition to his pay, would be sufficient for his maintenance, exclusive of outfit. In the Army, the education of the son is entirely thrown on the hands of the parents. It would not be any exaggeration to say that, comparing the two, the expense of the education of a young man destined for the Army is three times that of one who enters the Navy. That is one of the advantages the Navy has. Another advantage is that the pay of officers of the higher ranks is greater; and a third may be found in the fact that officers selected for promotion obtain that rank at an earlier age than is usual in the

  267
  Army. For example, an officer in the Army would hardly obtain the rank of captain before the age of 30, -while the corresponding rank (of lieutenant) in the Navy is obtained at the age of 23 or 24. So, again, the next rank in the Navy—that of commander—has been gained during the last three years at an average age of 33; and the average age at which officers have during the same period obtained the rank of captain in the Navy is 39. The rank in the Army which corresponds with a commander and captain in the Navy is that of lieutenant colonel; and if an officer of the Army becomes a lieutenant colonel by the time he is 45 he is a fortunate man. On the other hand, promotion in the Army is more certain, and goes more by seniority, and there is the still greater advantage that in the lower ranks the officers need not remain on half-pay against their will, as is the case in the Navy; so that, as I have said, there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides; and, in my opinion, it would be very difficult to institute a comparison, such as the noble Earl has attempted, with any satisfactory result. There are, it appears to me, peculiar advantages in both Services; certainly there are, I am happy to say, sufficient in both to enable us to obtain plenty of candidates for admission both into the Army and into the Navy. I, therefore, beg to make this general protest and reservation against any such comparisons as the noble Earl has made; but, as he has made them, it is incumbent upon me to say something on the subject. First, then, as to sub-lieutenants. The age of a sub-lieutenant would usually be from 19 or 20 to 23 years of age, and his pay £91; that of a lieutenant in the Army under three years' standing is £96. But it is notorious that the mess expenses of officers in the Navy are less than in the Army, 30 s. a-month in the former case covering the mess expenses except wine; and in all ranks of the Navy officers receive free rations of the value of about £18 a-year. I cannot admit that a sub-lieutenant is not very fairly remunerated, or that there is any case for an increase in the pay of that rank. Coming to the more important rank, that of lieutenant, there is this peculiarity about it—that it includes officers of a very different amount of Service, extending from the young lieutenant
  268
  of 23 or 24 to old officers of 40 years and more; and there is, doubtless, some anomaly in there being one rate of pay for all. But this rate of pay, which is £182 16 s. a-year, does not represent the actual pay received by officers when serving. From time to time allowances have been given to lieutenants in command of ships, which make their pay from £269 to £247; to first lieutenants, from £228 to £209; to gunnery, torpedo, and navigating lieutenants, from £246 to £209; and if, also, senior executive officers, from £292 to £227. I inquired the other day into the average pay of lieutenants now serving, and found it to be £208 a-year. When we compare these figures with the pay of the Army, we must not forget that a Naval officer reaches the relative rank of captain six years earlier than an Army officer does. On the whole, I have no belief that the junior lieutenants have any right to complain of their pay and allowances when compared with those of Army officers of the same age. The case of the senior lieutenants is different, and we should be glad to do something to improve their position; but, in my opinion, the question of promotion is a more important one to them than that of pay. The First Lord of the Admiralty is always placed in difficulty when he has to select lieutenants for promotion, although every pains are taken to make the promotions as fair as possible. There are several things to be considered by him in making promotions which those concerned are unable fully to appreciate. It is necessary to consider all the different branches of the Service, the claims from stations in different parts of the world, and those of officers who have attained professional qualifications in gunnery and torpedo management. Moreover, the interests of the Service require that a certain number of young officers shall be promoted. The old practice which allowed Admirals abroad to promote young officers as flag lieutenants having been abolished, it is more than ever necessary that the Admiralty should select a certain number of young officers for promotion. For these reasons, there is no doubt that the position of senior lieutenants cannot altogether be regarded as satisfactory. But how it is to be remedied is another question. Something has been done during the las

  269
  few years. The annual number of lieutenants promoted to the rank of commander has been increased from 20 to 25. We have also given to the senior lieutenants six appointments in the Coastguard, which affords more employment to those officers. I can assure your Lordships that the Admiralty are by no means insensible to the position of the senior lieutenants, and that they sympathize with them deeply, and will beg lad to do anything which is reasonable in the way of bettering their position in the Service. As to the question of half-pay, I do not think the young Naval officers have any hardship to complain of. A junior lieutenant receives as half-pay not much less than an officer of the Army of about the same age receives as full pay, and the number of senior lieutenants on half-pay is very limited. The real hardship in respect to half-pay is felt when a lieutenant just promoted to commander is put on half-pay for three or four years, and when a captain just promoted has to wait even longer before he gets a ship. This is also disadvantageous to the Service, and the Admiralty propose to allow a limited number—say, five—in each year, of captains and commanders, to receive full pay while studying at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. I think that it will be found that this arrangement will better meet the real hardships of the Service in regard to half-pay than the suggestions of the noble Earl. I hope that after the explanation I have given the noble Earl will not press his Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in spite of the numerous details with which the noble Earl has just favoured us, I think there will still be left on the minds of your Lordships an impression that there is in respect of this service—as I fear there is in respect of other services—an increase of that terrible evil which it is hard to see how to remove—namely, that a certain number of officers are thrust aside too soon from the service of their country, and forbidden to follow to the end the Profession to which they are brought up. In order to furnish young men for the higher branches of their Profession, it is necessary that they should be put in a position practically to follow it early in life. It is a serious thing as affecting the Military Service, and most of all as affecting the Naval Service, to see many men in the prime of their powers, and when
  270
  their abilities have just become perfect through practice in the service of the country, compelled to lead an idle and a discontented life. The noble Earl says the sub-lieutenants and lieutenants are more eager for promotion than for increased pay. That is very probable; but he will see on reflection that the question of pay is not entirely irrelevant to the position of these officers. It is, no doubt, painful to be left at the bottom of the-ladder, when you want to be at the top; but your position at the bottom of the ladder is all the harder when you are without the means of support which your station requires. I am afraid that the noble Earl's statement does not amount to much more than those assurances of official sympathy which, of course, it is the Minister's duty to give, but which will be of little use in the future. Nevertheless, I do not advise my noble Friend to press his Motion on this subject. In addition to the consideration that it involves a financial matter, which does not rest specially with this House, there is the further consideration that it is not in our power, or in the power of the other House of Parliament, to force the Government to give attention to this question. But, if it sanctions the Motion, it is in the power of both Houses of Parliament to make a discontented class. Therefore, I think the Government have some reason to complain—at least, their position is one of considerable difficulty—if they do not see their way to amend the position of any particular class in Her Majesty's Service, and yet one of the Houses of Parliament, by sanctioning a statement of grievances, should give to that class a ground for feeling and thinking that it is ill-used. For these reasons I think my noble Friend will consult the interests of the Public Service by not pressing his Motion.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that, after the appeal just made to him, he certainly would not trouble their Lordships by pressing his Motion to a division; but he did not regret having brought the matter before their Lordships, as he knew that the only way of getting a grievance redressed by the Government or by Parliament was by constantly keeping the subject before them. The noble Earl said, that the average at which officers in the Army became captains was 30. This rather surprised him. He had, unfortunately, not got the

  271
  calculation with him; but as ho found officers became majors at 32, he thought 30 too high an average ago for becoming captains.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

NAVY—APPOINTMENT OF FIRST LIEUTENANTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF SANDWICH, in rising to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the appointment of first-lieutenants to Her Majesty's ship "Garnet," said, he thought it was very essential that officers in command of Her Majesty's ships should have the power of selecting their first lieutenants, and when that practice was departed from, confusion and disorder would arise. Last year a near relative of his (Captain Montagu) told an officer whom he found doing his duty most ably in all respects that if an opportunity occurred he would be most happy to recommend him as first lieutenant of the ship to which he was commissioned. Captain Montagu accordingly wrote to the Lords of the Admiralty, recommending the appointment of Lieutenant Pelham as first lieutenant of the Garnet, and the answer he received was that when the time came the matter would be considered. At the end of a month Captain Montagu wrote again. He got no answer to his letter; but shortly afterwards he received a telegram from the Lords of the Admiralty saying that Lieutenant Pelham could not be appointed, and requiring him to appoint somebody else. The consequence was that, having received a letter from another officer recommending a friend, he telegraphed back to the Lords of the Admiralty that he knew nothing of the gentleman, and asking them to appoint whom they liked. That gentleman was appointed, and joined the ship at Sheerness; but, for some reason or other, he was superseded. When the ship got to Plymouth Lieutenant Hay was appointed, who, being an officer of great energy and efficiency, and liked by the men, everything went smoothly. He took the ship out to Jamaica, and when he got there he was superseded by another officer. He hoped that the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty would give an assurance
  272
  that when an officer was commissioned to a ship he would be permitted to select his first lieutenant, and also be allowed proper time to appoint a successor to that officer. Unless courtesy existed between the officers of the Admiralty and the officers of the Navy great injury would be caused to the Service, and great difficulties would be placed in the way of proper command of the ships. He trusted the noble Earl would be able to give a satisfactory answer upon the subject.
  LORD ALCESTERsaid, that perhaps the noble Earl would permit him to reply to the Question which he had addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty. The noble Earl had stated correctly the circumstances relating to the first appointment that had been made to the ship commanded by Captain Montagu. It was known by that officer that Lieutenant Pelham was not qualified by seniority for appointment to the Garnet, and, in addition to that, he was a gunnery officer. One of the complaints was, as he understood, that Lieutenant Hay was removed from the Garnet because he was a gunnery officer, and also because, on looking through The Navy List, the noble Earl had seen that a vessel of inferior tonnage had in that capacity seven or eight officers of that class. The noble Earl had answered his own Question. It was for that very reason—namely, that there were seven or eight gunnery lieutenants employed in the capacity of first lieutenants—that they became so very short, and it was necessary to remove Lieutenant Hay from the Garnet. The noble Earl also complained that Captain Montagu had not sufficient time to nominate another first lieutenant. Captain Montagu, he (Lord Alcester) was informed, had so repeatedly told his predecessor that he was not prepared to nominate any officer of his own, that the Admiralty had appointed him a good first lieutenant, and thus the officer superseded had been disappointed. The Admiralty had always endeavoured to meet the wishes of officers commissioning ships by giving them officers to their satisfaction; but, at the same time, they reserved power to appoint officers whom they thought necessary.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, he begged to express his pleasure at seeing the noble and gallant Lord in his place, and hearing him take part in the Busi-

  273
  ness of the country. If he had any regret it was to see him on the Ministerial side of the House instead of on the Opposition. He felt sure that the great experience of the noble and gallant Lord would prove of much value in matters coming under discussion, especially in matters relating to the Navy. With regard to the present question, he thought no good could possibly result either to the officer whose case was under discussion or to the Service in general; and he could only express his regret that such cases should be brought before the House. At the same time, it was important that the value of a first lieutenant to the commander of a ship should be recognized, and that removals should not be hastily made.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in rising to call attention to the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom, and to the continued importation of that disease from abroad; and to move for any Correspondence with Foreign Governments on the subject, said: My Lords, the great importance of this subject must be my excuse for trespassing for a short space upon your Lordships' time. The subject is of such great importance that it has been under the consideration of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, a Society consisting of some 8,000 members, having a Council of which the average attendance is 40—a Society dealing with all questions of agriculture, and comprising Members of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons; comprising a large number of owners and occupiers of land, and the most eminent Professors in veterinary science. I mention this to show that the interest on this matter and the feeling on this subject are widespread throughout the country. The Society have asked the Prime Minister, in conjunction with my noble Friend the Lord President, to receive a deputation on the subject; but I regret to hear that the Prime Minister is unable to be present. Without being discourteous to my noble Friend opposite, as representing agriculture in this country, yet I may say that the Royal Agricultural Society
  274
  would have been glad to lay this most important question before the Prime Minister himself. The Highland and Agricultural Society has also applied for an interview on the subject. I merely mention these facts in order to show your Lordships that this is a question which attracts the attention of the agriculturists of the United Kingdom. I am glad to bring this question before your Lordships, because I consider that in an Assembly of holders of land, many of whom are actual occupiers of land, and many of whom are also practical agriculturists, I may very fairly bring the matter under consideration; and I think they are a body competent and able to deal with it, notwithstanding the sneers of Mr. Chamberlain at this Assembly, to which I will not condescend to further allude now, because I do not think his views are entertained by any class in this country, or even by any of his Colleagues. This question is, I think, one of universal importance. It affects the consumers of meat as much as the producers, for anything that affects the producer of meat must affect the consumer; and I am glad to think that the greater part of the population of this country are consumers of that article of food. This is a question closely affecting three classes of persons connected with the land—the owners of land, the occupiers of land, and the agricultural labourers; because, notwithstanding the unscrupulous assertions of agitators, I have always thought that their interests are identical, and that what is hurtful to one of those classes must be hurtful to the others. Therefore I think the question is one of universal interest. The question may be considered as two-fold. In the first place, there are those diseases affecting animals caused by wet seasons, and absence of sun, and other natural causes. There are diseases with which we have no power to deal; and if disease arises in a large manner from causes over which we have no control, it behaves us to keep greater watch over those diseases with which we are, to a great extent, able to grapple; and these latter diseases are of foreign importation. The principal diseases of that character are three in number—first, there is cattle plague; secondly, there is pleuro-pneumonia; and, thirdly, there is foot-and-mouth disease. As to the two first, I do not think it is necessary for me

  275
  to trouble your Lordships with many observations, because cattle from countries infected with cattle plague are slaughtered on the Continent, and are not allowed to come here, and cattle suffering from pleuro-pneunomia are subject to compulsory slaughter in this country. With these diseases I need not trouble your Lordships. The disease to which I shall chiefly refer is the foot-and-mouth. In 1877, when the cattle plague prevailed in this country, the attention of the Government, of which I had the honour to be a Member, was called to its ravages; and, in consequence, a Committee of the other House of Parliament was appointed, composed of men who took a practical view of the subject, and presided over by my hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). The recommendations of that Committee formed, to a very great extent, the basis of the Bill which afterwards became an Act in 1878, and which has certainly had very beneficial results. The Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture testifies to the success of that Act. The Commissioners say—
  "The evidence to which we have already referred proves that the effect of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act has been most beneficial. Wherever the local authorities have carried out its provisions with strictness it has been successful in checking the spreading of disease."
  Under that Act we carried out very severe restrictions, and made arrangements in all parts of the country. There was a severe outbreak in Cambridge-shire before we left Office. The provisions of the Act were put into force, and the disease was stamped out. When we left Office there was no foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom, and that result had been mainly brought about by carrying out with great severity and strictness the provisions of the Act. In the Report of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, published in 1881, I find this paragraph—
  "It was further pointed out that up to September, 1880, the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had been for some time, so far as the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council could ascertain, free from foot-and-mouth disease, and that the strongest evidence existed that its re-introduction was due to the landing of diseased animals from abroad."
  There was an immunity from the dis-
  276
  ease, therefore, up to September, 1880; and I wish especially to call attention to this date, because, on the 20th of September, 1880, a cargo of diseased animals was landed at Deptford from Prance. Shortly after the 20th of September the disease made its appearance in the City of London and in some of the adjoining counties, and gradually spread throughout the country; and, from that time to the present, the country has not been free from foot-and-mouth disease. I am sure the Lord President will not deny that the disease from which we are now suffering is due to the importation of diseased animals from France. I will read to your Lordships what Professor Brown says in the Veterinary Report of 1880—
  "From the circumstances of the case, the foreign origin of the outbreak of 1880 was more clearly apparent than on any occasion of the appearance of the disease since its introduction in 1839. It is true that no actual proof exists in either instance of the direct intervention of a diseased foreign animal, or even of the transmission of the infective matter from a diseased foreign animal to home stock; but the fact that on both occasions the stock of the country was free from the disease which was known to exist on the Continent leaves no room for doubt as to the source whence the infection was derived."
  We have, therefore, the evidence of Professor Brown as to the foreign origin of the disease in 1880, and I will tell your Lordships what progress it has made since. In 1880, 38 counties were affected with foot-and-mouth disease; there were 1,464 fresh outbreaks, and 32,378 animals were attacked. In 1881 the number of counties affected was 49, there were 4,833 fresh outbreaks, and 183,046 animals were attacked. In 1882 the disease existed in 49 counties, there were 1,970 fresh outbreaks, and 37,950 animals were attacked. After the facts to which I have referred, no one will, I think, deny that the disease is of foreign importation; but I wish to draw attention to its continued import from abroad. The serious nature of foot-and-mouth disease is beyond dispute, and it affects both breeding and fat stock—fat stock, it is true, not so seriously as breeding stock. But in the case of fat stock, if this disease makes its appearance when an animal is nearly ready for the market, it cannot be brought ripe so soon, and it costs the farmer more expense in food to bring it to a state fit for the

  277
  butcher. In the case of breeding stock, it destroys the breeding powers of the cow; and, while hilling the lamb, so diseases the udders of the ewe that she cannot breed any more. Therefore, I say that this disease affects the meat supply of the country by injuring the breeding stock of the country in the way I have described. The Report of the Cattle Plague Committee of 1877 states—
  "It was abundantly proved in evidence that the ravages of cattle plague since the Act of 1S69, and the diminution of the breeding herds of the Kingdom from the fear of breaking out of cattle plague, are as nothing compared with the losses inflicted and the enterprize checked by pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth complaint. In addition to the losses to the community of animals actually destroyed by either of those diseases, or slaughtered to prevent the spread of pleuro-pneumonia, the agricultural and other witnesses laid great stress on the fact that, whatever loss fell upon the farmer from the deterioration of his stock through foot-and-mouth complaint, re-acted injuriously on the consumer by the diminution in the number of fat stock which the farmer was able to place on the market in a given time."
  I come now to the numbers of diseased animals imported. In 1880, 155 animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease arrived here from abroad; in 1881 the number was 4,977; and in 1882, 592. In the first six weeks of 1883, from the 1st of January to the 19th of February, there was imported into this country from abroad an average of 10 diseased animals per day. These animals came in contact with thousands of others, and thus the disease is spread throughout the country. I am quite prepared to admit that Her Majesty's Government has done all in their power to check the disease. The Lord President has carried out the Act in a most energetic manner, by placing severe restrictions upon the farmers of the country, and by shutting up fairs and markets. The Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, which I had the honour to re-organize, under the direction of Professors Brown and Cope, has been all that could be desired. I doubt, indeed, whether I should have been able to carry out the severe restrictions which the noble Lord imposed; but, notwithstanding, the disease still goes on. Therefore, I say, we must do something which has not yet been done; and I have indications of what may be done by the act of the Lord President himself. I have said that he has
  278
  been acting energetically. In Prance there was a great quantity of disease. What does the noble Lord do? In the first place, he shuts up Boulogne. But I apprehend the noble Lord soon found that shutting up the Port of Boulogne was not sufficient, because that does not prevent disease coming from France. Then, what does he do? Acting under the powers of the Act of 1878, the noble Lord says—"No animal at all shall come from France." That being so, I ask the noble Lord—"Why do you select France, because, by a Return which was moved for by Mr. Duckham in the other House, I see that this year there were more diseased animals in one cargo from the United States than in all cargoes from France put together?" If it is necessary, in order to keep out disease, that you should prevent animals being imported from France, I say it is equally necessary to prevent them coining from the United States. I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen a Report of the Chief Constable of Cumberland and Westmoreland, who has kept disease very much under in that part of the country, and has paid the greatest attention to the subject. In his Report to Quarter Sessions he comes to these conclusions—
  "All practical experience proves beyond any doubt that the disease is preventable, and that the three things necessary to keep it out are—(1), that its importation from foreign countries should be prevented; (2), that the power to local authorities to regulate the introduction of animals from Ireland into their districts should be continued; (3), that local authorities should be empowered to treat first or isolated outbreaks similarly to cases of cattle plague, instead of leaving them to be dealt with by subscription or the generosity of individuals."
  Well, then, there is another matter with regard to these animals from America, and that is the enormous waste and loss that every year takes place in the transit of animals from that country. Your Lordships would probably scarcely believe the state of things which goes on in the passage between America and this country. In 1879, according to a Return of the Veterinary Department, 14,024 animals were thrown overboard, 1,249 were landed dead, while 455 were so much injured or exhausted that they were killed at the place of landing—making a total of 15,728 which were either lost on the passage or so much injured that it was necessary to slaughter

  279
  them on landing. In 1880 there were 13,619 animals thrown overboard, 540 landed dead, and 384 so much injured or exhausted that they were killed at the place of landing—making a total of 14,543 which were either lost on the passage or so much injured that it was necessary to slaughter them on landing. So that positively there were no less than 30,000 animals in two years lost on the passage between America and this country. Now, this appears to me to be an enormous waste of food, to say nothing of the suffering to which the animals were subjected. The farmers, as I well know, are perfectly ready to submit to all necessary restrictions and regulations; but anybody practically acquainted with agriculture knows that they are a very great interference with the business of the farmer. They interfere greatly with the manner in which he has to carry on his trade. For instance, when an Order relating to markets is brought into operation, if the farmer takes his stock to market it must be slaughtered within six days, so that the farmer is, in that case, entirely at the mercy of the butcher, who can give him what price he chooses. But, suppose the farmer does not choose to send his stock to market, he is likewise at the mercy of the butcher who may come to the farm. Of this, however, the farmers do not complain; but they say—"If you interfere so materially with the manner in which we carry on our business, and prevent us getting the prices we ought to get, then we, on our part, have a right to demand of the Government that they put into operation all the powers they possess in order to prevent disease coming from abroad, which disease renders these regulations necessary." That is what the farmers say, and I confess there is justice in the views which they so urge. I believe that if we had perfect immunity from disease the breeding of cattle would go on much more satisfactorily, and to a much greater extent than it has done during the prevalence of disease. I hope I have made clear the case which I particularly wished to bring before your Lordships—of the great amount of disease existing in the country, of the continued importation of it from abroad, and the great damage this does to the agricultural classes of this country. I am not speaking my own sentiments only,
  280
  but those of all classes of the agricultural community; and perhaps few people have better opportunities than I have of becoming acquainted with the views of the whole agricultural classes of this country. My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that a feeling of deep disappointment exists among the agricultural classes at the great importation of disease from abroad, and the utter failure of the attempts of the Government to check the disease. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for any correspondence with Foreign Governments on the subject of the continued importation of foot and mouth disease from abroad."—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  LORD VERNONsaid, he wished to join in what was the well-merited praise bestowed by the noble Duke upon the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. He was sure no one of candid mind would deny for a moment that agriculturists of all classes throughout this country were exposed to exceptional risks. Of the uncertainty of the seasons he would not speak, because it did not bear on the subject; but that the diseases of stock were very contagious was proved conclusively by the Reports of the Veterinary Inspector of the Privy Council. In the Report for 1881 the Inspector said—
  "Owners of stock are bound to endeavour to prevent the spreading of infection by keeping diseased animals separate from healthy ones, and they may not unreasonably be called upon to remember that every diseased animal is a manufactory of infectious matter;"
  and he wont on to add—
  "In fine, if local authorities and stock owners could be induced to act in concert with the Privy Council in carrying into immediate effect the provisions of the Act, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease might easily be arrested."
  That was a serious reflection on the local authorities, and he would not say it was not deserved. He would take the opportunity of reading a paragraph in the Animals Order—
  "All animals being in or on the market, fair, &c, or other place aforesaid, at the same time, with an animal found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease, or swine fever, shall be dealt with in all respects as if pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease, or swine fever, had not been found therein or thereon."
  If the Veterinary Inspector pointed out

  281
  to the head of his Department that this disease was so extremely contagious, he wanted to know why an Order existed which established the rule that animals which were brought into contact with diseased animals might he removed? The law was decidedly defective, and should be remedied. The noble Duke had pointed out what were the effects of the disease on the farmers and producers, and also on the consumers. On the same point he might quote from the evidence of two competent witnesses—Professor Brown and Mr. Bowen Jones—to show that if the farmer could be protected against the disease he would be able to produce more meat than at present, and that the benefit of this would be felt by the consumer as well as the producer, and that the disturbance of the markets under the existing state of things was very injurious to the farmer's business. In his evidence before the Royal Commission on Agriculture, Mr. Bowen Jones said—
  "Restrictions placed on farmers with regard to contagious diseases of animals cause great inconvenience. Markets are disarranged, the result being pecuniary loss in the case of fat stock amounting to from £5 to £8 per head; in the case of sheep very disastrous when it breaks out among ewes going to lamb; in a breeding flock of, say, 300 ewes it may be estimated at £1 per head. Farmers consider they have a right to demand that the landing of all live animals should be prohibited from any countries not known to be free from contagious disease. Breeding of cattle and sheep has been very much discouraged by fear of disease. If free from contagious diseases, there is no doubt that very much more meat would be produced."
  The effect of disease had been to limit the production of the best quality of meat, and on this point our Assistant Commissioner had recorded the condition of things in America, expressing the opinion that the demand for the best quality of meat was as large there, and was increasing as largely as in this country, and that unless the farmer exerted himself he would be left behind in the competition. If this were so, it pointed very clearly to the necessity for encouragement being given to the farmer by the removal of any obstacle which could be reasonably removed to the conduct of his business. He was quite aware of what the difficulties of the Government might be in dealing with such a question; but whether it was the case of the farmer or the trader, the course of his trade should not be interfered with in any
  282
  way. If it could be proved at all, as he thought the noble Duke had proved, that the consumer's interest lay in the protection of our own cattle from disease, it pointed to the desirability of prohibiting the importation of live cattle from infected districts; but if the Government did not see their way to go as far as that, he certainly thought that the law relating to cattle disease might advantageously be strengthened; and if he was asked in what way, he would say that it would be desirable to bring about more united action among the local authorities, urban and rural. It was not for him to say how that was to be done. He knew it was a very difficult task; but he felt sure that it was quite impossible to administer the law properly while they had one authority trying to close the market, and another authority, equally strong, trying to open it. All markets should be licensed, and if the disciplinary order of the market was not thoroughly well maintained, it might be a question whether the Privy Council should not close it for some time. Licences also might be given to inspectors, drovers, salesmen, and others. Having thought over the matter some time, it appeared to him that the whole question resolved itself under three heads. The central authority, although working with the most praiseworthy energy, was powerless, under all circumstances, to prevent the introduction and spread of infection. Secondly, the rapid transit of stock and their conveyance by railway had led to the transmission of infection from one centre to many sub-centres in a few hours; and, thirdly, there was a conflict of practice between local authorities which ought to be remedied. He had only one more remark to make, and that was in reference to an opening remark by the noble Duke. As a member of the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society of long standing, he certainly very much regretted that it was not within the power of the Prime Minister to receive a deputation on the matter from the Society. The noble Lord the Lord President of the Council was, no doubt, aware that for many years the Privy Council and the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society had been in constant communication in reference to the subject of cattle disease; and he was quite confident that the action taken

  283
  by the Society, supported as it was by the energy and accuracy of their secretary, Mr. Jenkins, was a very great assistance to the Privy Council, and he repeated that he much regretted they could not have the honour of being received in deputation by the Prime Minister.
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDdesired to say only a few words in corroboration of what had fallen from the noble Duke and the noble Lord who had just sat down. He had the misfortune to live in one of the Midland counties, a part of England that had suffered more than any other from the agricultural disasters of the last seven years. The tenant farmers found that their only hope of recovering from those disasters was in breeding much more stock; but they declared that this could not be done unless the foot-and-mouth disease was averted from their homesteads; and although no inconvenience could exceed that of having the markets interrupted as they had been by the existing regulations with regard to the importation of disease from America, they did not see why, if the disease could be prevented from coming from France, it could not equally be prevented from coming from America. There was a very strong feeling among farmers that they, as a body, were and had been neglected by Parliament; and, therefore, he did feel it his duty to press, both upon Her Majesty's Government and on all sides of the House, the necessity of doing everything they possibly could for the farming interest. He hoped the Government would take up the question so well brought forward by the noble Duke, and that they would do their very best to extirpate foot-and-mouth disease, by putting into effect the proposals made by the noble Duke.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): My Lords, I wish, in the first place, to recognize the grave importance of this question of cattle disease to the agricultural interest; and, in the next place, I wish to thank the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) for the language he has used with respect to the action of the Council, since he left it, in the administration of the Act of 1878, under the direction of Lord Silencer first and afterwards of myself; and also for the language he used as to the able and ex-
  284
  perienced gentlemen who assist with their invaluable services the head of that Department. My Lords, this question of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease is a matter of no small difficulty. I say this more on behalf of the permanent officers of the Department than on my own; but it is a matter of far greater difficulty, and requiring more constant exercise of discretion and responsibility—conflicting responsibilities very often—than the task of dealing with the more grave and fatal diseases of cattle. In the case of those diseases, with which I hope and trust we shall have no need to deal, the danger is so great that powers of the most stringent kind are intrusted to the Government; but in the case of this disease—the foot-and-mouth disease—serious as its consequences are, the danger is so much less, the actual loss of animals is so trifling, and the impossibility of using those extreme powers is so clear, that the ordinary daily dealing with this disease under the powers of the Act is one of no small difficulty and requiring no little discretion. However, the noble Duke, as I understand him, contends in fact, although he was cautious in all his statements, that the Act of 1878, as administered both by himself and by his Successors, has now been proved a failure, so far as the exclusion of foreign contagion is concerned. My Lords, the Act of 1878 has not stamped out the disease; indeed, I do not know whether it was expected that it would succeed to that extent. Certainly a great many people did not believe it; and I know that in this House, when that Bill was under discussion, that opinion was strongly expressed even by those who were very anxious that the Bill should pass. The noble Duke will remember that Lord Ripon, while objecting to the first form of the Bill and its extreme rigour, afterwards modified in the other House, said he did not believe it would be possible actually to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease under the powers of the Bill, nor that it was desirable to use such extreme powers as alone could have the effect of stamping out the disease. My Lords, what has happened since that time? As the noble Duke said, in the course of the year 1880 the disease had dwindled almost to nothing; but in September of that year it appeared again, and there is every reason to think that the noble

  285
  Duke is right in the cause he assigned, and that it was introduced by a cargo of French animals. Another theory was, indeed, broached in "another place," and that was that the cause was to be found in the return of Mr. Gladstone to Office; but I believe the arrival of the French cow at Deptford has been generally recognized as the cause. Since then the noble Duke says that foot-and-mouth disease has existed, more or less, in this country. There has, no doubt, been far too much of it; but one question we have to consider is, how much of it has there been, or how much is there likely to be? I am far, indeed, from wishing to underrate the gravity of the matter, and I know the great amount of inconvenience which is occasioned by the restrictions to which farmers and dealers are subjected, and how considerable is the loss, and, of course, in many individual cases, how grave and serious the loss is; but what we have to ascertain, with a view to solving the noble Duke's question of a remedy, is the amount, upon the whole, of national loss and evil caused by the existence of this foot-and-mouth disease. My Lords, I will ask you for a moment to consider the figures, and I take the outbreaks that have occurred upon particular farms and premises in the last few years. In 1881 the number of outbreaks on farms and premises was 4,833, and the number of animals attacked with the disease 183,000. In 1882 there were 1,970 outbreaks, and 37,950 animals attacked. My Lords, those are the figures; but, to consider their importance as a national question, one must first remember the proportion between the 37,000 animals attacked with foot-and-mouth disease and the total stock of animals in this country, which amounts to a larger number of millions. In the next place, I should like your Lordships to compare these numbers with what would be possible, as it has before happened, supposing we did not enjoy the protection of the Act of 1878, an Act which I consider of great importance, and to which its author, the noble Duke, has hardly done full justice to-night. In 1871, before the passing of that Act, and when no such protection practically existed, the number of outbreaks amounted to 52,164, and the number of animals attacked to 691,565. That is a comparison of what happened before we
  286
  had the benefit of the Act of 1878 with what has taken place since. Let me compare with this the loss caused by a very different disorder, the fluke in sheep. What was the loss in sheep during the last two years? It has been enormous, amounting to 10 per cent upon the whole stock in the country, something like 3,000,000. I only make the comparison for the purpose of giving a clear idea of the extent and amount of the national loss caused by the existence of foot-and-mouth disease. Last summer there was very little of it. I remember a letter from Mr. C. S. Read, read by my right hon. Friend Mr. Mundella, in the House of Commons, on the subject—Mr. Read belongs to a county which suffered most of all—and that letter stated that at the time ho was writing the flocks and herds of this country were freer from disease than at any time during the last 20 years; and, although that statement was not quite accurate, it was not far from it. Towards the end of the year, however, there was a fresh outbreak—that is to say, the amount of disease in some parts of the country increased. These is no reason to attribute that increase to any foreign importation; and, although it is impossible to say that foot-and-mouth disease may not have made its way into the country from abroad, there is no proof whatever that such was the case. The disease increased at the end of the year, and at the beginning of the present year the weekly number of outbreaks became very high—that is, what we now consider very high—namely, 200 or 300 a-week during February and March. Now we have got them down to 100, under the influence of those restrictions which the Privy Council have imposed upon those engaged in the cattle trade of this country. Now, I do not underrate the inconvenience of those restrictions; but it is an entire mistake to suppose that the country gains nothing from them; on the contrary, much is gained, although the disease is not completely stamped out. Let me, again, take some statistics from 1871. Instead of there being 200 or 300 outbreaks, which we now complain of having to endure, we had then 3,000 or 4,000 a-week, and the number of animals attacked amounted to between 40,000 and 50,000 per week, so that the number of animals attacked in one week was greater than the whole

  287
  number attacked in 1882. That is a comparison quite worth while taking notice of. As I said just now, I think the noble Duke hardly does justice to the effects of an Act for which he himself is responsible, and for which he deserves great credit. I contend that that Act has been a great success; it has almost extinguished pleuro-pneumonia; and, although it has not extinguished, it has enormously diminished the ravages of foot-and-mouth disease; and I should like, in justice to the noble Duke, to state that all the prophecies indulged in with regard to the interference the rule of slaughtering at the ports would occasion in the foreign meat trade have been entirely disproved. The system of slaughtering at the ports has, in that respect, been a complete success, as the figures I will place before your Lordships will show. The number of foreign animals in the two Metropolitan markets, the free live stock market at Islington, and the foreign animals' wharf for slaughter at Deptford, in 1878, was 126,000, of which more than half came to the free market alive. In 1882, 157,000 animals came altogether, of which only 28,000 came to Islington, the remainder being slaughtered at Deptford. The Act, therefore, in that respect has been successful; but still the evil exists, although it exists in a limited form, and the question is, what is the remedy? The noble Duke, as I understand, recommends as a remedy the rule of prohibiting the importation of any foreign live animals into this country. That is, at all events, the recommendation of the Royal Agricultural Commission. The Report of the Royal Agricultural Commission says—
  "That the landing of foreign live animals should not he permitted from any countries as to which the Privy Council are not satisfied that they are perfectly free from contagious disease."
  Well, that amounts very nearly to a prohibition of all live animals. The loss involved at the present time in such a regulation would be a loss of no less than 1,500,000 animals, valued at something like £9,000,000. The noble Duke himself pointed out in 1878 the gravity of such a loss, and we have no reason to suppose the gravity less now; on the contrary, it would be greater, for the value of the animals, and the demand for meat, has increased. The
  288
  noble Duke insists that the remedy is to be found in the dead meat trade. That would be a very desirable trade to encourage, not only because the danger of infection would be lessened, but on account of the diminution in loss of animals while on their way to this country. But we have no reason to believe that our prohibition would convert the Continental trade in live animals into a dead meat trade—indeed, experience points the other way. And, at all events, the only way in which it would be possible to establish it in the way the noble Duke suggests would be by showing our firm determination to prohibit permanently the importation of live stock; and, to render such a sacrifice worth making, it ought to be shown to be morally impossible for the disease to enter this country under those circumstances. The reason why we should never have the certainty of safety is because of the daily communication with the Continent. Besides this, the daily communications between this country and thousands of farms and dairies abroad are enormous, so that there are a hundred ways in which infection could still be introduced. And I need not say that if the dead meat trade should spring up, as it is hoped it would, as the only compensation for the loss of the live meat trade, such dangers would be enormously increased. Men would be engaged at the port of export in handling and slaughtering diseased animals on one day, and might be in the London market on the next. It is not to be forgotten that the foot-and-mouth disease was first introduced into this country in 1839, at a time when an absolute prohibition of foreign animals prevailed and had prevailed for years before. Therefore, under the old system we did not enjoy anything like perfect immunity from infection. The noble Duke says that the Privy Council must use the powers conferred on them to a far greater extent than they have hitherto done; and he has referred to the Order recently issued under my direction as to the prohibition of importing from Trance. I say simply that I have used the discretionary powers conferred on the Privy Council by the Act of 1878. The same thing was done before with beneficial results by Lord Spencer in the case of Spain and Portugal. When the noble Duke draws a comparison with the United States, I would point out

  289
  that the case is really different. No doubt there was lately an infected cargo which arrived from the United States. But the fact is, there is very little foot-and-mouth disease in the United States, and some say there is none at all. But the noble Duke must remember that two or three animals put on board would have time to infect the whole cargo before its arrival in Liverpool. Then the noble Duke says we ought to have used what he assumes to be the powers of the Act of 1878 for the purpose of a general prohibition of foreign live animals. That subject has been very carefully considered, and I am satisfied that the Privy Council would not be justified in using the powers of the Act of 1878 for that kind of wholesale prohibition. We do not believe that is the spirit of the Act or its intention. If we were to adopt the advice of the noble Duke we should entirely do away with the ordinary general rule of the Act and confine ourselves to the exceptions. We have the highest legal authority for saying that such a course is not within the spirit of the Act. If the advice of the noble Duke wore to be acted on, the Privy Council could only act with the assistance of fresh legislation. I am bound to say that the Government are not prepared to introduce legislation for that purpose. I can only say that the obligation rests upon myself and the Privy Council of using all the powers we possess under the Act for the purpose of reducing foot-and-mouth disease to the narrowest limit. I need not assure the House that for that purpose all such powers shall be used. I should like, however, to point out that it is of the last importance that we should have the active co-operation of the local authorities throughout the country. They can do far more than the central authority in many cases, especially in dealing with individual outbreaks when the disease first shows itself. If each outbreak could only be isolated there could be no doubt that that mode of prevention was the most effective and the least obnoxious. The local authority has not hitherto had the power under the Act of declaring an infected area, and very considerable delay and circumlocution has often occurred before the necessary definition of an infected area has been obtained, and in the meantime any movement of animals of a most mischievous character may take place, and has taken place. I
  290
  hope to remedy that defect by an Order which is now framed, and which will provide that from the moment the Inspector has declared an infected place, that declaration in itself shall create what the Order will call an infected circle round that place of about half-a-mile radius, so that from the moment that infected place has been declared by the Inspector, no movement can take place out of or into that district, at all events. Of course, that will be a temporary matter, because as soon as possible the local authority will in the ordinary way recommend the proper boundary which the Order in Council will determine, and in that manner dangerous movement will be prevented. Matters have been complicated by the fact that foot-and-mouth disease has found its way into Ireland, where the disease has been combatted with great energy by Lord Spencer and the Irish Privy Council, and it is hoped that the evil will be got over; but it has added to our danger. In Scotland, where unluckily they have got foot-and-mouth disease of late, coming, I believe, from Ireland, the local authorities have taken such vigorous measures that they have reduced the number of cases to almost nothing, and with every prospect that in a very short time the whole of Scotland will be again free from the disease. Some English local authorities have acted as efficiently, and what has been done by some of those authorities could be done as effectually by all. I have been looking very carefully indeed into not only the regulations, but the practices at the foreign animals' wharves, with the view of increasing as much as possible the stringency of the rules there and their effect in keeping the disease within those wharves. And with respect to the prohibitions in specified cases of the importation of foreign animals—as to which I shall be glad that the Papers moved for by the noble Duke should be seen by your Lordships—we shall be most ready to use the powers to the utmost that we believe we possess, not to the extent the noble Duke recommends, but in every case in which we think, within the powers of the Act, they can be usefully exercised. As to the importation from specified foreign countries, as in other matters, I can only say that under a strong sense of responsibility no effort shall be wanting on our part to deal with this most troublesome

  291
  and mischievous disease, in the repression of which the agricultural classes of this country are so deeply and naturally interested.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he did not understand that the Royal Agricultural Society wished to exclude animals imported from any countries but those infected with foot-and-mouth disease. He believed that declarations of soundness might accompany all animals imported; and expressed a hope that mutual facilities would be afforded by foreign nations and by the authorities in this country to check that disease. It was a great loss to an importer when his animals had to be slaughtered. In East Lothian the flock of an eminent breeder, some of whose rams were worth more than £20, were attacked. He was glad to hear an intimation from the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council, that infected areas would be defined by distance rather than by so large a space as a Petty Sessional Division, when they were the districts of a local authority; and it was to the interest of every country to check this disease.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in reply, said, he was afraid that the agricultural community would read with dismay the remarks of the noble Lord the President of the Council. They certainly thought that the disease was of far greater gravity than the noble Lord seemed to admit. The noble Lord had, he thought, said that the actual losses from it were trifling. [Lord CARLINGFORD expressed dissent.] One of the paragraphs in the Report of the Commission over which he had the honour of presiding was to the effect that the evidence as to the discouragement to breeders of cattle and sheep in Great Britain, and the consequent diminution of the supply of meat, which arose from the extensive prevalence of disease in this country, appeared to them to be conclusive. It was owing to the fact that the farmers of this country were not satisfied that their flocks and herds would be free from disease, that they did not enter into breeding with the spirit and energy they otherwise would exhibit. He was glad to have it now admitted that the late Government had done something for the farmers, because that had been denied by some who were high in Office. The noble Lord the President of the Council said
  292
  that the Act which was passed through Parliament by the late Government had been a complete success. It might, therefore, be assumed that on that occasion they had acted in the interest of the farmers. If the noble Lord thought he had not the necessary powers, and that they ought to be secure from having disease imported into this country, ho ought to apply to Parliament and ask it to legislate for the purpose. The noble Lord told their Lordships that they could not have a perfect immunity from disease. That might be so; but of one thing lie felt perfectly sure—namely, that if animals were slaughtered at the ports of embarkation they would minimize the risk to the smallest possible amount. It seemed to him that they must take more stringent measures than they had hitherto taken. The agricultural body looked with the greatest interest to the remarks of the Lord President; they would hope that by some means or other they would be no longer subject to that disease, which he could assure the noble Lord was one of the greatest inconveniences to all who were engaged in agriculture.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he should be sorry to be misunderstood. He did not intend to treat this question or the loss to agriculturists as a trifling one. On the contrary, he endeavoured to treat it as a very serious matter, and his object was to arrive at some estimate of the total national loss and mischief for the purpose of comparing it with the alternative which lay before them in the exclusion of a very large amount of their food supply.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to correct what seemed to be an impression of the noble Duke. The Lord President had not said that there was not ample power under the Act to exclude importation from Germany or the United States, as he had made an Order with reference to France. All that his noble Friend had said was that he could not make a sweeping universal Order to exclude permanently importation from all countries, subject to particular exceptions of countries which were supposed to be perfectly secure and free from disease. That might, or might not, be within the letter, but it certainly was not within the spirit of the Act. To pass a universal Order in

  293
  Council, either specifying by name all the countries of the world, or excepting some particular country, or embracing in more general terms every country, if it were not founded on particular reasons applicable to each country, would be legislation and not administration of the law.
  Motion agreed to.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 25.)
  (The Earl of Morley.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDcalled attention to the large unprofitable expenditure upon Army Services, estimated by a high authority at £500,000 a-year, caused in great measure by the acceptance of unsatisfactory recruits, and by fraudulent enlistments. The Establishment of the Army was so low for its various duties, that, as far as possible, every man voted by Parliament should be an effective soldier.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was at a loss to know the reasons for the noble Earl's remarks. Of late years, great care had been taken in the selection of recruits. The age had been raised, and the medical examinations had been more stringent. Moreover, the number of men who offered themselves as recruits last year was higher, and the proportion of those who were rejected was higher, than in any preceding year.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ton o'clock.