The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-03-29 00:00:00

THE NEAT SUPPLY.

In London, on Monday, at the Westminster Palace
Hotel, a meeting convened by the Foreign Cattle
Trade Association was held, under the presidency of
Mr. Forster, M.P., preparatory to waiting upon Lord
Carlingford and Mr. Dodson, M.P., in the Privy
Council Chamber, to support her Majesty's Govern-
ment in their opposition to the amendments intro-
duced by the House of Lords in the Cattle Diseases
Bill. About forty members of Parliament attended.
Mr. Forster, M.P. pointed out that the meeting in-
fluentially represented meat consumers, and included
the mayors of many corporations, members of several
boards of guardians, local boards, vestries, chambers
of commerce, and trades councils throughout the
Kingdom; and also representatives of the steam
shipping interest. He should not have concerned
himself in the question if he did not believe that the
amendments introduced in the House of Lords would
very seriously diminish the supply of animal food in
the kingdom, and any movement to prevent this hap-
pening could not be considered a sham agitation.
They were glad to see an increase of the dead meat
trade, which he believed would largely continue to in-
crease; but to say that they need not care for the
amendments, as the gap would be immediately filled
up by the dead meat trade, was almost an insult to
their intelligence.
Among other speakers was Baron Henry de Worms,
M.P., who declared himself perfectly satisfied with
the admirable manner in which every measure was
adopted at Deptford for the preventiQn of the spread
of the disease, and he was of opinion that if all the
markets throughout the kingdom followed that
example there would be no need for any legislation
whatever. The preventive measures at Deptford were
most complete, and he thought that they were justified
in asking the authorities not to adopt prohibitive mea-
sures which would be of the greatest advantage to the
poorer classes of the metropolis. If two-fifths of the
food supply were prevented from coming here they
might very well judge of the effect on the price of meat.

Mr. A. Arnold, M.P. (who succeeded Mr. Forster
in the chair), congratulated the meeting on its signi-
ficant character. He had, he said, given notice of
opposition in committee simply for the purpose of
allowing sufficient time for discussing the important
amendments. He was certain of the good will of the
Government, and believed they would unanimously
and heartily support the great body of their adherents
in this matter; and he sincerely hoped that this
dangerous and pernicious bill, in the form in which it
came from the House of Lords, would be rejected.

The deputation then proceeded to the offices of the
Privy Council, and were introduced to Lord Carling-
ford and Mr. Dodson by Mr. Forster, who stated
that the deputation unanimously expressed their
earnest hope that the Government would not allow
the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill to become
law in its present shape. (Hear, hear.) It must not
be understood that those present were committed to
an opinion that the bill was necessary as introduced;
but they were aware that, under the circumstances,
especially on looking back to the resolution passed by
the House of Commons last year, it was difficult
for the Government to avoid bringing in the
bill; and there were circumstance in the present
state of the agricultural interest, and parti-
cularly the fact that the farmers were willing
at present—he could not say for how long—to submit
to large restrictions themselves with regard to the
foot-and-mouth disease, which afforded great reason
for bringing in the bill. They were prepared to
assent to it as a temporary measure, although they
looked with some alarm at its provisions. But the
bill as amended was a very different matter. It would
practically prohibit the importation of live animals
from the scheduled countries, which now sent a very
large proportion, and it would thereby greatly diminish
the supply of animal food in the country.
The views of the deputation were also expressed by
the Mayors of Salford, Leeds, and Penrhyn, and
among other speakers were Mr. Stevens (Liverpool),
Mr. Burne (Dublin), Mr. Mark Price (Manchester),
and Mr. Glover, M.P.—the latter representing the
shipping interest. The belief was generally enter-
tained that disease was indigenous, and that no
restrictions of the kind proposed would prevent it from
spreading.

Lord Carlingford, in reply, held the deputation—
the influential character of which he acknowledged—
to be thoroughly justified in taking any course for the
purpose of defeating the amendments upon the
Government bill in the House of Lords. He re-
cognised the moderate and reasonable character of
the demands of the deputation, and believed that if
the representatives of the agricultural interest were
wise enough to show themselves equally moderate and
reasonable—and he was not without hope that a con-
siderable number of them would—there need be no
conflict between the agricultural interest and the con-
sumers on this subject. Such a conflict might be
necessary, but that was always to be deprecated; and
to those who were well informed of the facts, and who
looked at them with calmness, there appeared to be
no necessity from the point of view of the agricul-
tural interest for this kind of contest. The question
was—Was it necessary to go beyond the bill as in-
troduced in the House of Lords? (No.) That bill
would have conferred upon the Privy Council ample
and unquestionable powers, and would lay upon the
Government the obligation in all cases of reason-
able apprehension of danger to take measures to
prevent, so long as might be necessary, the intro-
duction of cargoes suspected of foot-and-mouth
disease. The watchword of their cause was, " Let
us have no unnecessary restriction," which simpli-
fied the matter very much. The Government
maintained that the bill, as it now stood, would
impose restrictions unnecessary to the protection of
the agricultural interest itself; and it would be
wantonly mischievous to the interests of the con-
sumers. That being their conviction, he need hardly
say the Government would use their best endeavours
substantially to restore the bill to its original condi-
tion—for he would not bind himself to detail. They
would not be party to any unnecessary restrictions on
the food of the people in a case where they were con-
vinced that the interests of the agricultural community
did not require greater restrictions than those already
proposed to the Legislature.
_ _

Mr. Forster briefly thanked the noble lord and the
deputation withdrew.