The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-03-26 00:00:00

THE FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. Chaplin rose "to call attention to the following facts
ha connection with the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth
disease in England :—That, up till October last, the country
had been for many months perfectly free from that disease;
that, during that month, a cargo of diseased animals was
landed at Deptford from France at a time when disease
was known to exist there ; that, within a week of their
landing, cases of the disease were detected in London,
and that since their detection the disease has spread
rapidly among thousands of stock, causing much In-
convenience to the general public and serious injury and loss
to agriculturists in all parts of the country." The hon.
member said he made no apology for bringing this matter
forward inasmuch as many English counties were still
suffering from a severe outbreak of cattle disease, and the
condition of the agricultural interest at the present time
was not such as to induce them to bear with patience any
needless addition to their present troubles and distress. It
was very difficult to ascertain with anything like precision
the actual amount of the indirect loss which the farmer
had sustained by the cattle disease, but he thought
that he should i)e within the mark hi placing it at
from one million to one million and a half. In his
opinion the returns on the subject largely under-estimated
the probable loss that would be sustained by the farmers
from this cause. The House should remember that this
outbreak had occurred in the winter—a period of the
year which was undoubteilly favourable for the suppression
and control of the disease. He would take the opportunity
of acknowledging the energy and zeal of the Privy Council
In taking steps to put a stop to the disease after it had
broken out, and of stating that the thanks of the English
agriculturists were due to the right hon. gentleman opposite,
and the Lord President of the Council, Earl Spencer, and
his colleagues, for the promptitude with which they had
endeavoured to check the disease. (Hear, hear.) Had this
outbreak unhappily occurred in the summer months, when
the cattle were spread over the fields, the loss to our
farmers that it would have occasioned would have been four
or five times greater than it would be now. Thus far he had
only spoken of the loss that the outbreak would occasion
to the producer, but undoubtedly the consumer must suffer
from it as well. (Hear, hear). The outbreak would be a
sore discouragement to breeding, and consequently it would
Indirectly lessen our whole production, and therefore it
would in all human probability result in a very considerable
Increase in the price which the consumer would have to pay
for his meat. Inasmuch as a large portion of the capital
of the farmer was invested in live stock, that capital would
be exposed to great risk unless the farmer had some
guarantee that his live stock would not be exposed to risk
from this disease. Security for their capital was the one
great boon that hon. members, especially those who sat
opposite, desired to secure for the farmer—(hear, hear)—and
no security for his capital at the present time could be more
beneficial to him than that which would protect his herds
from contagious diseases. (Hear, hear.) It had been said
that with security for capital the agricultural produce of
this country might easily be doubled, but those who said
that were merely talking nonsense with regard to a subject
which they did not understand. He was, however, quite
ready to admit that with security for capital there was
room for an enormous development of mutton and beef,
with profit and advantage to the producer and to the entire
public. In that case, however, the breeder must have absolute
Immunity from disease, whether it came from home or
abroad. (Hear, hear.) In the present condition of things
be had known of hundreds of instances in which farmers had
altogether given up breeding in disgust and despair. It was
most deplorable and distressing that just now, when we had
begun to entertain hope and confidence that esease had been
stamped out owing to beneficial legislation, all the good
had been undone and confidence had been destroyed
by the unhappy outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease.
(Hear, hear.) The Act of 1878, he pointed out, had
effectually stamped out the disease in this country,
and it had become extinct until last October, when it sud-
denly broke out, affecting 131,250 animals and 193 infected
areas, causing much injury and loss to breeders and agri-
culturists. The disease, he contended, had come from
abroad. He proposed to give to the Privy Council power,
after adequate notice, to prohibit altogether the importation
of live animals from districts known to be affected by disease.
If that power were conferred by the Privy Council we might
really hope for immunity from disease at home. (Hear, hear.)
It had been objected that if such a course were adopted the
food of the people would be increased in price; but lie
denied altogether that such would be the case. The same
cry had been raised before. When the Act of 1878 was intro-
duced, the right hon. gentleman the present Chief Secretary to
the Lord Lieutenant moved the following amendment :
That in the opinion of this House the slaughter at the
ports of landing of all cattle from the Continent would
restrict the supply and increase the price of food." Then
the right hon. gentleman went on to say, "It is on my
ability to prove these two propositions that I ask the
House to base their opinion of my resolution." But, so far
from increasing the price of food, the Act had just the
contrary effect, for the mean price of meat at the Metro-
politan Market in 1878 was 8 1-16 d. per lb., and in 1879
only 7d.; and with regard to the supply of food, he found
that in 1878 there were 1,201,498 live animals imported
and in 1879, the year after the passing of the Act, 1,245,022.
(Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen opposite were wrong at the
time, and he had every reason to believe that so, far as his
proposition went they would be equally wrong in future.
He asked the House to consider what the restrictions he pro-
posed really amounted to. He was sorry to trouble the
Rouse with so many statistics; but when .it might be
legitimately contended that his scheme would interfere
with the supply of food, he was bound to show that
that result need not be apprehended. After sonic
further observations, Mr. Chaplain concluded by moving
that "this House is of opinion that the recent outbreak of foot-
and•mouth disease has been entirely caused by the importation
of diseased animals into this country from abroad ; that it is
proved by experience that compulsory slaughter on landing
does not afford security against the introduction of con-
tagious cattle diseases from foreign countries; and that the
landing in England, Scotland, or Ireland of foreign live
animals should not be permitted in future from countries
which are known to be infected, or as to which the Privy
Council are not satisfied that the laws thereof relating to
the importation and exportation of animals, and to the
prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and
the general sanitary condition of animals therein, are such
as to afford reasonable security against the importation
therefrom of animals which are diseased into this
country."

Mr. W. Egerton, in seconding the motion, argued that no
sacrifice could be too great to stamp out the disease, pro-
vided that the price of meat were not raised to the con-
sumer and no unnecessary restraints were imposed on free
trade.
Mr. Mundella said the Government would meet the reso-
lution with a direct negative. 'While recognising the full
value of the Act of 1878, he pointed out that Mr. Chaplin
would destroy its main principle—slaughter at the port
of entry and reminded him that prohibition was
never mentioned throughout the controversy, except
for the cattle plague. He admitted tlse entire accuracy
of Mr. Chaplin's history of the last outbreak; but he urged
that diseased cargoes were constantly arriving, and that
the fact of an outbreak not having occurred before was a
proof that slaughter afforded a reasonable protection.
Perfect immunity, he contended, was impossible, and
we had ten times more foot-and-mouth disease with
total prohibition than at present. Moreover, no
outbreak had ever been so rapidly got under as this.
To pass the motion would cut off some tenth or twelfths part
of our meat supply, and would -largely raise the price of
meat. It was by trusting to the-precautions which he des-
cribed at length for preventing the escape of infection from
ports of entry that the foot-and-mouth disease could best
be dealt with.

Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson supported the motion, arguing
that whatever deficiency might be caused in the importation
of live animals would be made up by the dead meat supply.
Lord E. Cavendish thought that sufficient grounds had not
been shown for the extreme measure of absolute prohibition.

Dr. Lyons and Mr. J. Howard took the same view, while
Colonel Levett and Sir H. Maxwell supported the moticn.
After some observations from Mr. Lawrence and Mr.
Evans,
Mr. Rodwell referred to the speeches of Mr. Forster on the
Bill of 1878 to show that the contingency had arisen which
he admitted would ustify prohibition, and contended that
the farmers, having done everything the Privy Council re-
quired of them, had a right to demand that measure of pro-
tection which would alone suffice. It was only asked, he
pointed out, that prohibition should apply to infected
countries, and he denied that it would raise the price of
meat.
After some observations from Mr. Arnold, Sir W. Barttelot
spoke in favour of the motion.
Mr. Chamberlain, while admitting that the principle :on
which the House should proceed was to combine the
maximum of protection against disease with the minimum
of interference with food supplies, argued that no case had
been made out for increased protection at the present
moment. If the opponents of the Act of 1878 had pro-
phesied falsely when they predicted that it would raise the
priee of meat, its friends had also been mistaken in repre-
senting that it would be a guarantes against disease.
Neither was it proved that prohibition would exclude
disease, and the main assumptions, therefore, on which Mr.
'Chaplin's resolutions were based failed. To carry the
resolution now would be virtually to stop foreign importa-
tion altogether, and he thought it wiser to watch the opera-
tion of the Act of 1878, which had not been proved to be a
failure and which there was good ground for expecting
would be a success.

Sir W. Hart Dyke dwelt on the hindrance to agriculture
and the discouragement to tenant farmers caused by the fear
of this disease.

Mr. Jacob Brlht inveighed against what he regarded as
an attempt to raise the price of food for the people, an im-
putation which was energetically repudiated by Mr. Paget.

Mr. Newdegate spoke in favour of the motion, which was
supported from the Ministerial side by Mr. Duckham and
Colonel Kingscote, who regretted that the Government had
not met It by the "Previous Question," instead of a direct
negative.
- • -

Mr. Pell argued that as prohibition had excluded rinder-
pest, so it might be relied on to exclude foot-and-mouth
disease. What the resolution proposed was simply to apply
to foreim countries the same restrictions as were enforced
on local districts at home; and he pointed out that the sup-
ply from France which had contaminated the whole country
did not amount to 200 yearly.

Mr. Magniac maintained that the Act of 1878 was a more
reliable protection than prohibition, and after Mr. Chaplin
had replied the resolution was negatived on a division by
205 to 147. The Opposition received the announcement of
the numbers with much cheering. -

Some other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at tiva minutes to One o clock.