The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-08 00:00:00

Le Ca

The following letter has been addressed by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to Sir T. D. Lloyd :
" Hawarden, Chester, Dec. 26, 1865.
" Dear Sir,—The reasons which first offer them-
selves to my mind against any undertaking by
Government to treat the insurance of cattle as a
State concern, and to support it by a guarantee
from the Exchequer, are of the following cha-
racter.
" 1. The difficulty, and not the difficulty only,
but the impossibility, of preventing carelessness,
waste, and fraud of every kind, from the first
moment it should become known that the ultimate
responsibility (beyond a fixed limit, which would at
once be found a very, very narrow one) lay with
the public purse.
" 2. The fact thatin a number of cases particular
districts and landlords have already made their own
arrangements, which must have been acted upon.
Were Government to move into the field, these good
examples would be neutralised, and those who have
met their own losses would be called as taxpayers to
assist in meeting the losses of other people too.
" 3. If it shall appear, as is probable, that it is to
prevention rather than cure or compensation that
we must look, under Providence, for the mitiga-
tion of the calamity, nothing could be so unfortunate
as a measure like a State guarantee, which, by re-
laxing vigilance and the ingenuity of self-interest,
would tend to take the mind off a subject obviously
of the greatest moment, and, as clearly, not yet
sounded to the bottom. This objection does not
apply to plans of a voluntary nature, where every
man would be checked by his neighbours, and each
scheme would have its proper adjustments.
" 4. If the cattle plague should not extend itself
on a large scale, and so the losses of a severe cha-
racter should be confined to a small fraction of the
farming class, there seems an obvious impropriety
in relieving landlords, neighbours, and rateable
property from the duty of assisting, so far as assist-
ance is necessary, those on whom the blow has
fallen. And the precedent would be an evil one.
" 5. But if, on the other hand, the disease should
extend very widely, the result must inevitably be
felt in a much augmented price of meat. The con-
sumer would then probably, taking the country all
over, pay the same or a larger aggregate amount of
money for a greatly diminished quantity. All those
who were not smitten in their own cattle would thus
profit largely by the disease as producers, while as
consumers they would only suffer in common with
the community at large. How, then, could the com-
munity be asked to pay twice, first or their meat in
extra price, and secondly, for the cattle lost ; while
landlords and cultivators of the soil would probably,
as a class, have their loss (as in a bad corn year),
countervailed by a corresponding or greater benefit?
" I have thus stated freely what occurs to me, and
perhaps in prudence here I ought to end, as my par-
ticular official duty ends with considering the merits
of any call made on the Exchequer. But the nature
of the appeal you make to me induces me to go
somewhat further, and to state opinions which I
hold with due submission to better judgments, and
with all readiness to be corrected by events chan-
ging almost from day to day.
" The severity with which this calamity falls in
particular cases is grievous. It may be met, in part
at least, by associations for insurance, which will
diminish the difficulty arising from uncertainty—
first, by dealing with a proportion of the loss ;
secondly, by widening their local area. Then there
is a special claim, though one varying with circum-
stances, upon the landlord for help. Then there is
the resource, should the evil greatly grow, of public
subscription, in which I hope we should find classes
that have received benefit in other great visitations
willing to return it. There is, lastly, the resource of
some legal charge upon rateable property of the de-
scription liable to suffer. But the particular applica-
tion of these considerations must depend upon cir-
cumstances in great part as yet undeveloped.
" In the meantime I believe the first of all duties
is to study in every way the subject of prevention.
The public mind is now in a state to endure measures
of restraint in larger measure than before the fact
of serious and progressive increase was established.
And the powers in the hands of local authorities
are, I believe, as large as actual circumstances jus-
tify or general wisdom would sustain.

1' So much for prevention by restraint upon traf-
fic in beasts. But there are other measures of pre-
vention, to be taken by each man for himself, which
are of great moment, bat which (as far as my infor-
mation goes) would appear to have been likewise
less, or less intelligently, considered. I hear from
time to time of cases in which substances are intro-
duced into yards and sheds and cowhouses for pre-
vention, with no aim more distinct than that of
creating a strong smell ; whereas the two main
objects to be taken into view I conceive must be
these : to neutralise the poison, especially by the
removal of all substances on which it would most

easily lay hold ; and to improve the air by sub-
stances which increase the life-sustaining element in
it, and thus raising the tone of health so as to re-
move or diminish that predisposition in the animals
in cases of this description to be what is rudely
called a low state or tone of body.
" I shall not attempt to eater upon questions of
chemistry, with which I am unacquainted; and I
assume that the best which any man can do at the
present moment is to state any facts within his
knowledge which give a presumption of being pos-
sibly useful ; certainty appearing for the present
out of the question. At this place one medicalinan
—a scientific, able, and cautious inquirer—has ten-
tatively advised several of our farmers to adopt
simple measures of precaution, which I may in a
rough way (without his authority) deecribe as fol-
lows :-1. To remove from the cowhouses all sub-

stances probably offering a ready lodgment to the
poison ; 2, to restore and invigorate the atmosphere
by phosphorus ; 3, to keep the stock within walls,
as no agency of the kind mentioned can be effec-

Eve in the-open air. The disease has now been in
this neighbourhood for weeks. It came into the

parish, I think, about, a week ago. It haspar-
tially surrounded farms where these measures
_

have been adopted, and thus far they remain un

scathed.

IVe Must not presume to answer for to•

morrow ; but I have not yet happened to hear of
any facts so well worth attention. I may add that
the circumstances of its appearance here seem to
suggest that the disease passes by a diffused move-
ment in the atmosphere, and not only, though in all
likelihood much more virulently, by contagion.
Likewise that there are various points of detail
which, if stated, would go strongly to support what
1 have said of the preventive measures. One word

more of the measures themselves. At any moment
the disease may appear on the exempted farms. But
the evidence of their failure would certainly not ap-
proach completeness until it were known what pro-
portion of the stock were seized, and what propor-
tion of the seized had recovered. The return for the
week ending Dec. 16 gives the following figures :

Cases. Died.- County of Chester ...... 1423 ~. 534 ... 46 Recovered.
All Scotland ............... •4,909 ... 1,075 ... 366
Thus, in Cheshire, the deaths are 37i per cent. of
the cases ; in Scotland, 22 per cent. ; and in Che-
shire the recoveries are si per cent. of the deaths ;
in Scotland, 34 per cent.

" I beg you to excuse any error which may have
crept into this letter, and I remain, dear sir, your
very faithful servant, " W. E. GLADSTONE.
" Sir Thomas D. Lloyd, Bart., M.P.
P.S.—ln Cheshire allowance must be made for
dairy stock ; but the inequalities elsewhere are many.
The recoveries in all England are to the deaths as
one to eight ; in Forfarshire, where the numbers
attacked are larger than in any county except York,
they are two in seven."