CATTLE IN PARLIAMENT.
THERE really is no possibility of mystery about the Government Cattle Bill. That it is a Bill deliberately intended to protect the grazier and the farmer against the competition of the foreign stock-breeders, we do not believe. But that it is a Bill which must have that effect, we do believe ; and that it is this precise effect which, unconsciously in most cases, is the secret of whatever popularity the Bill can boast, we believe also; otherwise it would have no friends at all. As it is, its enemies are so many and so powerful, that the Government already see, we imagine, into what a hornet's nest they have got in bringing it before the country.
The bare facts of the case are very simple. The import of live cattle into England is a rapidly growing one. The Bill of the Government proposes almost to annihilate this import, except under very stringent restrictions in the case of stock-cattle, and quite to annihilate it in the case of fat cattle, excepting where they come from Canada or the United States. Of course the effect on the trade will be very severe. It must greatly diminish the trade of the past. It must entirely prevent the growth of the trade for the future. Mr. Rathbone, in his very clear and admirable speech, showed how fatally a diminution of supply, even when that diminution is extremely small in relation to the whole supply, will enhance the price, if it extinguishes all margin, and so excites greatly the competition amongst those to whom the article in demand is practically a necessary of life. A very small deficiency in the supply of coal sent up the price in a few years from 10s. or 12s. a ton to 40s., solely through the competition of persons to whom coal was a necessary, for an article of which there was not enough for all. And so, of course, it will be with meat. If there is not enough meat to satisfy all to whom a meat diet seems so far a neces- sary of health, that they are miserable without it, a very startling rise of price will certainly occur through the competition of an increasing number of con- sumers for a decreasing supply. And if the Government Bill passes in its present shape, this must almost certainly result from it. "At Liverpool, an import of 440 head of cattle in the first four months of last year had risen to 3,224 in the first four months of this year," which indicates clearly how the demand is increasing. If the Government Bill is passed, in the face of this increasing demand, there will be a sudden and very considerable diminution in supply. All the fat cattle which come from the Continent are to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. We get at present a certain number of fat cattle from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, as well as from Spain and Portugal, and that supply will either cease, or if it does not cease, the cattle will be all slaughtered on arrival, and the risk and cost of distributing this supply in all weathers, as meat,—instead of waiting till it is seen exactly when and where the supply is most wanted,—will of course be greatly increased. The amount of this loss is calculated. It is said to be from £2 6s. 3d. a head of cattle in winter to £4 10s. 5d. in summer. And to that extent, of course, the price must at once rise, if not much further ; for almost certainly there will be a great hesitation in incurring the responsi- bility of importing so perishable an article as butchers' meat, and in many cases the risk will not be taken, even though the advance of price, which is generally found to cover the risk, could be secured. There is not, then, a doubt, but that whatever may be the effect on the importation of animals intended for slaughter, the effect must be to enhance seriously the price of meat, and may well be to enhance it cruelly. Mr. Forster says
that in his opinion about 121 per cent. of the consumption of the country has recently been imported. If you are to com-
pel all these cattle (except those which come from Canada or the United States) to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation, certainly fewer will come, and certainly those that do come will be transformed into meat only at a greatly enhanced price. Nobody in his senses will deny that before passing such a measure as this, an irresistible case should be made out of either mischief to be avoided, or compensation to be gained.
Now there is certainly no strong case of mischief to be avoided to be made out. It is not even alleged that the recent restrictions have failed of their effect. It is not alleged that the new prcposal to slaughter all fat cattle coming from Spain and Portugal, and Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, can be justi- fied by the amount of disease imported from these countries. If it were so, the Privy Council had power in their hands to ex- tend at any time to any one of these countries the prohibition which has recently been in force against German cattle. In a word, it is not on account of any mischief which has been done in spite of the severest restrictions, but, on the contrary, in the hope of doing something quite fresh, that the Government propose this very violent measure, against which all the co- operative societies petition. Now, what is this fresh advan- tage the Government hope to get ? They hope, it seems, first to stimulate a new trade, the dead - meat trade, which is wholly free from those dangers of contagious disease involved in the import of live animals'; and next, they hope to stamp out some, if not all, of these infectious diseases altogether, by entirely cutting off the fresh importations from the Continent, and carefully isolating any cases which may happen in this country. Now, as to the hope of producing a great trade in dead meat which would be free from the specific risks of the wide distribution of live cattle, all that can be said is this,—it is not in any sense the business of Government, and it would be a great evil that it ever should be thought the business of Government. If the import of live cattle is so dangerous and mischievous, that on due considera- tion for the agricultural condition of this country, it should be prohibited, well and good. That some substitute would spring up for it, we do not doubt. But what that substitute should be,—whether a larger development of the graziers' business, here, or the importation of cattle to be slaughtered for butchers' meat from abroad,—it is not the business of Govern- ment in any way to decide. If Government are to begin encouraging substitutes for an endangered trade, where is to be the end of it V Protection in all its worst forms would be at once upon us. In the next place, as to the hope of completely stamping out any one of the contagious diseases to which cattle are liable by this measure,—it is simply chimeri- cal. What can be done in this way has been done, and would be done under the restrictions of recent years. It is possible to prevent generally the entrance of such disease by carefully watch- ing the accounts of health and disease in foreign countries, and at once prohibiting the import of live cattle from any gravely affected country. But as for stamping out all these diseases in a short time, it cannot be done without going far beyond the limits even of this measure,—without indeed adopting measures so arbitrary that no Government can or would enforce them. It was certainly the foot-and-mouth disease of which Government were chiefly thinking when they expressed the hope of stamping it out by this measure—otherwise they would not have exempted the fat cattle imported from London and the United States. They regard the voyage from the American continent, as Lord Salisbury says, as a sufficient quaran- tine ; but that it can only be in the case of a disease
of short incubation, like foot-and-mouth disease. It is certainly no sufficient quarantine in the case of the more serious diseases. Nor, indeed, is it denied that this statutory compulsion for slaughtering all fat cattle imported from Europe, is aimed chiefly at the foot-and-mouth disease. That is admitted on all sides. But then, what is the evidence that the foot-and-mouth disease is, in general, an imported disease ? Some of the best authorities utterly deny this. They believe that it is just as indigenous in this country and Ireland as elsewhere, and they say that to slaughter all fat animals im- ported from Europe is absolutely of no use at all, unless the same precaution were taken with all animals imported from one part of the United Kingdom to another. To let large importations come from Ireland without any statutory slaughter, and then insist on slaughtering all that come from Sweden or from Portugal, in order to stamp out a disease which is much more likely to be found in Eng-
land or Ireland than in Sweden or Portugal, is childish and almost imbecile. Then again, you must take far greater powers for dealing with the great cattle fairs of this country, if you are serious in your proposal to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease within a short period. You must in- sist that when any case of cattle disease shows itself in such fairs, all the other animals which have been in contact with it should be slaughtered at once. Now, no one even contends for such a rule. These heroic measures would not be endured for a moment. Government has found that they would not. And yet they propose heroic measures against imported cattle not at all likely to introduce the disease, which they do not venture to propose against our home cattle, even when the disease is well known to exist among them. This is as unfair as it is illogical. What wonder the Government are taunted with wishing to reintroduce Protection, when they deliberately propose to take stringent steps against the foreigner, even though he be shown not to threaten us with disease, which they dare not take against the home producer when the presence of disease is actually proved ? Of course, the inference is that where the stringency acts protectively, and tends to increase the value of English farmers' stock, it may be permitted, and even welcome ; but where it has no such effect, and inflicts what- ever inconvenience it does inflict on the English farmer, and not on his foreign competitor, it is wholly inadmissible. We do not accuse the Government of intending to reintroduce Pro- tection, because we think a much simpler solution of the case is to suppose that they have been acting blindly, that they have been compelled by circumstances to mutilate their proposals on one side, so as to make them Protective, even though they were not so intended. But speaking without regard to intention, the case is clear. Whether protectively intended or not, either these measures should be as stringent against our home stock of cattle, where there is equal or greater danger, as they are against foreign cattle ; or if the Govern- ment are afraid of that, they are fostering Protection under a new disguise.
Their own supporters see this as clearly as their opponents. Speakers such as Sir W. Barttelot and Mr. Pell should warn the Government of the sea of troubles on which they are em- barking. They have made a very false step, and had much better accept Mr. Forster's amendment without reserve. If they did, they might carry a Bill shorn of the worst defects of the Bill they have actually introduced, and might win credit for candour and good-sense too. If they persevere, they must be discredited. They may pass the Bill, and do an indefinite amount of mischief, or they may whittle it away in. Committee, and try to make the country believe that they are not alter- ing its main principle; but whichever of these results happens, they will be laughed at by their own most sagacious supporters, and will very likely make a great many enemies among the con-• stituencies into the bargain. Discredit, in one form or another, the Bill must bring them. But it will injure them least, if they avow their blunder frankly, and repair it at once.
Previous page
