prohibited because though not fraudulent they opened a possibility for fraud, and the objection to them was similar in kind to that taken against the Truck Acts. But a comparison of the debates on Mr. Brand's amendment with that on the motion Mr. Fawcett pressed to a division on the second reading of the Factory Act of 1874 is very instructive. Freedom of contract was no longer a name to conjure with the farmers possessed political power, they were under no disabilities of any sort, and thus the case for leaving them to make their own bargains was infinitely stronger than that of the adult women in Factories: but the House of Commons showed wonderfully little hesitation in setting aside this principle in favour of these tenant farmers. 59. The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act2 was introduced and discussed throughout as a consumers' question, but the issue really involved was as to the way in which it would affect the direction of capital. It was said on the one side that unless prompt measures were taken to prevent the introduction of disease from abroad the breeders would be unable to continue their business and the home supply would decline; while it was argued on the other hand that any interference with the foreign trade in live cattle would render it unprofitable to foreign breeders and to importing merchants, and thus diminish the supply from abroad. It thus incidentally became an argument as to the necessity and probable effects of the measure, in which the "farmers' friends" and the representatives of the trading interests took different sides. Some members questioned whether sufficient grounds 13 Hansard, ccxix. 1421. 2 41 and 42 Vict. c. 74. 3 Hansard, ccxli. 149, 215. had been shown for introducing a new bill at all: but there could be little doubt that a consolidating measure was desirable, and that it was necessary to introduce some uniformity into the action of the 411 local authorities who were responsible for dealing with the matter under the Act of 1869.1 There had besides been serious outbreaks of the Cattle Plague in 1872 and 1877, which had called public attention to the matter, and which raised a very strong presumption in favour of introducing further regulations on the subject. In view of the agitation which has been kept up ever since, it could hardly be contended now that it was unnecessary to try and deal thus with the matter. The Duke of Richmond in introducing the bill distinguished three types of disease2 against which precautionary measures had to be taken. The Rinderpest was a contagious disease, the introduction of which might, as he hoped, be prevented in the future by the action of the central authority; while pleuro-pneumonia and footand-mouth disease, whether originally introduced from abroad or not, were now prevalent in the country. He thought it might be possible however, by restricting the movement of cattle from infected to uninfected districts, to stamp out these diseases altogether and regulations with this object, which were undoubtedly onerous on the farmers for the time, were embodied in the Bill, in the hope that the diseases might be got rid of altogether. Mr. W. E. Forster argued that these regulations might be easily made without interfering with the import trade at all; and that the different amount of discretion given 3 13 Hansard, ccxxxvii. 1486. 3 Ibid. ccxli. 157. to the Privy Council in regard to the restrictions on home and foreign trade,1 showed that this was really a measure of protection in disguise; while Mr. Rathbone strongly contested the allegation that the breeding of cattle was really declining 2 at home even under the existing system, or that there was a serious danger of either foot-andmouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia being introduced from foreign countries. But Mr. Clare Read held that these diseases could not be stamped out here unless an absolute prohibition was given to the introduction of them from abroad, and that it was only on this condition that the government were justified in introducing restrictions, even of a local and temporary character, on English farmers. Such security could only be given as it seemed to them by the slaughter of all foreign cattle at the ports of debarcation, and Mr. Read argued that this would occasion no serious diminution of the supply of foreign meat, as the trade in dead meat was rapidly growing. Mr. Forster pointed out that to insist on a universal slaughter on landing, would seriously affect the existing import trade. "The live animal can wait the market and he can follow it, while we cannot get rid of the fact that dead meat is a very perishable article, and that the forced sale of a very perishable article generally results in loss,” 5 and he seemed exceedingly doubtful as to a rapid development of a dead-meat trade. In this way the debate resolved itself into a contest between those interested in the profitable returns for the foreigners' and traders' capital, and those interested in the profitable return for the farmers' capital: each at 6 1 3 Hansard, ccxli. 218. 3 Ibid. ccxli. 218. 5 Ibid. ccxli. 150. 2 Ibid. ccxli. 221. 4 [bid. ccxli. 382, 399. 6 Ibid. ccxli. 149. N 1 tempting to convince the House that he1 and not his opponent 2 was the true friend of the consumer. 3 The practical point at issue was the question as to the slaughter of all cattle on landing from foreign countries: this the farmers demanded: the traders insisted that only cattle coming from infected countries should be slaughtered: eventually the Act provided that all cattle shall be slaughtered unless coming from a country known not to be affected. It thus was less stringent than the farmers desired, but made the onus probandi rest on the dealers to show that a country was free of disease, not on the Privy Council to prove it infected: and this seems a fair compromise. That the measure has not accomplished all that its promoters hoped is evident from the discussion in the past session, and that discussion seemed to show that the evidence of specialists in the present day3 gives more support to the contentions of the farmers than was the case six years ago. But with the special regulations introduced we are not concerned,-only with the principles on which they are based; and it is noticeable that throughout the debates the position taken by both sides was that we should have "protection against disease, and not protection against competition."4 Whether the promoters of the measure were thoroughly honest in the acceptance of this principle or not-and their honesty did not pass unquestioned-does not concern us here, as they at least recognised that any argument based on protection against competition would only damage their cause. The idea of protecting the home producer of food against foreign competition was not a weapon that any 1 Mr. Rathbone, 3 Hansard, ccxli. 222. 4 3 Hansard, ccxxxvii. 1501. political party dared to use: it could only serve the purpose of a bogey to frighten the town constituencies. 60. It is not unnatural to turn from the consideration of the Act just discussed to examine the measures which have recently been taken with regard to capital engaged in the trade. Little has been done in the way of granting the members of joint-stock companies additional facilities for managing their own affairs in their own way but one point has received a certain amount of attention. So much anxiety is often expressed in regard to the continual additions made by public companies to their capitals that it is of the highest importance that no unnecessary hindrance should be put in the way of their reducing their capitals when opportunity offers, either by cancelling lost capital, paying off unnecessary capital, or cancelling unissued shares. A decision of the late Master of the Rolls had rendered the state of the existing law somewhat uncertain,1 two bills had been introduced in 1877 by private members, and a select committee was appointed to consider the matter; on their reporting a government measure was drawn and passed without opposition.2 The machinery created under this Act was however found to be rather cumbrous 3 by practical men of business, and Sir John Lubbock introduced a Bill which became law in 1880, despite the cold reception it met from professional lawyers, who seemed to fear that the interests of the public, considered as creditors, might occasionally suffer. 4 61. The State has begun in recent years to exercise a 13 Hansard, ccxxxiv. 1293. 3 3 Hansard, ccxlv. 921. 4 43 Vict. c. 19. 2 40 and 41 Vict. c. 26. 53 Hansard, ccli. 781. |