EDITORIAL ARTICLE.

may have been the degree o f natural immunity possessed by these three experimental cattle, it was much increased by the successive intravenous inoculations to which they were subjected. The immunity was not absolute, but it may be doubted whether a degree of resist­ance that would merit that term is obtainable by any method in cattle.

A very singular feature in connection with these experiments is the distribution of the lesions found at the post-mortem examination of each of the three animals. Space will not permit me to consider these peculiarities at length on this occasion, but attention may be called to the absence of lesions from the spleen and liver in each case, the constancy of lesions in the kidneys, the occurrence of tuber­culosis of the pia mater in two of the animals, the implication of the tongue and medulla oblongata in the third, the presence of tubercles in various groups of peripheral lymphatic glands in one, and the escape of the same parts in the other two animals.

Lastly, the way in which the animals behaved to the various tests with tuberculin merits attention. On a good many of the occasions there was no reaction at all, but in a considerable number there was a slight rise of temperature, and in some the rise was sufficient to constitute a distinct reaction. As a rule, when there was only a slight rise, and sometimes even when there was a distinct reaction, the maximum temperature was reached at the sixth or ninth hour. The rise was thus on many occasions not of the type which is generally considered characteristic of a reaction to tuberculin , but, nevertheless, it is very probable that it was a true reaction, in the sense that it was dependent upon the existence (sometimes temporary) of active tuber­.culous lesions within the body. Similar early rises of temperature are every now and again met with in ordinary practice when herds are tested with tuberculin, a nd it is very far from certain that in such cases it is safe to consider the animal not tuberculous because the temperature has ' not been what some authors call typical.

ED ITO R I A L ART I C L E.

'--0--

THE SPONTANEOUS ORIGIN OF SWINE-FEVER,

I N an article which appeared in the preced ing number of this Joltma! it was pointed out that in t~e opinion of Mr Hanbury, President of the Board of Agriculture, the veterinary profession had yet to learn the ABC of swine-fever. Stimulated, apparently, by further re­flection on the ignorance of the class to whom the public naturally turn for information regarding this and other diseases of animals, the President has himself made a n incursion into the field of veterinary pathology, and the first fruits of his researches were communicated to the members of the Taunton Farmers' Club on the first March

EDITORIAL ARTICLE.

last~ From a report of his speech which appeared in the Bristol Times and Mirror, we quote the following :-

H He thought there were two forms of swine-fever-one that worked Ollt spontaneously, and the other that was due to the existence of microbes. He would tell them why. It was a most remarkable phenomenon that swine-fever broke out all round large seaside towns, such as Blackpool, Brighton, and 'vVeymouth, in the tourist season, and seemed to affect a number of pigs that \vere fed on wash and swi ll."

This is a startling announcement. That a Cabinet Minister responsible for the administration of the laws relating to the con­tagious diseases of the domesticated animals should gravely assert that swine-fever may be generated by feeding pigs with" wash and swill," or suppose that the incidence of the disease is partly dependent on the movements of tourists, is calculated to create a feeling of stupefaction tinged with despair. In the endeavour to recover QUI'

mental bearings after the shock we might be pardoned for asking whether we have suddenly been thrust back to the Middle Ages or transferred to the heart of the Celestial Empire. Is this the first lesson in the ABC of swine-fever, and the opening of a new chapter in epidemiology, which, before it is concluded, may teach us that smallpox is caused by intemperance, and cholera by unchastity? Or is it merely an example of the crude notions about swine-fever which someone has been writing on the" clean slate" of Mr Hanbury's mind since he assumed the Presidency of the Board of Agriculture?

We desire to speak with every respect of Mr Hanbury. vVe acknowledge the conspicuous gifts that have brought him to his present position, and the earnestness of his endeavours to safeguard the agricultural interests. On the other hand , when he undertakes to enlighten the public on veterinary questions we decline to attach any greater importance to his opinions than to those of the ordinary uninstructed layman, except, of course, that we recognise the superi­ority of their influence for evil when they happen to be wrong. vVhatever Mr Hanbury may say on the subject of swine-fever is to some extent discounted by our knowledge of the fact that his studies in that direction are of comparatively recent inception. vVe are quite preparcd to accept real additions to our knowledge, from whatever source they come, but when opinions that deserve to be termed revolutionary are put forward we claim the right to examine the evidence, even when the author of them is a Cabinet Minister. We propose to exercise that right here, and to criticise the evidence on which Mr Hanbury grounds the assertion that there is a spontaneous form of swine-fever, and that tourist traffic and the feedin g of pigs with "wash and swill" have something to do with its origin. vVe shall put aside the temptation to treat these opinions with open ridicule, and we shall endeavour to approach the subject as if the

EDITORIAL ARTICLE. 73

possibility of swine-fever having some other origin than contagion were still a perfectly open question.

It is said to be a most remarkable phenomenon that swine-fever breaks out all round large seaside towns in the tourist season, and seems to effect a number of pigs that are fed on wash and swill. This statement leaves something to be desired in the matter of pre­cision, but the meaning which we extract from it may be expressed as follows :-

I. 111 and around large seaside towns swine-fever is more prevalent during the tourist season than at other periods of the year.

2. During the tourist season swine-fever is more prevalent in and around seaside towns that in other parts of the Kingdom.

3. In certain circumstances that exclude contagion pigs are attacked with swine-fever, and in such cases the disease must have a spontaneous origin.

4. Among the outbreaks occurring in circumstances that exclude contagion, a notable proportion are found to be among pigs fed with "wash and swill."

It may possibly be said that we have read into Mr Hanbury's statement a good deal more than it contained, but careful considera­tio'n will show that we have only added what was implied, or necessary to give sense to what was said. For example, Mr Hanbury did not say precisely that swine-fever is more prevalent all round large sea­side towns during the tourist season than at other times; what was actually said was that the disease broke out all round such places in the tourist season, but one could only deny the interpretation we have placed on the statement by supposing that in Mr Hanbury's view the advent of the tourist season ought somehow to give the sea­side places an immunity from swine-fever. Again, in the Taunton deliverance it was not explicitly stated that swine-fever is specially prevalent among pigs fed with wash and swill, but that was clearly implied, for it would be absurd to suppose that Mr Hanbury regarded it as a very remarkable phenomenon that a diet of wash and swill does not prevent pigs from contracting swine-fever when they are exposed to the contagion of that disease.

We now come to an examination of the alleged very remarkable phenomenon. Is it a fact that the seasonal or geographical incidence of swine-fever indicates that it has any special preference for the neighbourhood of large seaside towns and for the tourist seaSOll. For information on that head we naturally turn to the published statistics of the Board of Agriculture, and we entirely fail to find there any support for the view put forward by Mr Hanbury. Take, for example, the county of Kent, which includes the important sea­side towns and tourist resorts - Ramsgate, Margate; Dovel', and Folkestone. During August a.nd September last (nine weeks) the total number of outbreaks reported from this county was eleven,

EDITORIAL ARTICLE.

but nineteen outbreaks were reported from · the same area in the first nine weeks of the year. Or, take the county of Sussex, with Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne. From this county seventeen outbreaks were reported during the first four months of the year, but not one during the months June, July, August, and September. During these months neither tourists nor" swi ll," nor the combination of these agencies, was able to produce outbreaks of swine-fever in this county.

The facts are still more opposed to Mr Hanbury's theory when we turn to Scotland. Needless to say that portion of the kingdom has many seaside towns; and though only a few of them would deserve to be called large, that hardly effects the question, for Mr Hanbury cannot have wished his hearers to believe that the geographical incidence of swine fever is a matter dependent upon the density of the human popUlation. If either tourists or the use of wash and swill were a cause of swine fever, or had any etiological connection whatever with the disease, the whole of the east and west coasts of Scotland would annually develop an almost continuous fringe of swine fever outbreaks. But nothing of the kind happens. The most ingenious juggler with statistics could not present the facts relating to the outbreaks of swine fever in Scotland in such a light as to give any support to the view that proximity to the coast, touri st incursions, or the use of any particular class of food has the slightest influence on the prevalence of the disease. The total number of outbreaks reported from Scotland in August and September last was seven, against thirty-one outbreaks irr ·March and April.

The question of the alleged influence of "wash and swill" may now be examined more closely. We have ventured to set out in more precise language than he himself used what seems to be the most probable meaning of Mr Hanbury's statements concerning the influence of proximity to the Sf!a, and the movements of human beings during the holiday season on the prevalence of swine fever, but we confess that the exigesis of the pronouncement with regard to wash and swill presents great difficulties. Does Mr Hanbury mean that the use of wash and swill for the feedin g of pigs is peculiar to certain large seaside towns, or to any particular part of the country? He is certainly in error if he does. Perhaps, however, the contention is that all over the country the use of wash and swill and the occurrence of swine fever are so frequently associated as to suggest that there must be an etiological connection between them. But that view also is negatived by the statistics. We know that the operations of the Board of Agriculture, inadequate as they are, have repeatedly given freedom from swine fever to whole counties for a considerable period. But the Board has never sought to impose any regulation forbidding the use of wash and swill, and the isolation or slaughtering of diseased pigs cannot exert any influence

EDITORIAL ARTICLE. 75

on the spread of a disease which is dietetic in its origin. Why should the use of wash and swill be powerless at present to induce swine fever throughout nearly the whole of Scotland while it remains one of the causes of the disease in England?

We have previously said that we would put aside the temptation to treat those peculiar notions with open ridicule, but we admit that we have great difficulty in discussing seriously the question whether there is a form of swine fever" that works out spontaneously." \Ve can well believe that Mr Hanbury's knowledge of pathology in general, and of swine fever in particular, is so defective that he can in a vague sort of way mentally figure to himself the possibility of one and the same disease being sometimes bacterial and sometimes not. We may refrain from ridiculing such a belief, but it would be out of place to oppose it by any reasoned statement.

The only position at all approaching this that would be in any degree defensible would be to maintain that during the whole period of the Board's operations aRainst swine-fever the veterinary officers of the Board have be~n confounding two perfectly distinct diseases. We hesitate to believe that Mr Hanbury intended to bring a charge of such colossal incompetence against his own officials. It has always been understood that at the Board of Agriculture swit]e.fever is never diagnosed except when the characteristic ulcerative or diphtheritic lesions of that d isease are found at the post-mortem examination ; and, while we are not prepared to affirm that mistakes are impossible under that system, even at the hands of men of wide experience, we unhesitatinRly refuse to believe that the President of the Board of Agriculture has any substantial grounds for thinking that in more than an insignificant proportion of cases the veterinary officers of the Board diagnose as swine-fever that which is 110t.

We also refuse to believe that the Board of Agriculture has any knowledge of swine-fever arising in circumstances that exclude the possibility of contagion. We challenge Mr Hanbury to bring forward any serious evidence that such a thing eve~ occurs. vVe know, ()f course, that in swine-fever, as indeed iri every other contagious disease, it is not always possible to prove that contagion has been at work, but with great confidence we do affirm that nothing is k.nown which lends the least probability to the suggestion that in this country swine-fever ever arises independently of contagion.

We have left the most serious aspect of Mr Hanbury'S opinions regarding swine-fever to the last. It is that they are in the most violent conflict with the opinions of those whose special duty it is to advise him in such matters. The present chief veterinary officer of the Board, and his predecessor in that office, have again a nd again expressed opinions which cannot by illly possibility be reconciled with those which Mr Hanbury holds regarding the cause of swine­fever. In these circumstances one naturally wonders who does ad vise

REVIEWS.

the President of the Board regarding veterinary matters. It would not be reasonable to suppose that Mr Hanbury's views on thesubjeet of swine-fever are original, in the sense that they are his own conclu­sions, based on close personal attention to all the available evidence. It is vastly more probable that he has too hastily adopted the opinions of some of those lay officers of the Board whose duties are euphemisti­cally described as administrative, but whose activities are too fre­quently extended to purely veterinary matters, which they are incap­able of fully understanding owing to the lack of an adequate pro­fessional training.

Horses on Board Ship. By M. Horace Hayes, F.R.C.V.S. London: Hurst & Blackett, 1902.

The Transport of Horses by Sea. By E. E. Martin, Vet.-Lieut., Army Veterinary Department. Calcuttta: Thacker, Spink & Co., 1901.

WE are happy to say we have nothing but praise for each of these works. They undoubtedly fill up what was a regrettable blank in veterinary literature; and one's first feeling on reading them is that it is a pity that they did not appear a little sooner.

Both authors are entitled to claim that they write with some authority on the subject of sea-transport of horses, and the matter of both books bears the stamp of experience. Captain Hayes, in addition to the knowledge gained during voyages to and from India and other places in charge of hflrses, possesses the experience gained while discharging the duties of veterinary officer on ships carrying remounts to South Africa. Lieutenant Martin, on the other hand, has for the past five years acted as Veterinary Officer of the Remount Depot at Calcutta, and Inspector under the Live Steck Importation Act, and for the past two years he has been engaged in superintending veterinary arrangements for the transport of remounts to China and South Africa. When one reflects that since the outbreak of the present war in South Africa the charge of horses on board ship has on many occasions had to be entrusted to recent veterinary graduates, devoid of all practical acquaint­ance with work of that kind, it is impC1ssible to avoid the conclusion that much animal suffering,would have be __ ,' averted, and much money saved to the nation, if the instructions which are contained in these two books had been available two years and a half ago.

The matters dealt with in both books are practically the same, and include the selection of ships suitable for the transport of horses, and all that comes under the head of the dietetics and general hygiene of horses during a sea voyage, Naturally, some slight differences of opinion are expressed by the two authors conct:rning a num,ber of points, but with regard to all important matters they are in substantial agreement. IVe strongly advise all thost: who may at any time have to undertake the veterinary care of horses on board ship to put themselves in possession of both books.