E. J. BUTLER 37 



to make this clear by adding a statement to this effect in the body of the Con- 

 vention. Further, compulsory notification of diseases is only of value with 

 new diseases and for them only until the disease has reached a moderately wide 

 distribution, unless it is proposed to adopt compulsory treatment. In the 

 present backward state of the knowledge of the occurrence and distribution 

 of diseases in many countries, notification may appear important, but it 

 seems probable that this state of affairs mil not last long and then notification 

 can only serve three purposes. It may be required to enable certificates to be 

 given for plants not under the Convention or going to non-adhering 

 countries, where the importing country requires the certificate to state that 

 a certain disease does not occur near the exporting nursery ; it may be 

 required in order to restrict circulation of diseased stock in the country under 

 the limits discussed above ; and it may be required if compulsory treatment 

 is adopted. 



The question of compulsory treatment has been already referred to in 

 part. I am not greatly in sympathy with any regulations of the kind, except 

 for new diseases, and for so long as there is a reasonable chance of preventing 

 their spread— generally for a few years only. My experience has been that 

 it is impossible to " administer " a disease out of existence, though sometimes 

 possible to confine it to a restricted area for a time. There have been excep- 

 tional chances of testing this in India and some of the colonies, and they have 

 not been sufficiently successful to make it a hopeful line of treatment. In 

 general I think the '' measures to check and prevent disease " which Govern- 

 ments ought to take under Article 1 of the Convention, should not be in the 

 direction of compulsory treatment or any other " standardised " methods, 

 so much as in seeing that the best information is at the service of those who 

 require it, and in giving advice and frequent practical demonstrations of the 

 best ways to deal with a particular disease. 



From the above it will be seen that there is nothing in the Convention 

 which insists on any rigorous control of nurseiies, or which shoidd not be 

 capable of being applied effectively without interfering unduly with such estab- 

 lishments, if administered in a common-sense fashion. Some points require 

 modification or elucidation, but none of tliese touch the central principle, 

 that the certificates of the Convention shoukl be the passports to free circu- 

 lation of nuisery stock, antl none is of such a nature as to prevent the atlhosion 

 of India, except the obscure point regarding the exclusion of wild plants without 

 certificates. It is highly probable that other countries will press for a new 

 Convention after the war, but the modifications required are not likely to be 



