THE TUBERCULOSIS ORDER 69 



that the Treasun^ had allocated 60,000 per annum for five 

 years towards the cost of compensation to owners whose cows 

 were slaughtered in the public interest. The Council pointed 

 out that as the Order and the Milk and Dairies Bill were both 

 promoted as safeguards of the public health, and that as the 

 benefit would accrue chiefly to the population of large urban 

 areas, it was only equitable that the cost of administration 

 should also be defrayed out of the National Exchequer. 



The Milk and Dairies Bill, introduced by Mr. Burns, was 

 found to be a much more reasonable measure than that 

 introduced in 1909, and subject to certain amendments which 

 were set out the Council gave general approval to it. In 

 April the Council sent representatives to support a deputation 

 to the Board of Agriculture, which had been arranged by the 

 Cheshire Milk Producers' Association, to discuss the Tuber- 

 culosis Order. The points asked for were that there should be 

 one valuation only of any animal condemned to be slaughtered 

 and the scale of compensation which ought to be paid. The 

 Board declined to accede to the wishes expressed by the 

 deputation. 



1914. 



In February a report was adopted from a special Committee, 

 of which Mr. W. A. Haviland was Chairman, deploring the 

 waste occasioned by the slaughter of immature calves. The 

 Provincial Advisory Councils appointed by the Board of 

 Agriculture in connection with their scheme for the improve- 

 ment of live stock, were urged to organise a trade in calves 

 between " the rearers especially those in non-dairy districts 

 and the dairy farmers, so that the former might be enabled 

 to buy calves from good-class cows, the heifers of which could 

 be sold again as ' down-calvers.' ' This Committee, however, 

 objected to interference by legislative action. 



In March the Tuberculosis Order of 1913 was again con- 

 sidered, in view of a speech made by Mr. Runciman at Crewe 

 on 26th January. The Council reiterated their request made 

 by the deputation in the previous April for certain amend- 

 ments to the Order, which were then refused. A deputation 



