2 



Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Vol. 2o p. i) in which suggestions 

 for legislation on the subject were made, and drafted an ordinance the 

 same year which was carried into effect early in 1890 and has been 

 kept in force with great success ever since. This ordinance was later 

 adopted by some other tropical countries, and by the F. M. S. at the 

 suggestion of the Director of Gardens of Singapore as soon as it was 

 necessary to do so owing to the development of the industry in the 

 F. M. S. The ordinance was in force and has been carried out by 

 suitable staffs in Singapore, Malacca, Penang and Province Wellesley 

 from 1890 to the present day. 



The real history of legislation against insect and fungus pests 

 with a good account of the ordinance passed by different Govern- 

 ments, their working, and efficacy or failure would be a subject w^ell 

 worth study and very helpful. It often happens that such legisla- 

 tive ordinances are not recorded in Botanical or Agricultural 

 literature but, in inaccessible legal or official publications. The 

 introduction of legislation, external as Dr. Willis calls it, against 

 Phylloxera in France, Australia and the Cape certainly dates from the 

 early eighties. Loder (Spraying of plants 374) gives the following 

 dates: California, March, 1881, an internal law requiring cultivators 

 to destroy insect and fungus pests, amended 1889 ; Canada 1892, a 

 law fori)idding spraying fruit trees with poisons injurious to trees ; 

 Massachussetts, March, 1890, legislation against the Gypsy moth ; 

 Michigan, 1895, legislation against pests ; Utah, 1894, legislation to 

 inspect fruit trees and destroy insect pests. Tasmania had legislation 

 against the codlin moth pretty early, but I have no dates. Over 

 twenty years ago Jamaica refused to admit plants coming from any 

 country where Hemileia vastatrix occurred. 



Australia has a Diseases of Plants act in 1896, but Tryon says no 

 legal restrictions were put into force till 1897 (Queensland Agricul- 

 tural Journal, June, 1898, 494). 



In the East Indies Singapore seems to have taken the lead with 

 the coconut trees ordinance in 1890. There was really no need for 

 legislation against plants introduced from outside as practically all 

 useful plants introduced to the Colony or F. M. S. came in via the 

 Botanic Gardens at Singapore and were there cultivated before being 

 sent out and any disease would have been noticed and checked. Since 

 that date the only legislation passed has been the ordinance of 1908 

 to impower the Governor to pass legislation against importing dis- 

 eased plants, etc., and this is being followed up by an ordinance against 

 Diplodia. Ceylon, according to Dr. Willis, commenced legislating in 

 1901 with an ordinance for disinfecting fruit liable to carry dangerous 

 pests and then as he says went further than the F. M. S. in legisla- 

 tion. He does not allude to the legislation of other countries. The 

 Ceylon legislation was levelled at the introduction of diseases of tea, 

 cocoa, pepper, citrus, fruits and plants, Indian potatoes and cotton. 



It is quite natural for Ceylon to extend legislation of this type to 

 further series of plants than is required by the Malay Peninsula, 



