444 
Foot-and-Mouth Disease. 
two years of prevalence would have called for no remark if it 
had occurred, as in previous outbreaks it did occur, indepen- 
dently of any restrictions ; but taken in connection with the 
existence of more stringent regulations in respect of the move- 
ment of cattle, the event was naturally, and without hesitation, 
ascribed to their influence ; and there was something so com- 
pletely satisfactory in the belief of the advantages which were 
piesumed to have been gained by submission to annoying restric- 
tions, that no one thought of casting a doubt on the popular 
faith, nor, indeed, was it worth while to inquire into the grounds 
of its acceptance, until it was vitiated by the gratuitous assertion 
that Great Britain was free from foot-and-mouth disease on 
the cessation of cattle-plague, and did not again suffer from it 
until the affection was introduced from abroad, a proposition 
quite opposed to the facts which have just been advanced. Post 
hoc, propter hoc, involves a principle which philosophy repu- 
diates, nevertheless philosophers, as well as other people, con- 
stantly accept the'principle as a basis of argument. 
The spring of 1869 was marked by what may be termed the 
commencement of the last great outbreak, which has only 
recently ceased. Not only in this kingdom, but also on the con- 
tinent, the disease spread with remarkable rapidity, most pro- 
bably under the influence of those unknown laws which regulate 
the spread of epizootics. Diseased animals were landed on our 
coasts from nearly all the continental ports, and there can be no 
doubt that infected foreign animals which were moved into the 
country contributed to spread the disease, as the regulation for 
the slaughter of the whole cargo in the event of the discovery 
of foot-and-mouth disease did not then exist. 
In August, 1869, foot-and-mouth disease was, for the first 
time in this country, included among infectious diseases by Act 
of Parliament ; and it became a penal offence to move an 
animal affected with the disease on public roads or rivers, or to 
expose it in a fair or market. An Order of Council subse- 
quently issued required the owner of such animal to give notice 
of the existence of disease, and the Inspectors or the Local 
Authorities were required to make returns of the number of cases 
within their districts. Notwithstanding this attempt to arrest 
the disease by legislation it continued to spread. 
In December of that year an outbreak of foot-and-mouth 
disease among cattle at the Smithfield Show at Islington 
occasioned considerable inconvenience. Provisions had been 
made under the Order of Council which was necessary to enable 
the Club to hold the exhibition, for the removal out of the 
metropolis of the cattle exhibited if no outbreak of contagious 
disease occurred. On this occasion everything went on satis- 
