450 
Foot-and-Mouth Disease. 
stated has invariably been brought out very prominently. Diffi- 
culties have been met with in the endeavour to account for the 
introduction of the affection ; frequently it has been impossible 
to define the actual date of the outbreak, and more often than 
otherwise it has been necessary to suggest several possible or 
probable channels of communication with distant centres of in- 
fection ; but when the existence of a single case of the malady 
is admitted, it is always easy enough to account for the spread 
of the infection. No better illustration of the conditions under 
which foot-and-mouth disease spreads with excessive rapidity 
can be found than the one which was afforded by the county of 
Somerset, at the time when the malady prevailed there in the 
summer and autumn of 1870. 
Before the inquiry was commenced, a general statement had 
been made and commonly accepted, that animals, principally 
Irish cattle, bought in Bristol market, introduced the affection 
into the county in the first instance, and constantly kept up the 
supply of infection. This statement was not unreasonable, and 
was therefore taken as a basis in the subsequent investigation. 
Very shortly, however, it appeared that Irish cattle from Bristol 
market were not solely, or even in the greatest part, responsible 
for the condition of the cattle in the county of Somerset, and in 
many instances they had nothing at all to do with the original 
outbreaks. 
In the Frome district, the first outbreaks were traced to the 
introduction of pigs from Bristol and Salisbury markets into 
the market at Frome. Dealers are in the habit of moving pigs 
from one market to another. These animals are least likely to 
attract observation when suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, 
and, either in railway trucks, or market carts, may be moved all 
over the country with impunity. Numerous outbreaks of the 
disease were traced to exposure of diseased pigs in the markets, 
and, although the dealers were sometimes fined for the offence, 
it did not appear that the practice was checked. Probably the 
general immunity which was enjoyed by those who systemati- 
cally evaded the law in this way sufficiently encouraged them 
to continue to incur a slight risk of detection and possible 
punishment. Considering the loss which dealers would have 
suffered if they had acted in strict accordance with the law, it is 
scarcely a matter for surprise that they ignored all the regulations, 
the observance of which would have seriously interfered with 
their trade. 
In the Glastonbury district, where the disease prevailed to 
a serious extent, many outbreaks were traced to the introduction 
of infected cattle from Bristol market ; but there were also 
other sources of infection to be taken into account. One 
