MacLeodRoy, “Introduction”, in MacLeodRoy (ed.), Government and expertise (Cambridge, 1988), 2; GoodayGraham, “Liars, experts and authorities”, History of science, xlvi (2008), 2008–56 suggests a more derogatory definition of the expert.
2.
BartripPeter, “British government inspection, 1832–1875: Some observations”, Historical journalxxv (1982), 605–26.
3.
The classic work on the growth of inspection and the interventionist state is MacDonaghOliver, “The 19th century revolution in government: A reappraisal”, Historical journal, i (1958), 52–67. See also SutherlandG. (ed.), Studies in the growth of nineteenth century government (London, 1972). For a discussion of more recent literature, see CrookTom, “Sanitary inspection and the public sphere in late Victorian and Edwardian Britain: A case study in liberal governance”, Social history, xxxii (2007), 2007–93.
4.
Seminal research in this area was performed by Macdonagh's former student, Roy MacLeod. See his volume of collected papers: MacLeodRoy, Public science and public policy in Victorian England (Aldershot, 1996), and his edited collection, Government and expertise (ref. 1).
5.
Key examples drawn from the history of public health, include: LambertRoyston, Sir John Simon, 1816–1904, and English social administration (London, 1963); EylerJohn, Victorian social medicine: The ideas and methods of William Farr (London, 1979); HamlinChris, Public health and social justice in the age of Chadwick (Cambridge, 1988); HardyAnne, The epidemic streets: Infectious disease and the rise of preventive medicine, 1856–1900 (Oxford, 1993); WorboysMichael, Spreading germs: Germs and British medicine, 1860–1900 (Cambridge, 2000); SheardSallyDonaldsonLiam, The nation's doctor: The role of the chief medical officer 1855–1998 (Abingdon, 2005); HamlinChris, “Sanitary policing and the local state, 1873–1874: A statistical study of English and Welsh towns”, Social history of medicine, xviii (2005), 2005–61; Crook, “Sanitary inspection” (ref. 3).
6.
AshEric, (ed.), “Expertise, practical knowledge and the early modern state”, Osiris, xxv (2010); TurnerStephen (2001), “What is the problem with experts?”, Social studies of science, xxxi, 123–49; CollinsHarryEvansRobert, Rethinking expertise (Bristol, 2007); WynneBrian, “May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide”, in LashScottSzersynskiBronislawWynnBrian (eds), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (London1996), 44–83. JasanoffSheila, The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers (Cambridge, 1990).
7.
WarnerJohn Harley, “The history of science and the sciences of medicine”, Osiris, x (1995), 164–93; PickstoneJohn, Ways of knowing: A new history of science, technology and medicine (Manchester, 2000); PickstoneJohn, “Working knowledges before and after circa 1800: Practices and disciplines in the history of science, technology, and medicine”, Isis, xcviii (2007), 2007–516; SturdySteve, “Looking for trouble: Medical science and clinical practice in the historiography of modern medicine”, Social history of medicine, xxiv (2011), 2011–57; For a similar critique of twentienth-century history of science, see EdgertonDavid, “‘The linear model’ did not exist: Reflections on the history and historiography of science and research in industry in the twentienth century”, in GrandinK.WormbsN. (eds), The science-industry nexus: History, policy, implications (Stockholm, 2004).
8.
Crook, “Sanitary inspection” (ref. 3); HamlinChris, “The city as chemical system? The chemist as urban environmental professional in France and Britain, 1780–1880”, Journal of urban history, xxxiii (2007), 702–28. Accounts of experts' training also illuminate the nature and acquisition of expertise: FeeElizabethAchesonRoy (eds), A history of education in public health (Oxford, 1991); R. A. Buchanan, The engineers: A history of the engineering profession in Britain 1750–1914 (London, 1989).
9.
On civil servants' expertise in the inter-war period, see SavageGail, The social construction of expertise: English civil service and its influence, 1919–39 (London, 1996).
10.
Anon, Animal health, a centenary (HMSO1965); FisherJohn, “The economic effects of cattle disease in Britain and its containment, 1850–1900”, Agricultural history, lii (1980), 1980–94; WorboysMichael, “Germ theories of disease and British veterinary medicine, 1860–1890”, Medical history, xxxv (1991), 1991–27; WoodsAbigail, “The construction of an animal plague: Foot and mouth disease in 19th century Britain”, Social history of medicine, xvii (2004), 2004–39; WaddingtonKeir, The bovine scourge (Woodbridge, 2006). For analysis of veterinary expertise beyond the state, see FisherJohn, “Not quite a profession: The aspirations of veterinary surgeons in England in the mid-nineteenth century”, Historical research, lxvi (1993), 1993–302; WoodsAbigailMatthewsStephen, “'Little, if at all, removed from the illiterate farrier or cow-leech: The English veterinary surgeon, c. 1860–85, and the campaign for veterinary reform”, Medical history, liv (2010), 2010–54.
11.
For the history of CBPP policy, see Anon, Animal health (ref. 10); FisherJohn, “To kill or not to kill: The eradication of contagious pleuro-pneumonia in Western Europe”, Medical history, xlvii (2003), 314–31; KastnerJustin, “Scientific conviction amidst scientific controversy in the transatlantic livestock and meat trade”, Endeavour, xxix (2005), 2005–83.
12.
Anon, Animal health (ref. 10).
13.
Minute, “President of the Privy Council”, 19 December 1876, NA PC 8/224; Gooday, “Liars, experts and authorities” (ref. 1) argues that the term ‘authority’ implied an impartial, trustworthy, authoritative individual.
14.
Woods, ” The construction of an animal plague” (ref. 10).
15.
FlemingGeorge, A manual of veterinary sanitary science and police, i (London, 1875), 409–45; WalleyThomas, “Pleuropneumonia zymotica: Its characteristics and pathological anatomy”, Veterinary journal, ii (1876), 1876–70, 321–9; Ibid., iii (1876), 1876–87.
16.
MatthewsStephen, “Cattle clubs, insurance and plague in the mid-nineteenth century”, Agricultural history review, liii (2005), 192–211.
17.
Although Local Authority interventions were uneven and frequently criticised, historians have judged them relatively effective in the field of public health. HarlingPhillip, “The centrality of locality: The local state, local democracy, and local consciousness in late Victorian and Edwardian Britain”, Journal of Victorian culture, ix (2004), 216–34.
18.
TaylorD., “Growth and structural change in the English dairy industry, c. 1860–1930”, Agricultural history review, xxxv (1987), 47–64.
19.
Report of the veterinary department, 1871 (PP 1872, c.619, XVIII, 629), 13; Appendix to Report of the veterinary department, 1872 (PP 1873, c.711, XXVI, 493), 3.
20.
Report of the veterinary department, 1876 (PP 1877, c.1727, XXVII, 525), 83.
21.
Fleming, Veterinary sanitary science (ref. 15); CopeA., evidence, Report of the departmental committee appointed to inquire into pleuro-pneumonia and tuberculosis (PP 1888, c.5461, xii, 267), xiii, 194–6.
22.
WilliamsA., Correspondence, 16 Jan 1874, Gloucestershire archives, CBR/C3/2/1/2/1/1.
23.
FlemingGeorge, “The thermometer in veterinary medicine”, Veterinarian, xli (1868), 76–81; BrownGeorge, “A pocket clinical thermometer”, Veterinarian, xlvi (1873), 1873–9.
24.
Report of the veterinary department, 1875 (PP 1876, c.1542, xxi, 287), 15–16.
25.
Contagious Diseases of Animals Bill: In Committee, Hansard Parliamentary debates, ccxli (1878), 1974–2016.
26.
Hamlin, “Sanitary policing” (ref. 5).
27.
PerkinHarold, The rise of professional society: England since 1880 (London, 1989); Fisher, “Not quite a profession” (ref. 10).
28.
Report of the departmental committee (ref. 21), 195.
29.
Annual report of the Veterinary Department 1881 (PP 1882, c.3181, xvi, 273), 19.
30.
Annual report of the Agriculture Department 1885 (PP 1886, c.4703, xix, 1), 21.
31.
Annual report of the Veterinary Department, 1880 (PP 1881, c.2863, xxx, 283), 12, 39; Annual report of the Veterinary Department 1882 (PP 1883, c.3558, xxii, 643), 13.
32.
Annual report of the Agricultural Department 1883 (PP 1884, c.3977, xxi, 1), 28.
Annual report of the Agricultural Department 1884 (PP 1884–85, c.4334, xx, 1), 14, 27; Annual report 1885 (ref. 30), 17; Annual report 1886 (ref. 37), 5, 26; Annual report 1887 (ref. 36), 5, 13–15; Annual report of the Agricultural Department 1888 (PP 1889, c.5679, xxvii, 1), 8.
39.
JasanoffSheila, “Accountability: (No?) accounting for expertise”, Science and public policy, xxx (2003), 157–62, p. 59; JasanoffSheila, Science at the bar: Law, science and technology in America (Cambridge, 1995).
40.
Fisher, “To kill or not to kill” (ref. 11).
41.
SpruellA.CunninghamC.RutherfordR. evidence, Report of the departmental committee (ref. 21), 8–41.
42.
Annual report 1886 (ref. 37), 5–7; CopeA.StephensonC., evidence Report of the departmental committee (ref. 21), 78–88, 194–204.
43.
Board of Agriculture correspondence with the Colonial Office, Further papers and correspondence relating to landing in Great Britain from Canada of cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia (PP 1894, c.7366, lxxviii, 423), 82.
44.
Papers and correspondence relating to the landing in Britain from Canada of cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia (PP 1893–4, c.7123, lxxxv, 391).
45.
Further papers and correspondence relating to landing in Great Britain from Canada of cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia (PP 1894, c.7496, lxxviii, 589).
46.
SheardDonaldson, The nation's doctor (ref. 5). The only major, state-funded enquiries into a livestock disease had been performed under the 1866 Royal Commission on the Cattle Plague.
47.
Annual report 1887 (ref. 36), 4–5.
48.
Stephenson evidence, Report of the departmental committee (ref. 21), 84.
49.
Report of the departmental committee (ref. 21), xvi.
50.
BrownGeorge, “Observations on Mr Hunting's memo, 10 Sept 1893, Further papers and correspondence (ref. 43), 22–23.
51.
Worboys, “Germ theories of disease” (ref. 10), 321–2; WoodsAbigail, A manufactured plague: The history of foot and mouth disease in Britain (London, 2004).
52.
The meaning and significance in this period of the term ‘scientific man’ is discussed by BartonRuth, “‘Men of science’: Language, identity and professionalization in the mid-Victorian scientific community”, History of science, xli (2003), 73–104. Here, I suggest a rival self-fashioning, the “practical man”.
53.
Editorial, “The practical training of veterinary students”, Veterinary journal, xi (1880), 22; WoodsMatthews, “Little, if at all, removed” (ref. 10).
54.
Editorial, Veterinary record, vi (1893), 140.
55.
Duguid evidence, Report of the departmental committee (ref. 21), 168–81.
56.
Report of the departmental committee (ref. 21), xvi; Board of Agriculture: Annual report of Veterinary Department 1890 (PP 1890–1, c.6533, xxv, 1), xvi.
57.
DobbieJohnCunninghamCornelius evidence, Report of the departmental committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into swine fever (PP 1893–4, c.6999, xxiii, 175), 75–96.
58.
Record book, CBPP post-mortem examinations. Royal Veterinary College archive, London.
59.
Work of travelling inspectors, 1876, NA PC 8/223.
60.
BrownProfessor, Report on swine fever in Great Britain (PP 1886, c.4843, xix, 147).
61.
KleinE., “Report on the so-called enteric or typhoid fever of the pig”, Public health reports of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council (PP 1876, c.1608, xxxviii, 455), 91–101; Report of the veterinary department, 1878 (PP 1878–79, c.2263, xxi, 479), 6.
62.
WisemanJ., A history of the British pig (London, 1986); MalcolmsonR.MastorisS., The English pig: A history (London, 1998).
63.
Brown, Report on swine fever (ref. 60), 21–23; Annual report 1887 (ref. 36), 6; Correspondence between Cheltenham Borough Council and the Veterinary Department, 1877–82, file CBR/C3/2/1/2/1/1, Gloucestershire archives.
64.
Annual report of the Veterinary Department 1882 (ref. 31), 23.
65.
Brown, Report on swine fever (ref. 60).
66.
Annual report of the Director of the Veterinary Department, 1892 (PP 1893–4, c.6963, xxiii, 459), 45.
67.
Report of Departmental Committee (ref. 57), 5–8.
68.
StockmanS., Memo, 25 October 1907, NA MAF 35/578.
69.
MRCVS, “Swine fever”, Veterinary record, vi (1893–94), 374; AnstrutherA., Memo, 12 November 1917, NA MAF 39/8.
70.
Editorial, Veterinary record, vii (1894–5), 516–17.
71.
Treasury correspondence, 6 March 1894, NA T 9/28.
72.
Veterinary establishment, 1871, NA PC 8/173.
73.
Editorials, Veterinary record, vii (1894–95), 235–6, 281, 516–17; Correspondence, Cope to Long, 3 May 1897, file GB 190 947/46, Wiltshire Record Office.
74.
“Report”, Veterinary record, vii (1895–6), 591–3; Correspondence, Long to Hanbury, 1897–98, file GB 190 947/46, Wiltshire Record Office; Anstruther, Memo (ref. 69).
75.
Treasury correspondence, 1893–4, NA T 9/28.
76.
MacLeodRoy, “Introduction”, in Government and expertise (ref. 2), 16. Similar changes caused the 1871 removal of the central Medical Department to the Local Government Board and provoked the resignation of Chief Medical Officer, John Simon. Subsequently, his post was downgraded to that of engineering inspector, and rights to initiate investigations, form policy, manage staff and issue reports were removed. Donaldson and Sheard, The nation's doctor (ref. 5), 19.
77.
AnstrutherA. W., 1864–1938, Who was who, iii. The BA and its predecessor departments tended to appoint staff through patronage rather than open competition, and promote through the ranks. Savage, The social construction of expertise (ref. 9).
78.
Anstruther, Memo (ref. 69).
79.
Treasury correspondence, 1892–95, NA T 9/28 and 9/29.
80.
FulfordF. evidence, Interim report of the Departmental Committee of enquiry into swine fever (PP 1911, cd.5680, ix, 513), 29.
81.
TennantJ. evidence, Report of Departmental Committee (ref. 57), 198.
82.
Editorial (ref. 70), 516–17; “Report” (ref. 74); AnstrutherA., Memo (ref. 69); Hamlin, “The city as chemical system?” (ref. 8) notes that similar factors prevented chemists from assuming the role of key government experts in urban management.
83.
Editorial (ref. 73), 241.
84.
CunninghamCornelius correspondence, Veterinary record, viii (1896–97), 625.
85.
Report of a conference of the representatives of County Councils, 1894, file CBR/C3/2/1/4/4, Gloucestershire archives.
86.
Report of a conference (ref. 85).
87.
Annual report of proceedings under Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1894 (PP 1895, c.7685, xc, 331), 4–16.
88.
Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to enquire into aetiology, pathology and morbid anatomy of swine fever (PP 1896, c.8023, xxiv, 163), 3.
89.
Annual report of proceedings under the diseases of animals acts, 1895 (PP 1896, c.8031, xxiv, 27), 5.
90.
Bovine tuberculosis was under investigation by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, but only as part of a broader enquiry into the nature and control of tuberculosis in humans.
91.
Report of the Departmental Committee (ref. 88), 4.
92.
“House of commons”, The Times, 17 July 1901, p. 6 col b.
93.
Annual reports of proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts 1902 (PP 1903, cd.1520, xvii, 157), 4–12; BerryA. H., “Swine fever”, Journal of comparative pathology and therapeutics, xv (1902), 1902–21.
94.
Editorial, Journal of comparative pathology and therapeutics, xv (1902), 71–76.
95.
ElliotThomas, correspondence to CVO, 19 Nov. 1901, NA MAF 35/301.
96.
Cope, correspondence to Rose Bradford, Nov. 1901, NA MAF 35/301.
97.
Correspondence, Board of Agriculture, 1905–6, NA MAF 35/301. Evans went on to have a long and successful career in public health. Obituary, British medical journal, 1 July 1944, 28.
98.
Annual report of proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1905 (PP 1906, cd.2893, xxiii, 37, 4–5.
99.
Annual Report 1905 (ref. 98), 5.
100.
Woods, A manufactured plague (ref. 51), chap. 5. From 1909, Stockman's annual report to Parliament included a separate laboratory report.
101.
Obituary, StockmanStewart, The Times, 4 June 1926, p. 19 col a; CranefieldPaul, Science and empire: East coast fever in Rhodesia and the Transvaal (Cambridge, 2002); GillC., Colonial science or science in a colonial context? The control and investigation of cattle disease in colonial India c1860–1910 (PhD thesis awarded by University of Strathclyde, 2013).
102.
Annual report of proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1909 (PP 1910, cd.5113, vii, 37), 15–16.
103.
Anstruther correspondence, 4 July 1914, and interview, 12 July 1914, NA MAF 35/429.
104.
Annual report of proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1906 (PP 1907, cd.3415, xvii, 43), 37–38; A. W. Anstruther to Lord Lucas Enquiry, 1914, NA MAF 35/429.
Annual Report 1906 (ref. 104), 11–12; Annual reports of proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1907 (PP 1908, cd.4129, xxi, 33), 5–7; Interim report of the Departmental Committee (ref. 80), 4–5; Final report of the Departmental Committee of inquiry into swine fever (PP 1914–16 cd.8045; xxxv, 761), appendix 1; Evidence to Lord Lucas enquiry, 1914, NA MAF 35/429.
107.
Interim report of the Departmental Committee: Minutes of evidence. (PP 1911, cd.5680, ix, 513); Annual report of the Chief Veterinary Officer, 1913 (PP 1914, cd.7423, xi, 151), 8–10.
108.
“Animal diseases: Acute controversy”, The Times, 4 May 1914, p. 4 col a; National Pig Breeders Association deputation to W. Runciman MP, 1914, NA MAF 35/303.
109.
Royal society investigations: Correspondence, 1914–15 NA MAF 35/303. These enquiries were abandoned in 1915 on account of the war.
110.
Stockman correspondence to Elliott, 14 April 1915, NA MAF 35/303.
111.
Evidence to Lord Lucas enquiry (ref. 106).
112.
Stockman to the secretary, 4 July 1914; Stockman memo, 28 August 1914, NA MAF 35/290. Stockman's concurrent enthusiasm for testing brucellosis vaccines in the field derived from this same agenda. WoodsA., “‘Partnership’ in action: Contagious abortion and the governance of livestock disease in Britain, 1885–1921”, Minerva, xlvii (2009), 195–217.
113.
Stockman minute, 28 September 1914, NA MAF 35/429; Final report of the Departmental Committee (ref. 106).
114.
Treasury correspondence, 1915. NA MAF T 1/11993; Annual report of proceedings under the Contagious Diseases of Animals Acts, 1915 (London 1915), 25; Annual report of the Chief Veterinary Officer, 1916 (London 1916), 4–11.
115.
Committee appointment, 9 October 1917, NA MAF 39/42.
116.
Savage, The social construction of expertise (ref. 9), 104. Prothero had worked as a barrister and pursued a literary career before turning to estate management. He entered Parliament in 1914 and was appointed BA president in 1916. He was an old friend of Daniel Hall FRS, the former principal of Wye College and director of the Rothamsted Experimental Station. Oxford dictionary of national biography.
117.
Interim report, 22 November 1918, NA MAF 39/42.
118.
Interim report (ref. 117).
119.
Anstruther report, 22 November 1918, NA MAF 39/42; Correspondence on staffing, 1920–1, NA T 162/24.
120.
Stockman memo, 1 September 1921 and 27 September 1923, NA MAF 35/467.
121.
Pickstone, Ways of knowing and “Working knowledges” (ref. 7).
122.
See references in notes 3 and 8.
123.
LawrenceChristopher, “Incommunicable knowledge: Science, technology and the clinical art in Britain 1850–1914”, Journal of contemporary history, xx (1985), 503–20; SturdySteve, “Looking for trouble: Medical science and clinical practice in the historiography of modern medicine”, Social history of medicine, xxiv (2011), 2011–57; WallRosemary, “Using bacteriology in elite hospital practice: London and Cambridge, 1880–1920”, Social history of medicine, xxiv (2011), 2011–95.
124.
ShorttSED, “Physicians, science and status: Issues in the professionalization of Anglo-American medicine in the nineteenth century”, Medical history, xxvii (1981), 51–68; WarnerJohn Harley, “Ideals of science and their discontents in late nineteenth century American medicine”, Isis, lxxxii (1991), 1991–78.
125.
SturdySteveCooterRoger, “Science, scientific management, and the transformation of medicine in Britain c. 1870–1950”, History of science, xxxvi (1998), 421–66.
126.
Worboys, Spreading germs (ref. 2); JacynaStephen, “The laboratory and the clinic: The impact of pathology on surgical diagnosis in the Glasgow Western Infirmary, 1875–1910”, Bulletin of the history of medicine, lxii (1988), 384–406; Warner, “The history of science” (ref. 3); SturdySteve, “Knowing cases: Biomedicine in Edinburgh, 1887–1920”, Social studies of science, xxxvii (2007), 2007–89.