HC Deb 11 December 1922 vol 159 cc2472-517

For the word "foreign" wherever that word is used in relation to an animal or thing in the principal Act, or any Act amending the provisions of that Act relating to foreign animals or foreign things, there shall be substituted the word "imported," and for the purposes of the principal Act as so amended an imported animal or an imported thing shall mean an animal or thing brought to Great Britain from a country out of Great Britain, and the provisions of the principal Act as so amended relating to imported animals and imported things shall have effect as though the expression "Great Britain" were therein substituted for the expression "the United Kingdom," but except to such extent as the Minister may by Order direct, the provisions of the Third Schedule to the principal Act shall not apply to animals brought to Great Britain from Ireland or any part thereof:

Provided that if the Minister is satisfied that cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease exists or has recently existed in, or that adequate provision is not made for the prevention of the introduction of any such disease into, any part of Ireland, he may by Order prohibit the landing in Great Britain of animals or any class of animals brought from Ireland or any part thereof, or may apply the said provisions to animals or any class of animals so brought with such modifications, if any, as ho may think necessary or expedient.

Captain CRAIG

I beg to move, after the word "Britain" ["thing brought to Great Britain"], to insert the words "or Northern Ireland."

This Amendment is designed to bring up for discussion the question of the imposition of restrictions on Irish cattle brought into this country. It was fully argued on Second Reading. The House will remember that our strong objection to the imposition of these restrictions is, in the first place, because this Bill was intended to deal solely with Canadian cattle, and was not an Irish Bill at all. In the second place, the Bill was only produced after the Session had begun, and was not even mentioned in the King's Speech. The third reason why we felt that these restrictions should not be imposed on Irish cattle is that we do not consider them necessary, and we do not consider that, even if you do impose the restrictions contained in the Bill, they will have the effect which the promoters of the Bill apparently think they will have. We were ignorant as to the exact position when we spoke in the last Debate, because we were not aware, and had been unable to find out, whether there was any pledge given to anybody on this subject. I am glad to say that, thanks to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), we know now that these proposals have not been included in this Bill in consequence of any pledge given either to the Canadians or to the farming interests in this country, because the right hon. Gentleman said in connection with this matter: So fur from this particular provision (that is, the provision imposing restrictions on Irish cattle) having arisen out of the Agreement with Canada, it simply arises from a definite recommendation made by the Foot-and-Mouth Diseases Committee, after examining into the whole of the facts of this outbreak. Later in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said: In order to deal with that (that is, the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease last year, and the damage which was done thereby) which has cost us £1,000,000, the Committee have recommended to the Minister what is proposed to be carried out in this Bill, if the House is good enough to approve of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1922; cols. 2086 and 2087, Vol. 169.] So that we come now to the certain knowledge that these proposals, to which we object so strongly, are not being done cither in consequence of a pledge given to the Canadians, or to any pledge given to the farmers of England, which we were at first led to suppose was the case. They have been put in this Bill in consequence of a recommendation made by the Committee over which my right hon. Friend presided, which looked into causes of the late outbreak, and suggested methods by which further outbreaks might be prevented. Now we come to the position that we are freed from the idea that these restrictions are the result of a pledge, and we come down to the fact that they are the result of recommendations to the Committee. Unfortunately, the Report of that Committee, I think I am right in saying, is not yet in the hands of Members.

Mr. PRETYMAN

An Interim Report on this point was in the hands of the late Minister of Agriculture some weeks ago. The Final Report has not yet been presented. In order to cover this point, the Interim Report was presented some considerable time ago, and could have been available to Members.

Captain CRAIG

Was it printed?

Mr. PRETYMAN

I do not know what was done with it. We sent it to the Minister.

Captain CRAIG

The fact is, however, that that Report has not yet reached us. I do not object, but what I want to point out is that, so far as we know, although the Irish store cattle trade is of very large dimensions, representing, as I said the other day, from £35,000,000 to £45,000,000 a year from Ireland, so far as I am aware there was no representative of Ireland on the Committee, and, so far as I am able to gather, no evidence was taken on that Committee from Ireland. I can quite concede to England the right to look after her own interests in this matter of trying to prevent foot-and-mouth disease, but I do say that when you take into consideration the immense value of the cattle which come over to this country every year, it would have been well, at least, if there had been some representative from the Irish cattle owners on the Committee, and if they had taken some evidence from people interested in that trade; but, so far as I have been able to gather that was not done. I am not at all inclined to find fault with the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee, but I would like to say, having studied very carefully the recommendations of that Committee, particularly this recommendation of a week's detention for Irish cattle if they fail to be sold immediately on landing, I cannot see why the detention of one week would have any effect in preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. I cannot see why, even if the time of detention were trebled or even still more extended, it would have that effect in a case like the serious outbreak which occurred last year, and for this reason. When Irish cattle come into this country under the conditions which exist at the present moment, and which are proposed to be standardised by this Bill, if they fail to be sold in the first market to which they go, they have to be detained for six days, after which they are free cattle, and can be taken from one market to another for sale.

It must be obvious to everybody that after six days, and from that time onwards, there must every day be an enormous quantity of cattle being released from detention. If we take it that 5,000 cattle a day come over from Ireland to this country, and 1,000 are unsold in the first market, and are, therefore, detained for six days, at the end of that time these 1,000 cattle are free to wander over the country. They come into contact, we will say, with an infected animal, and possibly this is not discovered in time to stop them being moved from one market to other markets. I cannot see why the fact that they have undergone six days' detention before is any safeguard whatever. Regrettable and deplorable as it may be, these Irish cattle must wander about the country to a certain extent. We all admit that if it could be managed, the ideal condition of affairs would be that they should be brought straight to a market and sold directly, but that is impossible of attainment, because the Irish dealer has no means of knowing the exact demand next day, or next week, and often finds a certain number of his cattle unsold at the end of the first market to which he brings them. I do hope that that state of affairs, while it can never completely be done away with, may be improved, by organisation amongst buyers on this side of the water and sellers on the other side of the water, and the two agricultural Departments on either side of the water.

I think it most desirable that some means should be found to regulate the supply of these animals as nearly as possible in answer to the demand for them on this side. But it is impossible that that should ever be done absolutely, and, so long as it is not done, it is obvious that animals from Ireland unsold must be moved about the markets until they are sold. It is really a very serious hardship to Irish store-cattle dealers, and, as I say, I do not believe the proposals in the Bill will do the slightest good. As, however, I believe the Government are going to meet us to some extent in this matter, I do not want to bother the Committee with any further remarks of mine, until I have heard the proposals which, I understand, the Government are going to put forward for our acceptance, and I trust those proposals will be so satisfactory that I shall not have to trouble the Committee with any further remarks. Therefore I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can let us know now whether he has been able to meet us, and, if so, to what extent, in this matter.

Sir R. SANDERS

I am quite aware of the difficulty which has arisen in Ireland over this question. I think, perhaps, that the best thing I can do is to state now in what way we may possibly be able to meet hon. Members from the opposite side without doing anything to prejudice those conditions which we have put into this Bill for safeguarding ourselves against such an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease as occurred last year. I think the best way to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman would be by an Amendment to Clause 9. It may, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Committee, if I am in order, to suggest the following Amendment to Clause 9– in Sub-section (2) of the Clause to leave out the words: "may by Order alter or modify any of the said provisions if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, and the alterations or modifications are such as in his opinion will not diminish or prejudice the protection against the risk of the spread of disease which is accorded by the said provisions as enacted in the said Schedule, provided that no such alteration or modification shall "

and to insert instead thereof the words: If he considers it necessary or expedient so to do may— (a)by an Order to which the last preceding Section shall apply"— that is Clause 8, which provides that the draft of Orders shall be laid before Parliament— revoke, suspend, or alter any of these provisions of the said Schedule 3, or (b)by an Order to which the said Section 6hall not apply make any alterations of or modifications in the said provision if these alterations or modifications are such as, in his opinion, do not diminish or prejudice the protection against the risk of the spread of disease which is afforded by the said provisions as enacted by the said Schedule and are not such as will"— Then follow the words in the Bill, "reduce the period of detention prescribed by such provisions." It has been suggested that if these Amendments be introduced into Clause 9, it will meet the point so far as we can possibly meet the point put forward by hon. Members.

Mr. PRETYMAN

What is the effect of the proposed Amendment?

Sir R. SANDERS

The effect of it is that by an Order laid on the. Table of both Houses in the way suggested, the Minister of Agriculture shall have power to modify to the extent indicated.

Captain CRAIG

So that it gives power to the Minister to modify and do away altogether with the six days?

Sir R. SANDERS

Yes, Sir. The Order will lie on the Table for a month.

Captain CRAIG

There is just one point which I do not quite understand from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. Probably it was my fault, but I could not follow the exact position at which the Sub-section of Clause 9 is left at the end. Do I understand that it reads at the end: Provided that no such alteration or modification shall reduce the period of detention prescribed by such provisions.

Do I understand that these latter words are now cut out?

Sir R. SANDERS

No.

Captain CRAIG

How, then, does the provision permit the right hon. Gentleman to do away with the period of detention?

Sir D. HOGG

The effect is this: "Under Clause 9 as it stands now the Minister of Agriculture has power to modify the provisions of the Schedule so long as they do not diminish or prejudice the protection against the risk of the spread of disease, with an express proviso that no such alteration or modification shall reduce the period of detention prescribed by these provisions. The alteration suggested is this: that the Minister shall have power to do what he is at present given power to do under Clause 9, that is to say, make alterations that do not alter the period of detention and which do not diminish the risk of disease by an order made by himself under the provisions of that Sub-section. He is going to be given, if the Amendment be inserted, an additional power to alter the provisions of the Schedule in any respect provided that such alteration is to be laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament and can be objected to by either House, and shall not take effect until 21 days after each House has had the opportunity to object to it.

Mr. CAUTLEY

Why have a Schedule at all?

Sir D. HOGG

The answer is that the Schedule has other provisions which are at the moment contained in the Importation of Animals Order, 1922, to protect us against the risk of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Having the Schedule in the Bill will have this result: that, unless both Houses of Parliament acquiesce, there can be no alteration in those provisions at all except such minor alterations as do not alter material safeguards. If you do not have an Amendment then you cannot touch the Schedule, however desirable it may be to do so, except by a fresh Act of Parliament. This new Amendment is that you should not have the power to touch the Schedule in any material respect until the Order which proposes to do it has been laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament, and has remained there 21 days for either House to object to. This is a very valuable protection, because, as the Committee will see, there can be no alteration of it until both Houses of Parliament have had the opportunity of considering whether it is desirable to make it. Therefore it is a very valuable protection. At any rate, we do to some extent meet the objection of Northern Ireland, and also of the Irish Free State people, because we have got now power to make an alteration if neither House of Parliament objects. Under the Bill, as originally drawn, there is no power to alter except by a fresh Act of Parliament.

Captain CRAIG

On a point of Order. Would it be possible for me to withdraw my Amendment to which we are now addressing ourselves, and to move to postpone Clause 3 and other Clauses to enable us to proceed with this proposed Amendment at once and get it disposed of?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It would be possible to do so, but I do not at the moment see any necessity for it, I think we had better proceed straight ahead.

Captain CRAIG

In any case, after the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON

I am not quite clear, from the explanation made, whether it would be possible to issue an Order which would discriminate as between Irish stores and stores imported from Canada. I gather such discrimination would be possible? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That has not been made perfectly clear. I should like to point out that whatever the value of Irish store cattle may be—and it has been admittedly very great, as was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who spoke a little while ago—the value of English store cattle is infinitely greater. This Clause has been put in to prevent the spread of disease. The Committee, to which allusion has been made, so ably presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, and of which I had the honour to be a member, went very fully into this matter. We were able to satisfy ourselves that the spread of the disease had been brought about because of the absence of Regulations in this direction. There is not only the spread of disease, but the humanitarian aspect of this question. To rush cattle about which have just been brought to market is not good for the cattle, and it is not desirable from many points of view. Personally I hope that no alteration will be made in the proposals which are submitted to this House. I desire to oppose the Amendment.

Mr. REID

I want to ask the Attorney-General to explain the power given by this proposed Amendment to alter the Schedule. Surely it can only be altered by the Minister when he thinks it desirable so to do? In regard to the importation of cattle, Ireland might be absolutely free from disease and Canada might be suffering from it. What, under the Regulations, will happen to Irish cattle under the circumstances?

Captain ELLIOT

I apologise to the Committee and regret I have been out of the Chamber for some time, while this matter has been discussed. I under- stand, however, we are discussing a Subsection of the Bill, but cannot we have a general discussion on the point at which we now are? It seems to me we are discussing the Schedule itself. It appears to be raised at this point.

The CHAIRMAN

Not having heard the argument, and only having just come in, all I can say at the moment is that we are discussing an Amendment to Clause 3 to insert the words "or Northern Ireland," I understand that the Attorney-General or the Minister of Agriculture proposes an Amendment to Clause 9, to come on subsequently. There is nothing to prevent a general discussion on the position of Ireland arising on that Amendment.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

If we discuss the general position now, will we in any way restrict or preclude discussion on the particular Amendment which the right hon. Gentlemen have indicated, and which it is proposed to move when we reach Clause 9? May I suggest, that the proposed Amendment goes much further than the Amendment we are now on? It makes a much larger alteration in the Bill. Would it not be rather inconvenient to discuss the bearing of the later Amendment on the present Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

I take it that it will be a more convenient course to adopt to get rid of this Amendment, as suggested by hon. Members from Ireland, and then take a discussion on the merits of the case when we come to a decision on the proposed Amendment to Clause 9. I think it would be better to come to a decision on the Amendment now before the House without prejudice to the discussion which will take place later.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. REID

As I understand it, the Amendment of my right hon. Friend deals only with the question of Northern Ireland, while the suggested Amendment of the Attorney-General is a general Amendment applicable to all cattle, and on that Amendment I understand we could not raise our special case. If that is so, we want to state our case now, but if the Attorney-General has suggested a special provision for Ireland by his Amendment that would alter the case. I would like to know if special provision could be made for Irish cattle under the Attorney-General's Amendment.

Mr. CAUTLEY

I want to call attention to the words contained in Clause 3, which reads: except to such extent as the Minister may by Order direct, the provisions of the Third Schedule to the principal Act shall not apply to animals brought to Great Britain from Ireland or any part thereof.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I think the difference in principle between the two Amendments is considerable. The principle underlying the Amendment before the House is one differentiating between cattle imported from Ireland and cattle imported from Canada. The Amendment suggested by the Attorney-General is one to modify the general treatment of the Bill with regard to imported cattle from any source, including both Canada and Ireland. I had it in mind that probably my right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment moved it as an alternative to the other if lie cannot get what he wants. If he got the general Amendment proposed by the Attorney - General, which covers Ireland as well as Canada, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied.

Mr. REID

No, that is not so.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Then is the Amendment to be withdrawn?

Mr. REID

No.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I do not know what view is taken now on this point. The justification of my right hon. Friend's Amendment was that there might be disease in Canada or Ireland, but the question raised on this Amendment is not one of the introduction of disease, but the spreading of it owing to the particular character of the trade carried on in regard to imported cattle into this country. The animals may come here perfectly free of disease, but if they are allowed to be distributed without restrictions the disease may be carried like fire from one end of the country to the other, and therefore the question whether they were diseased on arrival does not make any difference.

Mr. REID

Our position is that my right hon. Friend moved this Amendment and we understood the Government were going to meet us with regard to the specific case of Ireland. For that reason my right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment spoke rather briefly, and then the Attorney-General intervened. The Amendment, however, which the Attorney- General has suggested is not anything like the concession we require, and the result is that our Amendment stands, and we want to have an opportunity of making out our case. If the Amendment is withdrawn and the discussion takes place on the Attorney-General's new Clause, I am afraid it will not be possible to make out our special case. Under these circumstances unless the Attorney-General has some further explanation I should like to speak upon the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend.

The CHAIRMAN

If hon. Members do not wish this Amendment to be withdrawn it is clear that I cannot rule out a general discussion upon it. We cannot, however, have two discussions on the same subject. If the subject is discussed fully on this Amendment, I could not allow anything like a prolonged discussion on Clause 9, although separate questions raised in that Cause may be discussed. It would be in order to allow a discussion of the present proposal and the Amendment suggested by the Attorney-General together, but that discussion cannot be renewed on Clause 9.

Mr. FALCONER

I should like to ask whether, under the suggested Amendment to Clause 9, it would be possible by an Order of both Houses to discriminate between Canadian and Irish cattle, and make an Order applying specially to Irish cattle, although that Order might not apply to Canadian cattle. The question to be debated is whether all the provisions and restrictions which apply to Canadian cattle are also to apply to Irish cattle. I understand, if an Order under Clause 9 is passed by both Houses, it will apply to all cattle either Canadian, Irish, or any other cattle.

Sir D. HOGG

The Amendment which we suggest to be made in Clause 9 would not enable the Ministry to discriminate between Irish and Canadian cattle. The reason why we are not able to bring forward an Amendment to that effect is because there was an express arrangement with the Canadians made by the late Government under which it was expressly arranged that whatever provisions on this side apply to Canadian cattle should apply equally to Irish cattle. What those arrangements were to be they did not specify, and all they said was that they should be the same for both countries. Therefore I cannot move an Amendment which will enable us to discriminate: I can only move an Amendment, so far as Canada is concerned, which will enable us to modify the Schedule if both Houses wish it.

We cannot make such a modification without the consent of both Houses, because otherwise there would be no real protection in the Schedule of the British agricultural interests which we are bound to protect, and which it is far more important to this House to protect and safeguard than any other interest. Therefore we cannot go further than the Amendment which the Minister of Agriculture has outlined. If that Amendment does not afford any satisfaction to my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland, there will be no object in moving it, and we must discuss the matter on their Amendment. The reason we brought it forward was that we were anxious to do all we could to meet their wishes, and we cannot go further because we are bound by the pledge I have indicated to the House. When the right, hon. Gentleman (Captain Craig) pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) had said that the provisions in the Schedule were due to his Committee, and not to the Canadian Government, there was a slight misapprehension in his mind. It is quite true that what is in the Schedule is in accordance with the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, but the fact that the Schedule has to apply equally to Ireland and Canada does not depend upon the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, but upon the bargain made with Canada.

Captain CRAIG

I consider that the suggested Amendment which the Government have placed before us is a very unsatisfactory proposal. I was under the impression the Government were going to meet us to the extent of saying that, whereas they were going to make this six days' detention statutory, they were going to reserve to the Minister of Agriculture power to modify or do away with that by the process of an Order in Council to lie on the Table of both Houses. Will he be able to deal with the question of the six days' detention of Irish cattle alone without dealing at the same time with detention of Canadian cattle? Under the proposed Amendment of the Attorney-General, I understand that cannot be done.

We have been told, and I think it is for the first time, that there has been a pledge given to the Canadians that their cattle and ours shall be treated on the same basis. If' that is so, I say that the last Government had no right to give any such pledge without consulting Ireland. This deals with one of the most important trades in Ireland, and it has been dealt with without the matter being even mentioned to us, and I say that is a monstrous thing. Hon. Members opposite, I am sure, will support us when they remember that our cattle have been coming into this country absolutely free for 30 years—except during two or three years when foot-and-mouth disease has been prevalent—to the great advantage of buyers in this country. It must be obvious to everyone that the detention which is to be imposed upon our cattle is bound to have the effect of raising the price of meat. I ask hon. Members opposite whether they are going to stand that simply because it is necessary, according to the late Government's ideas, to put the Irish cattle trade on the same footing as the Canadian trade. I wish to point out to the Committee that for a long time during these Debates the other day we were arguing this question because we were told that these detention Regulations were being imposed in response to a recommendation of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.

Mr. PRETYMAN

That is quite correct.

Captain CRAIG

But the Government say it is because of a pledge given to the Canadian Government.

Mr. PRETYMAN

The restrictions were put on upon the recommendation of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Committee. The only point where Canada comes in is that if these restrictions are adopted, they have to cover all kinds of imported cattle. Therefore, I am right in saying that the imposition of these restrictions has nothing to do with the agreement with the Canadian Government, which only comes in when the restrictions are imposed, and then they must cover all the ground. That is necessary because it is the character of the trade with imported cattle, wherever they come from that necessitates these restrictions, and that necessity is equal whether the cattle come from Ireland or Canada.

Captain CRAIG

However important it is to put on these restrictions, Ireland has to suffer considerable restrictions, which, except for short periods and at times of stress, have never been applied to Ireland before. I ask hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to bear in mind that this is to be done, on the one hand, because Ireland is to be brought into line with Canada, and, on the other hand, because provisions of this kind are deemed to be necessary by an English Committee which was set up to inquire into the cause of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and the best methods of preventing it spreading. As I have already pointed out, that Committee was composed entirely of Englishmen and Scotsmen. There were no Irishmen on it. No Irish evidence was taken. I believe that will not be denied. Is it fair, is it dealing justly with the Irish cattle trade, that such a momentous decision as this should have been come to by the Government without consulting us, without even as much as asking one of our witnesses to come before this Committee, and without telling us, in the first instance, when it was announced that the Canadian Embargo Bill was to be introduced, that any such provisions as this were to be put into it—provisions so vitally affecting the Irish cattle industry?

Mr. PRETYMAN

They are in force now.

Captain CRAIG

That may be so. But for 28 out the last 30 years they have not been enforced, and the time may come when the Regulations will not be necessary, because there is no foot-and-mouth disease in the country. Indeed in six months' time England may be declared to be absolutely free from foot-and-mouth disease, and then I claim we are entitled to have free entry for our cattle into this country. These outbreaks are brought about by causes entirely beyond our control; they are inevitable, and no number of restrictions such as those imposed in this Bill will have the slightest effect in checking them. Whatever length of detention you put on these cattle, as soon as that detention is over there is bound to be a large cattle circulating in the country which may do exactly what has been done recently by carrying the disease from one market all over the country. These restrictions it will be found are entirely illusory. They will not have the effect which it is hoped they will have, and at the same time they will put the Irish cattle trade to great inconvenience and expense, while doing something towards raising the price of meat for the poorer classes in this country. My disappointment is very great. I understood most clearly—of course I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture—that the Government was going to meet us on this point. There is nothing outrageous in simply asking that we shall be put in the position in which we have been for 30 years, and if the Board of Agriculture is of opinion that the country is free from foot-and-mouth disease it should allow Irish cattle to circulate quite freely. That is the position we are in at the present time, and it is not asking too much to be allowed to continue on the same footing. I regret very much the Government do not see their way to meet us. I understood that, when this matter was being discussed with the Canadian representatives over here, it was plainly stated by the Canadians that they did not want any interference with the present system of dealing with Irish cattle. I believe the matter was thoroughly threshed out with the Canadians and that they expressed their desire not to interfere in the slightest degree with the Irish trade. All they asked for was leave to send their cattle over here under such reasonable restrictions as the Board of Agriculture might deem fit to impose. Seeing that no evidence was taken from Ireland and that there was no Irish representative on the Committee over which the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) presided, and bearing in mind the great loss and inconvenience which will undoubtedly be inflicted on this important trade to Ireland, I hope this Committee will support us in our endeavours to get these objectionable provisions removed from the Bill.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

I am little less surprised and disappointed than hon. Gentlemen opposite at what has just taken place. Accustomed, as I am, to the manner in which Ireland has been treated since I have been in this House, I say this is the most astonishing case I have known in my long experience, of the unfair treatment of Ireland. Some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway seemed rattier to resent the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Craig) when he suggested that the case of Canada did not necessarily imply the case of Ireland. Let me tell the Committee why it does not. The Irish cattle trade is just as important to Ireland as the Canadian cattle trade is to Canada. The Government, when they came to deal with Canada, adopted the right course. They had long consultations and long negotiations with the Canadian Government, and the agreement come to between that Government and the home Government was one to which the Canadian Government and the Canadian people were parties. That was quite right as regards Canada. When they came to the case of England, when the right hon. Member for Chelmsford came to deal with the cattle trade from the point of view of England, there was an English Committee set up, English authorities were consulted, and English witnesses were called and allowed to give evidence on the subject. But when it came to the case of Ireland it has transpired—and it has not been denied by anyone—that whilst Canada was consulted, while England was consulted, not a man connected with Ireland was consulted. Opinion in the North of Ireland was not consulted, neither was that in the South of Ireland. On this question North and South Ireland are as one. The cattle trade is equally as important to the South as it is to the North: indeed, it may be a little more important in the South because of the greater area covered, but whether it be North or South there is a Government in each part— there has been a Government in the North of Ireland for some time and a Provisional Government in the South has now been established on a more or less fixed basis—neither Government was consulted. What is the excuse given to that by the Attorney-General? I never heard such an excuse. It dumbfounded me. It was this: "We are going to deal on certain lines with Ireland because, without consulting Ireland, we promised these conditions to Canada." I wonder what anyone would say in the House of Commons if the Secretary of State for the Colonies were to get up and say, "We are bound to apply such-and-such conditions to Canada because of an agreement which, without consulting Canada, we have made with Ireland." I never heard a more preposterous proposition in my life. I know that my right hon. Friend has a considerable command of his facial expression, but how he can, without any exhibition of shame, make the proposition, "We cannot do certain justice to Ireland because we are pledged to do justice to Canade," without having the natural ruby of his cheeks become still more ruby, shows how quickly a man can learn the worst arts of the Treasury Bench.

What is the necessity for this provision at all? I understood from my right hon. Friends opposite, and I am sure they spoke in perfectly good faith, that the Government had been willing to meet us in this case. Let me explain to the Committee what is the real point at issue. If there be disease in Ireland, the Government have full powers by administration to exclude Irish cattle. I believe they are excluding them at this moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] So much the better if they are not, because it shows that Ireland has a perfect bill of health. If the Government have any reason whatsoever to suspect cattle disease in Ireland, they are armed, without, this Bill at all, with all the powers of administration to prevent the entrance of Irish cattle into England. None of us object to that. England has a perfect right to protect herself against diseased cattle from Ireland, or Canada, or any other part of the world, and if the law were to be left as it was, namely, that this was a matter of administration against Irish cattle when disease was proved, or even suspected, none of us would raise the least objection. But what does the Bill do? It transforms this right, this omnipotent right, to exclude Irish cattle, from a matter of administration to a matter of Statute. That is the essential distinction. Whereas the Government are perfectly free to admit Irish cattle into England and to save them this detention of six days—whereas they have a right to do this by administration when occasion arises, they now tie their hands by Statute, so that what has come to be an administrative act, called for by temporary circumstances, becomes a permanent act imposed upon the Government.

I do not think that that is fair. But the grossest unfairness of the whole thing is that Canada is consulted about Ireland, England is consulted about Ireland, Scotland is consulted about Ireland—and the one country that is not consulted about Ireland is Ireland herself. I am perfectly sure that I have only to appeal to their sense of fair play for every Member to join with my hon. Friends and myself in the contention that this is a grossly unfair way of dealing with Ireland.

Now I come to the provision itself. Why do we object to this provision? It may seem at first eight to be a very simple, a very easy, and, really, an almost trifling thing to insist that our Irish cattle shall be detained for six days. Says my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who, of course, is one of the greatest agricultural authorities in the House, and has always been the spokesman of the agricultural interest in the House, as long as I remember—even in the days when he was denouncing land taxes as revolutionary, and other hon. Gentlemen were stating that they were absolutely necessary for salvation from slums and other things—my right hon. Friend insists, in the interest of the Irish cattle trade, that there shall be this six days' detention. What is the harm? If a man sells his cattle, it is the buyer who has to pay for the six days' detention, and, therefore, there is no grievance on the part of the Irish cattle seller. But suppose that the cattle are not sold. They still must be detained, and they are detained at the expense of the owner of the cattle. I do not profess to know what that would cost, but anybody can see that, if the Irish cattle be not immediately sold, the expense of the six days' detention falls on the cattle seller from Ireland. That is a very heavy burden upon the Irish cattle trade. [Interruption.] I am quite willing to put the case to the judicial mind of my hon. Friend who represents, as a member of a co-operative organisation for which I have a great respect, the point of view of the consumer. I hope he will listen to me while I am trying to put before him the view of the Irish seller. Suppose that the Irish cattle seller comes over to an English market. He has two alternatives. Either he takes the price that is offered to him, or he refuses that price; but, if he refuses the price he is offered, then he is fined by hav- ing to maintain his cattle during this six days' detention. Would my hon. Friend contend that that is not a great handicap on the Irish cattle seller? Then comes my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford again, and says, "Why should he not sell his cattle?" But is not everyone—and my hon. Friend, as a co-operator, knows this as well as anyone else—is not everyone compelled to take a smaller price if he is compelled to sell in one market, and has not the choice of several markets? Therefore, if the Irish cattle dealer is presented with the alternative of either taking a price immediately or undergoing the expense of six days' detention, then he has to take the first and the best price he can get in the one market, without any opportunity of taking advantage of competing prices in another market.

How does all this arise? Oh, those canny Scotsmen! I never admired their tremendous commercial power and their tremendous Parliamentary agility and skill more than I have during this Debate. Cattle comes from Scotland as well as from Ireland. Are they going to get this six days' detention? Cattle comes from Wales, but, even now, when a brilliant Welshman is no longer head of the Government, Wales is taken care of. They can come from the South of England to the North. Is there any detention then? No. The only cattle in the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]— well, perhaps I must not say the United Kingdom, but my hon. Friends opposite are better acquainted with the systems of government in Ireland than I am. Of the countries of Great Britain and the Free State and the State of Northern Ireland the only country that is not free from this provision, which discounts the Irish market, is Ireland. Do you suppose you dare do that with Wales? Are we to dare to do it with Scotland? Are we to dare to do it with the South of England? Why, if you did it with the South of England, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford would bring against the Government all the resources of copious and always agreeable eloquence with which he has delighted the House of Commons for all the years I have known him. But poor Ireland is to be treated thus harshly. I join my hon. Friends in their opposition to what I consider to be a most unfair, most irrational, and, I might almost say, shameful transaction by the Government behind the back of Ireland. I give them this final word. If I were a machiavellian Irish politician, I would encourage the Government to go on with a system of injuring the North of Ireland and the South of Ireland with equal impartiality, of neglecting and ignoring the opinion of the North of Ireland and the opinion of the South of Ireland with equal impartiality. I would encourage the Government to go on. It will probably do more to bring North and South Ireland together than anything that could be devised.

Mr. REID

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Prety-man) on Thursday said these Regulations were not directed against Irish cattle. He pointed out that in England cattle were taken to a market and sold. They were then taken to the premises of the purchaser and that was the end of the transaction. If the facts were as he made out, there might be something to be said for detention, but I have since been making inquiries. It is notorious that cattle dealers do not all come from Ireland. There are cattle dealers in England who take cattle from one market to another. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not charge Irish cattle with bringing disease from Ireland into England, but he said Irish cattle moved from one market to another and therefore, having been perhaps in contact with disease in one market, they carried it to another. We know now what is the fact, that there are English cattle which are taken to market, and if they have not been sold are taken to another market. I suppose English cattle are equally able to disseminate disease where they have been in contact with it as Irish cattle are. Given these facts, what would any Committee that had to examine this question do? If it is unsafe to move a beast from a market without some form of detention, obviously that system ought to be applied to all cattle taken to market. The logical result of the right hon. Gentleman's own principles is that every beast, English, Irish, Scotch, Canadian or anything else, which have happened to be taken to a market in England or in Scotland ought to be detained for a period before it is allowed to go to another market. On his own statement it is absolutely unfair that this restriction should be imposed on Irish cattle and not also be imposed on English, Scotch and Welsh cattle, and we say it is unfair and prejudicial to the Irish cattle trade and also to the English consumer to impose these restrictions.

Apart altogether from the usefulness or otherwise of these restrictions, we in the North of Ireland have a special case of our own. Whatever may be said of the South, we are not a Dominion. We are still part of the United Kingdom, and in this matter in a very peculiar way we are a very closely connected part of the United Kingdom because, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the administration of the Acts relating to the diseases of animals was to pass to the Council of Ireland. Owing to various circumstances the Council of Ireland has not been set up, and under the Bill which we passed the week before last the powers of the Council of Ireland relating to diseases of animals are vested in the British Government. So the right hon. Gentleman on this bench not only has power, if he sees any reason, to stop or to place restrictions on the removal of cattle from Ireland, but can place restrictions on them in England and in the North of Ireland and can administer the same restrictions there. He has got control of the matter at both ends Under these circumstances it is exceedingly unfair that an attempt should he made to make the Regulations statutory. We admit at once that the British Government is entitled to protect its herds against diseases coming from outside, but we say there is no reason why these Regulations should be made statutory. The right hon. Gentleman is able now, under the statutory powers he has, to vary the Regulations from time to time as required. For a period of about 27 years Irish cattle came into England without any restrictions at all. There was no disease. There was no need for restriction. Then there were some cases of disease and restrictions were imposed. Some of those restrictions remain now. Supposing there is a further period of freedom from disease, restrictions can again be removed, and that is all to the advantage of the Irish seller and the English buyer. These restrictions only hamper trade and make it more expensive. They tend to increase the price to the consumer, and, as I understand the object of admitting Canadian cattle is to reduce the price of stores, it looks rather as if the Canadian principle was to put restrictions on Irish cattle so as to raise the price of Irish stores and afford them a better market. It looks as if the Canadians were not satisfied with their case. If the British Government is going to deal with the Dominions in the way it has begun to deal with Ireland, we shall break up the Empire in a very short space. Supposing the Prime Minister of Australia came to the Colonial Office and attempted to negotiate something with the Colonial Secretary. Supposing the Secretary of State said, "I cannot deal with you because I promised Canada I would not," what would happen? Does anyone suggest that any other part of the Empire would be dealt with in that way?

Most of the arguments we can adduce refer also to Ireland as a whole. Have the Government any idea what kind of effect this sort of thing has on their general Irish policy? They have set up in Ireland two Governments. I presume they hope those Governments will be a success, but have they ever thought what was the kind of objection which has been brought against the British Government by Irish opinion in the past? What has always been said in Ireland is, "You give a thing with one hand and take it away with another." We have two Governments set up in Ireland, one fiscally independent and the other having power to levy certain taxes of its own. The cattle trade is the most important part of the Irish agricultural industry, and agriculture is the greatest industry in Ireland. The Free State must depend for its revenue upon taxes raised from an agricultural population, which must, to a large extent, be based on the prosperity of the cattle trade. In these circumstances, the Government comes along, after having set up the Free State, and presents this Bill. Do they really suppose that that kind of thing is going to lead to peace and quietness? Do they think that it is wise to set up the Free State one day and then try to cut its financial feet beneath it the next day, before it has got well started? I presume that the Government has set up the Free State because they hope that it will succeed. I suppose they expect to get some benefit from the policy, even if it proves a failure. They want to be able to take away from the hyphenated Irish in the United States the cry that Ireland never was fairly treated. They want to be able to say, even if the Free State is a failure: "We gave them everything they asked for, we gave them the widest powers they could possibly desire, and they made a mess of it. Therefore, it is not our fault." If you destroy the Irish cattle trade, where is your Irish-American orator then? You give him a new topic.

The Government never seem to take the trouble to cast their minds back. You read in the books on Free Trade that the death blow was given to the Corn Laws by the Irish famine, while you read in books on Irish economics a different view. A very important book has been published recently—Mr. O'Brien's "Economic History of Ireland from the Union to the Famine"—and there it is pointed out that when Free Trade was introduced it was really a great blow to Irish agriculture. Up to that time there had been really Free Trade between England and Ireland. Ireland grew great quantities of wheat, and supplied a great deal of the wheat required in England. Free Trade came, and that side of Irish agriculture was destroyed. Irish agriculture has reconstituted itself on the basis of the cattle trade, and even if you are prepared to grant freedom to the South of Ireland you are not prepared to allow them to enjoy that trade without necessary restrictions. You are putting into the power of the Irish-American orators, of the type the Government are trying to conciliate, the argument: "You destroyed the woollen trade of the 18th century, you destroyed the corn trade in the 19th century, and you destroyed the cattle trade in the 20th century, and yet you expect us to approve your policy." The Minister of Agriculture may not think that these are very important considerations, but they are things which weigh with the Irish people. The people in Ireland are very touchy at the present time, and the best thing is to let them alone. This is a purely gratuitous intervention. The Minister has all the powers he needs. He can regulate the trade as he wishes without raising any further question, and yet he throws out this bone of contention at a time like this.

Sir J. SIMON

The argument which is presented by the hon. Member who has just sat down is an argument which impresses some of us very much. I am well aware that the only wise judgment on a matter of this sort can be arrived at with great knowledge of the details of this trade and the special circumstances which govern it, and I do not profess to have such knowledge. Therefore, I should be acting very recklessly if I declared myself on the side of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Many of us take a close interest in this question, which is in no sense a party question. Speaking merely as an outsider on this subject, there are two or three considerations which impress some of us, and seem to call for a fresh answer. It is perfectly clear that up to the present the importation of cattle from Ireland to this country has been subject to Regulations which, as far as I know, the Minister of Agriculture has been able effectively to apply. Therefore, if these Regulations are to be superseded by something new, the burden of proving that it is necessary lies upon those who propose to apply the new Regulations.

A second consideration that occurs to me is this. Admittedly, this Bill is introduced, after a free vote in the House, for the purpose of implementing a promise that there should be a removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle. The very language of the Bill is sufficient to show, in its first Clause, that that is its object. It does seem a rather curious consequence of meeting the demand that | the embargo on Canadian cattle should be removed, that it should be necessary in the Bill to make changes as regards cattle coming from Ireland. It may be so, but it is clearly a case where the burden of proof lies upon those who assert it. The point raised by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) is one about which those of us who are interested in Irish self-government are very much concerned. The southern part of Ireland is a Dominion of the Crown. I could understand the argument that, if you are going to put a form of regulation on the Dominion of Canada you may be justified in putting a similar form of regulation upon the Dominion of Southern Ireland, but if that is the argument it is, at any rate, desirable to make it quite plain that the Dominion of Southern Ireland has been consulted in the matter in exactly the same way as the Dominion of Canada.

As regards hon. Members who are speaking from the point of view of Northern Ireland, they cannot be met with that argument. I understand them to say that, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, which is still to be regarded as within the home territory in every sense, there is nothing that has happened in connection with the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle which would seem in itself to justify a change of the law so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. I may be repeating the platitudes of the controversy, and I do not profess to be able to pronounce a judgment, but as an impartial person these are arguments which impress one, and I do not appreciate as fully as I would like before I vote on this Amendment what is the strength of the argument the other way. I heard the speech made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) the other day, a most persuasive and powerful speech, and I have re-read it since, but in spite of that, the right hon. Geitleman will excuse me for saying that I still feel that an answer must be given which meets fully the case made by hon. Members on the other side.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN

Our arguments cannot be answered. The Committee will not be surprised if people in Ireland whose livelihood depends on this trade regard this Measure of the Government as a deliberate attempt on the part of the British Government to ruin the Irish cattle trade. I represent a constituency which, if it is not the largest agricultural constituency in the kingdom, is certainly one of the largest. Not only is it a large agricultural constituency, but it includes the City of Londonderry, which is a great shipping port for the cattle from the county of Londonderry and from the county of Donegal. My constituency is largely dependent on the continuance of the cattle trade with England and Scotland, and unless they can be persuaded that there are cogent reasons for changing the law as it exists to-day, they will be convinced, and, I submit, rightly convinced, that the effect of this Measure is to injure Ireland, even though injury to Ireland be not intended, for the benefit of Canada.

We do not dispute that if there is any necessity for this Bill for the protection of Great Britain's flocks and herds, then, whatever injury it does to us, we must put up with it. We agree that the safety of the flocks and herds of Great Britain is a matter that this Committee must regard as of primary importance, while our interest in Ireland are of secondary importance. But our main objection to this Bill is that we are brought within the restrictions in the Schedule, and that those are made statutory. Under the existing law, the Minister of Agriculture has power to make those restrictions whenever he thinks fit, and, in fact, these restrictions, which are contained in the Schedule, are in force to-day. In those circumstances there can be no need to change the law for the purpose of protecting flocks and herds in Great Britain to-day. The only reason put forward for the change, as I understand the observations of the Attorney-General, is that a Committee, on which we were not consulted, has recommended that these restrictions should be made permanent, and a pledge has been given to Canada that whatever restrictions are imposed on Canadian cattle shall also be imposed on Irish cattle. When this matter was debated in the last Parliament, and a resolution for the removal of the Canadian embargo was passed, no suggestion was ever made that the provisions with regard to Irish cattle should be changed. But it is said that a pledge has been given to Canada that whatever restrictions are imposed upon Canadian cattle shall also be imposed upon Irish cattle. I find it extremely difficult to believe that any such pledge could have been given.

9.0 P.M.

I think that if the Prime Minister were here to-night—he has had wide experience in these matters—he would say that one of the cardinal principles underlying the British Empire is, that a self-governing Dominion should not attempt to interfere in any way in the domestic affairs of any other part of the Empire. The Committee will recollect that, whenever the statesmen from Overseas come to this country, they are most careful never to concern themselves with any domestic or political question of ours, and they would resent, and rightly resent, anybody from this country interfering in any domestic or political question of theirs. I find it, therefore, extremely difficult to believe that any Canadian Minister ever ventured to ask for any pledge or stipulation with regard to the terms on which the cattle trade should be conducted between Ireland and Great Britain. We have not been told the name of the Canadian Minister who, it is suggested, asked for such a pledge, or the name of the British Minister who gave such a pledge. If such a pledge was asked for and was given, it is the first time in the history of the British Empire in which a self-governing Dominion has ventured to interfere in the affairs of any other part of the Empire.

The economic result of this proposal, I believe, is going to be the placing of an unnecessary fetter on the cattle trade between Ireland and Great Britain, with the result that the very consequences which you desire to attain, namely, cheapening the supply of meat in this country, will not be attained, but that, on the contrary, if you hamper the Irish cattle trade, you are going to raise instead of lower the price of meat in this country. That will be the necessary economic result. The political result is going to be, that this House of Commons, immediately after the Free State has been set up and when this House was, as it thought, free of Irish troubles, deliberately did a thing which was designed to injure, if not to ruin, the Irish cattle trade.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I cannot help thinking that the Committee might arrive at some satisfactory conclusion on this matter. It is very unfortunate that the interests of agriculture should be opposed to the interests of goodwill between England and Ireland Speaking from the point of view of agriculture, in the county of which I am a Member, we feel that we should be sacrificing the interests of English agriculture if we agreed to the restrictions not being made statutory. We are assuming in this restriction that every animal which could import the disease has been kept out of the country altogether, and that the animals coming from any part of the British Empire are all free from disease. This restriction is aimed simply against spreading disease, not owing to particular danger attaching to the particular animal, but to the character of the trade in imported animals.

I admit the force of the argument put forward in an eloquent speech by the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid), that if you carry the thing to its logical conclusion you must say that every animal, whether British or imported, which is taken from one market to another should be detained for six days. But the Committee must see that this is a question of degree, and that to make such a Regulation as is suggested would make trade absolutely impossible. What the Cattle Diseases Committee had to consider was how they could succeed in eliminating what was a great risk by putting a comparatively small restriction on trade. To carry the idea to its extreme conclusion would be to put a very heavy restriction on trade in order to deal with what would be a comparatively small risk. What we have recommended, and what the Government have adopted, is a scheme to stop the spread of large numbers of animals from one market. When the animals first arrive in this country they go by hundreds to one market. In a case that was under special consideration there were 539 animals, all Irish, which went to Gateshead market. Information was obtained that disease was suspected in Newcastle. Those 539 animals had been spread through all the markets which I enumerated earlier to-day, and the disease was spread like a fire all over England.

Captain CRAIG

I would ask, Would the position not have been exactly the same, and quite as bad from the point of view of spreading disease, if this six days' detention had been in force at that time?

Mr. PRETYMAN

That is a most reasonable question, and the answer is, most certainly not. The animals which had gone to that market for exposure would have had to stay for six days, either on the premises to which they had been sold, probably farm premises, and there the disease could easily have been circumscribed, or they would have had to stay in the neighbourhood of Newcastle or Gateshead market, and the disease would have developed in much less than six days and could have been confined to that particular area. That is the whole case.

Captain CRAIG

No.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Surely my right hon. Friend sees that if by some unfortunate chance there happens to be in a market an infected animal which can convey the virus to other animals, and before that is known these other animals, to the number of perhaps hundreds, are distributed, not to farm premises where the disease can be restrained, but to other markets where it spreads on to hundreds more, there may be outbreaks all over the country. I have stated the result of our most careful investigation. We believe that it would be greatly to the interest of British agriculture and of the Exchequer that that provision (which was originally 14 days and has now been reduced to six days) should be made statutory. If I wanted to give a reason why it should remain statutory, I should say that the reason is furnished by my hon. Friends from Ireland, for they would evidently move Heaven and earth to get the restrictions removed. The Ministry and its officials should not be subject to perpetual political pressure to get them to alter Regulations which are permanently necessary.

The question now raised is a very important question, I admit. It has been argued very forcibly and very temperately by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. They think that their trade is to be affected seriously. I do not think so. They have admitted that in so far as animals which are sold in the market are concerned, it will make no difference. The animals which are not sold in the market, as has been said, would have to be detained for six days at the expense of the vendor or of the Irish owner or cattle dealer. Hon. Members must look at the alternative. Let me say why six days was the period selected. It was that it would then be possible, without further expense of transport, to expose chose animals for sale at the next market in the same place. Markets are always held on the same day of the week, and with six days' detention another railway journey would not be necessary. If, on the other hand, there is no six days' detention, the person concerned does not go scot free of expense, for he has to entrain the animals to another market, and that would often cost more than to keep them in the one place for the six days. There is also the considerable power which all trades have of adapting themselves to conditions. If the Irish traders were to accept this as necessary for avoiding the spread of disease—disease causes restriction to their trade and is of the greatest injury to them—they would see that it is as much in their interest as in the interest of anybody else. We are all in one busi- ness. This is all part of the great cattle trade of what used to be the United Kingdom. We do not desire to discriminate against Ireland in any way. We claim that we are advancing Irish interests as well as our own in trying to prevent the spread of this most mischievous disease.

Mr. O'CONNOR

Why do you not do it in Wales and Scotland and the South of England?

Mr. PRETYMAN

It is a matter of degree. When animals come from the South of England they do not come in great mobs of hundreds. That is a peculiar characteristic of the imported cattle trade. When you have hundreds of animals from one vessel they are all in the hands of one dealer, and come together. It is the characteristic of the trade; the cattle come in large cargoes and come to one market first, and then they are distributed to other markets all over England. If the trade would adapt itself to the conditions and would endeavour to regulate the trade so that there would be sent to one market no more than would be required in that market, the difficulty would be largely met. If those engaged in the cattle trade would loyally accept this principle as a sound one it would be better, but if Irish dealers and those who represent Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland want to make this an international matter, and regard this as a matter of vital importance, and the Government thinks it is a matter of vital importance, where do we find ourselves? Are hon. Members satisfied with the change for which they have asked—that, instead of this being a statutory restriction, which can be altered only by Act of Parliament, it should be in the power of the Ministry to vary it if he thinks it right and proper so to do? It is for that they have asked.

Captain CRAIG

So far as Irish cattle alone are concerned, but not Canadian cattle.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Surely my right hon. Friend would not suggest that it would be any detriment to him or to Ireland. If he wants liberty given to the Minister for Irish cattle, is it any the worse because that liberty also covers Canadian cattle?

Captain CRAIG

That is not the point at all. The point is this—we know that if Canadian cattle were included, we might never hope to see the restrictions removed, because the Minister of Agriculture would not be justified in allowing Canadian cattle into this country without detention, whereas he would be fully justified in allowing ours in.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I should like to go a very long way to meet my hon. Friends, but I certainly could not go as far as that. I cannot see on what that argument is founded, because the character of the trade in imported cattle is exactly the same whether the cattle come from Ireland or from Canada, and there is just the same danger in both cases. I am assuming that the cattle both from, Ireland and from Canada come into this country absolutely free from disease, but when they do come into this country they are taken in large numbers to markets by dealers and that involves the same danger of spreading disease, whether they come from Ireland or from Canada. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Captain Craig) asks that Irish cattle should be exempted from this restriction, if the Minister thinks it right to do so at some future time. If it be safe and right to deal with cattle on that system because they come from Ireland, it would be equally right to deal with cattle from Canada on the same system. I traverse that argument of the hon. and gallant Member.

I do not think it fair to raise the suggestion that in asking for the agreement which they did ask for and obtain, the Canadian Government has interfered between England and Ireland. All they have asked for is most favoured nation treatment. They have not said, "We want you to put restrictions on Ireland." They have only said, "You must not put restrictions on our cattle alone; you must-put them on imported cattle wherever they come from, or if you take these restrictions off all other cattle, you must take them off Canadian cattle also." That docs not seem to be an unreasonable attitude. However, it is a matter between Canada and the Government and therefore it is outside my orbit, because I am dealing with the question as between British agriculture and Ireland. If it is going to produce peace on this question and avoid bad feeling between England and Ireland, I believe the statesmanlike course for British agriculture to take up would be to agree to give the Minister power to vary the restrictions. We would rather see Ireland satisfied on this matter than stand out for the difference between that course and a statutory enactment, although we strongly prefer the statutory enactment and we should be making a great sacrifice in relaxing it. If it would satisfy Irish feeling and bring Ireland into line, I would ask my hon. Friends who represent agriculture in this House to agree to that, but I do not know if they would all agree.

Sir F. BANBURY

No.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I suppose they would not all agree, but I would advise them to make the concession if it is to produce peace with Ireland. I understand now that it would not do so, and we may be saved from having to take up that position. I think the House desires some settlement of this question, and I hope we can be assured by my right hon. Friend the Minister that when other matters in which agriculture is concerned come up, we also shall get consideration, I, personally, think if Ireland were satisfied with the offer of the Government to give the Minister power to vary these restrictions, should it appear safe to do so at some future time, and that power were to apply both to Canada and to Ireland, and if that would avoid ill-feeling between England and Ireland, it would be a better solution than adhering to the statutory enactment. Much and greatly as I prefer the statutory enactment, if it would create real trouble between England and Ireland I believe the other alternative to be a statesmanlike solution.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I desire to raise one or two points on the case presented to the Committee by hon. Members from Ireland. First I wish to reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) that in this matter, for the first time, a self-governing Dominion of the Empire had interfered in British domestic politics. I have taken the greatest care to ascertain the position, and I am convinced that the Government of the Dominion of Canada never attempted to do anything of the kind. When the vote was taken in this House, which decided to remove the embargo placed upon Canadian cattle for nearly 30 years—felt by many of us in this country to be unfair—all Canada asked for was that if administrative pro- posals were to be made, these proposals should not place upon Canada any restriction other than those placed upon other parts of the Empire exporting cattle to Great Britain. In point of fact, they desired to have their cattle admitted to this country on exactly the same grounds and the same lines as those on which Irish cattle have been admitted for 30 years. From that point of view the Canadian Government never attempted to interfere with domestic legislation here. They made the perfectly reasonable request that their cattle should be admitted on the same terms as the Irish cattle, and in spite of what has been said during the Debates on the Second Reading and to-day, I remind hon. Members from Ireland that the bill of health of the Canadian herds is comparable with that of the herds of Ireland and the comparison is even in favour of the Canadian cattle. After 30 years of an unfair embargo they are surely not asking too much.

The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) referred particularly to the position of the consumer. There was one point made in the Second Beading Debate with regard to the consumer which needs to be emphasised in view of the very able statement of the right hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). Hon. Members from Ireland tell us that the detention period will mean an increase in the cost to the consumer by hampering the trade in cattle. Those who are connected with a great consumers' and agricultural movement like the co-operative movement, know there are two sides to that. In the last 12 months I have had to deal with many claims in connection with this matter. In the first place, we had to provide out of the taxpayers' money, which is ultimately a charge on the consumer, £1,000,000 in order to stamp out the recent outbreak of disease. Not only so, but in regard to particular claims we have had to make advances on behalf of co-operative societies farming their own land, who were ordered to isolate their cattle and in the course of the isolation treatment lost the cattle. There had to be paid, not merely taxation for stamping out the disease, but also an actual dead capital loss on cattle, and every penny of that is ultimately a charge to the consumer. I said in the Second Reading Debate, and I repeat it now, that if you take the total cost, there is no comparison between the ultimate cost to the consumer with regard to this formality of a detention period, and the ultimate cost of stamping out outbreaks of disease and providing for losses through isolation or slaughter.

That is not quite the end of the question. We look at this matter entirely from the consumer's point of view, and we say that he has the first right to be consulted. We admit the argument of the Irish Members that ultimately there might be a slightly enhanced cost to the consumer—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]— after this period of detention. We say that, that would not be as large an enhanced cost as would be the cost of stamping out outbreaks that might be saved by such a precautionary measure. We want the Minister of Agriculture to consider this point, that when there is no disease in the country these unnecessary restrictions should be removed at once. We urge that they should be removed simultaneously, not only from the trade in Irish store cattle, but from that in Canadian store cattle. We want the best possible quality of store beasts in this country, whether they come from Ireland or from Canada. We want them fattened as quickly as possible, and put before the consumer in the cheapest possible way. We suggest that the attitude taken up by the hon. Members representing Irish constituencies is not the best way of securing these things for the consumer at the present moment. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will vote against this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN

We are entitled to ask what is the origin of the Debate this evening. We shall find it in the Resolution proposed in this House in July last, with reference to the embargo on Canadian cattle. The Resolution was proposed by Mr. William Shaw, who was then the hon. Member for Forfar. It is well that the Committee should realise what that Resolution was, and how it comes about that we are now debating the question of the introduction of a Measure dealing with the embargo on Canadian cattle, with reference to Ireland. This is the Resolution, as adopted by the House in July: That this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle should be removed. We are now debating the question whether we should have six days' detention with regard to Irish cattle. How has this come about? It seems to me that some very extraordinary work has taken place in order that we might have this Debate to-night. It appears that a hurried agricultural meeting, representing the people of England and Scotland, was got together and that some evidence was taken with regard to this question. In the meetings between the representatives of Canada and this country, and, I suppose, in the Cabinet, there was some discussion with regard to Ireland. That is very evident from what the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has told us. I think, however, we have a right to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister of Agriculture whether, at any time, there was any communication between either Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland, or the Board of Agriculture connected with the one or the other, and the meeting that was proceeding between Canada and this country?

So far, it has not come out in this Committee that such a communication took place. I am informed that there was such a communication. I am informed that representatives of the Irish Board of Agriculture were in this country at that time, and that they offered to give any evidence that was necessary or to take part in the discussion that was necessary, if the matter was at all of interest to Ireland. What was the reply? I am open to contradiction or correction by the right hon. Gentleman, if he has any information on the subject. I understand the reply was that Ireland was not in the discussion at all, that the matter purely affected the relations between Canada and this country; and that if it affected Ireland, a communication will be sent immediately to the Board of Agriculture in Ireland. That is all that passed, so far as I understand. The Board of Agriculture in Ireland was not communicated with. Therefore, naturally, that Board took it for granted that the question of Irish cattle did not come under consideration at all. Which is right? Is it the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, who says an understanding was arrived at between Canada and this country with regard to Irish cattle; or are the repre- sentatives of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland correct, when they say they were distinctly told from that meeting that the question of Ireland was not going to be discussed, was not introduced, and would not be without consulting Ireland? That is a very important point, which has not yet been met. We are entitled to know what is the meaning of it.

I want to know why we have not got the Interim Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). That is not the fault of that right hon. Gentleman or of this Committee. He has given the Committee to understand that this Interim Report has been in the hands of the Board of Agriculture for some weeks. Why have we not got it to-night? Was it to prevent us knowing that this Clause with regard to Ireland was to be introduced in a surreptitious way, or what was the reason? These are questions that the Committee should clearly understand, because it is a very extraordinary thing. The Committee will agree that until this Bill was introduced neither Northern nor Southern Ireland, nor the representatives of Ireland in this House, understood that Ireland was to be dealt with at all. Yet this Interim Report was in the hands of the Government. Why did not the Government tell us? The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) put the case very fairly and moderately. I think the Committee has a right to be very dissatisfied with the whole transaction. We are constantly being kept in the dark.

I should like to deal with the position taken up by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford. It is quite possible, during this Debate, an impression may have been left on the Committee that the disease which spread last year all over the country, and which cost about £1,000,000 of money, came from Irish cattle. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made it very clear in his speech the other day that that was not so.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Hear, hear.

Sir W. ALLEN

And I am impressed with that part of his argument when he says: I hope that my hon. Friends will not imagine that if it in any way interferes with their trade, we do not regret it, but it is necessary to protect our flocks, and herds in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1922; col. 2091, Vol. 159.] Twice in the course of his speech on that occasion he said that, and I think he reiterated it to-night. May J point out that he also said: The outbreak was spread entirely, as stated in our Report, by the herds of Irish cattle which were distributed from Newcastle and Gateshead markets. Not one of these cattle introduced the disease into this country. They came into this country free from it. They went to the markets and picked up the disease there, and spread it from one end of the country to the other."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1922; col. 2087, Vol. 159.] I think it is only right that we should follow that argument to its logical conclusion. The disease did not come from Irish cattle. Where, then, did it come from? I think the only conclusion that we can come to is that it must have come from cattle from other parts of the Kingdom, from Scotland, or Wales, or Southern England, but the right hon. Member for Chelmsford does not carry his argument to its logical conclusion and impose the detention on the very cattle that might have carried this disease which was spread. That is a point which we ought to insist that the Committee should examine very thoroughly. It is quite possible that that disease may have come from cattle which were sent from Norfolk, and, if so, why not follow it to its logical conclusion and put the six days' detention on other parts of the British Isles as well as Ireland? You make this distinction with regard to Irish cattle only, and, of course, Canadian cattle, but you do not make it with regard to Scotch cattle, or Welsh cattle, or South of England cattle—the very places from which this disease must have come.

I am very sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. I think this is a matter of very great importance and very high policy. I am sorry he has not been here in order to hear the arguments in regard to my country and the way in which it has been treated under this Bill. Not long ago he sent a message to Ireland on the passage of the Free State Bill, a message, I suppose, of encouragement, wishing them prosperity, and the very next action of this British Government is to do Ireland a most serious and lasting economic injury. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I hold that it will injure the Irish cattle trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is my opinion. My opinion is that it will injure the Irish cattle trade to a very serious extent, and I think that is the last thing the Prime Minister or this Government ought to have done in the circumstances which now prevail in Ireland. I am sorry that the Government have taken this opportunity without consultation with Ireland, an opportunity that will prolong the awful differences that have existed up to the present between the two countries. I cannot help feeling sorry to-night that Englishmen should confer together to bring this additional wrong, which I hold it is. on Ireland, and I hope that before this discussion closes, the Ministers who are responsible for this Bill will take some action which, instead of alienating Ireland still further, will draw her more closely to this country

Sir R. SANDERS

In spite of all that has been said, it is not the fact that this Bill is imposing conditions on Ireland which it is not imposing on Canada. The reverse is the case. A great deal has been said about the conference between the Canadian representatives and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). What happened there was that arrangements were being made that Canada should have the same treatment as already existed in the case of Ireland. The treatment would be just the same in the case of Ireland if Canada had never existed. One would infer from the speeches to-night that Canada had been made an excuse for putting these particular restrictions on Ireland. There is not a Canadian beast coming in now except those slaughtered at the ports, and restrictions are enforced at the present moment, and have been enforced for some time. They are restrictions which our veterinary advisers advise us are necessary, and that advice has been confirmed by the Committee presided over by they right hon. Member for Chelmsford. They are restrictions that we are advised are the necessary minimum for the safety off our herds in this country.

Such a lot has been said as if these were some extraordinary restrictions, some extraordinary oppression, inflicted by the greater country upon poor, oppressed Ireland. It is nothing of the sort. There is no embargo. I think one hon. Member talked of an embargo, but there is no embargo whatever. There is no quarantine even. All that happens is, that if cattle exposed in a market are not sold, for six I days they are not allowed to be moved to another market, because in investigating the causes of the bad foot-and-mouth disease outbreak last year, it was found that the chief cause of the wide distribution of that outbreak was not that Irish cattle brought the disease into the country, but that they were hurried about from market to market, that they picked up the disease at one market, and that they spread it broadcast all over the country. It has been said by the speakers from the North of Ireland that the English and Scotch cattle do the same. The information that I have is that that is not so, but if we find that it is so, then our remedy is to apply restrictions to the English and Scotch cattle, and surely we might be allowed to do that at our own time and in at our own way, and maintain a little home rule for England in the matter.

Sir W. ALLEN

Why not make that statutory for England?

Sir R. SANDERS

It may come to that. I do not say, but I do not think we need consult Ireland before we do it. All the restriction is that for six days, it not sold, these cattle are kept in detention. If they are sold at once it is no injury to anyone, and there cannot be any loss of any sort. The only possible restriction of commerce or trade comes if the cattle are not sold in the first market. We have been told two or three times over that that adds so much to the cost of the cattle. I cannot see it. I should have thought that it would have the very opposite effect. If a man knows that, unless he sells his cattle at a particular price in the market to which they go, he will have to be put to a certain amount of inconvenience, he is more likely to take a lower offer for them, and not to stand out for a higher one. It puts an end to that lengthy process of dealing which, although I do not know whether it occurs in the selling of Irish cattle, does occur in respect of that of which I have had certain experience, namely, the selling of Irish horses. There is one more grievance. Although this restriction has existed for some time, it is considered to be a grievance that it should be put into a Bill and made statutory. I must say that the experience I have had in the last ten days impresses upon me very forcibly the need of this being put into an Act of Parlia- ment, and it not being made easy to repeal. If my hon. Friends and right hon. Friends had come to me and threatened or abused me, or held a pistol at my head, I should have known how to deal with them, but they have been kindness, they have been amiability itself. Nothing could have been kinder or more courteous than all the representations that have been made to me on this subject by the representatives of Ireland. I am a soft-hearted man, and I do not reckon on my own strength of mind to be able indefinitely to withstand all these blandishments. I find it very hard to resist them, and I may have successors who are even more soft-hearted than I am myself, and those interested, the great cattle breeders of England, do not want to be left at the mercy of a soft-hearted Minister of Agriculture. That is the reason why we want to make these restrictions statutory.

I thought I was making a big concession by my offer to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that there was any misunderstanding about it. After the consultations I have had, I have been exceedingly surprised to find that the point to which the right hon. Gentleman attached so much importance was that differentiation should be made between Canada and Ireland. On that point, I submit we are pledged. The Canadians have asked us to treat them in the same way that we have treated Ireland. We put on them restrictions that exist on Irish cattle now, and I really do not see in what way my Friends from Ireland would be injured by the fact that if at any time after they had laid the Order on the Tables of the two Houses, a Minister who took off those restrictions from Ireland should take them off from Canada as well. I cannot see where the injury to Ireland comes in. However, hon. Members do not wish to accept that position, and I shall allow the Bill to stand as it is. As we have discussed this question pretty fully, I would suggest that the Committee should now come to a decision.

Mr. McCONNELL

I owe this Committee no apology for rising to-night, even at this late hour, and at this last moment of this important Debate. But after listening to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the kindly nothings that he has offered to Ireland, I must certainly say that I thought, when we came into this House this afternoon, and we were told by some of our hon. Friends that the Government were going to give us a very substantial offer, we were going to have something. But when I heard what he has offered us to-night, that he is giving us the same terms as Canada, I do not think the most optimistic man in this House to-night would say that you would get anything like the number of store cattle from Canada in any one year that have come from Ireland. Of the 1,006,011 cattle sent over here from Ireland, not one has been detained from 31st October, 1921, to 31st October, 1922, because it has been found to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. What do I find has happened in England since 19001 Between 1900 and 1912, 2,200 foot-and-mouth disease cases have happened in England. In Ireland we have not had one solitary case detected. What do we find from 1912 to 1920 in England? 1,079 cases of foot-and-mouth disease. What do we find in 1919? 3,463 cattle slaughtered. In 1920, 11,373 cattle slaughtered. In 1921, 3,085 cattle slaughtered. In 1922, the present year, 55,238 cattle slaughtered, and my right hon. Friend admits that not one solitary case of foot-and-mouth disease emanated from Irish cattle. Yet we are told that we are to be put under the same rule and Regulations as Canada, 3,000 miles away.

What is the difference between Cumberland and, say, Edinburgh, and County Antrim and Edinburgh? What do we find at the Hallow Fare, in Edinburgh, on the 13th, 14th and 15th of November last? I can give the right hon. Gentleman the name of one dealer who comes from Cumberland, and he had 1,000 cattle belonging to himself at that particular fair. Yet he speaks of our dealers coming across in great numbers. That particular gentleman did not sell all his cattle at the Hallow Fair, but they were taken to Perth and Stirling, and I can give a number of cases where you have dealers constantly selling cattle in England. In the North of England you have 22 dealers constantly taking their cattle from the North of England to Scotland. Where do your milch cattle come from that are in Edinburgh every Monday morning? From Cumberland, Westmorland and the North of England generally. Why is not the six days' detention put into force on the border between England and Scotland; if it has to in relation to the cattle that come with a two-hours' passage from Larne to Stranraer and then are taken by Drain to Newcastle-on-Tyne and other quarters for sale? Why is not the same treatment to be meted out to the store cattle from England to Scotland and the cattle that come from Scotland to England?

My hon. Friend has asked two very important questions, and I would ask for replies to those questions and will be interested to know—and the Committee will be, too, I think—what was the end of the correspondence that took place between his Department and the Irish Department in October and November. We are entitled to know, because I do not think it is right and fair that Ireland should be put into a position in which she is in. Our Department offered to give the English Department every information they might require, and we were told in November that "this Bill will not apply and will have nothing whatever to do with Irish cattle and your presence will not be required." Was that fair? Was that honest? Are we to be treated honestly? We do not want anything but

fair play. We can stand, thank God, on our own legs and are prepared to do it. We are not frightened of the Canadian cattle. We can meet them. The House can rest assured that we can meet and beat the Canadian dealers in any market of England or Scotland; we can compete against them at any time. What we do want is fair play, not to be snuffed out as we have been by the English Government in this particular case. What does Clause 66 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, say? In order to secure uniformity of action every Order-in-Council and every Order of the Board of Agriculture made under this Section shall … be communicated to the Board of Agriculture or the Lord-Lieutenant or the Privy Council, as the case may be. Nothing of the kind has been done in this case! We offered to give every facility. We offered to appear before them. The reply was: "You are not required, because this Bill will not apply to Irish cattle." I do sincerely trust that this Committee will look upon this in a fair and equitable manner and give us that to which we are fairly entitled—justice!

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 333.

Division No. 29.] AYES. [10.0 p.m.
Brown, J. w. (Middlesbrough, E.) M alone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Ritson, J.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Mathew, C. J. Sexton, James
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz Shakespeare, G. H.
Gretton, Colonel John Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Simpson, J. Hope
Hayday, Arthur Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Whitla, Sir William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) O'Connor, Thomas P.
Lorimer, H. D. O'Grady, Captain James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Held, D. D. (County Down) Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. Allen and
Mr. McConnell.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Birchall, Major J. Dearman Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynts Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester) Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Blundell, F. N. Butt, Sir Alfred
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Bonwick, A, Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Bowdler, W. A. Cairns, John
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Campion, Lieut.-Colonel w. R.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Cassels, J. D.
Ammon, Charles George Brass, Captain W. Cautley, Henry Strother
Astbury, Lieut.-Com, Frederick W. Brassey, Sir Leonard Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Broad, F. A. Chapple, W. A.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Brotherton, J. Churchman. Sir Arthur
Banks. Mitchell Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Clarke, Sir E. C.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Ahertillery) Bruford, R. Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Barlow, Rt, Hon. Sir Montague Bruton. Sir James Cobb, Sir Cyril
Barnes, A. Buchanan, G. Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Barnett, Major Richard W. Buckingham, Sir H. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Batey, Joseph Buckle, J. Collison, Levi
Becker, Harry Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Cope, Major William
Berry, Sir George Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Ponsonby, Arthur
Crooke, J. S. (Derltend) Hood, Sir Joseph Potts, John S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Hopkins, John W. W. Pretyman, Rt. Hon, Ernest G.
Darbishire, C. W. Houfton, John Plowright Price, E. G.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Pringie, W. M. R.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hudson, Capt. A. Privett, F. J.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Hume, G. H. Raine, W.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Hurd, Percy A. Rawson Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Doyle, N. Grattan Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley Reynolds, W. G. W.
Duncan, C. Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. p.
Dunnico, H. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Richards, R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Jarrett, G. W. S. Riley, Ben
Elvedon, Viscount Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Jephcott, A. R. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamstow, E.) Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly) Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Rogerson, Capt. J, E.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Jowltt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Rothschild, Lionel de
Falcon, Captain Michael Kenyan, Barnet Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Falconer, J. King, Capt. Henry Douglas Royce, William Stapieton
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Ruggles-Brise. Major E.
Flanagan, W. H. Kirkwood, D. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Foot, Isaac Lamb, J. Q. Russell, William (Bolton)
Ford, Patrick Johnston Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Forestler-Walker, L. Lansbury, George Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Saklatvala, S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lawson, John James Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Furness, G. J. Lee, F. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Galbraith, J. F. W. Linfield, F. C. Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Ganzoni, Sir John Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Garland, C. S. Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Sandon, Lord
Gates, Percy Lorden, John William Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Gaunt, Roar-Admiral Sir Guy R- Lort-Williams, J. Shepperson, E. W.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Lowth, T. Shinwell, Emanuel
Goff, Sir R. Park Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Lunn, William Sinclair, Sir A.
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Sitch, Charles H.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge) McLaren, Andrew Skelton, A. N.
Greenall, T. McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Maddocks, Henry Snell, Harry
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Grenfell, D, R. (Giamorgan) Makins, Brigadier-General E. Sparkes, K. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Margesson, H. D. R. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Grigg, Sir Edward Mercer, Colonel H. Steel, Major S. Strang
Groves, T. Middleton. G. Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Grundy, T. W. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Gwynne, Rupert S. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Molson, Major John Elsdale Strauss, Edward Anthony
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Morris, Harold Sugden. Sir Wilfrid H.
Halstead, Major D. Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Hancock, John George Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton) Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Harbord, Arthur Muir, John W. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Harney, E. A. Murchison, C. K.
Harrison, F. C. Murnin, H. Thornton, M.
Harvey, Major S. E. Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement
Hawke, John Anthony Nail, Major Joseph Tubbs, S. W.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cat heart) Newson, Sir Percy Wilson Turton, Edmund Russborough
Hay, Major T. w. (Norfolk, South) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.
Hemmerde, E. G. Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Wallace, Captain E.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) Oliver, George Harold Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Waring, Major Walter
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Paget, T G. Warne, G. H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford! Paling, W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Herriotts, J. Parker, Owen (Kettering) Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Hewett, Sir J. P. Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Hill, A. Pattinson, s. (Horncastle) Weir, L. M.
Hillary, A. E. Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike Wells. S. R.
Hinds, John Pennefather. De Fonblanque Welsh, J. C.
Hirst, G. H Penny, Frederick George Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Westwood, J.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wheatley. J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Perring, William George Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Hogge, James Myles Phillpson, H. H. White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Whiteley, W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Wignall, James Windsor, Viscount Worsfold, T. Cato
Williams, David (Swansea, E.) Wintringham, Margaret Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Wise, Frederick Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Wolmer, Viscount
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.