Lords Sitting of 19 May 1909

MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897.
The King's answer to the Address of Thursday last reported by the Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp) as follows—
I have received your Address, praying that I will make the Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to your Lordships' House on February 16 last.
I will comply with your advice.

BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
PRESTON, CHORLEY, AND HORWICH TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 2a and committed.

CORK, BANDON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL.
YORK TOWN AND BLACKWATER GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING, &c.) BILL.
Read 2a and committed for Tuesday next.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

METHWOLD AND FELTWELL DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
UNITED KINGDOM TEMPERANCE AND GENERAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LISBURN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
Statutes made by the Governing Body of New College, Oxford, on the 13th January, 1909, and sealed on the 8th February, 1909, amending Statutes IV (5), and XXIII (1), and repealing Statutes XXI (4) and (5) and XXII: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 58.)
NATIONAL SERVICE (TRAINING AND HOME DEFENCE) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for National Service in the Territorial Force, and for that purpose to amend the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907—Was presented by The Lord Newton (for the Earl Roberts); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday, the 12th of July next. (No. 59.)
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: Standing Committee negatived; The report of Amendment to be received on Monday next.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

VATERSAY.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to call attention to the Vatersay correspondence recently presented and to the present condition of the Island of Vatersay. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I much regret for every reason that I am obliged to call your Lordships' attention once more to the affairs of the Island of Vatersay. Recent occurrences in that island, however, and the consequences which have flowed from the action and from the inaction of the Government, and also the present condition of that island, are so grave and so prejudicial, in my opinion, to law and order that I must again ask your Lordships to give me your indulgence for a short time.
Your Lordships will remember that early in the year 1907 the Island of Vatersay was raided, and it has been occupied from then to the present time. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland laid down this proposition, that when property is seized, even though it be without any claim, it is no part of the duty of the Government to do anything in support of law and order. He went further, for he told the proprietor that she must defend herself and that she must incur all the loss of time and expense and trouble necessitated by a civil action. Not only did he do that, but he told her that in his opinion the proper course for her to pursue was to take the raiders as her tenants; and not merely that, but he told her that the Government had no responsibility or part in the matter, and that it was for her to compensate her tenant and to incur all the expense which that entailed. Lady Cathcart, as your Lordships may remember, adopted quite a different view. She apprehended—she has always apprehended—that this course was not only rather wanting in courage, but that it was bound to fail.
After a time, however, Lady Cathcart was so unwilling to act in contradiction to the wishes of the Government that she said that under certain conditions she would fall in with the wishes of the noble Lord. But she made this condition, that the noble Lord should pay to the tenant all the expenses which were due on account of his giving up his lease. The noble Lord entirely declined to do that, and the consequence was that the negotiations broke off on that point. That takes us up to the end of the year 1907, and brings us to the period em
1056
braced in the present correspondence. In April, 1907, Lady Cathcart had obtained an interdict against the raiders, taking the course in pursuance of the advice given to her from the Scottish Office. In June the interdict was disobeyed, and in the spring of 1908 she applied to the Court to enforce their interdict. About the 2nd or 3rd of June, I think it was, the raiders appeared in Court and were sentenced to two months imprisonment in respect of their disobedience of the interdict of the Court.
The attitude of the Scottish Office now entirely changed. They had been unwilling to do anything in support of the law, but as soon as the raiders were imprisoned the noble Lord developed a keen anxiety on their behalf to get them out of prison. A long debate took place in the House of Commons in which the conduct of the noble Lord was severely attacked and criticised, and at the end of that debate the noble Lord went back to his room and a letter was written to Lady Cathcart which ought to have been the first letter in the printed correspondence. The noble Lord told us the other night that this letter was a private one—a mere note asking Lady Cathcart to receive Sir Reginald MacLeod. I ventured to take exception to that statement at the time, and I think when your Lordships have heard the letter you will be of opinion that it was a great deal more than a mere request to Lady Cathcart to see the Under-Secretary for Scotland. The letter runs thus:
"My DEAR LADY CATHCART,
A seven hours debate has just concluded on Vatersay. Mr. Sinclair definitely invited negotiations on the basis of arranging compensation to the tenant, and I think from private conversations as well, the Government are prepared to meet you some distance with a view to getting the settlement of Vatersay arranged on fair terms, with release, on your motion, of the prisoners. Could I see you? I would come down early Saturday. The matter is urgent. Please send me a wire to Dover House.
Yours very sincerely,
REGINALD MACLEOD."
I do not understand how the noble Lord could say that that was a simple request to Lady Cathcart to see Sir Reginald MacLeod. In the first place a long debate had just concluded, and Mr. Sinclair, as he was at that time, had agreed to pay compensation to the tenant, the very thing on which he had broken off the negotiations only a few months before. This letter indicated that, for whatever reason, a complete change had come over

1057
Mr. Sinclair, and the reason is stated in the letter—
"with release, on your motion, of the prisoners."
The noble Lord told us the other day that that letter, of which he did not keep a copy, was written in his own Private room, and therefore presumably it was read to him at the time. But at all events, if it were not, how could Sir Reginald MacLeod have become aware of this change in the mind of the noble Lord if it had not been told to him at the time? The correspondence continued, and on July 8 Lady Cathcart was asked to accept these raiders as her tenants, She was told—
"Your interests will In safeguarded in every practicable way."
Lady Cathcart declined. She said that she would only sell; that those were the only terms on which she would deal.
But on July 14 the Secretary for Scotland pressed his views on Lady Cathcart, and the result was that she consented to her agent coming to London and seeing the noble Lord. The agent came up on July 17, and two meetings took place on that day. The first was a meeting between the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, Mr. Ure, who was at that time Solicitor-General, and Lady Cathcart and her agent. The second was a meeting between Mr. Ure and Lady Cathcart and her agent. The result was that in return for promises which were made to her Lady Cathcart agreed to apply for the release of the prisoners. Lady Cathcart herself has a private note of what occurred, but there was no time to make a formal note, Mr. Garson, her agent, being compelled to return to Edinburgh that night because the following day was the last day on which application could be made to the Court, the Court being just about to adjourn for the recess. On July 20 Mr. Garson sent to the Scottish Office a summary of the agreement as he conceived it. In that letter he stated—
"It will be convenient that we should summarise the arrangement: come to at the meetings on the 17th instant as follows."
Then follow three paragraphs which I will not read, but paragraph 4 of this letter was as follows:—
"The Government, through the Congested Districts Board, will make good to Lady Cathcart any loss of rent that may be sustained by the
1058
change. The Government will also make good to Lady Cathcart any subsequent reductions of rent and will assume responsibility for the rents of any crofts that may be given up or abandoned, rents being valued at the same number of years purchase as in Kilbride."
And later, in the same letter, he says—
"The basis of the whole arrangement was that the whole pecuniary responsibility was to be borne by the Government."
That letter was answered on July 27. The reply began in this way—
"I am desired by Mr. Sinclair to refer to your letter of the 20th instant and to say that it will probably be a sufficient reply thereto if he states his understanding of the arrangements made;"
and then, with regard to paragraph 4, the letter proceeds—
"Mr. Sinclair agrees generally to this, but he is not prepared to agree to a proposal to lay down any rigid rule ab ante as to the manner in which compensation shall be assessed for loss of rent due to the occupation of the farm by small holders."
That is a mere matter of terms; but the Secretary for Scotland agreed generally to paragraph 4. Towards the end of the letter from the Scottish Office occur these words—
"A copy of a reply given by Mr. Sinclair to Sir John Dewar, M.P., in the House of Commons to-day is enclosed herewith."
What was that reply? It ran as follows
"The Government have made additional proposals on the lines generally of the procedure laid down in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, which safeguard the proprietor from possible loss. These proposals which have been accepted by Lady Cathcart provide for compensation to the tenant for surrender of his lease, and to the proprietor for loss directly attributable to the occupation of the farm by small holders."
Lady Cathcart had maintained that she thought it unlikely that rent would be paid by these small holders, and it seems to me, at all events, that a guarantee of her rent naturally included any loss directly attributable to the occupation of the farm by the small holders. But that was not all, because Mr. Garson, in order that there should be no mistake, wrote to the Under-Secretary for Scotland on July 30 as follows—
"Lady Cathcart desires us to say that her understanding of the arrangement come to at the meeting with Mr. Ure on the 17th instant was that the Government were to undertake the whole pecuniary responsibilities arising out of the

1059
scheme for settling Vatersay with small holders, and that this would cover any loss through non-payment of rent by the settlers. From the terms of your letter in which you accept the principle that compensation is to be assessed for loss of rent due to the occupation of the farm by small holders, and from Mr. Sinclair's reply to Sir John Dewar's question which bears that the proposals made to Lady Cathcart safeguard her from possible loss, and that these proposals provide for compensation to the proprietor for loss directly attributable to the occupation of the farm by small holders, Lady Cathcart is satisfied that her understanding of the effect of the arrangement is shared by the Government."
That letter remained unanswered for five weeks, and then it seems to have occurred to the noble Lord that he had said something definite, something which was hardly capable of being misunderstood; for at the end of five weeks the Under-Secretary wrote, with reference to this matter, that—
"In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding, Mr. Sinclair desires me to offer the following observations. . . . In your letter of July 30, you assume that the Government will undertake 'the whole pecuniary responsibilities arising out of the scheme, and that this would cover any loss through the non-payment of rent by the settlers' (i.e.,guarantee to the landlord the rents of the settlers), and you hold the Government to have agreed at this stage to be bound to the number of years purchase paid at Kilbride. It occurs to Mr. Sinclair that some misunderstanding may have arisen from the general language of his reply to Sir John Dewar's question in the House of Commons, and from the general character of the assent expressed in the Scottish Office letter of July 27. At the same time he wishes me to remind you he is at a loss to know how this can be the case, for the reason that what you propose upon these points, excepting as to the responsibilities to be undertaken by the Government, would change the whole basis of the scheme, the foundation of which is and has been throughout that Lady Cathcart is not to cease to be proprietor of her land; while the tenants are to be her tenants under the Crofters Act, and bound by the statutory conditions inserted in it for the protection of the landlord."
What in the world had any possible state of relations which might exist between Lady Cathcart and her tenants to do with an undertaking which had been given by the Secretary for Scotland? He had given undertakings not only in general language, but, as I say, on two or three ocasions it had been explained to him what the meaning of the arrangement was, and, as I have said. it took him five weeks to consider the matter and to discover at the end that he must write and question what had occurred.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that four days later Lady Cathcart's
1060
agent wrote a rather indignant letter. He said—
"Your letter, although the language is somewhat veiled, amounts to a proposal on the part of the Secretary for Scotland to repudiate arrangements definitely and specifically come to and obligations expressly agreed to on behalf of the Government on the faith of which Lady Cathcart applied to the Court for and obtained the liberation of the raiders under sentence for breach of interdict. Lady Cathcart has since the arrangements were come to acted throughout on the faith of these constituting a concluded agreement, and she is not prepared now to discuss the entirely different proposals made by you, to which if the matter had been still open for discussion, she never would have agreed."
The noble Lord had attained his object. He wished to obtain the liberation of the raiders.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)that my sole and single object throughout was to obtain the release of the raiders. I must ask him to substantiate that from the public Papers.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI can only refer the noble Lord to the first letter. I will read it again:—
"I think from private conversations as well, the Government are prepared to meet you some distance with a view to getting the settlement of Vatersay arranged on fair terms, with release, on your motion, of the prisoners."
LORD PENTLANDI regret having to interrupt the noble Earl, but I was obliged to call attention to the point because it distorts his whole view of the case. As regards what he has quoted, in the first place it was not an official letter; and, in the second place, its text does not bear the interpretation that a condition of compensation of the tenant was to be the release of these prisoners. Nor in the debate which took place on the day on the evening of which the letter was written was any mention made of the release of the prisoners as a condition of any further advance towards agreement on the part of the Government with Lady Cathcart.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI must leave this matter to the judgment of the House. Your Lordships have heard the letter, and I can add. nothing more. But this I can say, that when the noble Lord states that the letter was not an official letter but a private letter he is saying what

1061
is contrary to the fact—I do not use the term in any offensive sense. He seems to have forgotten that his own Under-Secretary wrote to Lady Cathcart and said that he proposed to make the correspondence official, and that Lady Cathcart replied to him that she had no objection provided he printed this letter.
LORD PENTLANDI do not in the least wish to disavow full responsibility for the letter—not in the least.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThen why say that the letter is not official?
LORD PENTLANDBecause that is the fact.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMay I point this out, that it is impossible to write a private letter on a public matter from a public office and signed by a public official. This letter was written, as the noble Lord admits, in his own room, and I have no doubt in his own presence.
LORD PENTLANDI can only give the noble Earl my assurance, which I had thought he would accept, that at no time, either in this letter or in any other letter, was the release of the prisoners made a condition of compensation to the tenant.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThen may I ask what was the reason for the great hurry and haste on July 17?
LORD PENTLANDIf the noble Earl wishes, I can give the full explanation in one sentence. Under the scheme of the Government the tenants of Vatersay were to be the tenants of Lady Cathcart as the proprietor. It was thought that it would greatly facilitate and mollify the relations between those tenants and the proprietor if, through Lady Cathcart's own agency and on her own initiative, for she was the only person who could apply to the Court to do so, the prisoners were released from serving the remainder of their sentence. The Courts would adjourn for the summer vacation on the following day, and it was in order to make way for this proceeding on the initiative of Lady Cathcart, of her own free will and in her own interests as proprietor, that the suggestion was made that she might, if she chose, take that step. Only she
1062
could take it, and it was, therefore, on the part of the Government only an act of goodwill to make it possible for her to take that step.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNDoes the noble Lord mean to tell us that the anxiety to release the prisoners arose with Lady Cathcart? The noble Lord pressed her to bring her agent up to see him with special reference to this question of the liberation of the prisoners. But I will leave that point. The noble Lord, when he received the indignant letter from Mr. Garson, said on September 17 that there was a misapprehension, and that he hoped it might be removed by an explanation, and he added that he had referred the matter to Sir Henry Cook. Now Sir Henry Cook is at the present time a sort of whipping boy of the Scottish Office. Whenever there is anything disagreeable it seems to me he is always called in to do it. Sir Henry Cook had had no part in these negotiations whatever. He was not present on July 17, and the instructions which he received fettered him and bound him to act solely according to the interpretation which was given of this agreement in Mr. Sinclair's letter of September 5. I would ask your Lordships to listen to the instructions, which are given in the correspondence though they do not form part of it—
"Mr. Sinclair desires that the terms of compensation in respect of loss of letting value, of surrender of the lease, and of the sheep stock, shall be submitted to him before they are finally agreed upon—
He does not leave it to Sir Henry Cook—
"I am to add for Sir Henry Cook's guidance that the limits of the responsibilities, financial and other, already undertaken by the Government, and of their policy as now defined, are not to be exceeded, and that if any situation arises in which it is difficult to carry out this instruction the matter should be referred to the Secretary for Scotland."
Acting on this, Sir Henry Cook, when he came to arrange a draft agreement with Mr. Garson, pointed out that he was limited to the terms of Mr. Sinclair's letter of September 5. Mr. Garson replied that Lady Cathcart entirely disputed the accuracy of that letter, and that she would only deal on the terms of her letters of July 20 and 30. The consequence was that they could come to no arrangement and separated, and Mr. Garson, after re-

1063
capitulating in another letter his statement of the whole case, said this at the end—
"Unless Mr. Sinclair is to carry out his part of the agreement made, Lady Cathcart must appeal to Parliament and to the public, and she may also find it necessary to appeal to the Court. In the meantime the tenant of the farm is being deprived of the use of his holding, the persons who were liberated from prison by Mr. Sinclair's request, or some of them, are back on Vatersay in breach of the interdicts,—
for the raiders, the moment they were released, went back to Vatersay and there they are now, raiders still—

"the scheme of settlement, which if it was to be entered upon at all ought to have been carried through at once, is in abeyance, and the position locally is rendered infinitely more difficult. For all these things Mr. Sinclair is responsible. and we must ask you to say finally whether he is to carry out his undertakings or not."
In answer to that letter Sir Henry Cook said—
"The Government cannot agree to the conditions which you now seek to import into the arrangements."
He said that both Mr. Sinclair and the Solicitor-General disagreed in their recollections with Mr. Garson; and he added—
"If you are not prepared to agree to what was proposed in my letter to you of the 13th instant, it is plainly impossible to continue negotiations on the lines of the arrangement. The Government can accept no responsibility for this unhappy result. At the same time they recognise their obligation, after what has taken place—
at last they begin to see that they have some responsibility in the matter—
"and in the interests of the people concerned, to secure a settlement if possible. If that object is to be attained the only alternative seems to be for the Congested District Board to—
to do what?—
"to purchase the farm of Vatersay at its fair market price."
This they had said over and over again to be absolutely impossible. But now they were prepared to purchase the farm of Vatersay at its fair market price. Sir Henry Cook concluded—
"I shall be glad to receive from you a formal offer containing the terms upon which Lady Cathcart is prepared to sell, so that I may submit it to the Secretary for Scotland for his consideration."
The noble Lord turned round again. Whether it was the threat of this action
1064
I do not know, but he now discovered for the first time that it was perfectly possible to purchase—the very thing he ought to have done at the first. I need not trouble your Lordships any further with the correspondence, and I do not think I need comment upon it. I must confess that in reading this correspondence it occurred to me, and I daresay it will occur to some of your Lordships, that from the style of the correspondence, from the position which is taken up by each of the two parties, from the arguments with which the position of each of the two parties is supported, I certainly should have said that the Minister of the Crown was the lady and that the lady was the Minister of the Crown. So much for the correspondence. I now leave it and come to the present state of the island.
Ever since these raiders seized the island it had begun to go back and it has gone from bad to worse. They have cultivated little patches here and there, and the wind has already blown over the pasture the sand stirred up by their cultivation. I will read to your Lordships an extract from an official letter showing what the agent of the tenant saw. He visited the island on October 28 last year in connection with the valuation of the stock for the tenant, and this is what he says in a letter addressed to Sir Henry Cook—
"In consequence of the serious position of matters one of the members of our firm, accompanied by practical men went to Vatersay last week and looked into matters on the spot. The state of matters which we found to exist is startling and surprising, and we do not think that any parallel exists even in the worst parts of Ireland. There are on the farm a large number of squatters. We did not ascertain the exact number, but there must be somewhere between 150 and 200 souls. The squatters have on the farm about 200 cattle and fifty horses and a number of native sheep. The grazing on the farm is just sufficient to maintain the ordinary stock of the farm, and is altogether inadequate to maintain the tenant's stock and the stock put on by the squatters. The farm consists partly of links and partly of hilly ground, with a few fields on which Mr. Macdonald has been in the habit of growing hay and potatoes. In the management of the farm the hilly ground is grazing in summer, and the grazing on the links and the green ground is reserved for winter keep for the stock. The squatters have kept their stock on the links during the summer, with the result that the grass is all eaten down, and when the writer was in Vatersay the links were as bare as a tennis lawn. There is no winter keep for the tenant's stock, or, for that matter, for the squatters' stock, and unless the tenant's sheep are at once removed to some place where they can get proper wintering a great many of them will die."

1065
This gentleman states that most of the squatters had put up trumpery and insanitary wooden shanties in front of Mr. Macdonald's house, and he proceeds—
"These shanties are erected without any regard to water supply or sanitation, and it seems to us that there is a great danger of an outbreak of an epidemic owing to the insanitary conditions. When the writer was in Vatersay the squatters were cutting and appropriating Mr. Macdonald's hay, and we noted that they had planted potatoes in one of the fields where he ought to have crop next season. They had boldly and openly siezed his land and his crop, and neither the Government nor the police have lifted a finger to protect him."
The writer continues—
"The squatters have turned their ill-bred weedy native sheep, including tups, among Mr. Macdonald's well-bred black-laced stock, and unless the tups are at once removed the quality of the stock will be ruined. Mr. Macdonald is powerless to protect himself; indeed, he would incur serious personal risk if he were to meddle with the squatters' stock. It is essential that the links, which consist of sandy soil, should be carefully looked after, and that every opening that appears should be closed up as otherwise the sand gets blown very quickly and the pasture would soon be destroyed. We noticed while going over the land that the surface had been broken in many parts by the squatters' cattle and horses, and that sand-drifting had begun. If that is not dealt with at once the injury to the pasture will soon be very serious."
That was the state of things at the end on October. What has happened since? If the first place with regard to the stock, that has been taken over by the noble Lord. For the first time I think in his life, at least so far as I know, he will have some practical acquaintance with land.
Let me tell the noble Lord what has occurred. He took those sheep over as from May 15, 1908. As I read to your Lordships just now, during the summer of 1908 the whole pasture was eaten up. Therefore for the winter grazing there was nothing—not a blade of grass for the squatters' stock, and not a blade of grass for the noble Lord's sheep; and there is not a blade of grass now. What has been the consequence? The sheep have died in large numbers, and when the noble Lord sent to take them over and to have them valued, many of them were so weak that they had to be carried, and, moreover, many of them were either dying or dead. There are, I may say, in addition to other not very valuable stock in the island, some fifty dogs belonging to the squatters. These dogs are unfed, and they occupy themselves eating up the dead sheep, and
1066
I am not quite certain that they will have much more respect for the noble Lord's sheep than their masters have for him. Fifteen hundred sheep were taken over, and I learn from the ex-tenant that no fewer than eighty of these sheep have died since March 1 this year on one side of the island. The noble Lord says he is going to sell them next November. I think he will find that his pockets will not be very full when be returns home. I regret to say that this is one of those good bargains which are made for the taxpayer. We all know that the noble Lord intended that it should be Lady Cathcart or the ex-tenant; but I am thankful to say that the Scottish Office have at last been obliged to discharge their obligations, with which I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be pleased.
Now a word with regard to the settlement of Vatersay. The noble Lord acquired this island at the end of the year, and I think the money was paid on February 1. What has been done with regard to the settlement of the island? It is known that this was urgent. For two years these raiders had been on the place, and the noble Lord on several occasions pointed out that the matter was very urgent. What did the noble Lord do? He did nothing until April 5, and on that day the Congested Districts Board issued a Circular in which they said that, having purchased the farm at Vatersay, they proposed to form about fifty-eight or sixty holdings, but that as the sheep were on the ground and could not be disposed of until October—I am not quite so certain about that—possession of the new holdings could not be given until Martinmas next, but in the meantime applications for the new holdings were invited. It was added—
"The Congested Districts Board desire to make it clear that none of the squatters presently on the farm are to he held as having thereby acquired a preferable claim to holdings."
What do you suppose occurred next? The squatters on the island had something to say here. They immediately replied to the noble Lord through their solicitor, the same man who defended them in Edinburgh, who wrote—
"I am instructed also to direct your attention to the terms of the enclosed circular, dated seventh instant, copies of which, my clients inform me, have been distributed by the Congested Districts Board throughout Castlebay and other parts of the mainland of Barra, inviting applications from land-

1067
less cottars for the fifty-eight or sixty holdings into which the Board propose to divide the island. The circular sets forth that 'the Congested Districts Board desire to make it clear that none of the squatters presently on the farm are to be held as having thereby acquired a preferable claim to holdings.' My clients inform me that there are some hundreds of people on the mainland of Barra and its neighbourhood who will probably make application in response to this invitation. As my clients have been in possession of a number of these holdings for the past two years or more, and have built their homes upon them, they do not consider that after the sufferings they have undergone they ought to be called upon to take their chance of allotment with such an overwhelming number of newcomers. The holdings they are in possession of are none too large for their requirements, and they instruct me to say that, so far as these are concerned, it is needless for the Board to invite applications from outsiders unless it is proposed to remove some or all of the present occupants, and to repeat the painful judicial proceedings which have already entailed so much hardship upon them. They are willing, as they have all along been, to pay a fair rent for the land possessed—
Not one farthing, by the way, have they paid—
"In these circumstances, they instruct me to say that they must not be held responsible for any breach of the law which may result from an attempt by the Board to place newcomers upon these holdings."
So that the squatters have thrown down the gauntlet to the noble Lord. The noble Lord has become the owner. Now we shall see what he will do. I wonder whether he will content himself with another application to the Court and the reimprisonment of the raiders; and, if the raiders are imprisoned, will he help them out? We must wait and see what happens.
What I said to your Lordships just now is all the more amusing when you contrast it with the noble Lord's prophecies. The noble Lord has all along looked on these raiders as a set of most innocent men, and he was never tired of telling Lady Cathcart that if she would only divide up the land among them, those for whom there was not room would go peacefully away. Let me read an extract from his letter of July 27—
"The Secretary of Scotland would again express his belief that when the farm is divided up so far as possible into small holdings, those who have illegally occupied the lands of the farm will not persist in their illegal action."
After what I have read your Lordships will see what the noble Lord's prophecies, in this respect at all events, are worth.
1068
I do not think I need trouble your Lordships further.
These events which have happened in the Island of Vatersay have a consequence and an importance far greater than could attach to the island itself. They are only a single instance which shows what may result from the policy of the Government, who are either unable or unwilling to enforce the law. Evil communications spread apace, and they spread far. Since I spoke to your Lordships some weeks ago the farm of Dalbeg has been. raided in the Lews, and also the farm of Milton which I mentioned to the noble Lord, and which at that time I think he thought was not raided. On the last-named farm a public meeting was held and a resolution passed declaring that at the expiry of the lease of the farm next year, they would not allow it to be let again, but would divide it among themselves. There are several noble Lords present who know these islands better than I do. One of them, Lord Lovat, told me yesterday that he had been informed that the contagion had spread to the mainland. I venture to hope that, the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland will summon up a little courage. I hope he will take some steps to enforce the law, because if he continues his present hopeless and helpless policy of merely endeavouring to persuade landowners to give out uneconomic £3 holdings to persons who cannot possibly get a living out of them, he will bring upon Scotland very great evils, and much greater evils than he can at present imagine.
THE EARL OF DUNMOREMy Lords, there is one point I should like to emphasise which Lord Camperdown has touched upon—namely, the unfortunate position now resulting from the action or rather the inaction of the Government in regard to this matter. Last year the noble Lord expressed his firm conviction that as soon as it came to dividing up the land these people who had illegally occupied it would no doubt be willing to quit—an optimistic view of the situation which I am afraid is not going to be realised. But there is something, I think, to be said from the point of view of the people who are occupying this land. Some noble Lords will no doubt remember the injudicious remarks made by the Lord Advocate in the House of Commons in 1907 on this subject—remarks which I have every reason to

1069
believe were widely circulated amongst these people. I am afraid also that the policy adopted by the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has helped to confirm these people in their belief that the Government sympathised in their illegal action. If the Government had acted with firmness and enforced law and order in the first instance, I think they would have been in a better position to deal with any grievances which may exist among these people. I do not know why it is so difficult to maintain law and order in this country. We see the Secretary of State for India introducing his reforms in that country and at the same time not afraid to deal with a firm hand with, and, if necessary, to frame new laws to put down, anarchy and crime. I would recommend this statesmanlike policy to the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, and I think it might with some advantage be adopted in Scotland and perhaps in Ireland also. As it is, I am afraid the noble Lord is now reduced to the unfortunate choice of either punishing the offenders, who I think have some cause to think they have been encouraged to commit the offence, or of establishing a precedent for the future policy of these islands in which raiding farms would become the favourite occupation of the cottar population.
LORD REDESDALEMy Lords, I should like to call attention to one remark which fell from the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland. He alluded to a letter written by Sir Reginald MacLeod, and stated that it was a private letter. I submit that there can be no private letter passing between an Under-Secretary and a member of the general public upon the business of his Office. Letters are occasionally marked "Private," but, as I understand it, having had a tolerably long experience—something like half-a century's—of public official life in this country, the marking of letters with the word " Private" simply means that they are not to be published. It does not mean that they are at all private in the sense that we use the word when we talk of letters between two private individuals. If the Under-Secretary for Scotland were a private individual, no such letter could have been written at all. It is written because he is a public official, the official representative of the Secretary for Scotland. There can be no controversy in the matter, and this is the first time I have ever known
1070
a Minister get up in Parliament and screen himself behind the word private and say that he is not responsible because a letter written by his subordinate was so marked. Moreover, Sir Reginald MacLeod when he addressed Lady Cathcart addressed her distinctly upon the business aspect of the transaction, and dated his letter from his office. Indeed, we are told by my noble friend Lord Camperdown that the letter was written in the noble Lord's own room, presumably in his presence, and presumably, also, having been seen by him. Sir Reginald MacLeod wrote to Lady Cathcart saying—

"I propose, with your permission, to treat your letter of June 30—
the letter in answer to this letter of June 25—

"and this reply, though unofficial in form, as forming part of the correspondence available for official reference."
It was, therefore, in the highest sense of the word official. Again, Lady Cathcart, in her letter of July 7, says—

"You say that you propose to treat my letter of June 30 and yours of July 4, though unofficial in form, as forming part of the correspondence available for official reference, and I presume you intend your note of June 25 also to be included."
The thing is as distinct as it can be. The whole correspondence was official, and it is perfectly idle and futile for any Minister of State to screen himself behind the mere fact that one letter in a correspondence of that kind was marked private. It is not for me to interpose in the general subject of this debate—I am not a Scotsman—but I do venture to protest most strongly against an innovation which is dangerous to the public service and certainly not for the good of the kingdom at large.
LORD PENTLANDMy Lords, in regard to the remarks which have just fallen from Lord Redesdale, I do not think he was present the other day when we discussed this matter, and when Lord Camperdown drew attention to this correspondence. I do not think the noble Lord can fairly charge me with wishing to screen myself and my responsibility behind this particular letter. I can assure him that was not the case. It has never been my desire to screen myself or to reserve the publication of this letter. What I wished to make clear to the House and to the noble

1071
Earl by my interruption was that the inference which the noble Earl drew from the letter was an erroneous inference, and to that statement I adhere. I entirely agree with the noble Lord as to what he says regarding the undesirability—
LORD REDESDALEThe noble Lord did not agree just now.
LORD PENTLANDOn the contrary, this letter would have been published had it been in my possession and could I have found it. I would have kept the undertaking to include it in the Correspondence ; but, as I explained to the House the other day, I could not find the letter. It was not in my possession, and it was not, therefore, in my power to publish it. This question of Vatersay has been laid before your Lordships by Lord Camperdown in full detail. In one part of his speech his sympathies seemed to be with the late proprietor of the island, and in the other part his sympathies seemed to be with the Government. But I should like to be allowed to say that this discussion, which I have not invited and which takes place at the instance of the noble Earl, comes at a time when the Government are engaged in a carrying out matters of very great difficulty and delicacy in regard to the settlement of this island, and I should greatly have preferred if the noble Lord could have restrained himself from raising this question at all, because, after all, it is in the interests of the whole country that this matter should be carried through having proceeded so far; and I cannot help believing that a debate in this House, however guarded and reserved the language which may be used, will greatly increase the difficulties of administration in that island.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I may observe that the noble Lord did not ask me to defer the matter, and the Notice had been on the Paper a long time.
LORD PENTLANDThat is true, but I think I suggested, in reply to a question to me by the noble Earl for Papers on this subject, that I thought no Papers ought to be published with regard to the settling of the people on this island until the settling was complete. This debate takes place on the published Papers. Looking at that part of the transaction, it is very easy, of course, to make fun of this business. It is very easy to ignore the misery and
1072
wretchedness of the whole transaction, and the sufferings of the people concerned. It is very easy to show that what the noble Earl is pleased to call my prophecies, though I do not know where he finds them, have not come true.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThey are in the Correspondence.
LORD PENTLANDI doubt if the noble Earl can show any prophecies there which have yet been falsified by events. It is very easy also to point out the difficulties of the Government. They are very real difficulties, and they are difficulties not of the Government's own creation in large part. In the first place, the Government are charged with not enforcing the law. I ask, what law? What law have the Government not enforced? The noble Earl at the beginning of his remarks said that I had once stated—I do not know when or where—that when land is seized it is no part of the duty of the Government to do anything to protect the proprietor. I do not know that I ever used that language. What I said was this, that in the case of trespass the only remedy at law, in Scotland at any rate, is the purely civil preventative process of interdict.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNCan the police do nothing?
LORD PENTLANDThe police have nothing to do in the first stages of civil proceedings.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNCould not the sheriff have instructed the police to act?
LORD PENTLANDPerhaps the noble Earl will allow me to explain. I am not a lawyer, and, therefore, must explain the matter in the best way I can. The only remedy at law in Scotland for trespass is, as I say, the civil process of applying to the Courts for interdict. The whole mischief of this controversy began by an attempt on the part of Lady Cathcart's agents to insist upon the Government applying the criminal procedure of the Trespass Act. That Act was devised for a purely different purpose, and for that reason the Government could not comply with the request of Lady Cathcart to put in force that special mode of pro-

1073
cedure. Lady Cathcart was informed of that within three weeks of her application for information on the subject, and knowing the view of the Government, she allowed nine months to elapse, during which time more cattle were ferried over to the island, more people went there, houses were built, and potato patches planted. The Government had no authority and no power to intervene; and the proprietor chose to ignore her responsibilities and her obligations to her tenants and to leave the island to the mercy of these raiders. Those are the facts—they can be verified from the Papers—and that was the beginning of the whole mischief. It was in accordance with the consistent policy of Lady Cathcart—a policy founded, I have no doubt with the best of intentions, on the theory that the people of Barra should prosecute the fishing industry for their livelihood and not cultivate the land. It was her policy not to give land for crofters—
LORD SALTOUNDoes the noble Lord blame Lady Cathcart for not having put these people in prison at once? Her hesitation to enforce the law was due to her kindness of heart.
LORD PENTLANDI am endeavouring to give the narrative of events.
LORD LOVATI think I heard the noble Lord say that Lady Cathcart had not divided up land for small tenants. May I ask how many thousands of acres she divided up in Barra?
LORD PENTLANDLady Cathcart had divided up something like 4,400 acres, and she divided up that land for the purpose of establishing Barra and Castlebay as a fishing centre. It was an elaborate scheme. Lady Cathcart's view. expressed over and over again, is that it is hopeless for the people of Barra to look to the land for their livelihood, and that it is to the fishing industry that they must look. Guided very largely by her experience on the shores of the Moray Firth, where fishermen have a simple house and garden and where they had given up plots of land they had previously cultivated, Lady Cathcart endeavoured to apply that system to Barra when she succeeded to the estates. I make no question of her motives and her desire to benefit the people, but with those East-coast ideas she endeavoured to establish
1074
Barra as a fishing centre. She improved the pier; there is an excellent natural harbour, and excellent herring fishing there; and with fishing near she thought this the place where a large fishing industry could be established. The fishermen were to live at Castlebay, and the farmers around were to supply them with milky vegetables, etc. In pursuance of this policy a large acreage of land was divided up, some in small lots, and some in considerable farms which were let on lease; but, as Lady Cathcart herself says in her printed publications, the scheme failed because the circumstances of the Barra fishermen were different from those of the fishermen of the East coast. These men still sought to get their livelihood from the land. Lady Cathcart believes they acted wrongly in their own interests. But that was what happened, and since then, as she says herself, applications have been repeatedly sent to her for land, and she has, as she believes in the interests of the people themselves, refused them; and amongst other applications which were sent to her so far back as 1883 was an application for the land of this very Island of Vatersay. I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships with that. In fact, I had not intended to weary your Lordships with these details until I was challenged upon the point, but I shall be glad to place at at the disposal of the noble Earl the whole of the correspondence which I have here, and the whole of the facts on which I founded the statement that I have just made to your Lordships.
The difficulty in regard to Vatersay grew as the months went on. No action was taken by the proprietor to stop it, and the Government had no authority to act. In September of 1907 I laid before the proprietor the suggestion that in this case, as in other cases throughout the islands, it was for her to consider the breaking up of the farm of Vatersay into crofter tenancies, and that if she so acted the financial assistance of the Congested Districts Board would be at her disposal as it had been at the disposal of other proprietors in Scotland for a similar purpose. Then came a long correspondence, which was published in the first Paper laid before Parliament and which the noble Earl has criticised, and which, unless your Lordships express a desire for me to enter into it, I propose to pass by. It has already been discussed in

1075
both Houses of Parliament, and I am perfectly ready to answer any question or challenge in regard to it. That correspondence terminated, I think, last summer.
Then came the second chapter of the controversy, which opens with the semiprivate letter to which attention has been drawn this evening; and the whole of that correspondence is published in the second White Paper which has been laid before Parliament. I do not propose to enter into any detailed defence of that correspondence. It is there for those interested to read, and I do not know that I can add anything to your Lordships' information in regard to it. I had thought that negotiations had been successfully brought to a point when Lady Cathcart would have consented to remain proprietor of the island. Highland people have great loyalty to their lairds. The difficulties of the Government in becoming a landlord are very great; the cost to the taxpayer is greatly in excess, I think, of the advantage gained; and, therefore, on all these grounds I had hoped to induce the proprietor to make this land available for occupation by crofter tenants. That was the policy of the Government from beginning to end. There could have been no mistake about it, that the Government intended that their assistance should be given to a scheme and only to a scheme for placing tenants on that island under the crofter tenure.
Lady Cathcart took another view. First of all we very nearly came to a point of agreement. Interviews took place, as are recounted in the Papers. Unfortunately, a precise note of what took place at those interviews was not made at the time. It was a grave omission. I regret, perhaps more than anybody else, that no note was made and no agreement definitely come to on those occasions; but it was not come to. There were reasons, as the noble Earl has mentioned for haste, but, whatever the reasons were, there was no formal note of the agreement come to. When a difference of opinion was disclosed, Lady Cathcart's agents did not hesitate to charge myself and those who acted with me and advised me in the matter with a breach of faith. I preferred to regard the whole matter as a misunderstanding, and there I leave it to your Lordships to judge.
The position of the Government has been practically consistent throughout.
1076
The position of the proprietor has been perfectly clear throughout. But when matters came to a deadlock in this way I was obliged to consider, not only the position of the Government, but the position of the Island of Vatersay. The population there had increased to something like 150 people, stock had been sent over by various people, and the island was eaten bare. The hands of the Government were forced by these circumstances, and I caused the letter to be written which proposed to Lady Cathcart that the island should be purchased by the Government, as only in that way did I see any possible means of endeavouring to put this wretched business in order. That is the whole story, and I can only say to your Lordships that I have nothing to aid to it. I have nothing to withdraw, and have nothing to apologise for. I do not wish in any way to do more than defend the position I have taken up, because it has been attacked.
It is a very difficult business, this. The present Secretary for Scotland is not in an absolutely novel position in having been obliged to buy land in the parish of Barra, in which Vatersay lies. Eight years ago Lord Balfour of Burleigh was obliged, by the multiplication of population on the island, to do an exactly similar thing—to buy from Lady Cathcart land, for which the Government then paid £7,500, in order to place upon it the surplus population of cottars on that island. The Government have, in purchasing the Island of Vatersay, endeavoured to meet the difficulty which has presented itself by precisely the method used by their predecessors. The difficulty is not yet over. Those of your Lordships who know the circumstances of the islands, and those of you especially who know the circumstances of these outer islands, will know that they present conditions of peculiar difficulty. This parish of Barra alone among the parishes of the outer islands, if we disregard Lewis, shows an increase of population in recent years, and we are still faced with the difficulty which is presented by the fact that these people are increasing faster than the means of subsistence.
Even now, after purchasing the island of Vatersay, the Government have received applications for more land to satisfy the demand of the cottars and crofters who are at present without land in the parish of Barra. If all the available land of the

1077
estate were applied to these purposes, there would not be enough land to go round. There would be still a considerable number of these men and their families for whom there would be no land. The Government have no land of their own for this purpose, and the present proprietors are not willing to devote any more lard to it. Therefore the difficulty, which, is I have said, is a growing one, is extremely serious. Barra is an exceptional place. There is rich herring fishing near it and considerable revenue is brought to the island by that herring fishing, but it is quite impossible for this island to bear any greater increase of population and the Government have declined to make any more land available or to take any steps to make more land available for the purpose of settling the remaining cottars who are without land in that island. The Barra people are a pleasant Highland people, and they do as well as other Highland people when they go afield and abroad to seek a livelihood and a career; but they must realise that the capacity of the island for maintaining a population is at present taxed to its utmost. Herring fishing is a productive industry, but the herring is a capricious fish, and to base the prosperity of a large population on herring fishing is attended by very serious risks. The capacity of the island is, as I say, taxed to its utmost, and therefore it is not possible to make more land available for this purpose.
On the other hand, I must again remind the House that the Government cannot accept the view that it is their duty to step in, in advance of the action of proprietors themselves, to protect them from what have been described as these raids. I have already mentioned that the true remedy is the civil remedy of interdict, and it is not until a breach of interdict has taken place and a complaint of that breach has been lodged and until there is actual violence or disorder or the officer serving the interdict has been deforced—it is not until then that the Government have the authority of interfering actively in the matter. That, as I am advised, is the law, and that is the law as the Government intend to interpret it. I do not know whether I can add more to what I have said.
The Government are doing their best to mitigate the difficulties of the people on these islands by administrative means—in
1078
the first case by increasing the facilities for education and training, so that the people may have equal opportunities with those elsewhere of seeking and pursuing a successful career in other parts of the country and of the British Empire. They are doing their best, by administrative means, to improve the farm stock of the people, to develop the fisheries, and to cultivate the resources of the country so that the earnings of the people may increase and their obligations may be discharged; and I would remind your Lordships that the Government have by other means, by introducing legislation which your Lordships have vetoed, endeavoured to obtain powers the exercise of which, when advisable and under approved circumstances, would greatly have mitigated the difficulties of the situation. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence in hearing me on this matter, and if I have omitted to give information on any points in which your Lordships take an interest I shall be glad to endeavour to supply that omission.
LORD LOVATMy Lords, I should like to take advantage of the noble Lord's concluding sentence by asking him if he is absolutely certain on the point that Lady Cathcart was against the principle of breaking up land for small holdings. It is definitely stated in the letter of July 20 to the Scottish Office that Lady Cathcart broke up 4,500 acres in Barra in the year 1883 and settled 115 families of cottars and fishermen upon it. A person who does that voluntarily can hardly be said to be opposed to the policy of small holdings. Furthermore, although opposed to the policy, this lady had sold to the Government a further 3,000 acres which were also divided. I hardly think that a proprietrix who gives up 7,500 acres in a few years to be divided among small holders is a person who has fixed East-coast ideas which she wishes to apply to the West.
This policy of misrepresentation against Lady Cathcart, both in this House and in another place, has been most marked. When the Vatersay question first came up Lady Cathcart was described by Lord Shaw, who I am sorry is not in his place to-night, as a lady who was most unfortunate in her dealings with her tenants. Of all proprietors, that could with the least justice be said of Lady Cathcart. She has constructed piers, built houses. and divided

1079
land for her tenants and has lost money over every single one of these undertakings; and now to be held up by His Majesty's Government as opposed to small holdings is nothing less than scandalous. The noble Lord stated that Lady Cathcart would not give the land of Vatersay. She was perfectly prepared to do so provided that compensation was paid. She was certainly opposed to giving the land of Vatersay for division. Why? Because it was reported that the land was not sufficiently watered; and in the report of the medical officer for the County of Inverness for last month is a further statement to that effect.
In these circumstances I do not see how it can be said that a lady who has divided three-quarters of the whole of her farm land in Barra amongst the crofters has not played her part in wishing to meet the undoubted overcrowding. As to the astounding claim which the noble Lord now brings forward of consistency of action on the part of the Government, I must say I can trace no consistency whatever. In the correspondence they first declined to give compensation, and then they give compensation. They first declined to buy the farm, and then they buy it. Personally, I cannot trace consistency in one single act of the Scottish Office in this matter.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland endeavoured to explain the course of action to be taken by a proprietor in the event of land being raided. I do not know whether the noble Lord remembers that about the year 1890 a raid took place in the Lews, and on that occasion the sheriff was applied to and a strong force of police sent over, with the result that order was quickly restored in that island. I note the noble Lord's statement that that is not the way in which the law is interpreted by His Majesty's present Government. There is not much more to be said in this discussion, but we can hardly close it without your Lordships joining with me in congratulating the Secretary for Scotland on the glorious state of chaos to which he has reduced the island of Vatersay. I have the honour to know Lady Cathcart well, and can testify to the fact that she is one of the kindest and most generous of landlords. I do not believe there is one landlord in Scotland, or, indeed, in the whole of the United Kingdom, more beloved than she is by tenants or who has
1080
done more for them. The accusations against Lady Cathcart contained in this correspondence are absolutely uncalled for and in discordance with the real facts. The whole of the details of the case regarding Vatersay have been amply and fully explained by my noble friend Lord Camperdown, and it would be superfluous for me to enter into them. The whole policy of the Secretary for Scotland from the commencement of the matter was that he would not purchase the island. I am glad to say that that policy has been defeated, and that the island has been purchased. I wish the noble Lord joy of it, and I think it is a matter for congratulation to Lady Cathcart that she is now free of the island. It is now the work of the Government to do what they can with it, and to see if they can make it a success. I cannot resume my seat without saying that I, and, I believe, many noble Lords, condemn most emphatically the whole policy and correspondence of the Secretary for Scotland in this connection during the last two years. What has occurred is absolutely, entirely, and solely due to him and to his policy.

THE OVERFACING OF HORSES.
LORD RIBBLESDALEhad a Notice on the Paper, "to call attention to the overtaxing of contractors' horses in the streets of London." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as there is a great deal of important business before the House this evening I will get through what I have to say as quickly as possible. I do not altogether like the wording of the Notice as it appears on the Paper. The word "overtaxing" just now has a rather sinister sound. The word I had suggested was "overfacing," which I thought was fairly well understood, but I was informed at the Table that if I used that word hardly anybody in your Lordships' House would understand what I meant. I therefore altered it to overtaxing.
I was led to put this Notice on the Paper by what has been going on now for some time on the site of the old War Office, which building is being removed for the new premises of the Automobile Club. The site belonged to the Woods and Forests Department, and the old buildings were sold, I believe, to Mr. Trollope, who I suppose is the builder for the Automobile Club, and Mr. Trollope let the sub-contract

1081
for carrying away the materials to Mr. Henry Boyer. That introduces your Lordships to the locality where I say this is going on, for although the Notice is drawn rather broadly, I do not in any way wish to enter upon a sort of roving commission against all the contractors of London. On June 3 last year, just outside Brooks's Club, two or three of Mr. Boyer's carts got into very considerable confusion. One horse was down through not being equal to its load; it was a game horse and did its best, but it fell. There were one or two other carts following, drawn by over-faced horses.
There were a good many people in the club at the time, and. we were all much displeased and disquieted about it. I myself spoke to the carter in charge of the horse which seemed least able to get up the hill—not the horse that was down, but an overfaced horse which was quite unable to pull the load up the steep hill. I have been watching Mr. Boyer's operations ever since that time, and have spoken to several of his carters; and I should here like to pay a high tribute to those carters. I never met a carter in charge of one of Mr. Boyer's carts who was not anxious to do his best for his horse, and I never saw one of those men strike a horse. One carter said that if they only had trace horses they could get up the hill, but as it was they had to depend. on people putting their shoulders to the wheel and helping them. I believe that is not altogether due to the affectionate regard and respect which everybody feels for the splendid strength and docility of the English cart horse. It may have something to do with that, but I think it is mainly due to the increased consideration and improved attitude in all these matters which have come about during the last twenty years. I have noticed it in connection with hansom cabs. The hansom cab horse is not so good an animal now as he used to be, and the living of the cabdriver is net so easy to get, but the whips which the drivers use are much shorter, less pliant, and much less active than they used to be. Indeed, I can say for all the drivers in London that they now realise what a horse can do and what it cannot do.
On the occasion to which I have referred three or four of us in the club were very much upset. I myself went round at once
1082
to the offices of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, where I was most kindly received. One of their officers, a very capable man he seemed, came round to the club, and I was able to show him three or four of these carts anchored in more or less unbecoming positions in St. James's Street and the streets leading out of St. James's Street. The society took the matter up. They at once wrote to Mr. Boyer, and I have seen the correspondence that passed. It does credit to all parties. Mr. Boyer accepted all the chastenings he received at the hands of the society in a very kindly spirit, and promised amendment. He also promised that trace horses would be supplied. Things certainly got a good;deal better, but I kept my eye more or less on what was going on, and I saw that horses occasionally found a difficulty with their loads. But you will see that anywhere. The class of horse which Mr. Boyer employed for this work improved very much. Previously the horses were poor, overfaced animals, but now good carthorses are used.
But on Saturday, the 8th instant, which happened to be a hot day, we again had two or three carts stuck just outside Brooks's. I at once went to the site where these operations were going on to try and find whether trace horses were there to help the cart horses up the hill. I found thirty or forty carts, with excellent high-class cart horses attached, being loaded, but Mr. Boyer had not a single man there to regulate the loading of the carts, although the horses were of a different weight and different power. I saw Mr. Trollope's foreman, who seemed to me a very good type of Englishman of this class. He told me he had nothing to do with the carts but that they were all loaded on the contractor's rule, which amounted to a load of something between 24 cwt. and 30 cwt. I inquired if that was an inexorable rule whether the load was to be drawn along Pall Mall or the Strand or whether it had to go up St. James's Street or Notting Hill. I asked if an old horse was put to the same work as a five-year-old or six-year-old horse, which could pull two or three tons. The foreman replied that the rule was an inexorable one, and that all the horses had to pull this load. I inquired where the trace horses were, and he said he would telephone to Trollope's and inquire. It turned out that no trace

1083
horses were being allowed on that day—a Saturday—until 2.30.
Then I went again to my old friend the society. I got to the society's office at 12 o'clock, but found only a clerk and a messenger there. I was informed that all the officers and everybody connected with the society were away at the Crystal Palace. I was under the impression that some atrocity against the animal world was being organised at the Crystal Palace and that consequently all the officers had gone there to see what they could do about it. But it turned out that this Saturday was a particular day in the history of the society of which we are all proud, and the officials had gone to the Crystal Palace to a gathering I believe of a semi-convivial character. I then had to consider what should be done next. I thought that if I could make the Government responsible I should very much like to do it, and I had a sort of idea that it was possible that part of the contract with Mr. Trollope was that the Government should remove some of the materials. So I rushed off to the War Office to see Lord Lucas, as I thought it might have something to do with him. I also went to the Department of Woods and Forests. But it turned out that the whole of the responsibility came back to Mr. Boyer.
As the Government cannot be harassed upon this it may be asked what is the use of bringing this sort of question before the House of Lords, when, as a matter of fact there is no one to give a reply. That is a perfectly fair and businesslike view to take, but it is not the view I take myself. I think this is just the kind of case where we can occasionally do a little good by appealing to public opinion. I desire to be fair to everybody. In what I am urging I do not contend that there is any actual cruelty. The carters avoid that. The carts do ultimately get up the hill even if over-loaded, but that is due, I am afraid, not to the provision made by the contractor, but to the good-natured people who render assistance. It seems to me that this particular contractor, at all events, and I daresay a good many more, in their resolution to get the maximum of work out of the minimum of horseflesh, are not so amenable to those general considerations of clemency and fair treatment to which I alluded just now, and which, as I say, agreeably distinguish the present
1084
day from, say, twenty years ago. I think that in all these cases trace horses should be provided as in Paris, where they are not supposed to be quite so particular about horses as we are; and if anything of that sort is done as the result of what I have said in your Lordships' House this afternoon I shall be very pleased.
LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, although there has been no censure on the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, yet I think, as a member of the executive body of that society, I ought to give a few words of explanation. The noble Lord complained to the society regarding the horses of Mr. Boyer being overfaced, and from that day the officers of the society have been carefully watching the loading on the site of the old War Office; and the veterinary officer has also been there and looked at the horses. We all know that there is no better judge of horses than Lord Ribblesdale, and therefore we felt quite sure that when the noble Lord told us that the horses he saw were unequal to their work he was stating what was the fact. Our officers have been down there regularly ever since, and they state that they cannot substantiate any case of cruelty. Therefore the assumption is that the action of the noble Lord in making this complaint has been completely successful, and that all the horses that were unable to do their work have been eliminated.
With regard to the horse that fell in front of Brooks's Club, I suppose, as is often the case, there was a check in the traffic at the time, and a horse that is obliged to stand still with a heavy load often, on making a fresh start, falls. I am assured that the loads have lately not been more than twenty-four hundredweight, which is not too much for an, ordinary contractor's horse to manage. At the same time I should like to say that the society are only too glad when people in the position of Lord Ribblesdale come forward with these complaints and so help the society. As to all the officers being away on the particular Saturday and also to what Lord Ribblesdale said about the conviviality on that occasion, I may say that this is the hardest day's work the men have in the year. A prize is given to every school in and near London for the best essay on kindness to animals, and the result on this Saturday

1085
was that 1,620 schools competed; that number of prizes were awarded and also a similar number of certificates were given to other children. These 3,000 odd children had to be marshalled in the Crystal Palace, and, in addition, over 20,000 adults and children were there to witness the scene. Unless the very greatest care was taken on these occasions there might be a catastrophe, and although we withdrew all our men on that day we had not sufficient and had to fall back on the police pensioners for assistance. I hope this thoroughly explains the absence of any inspectors at the society's offices on the occasion to which the noble Lord inferred.
LORD RIBBLESDALEI should like to explain that by the word convivial I meant that it was a pleasant gathering. With regard to this matter, I hope the society will insist that trace horses are provided. Mr. Boyer promises that, if full loads were put on, trace horses should be used to pull the carts up St. James's Street. What I complain of is that the trace horses are not there.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP)My Lords, I only rise to say that the Home Office will, of course, note the noble Lord's complaint and will take steps to see that contractors' horses are watched. I am sure the noble Lord realises that action can only be taken if definite cruelty is caused, and he himself has admitted that even in his opinion there was no real cruelty. I am sure we all feel glad that the horses of London have a friend so ready to take trouble on their behalf as the noble Lord, and we wish him success in his efforts.

MEAT MARKING BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, a Bill on this subject was introduced by Lord Lamington in your Lordships' House in 1888. Another Bill was brought in in the House of Commons in 1890, and in 1893 there were no fewer than three Bills introduced one by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. The last-mentioned Bill led to the appointment of a Committee of your Lordships' House,
1086
who recommended that every person dealing in imported meat should be com- pelled to register as such and have a notice plainly exhibited over his shop that he was registered as a dealer in imported meat. Most of the Bills dealt with the question of placing labels upon foreign meat, licensing the places where it was sold and insisting upon a notice being placed over a shop where it was for sale. In 1894 and 1895 there were two further Bills.
I may say that these various measures were not confined to one side of the House, but were brought forward by a variety of Members representing every shade of political opinion. In 1896 there were other Bills, and in 1897 the House of Commons appointed a Committee to inquire into the subject. The last Bill that I can find was introduced in the House of Commons in 1903. These measures were all more or less of the same nature. They contained the simple principle of this Bill, and in asking your Lordships to give my Bill a Second Reading I ask you in no way to commit yourselves beyond the principle that it is fair that the buyer should have an opportunity of knowing what he is buying. In the Reports of both of the Committees to which I have referred there is ample evidence to show that it is almost impossible for anyone except an expert to say whether the meat displayed in butchers' shops is foreign or home grown. At the same time it is admitted that there is no difficulty at all on the part of the wholesale dealer in ascertaining whether he is buying foreign or British meat.
It may be said that this Bill savours of Protection. I entirely fail to see it, and I disclaim that there is anything at the back of my mind which leans towards this Bill on the score of Protection. In numerous places in the Reports of the Committees that have considered this question it is stated that the only desire of those interested in this legislation is that it shall be perfectly clear to the consumer what he is buying. In addition, it was frequently asserted by witnesses that the exact effect which this marking would have upon foreign and home-grown produce was extremely doubtful. Many people contend that the effect might very possibly be to place the best of the foreign and imported meat above some of the second-class English meat, though as a general rule it is admitted that the best English meat is

1087
superior to anything which is imported into this country.
When the Committee of your Lordships' House sat in 1893, it was estimated that the proportion of home-grown meat to foreign imported meat was two-thirds of the total consumption. In 1900 the percentage of home-grown to foreign was fifty-six, in 1906 it was fifty-three, and in 1908, fifty-four. The places of origin were chiefly the United States, New Zealand, and the Argentine Republic. There has been this curious change. The imports from America had been more or less stationary for many years, but in the last year of which I have any figures—1908—the importation from the United States had decreased by very nearly half, while the importation from Argentina had been rapidly increasing. That this is likely to continue is rather evidenced by the fact that the great American shippers have been making active inquiries and have in some cases developed considerable interest in the meat shipping companies of Argentina.
Marking, which is the chief method proposed in this Bill for identifying foreign produce, is a system which obtains in a large number of other countries. I believe it was asserted by one witness before the Committee that the only Continental country that does not mark its meat in some form or another is France. The Canadian Board of Agriculture have promoted a Bill by which all dairy produce has to be marked, and we are told that all meat imported from the United States into Canada has also to be marked. The evidence with regard to New Zealand is rather interesting. The Agent-General for New Zealand stated before the Committee of your Lordships' House that he did not think that in New Zealand at that time there was any strong feeling in favour of marking meat; whereas in 1907 evidence was given before the Committee of the House of Commons that the feeling in New Zealand in favour of marking meat had grown considerably, and that there was a proposal to bring in a Bill for this purpose.
As to the necessity for this marking, I am very far from asserting that it is occasioned by anything which could strictly be called fraud, except in minor cases, but there is a large amount of deception. When we consider the small number of
1088
traders in London who profess to sell imported meat, whereas it is known that by far the larger portion of it is sold in the principal towns, and particularly in London, there can be very little doubt that a large amount of foreign meat is shown and sold in shops together with British meat, and as the same price is charged for the meat from both sources the consumer is apt to conclude that it is of the same origin. It is true that there are very few authenticated cases where when the question is asked the seller actually gives false information. The object of the Bill is to put the consumer on his guard, to warn him of the places in which foreign meat is sold, and to give him an opportunity of asking the question as to exactly what he is buying and of exercising his own discretion as to whether he will buy this meat or not.
There is, to a certain extent, fraud underlying this, because the meat for which, under this misconception, the consumer is giving full price would have to be sold at a very much lower rate if retailed, with the same profit, at its market price. We are told that one of the methods of the trade is that large traders, like Eastmans and others, who deal openly and almost exclusively in foreign meat, deal very largely in the inferior joints, the superior joints, the sirloins, &c., being sold to other shops where they are disposed of with the British produce, and in this way customers are deceived. The method of marking is a matter of detail on which I do not profess to be able to enlighten your Lordships very much. The object of the Bill is that every part of the carcase which can form a joint as a joint is ordinarily cut, should bear some part of the mark. If only a letter it would be sufficient to make it perfectly clear that the meat was foreign and not home-grown. The Bill makes no profession to being able to secure the marking of every slice and every chop that may be cut. Nor do I think it at all necessary, because once the consumer was put on his guard, as he could not fail to be if the carcases hanging in the shop were marked, that meat of foreign extraction was being sold there, he would then have a very large portion of the protection necessary.
There is no question, from the evidence given before both Committees and also from our experience of the Merchandise Marks Act, that the proper place where

1089
this marking should be done is the country of export. In nearly every country from which meat is exported it is, for various trade reasons and for purposes of inspection, very of ten marked under any circumstances, and the requirement that it shall be marked in a certain way would give very little trouble indeed to the exporter, whereas it would obviously give a great deal of trouble if it bad to be done when the cargo was being landed at the wharf here. In many of the earlier Bills cattle imported into this country alive and ,slaughtered here were regarded as being home-bred animals. As time progressed, and as this habit of importing animals and killing them on their landing in this country grew, animals that were killed within a limited time—ten days or so—after arrival came to be inserted in proposed legislation as animals of foreign origin. Considerable reluctance was shown before both Committees on the part of our Colonies to their meat being classed, as foreign meat. For that reason the suggestion in the Bill is that all meat imported dead should be marked in the country of origin with the word " Foreign" or "Colonial" in printed capital letters, and that in the case of animals imported alive for slaughter every carcase is to be similarly marked before removal from the abattoir. Many of the Colonies think that, in addition to their meat being described under the general term. of" Colonial," each Colony should have a distinguishing mark, but this is rather a matter for the Colonies themselves to arrange.
There is a provision in Clause 4 making it the duty of the Commissioners of Customs to see that the meat is marked in the way described. It has been pointed out that this might entail a very large body of inspectors, but I do not see that that is absolutely necessary. It would be necessary if the marking had to be done in this country, because it would then be necessary for inspectors to inspect every single carcase; but when there is a general rule that every carcass of meat imported has to be marked, it is quite easy to check whether that has been done by examining a certain percentage of the carcases. Those that escape examination of that kind are probably not likely to be many. In conclusion. I wish to say that in asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time I by no means wish you to in any way pledge yourselves to the machinery to be
1090
used to meet the end in view. As I have pointed out, throughout the whole history of this question the machinery recommended has been more or less of the same kind, but many who support the Bill are not necessarily agreed upon every detail as to the methods in which its object ought to be achieved. I hope that some agreement may be come to upon these particular points when the Bill reaches the Committee stage. All that I ask your Lordships in this instance to affirm by reading the Bill a second time is that it is desirable in some way to differentiate foreign and colonial from home-grown meat.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—.(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, this Bill is more or less an extension of the principle of the Merchandise Marks Act, and a casual observer might suppose that it was not a very important extension. I have observed, in looking back at the debates on some of the Bills to which the noble Lord has alluded, that the Bill of 1893, which was introduced by the noble Earl opposite, was actually called the Merchandise Marks Act (Amendment) Bill. That Bill, as your Lordships know, was withdrawn after a speech delivered by my noble friend behind me, Lord Ribblesdale, in which he offered to refer the whole question to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. That Committee was presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and if their Report is studied it will be found that they were much impressed with the great difficulties in the way of organising any system of meat marking. They also seem to have been very much impressed with the extremely doubtful nature of the benefits to be derived from that process. I further notice that during the succeeding years and during the time when the noble Earl himself was President of the Board of Agriculture no legislation on these lines was introduced by him. The natural inference is, I think, that he had been convinced, and that the leaders of the Party opposite had been convinced, that this was not a practical or desirable thing to do; and I hope that in opposing this Bill we may, for that reason, have the support of the Front Bench opposite.

1091
This Bill, as I have said, extends the Merchandise Marks Act, but it does so in an entirely new direction. I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what the Merchandise Marks Act does and what it does not do. I know that there is a sort of popular supposition that under the Merchandise Marks Act all foreign-made goods imported into this country have to be marked "Made in Germany," or "Made in France," as the case may be. I need not remind the House that the Merchandise Marks Act does nothing of the kind. What that Act does is this. It lays down that where there is any writing or any mark or anything on the article which might cause a reasonable idea that it had been made in this country, that mistaken idea must be corrected. Whether there is fraud or not makes no difference, but the mistaken idea must be corrected by printing on the article the words "Made in Germany," "Made in France," or whatever the country may be.
It may be interesting to mention the extreme length to which that Act has been held to go. There was the case of certain Christmas cards which were printed in Germany and on which the greetings or good wishes were in the English language. It was contended that that fact might arouse a reasonable supposition that the cards had been printed in this country, and therefore it was held to be necessary that they should bear the words "Printed in Germany" upon them. I mention that in order to show the extreme point to which the Merchandise Marks Act carries us, and in order that your Lordships may see how very much further the proposal of the noble Lord would go. That proposal would go to a point entirely new, and it is a proposal to which, on behalf of the Board of Trade, the Department to which is entrusted the administration of the Merchandise Marks Act, I have to say that the Government cannot assent.
Then it may be said—and I understand the noble Lord to make this point in his speech—that even if the Government cannot consent to all foreign meat being marked, we might at all events consent to legislation which would make it impossible for foreign or colonial meat to be sold as British. That would be a reasonable, I think a very reasonable, request were it not for the fact that the law as it stands already deals with that point most com-
1092
pletely. Under various Acts of Parliament any one perpetrating a fraud of that kind would be liable to prosecution. I do not think I need remind the House of a case which occurred only the other day, and which shows how very dangerous it is to sell anything in this country under a false description. It is within the recollection of everyone that a Bond Street art dealer was recently heavily cast in damages because he had given a false description to some china ornaments; and I need not remind the House that the law which applies in the case of a Dresden china shepherdess applies equally in the case of a pound of frozen Australian mutton. We consider that from that point of view the Bill is unnecessary. Besides those general objections there are certain practical difficulties which evidently suggested themselves to the Select Committee of 1893, the Committee whose Report I have quoted; and I think those difficulties must suggest themselves to everyone who considers this matter.
In the first place, I would mention the great difficulties of identifying. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that it would be sufficient if the carcases were marked in the country from which they came, but I do not think that would be any protection whatever to the small consumer; and if it is desired to protect the small consumer in the way the noble Lord suggests I think it is clear that, in addition to the heavy duties which would be laid on the Custom House officials, an army of trained inspectors would be necessary all over the country in order to see that every little piece of meat was marked. For I would call your Lordships' attention to Clause 5 of the Bill, which provides that—
"Every person who either by himself or herself or by his or her agent servant or other person employed for that purpose sells or exposes for sale or who hawks or offers for sale any foreign or colonial meat which does not bear such mark shall cause to be attached to each carcase or piece of such foreign or colonial meat a label or mark containing in printed capital letters the words 'foreign' or 'colonial in such manner as to be clearly visible to the purchaser and any persons not complying with this requisition shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
That shows that the Bill is not only intended to apply to carcases, but to the smallest possible portion of meat sold on any stall. Again, to quote from the Report of the Select Committee, I notice that it is said that in Liverpool the average

1093
purchases at certain large shops did not exceed 2½d. Under this clause each of these would have to be marked.
Then, my Lords, I think a very great expense and inconvenience and restraint would be put upon the trade of vendors of meat if they had to be licensed and had to go through the other formalities suggested in the Bill. There is one other practical difficulty which I would suggest. It is said in the Bill that all this meat must be labelled as being either Colonial or Foreign. That would entail still another difficulty, because these salesmen would not only have to differentiate between British and foreign meat, which to a skilled man might be comparatively easy, but they would also have to differentiate between Argentine meat and meat coming from any British Colony, which would be extremely difficult. My Lords, I have stated the general objections to the Bill and a few of the practical difficulties which seem to arise; and on those grounds I must ask your Lordships not to agree to the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, the noble Lord has referred very frequently to the Report of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside many years ago, and the recollection of it makes me feel very old indeed. Although I am not aware that there have been any material changes in the meat trade since that time, I have no doubt what ever that the Report of that Committee is not up to date, and if further inquiry were held into the matter now it is possible that some of the opinions expressed in 1893, might be found capable of modification. I think every member of your Lordships' House sympathises with the object of the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill. There is an old form of advertisement which runs, "When you ask for it, see that you get it"; and that, I think, describes the object of my noble friend in introducing this Bill.
There can be no doubt whatever, if there is a practical way of doing it, that the purchaser of what he believes to be genuine home-grown home-fed English meat ought to be assured that he gets it. Your Lordships are well aware that the price of English meat is, always has been, and, I hope, always will remain, materially higher than the price of meat of a similar kind which has been imported from abroad;
1094
and it certainly is a great hardship if, as I believe to be the case, a great many people who purchase meat believing they are buying best English are palmed off with beef which has been sent over the Atlantic in refrigerators and is nearly indistinguishable, except by experts, from meat raised and killed in this country. The noble Lord opposite pointed out a great many difficulties which he said would arise in the administration of the Bill if it became an Act, difficulties regarding the manner in which the marking could be done and the provision of the army of inspectors which would be necessary. But he did not touch at all on what, to my mind, is one of the most important clauses of the Bill, the clause which embodies one of the recommendations made by the Committee of 1893—that is, that if a man chooses to sell foreign meat he should at least put up over his shop window an announcement that he is, in fact, a vendor of foreign or colonial meat. That would not require an army of inspectors or any great interference of Government officials, and it would not be a very difficult matter to accomplish.
That part of the Bill of my noble friend I heartily welcome. I believe it would be practicable and have a large measure of efficiency. I have been told that the effect of it might be that every dealer in meat—that is to say, every butcher in the country—would put up such a notice in order to save trouble. I venture to think, however, that such is the prejudice of the consumer of English meat in this country that a great many people in towns where they have an opportunity of choosing between one butcher and another would certainly elect to deal with a man who had no such notice over his door rather than with a man who had. The noble Lord referred at considerable length to the Merchandise Marks Act, and pointed out that the Bill of my noble friend was more or less an extension of that principle. I am bound to say that I do not think the Merchandise Marks Act has obtained the measure of success which its framers intended; it certainly has not prevented the consumption of a great many things which are made abroad—although those things are marked with a notice patent to all the world that they are made in foreign countries. On the contrary, I believe the fact that an article made in Germany is known to be cheap has very often created a demand

1095
for that particular article, because people say that if it is made in Germany it will be cheap and if it is made in England it will be dearer. That is one of the respects in which the Merchandise Marks Act has not fulfilled the expectations of those who framed it.
I do not propose to touch upon that part of the Bill by which my noble friend seeks to prevent fraud. The noble Lord opposite says that all that is already provided for. He says that if you sell as Dresden china something which is not Dresden, if you sell modern china as very ancient china you are liable to prosecution, and he called attention to a recent case with which your Lordships are familiar. What I would point out is this. You can find out the fraud in the case of spurious china, but how are you to find it out in the case of meat unless there is some means of identifying the place from which the meat originally came? After hearing the evidence of the witnesses we examined before the Committee I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that a very large quantity of meat is sold in this country as English which comes into the country from abroad. I do not think anybody will challenge that statement. I am not going to say whether I think the effect of my noble friend's Bill would be entirely to prevent that. All I say, is, if that is his object, and if that object can be obtained by his Bill, I for one will certainly agree with a measure of that kind.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTERMy Lords, I have never ventured to address your Lordships before, and it is only because of my connection with the Central Chamber of Agriculture that I ask your indulgence to-night. You will hardly be surprised to hear that the members of the Central Chamber and the affiliated societies look with favour on the marking of foreign meat and also regard with approval this Bill. But, my Lords, great as the advantage may be to British agriculture, I think the advantage of a Bill of this kind would be far greater to the consumer, because, as has already been stated, there is very little doubt that a great deal of foreign meat is now sold to the consumer as British meat, and at British prices. I do not think any one could be so foolish as to wish that foreign meat should be prohibited or in any way stopped from coming into this country, because if it were there would
1096
be, in the first place, a shortage of meat, and, in the second place, the poor would in a great measure be prevented from eating meat at all. There is no question about that.
There is no question either that people who buy meat are deceived. I do not say that this is done by absolutely fraudulent misrepresentation, but inferior foreign meat is constantly bought at a high price. With your Lordships' permission I will give an illustration of that. At a certain West End institution some weeks ago—an institution to which many members of your Lordships' House belong—a butcher was found fault with for providing inferior beef. It was suspected that the meat he was supplying was foreign, so the butcher's man was accosted one day by an official of that institution and was challenged as to a certain joint. Being asked if it was foreign, he replied, most indignantly, "That joint of beef foreign? Why, it is the best Danish."Of course, this was in no way an attempt at fraud; it was clearly a geographical inexactitude. But the profits of that inexactitude go into the butcher's pocket and the loss is to the consumer. There are other vague terms in the trade which we know lead to fraud, or rather to deception. Take, for instance, one notice frequently seen over shops—that of "home-killed meat." That is perfectly legal, but what does it mean? Merely that meat is imported on the hoof—that is to say, it is taken to Deptford, or some other port of entry, and, after ten days, is killed and sold anywhere in England as home-killed meat. You must, I venture to say, have some technical knowledge to know what home-killed meat really is. Then there is our old friend, "Canterbury Lamb." Many people think the lamb is brought up on Romney Marsh or some other pasture in Kent, but, as a matter of fact, it has never seen any country but New Zealand.
There is one other point which is very important to the consumer, and that is the case of tuberculous meat. In this country if a carcase is proved to have any particle of tubercular disease, practically the whole of it is destroyed. But there is no guarantee that this happens in the case of foreign meat imported into this country. I believe the custom in the case of foreign meat is merely just to cut away the affected parts and send the rest of the carcase

1097
forward. I do not know whether it is in the least true that this is likely to do any harm. Scientific opinions seem to differ very much as to whether tuberculous meat when cooked is or is not fit for food. But very many people in the country believe it is injurious, and if it is not marked they cannot be certain that they are not buying foreign meat which is tainted with this disease. There is one other person to whom this Bill would bring great relief. His case is a very cruel one. It is the case of the honest retailer. He has to meet the most cruel competition, and I cannot imagine a man in a more difficult position than the retailer of meat who means to keep honest, for he has to see his acquaintances on each side of the street making profits which he denies to himself.
There are two objections urged against this Bill. It is said that you can bring in a Bill but you cannot mark the meat, I do not believe that a practical objection at all. I believe that after Lord Onslow's Committee reported a gentleman who lived in Leicester brought out, a patent electrical machine which he said would mark meat satisfactorily. An experiment was tried. Two carcases of mutton were marked, were put into the frozen chamber—if that is the right phrase—in the Central Market, and were left there for six weeks. At the end of that time they were thawed to see whether the mark had run. Not only was the mark found to be perfectly satisfactory, but it had been put on in such a way that each joint was marked. On that occasion there was an episode at the Central Market which has such a bearing on the Bill that I should like to relate it your Lordships. A representative of one of the largest export dealers in Argentine meat was greatly interested in the experiment, and he said—
"I have been looking at that," pointing to the carcases. "What do you think you are going to do with that? If you get that taken up it will be a bad day's work for us. You ought to make it easier, not more difficult, for us to sell our meat as English. We depend upon that for our trade."
This was an unsolicited testimony that even the sanguine inventor had never expected. Another objection which has been urged more than once this evening has to do with the case of the Merchandise Marks Act. I do not believe the British farmer is afraid that because you mark foreign meat he will have to go out of busi-
1098
ness. If he loses his trade because foreign meat is advertised by marking it, I think he ought to go out of business. I believe you will find his view is this, that if retailers are willing to sell foreign and colonial meat on its merits and use the right description it will have no terrors for the farmer, because the superior freshness and quality of the meat which English farmers produce will always secure for it a market. It is for these reasons that I should very much like to see the Bill read a second time.
LORD RIBBLESDALEMy Lords, as I do not happen to belong to the Central Chamber of Agriculture or any of the affiliated societies which the noble Earl on this side of the House has represented so ably to-night, I should like to say a word on this subject from the personal point of view. The noble Earl opposite, Lord Onslow, will remember that at the time he brought in his Bill I had something to do with it, and I sat on the Committee which has been alluded to. Of course, noble Lords opposite disavow any Protectionist flavour about the proposal, and as I am a quite unrepentant Free Trader I find myself in rather a difficult position, because I oppose the Bill on what may be called a Protectionist ground.
I quite agree with all that the noble Earl on this side of the House said just now as to the possible advantage which a Bill of this sort, assuming it were carried out, might have for the consumer, but when he tells me that the ordinary English grazier who raises cattle to sell to meat salesmen need not be afraid of it I cannot agree with him. I am much afraid of it on that very ground. I believe it is possible, if you get foreign meat really properly marked in the way proposed, that the English producers, not of the best meat, but of the second quality meat, which is the sort of meat from various circumstances of my own land I am obliged to produce myself, would be placed at a distinct disadvantage, and the advertisement of the very close race which the best class foreign meat runs with the second class English meat would be fatal to an enormous number of English producers in the North who do not raise the very best quality of home-grown meat. I certainly, under those circumstances, should not go out of business and I farm 600 or 700 acres myself all under grass, but I should suffer very much from it.

1099
The noble Lord who brought in the Bill skated very lightly over the Report of the 1893 Committee, but he said there was some doubt in the mind of the Committee as to the possible effect on prices of this meat marking. Let me tell your Lordships exactly what the Committee found. The noble Lord did allude to it, but not in the way I want the House to hear. The Committee found that the ultimate result of meat marking would be that meat would come to be divided into four general classes, with considerable variation of price: first, best home-grown meat; secondly, best imported meat; thirdly, second-class home-grown meat; and, lastly, inferior meat. Whereas the third class (the second-class home-grown meat) now stands not subordinate in price to the second-class (the best imported meat) the indication of the country of origin might transpose their values in the market. Therefore as regards the second class English, which is at present in the second position and can get a good market, to mark the best foreign meat and give it that advertisement which perhaps it would deserve would mean to put our own home grown stuff behind it. That, I think, would be distinctly unfortunate, though I admit it was very generally asserted before the Committee that the average excellence of imported meat was higher than of home-grown meat. There are one or two other points on which I should have liked to have said a word, but I will not do so at this late hour. As a grazier and meat salesman, however, I enter the strongest possible protest against the Bill. I believe if people who follow the industry think they are going to gain by these proposals they are mistaken, and that they will in the long run prove to be very considerable losers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I have listened with very great care to the speeches delivered on both sides of the House on the proposals of my noble friend. I confess, it has been brought home to me that, speaking quite roughly, the contention of the noble Lord who has just sat down is probably founded in fact; that is to say, if we meddle too much in a matter of this kind instead of conferring any advantage on the British farmer we may do him an injury. I found that opinion partly, of course, on the authority of my noble friend opposite, but also upon the Report of the Committee
1100
to which he referred, and to which my attention has been called. I do not think we can ignore the Report of a Committee of your Lordships' House. It was a Committee manned by Peers of great influence, and as far as I know there was no division of opinion upon that particular issue. That does not conclude the matter, because my noble friend, Lord Clifford, has brought forward this Bill in the interests of the consumer. Surely it is wrong, he said, that a man who buys what he believes to be English meat, and pays the price of English meat, should be palmed off with foreign or colonial meat, which if not inferior in quality ought certainly to be lower in price. I do not suppose there is any member of your Lordships' House who would not agree with him that it is objectionable and wrong that a man who asks for one thing should get another, and should pay the actual price for the article he receives which he would do for the one he expected to get. It amounts, of course, to a species of fraud.
But, my Lords, if these two conclusions to which I have come are both true I am placed in a difficult position, because there are the interests of the British farmer against the Bill and the claims of honesty in favour of it. As a conscientious man I suppose I ought to resolve the doubt in favour of the claims of honesty. Luckily, however, it appears that the difficulties of the machinery are so great that the Bill is unworkable. Cannot we take refuge from the exigencies of our conscience in that consideration? Although we are in favour of resisting to the best of our ability fraudulent practices, yet Finding that the proposal for achieving that end is not workable, may we not adopt that as a plea for not proceeding with the matter in this form and so avoid inflicting an injury on the British farmer? In those circumstances I hope my noble friend will take account of the implied views of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who understands the subject far better than I do and was a member of the Select Committee. The noble Earl practically told my noble friend that he did not think the Bill workable as regards a large part of its provisions, but there was one particular provision of which he approved. Might I therefore suggest to my noble friend that he should not press the Bill, but should reconsider the subject and bring up a much shorter Bill dealing with the point my noble friend

1101
the Lord Chairman has indicated. Then your Lordships might, perhaps, be willing favourably to consider it. I do not know if my noble friend will take this course, but in the difficulties in which we find ourselves as between the interests of the British farmer and the dictates of our consciences I almost hope he will.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON)My Lords, I should like to add just one word in support of the plea of the noble Marquess opposite. The noble Marquess suggested that a short Bill should be brought in embodying that portion of the present Bill of which the noble Earl opposite, Lord Onslow, approves. Is it necessary? Clause 6 says that every person dealing in, selling, offering, or exposing or keeping for sale, or having in his possession for the purpose of sale, foreign or colonial meat, shall always exhibit in a prominent place in his establishment a placard bearing in large letters the words, "Dealer in foreign and colonial meat." The reason it is said that ought to be done is that everybody anxious to have home-grown meat would immediately go to a shop where this placard was not exhibited. What I should like to ask is, cannot that be done now? If people are so anxious to buy English meat why should not butchers who deal in such meat alone put up placards saying, "Nothing but English meat sold in this establishment," or something to the same effect ? I believe if t hat were done everybody would flock to these particular shops, and the result the noble Lord aims at would be achieved. I was glad to hear the noble Marquess opposite say something about the difficulty of the machinery of the Bill. If your Lordships read Clause 7 you will see that it is curiously worded. It says—
"Every person who shall deal in sell offer expose or keep for sale or have in his possession for the purpose of sale any foreign or colonial meat as or for British or Irish meat shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
What is the punishment for the offence? If your Lordships look at Clause 15 you will see that for the first offence it is a fine not exceeding £10, and for the second a fine not exceeding £25, or—
"if the offence in the opinion of the Court was committed by the personal act default or culpable negligence of the person accused that person shall
1102
be liable (at the option of the court) to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding six months."
I really think to say a man should get six months imprisonment with hard labour for selling under these conditions colonial meat is a very curious proposal to come from those who are very anxious to bind the Colonies to the mother country.
I really think that the law as it stands now is sufficient for the purpose, because we know that if it can possibly be proved that a butcher knowingly palms off colonial or foreign meat as home-grown, we can get at him under the present law, and I should not hesitate for one moment to apply the law under those circumstances. But I must say, in fairness, that these cases, although we are told they occur so extremely often, are very rarely proved up to the hilt. In these circumstances I do join in the request of noble Lords opposite, and I hope the noble Lord will not press the Bill, but will be satisfied with having brought the matter to the notice of the House.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHBefore answering the request of the noble Lord, there are one or two points to which I wish to allude. One is the question of fraud and misrepresentation being able to be dealt with under the existing law, which matter, I think, has been hardly fairly represented. The kind of thing that happens, and happens with great frequency, is this: a retailer who deals, I will say, habitually in home-grown meat is from time to time short of a supply, and he fills the vacancy in his shop with foreign or colonial meat. He makes no representation direct to the customer, who has for the last week, fortnight, or for a longer period, been buying English meat, but he suddenly substitutes an entirely different article and leaves the customer under the impression that he is still getting the same. Although that is not a fraud which you can bring the existing law to bear upon, it is in itself a misrepresentation. It is suppressio veri, which certainly defrauds the customer. Those who speak in the interest of the producers have over and over again—though not, perhaps, so much in the Report of 1903—borne testimony to the fact that it is their own fault if the meat they grow is not superior to the meat imported. They do appeal—and it appears to be common justice—that they should

1103
stand on their own footing. This view is equally shared in other parts of the Empire. Consumers also wish that English meat should not be sold as colonial meat, and that appears to me to be an appeal based on simple justice. It is admitted—at least, nobody undertakes to deny it—that possibly the effect of this may be to alter the classification of meat; but in that case we say the classification should be fairly stated. It is within the knowledge of all importers of meat that whereas the importations of Argentine meat were in the early stages extremely inferior they are rapidly improving, and the result may be that what is called second-class English meat may material improve under the stimulus of having a fair field and no favour. With regard to the Bill, I will take the encouragement that the noble Marquess has given me, and I hope if ever I bring in the Bill again in an amended form I shall have more cordial support from him than I have had to-night. In the circumstances, considering the smallness of the House, I will not trouble your Lordships by pressing the Bill to a division.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

"MISSING" SAILING SHIPS.
LORD MUSKERRYrose to move for a Return "showing how many British foreign-going sailing ships are recorded as 'missing' during each of the past five years; the tonnage of those vessels; what number of certificated officers they were carrying on leaving port, and the number of men composing their crews, with their respective ratings and nationality in each case."
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, to refer briefly to the subject of this Motion, I may say that of late there seems to have been an alarming frequency of cases where British foreign-going sailing ships have been posted at Lloyd's as missing. Only this year there was one missing in February, one in March, and one last month. It is well known the sorry way in which most sailing ships are manned. Quite usually fifty per cent. or more of their crews are men of any nationality but our own. But, putting nationality apart, I am firmly convinced that the actual numerical strength of the crews of our sailing ships is one which demands searching investigation. I under-
1104
stand that this question of manning has lately been before the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, and that as a result of this the Board have now issued instructions to their principal officers, superintendents, and surveyors, providing that steamers of certain sizes and lengths should carry a stipulated number of efficient deck hands.
But I notice that foreign-going sailing ships appear not to have been considered in connection with manning, and there is no real standard to which they must conform if only as a minimum. Therefore, I seek information so that we may see exactly how British sailing ships are manned—at least, in the case of those vessels which, within the last five years, have been posted as missing. There is, of course, the deeper loading of British ships which is now permissible, which possibly may account for some of these disasters. But I have made no mention of this in my Question, simply because the new regulations only came into vogue comparatively recently, whereas the subject of my Motion spreads over the last five years.
Then, again, there arises the important factor as to the number of certificated officers carried on board these ships. I am told, for instance, that the sailing ship "Toxteth," a large vessel of 2,585 tons which was posted as "missing" not long ago, carried one certificated officer only besides the captain. I do not hesitate to say that in this respect the ship was gravely undermanned. Her crew, inclusive of the steward and cook, appear to have numbered twenty-four only, four of whom were ordinary seamen, and one a deck boy, and ten of whom, from their names, would appear to have been aliens, though there may have been more, as aliens often ship under English names I have no hesitation in saying that no ships of the size of the "Toxteth" could possibly be efficiently or sufficiently manned with such a niggardly crew, and if this mode of manning is a sample of the manning Of other foreign-going sailing vessels, as I believe it is, then the sooner a very radical change is made the better, particularly so in protection of the lives of the unfortunate men who are the helpless victims of a system which not only admits of sweating but of peril to their lives also. I learn from my noble friend that he is going to give us as full information as possible, and then we may be better

1105
able to judge what the real position is, and whether, for the safety of our merchant seafarers, it is necessary to deal with it further.
Before concluding I wish to thank my noble friend opposite for the kindness and courtesy he has always shown when I have brought matters of this kind before your Lordships. I fully appreciate the unpleasant position in which he finds himself, when I bring forward a measure with which personally he is in sympathy though a sense of stern duty to the Department he so ably represents compels him to oppose, and, to use his own words, appear as the advocate of all that is base and uncharitable; but I am sure he acquits me of any desire to make him appear in such a role. It is the fault of the Department he represents and when that Department, as I hope it will, reforms and realises its duty better towards the service on which England depends so much, then, to quote him again, the official mouthpiece will find his task much more pleasant and congenial.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return showing how many British foreign-going sailing ships are recorded as 'missing' during each of the past five years; the tonnage of those vessels, what number of certificated officers they were carrying on leaving port, and the number of men composing their crews, with their respective ratings and nationality in each case."—(Lord Muskerry.)
LORD ELLENBOROUGHMy Lords, I think it would add greatly to the value of this Return if the amounts for which the lost ships were insured were added, and I hope the Government will be able to give the Return with this addition. I am sorry I have to leave the House as I should have been very glad to remain to listen to the noble Lord's answer to my noble friend Lord Musherry.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLThe noble Lord need not wait very long to hear my answer, because I think I can give it in a very few words. With regard to his request that the amount for which the ships were insured should be given in the Return, I may say that it is not included in the Return I have here, but I will make inquiries to see if it is possible to add the information. The Return for which Lord Muskerry has asked has been prepared as
1106
fully as possible, and if it were not for the question just asked I should be prepared to lay it on the Table at this moment. I will wait a few days.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYLay it now.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLI will adopt the course suggested by the noble Marquess; and the noble Lord, after he-has seen the Return, can refer to the matter again.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE COLOURS FOR TERRITORIAL REGIMENTS.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDrose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the travelling and other expenses of the officers and men composing the detachments of the Territorial Regiments, which are to be presented with Colours by His Majesty on June 19, are to be defrayed by the War Office if not whether the Territorial Associations are to be allowed to pay those expenses out of their funds, or whether such expenses are to be met by voluntary contributions; also, what will be done in the case of regiments which have not been able to procure Colours owing to the shortness of the notice given them by the War Office, and the consequent pressure on the firms authorised to supply such Colours; and if the Under-Secretary of State can inform the House as to the hour when the ceremony of the presentation will take place.
The noble Duke saidMy Lords, I shall not trouble the noble Lord who is going to answer this Question in the place of the Under-Secretary for War with any superfluous remarks at this time of the evening, but I would merely emphasise what I venture briefly to hint at in my Question. Although it has been answered to a large extent in another place, still I do hope that we may be given assurances on the part of His Majesty's Government that the Territorial Detachments which will be under orders to go to Windsor on June 19 for the purpose of receiving Colours from His Majesty will be given a full and ample amount of pay for their expenses. It appears to me there is a great danger that if something of that sort is not done in a fairly generous spirit a feeling of

1107
dissatisfaction will grow up amongst the Territorial Forces that they are being treated somewhat differently from the Line battalions of the county regiments, because in the present case the Colours have not been issued free to these Territorial battalions. I make no complaint of that, for it was an understood thing in the Circular of last September that that should be the case. At the same time, if any further call is made upon the private finances of the county with which these regiments are connected I think an unpleasant feeling will exist that there is too much difference made between the first and second battalions and the third fourth and other battalions which compose the Territorial battalions of any regiment. I am sure in the present case the noble Lord who is going to answer for the Under-Secretary of State for War will agree with me that the Territorial Force requires every possible encouragement and help to keep in as sound a position as it has reached, and that anything which discourages or appears to make a differentiation between the Line and the Territorial battalions will go far to remove that energy and sympathy which might otherwise exist in the Territorial battalions. I am not going to press any further remarks upon the noble Lord now because time will not permit; but I hope we may be assured that adequate payment for the detachments of the Territorial Regiments who are going to Windsor on June 19 will be given by the War Office. With regard to the second portion of my Question, I fancy that need hardly be asked now, as I understand arrangements have been made by which the difficulties that certainly existed when I put the Notice on the Paper have been very largely removed. The last part of the Question has, I think, been already answered, but I should like an assurance on that point.
LORD HENEAGEMy Lords, I hope I may be allowed to put at the same time the Question standing in my name on the Paper—namely, to ask what arrangements have been made as to the place and time when His Majesty will present the Colours to the Territorial Forces; and what provision the War Office propose to make for the travelling expenses, subsistence, and lodging of the escort parties; and what is to be the number of officers and rank and file of each escort party. I hope the Secretary of State for War will take as
1108
carefully into his consideration as he can what time this review is to be held. The 19th of June is a Saturday, and it will very seriously affect the regiments from the Northern and Midland counties if they cannot get home on that night.
LORD DENMANThe Under-Secretary of State for War is absent owing to indisposition, and has asked me to answer these Questions for him. I learn that it has been decided that the travelling and other expenses of the officers and men attending this function shall be paid from public funds on the following basis:—For the Colour Party of two subalterns and three sergeants (one subaltern and three sergeants in the case of mounted units), and for a detachment of ten non-commissioned officers and men, there shall be paid—(a) railway fares at Territorial Force rates; (b) travelling allowances according to the time occupied on the journey, at the following rates:—Officers, daily rate 3s. 6d. or 6s. or nightly rate of 15 s.; non-commissioned officers and men, daily rate 1s. or 1s. 6d. or nightly rate of 2s. 6d. As regards the inability of certain regiments to have the Colours quite ready by the date specified, His Majesty will not require them to be complete in all respects, and a circular letter is being sent out by the War Office giving detailed instructions on this point. I understand that the hour fixed is three p.m. on June 19. With regard to what the noble Duke has said, I would remind him that it is an entirely voluntary proceeding as to whether the units choose to send representatives to this function or purchase colours at all for their battalions. I quite agree with the noble Duke that it would be a very great pity if friction of any kind should ensue on such a unique occasion, and I hope the provision made by the Secretary of State will be regarded as adequate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CARRINGTONMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Monday next.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Monday next.—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.