Lords Sitting of 15 June 1910

MOUNTAIN ASH WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
MORECAMBE TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
MUIRHEAD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BERKS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).

A REGENCY.
His Majesty's message [which was read in the House yesterday] considered (according to order): Then it was moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty:
Thanking His Majesty for his most gracious communication recommending this House to consider contingencies which may hereafter take place and to make such provisions as will in any event secure the exercise of the Royal Authority;
And to assure His Majesty that this House will adopt such measures as may appear best calculated to maintain unimpaired the power and dignity of the Crown and thereby to strengthen the securities which protect the rights and liberties of the people (The Lord Privy Seal (E. Crewe));
Ordered, That the said Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EXPORTATION OF HORSES.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW rose to call attention to the Exportation of Horses Order of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of 16th April, 1910, which provides that" if the veterinary inspector is satisfied that a horse cannot be conveyed for the intended voyage without unnecessary suffering," &c.; and to inquire whether the Order enables the veterinary inspector to prohibit its shipment if, owing to age, infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue, or any other reason, suffering will be necessarily entailed by the shipment of the animal.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I desire to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture the Question of which I have given notice. It arises out of a reply given in another place, where the Parliamentary Secretary was asked whether it was the intention of the Board to put a stop to exportation in the case of all horses which could not be shipped abroad without undergoing physical pain. The reply was that that was a correct interpretation of the intentions of the Board; but when one comes to look at the terms of the Order it appears that the only condition under which the inspector of the Board of Agriculture can interfere is where the animal cannot be shipped on the intended voyage without "unnecessary suffering." I think the intention of the Board is to prevent suffering whether necessary or unnecessary, because it is especially stated in the Order that the suffering may arise owing to age, infirmity, illness, injury, or any other reason. Obviously, if a poor old horse which has met with an accident is put on board ship it may suffer a great deal of pain, although it may be necessary if the animal is to be conveyed to the other side of the Channel that it should suffer that pain. The question is whether it is necessary or desirable that it should undertake

897
the voyage at all. I gather that the intention of the Board is to prevent suffering, whether necessary or unnecessary; and what I desire to ask the noble Earl is whether, in his opinion, that object is achieved, and, if not, whether he will so alter the Order as to prevent the infliction of pain on these unfortunate animals.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, the noble Earl is perfectly right in his surmise that the object is to prevent suffering of every description. A similar Question to this was asked in the Commons House of Parliament on the 8th instant, and the answer I have to give to-day is the same as that which was given in the other House. The terms of the Order referred to follow precisely those employed in Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, under the authority of which the Order is made. The Board see no reason to doubt that it is sufficient to carry out their intention in the matter, which is correctly expressed in this Question. I need hardly assure the noble Earl that, as far as the Board of Agriculture are concerned, no steps will be wanting to prevent any suffering on the part of any animal exported from this country.
LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I do not speak with any special knowledge as to cruelty or otherwise in the exportation of these animals, but I do speak with some experience of the drafting of Orders such as the one referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and I am well aware of the difficulties which sometimes arise in that particular Office. My noble friend has made a somewhat cursory reply to Lord Onslow's Question. I am quite certain that so far as my noble friend Lord Carrington is concerned, he feels, with every man in this House and outside it who possesses humane feelings, that any unnecessary cruelty, or even as the noble Earl opposite said any necessary cruelty, in the exportation of these horses should be prevented.
I merely rose to ask my noble friend the President of the Board whether, seeing the difficulties that sometimes arise from unintentional exaggeration in reference to these subjects, he himself might not pay a surprise visit to the docks whence these animals are exported, so as to assure himself and the country that the provisions
898
of the Order with regard to the prevention of cruelty are being carried out in a fitting manner. I do not speak without experience of this subject, because many years ago when I had the honour of filling the office which my noble friend now holds there was in the Press and elsewhere a considerable outcry with regard to cruelty in the importation of cattle into this country, especially at the port of Liverpool, from Ireland. I remember that on that occasion I took the opportunity of paying a surprise visit to Liverpool, unknown to any one except one of the officials of the Department who accompanied me. We arrived there at five o'clock in the morning, and we assisted, if I remember rightly, in driving the animals out ourselves. The conclusion I arrived at was that there had been some exaggeration—I am certain perfectly unintentional—on the part of those who had spoken on the subject; but, on the other hand, I was able, from personal experience, to issue a subsequent order to remedy the evils I had myself seen. With all submission, I venture to suggest to my noble friend that if such a course seemed agreeable to him in the present case it might assist him in speaking with perfect confidence as to the execution of the humane instructions contained in his Order, and he would be able to assure the House and the country that, from his own personal experience, he knew that the Order was being carried out in a proper manner.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Earl intended, I am sure, to reply to my Question, but I did not gather that he gave any answer as to whether the Order enables the veterinary inspector to prohibit the shipment of an animal if owing to age, infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue, or any other reason suffering would be necessarily entailed by such shipment. Can the noble Earl tell me whether the Order will or will not do that?
EARL CARRINGTON: This is a case of the difficulties of the English language over again. I am not a literary man and cannot pretend to explain the English language; but I can assure my noble friend that every precaution has been, is being, and will be taken, so far as I have anything to do with the matter, to prevent any suffering, necessary or unnecessary, to these animals.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.