IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.

HL Deb 26 July 1922 vol 51 cc822-65

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion of Viscount Chaplin to resolve, "That this Rouse declines to remove what is wrongly described as 'the embargo,' on cattle which come to our shores from Canada or from other countries for the following reasons:

"1. The term itself is very misleading, and purports to be used because of its injurious effect on the price of meat. On the other hand, to abandon the policy of slaughter at the port would reopen the door at once to the risk of the ravages of pleuro-pneumonia from which we have suffered so severely in the past, and compels us to relinquish a safeguard which has given us absolute security against that pestilential disease for upwards of thirty years.

"2. There is no embargo on the importation of live cattle for slaughter from any country in the world, Canadian or otherwise, and they have been so imported bona Canada and other countries in thousands, and can be so imported now, provided they come from countries which are not suffering from any cattle disease.

"3. Pleuro-pneumonia, unlike many other cattle diseases, can only be conveyed by the immediate contact of one animal with another, therefore, so long as the provision for slaughter remains, and contact is impossible, we are safe;"

And on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of LINCOLNSHIRE to the foregoing Motion, namely, to leave out all the words after "That" for the purpose of inserting the following words "it is incumbent on His Majesty's Government to carry out their pledge made at the Imperial Conference in 1917 to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD)

My Lords, it may be convenient, as the Amendments which are on the Paper may result in a somewhat diffuse Parliamentary situation when I put the Question from the Woolsack, that I should explain the situation as I understand it. Lord Lincolnshire is in possession of the House, and therefore the first Question which I shall put will be on his Amendment, but if his Amendment were carried, that would exclude the House from an opportunity of giving a decision on the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Long. I propose, therefore, in order to save Lord Long's Amendment, to put the Question on Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment in this form, that the words in Lord Chaplin's Motion, "this House," stand part. If that Question, that the words in Lord Chaplin's Motion, "this House," stand part, is carried in the affirmative, Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment will be defeated, and therefore, when I put that Question, every noble Lord who wishes that Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment should be defeated ought, of course, to vote "Content." That will allow Lord Long to move his Amendment. If, on the other hand, that Question is negatived, then Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment will be carried, and Lord Long's cannot be moved. Therefore, noble Lords who wish that Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment should be carried, and are not attracted by Lord Long's Amendment, have only to vote "Not-Content" when I put the Question in the way I have indicated, but noble Lords who wish to support Lord Long's Amendment ought to vote for the retention of the words "this House"—that is to say, they ought to vote "Content," and those who desire that Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment should prevail ought to vote "Not-Content."

LORD CAWLEY

I presume that we shall proceed now to debate the Question on Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The debate is at large.

LORD CAWLEY

My Lords, I do not propose to go into the question of a pledge at length. That has been sufficiently debated, and we can come to no other conclusion, after hearing the noble Viscount and also Lord Ernle, than that a pledge, and a distinct pledge, was given. Anyway, the Prime Minister was under no illusion on that point. He said: The pledges given to Canada at the Imperial Conference in 1917 were definite pledges on behalf of the Cabinet. That statement does away with the contention that Cabinet Ministers, in 1917, could not pledge the Cabinet.

The Imperial question is, perhaps, the one that ought to weigh with us most. The sole reason given for the Act of 1896—I was in the House of Commons at the time when the noble Viscount Lord Long, introduced it—was that our flocks and herds must be protected from disease. After the Report of the Royal Commission and what we know has happened since, that reason cannot hold good to-day. In fact, that Act was passed under a mistake. There was disagreement about the diagnosis of one case that came from Canada, and it has been established now that it was not a case of pleuropneumonia. Canada says: "You passed the Act under a misapprehension, and although you did that you decline to let our cattle come in." Canada is very sore on this point, and I think she has reason to be sore. It is true that men like Sir Robert Borden speak with great care on the matter, though they have spoken strongly. The man in the street is not so careful. He characterises our conduct as a piece of gross hypocrisy and nothing else. He says, and I think truly: "If you want to protect your breeding industry, say so, but why all this subterfuge about it? It is not calculated to gain our respect, and, what is more, it is not true." I think the Canadian man in the street has a very good case.

We must remember that we hold our Dominions across the seas rather by ties of sentiment than by material ties. Into Canada of late years there has been a considerable influx of Americans as well as other foreigners. There is no sentiment about them, and our action with regard to these cattle has given these American and other emigrants a considerable handle to prove that the connection with this country is not always very desirable. In fact, it places a great weapon in their hands. I do not think that Canadians generally want to go in for reprisals. But America has put on a Tariff of thirty per cent. on store cattle coming from Canada into the United States. It is doubtful what this Duty has been put on for, but as Canada has for years sent a considerable quantity of stores into America, it is probable that America has imposed it with the view of bargaining. The bargaining will probably be that they will take off that thirty per cent. Duty if Canada will allow them to send their pedigree bulls into the Dominion.

If we do not accede to Canada's request and allow her store stock to come here a new Treaty may be made with the United States; the United States will take off the thirty per cent. Duty on the understanding that Canada places a Duty on our pedigree stock. Canada would be quite within her rights in doing so. If we allow Canada to send her store stock here, and so improve her industry, I agree with the Duke of Devonshire that it is very likely she will take more of our pedigree stock. All pedigree stock does not run to thousands of pounds; those are the exceptions. There are a lot of young pedigree bulls of which it is difficult for pedigree breeders to get rid, and if we could get a market for these second-class bulls in Canada it would be an enormous advantage to the pedigree breeders of this country.

We must not run away with the idea that we have all the pedigree business, or that we are likely to run along without more severe competition. There is a great deal of competition from America already. The breeders of the United States have sent agents into South America and Canada, and are succeeding in selling a good deal of pedigree stock there. Americans know how to advertise. I had a large book sent me the other day full of illustrations of large pedigree herds in the United States, and I know from other sources that Americans are breeding a great deal of first-rate pedigree stock. We are not the only people in the pedigree cattle business.

This prohibition on store stock coming here from Canada is directly playing into the hands of advocates in the United States of reciprocity and even of union with the United States, and it is much against our interests to maintain the embargo. What Great Britain might lose by reprisals is nothing to the loss of confidence it will give Canada and our other Colonies in the word of England. Speaking of the Prime Minister of Canada the other day in this House the noble Viscount said— He pressed it upon me as a question of vital importance which might become very troublesome between this country and Canada. Mr. Wade, the Minister for British Columbia, also wrote very strongly to the same effect in a letter to The Times. Are we to invite trouble with Canada? I think this country has suffered a good deal at times from not acceding to just requests in Imperial matters, and very often, unfortunately, we have had to give, in response to threats, what we failed to give in response to persuasion. I hope we are not going to continue along those lines.

I am in agreement with what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said, when he says he thought that the Prime Minister would have been more logical had he said that, having given the pledge, we are going to carry it out. The Prime Minister, however, did not take that view, but decided to appoint a Royal Commission. That Royal Commission was particularly well selected. A very eminent lawyer, an ex-Lord Chancellor, was its Chairman, and his four colleagues were chosen for their great capacity, and for the fact that they were quite unprejudiced, and would be certain to give an impartial judgment. I think they have given an impartial judgment. I think some complaint was made in a letter to The Times from the noble Marquess that there was nobody on the Commission who understood anything about the subject. I think that was the very virtue of the Commission. If you had had a breeder on the one hand and a feeder on the other, the consumer on one side and the exporter on the other, they would never have come to any impartial decision.

It was, however, an impartial Commission, and this impartial Commission came to the conclusion that there was no case, so far as disease was concerned, for keeping out Canadian cattle from this country. The Commission sat for twenty-five days and examined ninety-two witnesses. They heard everything that could be said, either on one side or the other, and I think that too little attention has been paid to their Report. They said that there was no substance in the apprehension that the admission of store stock would introduce disease into this country. That there is no appreciable risk, therefore, of diseased cattle coming across the border. That was always the great cry of people who wanted some reason for prohibiting cattle from coming into this country. The Commission declare that there is no reason for apprehension on that score.

They also refer to the increasing demand for home-fed beef. I think that more home-fed beef is needed. It is becoming the luxury of the well-to-do. Why should not the poorer classes have a chance of getting home-fed beef? They cannot get it under present conditions, because it is too dear. The Commission found that the importation of Canadian cattle would also increase the number of live stock, and would tend to the advantage of the milk supply. They quote with approval from the Report of Sir Robert Greig that the removal of the embargo would give more and cheaper milk. Can you wonder that any urban constituency, having this Report before it, declines to return a candidate who is not ready to carry out these recommendations? If the Government decline to do away with the embargo, I do not think there is an urban constituency in England that will return a Member pledged to retain it. It is a palpable advantage to consumers that the embargo should be abolished. On the question of quarantine, which is to be raised this afternoon, I will say nothing beyond recalling that the Commission considered that quarantine was quite unnecessary. They went into the point very fully, and came to that conclusion.

I think this Report has done away with every argument, except one, against the free importation of store cattle from Canada. The exception is the argument that the breeding industry should be protected, as opposed to the feeder and the consumer. The whole opposition to lifting the embargo comes from those who want protection, and particularly from the Irish. There is nothing new about this claim. Every manufacturer would be glad to have protection for his own particular industry, and to leave every other industry unprotected. I do not think there is a manufacturer or trader in England who would not like protection for his own particular industry. Tariff Reformers would protect every industry. That is a very logical position to take up. I do not say whether Tariff Reform is right or wrong, but I do say that this particular protection is absurdly wrong, because it is prohibiting the importation of raw material into this country, and allowing the finished article to come in free.

I do not think anybody could defend such a state of affairs. It has never been defended in any other business, even by the wildest Tariff Reformers. But that is what we are doing, and we are doing it in the worst possible way, because we are prohibiting the entry of raw material from our own Dominions, and allowing foreign countries to send in the finished article without any Duty whatever. I think that makes the case very much worse, for whatever we have to pay for the finished article goes to foreign countries. If we allowed store cattle to come in, the price we pay would go to our own Colonies. I do not think the embargo can be defended logically on any ground whatever. Some people approve of the fact that store cattle are being sent from Canada to America, although there is a 30 per cent. Duty. I cannot look with satisfaction upon the idea of Canada sending her store cattle into America, into the great corn belts there, and that Americans should be feeding these cattle, getting all the by-products, and sending us the finished article, from which we get no advantage.

This is quite contrary to the welfare of this country. You are actually promoting the industry of cattle breeding and the exportation of raw material to America, thus giving the great meat trusts a considerable advantage. In 1920 we imported 9,861,837 cwt. of fresh frozen and chilled beef, and of that nine million odd cwts., 8,151,860 came from foreign countries, which means, roughly, that we get the finished product of about 750,000 beasts. From these we get no by-products, and our money goes to foreign countries, whilst we decline to take 200,000 store cattle from our own Dominions from which we should get all the offal, the hides for our leather, the horns and the hoofs. Moreover, we should get the fresh offal, in the shape of liver, hearts and so on, which would be a very great thing for the poorer consumers. In addition we should get the manure, to increase the fertility of our soil. We get none of these advantages from dead meat. It is all the other way. There are also a good many collateral advantages that we should get by buying our store cattle and feeding them. The purveyors of foodstuffs would get something out of it. Altogether, I am convinced that we should get much more out of finding our supply of meat from store cattle, when they have been made fat, than from importing dead meat. At present the countries who supply this chilled and frozen meat get all these advantages and they get them at our expense.

I think it is a suicidal policy. Personally, although I profess to be a Free Trader, I would infinitely rather tax the finished article and put a tax on all the frozen and chilled meat which came into the country. It would be a much more sane policy than that of prohibiting store cattle. We should at least foster our feeding industry and do a good thing for our Dominions across the seas. I believe that if we could get sufficient stores there is land enough in this country to be cultivated and improved to supply nearly all our wants. As I have said before, this thing is aggravated by the fact that we prohibit raw material from our own Dominions and take the finished article from the foreigner. I noticed a letter in The Times the other day from the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Crewe, in which he spoke of 750,000 small breeders producing our store stock. I very much question whether what you call the small breeders supply half the store stock in this country. There are many considerable breeders supplying store stock. Since the embargo a great many feeders have been obliged to become breeders. Instead a buying Canadian stores and giving them corn and cake, improving their own pastures, and turning their stores off in eight or ten weeks, they have gone in for breeding. They have gone into raising cattle, and anybody knows that breeding exhausts the land. When, however, they buy store stock from Canada they use cake and corn almost invariably, and improve the fertility of their land.

This policy of ours is in my opinion depreciating the quality of the land all over the kingdom, and I believe that thousands of acres are being used for breeding that ought to be cultivated and improved by feeding stock, instead of being impoverished by breeding. Then again, there is the question of intensive culture. It is admitted that the land of this country does not produce anything like what it ought to produce, and I believe that fact is very largely helped by trying to force people to go in for breeding as against feeding. It would be better for the country if our farmers went in more for intensive culture, and all the farmers who go in for intensive culture are against the embargo and want the store cattle to come in. It is the breeder who does not want them to be admitted. In the part of the country which I know it is generally a question of one cow and one calf (which is all that the farmer gets out of the cow in the year). It is a very easy and lazy kind of farming, but it is not one which should be encouraged.

I should like to say one word about Ireland. When Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom, everything applied to Ireland which applied to England, but things are on a different footing now. Ireland is now either a self-governing Dominion, or it is going to be either that or a Republic; I do not know which. What answer have we to Canada if Canada comes and says: "We have got the healthiest cattle in the world; there has been no case of disease, either foot-and-mouth or pleuropneumonia, for thirty years, and yet you will not have our stock. We sent you half a million of troops to help you in your time of stress, and yet you prefer Irish stock." A noble Lord in this House recently said that 80 per cent. of the people of Ireland hated and detested this country. Are we to tell loyal Canada, which has the healthiest stock in the world, that we will not have her stock but that we will have stock from another Dominion, where there is often disease and 80 per cent, of the in-habitants of which hate and detest us? I think His Majesty's Government will be very much wiser if they get rid of this question as soon as they can, and, by admitting Canadian store cattle, do away with what will be a very troublesome question when it comes to Ireland versus Canada. By admitting Canadian store cattle we should, in my opinion, show the world that our wont is our bond, we should I strengthen the bonds of Empire instead of weakening them; and we should increase the fertility of our soil and grow infinitely more food of all sorts for our people.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)

My Lords, I am sure that those of your Lordships who attended the debate about ten days ago must have been struck by the fact that almost the whole of the debate centred on the question of the pledge. That was quite right and proper, as two noble Lords who were present at the Conference and took a leading part in it naturally had to tell us what transpired there and what was the interpretation that they put on the proceedings at that Conference. It is not my intention this afternoon to go into that matter of the pledge, though I may refer to it briefly. I should rather like to speak from the point of view of the British agriculturist and farmer. I believe that on the last occasion there were only about three speakers who touched on this aspect of the question. One was the noble Marquess sitting opposite (Lord Crewe), another was the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, who opened the debate, and apart from them there was only one speaker, Lord Hastings, who confined himself to this point of view, which, after all, is one of the most important as affecting our vote on this question.

The noble Lord who has just addressed us said there are a certain number of intensive farmers in England and Scotland who are in favour of raising the embargo. I freely admit it. I know their reasons, and it would be idle for me to say that the farmers of England and Scotland are absolutely unanimous in opposition to the lifting of the embargo. But what I do maintain is that a very large majority—in fact, the vast majority—of the men who in this country are responsible for producing food are opposed to the raising of the embargo, and their views should receive the sympathetic attention of Parliament.

I can understand the desire of the farmers of Western Canada that this embargo should be removed. I thoroughly appreciate their views. The noble Lord who has just spoken has given us one of the reasons why this has become a burning question in Canada now. I think it is only within the past year that the United States placed a thirty-three per cent. Duty on all cattle going from Canada into the United States, and consequently the trade in these cattle has been enormously hampered. It was undoubtedly this that was the cause of the agitation in Canada. The vote of the farmers in Western Canada is, I believe, a very considerable one in the Canadian Parliament, and naturally greater pressure than ever is being put upon politicians and statesmen in Canada to remove the embargo. Naturally also they are looking for fresh markets, and these circumstances must have intensified the demand for the raising of the embargo.

I do not think I am wrong in stating that the agricultural vote in Canada, especially in the West, is of far more importance in the Canadian Parliament than, unfortunately, the agricultural vote is in the United Kingdom. The vote of the farmers of the United Kingdom is a very negligible quantity. In spite of that, I appeal to your Lordships to give their case a sympathetic hearing. We are further hampered in this matter because, owing to the change in the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons, the supporters of this embargo have been handicapped by the loss of the votes of seventy Irish Nationalists, who always voted solidly for maintaining the embargo.

What is the case of the agriculturists to-day? Ever since 1870, when the big drop in prices began—owing to the absolute repeal of the Corn Laws some years before, the great decrease in freights from foreign countries and the fact that sea-borne traffic was becoming much cheaper, cheap foreign labour, and favourable exchanges with many of the countries which produced corn—corn growing in this country has become less and less a profitable occupation. Just as we are always advised by the Free Trade leaders that when people found that sugar refining did not pay they turned their attention to jams and pickles, the farmers, when they found that corn growing did not pay, reduced their area of corn and took to raising live stock.

For many years our efforts to build up a healthy and sturdy stock, and to make livestock farming a profitable occupation were largely hampered owing to the frequent recurrence of most virulent diseases, and the first agricultural policy of this country was to deal with these diseases by the plan of slaughter. It was then pointed out that it was no use slaughtering, at great expense to the State, diseased animals and the animals which had come in contact with diseased animals, if you left the door perpetually open to fresh disease coming in from outside. In 1894, therefore, the importation of live animals, except for slaughter, was prohibited by Order, and it was, I think, in 1896 that this Order was converted into a permanent Act of Parliament, which prohibited the importation of live stock into this country except for slaughter.

I was farming in those days a good bit of land, and I will give my experience merely as an illustration of what, I know, is at the back of the minds of hundreds of thousands of farmers in this country. As soon as that Act was passed I recollect talking to some of my farming friends. I said: "Now, at last, we shall know what to go in for; we can breed cattle and be quite safe about it." And an enormous number of farmers did go in for breeding cattle, with very great success and with great profit to their country—I think perhaps more profit to their country than to themselves. At any rate, this became a most important industry. For this reason there are hundreds of thousands of these men who view with absolute consternation and alarm the proposed complete reversal of the settled policy of this country for the exclusion of store cattle.

The embargo had been an impenetrable barrier, because it was much more severe than high Protection; it was prohibitive. I present this argument to my Free Trade friends, because undoubtedly I am open to the reply that the moment you start Protection in any form you set up vested interests, and there is always a great outcry when you knock them down. I am quite certain that in this ease there will be a great outcry. However, there is no doubt, that behind that impenetrable barrier we raised up in this country a very great breeding industry. And what has been the result of that policy? In my judgment it has been successful. There can be no doubt that at the present moment our flocks and herds in this country are second to none in the world. I go further, and say that there is not a single country in the world which, when it wants to replenish its herds and get in new blood, does not come here to England to buy sheep and bulls and rains and breeding stock in order to renovate and restore their own stock abroad.

There is another very important thing which I am sure those of you who go about to shows and are interested in agriculture know perfectly well—that there has been a marked advance during this period in the class of animals which we have bred in this country. Instead of getting hold of great flat-sided animals which take about four years to fatten and bring to maturity, which eat an appalling amount of food with very little result, we have now in this country a breed of cattle which, instead of reaching maturity at four years, reaches it at two-and-a-half years and can be fed (I will not go into figures) very much quicker than some of those great flat-sided animals we used to see in England about twenty-five or thirty years ago. Therefore the farmers, feeling safe behind what they believed to be the settled policy of this country, have built up a breeding industry which is second to none in the world, and is a great advantage to themselves and to the United Kingdom. I will not pursue that point further because I believe that my noble friend, the Duke of Atholl, will deal more especially with it later on, but there can be no doubt that a reversal of this policy—in fact, the Commission has said so—will certainly have a very considerable effect on many of the small breeders especially in the more mountainous parts of the country.

The last speaker referred, I think, to the great sacrifices that Canada made for the Empire during the war. That I fully admit. On the other hand, we must consider our own people a little and, though I am no soldier, I understand that no Division in the whole of the Armies of the British Empire bore a better name and gave batter service to the country than the 51st which, I believe, was a Highland Division, recruited from these small crofters and people in the North, who, on the Report of this Commission, are very likely to be injuriously affected by the lifting of this embargo.

I have tried to place briefly before your Lordships what I believe to be the position of the main body of agriculturists. I recognise that the tide is flowing against us, that we may have to accept legislation later on. If there is a reversal of our policy I can only hope that the result of that reversal will not be so serious as some anticipate. Although I have placed one side of the question before your Lordships, I freely admit that to some of the larger farmers and man who require a great deal of manure—in fact, they tell me so themselves—the policy may not be a disadvantageous one. In dealing with this question, I hope that your Lordships will consider the opinion of the great majority of agriculturists in the country, and before you decide on legislation you, at all events, will give that opinion your sympathetic attention.

If there is to be any change in this policy I hope and trust that we shall maintain some system by which we can impose a quarantine when necessary, and that we shall at the same time invest our Minister of Agriculture with some powers to regulate the class of animal which is imported into this country. Speaking of quarantine brings me to the question of disease. I freely admit that Canada has been remarkably free from disease; I am the first to admit it, but, if I may say so, I consider that Canada has been extremely lucky. Canada is part of a continent, and in my opinion it is much harder to keep a continent free of cattle disease than it is to keep an island free of it. Although the United Kingdom is an island and has had this restriction on the importation of live animals for all these years, we have had some difficulty in keeping out disease. But an island has a better chance of keeping free from disease than a continent has. It would be absolutely foolhardy on our part to throw away any powers of quarantine, and not to maintain quarantine on animals coming into the country.

In the debate which took place some days ago in your Lordships' House one or two noble Lords talked of a boys' school and the introduction of ringworm by an infected boy. I forget exactly what the argument was; but this is not the ease of a school from which boys go home for their holidays and return again, and where new boys arrive, or boys go to neighbouring schools to play cricket matches. They are always liable to infection, because, although the neighbouring school may say they have no cases of measles, there may be a boy who is incubating measles—you never can tell. This is more like the case of a monastery in which there are a large number of monks shut up who never go outside the monastery and never have a visitor or stranger inside, and so long as they keep that monastery in a proper state of sanitation the probability is that they will not catch disease. I maintain that if a party of monks travel to some neighbouring residence and stop there for two or three days, or introduce strangers or visitors inside their gates they lay themselves open to the chance of contracting disease. If I were in that condition and wanted to keep free of disease, I should take pretty good care that strangers had some period of quarantine so that I knew they would be quite safe before they were let in. I think it is only fair and right that whatever powers are decided upon should be left to the Minister of Agriculture to administer.

Let us take the case of Canada. It is true that they have not had foot-and-mouth disease over there for thirty years; on the other band, there was foot-and-mouth disease in the United States four years ago. Canada has a frontier of 3,000 miles. In exactly the same way for many years there was no foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland and there is only a very small frontier between England and Scotland, and yet I am sorry to say that in this last outbreak of foot-and-mouth the infection got over the frontier. Placed as we are on an island, it is only fair that if ever legislation is introduced on this question there certainly should be powers given to the Minister of Agriculture to impose such quarantine as he thinks necessary to guard our flocks and herds against disease. I do not think it is unreasonable that we should make that demand because, after all, there is not a single civilised country in the world which does not treat us in the same way. I think I am right in saying that every other country in the world puts a twenty or thirty days' quarantine on our cattle and sheep that go into it.

I will go a step further. I am not suggesting in any way that if we are to accept some measure for lifting this embargo, this quarantine should be of a prohibitive nature or take the form of trying to keep these cattle out of the country; but it is most essential that we should keep such powers for the sake of the health of our flocks and herds. If I may say so, in passing, I think there is one other person who perhaps commands a few more votes than agriculturists, and that is the taxpayer of the country. There is no doubt that when once you get disease into this country it is an expensive matter for the taxpayer. We found that out this year when it cost us the best part of a million pounds to get rid of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. To allow too big a latitude in this direction would, I am certain, mean, not the expenditure of some £9,000 per annum, which has been the cost of these Acts for the last thirty years, but an expenditure on a vastly greater scale.

There is another point regarding importation to which I should like to refer. If any importation is to take place I hope the Ministry of Agriculture will be left with power to say what class of animal is to be imported into this country. It would be a very grave mistake indeed, I am certain, to allow absolutely free importation, from Canada or elsewhere into this country, of bulls and heifers and other breeding stock. If we want stock from our Colonies or elsewhere to improve our own stock we have powers to get it now. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, said only a few months ago that we did import a considerable number of Friesian bulls and cows into this country with, however, a quarantine of about four months. We did that because we believed it to be a good thing to do in order to increase the milk supply of some of our own herds. But that is a very different thing from permitting absolutely free importation. It would be very great folly on the part of Parliament, and would inflict very great injustice upon our flock masters and breeders of cattle, if we were to admit into this country heifers and bulls of an entirely inferior quality. The effect of that would probably be to neutralise much of the good that has been done in the past in the way of improving our herds. It would also nullify the highly successful work of the Ministry and of the breeding societies, and of the milk recording and other measures which have been of very great benefit to farmers and the public of this country generally.

I know perfectly well that many of your Lordships were much impressed by the speech which we heard ten days ago from the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who presided over that important Conference of Colonial statesmen. Your Lordships were also, no doubt, impressed by the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when he gave his opinion that a pledge had been given. Two or three noble Lords have since come to me and said that they thought much as I do, that it would be a great pity to break through this barrier and to put doubts into the minds of the breeders of cattle in this country, but they recognised, after what had been said., that a pledge had been given, and they felt they were bound in honour to vote for the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire.

In conclusion, I would appeal to those noble Lords who feel that way to vote for Lord Chaplin's Motion in the first instance, so that they may have a second opportunity of voting for Lord Long's Amendment which includes that for which I appeal—namely, that power should be left to the Ministry of Agriculture. Circumstances have, of course, changed, even since our last debate. We cannot ignore the powerful speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, nor the statement of the learned Lord Chancellor in regard to the pledge; nor can we ignore the vote given the other night in the House of Commons, but I ask your Lordships, in voting on this occasion, to give an indication that it is your wish that the Ministry of Agriculture should have some power left in their hands which will enable them to deal with the questions of quarantine and the class of animals which are to be imported into this country.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I cannot help thinking that if some eminent stranger had attended our debates to-day, and had been, as he undoubtedly would have been, an interested listener to the speech just made by the noble Earl, he would have found it very difficult indeed to conclude that the Speech had been delivered upon the Motion before this House couched in the following language: "That it is incumbent on His Majesty's Government to carry out their pledge made at the Imperial Conference in 1917 to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle." He surely would have said that this speech, with its convincing arguments, has been delivered five years too late, and he would have been the more astonished—indeed, I think he would have been alarmed—if he had been told that the noble Earl was, in fact, a member of the Government that was being called upon to carry out its pledge. I cannot very well understand why, at the conclusion of a speech like that which we have just heard, there was not an expression of regret that tin noble Earl was wholly unable to continue longer in Office under a Government that was bound by an obligation which he found himself utterly unable to honour.

The first question, it seems to me, that it is important to consider is: Was any such pledge given, and if so, what does it imply? That a pledge was given is now, of course, past all dispute, but I thoroughly agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, that the observations that he made at the time when that pledge was given were observations in which he suggested two conditions, the one a condition in relation to Ireland, and the other a condition in regard to the extent of cultivation of our arable land. It was with those reservations that he said he was perfectly willing to see the embargo removed. It surely must be striking to all that practically neither one nor the other of these considerations has been urged before your. Lordships this afternoon at all. The considerations that have been urged are certainly not those with which the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, attempted to guard himself at the time when this pledge was given. I think I can see what has happened.

It does not require great familiarity with the proceedings of such a Conference as this to realise that as the discussion went on feeling got stronger and stronger, until at last the Chairman saw that it was impossible to retain the original position, promised that the embargo should be removed, and concluded in these words: "Now the position is that the restriction is to be removed, and the Board of Agriculture will take such steps as are necessary for this purpose." There was the reservation that if tonnage was not available the animals could not arrive. There cannot be any question about the meaning of that.

What is the effect that has, first, upon the people to whom it was given, and, secondly, upon us? The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that the people to whom it was given went away and little knew us when they got that pledge. I am bound to say I have heard that statement with some feeling of resentment. The idea that people should attend an Imperial Conference, and go away with the promise of the English Government in their pocket, and that it should be said they little knew the people who were giving them the promise, upon which they were foolish enough to think they might rely; they little knew that it was not worth any reliance at all—on behalf of the English people I resent that imputation. But if by the word "us," the noble and learned Lord meant the Coalition Government, then I can understand that the people did not realise how utterly untrustworthy was the promise they had obtained.

But we are now face to face with that promise, and the question is: What are we going to do with it? I agree with the statement that has been made in this House and in the other House, that no promise by any man in this Kingdom can bind Parliament. That is quite plain. No Prime Minister can get up and say, "I am going to bind the House of Commons"; still less, I am thankful to think, can he say, "I am going to bind the House of Lords." But what he is bound to do, as I understand it, after he has made a promise like that, is to use the united power of the Government to carry out the promise he has given, or fail in the attempt. That is the meaning of that promise, and I am amazed when I see members of the Government who are bound by that promise, so far from undertaking to do anything of the kind, doing everything in their power to prevent the promise being implemented if by any chance the matter should arise either before this House or the other for discussion. That is a position which, I admit, is one I do not understand, and I say with all respect I do not think there is a single member of your Lordships' House who would have understood it six months ago.

What was the original Motion upon which the Amendment was moved? The original Motion was a striking one. It was a reasoned Motion by the noble Viscount asking that the embargo be maintained upon the very ground on winch every one now admits there is no reason for its maintenance: upon the ground that there will be risk of disease to our herds if the em- bargo is relaxed. I do not wish to refer your Lordships to the statement made by Lord Ernle, but he stated quite plainly, followed by other noble Lords, that no such risk need he apprehended at all, and that contention, as a foundation for the preservation of this embargo, was wholly insecure. The noble Viscount made a speech which to me was full of the greatest interest. Through the texture of his argument there ran, like a skein of white thread, personal reminiscences which, I trust he will forgive me for saying, appeared to me some of the most attractive portions of his speech. It was very striking indeed to hear the noble Viscount refer to his visits to spots that are now vast and populous cities, which were then nothing but portions of the free and open spaces of the world, and to realise, as you can when a picture like that is placed before you, with what astonishing swiftness we are being carried along on the current of events.

It is not surprising that as all circumstances change so fast around us men's minds may change too, and I see no reason why anyone need be ashamed of expressing a change of opinion. It is far more discreditable to change your opinion and pretend you still retain it than to change your opinion and publicly state that you have changed it. But the noble Viscount has remained like a rock. He has not changed at all. Unfortunately, in this particular matter he appears to have been left alone. I really cannot find anyone who is prepared to join with him now and say that you must exclude Canadian cattle because if you let them in they will infect your herds with disease.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I never said that.

LORD BUCKMASTER

That there would be risk.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Certainly risk. How did disease come before?

LORD BUCKMASTER

That I cannot answer. I only want to point out, and I am sure he will not think I am putting my ignorance against his information, a statement that is made by people whom I regard as experts. I always look upon Lord Ernle as an expert whose opinion I am very anxious to follow—I trust that I am not wrong in my view—and Lord Ernle says: We do not believe that there is now, or has been for a good many years, the slightest ground to exclude Canadian cattle on the score of disease. When the Canadians themselves were protesting that the continuance of the embargo on the ground of disease did them a most unmerited wrong and upon that protest the promise was made that it should be removed, it seems to me quite impossible to argue that it ought to be retained on the ground that the very thing which did not exist was really the proper ground for its continuance. But on whatever ground your Lordships may decide I trust you will decide upon the expression of some other opinion. I can imagine nothing more fatal to the good feeling between this country and Canada than to repeat once more the very thing that has been withdrawn publicly at one of the Imperial Conferences by the man best qualified to speak on the subject at the time.

When this is out of the way, what remains? What remains is, of course, the opinion expressed by the noble Earl who has just spoken, and most unquestionably held by a very large number of your Lordships. That is, that the importation of these cattle will interfere with the stock breeding industry of this country. In other words, it is for the purpose of protecting the home industry. There is no reason why anybody need be ashamed of his opinions, and if that is the object, for goodness' sake let us say so. But I should like to know how you will be able to justify the maintenance of a frankly protective system, openly avowed as protective, against cattle and not against corn. What is the difference? The very argument the noble Earl has just used pointed out that the difficulties in which the farmers find themselves were due to the system of Free Trade. I have no doubt he is right, and if you once get rid of the whole question of the liability of disease this can only be excused on the ground which would justify the reimposition of a duty on corn, and I doubt if there is any one of your Lordships who would care to advocate such a view through the length and breadth of the Kingdom.

There is the position; and it certainly is surprising to see the variety of opinions which are produced. I received two days ago a long series of arguments—I say it without reproach—of an eminently protectionist character, and at the end I was amazed to find they bore the signature of my most respected leader, and one who I hope will still allow me to call him my noble friend—the Marquess of Crewe. He may have seen the light while I remain in the darkness. Just as some of your Lordships are open and avowed Protectionists, I am an impenitent Free Trader, and I have never varied in my view, even to the extent of admitting the alluring advantages of Imperial Preference. On the very ground, therefore, that some of your Lordships might think a good reason for desiring to prevent these cattle from coining, I should desire to see them come. But it does not seem to me to depend upon that.

In the last resort, the real point seems to me to be this. Are we now, after the lapse of five year,, when we have made no protest, to refuse the performance of what purported to be a promise made on behalf of the country five years ago, during a crisis of the war? I sincerely hope that no noble Lord will suggest that, just because we were in the crisis of the war, we need not trouble about it, since our promises at that time were perhaps a little freely given. I do not care what were the conditions of the promise. The word of an English Government has been pledged, and, I care not how injurious it may be, we must carry out that pledge, unless the persons whom we have promised will release us from our bond. The Canadians will not release us from this bond. On the other hand, they insist on its being fulfilled, and the Prime Minister himself, as lately as 1921, has again promised that it shall be done. All that the Motion of the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, asks this House to do, is to say that it is incumbent upon this country to honour its word, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships, whatever your view may be about the merits of the question, will see your way to support that position.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I have already addressed the House on this subject, and I believe I am in the same position as the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, in that I can again address you only with the indulgence of the House.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I had not spoken.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I thought he had made some observation on a former occasion. My noble and learned friend very gracefully and pleasantly twitted me with having departed from my Free Trade faith, in taking the view that I had, that the restriction upon the importation of foreign cattle ought to be maintained. I have never been one of those who believed that the admission of these store cattle would in any material degree affect the price of the product, and I have always admitted that if it did, if the mendacious observation which lost Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen his seat at Dudley—that the price of beef would fall 6d. a pound if these cattle were admitted —if that observation could have been proved to be substantial, I should agree with my noble and learned friend that the breeders case had very largely gone. It would be impossible to continue the breeding of cattle in this country at all, if it could be done only by increasing the price of the people's food, and this, I think, supplies the answer to my noble and learned friend's inquiry, "If you keep out cattle, why do you not keep out corn?" The cases are by no means on all fours. There seems to me, indeed, to be scarcely any analogy between them, and I pass, therefore, from that subject, as I hope, with a quiet conscience.

My noble and learned friend devoted himself, with his accustomed fire and eloquence, to the simple question of the pledge, raised by the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Lincolnshire. I agree with what fell from the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, that since we last discussed this matter the question has materially changed. We had, during the previous debate, the speech of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ernle, and the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, describing most clearly and fully what took place at that earlier meeting of the Imperial Conference. Since then we have also had a debate and a Division in another place, and in the discussion which there took place the governing consideration appeared to be the question whether a pledge had or had not been given, and, except in the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, the agricultural side of the question was but little discussed.

Assume that a pledge was given—qualified, as the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, maintains, or absolute, as my noble and learned friend has just indicated—the question then remains as to how that pledge is to be made good, and on that point my noble and learned friend, who tells us almost ostentatiously that he is not learned in agricultural matters, offers us no advice, but merely desires your Lordships to say in general terms that Canadian cattle are to be admitted. Whether they are going to be admitted by repealing the Act of 1896, so far as regards Canada, and allowing Canadian cattle to be moved about in this country without leave from the Ministry of Agriculture, in a way in which Irish cattle or British cattle cannot be moved about, we are not told.

In considering, therefore, how the arrangement is to be carried out, I turn to the Amendment placed on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Long. That does impose, or, at any rate, suggest some restrictions upon the importation of Canadian cattle, absolute so far as regards the nature of the cattle to be imported—that is to say, only steers and not breeding animals could be introduced—and also indicating some possible regulation in the form of quarantine. What we want to know is whether admission on such terms would be regarded by Canada as a fulfilment of what Lord Ernle and Lord Long said at the Imperial Conference. If it is so regarded, even my noble and learned friend will admit that, not only is honour satisfied, but everybody is satisfied.

Perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships of what occurred at the later Imperial Conference where this question was raised again. I wonder if I might have the attention of my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, because I think it is a point which will interest him? My point is that, at the later Imperial Conference, in 1921, the matter was raised again, when the Prime Minister was present, and Mr. Meighen, the Canadian Prime Minister, said this— The shipping conditions certainly are such that cattle can be transported now, and consequently there is no reason, I submit, why the promise should not be fulfilled. It is undoubtedly true that all through the Canadian Statesmen have believed that a pledge, at any rate, was given by the noble Lord opposite. Mr. Meighen went on— From the beginning of this imposition until this day, the Canadian Government have spared no effort; it has consistently, under one Prime Minister and the next, pressed for the removal of it, on the ground not that we wish to interfere with any domestic regulations of the United Kingdom, but on the ground that this embargo constitutes a stigma which is unjust and injurious to Canadian stock, and to its reputation through- out the world, and that it should be removed whether or not there be some other protective or other measure installed in its place. From that one is entitled to believe that the Canadian Government never have asked, and do not now ask, for the unrestricted importation of all cattle, and it, is that fact, which I do not think can be disputed by anybody, which enables me to look with favour and hopefulness on the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, Lord Long.

If some such importation is admitted, and admitted with the consent of Canada, it is quite clear that everybody concerned will give up something. The Canadians would give up the absolutely free and unrestricted import of all kinds of cattle, which they have professed themselves, if I read Mr. Meighen's speech rightly, as willing to give up. The great majority of farmers here—I think one might say 90 per cent. of the farmers in England and probably more than 50 per cent., numerically at any rate, of the farmers in Scotland—would give up what they would like to see continue, namely, the complete exclusion of all live cattle from abroad. We, and in "We" I include not only my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, but also Lord Lincolnshire, and all Free Traders, also give up something, because we admit the principle of Imperial Preference, which is not a principle to which I have ever myself bowed down. We admit that, I believe, either way. We admit that if you give a special preference to Canada and to no other part of the world. We equally admit it if we adopt the proposal in Lord Long's Amendment—namely, that cattle, not from the Dominion of Canada alone but from all the Dominions, might be admitted as stores to Great Britain. Personally, I should be very glad, if immunity from disease can be proved in France or Holland, if stores could be admitted from those countries. I am not prepared to give up my Free Trade views on that point, but as matters stand, and as it is proposed by the noble Viscount opposite, I am bound to take what I can get, but I say myself, absolutely, that if you give it to Canada you must give it to the other Dominions.

I turn once more to that Conference of July, 1921, and I see that further on, when the Prime Minister had said that there was a sincere desire to encourage products from the Empire, and that everything would be done to facilitate their importation into this country, Mr. Hughes, the Australian Prime Minister, who, as we know, is keenly and quite rightly determined that Australia should never be left out if there is any question of preference to anybody, observed— I do not want to take up your time, but now that Mr. Meighen has brought this matter up I am sure you are aware of the position of the Australian exporter. I only want to call your attention to the disabilities under which he is labouring now. What applies to Australia applies even more to South Africa and other parts of the Empire, who would not sit still if special preference were given to Canada.

I wonder whether your Lordships may not be brought to agree that the solution proposed by Lord Long is the most reasonable one which in all the circumstances can be put forward. As I have tried to show, under it nobody quite gets the whole that they might conceivably get. But, on the other hand, those primarily concerned may well be satisfied, because I see no reason to suppose that such a very moderately restricted import of lean cattle in unlimited numbers would not satisfy Canada, and at the same time something will be done to remove the fears of the breeders in this country—fears which some noble Lords—Lord Cawley, for example (who wants to turn this country into a feeding rather than a breeding country)—may consider unreasonable, but which are entertained by a very large number of the small farmers engaged in the breeding industry. I should like to appeal to Lord Lincolnshire and ask whether, on reconsideration, he may not regard this as a reasonable solution of the question. Merely to say, in rather general terms, that the pledge has got to be carried out does not take you very much further. It is an extremely delicate and complicated question, affecting a large number of interests in all sorts of ways, and if, as I believe, the solution suggested by Lord Long is one which will generally be regarded as reasonable, I should hope that the House will see its way to adopt that rather than the more general Motion made by Lord Lincolnshire.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

My Lords, it has been suggested to me that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were briefly to explain the grounds on which I have placed my Amendment on the Paper. I am aware that I have no right to intervene again, and I do not desire to do so, but if the suggestion which has been made to me represents the view of your Lordships I need hardly say I should be very glad briefly to state what were the reasons which led me to put this Amendment on the Paper in its present form.

The Amendment, if adopted, would make the Resolution read in this way— That this House accepts the conclusions of the Royal Commission that the Dominion of Canada is free from cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, and is of opinion that steers from the Dominions might be admitted as store cattle to Great Britain, subject to precautions, by means of quarantine, being taken. It has been suggested outside that this Amendment does not carry out the promise that I made to the Imperial Conference of 1917 on behalf of the Government, and that it is inconsistent with the remarks that I offered to your Lordships on a previous occasion. That statement is wholly incorrect.

It is true that this Amendment was not drawn up by me. It was the result of the suggestion made by my noble friend, Lord Harris, at the conclusion of our last debate, when he moved the adjournment in order that he might consider whether it would not be possible to propose a Resolution which would meet with, if not general acceptance, at all events wider acceptance than any of those then on the Paper. He found himself accidentally prevented from being here, having to fulfil a very important engagement in Kent, and he begged me to assure your Lordships on his behalf of his very great regret that he could not be here to take charge of his own Motion, and also that it is from no lack of courtesy to your Lordships' House that he was not present himself.

He asked me to take the Motion for him, and I very gladly undertook the task for this reason. This Amendment is based entirely upon Imperial grounds, and is drawn so that it shall be applicable not only to Canada but to the Empire as a whole. In its early part it sets out—what is necessary in fairness to Canada—that as a result of the Inquiry by the Royal Commission this House accepts the position that Canada is free from cattle diseases. That is a tribute to the condition of health of Canadian cattle to which the Canadians are entitled. Then it goes on to deal not only with Canada but with the Dominions as a whole.

I have no right, of course, to speak for the Canadian Government. I have not the pleasure of the personal acquaintance of the present Prime Minister, as I had of his two predecessors, but I have endeavoured to keep in touch with representatives of Canadian opinion, and I have every reason to believe that Canada will accept the proposal contained in my Amendment. And this is most unquestionably the fact, and I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, will confirm what I say—you will find it, indeed, in the White Paper, and I think Lord Crewe has already quoted the words—Canada never desired to interfere in any way with our domestic policy, or to question our right to do what we think necessary in our own interests. The request she made was a twofold one—first, that we should admit that she is free from disease (which is a fact that can in no quarter be disputed), and, secondly, that, admitting that fact, we would not do ourselves the dishonour of maintaining a restriction based upon disease which we have already admitted did not exist in that country.

It is not a question of doing justice to Canada or to any other Dominion; it is a question of doing what is right by ourselves. If your Lordships are prepared to maintain that all the evidence which is forthcoming is of no value, and that disease still exists there, then you have the premiss which will justly lead you to the conclusion that on the score of disease you could exclude cattle. But, that being abandoned—and I submit confidently that it is abandoned in every quarter—the only course open to your Lordships, in my humble opinion, is to see in what way this promise can most properly be fulfilled, bearing in mind that Canada has never asked to interfere, and would, I am sure, indignantly repudiate the suggestion that she should interfere, with our own domestic affairs.

As the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, pointed out, there is no country in the world, so far as I know, which does not possess this power to regulate importation into its own country. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, proposing at least thirty days' quarantine. I could not accept that Amendment, or anything pointing in that direction, for this reason, that the period of quarantine is to be left, under the Amendment which stands in my name, entirely to the Ministry of Agriculture of the day. What would be the position of the Ministry, however composed? They would have before them the Resolution of the House of Commons. They would have before them, I hope, a Resolution of your Lordships' House pointing in the direction in which they would have to go. If they were to attempt to take away with one hand what they gave with the other, by an excessive use of their power to make Regulations, I at all events feel certain that Parliament would very soon bring them to book, and would refuse to confirm or approve their action. Therefore, I am anxious that we should leave it to them to make such Regulations as they think necessary.

I am informed that in the case of Canadian cattle it takes about a fortnight fur them to reach this country, and that ten days of that period are spent on board ship. It may well be that the Department of the day may consider that they have ail the protection they want by reason of that voyage. That may be sufficient quarantine for their purpose. It may be that they will say that the mere fact of the voyage exposes the cattle to some risks, for which a period of quarantine of a few days on this side is necessary. I do not know. I am not a veterinary surgeon. I know nothing about the period of incubation of these diseases, or the power of detection in the live animal. All this is work for the veterinary advisers of the Ministry of Agriculture. They will know quite well what Parliament wants them to do, they will have the power to make such Regulations as are necessary, and the expression of your Lordships' opinion, if you do me the honour to adopt the Amendment which stands in my name, will make it perfectly clear that you are dealing with this question not as a local but as an Imperial one.

The noble and learned Lord at present on the Woolsack (Lord Buckmaster) in the brilliant and interesting speech which he made just now, and which made me think rather more of elections than of sedate debates in your Lordships' House, talked about Imperial Preference. I have never disguised the fact that I am a warm advocate of Imperial Preference. I did all I could when I was at the Colonial Office to secure its adoption, and I succeeded; and therefore, when the noble and learned Lord said that the speech of the noble Earl who preceded him was five years too late, well, so is the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Imperial Preference was adopted at the very same Conference, and became the accepted policy not only of this country but of the whole Empire represented at that Conference.

Therefore, it is in conformity with what has been since 1917 the adopted policy of this country and of the whole Empire that I ask your Lordships to affirm, first, in answer to the request, or indeed, as one noble Lord rightly called it, the demand of Canada, that Canada is free from disease; and, secondly, that being so, the Department of Agriculture here shall be charged with the same power that every other Department of Agriculture has, including that of Canada, and shall admit store cattle from the Dominions in accordance with the Regulations which they will frame and for which they will be responsible.

It has been said that no promise made by a Minister of the Crown on behalf of the Government to which he belongs can be carried out without the approval of Parliament. That is a mere truism. Under our system, if any Minister made a promise which Parliament was not prepared to ratify that promise could not be carried out. So it is with the administration of a great public Department. If any attempt were made, by the exercise of those powers, to evade what Parliament will, as I hope, have laid down in both Houses—namely, its desire that there should be no restriction on this trade imposed on the ground of disease, that ground having been swept away, I am convinced that Parliament would never endorse the action of the Department. Therefore, it is with full confidence in our public Department and full reliance on the unceasing control of our two Houses of Parliament that, when the time conies, I shall ask leave of your Lordships to move the Amendment which now stands in say name.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. There are several things I should like to have said, but they have been put so clearly by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, and by other speakers, that I feel it is only necessary for me to deal with some of the things that have been said rather than with those which had not been said until those speakers got up.

With all respect, I feel bound, first of all, to try to clear up some of the remarks that were made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, in the earlier debate. In his first statement, he said that "Scotsmen as a whole, both as regards agriculturists and people who live in towns, are against this embargo." Will be give me his authority for that? He has none. I have authority; I live in that country. Has the noble Marquess entirely forgotten the existence of the crofters and small holders in Scotland, numbering something like 50,000, the great majority of whom keep a cow and a follower, and are bitterly opposed to the removal of the embargo? Has he forgotten all the small farmers who keep two or three cows—the "pair horse farms" I mean—from which they breed the calves that are eventually sent down to the feeders in the south? Will be tell me that they do not fear—I do not say whether rightly or wrongly—the removal of the embargo which may ruin them? Then, has the noble Marquess never heard of the existence of our shorthorn and Ayrshire herds? Does he really think that the owners of our Ayrshire dairy herds are anxious to see the re-importation of cattle from abroad? Those owners are terrified lest disease should attack those herds which, mark you, cannot be replaced. So much for Scotland.

Then, so far as England is concerned, the noble Marquess has conveniently remembered only the millions of "beef eaters" in the cities, as I think he called them. Naturally, both these and the people in our large centres in Scotland are out for what they think is the cheapest at the moment. I do not blame them; but are they the best judges of an agricultural matter? The noble Marquess has not mentioned the fact that in England and Wales alone, to take those two countries, there are something like 278,000 small holders, the very great majority of whom keep a cow, nor has he mentioned the fact that the finest herds of high class cattle in the world are to be found in England. That was all forgotten. Moreover, I think the noble Marquess can at least find in the Report of the Royal Commission, in which the alleged pledge appears, confirmation of the fact that the fears of the Highland crofters are not entirely groundless! This, however, he has, by accident, of course, omitted to quote, but I think he will admit that if the fears of the Highland crofters are not groundless, equally the fears of the small holders in England and Wales are not groundless. Then he proceeded to tell us, by inference of course, that the Canadian embargo raised the price of meat. At the same time, he stated that he offered no personal opinion—I must be quite fair to him—but, still, the implication was there. That was added to, I think, by my noble friend Lord Cawley, who said that we were going to get cheaper meat if these Canadian cattle came in.

LORD CAWLEY

I think that was in the Report of the Commission.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

But I think it was the noble Lord's opinion, and that is why he mentioned it; otherwise, I do not think he would have stated it. That being so, he also told us that we ought to have a tax on frozen meat. Would that make meat cheaper?

LORD CAWLEY

I did not say anything of the sort. I said that rather than tax Canadian store cattle I would put a tax on the finished article. I meant of the two; but I did not advocate either.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Therefore, my Lords, the argument about cheaper meat disappears! But I would rather go to the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, and ask him what his views are on this matter. I have been improving my own education, and I do not think I could have gone to a better informant than a Lord Chamberlain. This is what I read the other day— Now as to the price of meat. From 1880 to 1892 the price of first quality meat was 5s. 3d. per stone of 8 lbs. From 1893 to 1905— when the embargo was on— the price was 4s. 7d. Then underlined, so to speak— so that the price of food has not increased in consequence of the regulation, but has diminished to the extent of 8d. per stone"— under the embargo! The noble Lord who made that statement may still be known to Lord Lincolnshire, for I have no doubt that the noble Marquess held him in some esteem. He was Lord Carrington, President of the Board of Agriculture. I should like to know, and perhaps the noble Marquess will tell me, which of those two views will form the substance of his next speech on a public platform. The noble Marquess then proceeded to twit the Unionist Party about what he termed their sole remaining "rotten plank"—the embargo on Canadian cattle. May I ask him whether in the year 1906 he was not himself clinging to that same "rotten plank"?

THE MAEQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE

My Lords, I must answer that at once. I was entirely in favour at that time when I was Minister of Agriculture of getting rid of the embargo. But owing to twenty years of resolute Unionist Government Agriculture had been brought to a deplorable state. I only quote a few words from one of the best of the many perorations in the magnificent speeches of my noble friend, Lord Chaplain. He said: "Agriculture is now within measurable distance of great, if not supreme, disaster." As that was the case, I thought at the time, and the Cabinet felt too, that to restore the confidence which the Tory Government has so grievously destroyed, it would be better to continue the embargo, and that when confidence had been restored to the British farmer then, and then only, would be the time to remove it.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

In other words, the noble Marquess thought that when within measurable distance of disaster the thing to do was to turn to protection. Standing at this box he said— I think I have said enough to show what great responsibility there would be in any sudden change in this legislation. I think it is ray duty to state that as far as my own personal conviction is concerned, having examined the whole case with an open mind, and had the opportunity of receiving deputations from both sides, I think it would be undertaking a grave responsibility if the restrictions at present in force were suddenly, and without grave consideration, withdrawn. Again, we find him in 1907 approving an official letter to the Dominion of Canada, the last sentence of which reads— Lord Carrington, therefore, suggests that the Dominion Government might be informed that His Majesty's Government regret that after the fullest consideration they are unable to propose to Parliament any amendment of the existing law on the subject. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with quotations but I should like to quote what Lord Carrington said in answer to a deputation in 1909.

He said that he was personally responsible for the advice upon which the Government acted in this matter and that he was actuated by no desire to exclude foreign or Colonial cattle for any reason apart from the risk of disease. What has that to do with the deplorable state of which the noble Marquess told us just now? No greater catastrophe, he added, could possibly happen to this country than an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE

Which took place.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

He asked them as practical business men, could they take the responsibility of advising the Government to run the risk. Voices acclaimed "Yes" and he concluded that he, as responsible Minister of the Crown could not do so. This was protection and he puts it down to the plea of disease. One can almost imagine hearing the noble Marquess gurgling: "Don't push me off that rotten plank." The noble Marquess, in his effort the other day, congratulated the noble Viscount, Lord Long, on performing a double somersault on the question. If so, the noble Viscount must logically have landed in exactly the same position as he was. Comment is unnecessary as regards the far more intricate feat of the noble Marquess in which, by a clever twist in the air, he himself faces exactly the opposite way from which he started. Lord Lincolnshire further told us the other day that, so strong were the feelings of the Liberal Party on the matter of Free Trade in 1906 that almost all the leaders publicly stated that they would have voted for any Bill for the removal of the embargo. Among others ho quoted Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Asquith. He told us all were in favour of removing the embargo, and openly expressed their determination to vote in favour of a Bill if it were introduced into either House for the removal of this embargo. Let us see what Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said in the House of Commons in 1906 in reply to the hon. member for Cork City—

LORD CARSON

Were there not eighty Irish Nationalists supporting the Government at that time and was not that the real reason the embargo was not taken off?

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I think that was the fact, but I do not know, of course, if it was the reason. Well, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said: The hon. Member for Cork City said this legislation did not give any permanent exclusion of Canadian or other cattle, and it could be repealed if the circumstances justified it. I think my hon. friend on reflection will see that it is not easy to repeal an Act of Parliament even if the necessity of it has long passed away. This reads suspiciously like a pledge to Ireland. Then we have Mr. Asquith, as reported in The Times of September, 1909, as saying he did not feel that the Government were in a position to recede from the policy which had been so long pursued, and he did not think there were any new facts which were altogether either unknown or had been only partially and perhaps distortedly presented hitherto, and he could not hold out any expectation that any further inquiry would bring to light facts which could affect their judgment. He was unable to hold out any hope of alteration in a policy which had been so long pursued.

Last Monday, however, Mr. Asquith appears to have emulated my noble friend in this sort of Muller exercise, because he is reported to have stated that— although he personally had for many years been firmly convinced that Canadian cattle might be and ought to be freely admitted into this country without any real danger to our herds, he had always been ready to agree that a very strong case could be made out for cither side. Yet we found him saying exactly the opposite just before. Mr. Asquith also stated at that time that he was perfectly willing to accept the statement that they might go through Canada without discovering any trace of disease, but that it could not be disputed that in the vast neighbouring territory of the United States disease from time to time made its appearance with most disastrous results, and they could not put Canada and the United States into watertight, compartments for this purpose. That is the opinion of Mr. Asquith.

Lastly, if I may quote from my noble friend, he tells us that he desires the free importation of cattle from Canada without quarantine and without any of the safeguards. I understand that his case is that he is a Free Trader. If so, I take it the noble Lord would be prepared as a Free Trader to bring cattle from anywhere. He would, for instance, bring them from the Argentine or anywhere where there is no danger of disease, I do not really know if he would be prepared to do that, but that would be logical for a Free Trader. What in such a case would happen with regard to cattle from Canada?

To get, if I may, to the point about all this unfortunate business—for it is a very unfortunate one—I do not believe that a pledge was intended, but undoubtedly whether due to outside influence or not, the farmers of Western Canada firmly believe that a pledge has been made, and if they believe that, it is I am quite certain one that ought to be honoured. The position of Canada is now very different from what it was before the war. We were good friends with Canada then, but during the war we became more than blood brothers. We cannot forget how they, at the first call of the trumpet, sprang to arms, and came to the rescue; how they held the same ideals as we did, and how they were prepared to make the same sacrifices. For that reason—and that reason alone—I feel that the cattle breeders in this country, and amongst them I number myself, should be prepared to go a long way to meet them.

I believe that the embargo must be removed as such, and that importation will have to be allowed, but surely under proper safeguards. The Canadian is sensitive— and rightly so—with regard to questions affecting his good name, or of that of his stock. That "slur" if it be such, can, and I feel will, be removed, but the Canadian is also a business man, and he has very little respect for anyone who is not, so I feel he would be the last person to resent our taking precautions—precautions that he takes himself—to prevent any disease attacking our herds and to maintain their purity. We can surely take up the matter in a spirit of reciprocity, remove the embargo, and leave the respective Ministries of Agriculture to settle the other details. Canada, at present, imposes a twenty-eight days' quarantine of our stock coming in; Australia puts a far longer time. It would be absurd and quixotic on our part to let cattle come from anywhere without a reasonable period of quarantine. I do not want to be dogmatic as to what the period should be; that could be left to experts and could be worked out by the two countries. But if we raise the embargo it should be on this understanding and we should see that it is understood.

It is absurd to think that Canada would ever export to this country the best of her breeding cattle, when she has only to walk them over the frontier and get a better price. Numbers of small holders in this country, if they continue to keep cattle at all, would be tempted to buy the heifers and bulls that were exported to Great Britain for meat purposes, because they might prove cheaper. These animals would, I think, be found to be unfit for breeding either in Canada or America, and would probably be sent across here for beef. We want to protect ourselves against that because we nullify the whole efforts of our Ministry of Agriculture which has been doing everything it can to grade up our stocks for milk and meat supplies.

I would, therefore, earnestly beg your Lordships to add the proviso that all cattle brought into this country shall be brought in for the purpose of meat only, and therefore should all be steers—this for the sake not only of ourselves but for the sake of Canada, where we want to sell our best breeding stock. Given these two regulations, I personally would be prepared to vote for the embargo removal, and I think many of my noble friends would do the same. I would just say this to Canadians—that as the Canadian Government feels it has a duty and a responsibility to the western farmers, so have we in Scotland to our northern farmers, whoso forefathers were, almost more than any other, the forefathers of the Canadian farmers themselves. They are still poor and struggling in the north. Imperil their stocks either by disease or by flooding the market, and we shall sweep away their means of livelihood. Remember they are kith of your kin, and blood of your blood, and you get no better settlers than those we send you.

May I ask noble Lords to remember one other thing. During the last war we were lucky, we never lost command of the sea for a single moment. Next time we may not be so fortunate. It is all-important that during such a time we should have sufficient stock in this country to supply the needs of the people until that command is regained. We should, therefore, do everything we can to have as much Stock bred in this country as is possible, and we do not want our people to get the idea that it is not worth breeding our own meat because meat can be got from abroad in peace time.

I do not believe that under sensible and agreed Regulations the importation of cattle will do our fanners much harm. I cannot see how it can. I think the Canadian politicians on the other side are promising their farmers too much. They do not remind them that cattle will have about 2,000 miles of travel in their own country and 3,000 miles across the Atlantic before they get here. They have to be fed the whole way, and there must be the usual percentage of loss, and delays on this side, quite apart from the freight. I cannot see how it can possibly pay as against chilled or frozen meat. A far greater competitor than Canadian cattle, so far as the meat supply is concerned, is to be found in the dead meat trade.

Canada has also to remember that for every beast she sends here she loses so much of her industry in hides, tallow, and offal, but, on the other hand, the great point is that the removal of the embargo will give Canada two markets instead of one, and at least gives her some lever with which to bargain elsewhere; and that is an important privilege. The noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, tells us that it is the evening and the morning of the sixth day and that it is all finished. I would only remind him that he was quoting from the book of Genesis; that sin and disease came in after the time of which he speaks; that the world is still struggling for existence against these handicaps, and that in spite of all the efforts of the noble Marquess on behalf of Agriculture we have not yet reached that happy time mentioned in the last Chapter but one of the Book of books, where we are promised a new Heaven and a new Earth.

LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to take up much of your time in arguing the merits of this subject in detail, but I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the object of his Amendment is to include Ireland within its scope. Ireland seems to me the great difficulty in any satisfactory decision on this matter. By far the largest number of store cattle imported into this country from abroad come from Ireland and we cannot dispense with them. Ireland is about to become a self-governing Dominion, and what applies to Canada must in future necessarily apply to Ireland.

LORD CARSON

Part of Ireland.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not think that on this matter we can regard Ireland as consisting of two separate self-governing Dominions. It is quite evident, if the Amendment of the noble Viscount is intended to apply to Ireland, that the proposed quarantine regulations will have to be imposed on Irish cattle to the same extent as they will be imposed on cattle coming from Canada. Of course the period of quarantine is a matter for the discretion of the Department in every case. If it were a practical thing to do I should gladly stand in the last ditch with the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, because I feel that in taking this step, which appears to be inevitable in the light of what is now acknowledged to be a pledge, we shall incur very serious risks so far as British husbandry is concerned.

Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it is since the embargo was imposed in 1896 that British livestock became the backbone and sheet anchor of British agriculture, and it was a protective system, which was intended, at the outset, to be a means of protection against disease, but has, in fact, afforded economic protection to the breeders throughout the Kingdom. The livestock of this country have been the source of some remaining prosperity to British farmers, and have come to be admittedly the finest livestock in the whole world. When my noble friend opposite, Lord Cawley, anticipates the possibility of Canada, by way of reprocity, courteously consenting to take second-class British pedigree bulls in preference to bulls coming from the United States, I can only say that I, for my part, believe, in the light of the history of the last thirty years, that British livestock have so established their position and their reputation throughout the whole world that they will always be preferred to those coming from the United States or any other country, and that no bargain is necessary.

I deplore very much, however, that this step has become necessary, at a time when the Government have decided to remove some small measure of protection from arable farming. The noble Lord, Lord Ernle, if I rightly understood his arguments some days ago, qualified, or intended to qualify, the pledge which was made in 1917 by the condition that it should depend upon the future of arable farming in the United Kingdom. He then, of course, anticipated definite Government stimulus or protection for the production of cereals. That has all fallen to the ground, and at the present time the arable farmer in this country has a very poor outlook indeed, and is thrown back again upon his livestock. Whatever may be said by noble Lords like Lord Cawley, who are eminent breeders, of pedigree cattle, it is the small breeders including those in the highlands, not merely of Scotland, but of Wales and of England, who are going to be the chief sufferers when this embargo is removed. They are the men who cannot face the insecurity and uncertainty which will result from the possibility of our markets being flooded at any moment with store cattle from abroad. They are the men who, for the last twenty-five years, have recognised that there is an element of stability in their particular industry, because they have known that the market could not be unsettled by such imports from abroad.

Let us hope and pray that, in adopting this new policy, subject to these so-called safeguards, we are not really opening the door to those terrible diseases which we had in this country some thirty or forty years ago. Certainly, the older men amongst the farmers of the United Kingdom have terrible tales to tell of those disastrous days, and if such an occurrence does take place again as the result of the proposed change we certainly shall not be able to face the dangers of starvation in time of war, which my noble friend, Lord Devonport, and I, as his assistant, were able to face during the period of the greatest submarine risk, in 1917. This was mainly, if not solely, because, under the protection of this embargo, we had built up our live stock to such an extent that we were self-contained in our meat supply to the extent of 60 per cent of our requirements, a proportion which, a year later, in 1918, rose to 80 per cent., rendering it almost unnecessary for us to look to other countries for the provision of meat in times of emergency. I can only say that I deplore the decision that your Lordships are about to take, though I feel that, if there has been a pledge, we have to recognise that pledge. But may God grant that the troubled period through which British agriculture passed prior to the passage of the Act of 1896 may not recur, in consequence of what I believe to be an act of very serious improvidence!

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

My Lords, I rise only by way of striking a note of confidence in regard to the anticipated decision of the House. The Minister of Agriculture recently stated that if the embargo were removed it would destroy confidence amongst breeders, and that for every Canadian beast that came in, there would be one calf less in this country. I wish to give an example of how such a contingency may be met. I am alluding to the importation of Irish cattle. The Department of Agriculture in Ireland arranged for the use of one thousand premium bulls throughout the whole of Ireland. What has been the result of that excellent, procedure, in which, it must be remembered, the enterprise and good sense of the Irish farmer was a very important element? One of the best known and most experienced cattle auctioneers in Scotland recently stated that the average value of Irish cattle had gone up by about £5 per head, and he attributed that great increase to this policy of securing the best kind of stock.

There is no reason why that principle should not be continued and extended, and I feel sure, from inquiries that have been made, that when the Irish Free State Government go fully into the matter, they will carry on that policy, and I am sure we can depend upon the Government of Northern Ireland to carry on this enlightened system, which has had such good effects in the past. I could add further figures, but I do not wish to enlarge upon the point. I am sure it will be found that, in this direction, there is a reassuring element, that some of the forebodings which the noble Lord has just, uttered will not be found to mature, and that a stimulus will be given to fresh security in the matter of producing pure bred stock, which will enable farmers in England, Ireland and Scotland, where some of the leading breeders are in favour of the removal of the embargo, to prevent the anticipated evils from arising.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

My Lords, I cordially agree with the conclusion arrived at by the noble Marquess opposite, for I feel that it would be an immense advantage if this very important question could be settled on the basis of Lord Long's Amendment. As a strong Free Trader, believing that system to work indisputably towards the prosperity of this country, and to be the system to which we owe our solvency, I am whole-heartedly in favour of unfettered private enterprise, of the abolition of all hindrances to the free exchange of commodities, and of all pretexts for Government interference or control of trade. The Protectionist policy is, no doubt, favoured in Canada, and, perhaps, living in a glass house herself, she has little right to throw stones at the Mother Country, if she stray at times into the path of common sense, or if she be apprehensive of a widespread outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

Moreover, the Government having adopted a bastard form of Protection in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it, is only natural that those who carry on the land industry in this country should ask why the greatest key industry of all, the industry of agriculture, should not be safeguarded from competition, as has been vouchsafed to fabric gloves and dolls' eyes; or home grown timber against Canadian and Norwegian imports, seeing it is also more in tie nature of a key industry than gas mantles. Undoubtedly, if a protective embargo on Canadian cattle was going to help the whole of our farming industry it would be difficult for the Government to explain why gloves, glass and enamel eyes are protected and agricultural products are not, but I do not believe that the restriction on store cattle is an advantage to the agricultural industry as a whole. Their beasts are to a certain extent the raw product of our industry, seeing that they require fattening after arrival. Moreover, land is going rapidly under grass, since arable farming has ceased to pay, for one reason among many others, owing to the cost of stores, the home supply of which is wholly inadequate. We have drawn large supplies from Ireland, but it is not advisable to be dependent upon one source of supply, more especially in view of the present condition and uncertain future of Ireland.

Undoubtedly, agricultural opinion is divided on this subject, and an enterprising minority of some of our best East Coast farmers approve the free import of stores. Subject to adequate veterinary supervision, such as is supposed to be exercised over Irish exports, it should not be more difficult to ensure security against disease from imports coming from Canada than from those coming from Ireland, whether as regards the period of observation or the liability to inspection. It is vital to the British stockbreeders, and consequently to the consuming public, that the supplies of store cattle should not violently fluctuate, whether such fluctuations be due to sudden changes in commercial policy or to the arrest of imports from exporting countries due to disease, for this would unsettle OUT unrivalled store feeding industry. It can best be secured against by having more than one source of supply. My view of the pledge is that the Government cannot too scrupulously avoid any appearance of bad faith. We are told by an Arab saying that "An Englishman is a rock, but the British Government is a pile of loose stones," and I would ask your Lordships to apply a little cement to those loose stones by insisting that those utterances, that are read and understood as pledges, must be honoured by the nation.

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE

My Lords, I ask you to forgive me if I say one word before we go to a Division. The Lord Chancellor explained the procedure, but, as many noble Lords were not in the House at the time when the noble and learned Viscount made his statement, perhaps I may repeat what he said. When my Amendment is put those who vote for Lord Lincolnshire, that is for the pledge, will vote "Not-Content"—I do not understand why; it is on the lucus a non lucendo principle—and those who vote for my Motion will vote against it. Those who vote for Viscount Long will vote "Content." Now, I am not going to stand between the House and a Division for more than a single moment, but I want to make the position, so far as I am concerned, as clear as I can. My Motion is simply on the pledge—the pledge, the whole pledge, and nothing but the pledge; a pledge made five years ago by Mr. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of this country, to Canada, which up to this moment he has not raised one finger to redeem.

There has been a very good debate, and interesting speeches have been made on both sides, but I venture to think that the gem of the debate was the speech made by the Duke of Devonshire, the late Governor-General of Canada. If I may be permitted to do so for one moment, I will refer to one sentence in that speech. It was an honest speech, and it was a practical speech. It was a modest and statesmanlike speech, and I think when the noble Duke sat down those who remembered Ms predecessor, his noble uncle, must have said, as I did, "By Jove, that is Hartington

over again." I venture to think that at this time old England could do with a few more Hartingtons and men of that stamp. The noble Duke said that when Sir Robert Borden and the Canadian representatives returned to Canada, after the Imperial Conference, they had not the slightest doubt in their minds that what was intended was a bona fide effort by the Government to bring forward the legislation which would be necessary to remove the restrictions operating against Canadian cattle, shell.

My Motion merely says that it is incumbent upon His Majesty's Government to carry out the pledge. What is the pledge? The pledge is to introduce legislation, and then, and then only, noble Lords and honourable Members will be able to vote according to their consciences and according to their convictions. It is of no use anticipating what is going to happen when a Bill comes before Parliament. All sorts of suggestions may be made by ex-Colonial Ministers and others, but the time for arguing the question will be when the Bill comes, as I hope it will come, before the country in the autumn recess, and not before. It seems to me, and this is my last word, unthinkable that after the vote which the House of Commons has given your Lordships' great hereditary House should be supposed to be ready to condone or approve, or still less to endorse, the action of the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, who for five years has been trying to wriggle out of the clear and unequivocal pledge—those are his own words—which he and his Cabinet have given to our Canadian brothers across the sea.

On Question, Whether the words "this House" shall stand part of the Motion?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS.
Bedford, D.	Denbigh, E.	Scarbrough, E.
Wellington, D.	Devon, E.	Selborne, E.
	Eldon, E.	Shaftesbury, E.
Aberdeen and Temair, M.
Crewe, M.	Lindsey, E.	Stamford, E.
Salisbury, M.	Lovelace, E.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)
	Malmesbury, E.	Allendale, V.
Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) (L. Chamberlain.)	Midleton, E.	Chaplin, V.
	Morton, E.	De Vesci, V.
Ancaster, E.	Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Falmouth, V.
Bathurst, E.	Onslow, E.	Hood, V.
Bradford, E.	Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Long, V.
Chesterfield, E.	Plymouth, E.	Novar, V.
Chichester, E.	Powis, E.	Peel, V.
Southwark, L. Bp.	Desart, L. (E. Desart.)	Montagu of Beaulicu, L.
Abinger, L.	Dynevor, L.	Mostyn, L.
Ailwyn, L.	Donington, L.	Newton, L.
Ampthill, L,	Ernle, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Annesley, L.(V. Valentia.)	Erskine, L.	Parmoor, L.
Armaghdale, L.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Queenborough, L.
Barrymore, L.	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)	Riddell, L.
Bellew, L.	Grenfell, L.	Sempill, L.
Bledisloe, L.	Grey de Ruthyn, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Blythswood, L.	Hastings, L.	Strachie, L. [Teller.]
Brownlow, L.	Hindlip, L.	Stuart, of Wortley, L.
Carson, L.	Illingworth, L.	Sumner, L.
Channing of Wellingborough, L.	Kenyon, L.	Sydenham, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Kintore, L. (E. Kinlore.)	Templemore, L.
Clinton, L. [Teller.]	Lamington, L.	Waleran, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L.	Lee of Fareham, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Crawshaw, L.	Merthyr, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Desborough, L.	Methuen, L.	Wynford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Anslow, L.	Lawrence, L.
	Ashton of Hyde, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Sutherland, D.	Askwith, L.	Muir Mackenzie, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Beaverbrook, L.	Nunburnholme, L.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) [Teller.]	Blyth, L.	Pentland, L.
	Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]	Phillimore, L.
	Cawley, L.	Redesdale, L.
Buxton, E.	Chalmers, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Clarendon, E.	Clwyd, L.	Sandys, L.
Grey, E.	Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Southwark, L.
Howe, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Stanmore, L.
Kimberley, E.	Faringdon, L.	Swaythling, L.
Lucan, E.	Farrer, L.	Tennyson, L.
Portsmouth, E.	Gainford, L.	Teynham, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.	Gorell, L.	Treowen, L.
Cave, V.	Hemphill, L.	Whitburgh, L.
Devonport, V.	Islington, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Goschen, V.	Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)	Wolverton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("accepts the conclusions of the Royal Commission that the Dominion of Canada is free from cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, and is of opinion that steers from the Dominions might be admitted as store cattle to Great Britain, subject to precautions, by means of quarantine, being taken").—(Viscount Long.)