Lords Sitting of 21 April 1926

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

INDIAN AND COLONIAL DIVORCE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of the Secretary of State for India I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confer on Courts in India and other parts of His Majesty's Dominions jurisdiction in certain cases with respect to the dissolution of marriages, the parties whereto are domiciled in England or Scotland, and to validate certain decrees granted for the dissolution of the marriage of persons so domiciled, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES ENDOWMENT FUND BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
Bill referred to the Examiners.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD rose to ask His. Majesty's Government—
1. Whether they are under any pledge to support the claim of any country (other than Germany and the countries already having such seats) to a permanent seat on the Council of the League of Nations:
2. Whether it is their policy to exercise a leading influence in the choice by the Assembly of the League of Nations of countries to occupy elective seats on the Council or, so far as possible, to encourage the free choice by the smaller Powers of countries that will represent them effectively.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting these Questions on the Paper nothing could have been further from my

855
mind than to revive criticisms of past transactions. What took place lately at Geneva and previously has been very thoroughly discussed in both Houses of Parliament and for my own part this afternoon I shall assume very gladly indeed that anything done in this connection of late by Sir Austen Chamberlain in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty was a wise thing to do at the time when it was done. My concern is entirely with the question of just where we now stand. It almost goes without saying that what is called a League of Nations policy is the policy deliberately adopted by our country and its warmest upholders are to be found equally in all Parties in the State.
Among those upholders there is a pretty general agreement upon one or two secondary but still very important points. One of those points I take to be this, that in the interests of the whole League itself, even more than in our own, all the recognised Great Powers should have seats upon the Council of the League. That could, I imagine, be well ensured, as one looks at the matter now, by simply leaving the election of the Council open to the Assembly of the League. Assuming for the moment Germany to belong to the League, the Assembly of the League, unless it wished to destroy itself and the League at a stroke, could not possibly fail to place both Germany and France upon the Council. But inevitably those who had to frame the Covenant could not rely upon that. They had to resort to the expedient of having certain permanent seats upon the Council given to recognised Great Powers in the League, with the understanding that other Powers of similar status would follow, and given also, as a signally exceptionally case, to Belgium—owing, I take it. to special reasons which existed at that time and which, please God, will never again exist in the case of Belgium or any other minor State.
But the course that was then adopted seems to carry with it not merely the giving of permanent seats to those Great Powers, but the restriction of those seats, with the single exception that I have named, to those Great Powers. To a humble but respectful outsider it would seem quite obvious that if you once make an exception in favour of some Power not obviously and in all senses a Great Power, and give it a permanent seat on the
856
Council, you will do one of two things; either you will let loose all kinds of rivalries which are at present held in leash, or else you will destroy the Council as an effective body. I do not think there is in this country very much difference of opinion upon that. The broad principle is admitted. What I have tried to say was stated, with his own incomparable force in this House not very long ago, by my noble friend, Lord Oxford and Asquith, and in reply to him the noble Marquess who leads the House said, in effect, that that was the broad principle upon which the Government acts.
I have no quarrel with the guarded phrase "the broad principle." I would not ask the Government for a moment to lay down on the matter any sort of cast-iron rule which might hamper them in some unforeseen emergency. What I want, however, very respectfully but very earnestly to inquire is: Is there any foreseen emergency in which the Government think it likely that the application of that broad principle will have to be restricted? Is there any existing engagement on the part of His Majesty's Government? Is there—I was going to say any entanglement—"entanglement" is not the right word; the right word, but I cannot think of it, would be more entirely polite than "entanglement" is—which might compel them to limit or to extend their championship of the broad principle to which I have referred?
A good many of us, I think—and there, again, I do not believe the anxiety is restricted to any one Party—are a little anxious upon that point for a reason which I will try to make clear. I shall have in this case plainly to mention Spain and the claims of Spain, but it goes, I think, without saying that I do so without the slightest disrespectful or unfriendly feeling. It appears that some four years ago, not under the present Administration but under another, upon an occasion of some difficulty within the bosom of the Council itself, about which I know nothing and ask nothing, the then representative of this country upon the Council did promise and give for that occasion support to the claim of Spain to a permanent scat upon the Council. Whether, in view of the circumstances of the moment, that was wise or not I do not know, and I am not asking.
I pass on to the part played by the present Foreign Secretary, in whom we all have such a high general confidence

857
in this matter. I do not think I need quote at length from his statement in the House of Commons and I will come back to Spain in a moment, but he referred in that statement to the conversations he had had with M. Briand last December, in which I think M. Briand raised the question of the admission of Poland and some other State, not Spain, to permanent seats upon the Council of the League. In reply, the Foreign Secretary, quite rightly, did not indeed see fit to lay down that broad principle about the restriction of those seats to Great Powers to which reference has been made in this House, but took his stand upon another still broader and unassailable principle—the objection on the part of this Government to giving anything in the nature of a pledge as to what it should do on the Council or in the Assembly of the League, and a preference to make up its mind, if possible, in the light of the discussions which might take place in the Council or the Assembly, as the case might be. That was the attitude which, as I understand it, was taken by the Foreign Secretary in regard to the claims of States other than Spain.
He had said previously in. his speech that he had felt compelled to take a somewhat different line in the case of Spain. He had been asked some question, not by M. Briand but by the representative of the Spanish Government, in regard to his attitude upon that matter and as I understood him he had answered that he was prepared, in suitable circumstances, to give the same support to the claims of Spain as had been given by his predecessor under a previous Administration. The impression conveyed to an ordinary reader by what the Foreign Secretary said is that he would have taken the same line in the Spanish case as he had taken in the others but for the fact that he felt himself committed in some degree by what had previously taken place. I know not whether he had any other reason. But the question which a little puzzles some of us is this. I am assuming that there is no secret reason, that we know nothing of, which makes the case of Spain an altogether exceptional one. If, on that occasion, Sir Austen Chamberlain felt himself committed in that matter by what had been done by his predecessor in the representation of this country, may not he or his successor
858
feel tied on some future occasion in precisely the same way regarding the claims of Spain if they are again put forward? I will go a little further. Is not the Spanish Government actually entitled to expect a renewal of that support unless it has already been made plain to the Spanish Government, or is now made plain to the world, that the Government hold themselves wholly and entirely uncommitted in this matter and free to carry out in full the broad principle enunciated in this House by the noble Marquess, to which I have just referred?
I hope I have made my point plain, and I would like to add in passing from it that I hope the Government stand uncommitted because of the gravity, as it appears to me, of the particular point which I have been stating. I should like to think it was so for a somewhat wider reason, and without saying anything pedantic or carping about conversations and so on which take place beforehand, I feel sure that the more the deliberations of the. League, whether in the Council or in the Assembly are the free deliberations of people who come together so far as possible previously uncommitted and wishing to come to a common mind in the light of their discussions then and there, the better it is for the future of the League and the more fully will the League carry out those aspirations which the Government and so many of us have regarding it.
I have placed on the Paper a second Question which I think I can explain in a very few words. Your Lordships will not treat it as unimportant because I think it can be dealt with very briefly. It appears that in the course of those troublous and difficult conversations and negotiations on the part of the Foreign Secretary which we have discussed so much, he made a suggestion, in view of the claim put forward (by Poland I think it was) to a permanent seat upon the Council, that Poland and possibly some other Power ought to be elected by the Assembly to one of the elective seats upon the Council. I am not mentioning that for purposes of criticism, because to have made that suggestion in view of the difficulty then existing seems to have been an obvious and reasonable course and it was a suggestion which I can well imagine would come with at least as good

859
a grace from the Foreign Secretary as from any other man there who could have made it. But it suggests to my mind not any sort of suspicion of him or the views of the Government, but the hope that the course taken in those exceptional circumstances was taken as an exceptional course.
It is very desirable, broadly speaking, that so long as there are permanent seats allotted to Great Powers the remaining seats on the Council shall be common, so far as possible, to the representatives of the minor Powers excluded from those permanent seats. I am perfectly aware, of course, that the whole Assembly and not the minor Powers elect representatives to fill the elective seats, and I am not suggesting any principle which would restrict the action of the Government in some future case. I merely wish to elicit what I rather think I shall obtain—the sympathy of the noble Lord who is following me for the general principle that it is desirable in this matter that the smaller Powers should express themselves freely, led, or prompted, or driven as little as possible by the influence of this or that Greater Power. If it is certain, as it is, that the success of the League requires a certain predominance to be given to the Greater Powers in view of their greater responsibilities and, indeed, their greater interests, it is no less certain that the success of the League depends also upon the freeness and the fulness with which the influence of lesser States is there made felt. I beg to ask my Questions. I hope I have succeeded in making my words perfectly plain. I must also apologise for being, I feel, one of those people who have rather a difficulty in making themselves quite plain without at the same time making themselves inordinately long.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended to give definite instructions to the British Representative on the Constitution Committee appointed at the late meeting at Geneva; and to move for Papers, said: My Lords, I do not rise in any way to criticise or to differ from the views put forward by the noble Lord who has already spoken, but I am bound to say, on the points to which he has called the attention of the House, that I should not put the view which I hold on those matters in quite the same
860
language as that which he used in addressing your Lordships. I do not say that in a spirit of criticism, but in order that I may be understood if I appear to differ slightly from him on one or two of the points that he has made. I entirely agree with him in one matter. We need not trouble further about the past. We have had a good many discussions here and elsewhere on what is known now as the Geneva failure. I do not want to go back to that but to keep our attention on the future. I say that for this reason. I am no alarmist as regards the future of the League of Nations. On the other hand, I am not, I hope, so foolish as to disregard the signs to its disadvantage that are undoubtedly apparent on the horizon at the present time, and the object I have in referring to the future is to make one or two suggestions in order that those difficulties should not be enhanced, but, if possible, met and answered.
The first Question that the noble Lord asks he certainly puts in a different form from that which I should suggest. Perhaps the noble Viscount who is going to answer these Questions may consider what I am saying. I should like to ask him on the negative side somewhat in language of this kind—whether they are not now, having regard to the conditions of Locarno, under a pledge not to support any claim for any country to have representation on the Council until the claims of Germany have been satisfied in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Locarno? I should like to make one or two observations upon that. The opinion of this country has been expressed with a wonderful unanimity in favour of that proposition. More recently the German Government have expressed quite clearly, although with great reserve, dignity and moderation, their views of what was intended and meant by the Locarno Agreement. No one will know or recognise more fully than the noble Viscount that in the Locarno Agreement there was merely a question of the entry of Germany into the League with a permanent place on the Council.
But there are a number of very vital questions affecting Germany and the other parties to the Locarno Treaty which, in case of difficulty or dispute, are referred to the Council and, as has been stated

861
by the German Government, that means to the Council as constituted after the entry of Germany. No one suggests that the constitution of the Council is sacrosanct or should remain unaltered for all time. I certainly make no such suggestion, but I do say this, which is a very different thing, that questions of reconstruction should not be approached and considered until Germany has become a permanent Member of the Council and, therefore, has full authority to say what she desires and what she thinks is best on these matters.
As regards the second Question also, I am afraid, I cannot endorse the words that the noble Lord has used. I should ask the Government, if they are adopting an attitude, to adopt rather a different attitude. In my view there is no more vital matter, if we are to maintain the integrity, the power and the impartiality of the Assembly, than to allow the Assembly free and unfettered right in its own decisions or in its own discretion—to use the words which we find in the terms of the Covenant itself: the free and unfettered right in its own discretion to select without interference by any Power small or great the non-permanent or representative Members of the Council. I am one of those who agree in the necessity of permanent Members, but it is the representative Members only who voice the opinions of the Assembly and the Council and it is of the utmost importance that they should represent the real opinion and the unfettered opinion and discretion by being elected without any interference or any suggestion by any of the outside Powers. One of the most essential matters which I think was overlooked at Geneva—I am not going back into the past—was to preserve the free action of the Assembly, and the matter perhaps most to be criticised by those who have been to Geneva is that at the last meeting the Assembly was not allowed to function at all—that is to say, so far as the question is concerned for which it was really summoned to a special meeting, namely, the entry of Germany with a permanent place on the Council of the League.
There is one other caution that I should like to mention and it is this. I do not regard these matters as mere matters of procedure. I think we must
862
look underneath procedure to see where the underlying difficulties are and we must not shut our eyes to those underlying difficulties. Quite apart from political Parties, a very large majority, as I believe, of people in this country are in favour of the maintenance of the authority and influence of the League. What I think was forgotten was this. Since the War different conditions attach to international relationships from those which existed before the Great War broke out in 1914. In those days the eight Great Powers, as they were called, practically influenced or o decided all these questions which we are discussing at the present time. That was in a certain way satisfactory. It worked at any rate from 1713—that is, after the Treaty of Utrecht—until 1815, and again from 1815 to 1914. Its weak point was that it could not operate to establish a permanent peace when the Great Powers themselves fell out one with the other, which, of course, was the fact in the Declaration of War in 1914.
I only want to remind your Lordships—I think it is the shortest way—of what was said so truly by General Smuts. He said the War was the liquidation (that was the term he used, if I recollect aright) of the old Europe, and that the heir-ship had fallen to the League of Nations, the only possible safeguard of a permanent peace system in the future. I think that is absolutely right and that the noble Viscount is not in the least likely to question it. I think its representatives must be careful to safeguard the procedure which alone is applicable to these new conditions. You must remember, for instance, that you cannot at Locarno make arrangements which might have been made effective if we were there with Russia and Germany, the old Austria, the United States and Japan. You cannot do it. The new epoch has given a far larger power and a far larger share in these matters to the smaller States, which are represented on the Assembly of the League.
I have been in communication with the noble Marquess who leads the House and the noble Viscount, and also with my noble friend Lord Lambourne, who has a Question on the Paper, and it is thought better that the Question which comes a little later in my name should be discussed now in order that I should

863
not trouble your Lordships with a further speech. I understand that that arrangement meets the convenience of the noble Viscount. My Question raises what is immediately a very important matter. I do not know whether the noble Viscount will tell us whether he is to represent this country on what I may call the Reconstitution Committee.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: I am exceedingly glad to hear that that is so. It will be a very difficult and complicated question, and in what I am going to say I hope I shall not in any way do other than assist him. He and I, I am sure, are equally anxious for success. If there is not success the future of the League looks to me a difficult and dangerous one. The importance of this Reconstitution Committee or Commission was emphasised in an extract sent to me the other day from the Journal de Genéve which is really the organ of the League at Geneva. I will read this extract because it puts the point I want to put quite shortly. This is what is written:
"If within the next three weeks the situation concerning the League Council has not radically changed we shall witness in the Commission which is to meet at Geneva on May 10 discussions even more painful than those of the last month."
That would be a very great misfortune. What are the dangers and how can we best meet them? I think we are bound to face the difficulties and I should like to do what I can to help solve them.
I regret, I admit, that the Commission as formed is not an impartial Commission. There is, I think, only one impartial Member of it, and that is Switzerland. It really contains all the partisans and protagonists in the late discussions at Geneva. I also regret one other matter which is very important before a task of this kind its embarked upon. I must say that I should like a free and open discussion in the Assembly itself. I am not now talking about the particular position of Germany, but before you embark upon such an enormously important question as the general reconstitution of the Council I should like a discussion in the Assembly itself. It is no good, however, going back on that now. The Commission has been constituted. I do not know
864
how many of your Lordships have considered the terms of reference of that Commission. They are extremely important and also extremely wide; in fact, they encourage, if I may say so, the resurrection of all the frictions and troubles which were encountered at the last meeting at Geneva. I will not read the whole reference, because it is very long, but I will read one or two of the terms:—
"This Committee shall give particular attention to the claims up to now put forward by or on behalf of any Members of the League—"
that is to say, shall give particular attention to the very matters which at the last meeting at Geneva raised so much trouble and friction. That is a very serious matter, and what I hope may be done in connection with it I will say shortly. Then it is asked also that the Governments, through their official representatives—that will be through the noble Viscount in our case—will submit statements in support of their case or containing their views on any of the problems falling within the competence of the Committee. Therefore all these complex matters—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not think that is the meaning of the phrase you quote.
LORD PARMOOR: I have it here and I will read it to the noble Viscount. He will correct me if I am wrong. The terms of reference say that the Committee shall
"be authorised to invite the Governments of any Members of the League who so desire to lay before it any statement, whether in writing or through an official representative, in support of their case or containing their views on any of the problems falling within the competence of the Committee."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I believe that was intended really to apply to those Members of the League who are not Members of the Commission. I do not mean that it would prevent Members of the Commission sending in any statement—they would have a right to do so—but it was to open the door as wide as possible so that any Member could lay before the Commission any view it held.
LORD PARMOOR: I see the importance of what the noble Viscount says, but on the other hand the words are equally applicable—whether wisely or not I do

865
not say—to the Members, of which the noble Viscount will represent one, who are represented upon the Commission or Committee. Then it says:
"It shall bear in mind the various proposals on the subject which have been previously discussed by the Council or the Assembly, and in particular the resolutions regarding 'geographical and other considerations,' and repeatedly adopted by the latter body."
The other considerations are those which the Assembly itself adopted some time ago.
That being the constitution of the Committee and those being the wide terms of reference, it seems to me that nothing could possibly be more important, as affecting the League and its future, than the attitude which the noble Viscount will be asked to adopt on behalf of the Government when he goes to Geneva on May 10. Of course I do not ask the noble Viscount to express his own views, which are well known. He has been at the meetings of the Council and the Assembly almost from the first and I suppose no one has attended so often as he. He has expressed to the League of Nations Union views with which personally I am entirely in accord, so far as I understand them. But I am referring—and I need not deal with the matter at any length—to the views which I think ought to be brought forward, and which I am hoping will be adopted as the views of this country and of this Government when the noble Viscount goes to Geneva.
The noble Viscount will agree, I think, that there is no country which individually exercises a wider and, on the whole, a better and saner influence than Great Britain, and perhaps the reason for that is twofold. First there is our traditional policy, and, in the second place, opinion in this country—as I know very well from the experience of meetings in other countries—has, under the guidance of the League of Nations Union, been educated far beyond that of any other of the countries concerned. I think that the force, authority and power of the League of Nations Union, guided amongst others by the noble Viscount and by Professor Gilbert Murray, have had an enormous influence at Geneva.
In order to emphasise my point of view I have made a short extract of one
866
passage of M. Unden's speech at the concluding meeting at Geneva. I dare say that the noble Viscount was present. I gather that M. Unden was received in a wonderful manner, and, so far as one person can summarise the general view of the outside Members of the League, he seems to have done so. I will read a short quotation from this speech, which seems to me to be a convenient summary. M. Unden said:—
"The sole object of this special Session of the Assembly was the admission of Germany into the League and the allocation to Germany of a permanent seat on the Council."
In September there will be what is really an adjourned meeting of the Assembly—one may call it that—to deal with matters that were not satisfactorily dealt with in March. I want to know if the noble Viscount has any fault to find with the expression of the view that whatever else may happen, one of the principal objects will be "the admission of Germany into the League and the allocation to Germany of a permanent scat on the Council." I want this to be regarded as what I may call an isolated matter which, in all circumstances, must be carried through.
I approach this matter from both points of view. Nothing could possibly be more unfortunate than the failure, of Germany's entrance into the League. It is the most important point that one can contemplate at the present moment. Further, I cannot help thinking that, unless that is made the sole preliminary point, some at any rate of the criticisms—I do not want to go beyond that—made upon the attitude of our representative at Geneva in March would be very fairly justified—to put the matter as fairly as I can.
M. Unden goes on to say—and this also is a very important matter in relation to the coming Committee—
"Unhappily the question of the entry of Germany has been bound up with other questions which are foreign to it."
I hope that, whatever the considerations of the Committeee may lead to, the entrance of Germany into the League will not be bound up with other matters which are foreign to it, but will be taken as an isolated matter in which our honour and faith are really concerned. I feel very strongly that if that attitude is adopted our authority and influence are sufficient

867
to ensure its success. M. Unden also says:—
"National claims have arisen in various quarters; special interests have found themselves in opposition with the general interests and with the common welfare of the League of Nations."
I should like to know whether there is a single word of the extract that I have read from M. Unden's speech from which the noble Viscount differs. It seems to me that in those few stately sentences he goes to the root of the matter. He speaks of the isolation of this one question and pleads that it should not be mixed up with intrigues but should be kept free from the pushing forward of these rival claims which undoubtedly—no one can find any fault with that—arouse very strong feelings regarding national interests and national antagonisms. That is, I think, a most important point. I dare say that the noble Viscount heard it said at Geneva that England expected every Swede to do his duty. I hope that every British representative—indeed, I have no doubt about it—will be commanded in the same way.
I want to say a word of caution about two matters. As I have said, I do not think that any questions of the constitution of the League can fairly be discussed until the question of Germany has been finally settled, but there are two points on which I should like to express my view, though I do not know whether the noble Viscount will agree with me or not. In the first place there has been a good deal of discussion about unanimity on the Council. I am one of those who believe that unanimity ought to be preserved, because I think it is much too early in the history of the League for anything to be done apart from what I may call the doctrine of general assent. It is easy enough to say that we can do this and that without unanimity, but we cannot do these things without arousing antagonism as soon as we have given up unanimity. Whatever may be said of the future, I do not believe that the time has yet come when the principle of unanimity, which was so strongly insisted upon at Versailles, ought to be altered.
My other point concerns the permanent Members of the League. I am bound to say that I dissent entirely from any proposal to add at this juncture any permanent Member to the League beyond
868
Germany herself as a condition of her entry into the League. I think that is a very important point. Perhaps I have used words which are too strong in my Question, but I think it would be well if we could get this result put thus:—that the first matter of all is the entry of Germany, and that these other two matters, whatever may be their future consideration after Germany has entered, are not yet ripe for discussion. From my own experience in these matters I see that it will be an extremely difficult task which will fall upon the noble Viscount opposite. It will not be an easy task for a member of this Committee to carry through satisfactorily, but I think that his position would be materially strengthened and fortified if, on one or more of these crucial questions, the attitude of the Government could be publicly announced, because I believe that the public announcement of a definite attitude by the Government of Great Britain would do more to solve these difficulties than any other step that they can take at the present time. I therefore ask the noble Viscount, not exactly in the terms of my Question but substantially in those terms, what advice or answer he can give to your Lordships' House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, I am very grateful to Lord Charnwood and to the noble Lord opposite who has just spoken for raising these Questions at this time. The noble Lord who has just spoken was good enough to say that he thought that the task of the representative of this country on the Committee would be a very difficult one. In that observation I respectfully agree. I think the task of the Committee will be a difficult one and for that reason I am anxious to receive, since it has fallen to my lot to be that representative, all the assistance I can obtain from members of this House and from others, in order to fortify me in representing this country on that Committee.
The noble Lord made some criticism on the composition of the Committee itself. His criticism is, of course, a forcible one. He said that this is not an impartial Committee, but a Committee consisting precisely of representatives of those countries who were most actively engaged

869
in the controversy which arose last March. I think every one would have desired to have constituted a perfectly impartial Committee, but I think it passes the wit of man to do such a thing and yet make it an influential body. Obviously, if it is to be an influential body it must have upon it representatives of some or all of the more influential Members of the League of Nations. Once you say that, it is obvious that some of those who took part in the controversies last March would have to be on the Committee, and once you put some of them on that Committee it becomes impossible not to have them all. In other words, if you are to have an impartial Committee, or perhaps I should say a body which will arrive at an impartial decision, you must have it composed either of people who have nothing to do with the dispute or else composed of representatives of all the parties to the dispute. To take the example of a Royal Commission, the members, as your Lordships know, are of two classes, those who represent all those interested in the question and those who are entirely outside the question altogether.
LORD PARMOOR: But you generally have one member as an impartial member.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think if the noble Lord will read with some care the names of the members he will find that certainly they include more than one whom we can free from any suspicion of partiality in the matter. Then the noble Lord made a very elaborate criticism, or perhaps I should say comment, on the terms of reference to this Committee. I think if he will allow me to say so that he a little misread those terms, because they are all governed by the first paragraph:—
"The Council, considering that it is desirable that a thorough study should be made of the problems connected with the composition, number and method of election of the Members of the Council, decides to appoint a Committee for the purpose."
That is the main reference to the Committee. It is a broad general reference of the method of election to the Council. Then it goes on to draw the attention of the Committee to particular points which affect the decision of those questions or the advice to be given on those questions, and it refers on those points to the
870
matters which created so great a stir at that time and to other matters also.
It was then pointed out that if you had a Committee of a limited number—and we were very anxious to keep the numbers down to a reasonable number in order to have a chance of arriving at a decision—it was very difficult then to exclude altogether from the deliberations of that Committee other Members of the League, since all are in forested in the decision of these very vital questions. Following the precedent set by the Covenant of the League itself, it was enacted, not perhaps in the most completely happy phrasing that could be devised, that any Member of the League should be entitled—not only of the Committee itself, but any Member of the League—to make representations verbally or in writing in reference to the questions to be decided by the Committee.
That is the nature of the Committee, and when the noble Lord says that the Committee ought not to make any recommendations on the subject of the composition of the Council until Germany has been given a seat on the Council, that, of course, means that it ought not to sit at all until after the next Assembly, which I am sure would not be a desirable course to take; and I may remind the noble Lord that the appointment of the Committee was advocated by Germany at Geneva as what they thought was the best solution of the difficulties which had arisen. No doubt they hoped that Germany would be a Member of the Leaque at that time, but it was part of the German proposal—I do not say that it was solely the German proposal—that this Committee should be nominated, and I observe in the newspapers that this was one of the reasons put forward in the discussions in Germany why Germany should accept the invitation to sit upon this Committee, which I am glad to know she has done.
Before coming to the Questions raised by Lord Charnwood and Lord Parmoor in their Notices on the Paper, I should like to say one word upon the point raised at the end of his speech by the noble and learned Lord—namely, whether His Majesty's Government are in favour of the maintenance of the rule of unanimity. I think that has already been stated in the clearest terms by my right hon. friends in the other House. In any case there is no doubt at all that His Majesty's

871
Government do believe that it is right to maintain the rule of unanimity in reference to the decisions of the Council and of the Assembly, subject, of course, to those exceptions which already exist. I do not think I need say anything more on that point, because the answer is, I hope, perfectly clear and definite.
But I want to call your Lordships' attention to this. The necessity for this Committee to discuss the composition of the Council does not arise only from the events of last March at Geneva. Apart from special matters there are really two broad questions which call for discussion and consideration. The first is that to which both the noble Lords have alluded, the permanent Members. At present, as the House knows, there are four permanent Members, who were described in the Covenant as the Allied and Associated Powers, including, of course, at that time the United States, and it is proposed to add another of the Great Powers—namely, Germany. The rule, good or bad, is quite clear and definite. Every one knows, broadly speaking, which are the Powers in the category to which the Principal Allied and Associated Powers belong. It is a perfectly definite category.
I shall have a word to say about it in a moment, but I should myself say, as I think I said on a previous occasion, that if you are to abandon that rule, or make an exception, at least you must secure that you substitute some other rule equally clear, equally definite, and equally to be relied upon as a guide to the future proceedings of the League. Otherwise it is evident that you have no means of resisting a claim by this or that country to sit upon the Council, and there is no limit to its expansion, and consequently ultimately to the destruction of its usefulness, or at any rate of the character which it now possesses. May I correct an error into which my noble friend, Lord Charnwodd, fell? Belgium is not a permanent Member of the Council: permanent membership is confined, as the noble Lord will see in the Covenant, to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. So that there is not even that exception, which no doubt would have caused some difficulty, if it had existed.
Besides the question of permanent eats, which raised the great difficulty at Geneva, there is a very considerable question, as I have no doubt was brought
872
to the attention of the noble Lord when he attended the Assembly, as to the non-permanent Members. When the League was constituted, four Powers were named as the original non-permanent Members, and to them have been added two other Members, making six in all. With certain exceptions, for special reasons into which I need not go at this moment, those Powers have been re-elected year after year, and I think I am right in saying that four of them are the same four, or something like them, that were originally on the Council. There has been considerable feeling in the Assembly for years past, culminating in a definite Resolution of the last Assembly—but I think some similar Resolution had already been passed—calling for a system of rotation.
LORD PARMOOR: It was passed some years ago.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, and reiterated last year. And the reason is quite simple. The Members of the League say, rightly enough, that the Council is one of the most important, if not the most important body in the League, that it has elective Members, and that they ought to be given a reasonable share in the transaction of the business of the Council by a system of rotation, so that the bulk of the Members will have the privilege of sitting from time to time on the Council as Members of the Council. That is a very urgent question, and has to be dealt with. For reasons into which I do not wish to enter, because it is raking up old controversies, which I do not wish to rake up, it has been impossible to settle that question up till now, and when this Committee meets undoubtedly one of the things it will have to do will be to consider the question as to how far, and in what form, rotation should be allowed, and in what respects the very legitimate aspirations of the Members of the League can be dealt with. If your Lordships will read carefully the passages which my noble friend read out of the reference to the Committee, you will see that a great part of the reference had in view that question—for instance, the reference to geographical considerations—it had in view not the question of the permanent Members, but the question of the non-permanent Members, which will

873
also have to be settled, and which is a very important matter.
I have been asked by Lord Charnwood a specific Question about the election of non-permanent Members which it might be convenient for me to answer at this stage of my observations. The noble Lord asks me whether it is the policy of the Government
"to exercise a leading influence in the choice by the Assembly of the League of Nations of countries to occupy elective seats on the Council, or, so far as possible, to encourage the free choice by the smaller Powers of countries that will represent them effectively."
Lord Parmoor thought that did not go far enough, and he wanted me to say that the Government would pledge itself against any interference in the free election of non-permanent Members. I really do not quite know what the noble Lord means by "interference." He is familiar with the procedure under which these Powers are elected. The President gets up and says: "It will now be the duty of the Assembly to elect the Members of the Council for the ensuing year," and thereupon the election takes place. It is perfectly true—I do not wish to conceal it; it is inevitable—that certain Members of the League attach importance to the action which this country is taking in this, as in many other matters, and they come and ask us, the representatives of the British Empire, whom we are going to vote for, or whether we are going to vote for this particular Power or that. I do not think that is a thing that can be interfered with.
LORD PARMOOR: That is not what I meant: it was in contrast to what the noble Lord had said. He suggested interference in favour of the smaller countries. My answer was that there should be no interference in that sense at all. Of course, the actual election is a very different matter; in the actual election discretion must be left to the Assembly itself.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Well, it cannot be taken from them, because, as the noble Lord very rightly stated, the Covenant gives them the right in their discretion from time to time to elect these Members. I did not understand the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, to suggest that the British Government
874
ought to interfere or intervene expressly in the election of these Members at all. I thought rather that he said he understood that a statement had been made that Great Britain would in certain circumstances last March support the election of particular countries to the Council. He did not criticise the Government for doing that in the special circumstances of the case, but he hoped it would not become a rule or precedent for further action. That was the question, as I understood, that my noble friend addressed to us, and I am glad to know that I rightly understood him. I need not say that it would be a complete departure from anything that has ever gone on at Geneva, and I think a departure which none of us would welcome, if it became the practice of any Powers, great or small, to announce in the Assembly or elsewhere that they were going to vote for this or that particular country and desired that their friends should do so, or any phrase of that kind. At the same time, as I have already said, you must not carry that too far, and if we are asked what we are going to do and if we have a strong view as to the class of countries that ought in any particular ease to come in, without using undue or improper pressure, I think it is impossible to say that this country should refuse to give its advice in a case of that kind.
I come now to the main Question which Lord Parmoor has placed on the Paper and which he developed in a way which was not, perhaps, altogether what I expected. However, I shall answer that Question, and I think I shall answer all the subsidiary Questions which the noble Lord put. He asked whether it was intended to give definite instructions to the British representative on the Constitution Committee. I have no doubt at all that the British Government will give definite instructions to its representative. It is evident in a matter of this importance that no representative would like to go out—I certainly should not like to do so—without being sure that he was representing the views of his colleagues as well as his own, and although I will not go in any detail into what those instructions might be because I do not think the noble Lord has asked me to do that, nor do I imagine he would desire it, yet I think it is germane to call his attention to the instructions which were given to Sir

875
Austen Chamberlain and myself when we went out to the last meeting because they seem to me to answer a good many of the points he put to me.
Those instructions, of course, are unchanged so far as I am concerned and so far as they are relevant to the matter with which we have now to deal. The first instruction was—
"No change in the Council"—
I call the noble Lord's attention to that—
"can be admitted which would have the effect of preventing or delaying the entry of Germany."
That is still the policy of the Government. The Government desire that at the earliest possible moment the application of Germany for membership of the League and, consequently, for a seat on the Council should be granted and they are strongly of opinion that no action ought to be taken which will in any way hamper or hinder that proposal from being given effect to. It is true that the instructions went on to say—
"It would be best that Germany should, as a Member of the Council, have full responsibility for any further change in the Council beyond her own admission."
I still hold strongly the view that the principle of that instruction should guide the proceedings of the British representative; but I cannot go quite so far as I was asked to go by Lord Parmoor in saying that we were under a pledge that no other change should be considered until Germany was a Member of the Council. That, of course, is impracticable now, because we have appointed a Commission the very purpose of which is to consider what changes ought to be made in the composition of the Council.
LORD PARMOOR: But it would be quite competent to the noble Viscount to say that Germany should first be admitted; that is the first thing, by itself.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Even if that were the conclusion to which the Commission came they would still have to consider what changes were to be made in the composition of the Council, though, very properly, those changes might not be made until after Germany had become a Member of the Council. It seems to me a matter which is well worthy of consideration, that that. ought not to be done; but to say that it should
876
not be considered is obviously going too far. Germany will be there and will be a party to the consideration and we hope—that is the hope and design with which this Commission is appointed—that we shall be able to lay down the principle upon which, as we shall recommend to the Council and the Assembly, the Council shall be composed for the future and the method of the election of its Members.
LORD PARMOOR: You only recommend, I think, to the Council?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, we only recommend to the Council; but in a matter of this kind nothing could be done without the Assembly because the Assembly is master of all matters affecting the composition of the Council. It would have to go to the Assembly. Therefore the first principle is that which I have already read to your Lordships about the admission of Germany. The next proposition which was laid down answers one of the specific questions which the noble Lord was good enough to put to me. It is as follows:—
"The rule that only Great Powers should be permanent Members of the Council should, in principle, be maintained."
I think those were almost the words in which he asked me to affirm that principle.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: He did not ask me to adopt a rigid or cast-iron rule; but it seems to me as a matter of fact that if you are to have a rule for permanent Members and you have that rule now and can think of no other rule which would be equally clear and definite, we are bound to maintain that rule at any rate. Subject, of course, to anything that may be said to us to show t hat we have misread or misunderstood the subject, the policy of the Government is undoubtedly to maintain the rule as to the permanent Members of the Council.
Then there is a reference to Spain and other Powers in the instructions that were given to my right hon. friend and myself. Since those instructions were given a new situation has arisen. There have been all the events which took place at Geneva and there has been the appointment of this Commission. The representative of this country will, in consequence, go to the Commission

877
quite free from any obligation or any declaration that may have been made in the past with reference to the membership of the Council, on behalf of this country. I think my noble friend Lord Charnwood asked me whether that particular question had been made quite clear to Spain. I do not want to go more into detail than I need, but I can assure him that there is no danger whatever that Spain will be under any illusion on the point of that declaration. Beyond that I rather hope that I shall not be pressed to go, at any rate at the present moment. I can assure noble Lords that in a sense I should be very glad to be tied down hand and foot before I went to Geneva. It would be a great relief from my responsibilities if that were done.
LORD PARMOOR: You do not want a free hand or foot?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I might want neither, but I do not think it would be courteous to other Powers that we were meeting at Geneva or likely to produce a favourable result in any negotiations if it were announced before hand that the British Government had absolutely made up its mind on every conceivable question and that it was no use addressing arguments to them upon it. The broad principles I have ventured to lay down with full authority from my colleagues. Beyond that I hope that the representative of this country will be trusted to do his best to bring those broad principles into effect by the ordinary methods of negotiation and discussion.
I was glad to hear from my noble friend Lord Charnwood a strong plea for freedom in such matters, a plea which I venture respectfully to endorse. One thing of which I do want to remind the House in this connection is this. No result can be obtained except by agreement. That is not only a question of the rule of unanimity. We are engaged in remodelling to some extent and modifying the constitution of the League. If it is to work, and work smoothly and with acceptance, we must aim at the modification by agreement. There must be no question of dictation. There must be no Power, I hope, going to Geneva and saying: "This is our policy; we can listen to nothing else." We must be ready to
878
meet and try to understand the views of other countries and so far as possible to meet their views consistently with the essential interests of the League.
We must never forget that it is one of the fundamental principles of the League that all its Members are equally sovereign and independent. This country has undoubtedly a great influence, as other countries have a great influence, in the League, but it is the influence, if I may say so, of a moral character and not constitutional. We have no more rights in the League than any other Member of the League, and I do not think we ought to have any rights beyond the fact that we are permanent Members of the Council. But that is an argument winch is equally applicable to everybody. There most be no dictation to us. We cannot admit that any Power has any right so to use its position and voting on the Council as to prevent steps being taken which it admits are in themselves desirable unless also some position is given to it which it desires. That seems to us to be, very respectfully may I say it, an abuse of the right and powers and position of the Members of the Council. We are all for freedom, but it must be for freedom on both sides, independence and sovereignty for all Members of the Council and Assembly alike.
I heard with great agreement the serious words that Lord Parmoor addressed to this House as to the gravity of the crisis which may supervene from a continual failure to solve the problems of the composition of the Council. I agree that the crisis is serious. I have always felt ever since I have had anything to do with the League that these questions affecting the prestige and position of particular countries in the League are much more dangerous to its prosperity—I will not say to its existence, for I hope that is beyond doubt now—but to its prosperity and strength than much more serious questions affecting the whole international position of the world. They excite much more violent and personal passions, if one may so put it, and in many respects they raise problems more difficult to settle and to reach agreement upon. That is why I venture very earnestly to appeal to all members of your Lordships' House and to everyone else to do their utmost to help the Government in trying to reach agreement upon these questions

879
I have already told your Lordships that I am sure they can only be settled by international agreement. I venture to add that the possibility of international agreement depends very largely indeed upon the existence of national agreement in this country as to the way in which they should be settled. I have no right to dictate to noble Lords opposite, or to advise them as to what view they should take of this or any other question, but I very earnestly appeal to them to give what assistance they think they reasonably can to the Government in this matter. I venture to say to them that if they have any suggestion or any advice to give, either publicly or privately, I, as the representative of this country on that Commission, will be only too delighted and glad to receive it.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE REGULA TIONS.
LORD LAMBOURNE LORD LAMBOURNE asked His Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to prevent a recurrence of the appalling sufferings caused to a cargo of beasts from Canada as reported in the Morning Post on Friday, March 19. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be thought by your Lordships in any way to infringe the dignity of this House if I venture for a very short time to place before you the sufferings of a cargo of animals during a voyage of the steamship "Manchester Producer" from Canada to England. The Society with which I am intimately connected, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has invariably opposed the removal of the embargo upon Canadian cattle, because they were of opinion that inevitable suffering would be caused if the embargo were removed. Unfortunately we were not able to prevail and the embargo was removed, and what happened in this case is one of the consequences that we foresaw would happen.
The sufferings of the animals to which I refer were reported in the Morning Post of March 19, 1926. I regret that I was unavoidably compelled to put off my Question until after Easter. It was during a terrible storm on the Atlantic that these animals suffered. I believe I am correct in saying that the Atlantic Ocean is the coldest ocean in the world.
880
It is also subject to sudden and most terrible gales, so that it is impossible for any human being to foresee what sort of a journey the cattle on these boats are going to have, especially during the winter months. This wretched ship was caught in one of these gales in some of the coldest weather that we have experienced.
Your Lordships may judge of the extent of the disaster when I remind you that out of 410 animals embarked altogether 148 apparently were lost at sea. There was not a humane killer on board. I am only too glad to be able to say at once that the Ministry have given an order that for the future a humane killer is to be carried, but I am afraid that will not be sufficient to ensure a decent journey for these unfortunate animals. It is no use for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to say to the Atlantic Ocean: "Peace, be still, I have a humane killer on board and I have a Canadian veterinary surgeon on board. It is true he has no instruments or medicines with him, but I consider we have done our best." That would be useless for the purpose of mitigating the sufferings of these unfortunate animals. No humane killer was carried during this voyage and the company alleged that even if it had been carried they could not have used it. In reply to that I would point out that these unfortunate animals were lassoed and caught with ropes and eventually pushed into the sea alive to suffer a most painful death by drowning. As it was possible to do that, surely it would have been possible to use a humane killer had one been on board. I will, however, drop the question of the humane killer because the Government have met us as well as they possibly could in that matter.
In the words of one of the men who shipped on board as a cattleman:
"We had to untie the animals, and drive them, as best we could, to the side of the ship.…Those who were not flung over by the roll were therefore hitched up to one of the winches, dragged along to the side, and lowered on to the bulwarks. Then, when a heavy roll came, the crew would cut the ropes and the animals would go overboard. There they lay, plunging and foundering in the trough of the sea; while we had to stand by and let them drown."
That is not a very pleasing description and even if, as has been hinted, it was

881
exaggerated I do not think any man with any amount of exaggeration could draw such a picture as that unless there had been a great deal of truth in it. It should be noted that in the Importation of Canadian Cattle Order no provision was made for carrying a humane killer. It was only because of Members of Parliament asking Questions that the Ministry of Agriculture issued an order for a humane killer to be carried.
As regards carrying cattle on the upper deck, according to the report which I have already referred to, the cattle were housed on the upper deck in ordinary cattle pens, boarded on one side and with a miserable tarpaulin covering the top. They were given only the flimsiest protection during this bitter winter weather. It is appalling to think of the miserable accommodation for these animals. The Order distinctly states that
"animals while on board a vessel shall be protected against injury or unnecessary suffering from undue exposure to the weather."
I venture to say that this provision was certainly not properly carried out.
Then there is the question also of the attendants on these animals. The Order says:—
"The vessel shall, in addition to the ordinary crew, carry a sufficient number of qualified attendants to tend the animals properly; and every consignment of cattle shall be in charge of a responsible foreman, who shall have under him competent assistants, numbering with himself one for every twenty-five head of cattle."
That is a very proper arrangement and if it was properly carried out it would have been very beneficial. But the correspondent of the Morning Post says he was engaged in Montreal as one of these attendants and was paid 10 dollars for the passage across the Atlantic. He says:—
"No questions were asked of my fitness or experience in handling cattle. I met my fellow cattle-men at St. Johns. They were of all trades and professions—farmers, mechanics, business men, an actor, and others. There was only one experienced cattle-man in the party."
It would appear, therefore, that this excellent and humane provision in the Order was totally ignored.
With regard to lighting arrangements the section says:—
"Arrangements shall be made for the provision at all times of adequate light for the proper tending of the animals."
882
Mr. Berry, in the Morning Post, is reported to have said:—
"I was appointed night watchman, and I was expected to see that the animals on deck were fairly comfortable during the night. But I had no electric torch or light of any sort provided for me, and it was impossible to see what was happening to the animals during the night."
Here again, apparently, the provisions of the Order were not carried out. I want to ask the Government what steps they are going to take to prevent a recurrence of this most horrible tragedy, because it is a tragedy when you think of it that these unfortunate animals are sent across the seas during a gale, which nobody of course could prevent, and have to die slowly by drowning. It is no use for the Government when another of these occurrences takes place to say that they have done their best, that they put a humane killer on board and that there was a veterinary surgeon on board. According to the report, there was a veterinary surgeon on board this vessel, but he had no instrument and no medicines and was totally unable to look after the minor ills from which these poor animals were suffering.
The truth is that these store cattle ought not to be allowed to be put on the upper deck during this passage during the winter months. There is no necessity for it. The poor animals could be killed on the other side perfectly well and sent over as dead meat. I think the Government should restore the embargo, certainly during the winter months, say, from October to March, to prevent store cattle at all events—I should be in favour of all cattle—being shipped from Canada to England, because of the dangers of transit and the impossibility almost of housing them securely. It is no good when these incidents have happened to say that they have done everything they could. I am perfectly certain the noble Lord who is going to answer me is equally as humane as I am and that he is equally anxious that these animals should not suffer in this way. But how, without the embargo being replaced, is he going to ensure that animals should not be caught in a storm and be made to suffer similar terrors? I await with great interest the answer of the Government to my question as to whether they cannot see their way to put back the

883
embargo, certainly during the winter months. I should prefer the embargo to be replaced in reference to all cattle from Canada.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, this traffic was only commenced some two or three years ago. I forget exactly the date, but it was quite recently. Therefore I can quite believe that the Ministry of Agriculture and my noble friend Lord Bledisloe knew nothing whatever about this incident or other incidents which may have taken place. It is perfectly clear that it is very likely if you carry cattle across the Atlantic in the winter this sort of thing will ensue. I am quite prepared to admit it may not happen very often, but on the other hand your Lordships must remember that if there had not happened to be an amateur on board this vessel we probably should have heard nothing about it. Therefore it is quite possible that other events of a similar character. may have occurred.
May I read a few lines from t he statement made by this gentleman, to whom I think we owe a debt of gratitude, concerning one of the incidents that took place on board this vessel:—
"We dragged the poor animals one by one along the deck, tied by ropes and hawsers; they watched one another going to execution like dumb souls. Then they were hoisted into the air, perpendicular; lowered, and then the rope was cut, and they fell into the sea. They swam round us, watching us with their almost human eyes, until they were swallowed up by the waves. The most hardened sailors on board were almost in tears at the sight; some of us were physically ill. Food was becoming shorter and shorter and the water-butts were emptying."
What is the reason for the occurrence of this suffering? It is because it was supposed that if cattle were shipped from Canada across the Atlantic meat would become cheaper. I was a Member of another place at the time, and it was stated there that meat would become something like 6d. per pound cheaper. As a matter of fact, meat did not become cheaper. All that has happened has been the suffering inflicted on these animals.
Supposing, as my noble friend Lord Lambourne suggests, that this traffic were prohibited, at any rate during the winter months, no result adverse to the food supply of the people could possibly follow. All that would occur would be that the animals would be slaughtered on the
884
other side of the Atlantic and the food sent over either chilled or frozen. Accordingly the quantity of food would be exactly the same, or probably more, because there would be no cattle thrown overboard or destroyed if the passage were prohibited, at any rate during the winter months, and if the cattle were slaughtered on the other side. The only possible result would be that the butchers on this side might make a little less profit, while possibly some people on the Canadian side also would make a little less profit. I am quite certain that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and the Ministry of Agriculture, now that these facts have been brought to their notice, have every desire to prevent further suffering if it is possible to do so.
My noble friend Lord Lambourne says that the Government are prepared to put a humane killer on board, but we have the statement—I have it here in my pocket—of the owners of the "Manchester Producer" that if there had been a humane killer on board it could not have been used. I believe that the actual number of cattle thrown over was 133, which, after all, is a fairly considerable number, and accordingly, as my noble friend says, the mere provision of a humane killer on board would not prevent the cruelty that has occurred. Everybody knows that the Atlantic is a stormy ocean, especially in winter. Personally I should like to see this traffic stopped altogether, because I do not think that you can guard against the weather even in the summer and, if you have bad weather, something of this sort is almost bound to occur. I should like to see the traffic stopped altogether, but at any rate I hope that my noble friend will exercise his influence with the Government to induce them to stop the traffic during the winter months.
As I have endeavoured to show, no hardship would be inflicted upon anybody and the only possible result would be a little less profit to the butcher, who would not be able to sell as the best English meat, for which he charged the best English prices, cattle which had been brought over from Canada. With that exception—and I do not think that anybody wishes to encourage that sort of thing—and possibly with the exception of a little loss to Canadians, no harm could result to anybody. I earnestly hope that

885
the question brought forward by my noble friend Lord Lambourne will have the serious consideration of the Government and that steps will be taken to prevent anything of this sort occurring again.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, my noble friends Lord Lambourne and Lord Banbury of Southam have described to you this afternoon a most distressing occurrence which took place in the Atlantic in the month of February and which, I am sure, we must all very deeply deplore. The story told by my noble friend Lord Lambourne, harassing, distressing and pitiable as it is, is not exaggerated, and I can assure the House that the Ministry, so far as it lies with them, are prepared to take all reasonable precautions that can possibly be taken to prevent the recurrence hereafter of similar disasters. There are, however, sometimes, as your Lordships are aware, very abnormal weather conditions in the Atlantic Ocean, not always confined to winter, in face of which all human effort would be powerless to prevent such accidents as occurred in this case, and all Departmental Regulations would prove futile.
It only fair to say that after very thorough investigation of all the circumstances the Ministry of Agriculture is satisfied that in this case, when the disaster actually occurred and after it occurred, the master and crew of the vessel, and the owners by wireless instructions, did all that was humanly possible to mitigate the undoubted sufferings of the animals. The storm to which reference has been made is said to have been the worst storm experienced in the Atlantic for about thirty years. It was the same storm as that which caused the shipwreck of the "Antinoe," whose survivors, as your Lordships may remember, were rescued with great gallantry by the "President Roosevelt."
Will your Lordships allow me to tell the whole story as it has been told to us and as, so far as possible, we have confirmed it The "Manchester Producer" left Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 26, with 428 cattle. On the fourth day of the voyage very heavy weather was encountered which broke the rudder and put the vessel entirely out of control.
886
She drifted helplessly in the Atlantic for no fewer than sixteen days before she could be taken in tow. She was then towed to the Azores, and arrived at Fayal on February 24. Of the 428 cattle, 32 were actually washed overboard and 133 were jettisoned, and of those that were jettisoned only one was thrown overboard on account of injury, all the rest being jettisoned in order to avoid the starvation of the animals owing to the serious shortage of fodder. Two were slaughtered for food for the crew, and there were nine other casualties from various causes. It should be noted, therefore, that 176 cattle were actually destroyed out of a total of 428, and that 132 of that number were jettisoned without being injured in order to avoid their sufferings through possible starvation.
LORD LAMBOURNE: They were drowned?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes, they were deliberately drowned, There remained 253 cattle, including a calf which was born on board, which were lauded at Manchester on March 16 in perfectly good condition. There were fourteen cattlemen employed in tending these animals, under the direction of an exceptionally experienced foreman. The captain, crew and cattlemen did their utmost to succour the animals whilst at sea. Both the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships have, I think drawn attention to the allegation that these cattlemen, or most of them, were unqualified persons. I dwell upon it because at any rate Lord Lambourne drew attention to the account of the disaster in the Morning Post, which, I think, described the cattlemen, or most of them, as unqualified persons. There is no certain evidence about that, although I have no doubt in my own mind that the noble Lord is, in the main, accurate in suggesting that these were not highly qualified cattlemen, and to that extent the Regulation which he quoted appears to have been offended against.
When the vessel was disabled, and fodder ran short, the owners, known as the Manchester Liners, sent a wireless message to the master to broach the cargo, which consisted in part of oats, and no less than 60 tons of oats, forming part of the cargo, was actually used as cattle

887
food. In addition 20 tons of hay was sent from Cardiff and 24 tons of hay from Lisbon. Fifty tons of dried beetroot pulp was also obtained at the Azores. Although undoubtedly short rations were fed to the animals before arriving at Fayal, adequate supplies were obtained there which enabled the animals to resume their good condition before being landed at Manchester.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to the lack of a humane killer, or other suitable instrument for destroying these cattle when in distress. Some of the cattle jettisoned were first of all stunned with a hammer, but, unfortunately, owing to the heavy seas, it was found impossible to deal accurate blows with the hammer and in the interest of humanity the remainder were put overboard and drowned, without being struck at all. The captain had a revolver, which apparently he kept for use in such emergencies, but its use was regarded as unsafe, in view of the rolling of the ship, and I think probably the noble Lord is right in quoting the opinion that even if there had been a humane killer its use would have been equally difficult, if not possibly equally ineffective. The vessel did not, in fact, carry a humane killer.
Lord Lambourne has quoted some of the Regulations and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote the whole of them. These Regulations, governing the carriage and treatment of animals conveyed by sea, have been in operation since 1891 and have been embodied in the Importation of Canadian Cattle Order, 1923, which followed the passage of the Act which removed the embargo to which Lord Lambourne referred, and the same Regulations appear in the Foreign 1nimals Order, 1910. These Regulations are to the following effect:—
"(1) Animals are not to be carried on more than three decks without a licence from the Ministry."
I may mention, incidentally, that only one licence has been issued—to the Ellerman-Wilson Line, I think, about a year a go.
"(2) Animals whilst on board to be protected against injury and unnecessary suffering from undue exposure to the weather."
May I here say that it is extremely difficult, without permanent structures upon the upper deck of very different character from the coverings usually employed and those employed on this
888
occasion, effectively to protect animals against accident under such conditions as those which prevailed in this case.
Then there follow these Regulations:—
"(3) If any animal on hoard has a limb broken or is otherwise seriously injured the captain is required to cause the animal to be slaughtered, unless it can be kept alive and led away without cruelty;
"(4) Animals are not to be overcrowded in any part of the vessel so as to cause injury;
"(5) Size of pens not to exceed 11 feet by 9 feet, to prevent injury by animals being thrown against one another, and the floors of the pens to be fitted with battens or other proper footholds;
"(6) Ships' fittings likely to cause injury to be properly fenced off. Passage ways to be provided 1 foot 6 inches wide between each row of pens, and to be kept free of obstructions;
"(7) Sufficient ventilation and light to be provided."
Some of the larger of these vessels, I believe I am right in saying, are provided with electric light, but it would be quite impossible to insist upon electric light being provided on the ordinary cattle boat.
"(8) Cattle to be tied by the head or neck in such a manner as not to cause suffering, and so as to stand athwartships;
"(9) Every vessel to carry a sufficient number of qualified attendants, and every consignment of cattle to be in charge of a responsible foreman.."
I am bound to say that I think in this case it is open to question whether the attendants were qualified cattlemen, but the foreman in this case, as I have said, was an exceptionally experienced man. The Regulation continues:—
"the number of attendants to be one for every twenty-five head of cattle."
The noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, has drawn attention to the fact that in this case the number was rather short of that requirement, but I may mention that this is deemed now to be an excessive requirement for most cattle ships, because they generally have water pipes running the full length of the ship, which renders it less necessary to have the same number of men. The Canadian Regulations, recognising that, require three men only for every 100 animals, and if these Regulations were to be redrafted I think that so far from increasing the number of men in charge, we should probably be inclined to conform with the Canadian Regulation, which is more suitable to modern conditions.

889
The noble Lord has also referred to the compulsory provision of a humane killer. The Regulations which I have read do not require the provision of a humane killer, but, as I have stated, it is said that the captain of the "Manchester Producer" carried a revolver and ammunition for use in case of necessity. As a result of this unfortunate occurrence the Minister of Agriculture on March 27 made a new Order, which requires that every vessel on which any animal is carried is to carry a proper killing instrument discharging a bullet or captive bolt, approved by the Ministry, with sufficient ammunition. The Ministry has advised shipping companies that it will probably be found most convenient to use a killer of the captive bolt type, which is suitable for animals of all classes, and that satisfactory instruments of this character can be obtained from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or from the Temple Cox Research Company. Full particulars of these instruments have been given to the companies, and the correspondence that has taken place shows that the companies have already taken the necessary action to comply with the new Order, which will come into full operation on May 1.
Both noble Lords who have addressed you have reminded you that the R.S.P.C.A. opposed the removal of the embargo on Canadian store cattle when the matter was under discussion between Canada and ourselves some few years ago. I need hardly remind your Lordships that so did I most strenuously; in fact, I am not sure that I was not perhaps more emphatic in my opposition than even the society to which reference has been made. But we have to recognise the fact that it is now the law of the land, and I am sure your Lordships, while adopting the most humane measures that are practicable, would not wish to do anything by a side wind to destroy, or seriously to injure, this industry. The number of casualties which have actually occurred to cattle on the seas is really not great when the number of cattle so shipped is taken into account. In fact, the number of actual losses is surprisingly small. During the last fifteen years 850,000 cattle have been carried across the Atlantic to this country, with a total loss of 1,705, or about two per thousand, that is·2 per
890
cent. The "Manchester Producer" itself has carried 8,924 cattle during the past live years, and the total loss from all causes, excluding this particular voyage, was only five.
Nevertheless, the fact that heavy losses are caused occasionally when severe storms are encountered suggests that the conditions under which cattle are brought over the ocean are not entirely satisfactory, and I should like to say, in answer to Lord Banbury and Lord Lambourne, who have particularly referred to improved accommodation for cattle on these ships, that the Minister of Agriculture is entirely in favour of some structural improvement being made in these cattle ships where cattle are carried on the upper deck, and we realise the importance of this. The Department is at the present time in communication with the persons who are mainly concerned, first of all the Dominions Office and the Board of Trade, and also very particularly those who are interested in the Canadian shipping trade. I am not in a position to say anything definite on this matter to-day. This is naturally a subject for negotiation and discussion, and the Ministry, while most anxious to ensure that cattle are carried under the most humane conditions, must avoid throwing large additional expenditure upon shipowners during a time of acute depression in the shipping industry, if it can be avoided. I hope that I shall not be further pressed on this particular point to-day. It is under diplomatic discussion, and I can only reiterate that the Ministry and I personally are in entire sympathy with the case as presented by the two noble Lords, and we shall do our utmost to remedy these admitted defects.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend what reason there is why cattle should be carried on the upper deck at all. My noble friend has told us that it is accompanied by two very grave evils. One is that there is not, and cannot be, any adequate protection from the weather for the cattle when carried on the upper deck. The other arises from the fact that proper lighting accommodation to the pens or stalls on the upper deck cannot be given. In other words, the carrying of cattle on the upper deck involves the breach of two of the important Regulations which have been

891
made to regulate this cattle traffic, and it is practically impossible to avoid breaking those Regulations so long as cattle are carried on the upper deck under present conditions. Is there any real reason why the carrying of cattle on the upper deck should not be prohibited altogether? It might, I suppose, cause some little extra cost, but in these matters humane considerations are, after all, exceedingly important in order to avoid the horrible suffering of which we have heard to-day, and I should have thought that the loss of a little extra profit to the shipowner ought not to be allowed to govern these matters. My noble friend referred to some structural alterations in these ships which may be imposed by the Board of Trade. I am very glad to hear that that is under consideration, but I hope that when that question is considered the question of using the upper deck at all, with all its accompanying evils and objections, will be seriously considered.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I am very glad that Lord Danesfort has raised the point about proper accommodation on the upper deck, because protection from the weather is a thing which we are very seriously insisting upon in the traffic in old horses. I should like to know whether the Ministry has any means, through its representative on the other side, of inspecting the accommodation and the means of taking care of cattle before they start for this country. Have we any representative over there, as we have here for the shipment of old horses?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I may answer these two questions. In regard to Lord Olivier's question, it is perfectly true that we have an inspector over there, but this has so far been considered a matter of domestic character, if I may so describe it, and not one about which we should be properly entitled to interfere.
LORD OLIVIER: Are they not British registered ships?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Some of them are; but at any rate I will inquire further into the matter. Lord Danesfort asks: Why carry cattle on the upper deck at all? It is simply a question in every case of accommodation, of the number of cattle that are being shipped. There is naturally a greater temptation to carry cattle on the upper deck when an exceptionally large number have to be conveyed, and it is, in effect, meeting the objection which Lord Danesfort by implication makes when we suggest that the right thing to do is to cover in permanently that upper deck, so that, in fact, it ceases to be an upper deck. But I cannot disguise from your Lordships the fact that in order to render this trade possible from an economic standpoint it is necessary to ship as large a number of cattle, taking into account the size of the vessel, as possible; and, quite frankly, the shipment of or rather the accommodation provided for such cattle does not anticipate the very unusual occurrence—supposed to be unprecedented or unparalleled over a period of no less than thirty years—which actually happened in February last. The larger the vessel, of course, the greater the number of cattle that can be carried. This happened to be an exceptionally large vessel and in normal circumstances there would have been no serious risk to the cattle. As I have already said, the casualties taken over a long period are exceptionally and extraordinarily small. I do not know that I can carry the matter any further in reply to my noble friend's Question. We have not yet wholly explored this subject and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I add nothing more at the moment.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.