Lords Sitting of 27 June 1928

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

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to these two Bills, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name upon your Lordships' Paper.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2aaccordingly.

WINDERMERE GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ST. IVES (HUNTS) GAS ORDER, 1928.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of Viscount Peel, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in his name.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 7th instant be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RICHMOND PARISH CHARITY LANDS SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

INSPECTION OF IMPORTED MEAT.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Notice on the Paper:—To move, That it is undesirable that the Ministry of Agriculture should accept foreign inspection of imported meat from South American countries where foot-and-mouth disease prevails while refusing to accept foreign inspection of meat from continental countries; and to move for Papers giving the correspondence with continental countries in regard to the embargo contained in the Order of June, 1926, of the Minister of Agriculture, and with the Argentine Government with reference to the system of inspection of meat for export to this country.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the justification for raising this debate, which is similar to that raised by Lord Ernie on May 8 last, is that the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was neither satisfactory nor convincing. I will quote as to that an authority greater than my own—namely, the agricultural correspondent of The Times. On May 14 that gentleman said this:—
"The difficult position in which the Ministry of Agriculture and the Government are placed in consequence of the recurring outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is fully recognised by farmers."
Then he went on to say that the discussion in the House of Lords did not point to any appreciable improvement being in prospect; that Lord Stradbroke sought to draw reassuring conclusions from recent reductions in the number of outbreaks; and that the argument relating to depreciation in meat from extended compulsory, as compared with voluntary, detention in cold storage was also unconvincing, as there was said to be no authentic evidence to show the effect of chilling and freezing on the nutritive value of meat. He continued:
"At least Mr. Guinness indicated as much in a recent reply to a question in the House of Commons bearing on the relative food values of fresh and chilled meat."
I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply the other day, said that your Lordships might be assured that nothing would be left undone to bring about the elimination of any source of infection.
What I am asking you to do to-day is to go a step further and to ask the Government to redeem that semi-pledge,
748
or statement, of the noble Earl by stopping the infection by chilled meat, which is open to suspicion. I have quoted from The Times correspondent and I would also like to refer to an answer given by the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to Sir Robert Thomas, in the House of Commons on March 1, 1928, in which he said that there was no suspicion of frozen beef; the only question is whether infection can be brought in by chilled meat. I think that that shows that the Government are suspicious about chilled meat, and as there is suspicion surely the Government ought to take up that question and deal with it. Evidently they are very suspicious. Why have we had so many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in different parts of the country and especially in those districts adjoining great industrial areas? The importations of chilled meat in the month ended April 30, 1927, was over 1,000,000 cwts. Against 193,000 cwts. of frozen meat. Chilled meat is practically taking the place of frozen meat and is increasing the danger of infection.
That is borne out in the Report of the Research Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease of the Ministry of Agriculture, in which they give the times during which the virus remains. In fresh meat it only remains for about 24 hours as compared with 30 to 40 days in the blood in chilled carcases and something like 70 days in the bones of frozen meat. Of course bone can be dealt with much more easily and be disinfected and there are Regulations as to boiling bones before use. The voyage from the Argentine takes about 21 days so that the meat arrives in an infective condition. Chilled meat on arrival is not put into cold storage but is at once distributed throughout the country, going to the centres of population, because it only remains good for three or four days at the outset. It is interesting to find that outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease occur, as a rule, around our big towns. In Scotland and Ireland there have been no cases, except one isolated case in each country, and while England has had a large number of outbreaks Ireland and Scotland have been practically immune. Those who know more about this question than I do put that fact down to this—that no chilled meat goes into the country districts of Ireland and Scotland.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that it would not be practicable to keep chilled meat frozen until the virus was dead because the expense and trouble might be considerable. That is an argument based on the ground that you would be increasing the price of food for the large body of consumers, but you also have to think of the cost of these outbreaks to the country. In the last few years the cost to the country of outbreaks of foot and-mouth disease has been something like £5,000,000 sterling or more, and in 1923 outbreaks numbering 1,929 cost £2,205,000. It is quite true that latterly the cost has not been so great because the outbreaks have not been so serious, but as regards this question of cost I notice that a Member of Parliament, Mr. Lindsay Everard, I believe a supporter of the Government, speaking in his constituency warned farmers that there might be a danger of the public declining to pay compensation for animals slaughtered in connection with outbreaks of disease. It would not be surprising if in the future a Labour Government were to say that they were not going to spend these enormous sums of money as compensation for slaughtered cattle, if the disease were allowed to become, as it is in France, endemic. Not only is there this great cost to the country, but we also have to bear in mind the great loss and worry and expense to which farmers themselves are put where there is an outbreak of disease. When their cattle are slaughtered there is no doubt very full compensation, but that does not help a man who, having spent years in building up a herd, has it destroyed and then has to recruit his stock and make another start by buying inferior cattle at a very heavy price. I know that, from what happened in Cheshire, when there was a great outbreak in that County.
It is said that chilled beef is preferred by the consumer to frozen meat. That is not surprising under present conditions because it is well known that in the Argentine the best carcases are chilled and only the inferior frozen. Therefore it is only natural that the quality of the chilled beef should be better; and Argentine cattle are sold in the market as "chillers" or "freezers." Of course, it is no doubt true that chilled meat is much easier to handle than frozen meat, which, unless it is very carefully handled,
750
is liable to deteriorate. Then it may be said that frozen meat is not of such good nutritive quality as chilled, but I am told by experts that it is very doubtful whether that is the case. Some people say that, as a matter of fact, frozen meat has much more nutritive value than chilled. I know the noble Earl will say: "What you propose would increase the expenditure for the consumer." The great majority of the working classes are very anxious to keep food cheap, and will much prefer to have frozen meat of good quality if chilled meat is not allowed to come into this country. I believe the people who will really suffer if chilled meat is kept out are people who can very well afford to pay for home-grown produce. I was amused the other day to see in the catalogue of a West End store a list of home-grown beef prices and the prices of South American meat. It was headed by the statement: "Unless home-grown meat is ordered imported meat will be sent," showing that imported meat is being pushed by the great stores in the West End upon people who are perfectly well able to afford the price of home-grown produce. It is, therefore, not a question of the poor suffering.
Then it may be said that what I propose would diminish the supply. I believe nothing of the kind would happen, and that the meat would simply come in frozen instead of chilled. It is interesting to notice what has happened in regard to the embargo placed by the Ministry on pork coming from the Continent. I believe that that embargo has not increased the price of pork, nor has it diminished the amount of pork coming into the London market. The Times remarked the other day that the embargo upon pork had not reduced the supply to the London market because there had been an increase of 7,348 tons coming from the Continent and from Ireland. I do not think it will be denied by the Parliamentary Secretary that at present a good deal of chilled beef is sold in this country as English meat, and I am asking the Government to safeguard the English producer of meat against that imposition. I do not know whether I shall be successful, because I notice that the Government, in its policy of safe-guarding, is ready to protect everything that the farmer has to buy, but nothing I hat he has to sell.
I think it is perfectly clear that there is a steady flow of infection coming from Argentina, and other countries than Great Britain are prepared to stop that. It is very interesting to note that both Canada and America refuse absolutely to allow any chilled or frozen meat to come into their respective countries. I am not surprised that America took that action, because I remember very well that when I had the honour of being Parliamentary Secretary in another place America had a tremendous outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which cost her many millions of money, and that she only stamped out the disease by slaughter. When she had done that the Government said they would never have it in again, and since they have taken those precautions there has been no outbreak.
It may be said that the Argentine Government have done something in this matter. It is true the Argentine Government did pass an Act requiring notification of foot-and-mouth disease, but, as a matter of fact, they treat that as a dead-letter. I am informed—and I dare say that Lord Bledisloe, who has been in that country, will not contradict me—that they take very little notice of the disease in that country, where it is practically rampant. I venture to think that the inspection which they promise is of very little value indeed. I say that because I notice that the Review of the River Plate lately criticised the system of inspection there on the ground that there were too many political jobs in the appointment of inspectors. Then I notice that Lord Bledisloe in The Times of March 24, expressed the opinion that drastic interference by the Argentine Government would be useless in a country unaccustomed to Government control of disease. If that is so, it certainly is a condemnation of any precautions which are supposed to have been taken by the Argentine Government. It would seem, however, that the Ministry of Agriculture at present accepts such inspection as sufficient in Argentina, though it will not accept the same in the case of Europe.
Even if the inspection in Argentina were efficient the disease cannot be recognised in newly-infected animals. I do not think the noble Earl will contradict that statement. An animal may be in good health, and after slaughter, when it is brought to this country, the carcase
752
is nevertheless able to carry infection. That has been pointed out by the Ministry in regard to arrivals from Europe in its Report for 1927, page 24. We have also to remember that foot-and-mouth disease may be contracted in the trucks and on the roads going to the station; therefore an animal may be quite healthy when it starts and yet may get infection in the truck and on the road, although it would not be discovered at that moment. I have asked in my second Motion if the Government will lay Papers showing the reasons why they apply different treatment to Argentina and Continental countries in this respect. The Netherlands, I understand, objected to the embargo on the ground that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease did not survive in the carcases of pigs killed in the incubative or eruptive stage of the disease; to which the Ministry of Agriculture replied that it had been abundantly proved by experiences in Great Britain that the carcases of such animals, even under rigorous inspection, had carried foot-and-mouth disease from one part of this country to another. It had been the practice, they said, to send to market carcases of such animals on an infected farm as seemed free from disease after a thorough veterinary examination. Yet in a number of cases these carcases had proved to be carriers of disease. Now all animals in contact are killed and burnt. That shows the truth of what I have just been saying as regards the danger of animals from Argentina who pass the inspection perfectly free from foot-and-mouth disease—that after slaughter their carcases may be infected.
I notice also that in the Annual Report of Proceedings for 1926 under the Diseases of Animals Act, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, this very valuable statement appears:—
"These occurrences establish without any possibility of doubt one of the most dangerous sources of the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain. The facts showed that notwithstanding the existing system of meat inspection, both before export and after landing in this country, it was quite possible for carcases showing definite lesions of disease to be imported and distributed in this country. It was also clear that no system of meat inspection, either on the Continent or in Great Britain, or at both ends, would provide adequate protection against such risk, because in a country where disease is prevalent some

753
animals will be slaughtered in the incubative stages of the disease and before they have developed any recognisable lesions. The carcases of such animals are highly infective."
That reinforces my argument that animals slaughtered in Argentina and brought over as chilled meat are often in an infected condition. When the carcases come over simply chilled they retain the blood, which is liable to get smeared about and gets on to the clothes of the butcher, who, when he goes into the market, may carry disease with him.
I have just had put into my hands the resolution, which I think the noble Earl will recognise as of some importance, passed yesterday by the Central Chamber of Agriculture. This resolution, which was carried unanimously, states:
"That this Council urge that foreign inspection of imported meat from South American countries where foot-and-mouth disease prevails is insufficient."
That supports my views upon this matter and my suggestion that it is no use saying that we are going to have this inspection when infected carcases will come into this country as long as chilled meat is allowed to enter.
The other remedy is to carry further the suspicions that you have and to give a trial at least to the plan of not allowing any chilled meat to come into the country from Argentina for consumption. I suggest that you should say to Argentina: "We do not want your chilled meat to come in, but we want your meat in a frozen condition to come in, because in that condition it does not spread foot-and-mouth disease. We are suspicious that meat in the other condition brings the disease in." I ask the Minister of Agriculture to lay the correspondence with other foreign countries on the subject, and also the correspondence regarding the same question with South America. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is undesirable that the Ministry of Agriculture should accept foreign inspection of imported meat from South American countries where foot-and-mouth disease prevails while refusing to accept foreign inspection of meat from continental countries; and that there be laid before the House Papers giving the correspondence with continental countries in regard to the embargo contained in the Order of June, 1926, of the Minister
754
of Agriculture, and with the Argentine Government with reference to the system of inspection of meat for export to this country.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETAR OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRAD-BROKE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has addressed your Lordships upon an interesting subject which has often been before your Lordships' House of late—namely, foot-and-mouth disease. The noble Lord has moved—
"That it is undesirable that the Ministry of Agriculture should accept foreign inspection of imported meat from South American countries where foot-and-mouth disease prevails while refusing to accept foreign inspection of meat from continental countries."
That is the first part of the noble Lord's Motion and, perhaps, I should deal with it first. I think I shall be able to assure your Lordships that there are very good reasons why the Government should discriminate in the Regulations they have made between meat imported from the Continent and that imported from South America.
I must remind your Lordships I think the noble Lord referred to it—that it has been clearly proved that infection was introduced into this country by the carcases of pigs brought from the Continent. There is no doubt about that at all. In the first place, it was found that the drainings from the factory where the bacon was treated went on to the fields where the infected animals were, and, in the second place, that when lesions taken from the carcases of these infected animals were applied to animals in the Ministry's Research Laboratory at Pirbright they proved to be infective. Therefore there is no doubt about the question, and I think your Lordships and Parliament agreed that the Government were right in stopping the importation of carcases from the Continent of Europe for that reason.
With regard to the suggestion about the carcases imported from South America, I must remind your Lordships that no proof has ever been found that infection has been introduced in that way. There have been a good many surmises on the subject and, naturally, the Ministry of Agriculture have taken every step they could to prevent infection being brought in. One of the reasons is, perhaps, that owing to the propinquity of

755
the Continent a very short period elapsed between the slaughter of the animals and the placing of their carcases on the British market. In fact, the trade was so highly developed that I have been informed that the carcases of animals slaughtered in the evening were put on the market in London on the following day. Although, as the noble Lord pointed out, the virus in the flesh becomes inert twenty-four hours after the slaughter of the animal, it remains alive in the blood which is smeared on the outside of the carcase. Therefore, with the short period of time that elapses between the slaughter of the animal and the delivery of the carcase in London there is much more liability of infection being brought in than is the case when the carcase is for a considerable period on the voyage from South America.
The noble Lord referred correctly to the fact that animals in the incubative stage of the disease may show no symptoms at all or lesions in their carcases when killed, and therefore a certain number of infected carcases might be undetected by the inspectors. All those things are possible; but I must point out that all these dangers are rendered much more remote by the length of the voyage from South America than by the short journey from the Continent. Therefore, it seems to me that the Ministry have very good reasons for making discrimination in the way they have done. In the first place it must be borne in mind that there was a trade in fresh carcases and animal products which were distributed in this country within a few hours after the animals from which they came were killed. On the other hand, there is a trade in which these products are not distributed under thirty-five days or even longer. Your Lordships will agree that, although there may be possibilities of the survival of the virus, time in such circumstances is so very important a factor that it cannot be ignored, and that in practice it is wise to assume that the longer a carcase takes to reach this country the less likelihood there is of the virus surviving in or on it.
The noble Lord also referred to the fact that the United States of America had declined to receive any meat or carcases from Argentina. I have heard it said—the information came from a
756
pretty good source—that the United States have agreed to receive carcases from Argentina on a guarantee being given by their inspectors that the meat is free from disease. If that is so it shows that they are acting on exactly the same lines as those on which we are acting. The noble Lord rather inferred that the Government of Argentina were not taking seriously what we asked them to do regarding the inspection not only of the carcases but of the animals brought up for slaughter. That is not in accordance with reports received by the Ministry. Just before coming down to your Lordships' House I read a report in one of the newspapers of Argentina in which was stated very fully what was done regarding the inspection of these animals and the carcases of slaughtered animals. The inspection, indeed, was most complete. From the time it left the estancia to the time the carcase was cut up and the various parts of the body and the inside distributed, it seemed from that report that every possible care was taken to detect any chance of infection there might be in any of the carcases.
It was a newspaper report and perhaps, your Lordships will be more interested in the fact that the two inspectors we have out there speak in the same way. They write and inform us that they are given every facility to carry out their duties of inspection, and that from what they see the Government of Argentina are acting up to the letter and the spirit of the suggestions we made, with regard to the inspection of meat and the prevention of any infections meat or carcases being sent out of their country. As showing the bona fides of the Government of Argentina—your Lordships may not remember it—about a year ago that Government wished to find a man to assist them in detecting and, if possible, destroying foot-and-mouth disease. They sent to this country for the very best man they could find and eventually selected Mr. H. S. Gaiger, who was Director of Veterinary Pathology in Liverpool University, a very well-known authority and a man of independent spirit. The fact of their having selected him to act for them shows, I think, that they really do their very best to eliminate any chance of animals infected with foot-and-mouth disease getting into this country.

757
With regard to the experiments that have been made by the Research Committee I am sorry to say they have not yet developed in the way we should wish, in that the experimenters have not yet found a direct antidote to the disease. But the experiments are in a more or less tentative condition. The experimenters keep trying to find out more and more on this subject and what they have found out so far is not conclusive. Your Lordships will understand that it takes a considerable number of experiments to prove a thing to be absolutely accurate. For instance, with regard to frozen carcases, in one experiment to which the noble Lord (Lord Strachie) has referred it was found that in bone marrow the virus was still infected after 76 days, and in another experiment after 42 days it was not infected. That shows that it takes a great number of experiments to get a correct deduction. With regard to chilled carcases, it was found that after 42 days bone marrow was infected but not after 76 days. Therefore we cannot yet say definitely how long the virus does continue alive in the blood or bones of carcases. The Pirbright establishment had to be closed for a long time owing to the improvements and alterations which had to be made, but now those alterations are complete, and the Research Committee are able to get the work in hand and to go on experimenting to ascertain what length of time the virus does remain alive in the blood and bones of the animals.
The noble Lord laid rather strong emphasis on the desirability, as he put it, of having all meat frozen instead of chilled, but I would point out that we have no evidence to show that freezing the meat will kill the virus. It seems that it lives just as long in frozen meat as it does in chilled meat.
LORD STRACHIE: Only in the bones.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: That is so, but as far as we can we prevent infection by the issue of an Order relating to the disposal of bones. If the bones from cooked meat are thrown out there is no danger of disease being carried in that way to animals. With regard to uncooked meat there is an Order regulating the disposal of bones and garbage fed to pigs. The Ministry of Agriculture have laid it down that the
758
refuse must be boiled and when that is done the risk of disease is eliminated. This matter has been discussed several times in this House and I do not want to delay your Lordships unnecessarily. My object was to show the reason the Government had for discriminating in the conditions as to meat imported from the Continent and that imported from South America. That is the subject dealt with in the Motion on the Paper and I hope I have said enough to show why it is right for us to do what we do.
The noble Lord also asks that we should lay on the table the correspondence with Continental countries in regard to the embargo contained in the Order of June, 1926, of the Ministry of Agriculture, and with the Argentine Government with reference to the system of inspection of meat for export to this country. I hope the noble Lord will reconsider this matter. It does not seem to me that it is necessary to publish all this correspondence in full. A summary of the correspondence with the Dutch Government has been published in the Report of the Animals Division of the Ministry for 1926, and the summary of negotiations with the South American Government was published in the Press after Lord Bledisloe's return from his mission to South America in the spring of this year. As these matters have really been put before the public it seems to me unnecessary that there should be any further publication, and I hope the noble Lord will not press that Motion.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should hesitate to participate in the debate but for the fact that I only returned from South America last night, having pursued in an unofficial way an investigation which, in a more official capacity, I was conducting on behalf of His Majesty's Government at the request of the Ministry of Agriculture last January on a previous visit. The first thing that struck me on reading the Motion of the noble Lord opposite was an impression on his part that the inspection of meat in the Argentine was likely to be insufficient in order to protect us against the possibility of the transmission of disease. I do not think I am committing any breach of confidence when I tell your Lordships that in the course of negotiations with the Argentine Government, last January, they quite freely offered to

759
permit inspection to take place of the fullest possible character on the part of duly qualified inspectors appointed by this country and operating within their territory. I may go so far as to say that I raised a question myself with the Minister of Agriculture for the Argentine as to whether such a position would be quite consistent with that of a self-governing country which formed no part of the British Empire. I mention the fact in order to indicate not only that they are bona fide doing their utmost to carry out effective inspection, but are quite ready at any moment to admit inspection on the part of duly qualified persons appointed by His Majesty's Government and sent out from this country.
The noble Lord (Lord Strachie) indicated in the course of his speech, if not in his Motion, that it might be advisable to prohibit chilled meat from the Argentine and presumably from other South American countries in favour of frozen meat. I believe he went so far as to suggest that the medical authorities considered that frozen meat was just as wholesome and just as nutritious as chilled meat. That may be the opinion of some medical authorities, but it is quite certain that it is not the view of a large number of medical authorities in this country, and it is also quite certain that the British public have developed—and in my judgment quite properly developed—a taste in favour of chilled meat as compared with frozen meat as being much more attractive to the taste and, in their opinion, more wholesome and nutritious. But as my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Agriculture in this House has just indicated, there is really no distinction in this particular matter as between frozen meat and chilled meat, always assuming that the great danger arises from the long-continued presence of the virus in the bone and marrow of the carcase. In that case there is no scientific information which would lead us to believe that the danger would be lessened in the smallest degree by the importation of frozen carcases in preference to chilled. It certainly is news to me if there is really considered to be any serious danger in the blood of the chilled carcase as a source of the conveyance of the disease. That, at any rate, is not the opinion, to my knowledge, of research workers on either side of the Atlantic.
760
The noble Lord went on to indicate that the attitude of other countries, and notably of Canada and the United States, was in this matter rather more cautious than our own. I have always been given to understand, and I believe, that the main reason why meat and animals on the hoof have keen refused admission from other countries was a protective measure in the supposed interests of the stockowners of those countries. The noble Lord may not be aware of it, but it is one of the chief topics of all the newspapers on the other side of the Atlantic, and there appears to be a very strong agitation going on, owing to the relatively high price of meat which is available to the working population of the United States, in favour of the admission of chilled meat from the Argentine into the United States. There is a very strong view in South America that if the present embargo were removed the restrictions which we are seeking to impose on the Argentine Government would not be similarly imposed by the United States, and that a very large quantity of meat which now comes to this country would be diverted to the United States.
The noble Lord, I think, was a little unfair to the Argentine Government when he admitted that by law they compelled notification of the disease but suggested that they were not too particular in enforcing the law. I come straight from South America and from my own perfectly unbiased inquiries I am quite confident that the Argentine Government are doing their very utmost. I am sure, too, the stockowning estancieros are also doing their utmost, to carry out the express requirements of the British Government in this matter. It is perfectly true, and I repeat what the noble Lord quoted as words of mine appearing in The Times newspaper, that
"you cannot suddenly impose upon a country that is unused to control such strict measures of control as you can in this country where such restrictions have been in operation for fifty or sixty years."
But allowing for that fact, stockowners and the frigorifico owners, the owners of the great packing houses where the meat is prepared for export, the railway companies and the Argentine Government are in my judgment doing their utmost in very difficult circumstances to meet the requirements of our Ministry of Agriculture in this matter. In fact,

761
my own impression is that what is taking place outside these packing houses and the inspection of the animals coming down to the corales or collecting yards is the most efficient inspection of the kind that is being conducted anywhere in the world to-day. I myself have had the opportunity of inspecting the meat packing houses in Chicago in the case of pigs, in various parts of Scandinavia and in other countries, and I have never seen anything to touch in the matter of efficiency the inspection, veterinary and otherwise, of the animals and carcases on the premises of these frigorificos.
There is only one other matter I want to refer to. The Rural Society of the Argentine—I should say quite the most powerful body in that country—are intensely anxious that members of our two Houses of Parliament should go over at their expense and as their guests in order to conduct their own inquiry on the spot, and form a perfectly unbiased opinion through their own investigation as to the thoroughness of the work of inspection and the desire on their part to meet our requirements in the interests of our own stockowners. Mr. Duhau, the President of the Association, a gentleman of very high integrity and a most successful and very large farmer, has sent a message over to the House of Commons only during the last fortnight on behalf of the society, in which he offers the most cordial welcome to some ten to twenty members of the Houses of Parliament if they would be prepared to go over and see matters for themselves and form their own opinion as to whether they are or are not doing their best to meet our requirements. I sincerely hope that the invitation will be accepted. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, will avail himself of it and enjoy what I am sure he will find a most restful voyage in tropical and subtropical seas, and come home very much refreshed and able to participate with even greater alacrity, interest and intellectual activity in our debates than he has done in the past. I venture to hope that if there is a Division—though I hope the noble Lord will not press a Division on this matter—out of respect for the efforts of the Argentine Government, to which I can personally testify, noble
762
Lords will support the Government in the Lobby.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his Motion, I should like to say one word. I regret to say that I could not follow the noble Earl in his reply for the Ministry of Agriculture, because it was quite impossible to hear what he was saying, but I should like to reply to some remarks made by Lord Bledisloe. There are two points which he made. One is that the blood is not the important or even an important element in infection from the carcase. I am sure he is absolutely mistaken there. What other object could the Research Committee have had in testing the length of time that blood endures in all sorts of material except to show that blood is a decided element in the infection?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I hope my noble friend will allow me to interrupt for a moment to point out that I only referred to the blood so far as that comes in carcases from South America, taking, as the noble Lord says, a considerable time to come here.
LORD ERNLE: If you ask a small butcher—I will not say one of the big butchers dealing largely in meat of this sort—he will tell you that the drip from Argentine meat is heavier than that from meat from other sources. Therefore it is no argument to say that the blood does not come from the carcases because they have travelled such a long way when the noble Lord himself admits they drip in this country more than other carcases. Therefore it is of enormous importance that we should get our minds fixed on the advantage which frozen meat possesses over chilled meat. I quite admit that bone retains the infection for an enormous length of time and that cold does not appear to have any effect upon it. I quite admit that, but you can deal with the bones by different Regulations.
I would venture to suggest to the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture that he is not dealing with bones at present in the right way. The bones now are collected from butchers' shops by casual dealers, heaped together, and eventually taken to some further destination. What becomes of them in the meanwhile I really do not know.

763
But suppose an unfortunate man buys a bone that has come from one of their shops and feeds it unboiled to his stock, then he is liable to be brought up by the local authority for an offence against the Order regarding the boiling of foodstuffs. Where we should make the offence lie is at the door of these big butchers and multiple traders dealing with the Argentine. If they allow an unboiled bone off their premises, these are the men who ought to be exposed to the penalty. It is no use trying to stop a leak when it is already a flowing river. You must stop it, just as you tax our incomes, at the source. You must make the butchers liable to a penalty and leave it to the local authorities, who are for these purposes the executives of the Ministry of Agriculture, to maintain that discipline.
I am still of opinion that, if you put a quarantine on chilled meat, as I suggested some few weeks ago, the Argentine people would meet the case and we should not have to intervene to deal with the matter. There is no doubt about it that chilled meat will keep for six, eight or even nine weeks and can be sold in good condition at the end. The example of our Dominions shows that, although they have to deal with ships with no appliances and no cooling or drying air, they have brought over chilled meat and, after a voyage of fifty-five to sixty days, have sold it on the market. I admit that it is not always a success—indeed it is very often not a success—but they have demonstrated the fact that it can be done, and if these big meat shippers from South America, with all their admirable appliances, could not do better than that, I feel that they had better resort to frozen meat. My suggestion left them their chilled meat. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke just now that chilled meat is more appetising, it looks very much more like home-produced meat and you can sell one for the other alternatively, which are all advantages to the butcher, whereas frozen meat has to be defrozen before he can even put it in his shop, and in this climate that is a very difficult and long process, and one that he naturally dislikes. But when the meat is here, even if this were the only means of sending it to this country, it will be found to be of the same excellent quality as the meat that is now chilled.
764
I should like to add that I believe that the Argentine Government are doing their best. I have little doubt about that. Some of the developments are certainly rather curious. At the present time a fight is going on between the freighters and the railway companies as to who is responsible for disinfecting the wagons, which are so numerous that the cost is considerable. Public opinion appears to treat the infection of the wagons as normal, and that is the danger that we have to face in the Argentine. The condition of infection has for so many years been regarded as normal that the people cannot wake up. Nevertheless I believe that the Government are a little alarmed, though they would not be in the least alarmed if it were not for this agitation against chilled meat. I believe it is a very useful thing to try to keep them up to the mark, and I hope that we shall continue to do so. As to the inspection that they supply being any guarantee against the import into this country of infected meat from South America, I am sure that the noble Earl will not pretend for a moment that it is. In this country, when an animal is on a farm near to which infection has broken out, the meat is not sold when it is slaughtered but is burned on the spot, because veterinary inspectors know perfectly well that the incubative stages of the disease are infectious to all other sorts of cattle. Those stages cannot be detected even by the microscope, but only by the minute tests that are applicable in the laboratory. Accordingly I am sure that the noble Earl does not go so far as to say that this inspection will secure us from infected meat. On the other hand, many people do say so, though the claim was totally contradicted by the Ministry itself in its answer to the Netherlands Government in 1926.
The reduction of the infected carcases to, say, one in a thousand would be an immense advantage, and I believe it is quite possible that the system set up in Argentina might produce that result. But suppose that one carcase in a thousand is infected and is distributed in every part of this country. We know what one shipload of infected meat did in Lanarkshire. It meant 45 farms infected and upwards of £40,000 paid away in compensation. This is, therefore,

765
a matter which the Government must carefully watch, and I hope they will do their utmost to keep strong pressure upon Argentina.
Some day or other we shall lose this trade with the Argentine. Of that I feel convinced. The time will come when America, yielding to a demand for meat which is getting every day more insistent, will open her ports to Argentine chilled and frozen meat. At this moment those ports are absolutely closed to it. As the Americans say in their papers, the bars are down, and they are keeping them down because they are afraid of the infection. But some day or other the bars will have to come up, and then trade will flow from South America to North America, with its enormously high prices for meat. Just think what the consequences of that will be. To have a reciprocal trade with a country is of enormous value to our commerce and our industrial interests. If we are no longer the principal dealers with Argentina, we shall no longer have that tremendous pull for our commerce and manufactured goods in the Argentine markets. In the meantime we shall not have found an alternative supply elsewhere. Accordingly I agree with the Government that this is a matter which requires particularly wary handling, and I cannot vote for the noble Lord's Motion without having every point in the case more carefully examined than, so far as I know, has yet been done. At the same time I do feel somewhat dissatisfied at not having had a complete and exhaustive answer to my suggestion of a quarantine. Until the time comes when that method is applied, I believe that there is no other remedy before the country which will at once save our meat supply and protect our flocks and herds.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, the Government have refused to give us the information for which I asked. I suppose they have good reasons for doing so. Probably they take different views regarding what comes from the Continent and what comes from Argentina. On the other hand, I am glad to know that I have practically the support of a former Minister of Agriculture, and I see that he indicates that what we should really do is to watch with suspicion the Minister of Agriculture and his proceedings in this
766
matter, and what is done in the Argentine. Therefore I entirely agree that at the present moment we can do nothing more than watch him, and see whether he does take any steps to secure that the inspection in the Argentine is a real one. I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TITHE RENTCHARGE.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government—(1) What is the ratio to parity of the tithe rentcharge as ascertained under the Act of 1925, and what would have been the ratio if that Act had not been passed? (2) To what extent has this change of ratio affected the amount of tithe rentcharge payable to the clerical tithe owners? and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture in this House for his courtesy in supplying me with the information which I was asking for in public in my Question, following the admirable example, if I may say so, set by Lord Bledisloe last year. Last year Lord Bledisloe told us that the effect of the 1925 Act was to reduce the amount payable to clerical tithe owners by the sum of £584,000 a year for the particular year, which was 1926. Of course that is a very large sum indeed out of a hard-working and very poor section of the community, who as incumbents are dependent upon the returns from tithes—not entirely, but almost entirely. It eventuated in this, and as I think the figures that I gave have not been questioned, I will merely state them again. Whereas under the old conditions an incumbent would have received £375 a year if those conditions had been left alone, he is now receiving £300, which, of course, is an enormous difference, and in the same way an incumbent who might have expected to receive £500 if his interests had been left unaltered now only receives a sum of £400 a year. For a very poor class in the community it is impossible to exaggerate the loss when we compare figures of that kind.
The figure supplied by the noble Earl, for which I gratefully thank him, is this:

767
He says that in 1927 the loss was larger—namely, £610,902. That, of course, exaggerates the misfortune to this poor section of the community to which I have referred. I am only bringing this matter again before your Lordships because I have had a very large number of letters from poor incumbents who are quite unable to voice their own views, and not in a position, of course, to bring this matter before either House of Parliament. There were only two suggestions made last year in any way justifying this great loss to the poor incumbents. One was that at the same time as the 1925 Act was passed, dealing with tithe, certain remissions in the form of rates were given to the Incumbents. I am not quite sure whether Lord Bledisloe, in the statistics which he gave, included both town and country, but I do not think that is material, because Lord Bledisloe himself assented in the further discussion last year that it is no reason for depriving a man of income to which otherwise he would be entitled, that you put his rating on a just foundation by some proper rating reform.
No one knows better than the noble Earl or his predecessor that this question of the rating of incumbents has always been a matter of considerable dispute. On the one hand no one wanted them to pay more than was right, and there were various suggestions made before the Royal Commission that only a fair charge should be made. It would certainly be a curious argument, when we come to the question of rating reform, that the reform of rating should be any reason for confiscating proprietory rights which otherwise would be regarded as wholly secure. Of course there can be no greater right, secured by immemorial custom and by legislation, than the rights of incumbents to stipends derived from tithe rentcharge. It is impossible to imagine a more highly secured property than that in the settled expectation that they would be entitled to the statutory rights which had been granted to them in confirmation of an immemorial custom, first dealt with in 1782, which at any rate is a respectable and historical distance from the present time. The other suggestion was as regards some division between the incumbent and the landowner, so that the landowner would not be called upon to pay what appears prima
768
jacie to be a very high ratio. The ratio given to me by the noble Earl is £135, if the Act of 1925 had not been passed. I do not think that that really is such a high ratio as is sometimes suggested. I think, as Lord Bledisloe told us last year, that if you took all the years from 1836 up to the year before the War the ratio would be about £98 to £100. I am not sure whether the noble Earl gave me that information, but I think it is the fact.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: I am speaking only from memory, but I think £92.
LORD PARMOOR: Whether it is £92 or £98 to £100 does not very much matter. When we talk about a high ratio like £135, if you take the index conditions, as regards the commodities concerned, between pre-War and post-War times, I do not think that £135 means in truth and in substance any increase of the advantages which the tithe owner derived at one time as against the other. I do not think, in other words, that £135 after the War gave better conditions for a poor man as regards his living, the education of his children, and matters of that kind, than £100 or so would have done in pre-War times. But whether that is so or not again appears to me to be immaterial. No one, I think, spoke more often on this subject that the late Lord Salisbury, a man of ripe judgment and knowledge if there ever was a statesman of ripe judgment and knowledge in this country, and he stated on several occasions—of course with perfect accuracy—that the tithe was not a question between the tithe payer and the tithe owner, that the tithe was in its nature public property, no doubt invested from long periods in the past and by immemorial custom and legislation with a trust to use for religious purposes, but if you altered tithe and took it away from those religious purposes it did not enure to the benefit of the owner, it enured entirely for the public benefit.
That has been the course pursued whenever tithe has been touched on all recent occasions. In the case of the disestablishment in Ireland the tithe was not transferred from the tithe owner to the landowner as tithe payer, it became part of the public funds to be used for public purposes. Exactly the same thing

769
was done in the case of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. There were eight public purposes, I think, to which the tithe was devoted. But if you take away the tithe altogether from its religious use in favour of the incumbent the advantage of that ought not to enure to the landowner at all, but it ought to become a common public benefit.
Just let me apply to that the special hardship of existing conditions. I am sure I do not know how they can be modified at the present time, or what can be done, but I will state the case of an existing incumbent in 1925. That existing incumbent then had the security of tithe under the conditions of existing legislation. If it had been a question of disestablishment, which is the greatest possible interference with tithe, the principle universally followed has been either that he shall retain the advantage of the emolument to which he is entitled at the time of change until his death, or, in the result, he shall have compensation calculated on an ordinary actuarial basis. I should not like to press the noble Earl on this point, or to cross-examine him too much on it, but I have searched for any case where a settled Parliamentary title has been interfered with after it has been acquired either without the ordinary settled form of actuarial calculation or preserving the benefits of the Parliamentary guarantee during the life of the person then entitled to it.
I do not want, in reference to the question of compensation, to make a complaint about that. I have been charged with being in favour of confiscation, in spite of every protest to the contrary. But it has always appeared to me that this Act, passed by a Conservative Government in 1925, was a notorious case of unfair treatment of an existing property in the hands of an exceedingly poor class, who are not in a position to protect their rights and interests. Some day or other I am afraid that a precedent of this kind may be extended in an unworthy way. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, felt this point, because he expressed it once or twice. The answer was: "We are dealing with the matter at large and therefore we must take things on a new basis." But that is no answer to the point I am making, because if that is so you might take land for any
770
public purpose and say: "We are going to deal with it for public purposes and therefore the question of individual compensation does not arise." It always arises, and the reason why I am pressing the point is this, that these men are men who are only able to live at all with great difficulty and are really deprived of the ordinary advantages to which men in their position would be entitled, particularly as regards the education of their children.
When this matter was last discussed I made some complaints of the new method of collection by Queen Anne's Bounty. I make no complaint of that kind now. I want to make that quite clear. I notice that the most rev. Primate is not present, but he told us on that occasion in answer to my complaint that he, as the head of Queen Anne's Bounty, would do all he could to see that the collection of tithe by Queen Anne's Bounty was properly and fairly carried out, so as not to harm the various incumbents concerned. Since that date I have had no complaint whatever on that head, and if the most rev. Primate had been here I should have thanked him for having carried out, as far as I know very successfully, the promise he made that there should be no delay in the collection of tithe, which, in the case of people like poor incumbents, imposes very harsh difficulties upon them.
I do not know whether the noble Earl has considered this at all. Of course, tithe rentcharge affects different lands in very different ways. Where I know it best it is a field tithe rentcharge, and approximately at par if we were taking the gold stabilisation doctrine, it would be about 3s. or 4s. an acre. But there are other lands of which I am perfectly cognisant where the tithe is quite nominal—quite nominal for this reason, that there have been recent enclosures, and, instead of the tithe being normally fixed, as the old tithes were in this part of the country, on fields, when the enclosures were granted certain lands were appropriated in lieu of tithe for the benefit of the incumbents of the particular parishes. Of course, in other cases we know tithe has been redeemed. But that is really not the question which I want to bring forward; it is the question of hardship. I have had very heart-rending illustrations brought to my notice. A

771
man who was hoping for 25 per cent. increase in his income, who suddenly found that he was deprived of it, is in a position to have the sympathy of everybody. I certainly do not want to reopen the whole question of the Act of 1925, which was very ably discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, at the time, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, but if there is any error in what I have stated or in the information which I have quoted I hope the noble Earl will point it out. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has asked for certain figures. He has referred to the fact that he raised a somewhat similar question in July, 1927, when the ground was gone over. The only thing I can do, I think, is to make these answers to the noble and learned Lord's Questions: In reply to the first, the ratio to parity of tithe rentcharge under the Act of 1925 is £105. If the Act had not been passed, the value for 1928 would have been £135 3s. 0¾d.; that is to say, the annual value of tithe rentcharge would, under the Act of 1918, have been based on the average price of British corn for the preceding fifteen years. The par value of tithe rentcharge previously attached to benefices was £2,026,000. The stabilised value under the Tithe Act of 1925 was £2,127,300, and the value for 1928, if the Act of 1925 had not been passed, was £2,738,202. The answer to the second Question of the noble Lord is £610,902 gross. The noble Lord contended that the clergy have been deprived of a large sum of money as the result of the Act of 1925; but the noble Lord did not, I think, quite bring out the benefit that the clergy had received by the large amount of permanent rate relief. The noble Lord referred to it, but your Lordships may not realise how great that relief has been. The Ecclesiastical Rates Acts of 1920 and 1922 would have expired at the end of 1925 and incumbents would then have reverted to the position which obtained from 1899 to 1920; that is to say, they would have had to pay on their tithe rentcharge half rates in respect of the general rates and a quarter of any special expenses rates. Under the Act of 1899 the payment was reduced to half rates, and the Act of 1920 relieved of all rates all those whose incomes were under £300; while those incumbents whose
772
tithes amounted to between £300 and £500 paid only quarter rates, and those who received over £500 a year paid half rates. I have ascertained that the average general rate in 1927–8 is 11 s. 7d. in the £, and the average special expenses rate is 10 d. in the £, making a total of 12 s. 5d. in the £ It may be estimated, therefore, that the rates payable on tithe rentcharge of a varied annual value of £2,738,202 would have been approximately £465,000.
LORD PARMOOR: Is that town and country?
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: That is taking them all, I think—whereas the amount payable for all rates under the Act of 1925 on the basis of 5 per cent. of the par value is approximately £101,000. Therefore, I would point out that the clerical tithe owners are relieved of something like £364,000 a year in rates. Then, again, there is the great advantage an incumbent has of having a stabilised value of £105 per cent. free of rates for his rentcharge, and this is to continue for 84 years no matter to what figure corn prices may fall. I think it is a very great advantage to the clergy generally that they have that assured income to rely upon.
I need hardly remind your Lordships that the stabilisation of tithe rentcharge was fixed by the Act of 1925 after very long and careful debates in both Houses, and all the considerations advanced by the noble and learned Lord to-day were then considered. Parliament, however, was satisfied that the arrangement made was a fair one. I am sure the clergy would not like to be regarded as benefiting by the abnormal prices that obtained during the War years, which were entirely a consequence of the War. It would be a very difficult thing indeed to collect the large rate of £135 in these days when the price of corn is falling. It is very much lower than it was. It may be that for a few years after 1925 the clergy will suffer some loss on their tithe rentcharge because they have lost the benefit of the abnormal prices prevailing in the years 1915–1921. On the other hand, they have the great relief of feeling that they will be unaffected by further fluctuations and that they are assured of a fixed income.
It would be better, perhaps, that I should not go into the noble and learned

773
Lord's arguments because they have all been dealt with by the Act of 1925. But we all realise, I think, that that Act was a compromise between the two parties. The matters were all gone into and this compromise was arrived at, and, like nearly all compromises, I suppose it is not altogether popular with either party. Each thinks that he has given up too much. If, however, the clergy feel that they have any grievance, it must be remembered that some of the landowners feel that they have been asked to pay too much. The noble and learned Lord considered that £135 gave a clergyman no better position now than the £100 he received some years ago gave him. That may be true; but I would also point out that it would be far more difficult for a landowner to find £135 now than it was thirty years ago. These, briefly, are the answers which I caused to be prepared to the noble and learned Lord's Questions, and I hope he will be satisfied with the figures I have put before him.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his very clear answer. So far as the figures are concerned, those I quoted, which he gave me, are the same as those he has quoted. That, obviously, would be so. There are only two points I should like to mention. First of all, the 1899 rating scheme as applied to incumbents was only provisional, as the noble Earl will recollect. It was brought out by the Royal commission which was then sitting as a provisional scheme until a
774
scheme of more general application could be settled. The fact that in 1920—I am sorry it went on so long—a more permanent, and in my opinion a more just and undoubtedly a more fair scheme was adjusted and accepted, is really no reason why the income of the persons affected should be reduced in the manner in which it has been reduced. It is only right that people should pay rates on a fair basis, but I do not think that ought to be set off as against the loss to which I have referred. The noble Earl said quite frankly that as far as he knew the actual figure was based on rates in town and country. The town rates really do not affect the question, though the country rates no doubt may be said to do so, with the limitation that the noble Earl suggested. I certainly would not ask the noble Earl to argue further. As regards the last point, that existing interests were not safeguarded, I do not think it is possible to give an answer to that. No answer has ever been given. At the same time I thank the noble Earl for his great kindness in sending me the figures and for the clearness of the answer he has given. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at half past five o'clock.