Sitting of 24 July 1922

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Durham County Water Board Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Black Country Tramways and Light Railways Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS,
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

    PART II ORDERS.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before the House rises, he intends to propose in Parliament Orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, in every case which shall have been decided by the Statutory Com-
    2
    mittees, or whether he will use his powers to make Orders during the Recess?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): Action will be taken as rapidly as possible on any Reports which may be received from Committees, and I am unable to say in advance how far, if at all, it will he necessary to make Orders during the Recess. Any Orders so made are, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is doubtless aware, subject to confirmation, in accordance with Section 2 (4) of the Act.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance, with reference to Reports already received from Committees, that he will either make the Orders or decide not to make them before the House rises?
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care during the Recess that adequate protection is given to British interests against unfair competition from abroad?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will do all I can to give the House every opportunity for Debate, but occasions may arise after the end of the Session when it may be necessary to make Orders.
    Captain BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Resolutions approving Orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act will be proposed on behalf of the

    3
    Government; and whether Government Whips will act as Tellers if a Division is taken?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will introduce the Orders, as President of the Board of Trade, or will the matter be decided by what is called the free Vote of the House?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    Captain BENN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will have the support of the Government Whips in bringing in these Orders?
    Mr. HANNON: And why should he not have the support of the Government Whips in protecting British interests?

    GLASSWARE.
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it was necessary for the Committee considering the application for the imposition of a duty on imported opal glass shades to be satisfied that serious unemployment is being caused by such importations; and, if so, whether he can state what evidence was produced before the Committee that such conditions prevailed?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The application which the Committee in question considered was one for the imposition of a duty on domestic and illuminating glassware. They had accordingly to investigate unemployment in the industry concerned with such ware, caused by importation. The evidence was given in public, but considerations of economy prevent its reproduction and publication.
    Major BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state, in reference to domestic glassware, which in terms of the draft order when imported for the purpose of mounting with silver or other metals will be exempted from the duty of 33⅓ per cent; whether such glassware when placed in metal frames, but not mounted with metal, will also be exempted; and whether the exemption will apply in the pickle jars, liqueur
    4
    bottles, tantalus bottles, ink bottles, communion glasses, glass tobacco jars and scent bottles imported for use in cabinets and other wooden mounts!
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
    Major BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the witnesses who appeared before the Glassware Committee appointed by him under the Safeguarding of Industries Act deny the statement issued by the Committee that invoices were produced to them showing that table and fancy glassware manufactured in CzechoSlovakia was being sold at prices ranging from six per cent. below to 30 per cent. above pre-War prices: whether the shorthand notes show numerous instances in which prices were quoted is 100 per cent. to 150 per cent. above pre-War prices; whether secret evidence was obtained to the effect stated by the Committee; and, if so, what action was taken to verify the correctness of this secret evidence?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part., I am aware that evidence was given by opponents of the application in many cases to the effect indicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. As stated last Monday in reply to the hon. Member for Spennymoor, the evidence on which the Committee base their statement consisted mainly of original invoices.
    Mr. KILEY: Were the invoices given in secret? Was that suggested in the evidence before the Committee?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should suggest that that was obviously the way in which to give them.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the trade term "Belgian tumblers "means tumblers of different shapes, primarily with thin tops but with bottoms of varying thicknesses; and whether, in view of the confusion existing in the trade as to which, if any, form of Belgian tumbler he proposes to tax, he will take some action to define exactly on what kind of tumbler the duty is to be charged?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As I have previously pointed out, it is obvious from the Report of the Committee that they did not give to the term in question the wide meaning which the hon. Member suggests. The term is not used in the Draft Order, the wording of which is not, I think, in any way ambiguous.

    DUMPING (COMPLANTS).
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act he has received since 1st October last, which allege that goods are being dumped into Great Britain within the meaning of the Act in Clause 2 (1) (a); how many of these complaints he has referred to Committees for investigation; and what action, if any, he has taken with regard to such complaints as have not been referred by him to Committees?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Five complaints in which dumping, in the sense of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act, is alleged have been received since the coming into force of Part II of the Act in August, 1921. Of these, two have been referred to Committees; one was rejected on the ground that no primâ facie case was established; and as regards the other two, the complainants have been asked to furnish further information.

    SILK GOODS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has agreed to receive a deputation on behalf of the silk trade applying for a duty of 33⅓ per cent. upon imported silks; and, if so, whether he will also undertake to receive a deputation on behalf of the traders in silk and consumers, so that their point of view may be considered before coming to a decision on this matter, especially with a view to avoiding the setting up of a Committee, which will involve delays, inconvenience, and loss of time to all parties, whether favourable or unfavourable to the duty, and the additional heavy legal and other expenses consequently incurred?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part accordingly does not arise.

    HOLLOW-WARE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds he has satisfied himself that there is unemployment in the decorating of domestic enamelled hollow-ware seeing that he proposes to recommend that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. shall be imposed on such imported articles, in view of the fact that the Committee appointed by him reported that this decorated ware is not made in Great Britain?
    Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. Member will read paragraph 12 of the Committee's Report, he will see that decorated enamelled ware is specially mentioned in the Order merely in order to prevent any possibility of evasion on the lines the Committee had in mind.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he has satisfied himself that there is unemployment in the decorative enamelling trade?
    Mr. BALDWIN: If my hon. Friend—and I say this with profound respect—knew more about the trade, he would know that there is no special branch for decorative enamelling. The unemployment is in the whole trade, whether the enamel ware be decorated or not. The reasons for including decorative enamelling ware were specifically given in the Report.
    Mr. KILEY: If there be no unemployment, why put a tariff on the ware?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I did not quite catch why my hon. Friend asked.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his special attention has been called to Section 14 of the Aluminium Hollow-ware Committee's Report under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and to the fact that the recommendation contained therein was repeated in the same Committee's Report respecting wrought enamelled hollow-ware; and whether he can give the reason why, in spite of this recommendation thus emphasised by repetition, the draft Order proposes to place an import duty on both types of hollow-ware for the maximum period of time allowed under Section 9 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As the hon. Member was informed on the 26th June, this is one of the matters with which I propose to deal when the Order comes up for discussion in this House.

    NEW INDUSTRIES.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any information as to the number of new industries or new factories, or additional employment in the various industries in the trades concerned with the production of the 6,300 commodities specified in the Board of Trade list of articles dutiable under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is not possible to make any detailed statement on this subject at present, and in view of the fact that the Act has been in operation for less than 10 months, and of the general trade conditions which have prevailed during that period, any such statement, even if possible, would be liable to be misinterpreted. But marked developments have taken place in the range of production of the branches of the chemical industry covered by the last heading of the Schedule to the Act, which account for the greater number of the items in the list issued there under, and distinct progress is being made also in respect of scientific glassware and optical and scientific instruments. I should add that there is no doubt that in a number of cases the Act has encouraged manufacturers to keep in operation works which would otherwise have been shut down.
    Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether, in point of fact, a large number of people have been kept in employment by the operation of this part of the Act?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have no doubt about that.
    Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one newly-established glass factory will be under the necessity of discharging a number of its employés because they cannot obtain a rebate on the glass tubes they import for the purpose of manufacturing bottles?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. KILEY: I will furnish the right hon. Genteman with particulars.

    SNAP FASTENERS.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received a Report from the Committee appointed by him to investigate a complaint with regard to the import of snap fasteners from Germany and CzechoSlovakia; and whether, in the event of the Committee's Report upholding the complaint, he will be prepared to make an Order against Czecho-Slovakia, or whether he will be deterred from doing this by virtue of the same arrangement which had deterred him from making the Order in respect of Czecho-Slovakia glassware?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part is purely hypothetical, and I have already stated that I propose to deal with the question of the exclusion of Czecho-Slovakia from the Order now before the House, when that Order comes up for discussion.

    FABRIC GLOVES.
    Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the Report from his Advisory Committee concerning the effect which a duty on manufactured gloves would he likely to have upon the yarn industry in Bolton; if so, whether he can state what were the findings of the Committee: and whether these findings were unanimous?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second and third pars accordingly do not arise.
    Mr. HANNON: What connection has the hon. Member with Bolton?

    SODIUM HYPOSULPHITE.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Lord Chancellor's Referee, in giving judgment in the sodium hyposulphite case, to the effect that, where the letter R is prefixed to certain chemical commodities in the Key Industries List, the exact meaning and scope of the letter R should be in some way defined; and whether he can state what steps he is taking to carry out the suggestion?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have studied the judgment given by the Referee in the sodium hyposulphite case. It embodies

    9
    no suggestion such as is made by the hon. Member, that the exact meaning and scope of the letter R, as used in the lists issued under Section 5 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, should in general he defined. The Referee did, however, say that it is advisable to be a little more definite as to what is meant by the letter R. in this particular case.

    SCHEDULED ARTICLES.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of articles that have been deleted from the list of duty-payable articles, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act published by the Board of Trade in September last, and the number added to the same list?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Seven articles have been deleted from the list by direction of the Referee, and, in accord with what the Board understood to be the general views of the Referee, 24 items have, on the Board's responsibility, been deleted and the standard of the dutiable grade of 10 other listed chemicals has been raised. In the case of certain of the deletions the action of the Board has been challenged by persons interested. One item has been added to the list by direction of the Referee In nine other cases of complaint the action of the Board was upheld by the Referee.
    Mr. KILEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what was the one added?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should require notice of that question.

    PORT DUES, GERMANY.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether British ships are allowed to enter all German ports on the same terms as German ships, or if there is any preference given on dues and charges by the German Government in favour of German-owned ships; if so, can he state what the amount of such preference is; and whether dues payable on British ships are payable in German currency or whether payment is demanded in British gold, as in. Portugal to-day?
    Mr. BALDWIN: British ships are allowed to enter all German ports on the
    10
    same conditions as German ships, and the second part of the question therefore does not arise. As regards the third part, all dues, so far as I am aware, are payable in German currency.

    GERMAN SHIPS IN BRITISH PORTS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the, President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement that German passenger liners are going to call at Southampton for passengers and goods; whether there are any restrictions on any German ships entering British ports to-day; and, if so, can he state what they are, or whether German ships are free now to enter all British ports as in pre-War days?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My attention has been called to the statement to which the hon. Member refers. There are no special restrictions on the entry of German ships into ports of the United Kingdom. There are, I believe, special restrictions in some other parts of the Empire. I will endeavour to obtain particulars of these and will send them to the hon. Member.

    RHINE CANAL COMMISSION.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any further progress has been made with the construction of the canal on the Rhine between Bale and Mannheim; whether British representation has recently been strengthened on the Canal Commission; and can he say if British commercial interests are now fully represented thereon, and who are the British representatives, and if his Department has nominated anyone in order to represent British shipping interests on the Rhine?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The construction of the Lateral Canal to the Rhine between Basle and Strasbourg, of which the first section was recently approved by the Central Commission for the Rhine, has not yet been commenced. Great Britain is represented on the Commission by Mr. J. G. Baldwin, C.B., who has the right to record the two votes to which this country is entitled. Sir Joseph Broodbank, late General Manager to the Port of London Authority, who has

    11
    been associated in this connection with important British commercial and shipping interests, has been appointed to act as British Commercial Adviser on the Rhine Commission on questions relating to the improvement of the river.

    GERMAN CURRENCY.
    Major MACKENZIE WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to bring up to date the Memorandum drawn up by the Board of Trade on German currency; and, if so, when copies will be available?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Memorandum will be extended so as to cover the month of June, as soon as the necessary information is available, but I cannot give a precise date on which it will be ready.
    Major WOOD: Will it be published before the Debate in the House on the Orders already made?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot say, but I will try so to arrange.

    MILK EXPORTERS (LICENCE FEE).
    Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister if the Cabinet has had under consideration the decision of the House of Lords that the licence fee of 2d. per gallon imposed upon the milk exporters of Somerset, Devon, Dorset, and Cornwall by the Food Controller in 1919 was both illegal and unconstitutional, as constituting a tax on the subject which Parliament alone could exact; and whether steps are to be taken to reimburse the money thus exacted?
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Minister of Agriculture what sum will be deducted for legal expenses from the total amount of the accumulated two-pences which are owing to the farmers of Devon, Somerset, Dorset and Cornwall?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Yes, Sir; this matter has been under consideration. I understand that effect will be given to the judicial decision of the House of Lords as regards the licence fee of 2d. per gallon imposed upon milk exporters of the four south-western counties, but
    12
    the Government will forthwith bring in a Bill, as foreshadowed by the President of the Board of Trade in his answer to the hon. Member for Wood Green of 9th March, to legalise their procedure in cases other than the milk charges during the period of control.

    HONOURS LISTS.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commission on Honours will be empowered to take evidence on oath and send for persons, papers and records?
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended that the Royal Commission proposed to be appointed to inquire into the procedure of recommendation for honours should be entitled to inquire what investigation has in fact been made into the amounts, if any, subscribed by candidates for honours to any political fund?
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether he will cause to be laid before the House the papers relating to the action of Messrs. Balfour, Williamson, and Company in South America which were the subject of a conversation during the War with the Government; whether there are in the possession of any Government Department any other papers relating to the action of this firm in South America during the War; if so, whether they will he laid before the House; whether there is in the Foreign Office or any other Department any copy of a letter purporting to be written by Lord Forres relating to trading with the enemy; whether the Government have any information as to the origin of this letter; and, if so, what that information is?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether the Resolutions passed by the House of Lords in October, 1917, with regard to recommendations for honours, and accepted by Lord Curzon on behalf of His Majesty's Government, are still in force and binding on the Prime Minister of the day in making recommendations for honours to His Majesty; whether any of the statements of the reasons for which honours were conferred which appeared in the

    13
    "Gazette" of 4th June last were incorrect; and whether a corrected statement will be gazetted for the information of the public?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I hope to be able to make a statement with regard to the composition and terms of reference of the Royal Commission before the House rises. With regard to the other questions, they have been dealt with very fully in the course of the various Debates in both Houses of Parliament, and I have nothing further to add.
    Captain W. BENN: Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to empower the Commission to send for persons, papers and records and take evidence on oath?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have said I am going to make a statement to the House after the composition of the Commission has been settled.
    Captain BENN: My question was not as to the composition of the Commission, but as to its, powers. Will the right hon. Gentleman offer to the Commission power to take evidence on oath and to send for persons and papers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not satisfied with the statement when I have made it, he can put questions.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the informal conference with regard to the personnel of the Commission between Members interested in the question and himself will take place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I suggested the conference last Thursday, but it was a little too early for the various interests concerned. It was impossible on Friday for other reasons. To-day, also, it is difficult, because groups of hon. Members are interested in the Embargo Debate. To-morrow would suit me if the hon. Members concerned in arranging it can get together the fragments of the Opposition.
    Captain BENN: Why does the right hon. Gentleman decline to give the Commission full powers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not declined. I have said a statement will be made. If that is not satisfactory, then questions can be put.
    Later—
    Sir W. DAVISON: May I put Question No. 45?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered with an earlier one.
    Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order. My question had nothing whatever to do with the Royal Commission, but was upon a point of fact.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered that.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I have not heard it.

    GREECE AND TURKEY.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to hold an international conference to deal with the Graeco-Turkish question and the Treaty of Sevres; and, if so, when and where?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Negotiations on this subject are still proceeding between His Majesty's Government and their Allies. I therefore regret that I can add nothing at present to previous statements on the subject.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Now that the hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin (Sir C. Townshend) has, apparently, arrived at Angora, are we to understand that he is conducting political negotiations?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir. I have no official information that the hon. and gallant Member has arrived at Angora.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Has he not left for Angora?

    LUNACY (VISITING COMMITTEES) BILL.
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the fact that county councils cannot co-opt persons outside their body on visiting com-

    15
    mittees of their lunatic asylums, and that about 50 per cent. of these councils have no women members, and as no women are on these committees though thousands of the patients detained in these institutions are of that sex, the Government would grant facilities for the passing of the Lunacy (Visiting Committees) Bill or some similar short Measure provided the Measure was treated as non-controversial?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I shall make a general statement to-morrow as to the business for this portion of the Session, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will postpone his question. I think the answer to it will be included in my statement to-morrow.

  EDUCATION.

    TRAINING COLLEGES (UNPLACED STUDENTS).
    Mr. MYERSasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that from 18 of the principal training colleges in England and Wales 808 students are leaving at the end of July and that out of this number 143 ex-service and 192 other students are unplaced and whether he can state what action is being taken to find positions for these students?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I have no knowledge of the figures mentioned in the question, but I have received representations from various quarters which show that students leaving the training colleges this summer are finding greater difficulty in obtaining appointments prospectively than has been the case in recent years. There is no doubt that the number of vacancies occurring this year is likely to be smaller than usual, owing to the reduction of the teaching staffs which is now being effected by local education authorities in view of the present need for economy. On the other hand, many authorities are taking steps to substitute young teachers for married women who are not dependent on teaching for a livelihood, and I hope that many students who have not yet obtained promises of appointments will succeed in obtaining employment in the course of the autumn. It is not, of course, within the power of the Board
    16
    to find posts for individual teachers, but I am sure that local education authorities will do all that is possible in existing circumstances to find employment for the students in question, and in particular for those students from their own areas who were encouraged by them to enter the teaching profession.
    Mr. MYERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated in the Press that there are over 2,000 students leaving the colleges in the country in July, for whom no places have been found, and can he say whether that statement is accurate?
    Mr. FISHER: I was not aware of that statement. I cannot say without notice whether it is accurate. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to put down a question.

    INFANTS' CLASSES (UNTRAINED TEACHERS).
    Mr. MALONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the London County Council, at the suggestion of the Board of Education, is proceeding to engage for the conduct of its junior classes a number of untrained and unqualified persons with a status lower than that of an uncertificated teacher; whether he is aware of the protest recently passed by the Association of Education Committees of England and Wales against the staffing of infants' departments in this way; and whether he will reconsider the whole question?
    Mr. FISHER: The Association of Education Committees has expressed its disapproval of the staffing of infants' departments largely by teachers of lower qualifications than those of certificated and uncertificated teachers. I understand that for the care and training of children under five years of age the London County Council intend to engage and train 100 women of suitable capacity and personality. I see no reason to take exception to their proposal.
    Mr. MALONE: Is it a fact that the only qualification is that they shall have been vaccinated and be over 18 years of age?
    Mr. FISHER: It is proposed to put them through a course of training.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what salary these ladies obtain?
    Mr. FISHER: As to that I cannot say.
    Mr. MYERS: What justification is there for appointing 100 untrained teachers when, according to the answer to the last question, there is a large number who have been trained and cannot find situations?
    Mr. FISHER: The justification is the justification of economy.

    TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Education why a teacher who is employed in a grant-aided school is precluded from counting, for the purpose of superannuation, previous service in one of the great public schools such as Winchester, Eton, Charterhouse, etc?
    Mr. FISHER: The general purpose of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, was to provide for the superannuation of teachers in respect of their service in schools aided by the Board's grant. Past service in other schools which are unable out of their own resources to maintain a satisfactory pensions scheme is pensionable in certain cases within the conditions of Section 18 (vii) of the Act and the relevant Rule (No. 23) of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Rules, 1919.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the hardship to the teacher who has been, say, five years in a school such as Winchester, and then goes to a grant-aided school and gets no pension whatever for the period during which he was a teacher at Winchester?
    Mr. FISHER: I think that is a repetition of the question. The service in such a school as Winchester would count as qualifying service within the terms of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, but it is perfectly true that a teacher in such a school—Winchester being one of the schools which are able to provide a pension scheme out of their own resources—would not be able to count his years of service in that school for pension.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the authorities of Winchester or similar schools do
    18
    not provide pensions for teachers once they have left the school, and that, therefore, the teacher is entirely unpensioned for that particular period?
    Mr. FISHER: I am aware of that.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    MONTHLY BULLETIN OF STATISTICS.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether he can arrange for the "Monthly Bulletin of Statistics "published by the Secretariat of the League of Nations to be made available by purchase through the Sale Office for Members of Parliament; whether the "Board of Trade Gazette "will in future republish extracts of value to trade and commerce from this "Monthly Bulletin"; and whether he can take any steps to get these valuable statistics more widely known and circulated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have arranged with Mr. Speaker that the official in charge of the Sale Office shall obtain from the agents of the League of Nations in London any copies of the "Monthly Bulletin of Statistics" which Members may desire to purchase. I have also arranged for a copy of the Bulletin to be supplied regularly to the Library of the House. As regards the second part of the question, I do not think that the expense of reprinting in the "Board of Trade Journal" information which is already available to the public in the pages of the League Bulletin would be justified.

    BRITISH DELEGATION.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to announce at an early date the name of that principal representative of the British Government to the Assembly of the League of Nations in September, who shall give the British vote; and whether Parliament will be given an opportunity to give its approval of the names of the other proposed representatives or substitute representatives as being representative of the public opinion of the country?
    Mr. W. GRAHAMasked the Prime Minister whether this House will be given an opportunity of approving Great

    19
    Britain's delegation to the Assembly of the League of Nations in September; and whether, in keeping with the spirit of Part I of the Treaty of Versailles, the Covenant of the League of Nations, there will be included in that delegation persons conversant with the aspirations of Labour and working women?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the representation of the British Government at the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations is now under consideration in all its bearings. An announcement will be made before the House rises.

    BRITISH WARSHIPS, SOUTH AMERICA.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the presence in this country of the President of the Argentine Republic, he will consider whether arrangements can be made for H.M.S. "Hood" and "Repulse," on the conclusion of their visit to Rio de Janeiro, to visit the adjacent port of Buenos Aires?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The possibility of these ships visiting Buenos Aires and other South American capitals has already been considered, but I regret that such a course was found to be out of the question owing to insufficient depth of water.

    POISON GAS.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have received information to the effect that the War Department at Washington has ordered the discontinuance of the manufacture of poison gas; whether Britain is spending £169,700 this year on preparing gas-warfare as compared with £53,870 two years ago and whether, with a view to bringing British policy into harmony with the Bill based on Article V of the Treaty signed at Washington on 6th February, recently passed by this House, the Government will discontinue the manufacture of poison gas in this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government understand that the War Department at Washington has recently ordered
    20
    the discontinuance of the manufacture of poison gas for the purpose of equipping the United States Army for waging gas warfare, but that at same time Congress has sanctioned the continuation of research and experimental work in connection with poison gas. Our proposed expenditure for 1922–23 is as stated. This is to allow for research and experimental work in connection with protective measures against gas attack. We have discontinued the manufacture of poison gas in this country since the Armistice, except in small quantities necessary for such research and experiment.

    PARAGUAY.
    Major HILLSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information to give this House about. the revolution in Paraguay; is he in communication with His Majesty's Consul-General at Asuncion and are that gentleman and his family safe; and has it been possible to take any steps for the safety of the British residents in Paraguay?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Charge d'Affairs at Asuncion reported on 22nd July that damage to the railways was hindering the advance of the Government troops, but that the revolutionary troops were slowly retiring towards Villarrica. He considers that there is no present danger to the Legation or to local British subjects. He is unable to communicate with British subjects in the interior, but does not fear for their personal safety.

    RUSSIAN PROPERTY (GREAT BRITAIN).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that., following on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of White, Child, and Beney, Limited, v. the Eagle Star British Dominions, etc., the Government of Russia, which in July, 1918, succeeded the previous Provisional Government, winnow be in a position to demand, under British law, payment to the Soviet Government of all moneys, securities, etc., brought into this country from Russia after the 14th November, 1917, on the ground that the

    21
    whole of the financial resources of the Russian Empire were nationalised by the Petrograd party towards the end of December, 1917, and in the following days; whether any executive or legislative steps are in contemplation so as to avoid the unnecessary distress that such a position must occasion to our own nationals, and for the establishment of a working agreement with France, Belgium, and the United States of America, providing a modus operandi for the prevention of disputes with these countries arising out of the present unfortunate legal position in Great Britain?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first part of the question, I have no observations which I could usefully offer on a matter which has formed the subject of judgments by the Courts of Law. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that the whole financial resources of the Russian Empire were nationalised by the Petrograd party towards the end of December, 1917, and in the following days?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think I am called upon to make any admission of that kind.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That is the question I asked. I should like to know whether my hon. Friend is prepared to answer it, and, if not, why not?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I have put it down twice.

    CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the amount outstanding of the Boxer Indemnity still unpaid by the Government of China, both as regards the capital sum and the amount of accrued interest still unpaid; and whether, in view of the importance of securing a share in the education on British lines of the present generation of young Chinese students, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider apportioning some of the interest to this particular purpose?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The amount outstanding of the Boxer Indemnity is £6,958,840 for principal, and about £1,200,000 for postponed interest. As regards the last part of the question. I cannot add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on the 19th instant.
    Mr. STEWART: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 3,000 Chinese students in France and about 3,000 in America, against about 150 in Great Britain, and are we not behind in bringing our influence to bear on the rising generation in China?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend is aware that there is a Committee sitting to consider these very questions.

    CATTLE (QUARANTINE).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Agriculture the period of quarantine imposed on store cattle imported into certain countries, including among them Canada and Switzerland; and the policy on which the lengthiest period for Switzerland is adopted?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: According to the latest information in my possession, the normal period of quarantine for cattle imported into Canada is as follows:—

    From Newfoundland, United States of America, and Mexico, no quarantine.

    From United Kingdom, 30 days.

    From other countries, 90 days.

    But since- February last, the importation of cattle from the United Kingdom into Canada has been totally prohibited. The importation of all cattle into Switzerland is at present prohibited. Prior to the total prohibition, the entry of store cattle was prohibited except from the bordering countries of France, Italy, Germany and Austria., and in such cases facilities were given for grazing purposes by special arrangement with the Cantonal Authorities concerned, but I have no information that any quarantine was enforced.

    BRITISH CATTLE (IMPORT PROHIBITION).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Agriculture what countries

    23
    prohibit the importation of live cattle from Great Britain at the present moment?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: According to my latest information, the following countries prohibit the importation of live cattle from Great Britain at the present time:

    Ireland,

    Canada,

    United States of America,

    France,

    Belgium,

    Switzerland,

    Spain,

    Norway,

    Finland,

    Union of South Africa,

    Southern Rhodesia,

    Algeria, and

    Tunis.

    In addition, Guernsey continues the prohibition on importation except for slaughter, which has been in force for many years; Jersey has also for many years prohibited importation except for slaughter, but at the present time even such importation is confined to cattle exported from the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire, and Hampshire. The Isle of Man prohibits the importation of sheep from Wales and from England except the six northern counties.

    WHEAT.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture what information he has in his Department as to the movement now in process of development among the farmers' co-operative societies of Australia, Canada, and the United States for the pooling and marketing of wheat for the British market; and whether his attention has been called to the announcement made at a conference of Australian co-operative farmers that 11 Australian co-operative distributing companies made a turnover of £2,000,000 by one year's operations in flour on the London market?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no information on this subject, apart from statements which have appeared in the Press. I understand that in Australia
    24
    there is a movement for the establishment of a voluntary wheat pool for the marketing of wheat on the lines of the Wheat Board set up by the Commonwealth Government during the War. In Canada, it appears that the Law Officers of the Crown have decided that the reestablishment of the Wheat Board, with compulsory powers, which operated during the War, would be ultra vires, but a Bill for the establishment of a Wheat Board without such powers has recently been introduced into Parliament. I have no information as regards the United States. My attention has been drawn to the announcement referred to in the last part of the question.

    MOTOR LORRIES AND TRAILERS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if his attention has been called to the heavy fines being inflicted on the owners of motor lorries in country districts for exceeding a speed of five miles an hour when they are drawing trailers; if a speed of eight or nine miles an hour is absolutely necessary if this method of transport is to continue; if the engines and framework are ruined if the speed of five miles only is insisted on; and if he will take steps to save this industry from such fines?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): No special complaints have been received on the subject of the fines referred to in my hon. Friend's question, and in any case the Minister of Transport has no right to interfere with the discretion of the magistrates. The Departmental Committee on the Regulation of Road Vehicles have recommended increased speeds for certain types of lorries and trailers in paragraph 123 of their Second Interim Report., and these recommendations are now under consideration.
    Sir A. FELL: Will these Regulations be sent round to the magistrates, otherwise the whole of the work this House has done will be rendered absolutely nugatory?
    Mr. NEAL: Legislation would be required before any new Regulations could be made.

  INDIA.

    CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, approximately, what would be the additional charge, present and recurrent, on the Indian Treasury if the refund of the 4 per cent contribution by members of the Indian Civil Services be antedated from 1st April, 1919, to 1st April, 1900?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): As explained in my answer to a similar question by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks on the 10th May, to which I have already referred my hon. and gallant Friend, the preparation of the figures desired would entail laborious examination of records and conjectural calculations which would not, in my opinion, serve any useful purpose.
    Sir C. YATE: Is the Noble Lord not aware that this question has been under consideration at the India Office for the last three years?
    Earl WINTERTON: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that if it was possible even to arrive at the figures asked for, which is by no means certain, it would involve an amount of labour and expense which I do not think I should be justified in asking the Secretary of State to incur.
    Sir C. YATE: What has been done at the India Office during the last three years?
    Earl WINTERTON: The point my hon. and gallant Friend puts has nothing to do with the main question.

    ROYAL INDIAN MARINE (PENSIONS RULES).
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the new pension rules for the Royal Indian Marine are to be introduced?
    Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India's proposals have been received, and are under consideration.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    WINDOW CLEANERS.
    Mr, W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he has seen the decision
    26
    given in the High Court on 7th July in the case of three employés of Messrs. Self-ridge; is he aware that the case was referred to the Court by the Minister of Labour in order to decide the question of their insurability under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; that the judge decided that the male and female window cleaners were insurable; and, since the decision comes into conflict with the Scottish case about school caretakers, has he consulted the Law Officers of the Crown about the matter?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am aware of the decision given in the case of the three employés of Messrs. Selfridge and Company, Limited, which I referred to the High Court for decision as to their insurability. I have not been able to identify the Scottish case about school caretakers to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am not aware that there is a conflict of decisions. In accordance with the terms of the Act, the insurability of persons classed as domestic servants depends on whether or not they are employed in a trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain.

    POPLAR (OUT-RELIEF).
    Sir REGINALD BLAIRasked the Minister of Health if he has advanced any funds to the Poplar Board of Guardians or guaranteed any overdraft on their behalf during the last month which will enable them to pay out-relief on a scale higher than that allowed by his Order and Regulations?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir. Alfred Mond): The advances on loan to the Poplar Guardians, made since the Order came into force, have been limited to the sums estimated to be required to meet the lawful expenditure of the guardians. The guardians would render themselves personally liable for any unlawful expenditure which they may incur.
    Sir R. BLAIR: Does not the reply mean that the Poplar Board of Guardians set all the hon. Baronet's Rules and Regulations at defiance?
    Sir A. MOND: That is far from being the case. They have neither set my Rules and Regulations at defiance nor exceeded' the scale laid down.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are they not, in fact, making payments which exceed the scale laid down by the right hon. Baronet and his officers?
    Sir A. MOND: In some cases that may he the case, but I have not sanctioned the payments.

    BENEFITS.
    Mr. MILLS(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether, and upon what ground, a new Regulation is being issued to govern payments to unemployed men and women, which states that unless an unemployed person has 20 stamps upon his or her card between July, 1921, and July, 1922, there can be no further benefit paid to him or her; whether it is intended that unemployed persons shall provide the total cost of 1s. 7d. in stamps for 20 weeks before resuming benefit, or in what way people, already destitute from prolonged unemployment, are to qualify for benefit?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no Regulation to this effect. My hon. Friend is, I think, reading into Section 6 (1) of the Insurance Act of a year ago more than it enacts. I will write him, fully explaining its operation, and am, meanwhile, inquiring into the case, particulars of which he has sent me.

    WIRELESS BROADCASTING.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the patents for the manufacture of receiving sets for wireless telephony are in Great Britain in the possession of the Marconi Wireless Company and one or two other smaller firms; and has he been able to consider the value of the monopoly which the Government intends to confer on the Marconi Company in the proposal which it has recently placed before the House?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am aware that the Marconi Company and other companies claim to possess patent rights affecting certain wireless telephone receiving apparatus, but the value of these rights, whatever they may be, will neither be increased nor diminished by the conditions upon which I propose to issue licences.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Do the Marconi Company claim to have patents?
    Mr. PEASE: I cannot answer except to say that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me know how he thinks the value is increased or diminished, I shall be glad to consider it.
    Captain W. BENN: Is not the value increased by the prohibition of foreign instruments which the Post Office has imposed?
    Mr. PEASE: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. KILEY: Why are not the British public permitted to obtain the best instruments science and brains can produce?

    CONDENSED MILK.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that under existing powers he is not able to alter the present statutory requirements that condensed separated milk must be labelled machine skimmed milk, instead of skimmed milk unfit for infants, as recommended by Dr. F. J. H. Coutts in 1911, in his Report to the Local Government Board, and by many authorities since and now, he will insert provisions in the new Milk Bill, or otherwise, to enable an alteration to be made in the present condition of things?
    Sir A. MOND: The point raised by the hon. Member will not be lost sight of during the Committee Stage of the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill.

    AIR SERVICE TO INDIA.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Civil Aviation Advisory Board has yet rendered their Report on the question of the air service to India; and, if so, when will it be available as a White Paper?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The answer to the first question is that I am expecting to receive the Report referred to in the course of a few days; to the second, that, as stated in my reply to my hon. Friend on the 12th instant, I hope to publish the Report as a White Paper before the House rises.

  IRELAAND.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (J. FREEMAN).
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that ex-Sergeant John Freeman, Royal Irish Constabulary, was disbanded in April last; that he received two months' pension for April and May, and a notification that on 1st June he would receive his pension for that month; that, up to 16th July, he has received no pension for June or July, although pensions are payable in advance; that frequent applications to the Inspector-General have been ignored; and whether, in view of the fact that Royal Irish Constabulary men have, in many cases, to remove themselves and their families to other parts of the country than that in which they have been serving, and that credit cannot easily be obtained in a new home, he will see that in this and other similar cases pensions are paid promptly?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): A draft for Sergeant Freeman's pension for June was issued on the 10th of that month; but as he changed his address at about that time, it appears not to have reached him. A duplicate draft for June and a draft for July have now been issued.

    ULSTER SPECIAL CONSTABLES (GLENTIES).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies since what date Glenties, county Donegal, has been occupied by Free State troops; if any of the Ulster special constables recently released were in captivity at that place and, if so, the date they were liberated?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I have no information as to the date since when Glenties has been in the possession of the Free State troops, or as to whether any of the kidnapped special constables who have recently been released were at any time held in custody at that place. It has recently been reported to me, however, that a special constable, who has not yet been released, is being held somewhere in the Glenties district, and I have communicated this information to the Provisional Government, who are making inquiries into the matter.

    EDINBURGH CASTLE (GARRISON).
    Mr. W. GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether the troops have recently been removed from Edinburgh Castle; whether it is intended in future to have a small garrison there; and, if not, what is the future policy of the War Office in this matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative. The third part, therefore, does not arise.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: What is the strength of the small garrison that will remain?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I think three officers and 126 other ranks of the 2nd battalion Gordon Highlanders, in addition to 13 other ranks and various ancillary services, and a military hospital with 57 beds.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: A detachment of that strength will be there permanently, whether from this regiment or not?
    Sir R. SANDERS: "Permanently" is a large word. There is no intention at present to remove that garrison.

    CATTLE (SLAUGHTER).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way to reconsider the methods at present adopted for slaughtering beasts for food, in view of the suffering which may be incurred by an animal being clumsily poleaxed; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a system of slaughter, either by shooting with a short-range weapon supplied with specially prepared cartridges, or of execution by a form of guillotine?
    Sir A. MOND: I have been asked to reply to this question. My Department have long had a model byelaw providing for the use of a mechanical instrument, which has already been adopted by 46 local authorities, and would probably have been adopted by many more had not its validity been called in question and a decision in favour of it only recently been

    31
    given by the High Court. I have no authority to compel local authorities to adopt this byelaw, nor do I think that it would be feasible at present to introduce legislation for the purpose. It is for local opinion to bring pressure on the local authorities if they are backward.
    Mr. MILLS: Would it be much labour to substitute in a one-word Bill an instructive Clause in place of permissive sanction, by inserting the word "shall" instead of the word "may"?
    Sir A. MOND: I do not say that it would take a long time, but if we have local government in this country, it is rather objectionable to have the Ministry compelling local authorities to do things which the local authorities have the option to do.
    Mr. STEWART: Is it not. time that, in view of the great improvements that have been made in regard to killing, including the killing of men, that we did something to supplement our rough-and-ready methods in slaughtering animals, either by the use of electricity or other means, in place of the present method?
    Sir A. MOND: The byelaws of the local authorities deal with this matter.
    Mr. STEWART: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a Circular on the subject?
    Sir A. MOND: Certainly.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen the intense cruelty that goes on in the killing of these cattle, and is it not our duty, as a civilised country, to take steps to have it stopped?
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Agriculture has issued orders that the slaughtering done under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture is to be by means of the humane slaughterers. If that is so in one Department, could not another Government Department do something of the same sort?
    Sir A. MOND: I will consider that. If I were doing the slaughtering, I should certainly use a humane slaughterer.

    ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he expects to get the completion of the Committee stage of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill before the House rises in August?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): I would ask my hon. Friend to await the general statement which the Leader of the House proposes to make to-morrow in regard to the business for the remainder of this portion of the Session.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what proportion of the National War Debt of £7,000,000,000 is lied by financial corporations and banks, the mercantile community, the propertied and professional classes, and the wage-earning classes, respectively; and whether, if no precise statistics are available, he can, give any information which will throw light on the matter?
    Sir R. HORNE: No statistics are available, and I fear I can add nothing to the inferences that may be drawn from the various published particulars of the National Debt, and other sources already available.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    GERMAN REPARATION PAYMENTS.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister what is the total sum (British currency value) which has been paid by Germany to this country since the Treaty of Versailles; and what is the total cost incurred by this country to date in respect of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine?
    Sir R. HORNE: The total amount debited to this country in respect of receipts from Germany available for the cost of occupation from 11th November, 1918, to 30th April, 1922, is 956,662,000 gold marks. This is equivalent to £50,351,000 at the present rate of 19 gold marks to £1 sterling, but owing to the varying rates of exchange at which receipts have been brought to account,

    33
    and to the fact that certain cessions of property have not been brought into the Exchequer account at all as money payments, it is not possible to give an exact British currency figure. In addition, about 600,000,000 paper marks have been received locally by the Army.
    The total cost of the Army of Occupation during the same period is approximately£54,000,000. The valuation of certain deliveries is, however, still provisional, and the only statement which can safely be made is that the debit in respect of receipts to date is nearly equal to the cost of the Army of Occupation to date.
    Sir W. DAVISON: In general terms, are we to understand that we have received, on balance, nothing from Germany since the Armistice?
    Sir R. HORNE: The answer is that the Army of Occupation has cost us practically what we have received.

    AUSTRIA (ALLIED LIENS RELEASED).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister which are the Allied Powers who have so far refused to release their liens or: Austrian assets, and which are the Allied Powers that have done so; and is it the intention of the Government, in view of the grave financial outlook of Austria, to again approach the Powers mentioned in the first part of the question?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Reparation Commission, which represents all the Allied Powers entitled to reparation from Austria, decided on the 21st instant to release for a period of 20 years the revenues from the Austrian forests, salt mines, Customs and State domains, for use as security for the proposed new Austrian Bank of Issue and agreed in principle to liberate the Customs revenues and the revenue from the tobacco monopoly for use as security for a foreign loan. The terms of this decision were published in the Press on the 22nd instant.

    BANKERS' CONFERENCE.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the recent international conference of bankers was abortive owing to the atmosphere at the Conference of Genoa and the time at which its draft proposals
    34
    were made public, he will consider when the Russian situation has been either dealt with or postponed, an invitation to the Conference to reassemble in either London or New York and renew its deliberations?
    Sir R. HORNE: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Committee of Bankers to which, I think, he refers, was appointed by the Reparation Commission and not by His Majesty's Government, and was adjourned owing to the absence of unanimity among the Powers represented on the Reparation Commission. It is possible, however, that the question is intended to refer to the Conference of Central Banks which it was decided at Genoa to hold in London in due course. If so, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the East Division of Leyton on the 17th instant.
    Colonel NEWMAN: When this Commission does re-assemble, will the Russian situation be put on one side altogether?
    Sir R. HORNE: I really do not understand my hon. Friend upon this matter. No banking commission that I know of has been affected in the very slightest by anything that has taken place at Genoa, or anything that has to do with Russia. Therefore, I fail to follow the question which the hon. Member is asking.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that the Bankers' Conference could not arrive at any decision; that they were not unanimous upon anything, and that they failed?
    Sir H. HORNE: That has nothing to do with the Russian question. They met in Paris. They put a certain question to the French Prime Minister upon one of the matters which would affect their judgment. The representatives on the Reparation Commission were not unanimous upon the topic, and therefore the Bankers' Conference ceased to sit, and gave their reasons. It has nothing to do with Genoa and nothing to do with Russia.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is there any prospect of the Bankers' Conference being re-assembled?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Noble Lord knows the conditions on which they separated.

    35
    If an approach were made to them from the source which caused the separation, I do not know what might happen.

    GRÆCO-BULGARIAN MIGRATION.
    Lord R. CECILasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the working of the mixed Commission for Græco-Bulgarian migration established by the Convention signed at Neuilly in November, 1920; and whether there is any chance of this system being extended to other countries?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is yet too soon to give any definite information as to the success of the labours of this Commission. In regard to the second part of the question, this is a matter for the Governments of the States concerned. So far as I am aware no other State has shown an inclination to adopt the system.

    FRANCE (DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has made an offer to the Government of the French Republic under which France is to be excused her debt to this country on the condition that claims for reparation on Germany are reduced?
    Sir R. HORNE: The answer is in the negative. I am not at present in a position to add anything to my previous statements on this subject.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to take it that the reports which have appeared in the Press, especially in the United States, are altogether baseless?
    Sir R. HORNE: I think that any hon. Member would be very ill-advised to make up his mind on this question from reports in the Press.

    MORATORIUM, GERMANY.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give to the House with regard to the suggestions that have been made as to a moratorium to Germany and the establishment of control over German finances?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am not in a position to make any further statement on this matter at the moment.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report that Germany has agreed to allow control of her finances on the understanding that a moratorium is given?
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes but I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend realises that decisions upon that matter cannot be taken by one country alone.

    BULGARIA (FRONTIERS).
    Mr. A. HERBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Bulgaria has demanded an international inquiry into the condition of her Greek, Jugo-Slav, and Rumanian frontiers; and if, in the interests of justice, such an inquiry will be granted?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Bulgarian Government appealed to the League of Nations on this question, and the Council have accepted a resolution noting the declarations made by the Rumanian, Greek and Serbian representatives as to the pacific intentions of t heir respective Governments, and expressing the hope for a satisfactory conclusion to the direct negotiations between all the parties which are now in progress. The Council requested to be informed at their next meeting of the results obtained, and placed themselves at the disposal of tie Governments concerned if required. A copy of the resolution will be placed in the Library of the House in accordance with the usual practice.

    CLASPS (WAR SERVICE).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that all work in connection with the issue of clasps for service in the late War to those entitled to them in the three Services has been suspended: whether he can assure the House that the issue of clasps will be recommenced at the very earliest possible moment; and if he can give any indication of when this will be?
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes, Sir. I am aware that the necessity for economy has made it impracticable to proceed with the issue of clasps. Having regard to the very substantial expenditure which would he involved, I regret that I cannot give the assurance desired by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Viscount CURZNI: Does that mean that the Government do not propose to issue the clasp to anybody entitled to it?
    Sir R. HORNE: Not at all. There is considerable delay in issuing the clasps, but there is no intention of depriving anybody who is entitled.

  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

    COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee to deal with questions arising under the Rent Restrictions Act has yet been constituted; and, if so, whether he will state the names of the members of the Committee and the terms of reference?
    Sir A. MOND: The Committee will consist of:—

    The Right Hon. Member for Blackburn (Major Sir Henry Norman—Chairman).

    The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord Eustace Percy).

    The Hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Division (Mr. Alexander Shaw).

    The Hon. and Gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut. - Colonel Watts-Morgan).

    The Hon. and Gallant Member for Newcastle (East) (Major Barnes).

    Sir Aubrey Symonds, K.C.B., Second Secretary, Ministry of Health.

    His Honour Judge Sir Edward Bray.

    A. S. D. Thomson, Esq., Sheriff Substitute for Lanarkshire.

    T. White, Esq., Chairman of the National Federation of Assessment Committees.

    B. P. Moodie, Esq., Assistant Secretary of the Scottish Office; and the

    President of the Surveyors' Institute has also been asked to nominate a surveyor to serve on the Committee.

    The Terms of Reference are:
    "To consider the operation of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, and to advise what steps should be taken to continue or amend that Act."
    The Secretary of the Committee will be Mr. H. H. George, of the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. MYERS: Is there any representative of the Tenants Association on the Committee?
    Sir A. MOND: There are no representatives on the Committee of any special interests, either of tenants' or landlords' associations. The Committee will hear evidence from the various bodies, and form their conclusions on the evidence received.
    Mr. A. SHORT: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of appointing a woman on the Committee?
    Sir A. MOND: I think that the Committee is already very large. The questions to be decided are of a legal character, and when it comes to amending an Act of Parliament, the Committee should consist of those best qualified to give a decision on the matters involved.
    Mr. MILLS: is it not a fact that from all sides of the House questions have been addressed repeatedly to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him whether it is the intention of the Government to continue this Act, as it is obvious that there will have to be some Amendment of the existing law, and in addition to the legal questions—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot enter into an argument when asking a question.

    FOREIGN OFFICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what saving it has been expected to effect during the current financial year in the item of £175,000 for telegrams?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the Estimates for the current year (Class V, Vote 1, Subhead K.K.), he will observe that the sum of £85,000 has been provided for telegrams, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. It is hoped to keel) the cost of telegrams within this limit, but the amount of telegraphing between the Foreign Office and His Majesty's representatives abroad is necessarily dependent, in the present state of international affairs, on many factors which are beyond the control of the Foreign Office.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken with reference to the item of £27,568 for news

    39
    departmental expenses abroad, which the Geddes Committee recommended might be saved?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Careful consideration was given to the recommendation of the Committee in regard to the News Department expenses abroad, but it was not found possible to adopt the suggestion in its entirety. The Vote has, however, been reduced to £17,958.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Was the Foreign Office asked to lay its view on this matter before the Committee before it drew up its Report?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. I think that there was no discussion between the Foreign Office and the Committee.

    DRIFTER "BLUE SKY "(LOSS).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the. Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have now any further information as to the loss of His Majesty's Drifter "Blue Sky," last heard of on 13th June; why it was that, though this vessel had orders to report twice daily and did not report after 6 p.m. on the 13th June, no action was taken to inquire into the matter until 17th June; whether she was supplied with bad coal; and, if so who was responsible for this?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): As the answer is rather long, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Viscount CURZON: Is there any foundation for the rumour that "Blue Sky" was not supplied with Welsh coal?
    Mr. AMERY: That is answered at considerable length. She was supplied with Welsh coal. Apparently the officer was not satisfied, and, for some reason or other, took further coal on board at Newhaven.
    Following is the answer:
    The Admiralty has discovered no further evidence which throws light upon the cause of the disaster; the vessel, however, was not in distress when she last signalled at 6 p.m. on the 13th June.
    "Blue Sky" was ordered to report twice daily to the nearest shore station, mainly to practise the wireless telegraph operator and to ensure that the wireless
    40
    telegraph was in proper working order; the fact that no S.O.S. signal was made shows that the disaster, however caused, was very sudden.
    "Blue Sky" left Newhaven about 1130 on 13th June and "Queen Elizabeth" left Portsmouth at 1700 on 14th June for Invergordon; as "Blue Sky's" wireless telegraph transmission was only effective up to 50 miles, "Queen Elizabeth" did not anticipate receiving any direct messages from her. Shore wireless telegraph stations would have reported any material communications they had from "Blue Sky" by land wire, which, if sent, the Commander-in-Chief would have expected to have received on his arrival at Invergordon.
    On the Commander-in-Chief's arrival at Invergordon on 17th June, it was found that there was no land wire and that "Blue Sky" had not arrived. Orders were at once given to "Castor" to call "Blue Sky" at frequent intervals, and inquiries were also made from the "Revenge," "Pandora," and other Atlantic Fleet ships as they arrived. Meanwhile, a message was received by the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet, from the Commander-in-Chief, Nore, to say that a life buoy, marked "Queen Elizabeth," had been picked up. It was considered that this might. have belonged to "Blue Sky," but it could easily have been washed overboard, and no anxiety was felt concerning the vessel, which had frequently made similar passages, until the wreckage was washed ashore.
    The vessel filled up with the very best Welsh coal on 31st May, and had 14 tons on board when she sailed, which would have taken her to Aberdeen, but she-would probably have coaled at Rosyth on her passage north.
    The Officer in Command did report that the coal was bad when he was at Spithead, and in view of the quality of the coal which was supplied this is not understood; the complaint, however, may have been due to the poor draught which would have been experienced in the calm weather then prevailing.
    The fact of the coal being good or bad would have no bearing on the disaster; if it had been of bad quality, the stokers would have had harder work in cleaning the fires and stoking, but there would have been no difficulty in keeping the requisite amount of steam.
    In any case, "Blue Sky" took fresh coal at Newhaven, and the Commanding Officer reported that he hoped to make better speed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask the Leader of the House what Business will be taken to-night in the event of the Resolution on the Canadian Cattle Embargo being disposed of before Eleven o'Clock?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know how long that discussion may take. We are not proposing to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night. Assuming that the Canadian Cattle Debate went on until Eleven o'Clock—I am afraid that that is probable—it would facilitate business, and help towards an early end of the Session, if the House would agree to take further stages of the following Bills after Eleven o'Clock, each of them being, I believe, quite non-contentious at their present stages: War Services Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Bill—
HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That Bill was contentious on Friday morning, but ceased to be so in the course of the afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I hope that that is so. Certainly the proposals then made by the Secretary of State seemed to make it non-contentious.
Then there are the Representation of of People (No. 4) Bill, the Telegraph (Money) Bill, and the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill. I do not anticipate that these Bills will be reached before Eleven o'Clock to-night. Should they be objected to after Eleven o'Clock, we cannot take them. I only make an appeal to the House to allow us to clear the Order Paper or these Bills, so as to facilitate an earlier rising than might otherwise be the case.
Sir F. BANBURY: Does that mean that no more Bills are to be introduced?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Except the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
Mr. ACLAND: When may we expect to have in the Vote Office the Amendments of the Minister of Agriculture to the Allotments Bill? We received the reprinted Bill only this morning, and have no knowledge of any Amendments that
42
are to be brought forward. It is extraordinarily short notice for us to put down our own Amendments, if we do not know what are the Government Amendments.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There are very few Amendments, and they relate only to matters which I promised to deal with when the Bill was in Committee. The majority are on the Paper already. There may be one or two others to be added.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to qualify the answer I have given to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). There are two Bills down for introduction today That is for the sake of getting them printed and formally published, and not with any idea that we should proceed with them at this stage of the Session.
Mr. STEWART: Will the Government take the first Order on the Paper to-day —the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill—as there is no contention about it?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, we should be glad to take it, if it were with the consent of the House. We cannot take it, otherwise. I understood, however, that it would not be in accordance with the feeling of some sections of the House to take it to-day.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL,
  "to make further provision with respect to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the colleges therein," presented by Mr. FISHER; supported by Mr. Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Baldwin, to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]
  RABBITS BILL,
  "to enable local authorities in certain cases to provide for the destruction of rabbits," presented by Sir ARTHUR BOSCAWEN; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

  ESTIMATES.
  Fourth Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—

Public Works Loans Bill, without Amendment.

National Health Insurance Bill,

Bristol Tramways Bill,

South Staffordshire Water Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—
Ramsgate Corporation Bill [Lords],
Shepton Mallet Waterworks Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.
  Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: I beg to move,
  "That this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle should be removed."
  After a very considerable delay, the House has now an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon this very important question. I trust that we shall have a straight vote, and that the House will resist all Amendments that may obscure the issue or render the decision of the House doubtful or conditional. I feel that the great bulk of the people are, for their own interest, deeply anxious that this embargo should be removed.
  Captain ELLIOT: No.
  Mr. SHAW: I hear an hon. Friend say "No"; but it is a fact that all the great municipalities and corporations in this country have forwarded resolutions asking that the embargo should be removed. Birmingham has done so, and Glasgow, which is in the county represented by the hon. and gallant Member; and Cardiff, and all the big towns. These people recognise that it is vital to the interests of the Empire and to the maintenance of the honour of this country that the pledge given to Canada should be honoured. The British people, irrespective of party, dislike and distrust quibblers. The detailss of the pledge have been widely circulated and read, and the people have made up their minds that there is no doubt that a pledge has been given, and that if it is not honoured our action will be derogatory to the honour of this country. For the 30 years that this embargo bas been in operation there has been a fight for its removal. Last year in this House, before the pledge became prominent, this demand became so persistent that the Government thought it convenient to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter. The opponents of the embargo did not ask for the Royal Commission. I imagine it must have been born of the pathetic belief in the present policy which seems to have gripped and held the mind of the Minister of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman probably
  64
  knew that a Royal Commission would gain time. He probably imagined that it would give a favourable Report, from his point of view. All the influence, all the knowledge, all the statistics of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries were thrown into the scale in favour of the embargo before the Royal Commission. The Irish Board of Agriculture was represented before the Commission by counsel, with a view of supporting the embargo. There was also the evidence of the National Farmers' Union of England representing all the farmers but it failed because it was shown that it represented only a minority of the farmers. There was, too, the National Livestock Defence Committee. On the one side was a strong coalition of all the parties, associations and trusts in favour of the embargo. On the other side what did we have? We had only a poorly organised crowd—so poorly organised, to begin with, that they did not arrange for counsel to represent them. The Commission was in Session, before they were in a position, to engage or brief Counsel, but all the parties had opportunities of putting forward their views. The personnel of the tribunal commanded general respect. It was presided over by Lord Finlay, an ex-Lord Chancellor, a judge of experience and international reputation, and before the Commission had reported it was given a certificate of character by the Prime Minister, who said:
  "The Report has not come in yet, but when it comes in it will he our duty to act upon it."
  Had the Prime Minister discharged that duty it would not have been necessary to trouble the House with this Motion. Notwithstanding the support of the Prime Minister, those who were opposed to the embargo refused to accept the finding of the Commission. The Live Stock Defence Committee, presided over by Lord Crewe, issued a critical review of the evidence, and one of the principal reasons upon which they based their criticism was this:
  "None of the Members of the Commission has experience or knowledge of the intricacies of rural life."
  It seems to me a very narrow and absurd basis of criticism. One might as well say that no judge is competent to preside in the Divorce Court unless he has intimate and personal knowledge of the

  65
  mode of life which brings one within the jurisdiction of that Court. We shall be told that the farmers and the whole agricultural industry are unitedly opposed to any change. They usually are opposed to any change, but I think the House would be very foolish indeed to admit this claim at its face value. I have sufficient knowledge of "the intricacies of rural life" to know that the farming community of England is not a particularly vocal community. At these meetings of associations and other bodies, there may be a certain number of people in favour of a motion, and that motion seems to be carried unanimously, yet in the hall there may be also a great body of opinion absolutely opposed to the motion which is supposed to be carried with unanimity. No doubt we shall have speeches from the eminent English agriculturists who represent the agricultural group in this House to the effect that an overwhelming majority is in favour of maintaining the embargo. During the three or four years I have had the privilege of listening on many occasions to these eminent English agriculturists speaking on the position and prospects of the agricultural industry in this country. I am within the recollection of the House when I say that on every occasion they have painted a picture of doleful and impenetrable gloom. I admired the manner in which they put their case, but I felt that if these speeches were founded upon their personal experience as agriculturists, then as agriculturists they must be held to be more eminent than successful. I venture respectfully to suggest to them that they might with profit consider whether some of their gloomy experience may not be due to mistakes in policy—whether it may not even be possible that they have made a mistake in policy regarding this embargo.
  Many of the commercial farmers, both in the unions and elsewhere, are opposed to this policy. The backbone of the support of the embargo lies in what may be called the aristocracy of agriculture —the people who cut a great figure at the big agricultural shows. It is the commercial farmer who wants the embargo taken off—the man to whom profits are more than prizes. I warn the House that they need not put too much reliance upon the claim that the overwhelming majority of the agriculturists of England and Wales is in sup-
  66
  port of the embargo. The House no doubt recalls why the embargo was put on. It was put on because it was asserted that disease was being brought over from Canada. It is admitted I believe, on all hands, that this was an erroneous diagnosis of the case. It is admitted by all experts that the herds of Canada are to-day, and have been for 30 years probably, the freest from disease and the healthiest to be found in any country in the world. That was admitted in another place by the present Minister of Transport who was then speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. He said that on account of disease there was no justification whatever for shutting out from this country cattle bred in Canada. Before the Royal Commission, a certificate of health was given to the Canadian cattle by Sir Daniel Hall, chief scientific expert of the Board of Agriculture, and Sir Stewart Stockman, chief veterinary expert, gave evidence to the same effect. There was a great deal of evidence put before the Royal Commission on this point, because, after all, it is the main support of the embargo. The Commission heard all the evidence which could be brought forward to secure an adverse verdict against the Canadian cattle on this point. The supporters of the embargo also endeavoured to show that, because Canada had a long border line, Canada might be used as a corridor for bringing in disease from the United States of America. Having heard and weighed all the evidence, the finding of the Commission was:
  "We are of opinion there is no substantial ground for the apprehension that such admission would introduce disease among the cattle of this country."
  4.0 P.m.
  All this talk about protecting the herds of this country is—as far at least as Canada is concerned—absolute eyewash. Properly interpreted, it means protection of certain people's pockets. I see the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) is in his place. In several of his speeches outside the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Safeguarding of Industries Act as an acid test. Here in this embargo we have got Protection far beyond anything contemplated in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman and his followers will stand this test and go into the Lobby unitedly, and as a party against the embargo. Even if this em-

  67
  bargo were taken off, the breeders in this country would still have very considerable protection. They would have the protection which arises from the cost of transport, amounting from £10 to £14 per head. That should be sufficient. It will be said that the early apostles of Free Trade told the same tale to the grain producers of their day. There can be very little in an argument founded on an analogy between the case of introducing grain into this country, and the case of introducing live animals which have to be carefully sheltered, fed and attended to on the way across from Canada. There is, and has been for many years, a great shortage of cattle in this country. This shortage was admitted by Lord Ernie long before the Imperial Conference of 1917. It was referred to by Lord Long, when, as Mr. Long, he was piloting through this House the Act which gave statutory permanence to this embargo. This is what he said on 23rd March, 1896, referring to this very shortage:
  "But he had reason to believe that if stock-breeders were given security against disease, which the Bill would provide, the supply of stores would very soon more than meet the demand."
  That, like many other prophecies made under similar circumstances, has been falsified by events. The shortage of cattle in proportion to population is much greater now than it was in 1896. Notwithstanding this protection, the breeders in this country have never been able to make up that shortage. If it were not for the cattle coming from Ireland, we in this country would be in a very hopeless condition as regards store cattle. Before the Royal Commission a great point was made of the fact that Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. Well, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has helped to abolish that argument. It cannot now be said that we have any control over the agricultural policy of Southern Ireland, which is three-fourths of the whole of Ireland. We must not look to Ireland for a sufficient supply of store cattle. It is absolutely essential that we should have a second source of supply, and it is admitted on all hands that the best place where we can get that supply is Canada.
  We are often told that the stock breeders are the backbone of English agriculture. They are an important part
  68
  of the anatomy, but the man who cultivates the soil is really the backbone of the industry, and it is essential that those who cultivate the soil should have a plentiful supply of store cattle. Unless the farmer has the assurance that he can get a plentiful supply of store cattle at an economic price which gives him a profit, not only from the beef, but also by reason of the manure which he obtains for his land, he cannot be expected to plough up more land. He has to have store cattle in order to eat his root crops and make his straw into manure. This is more essential than ever because since 1896 we have had the development of motor traffic so that the manure formerly obtained from the town horses has almost vanished. In Forfarshire, the county I know best, there has been a very pronounced shortage of store cattle for many years, with the result that the farmers there are feeding only half the number of cattle that they could feed if they could buy store cattle on an economic basis. At present they are forced to keep on the cattle twice as long as they otherwise would do because they cannot get store cattle at a figure to show them a profit. If they could buy stores at an economic price, they would be able to double the output of their beef and he able to bring more land into cultivation. It is therefore certain that in this respect this policy of removing the embargo would increase the supply of fresh meat in this country, which is what the people want and require.
  Those who are fighting the embargo are fighting for increased fresh meat supplies for the people of this country. The Minister of Agriculture has raised the point that there is no relation between the price of store cattle and the price of beef. It seems to me that there must be a very close relationship, because, if the breeder cannot make a profit out of feeding his cattle, he will gradually go out of business, and as he goes out of business the scarcity of fresh meat will increase and the price will rise. Already it is evident from the statistics that this shortage of fresh meat in this country is becoming more and more pronounced. In 1893, 65 per cent. of the meat in Smithfield Market was home-raised and home-killed. It has now gore down to something under 10 per cent. The supporters of the embargo tell us that the best way is to bring in frozen meat.

  69
  When I suggested to the hon. Gentleman who presides over the Kitchen Committee (Sir J. Agg-Gardner) that for one week we should have a supply of frozen meat in the Dining Rooms of this House so that Members might appreciate the difference between frozen and fresh meat, I was told, most courteously, that the Committee could not sanction a gastronomic experiment on Members. I oppose any such gastronomic experiment being made on my constituents and on the great mass of the people. I want to see the supply of fresh meat increased in this country, and I feel certain that this is the policy which will help to achieve that end.
  It has been said that those who support the removal of the embargo wish to bring in the Canadian cattle, keep them for a few weeks, and then sell them as Prime English or Scotch beef. It seems to me that a bullock brought in from Canada and fed in this country would be just as much English or Scotch beef as a bullock brought in from Ireland. I am, however, quite willing to give the right hon. Gentleman my support if he will come forward with a proposal to strengthen the Merchandise Marks Act so as to give the home-bred and home-fed beef any protection or preference to which it is justly entitled. I cannot go into the question of the milk supply, but anyone who reads the Report of the Royal Commission will see that on that head also it is important that the embargo on Canadian cattle should be taken off. I think the supporters of the embargo have for some time now recognised that they are beaten in this controversy, but they hope, by insisting on a period of quarantine, to retain the substance while conceding the shadow. This question of a quarantine was gone into by the Royal. Commission. They heard evidence on it, and this is what they said:
  "It was said by witnesses opposed to the admission of Canadian cattle that if they were admitted they should he subjected to a period of quarantine. It appears clear, from Sir Daniel Hall's evidence, that the system of quarantine, in the first place, would be extremely expensive, and, in the second place, would so hamper the trade as to render the permission to import illusory."
  This is now the quibble upon which the supporters of the embargo have been forced to fall back. It is an endeavour to defeat this demand for the removal of
  70
  the embargo. They have to admit that there is no disease in Canadian cattle, and, when they admit that, upon what can they found their demand for a quarantine? It is said that the Canadians insist upon a quarantine for cattle coming from us. We cannot give the Canadians anything like the same bill of health that the Canadians can give us. I put down a question to the Minister of Agriculture, asking him if he could give me one year since 1910 during which the herds of the United Kingdom had been free from diseases scheduled under the Diseases of Animals Act, and he had to admit that he could not name one year during that time. I venture to ask him if he can name one year during the same period when England has been free from foot-and-mouth disease. It is said that Canada insists upon a quarantine in the case of the animals which we send from this country. The animals we send from this country are breeding animals, and, in order to make the tuberculin test effective and to see that nothing has been done to render the test useless, it is necessary for the Canadians to have a quarantine of 30 days when the cattle land there. The question which we are considering, however, is not the conditions under which Canada is admitting our cattle, but the conditions under which we are to admit Canadian cattle, and if Canada were to insist upon a quarantine of six months it would not make any difference at, all to the health of the cattle coming to this country. This is simply another quibble in order to defeat the demand to have the embargo raised. I hope the House will see through it and have nothing whatever to do with it. It is essential in the interests of British agriculture, and in the interests of the people and of the milk consumers, that this embargo should be taken off. But it is not merely a domestic question; it has become an Imperial question. I am not going to delay the House by quotations from the Report of the proceedings before the Imperial Conference of 1917, and I am not going to quote the speeches of Lord Long and the Lord Chancellor in another place. Anybody who has read those proceedings and those speeches and has read in the "Times" what Sir Robert Borden has to say must come to the conclusion that there was a pledge given to Canada at that Conference. The Prime Minister,

  71
  in the White Paper issued last week, admits this pledge. This is what he said:
  "I know, and I have had it in my mind, and so have all my colleagues, that the pledge was given by Lord Long and the late Minister for Agriculture, Lord Ernie. That pledge is very clear and unequivocal It was undoubtedly the intention of the Government to act upon it at the earliest possible opportunity."
  I cannot see how anyone, after that, can have the slightest doubt that a pledge was given to the Canadians to take off this embargo. I do not know that Lord Ernie denies that there was a pledge, and I find it very difficult to understand the position taken up by him. As far as I understand it, he practically admits that there was a pledge, but says it was! given with mental reservations, and that he does not feel called upon to consider it as binding on this country in the circumstances. You cannot conduct the affairs of a great Empire, you cannot negotiate with the great Dominions beyond the seas, on the basis of "heads I win, tails you lose."
  Captain ELLIOT: Why not?
  Mr. SHAW: If that be the way in which the supporters of the embargo would carry on the affairs of the country, I feel sure that this House will vote against them by an overwhelming majority. I understand the Minister of Agriculture supports the position taken up by Lord Ernie. He appears to look upon the embargo as a sort of sacred Measure. I find it much more difficult to understand the position taken up by the Leader of the House. I should have imagined that here at least was a Minister who would think imperially, and that a definite pledge given at a Colonial Conference would have been something sacred to him. I cannot sec how any true Briton can refuse to honour such a pledge as was then given. It was given during the War. Canada was sending her sons in thousands and tens of thousands to fight on the battle fronts of France and Flanders, and the cry was reaching her to send more and more men. These men are our brothers: they have proved it. In the hour of our adversity we called on these men, and they stood the test, and I can conceive of nothing more likely to cause offence to Canada than the breaking of a pledge given her under such circumstances as this was given. Ministers may be broken. the Government may be
  72
  broken, but the word of Britain stands, and I call upon this House of Commons to demonstrate to the world by an overwhelming majority that we are determined that this pledge shall he kept.
  Mr. PERCY: I beg to second the Motion.
  I noticed a short time ago that the Minister of Agriculture, in a speech, complained that he could never get away from the Canadian cattle question. I can assure him he never will, until justice is triumphant in this matter, and until he and his colleagues have made good the legitimate claims of Canada to trade with us in what is a vital necessity for the food supply of the people. Much has been said lately—and I have no doubt a great deal will be said—regarding the promises of responsible Ministers of the Government to remove the embargo. For myself, I am never much concerned about Ministerial pledges, for I find them too often possessed of that ephemeral character which is fatal to the credulous hopes of trustful men. Promises have been made, not only about agriculture but about many other things, and they have been blown about like chaff before every political wind. So I would rather pass over the promises, and respectfully submit to the House one or two considerations upon the merits of the ease, and the facts relating to them. What are these facts? Canada possesses large tracts of land suitable for the breeding and rearing, but not for the fattening, of stock. About 1870 she entered into a trade with this country to supply such stock to the British farmer for fattening purposes. At first, the trade was quite inconsiderable, but when experience proved that the cattle were of good quality and throve well upon British farms, the demand for them increased and eventually assumed quite respectable proportions, so that in 1884 we imported 80,000 head and in 1892 that figure had risen to 120,000.
  This was done quietly smoothly unobtrusively, and with the good will of everybody. There was no organised opposition, there were no got-up lamentations about the impending ruin of the British stock breeder. He was then, as he had been before, quite a successful member of the agricultural community. He knew then, as he does now, that he never had been and never would he able

  73
  to supply all the demands of the British feeder. And so we were in this happy position, we had developed a trade with Canada in a new direction; we were paying to her considerable sums of money annually, which she was returning to us in the purchase of our manufactures, and incidentally in giving employment to our working men we had opened out a new source of food supply, and so avoided the palpable danger of being entirely dependent on the Irish market for our necessary imports; and, last but not least, we had by this trade drawn closer and made stronger the bonds of friendship and Imperial unity between the two peoples. It is not too much to say that general prosperity and general satisfaction were marching together, cordially and genially, hand in hand. But the event occurred referred to by my hon. Friend, in November, 1892, which completely shattered all the trade that had been built up by the energy and industry of 20 years. The powers invested in the Board of Agriculture were exercised, and a complete stop was put to that traffic. That was continued for some four years, and then the Act of 1896 was the concluding chapter of a great misfortune to Canada and to this country.
  It is to be observed that the excuse of disease has been held up to the people of this country to prove that in the Canadian stock there was disease for, certainly, 25 years, and to demonstrate the danger of allowing any further importation from that country, but, as my hon. Friend said in moving the Motion, it is practically certain that there never was a case of pneumonia in the herd in question. The Board of Agriculture must have known for a considerable period that the reason for introducing the embargo was a bad reason and that a great injustice had been perpetrated. Lord Ernie, in his speech in another place only a few days ago, made this perfectly clear. He was speaking of the 1917 Conference, and be said:
  "I wished to sweep away, so far as the machinery of our policy of exclusion went, all the allegations of disease to admit to the full the doubtfulness of the original case."
  When this knowledge came to the Board of Agriculture, I should have thought there would have been an honourable amend, an eager desire to make good the damage that had been caused, but silence was the policy for a long course of years,
  74
  until at last, in 1917, the Canadian Prime Minister lodged an emphatic protest against this spurious reason being continually advanced for the purpose of keeping on the embargo. Then we had Minister and ex-Minister of Agriculture and officials falling over each other to declare their intense pleasure in stating that the Canadian stocks had been for 30 years the cleanest in the world. But, strange as it may seem, that reason is still being trotted out in various official quarters throughout the country—the danger of infecting our stock with disease from Canada. Indeed, a Noble Lord devoted practically the whole of his speech in another place a few days ago to that very point. I cannot help thinking that, on a little analysis and careful consideration of the facts, the erstwhile opponents will become the most earnest advocates for the removal of the embargo, and for this reason: We must import stock. As I have already stated, the British breeders cannot supply the demand of the British feeders, and, instead of the position getting better, my hon. Friend has pointed out that it is getting worse. The stocks in this country are declining in proportion to the population, and, since we have to import, surely it is a matter of elementary common sense that we should import from the safest quarters, the quarters where there is least disease. Upon that point, may I be pardoned if I read just two or three sentences from the Report of the Royal Commission? I would refer hon. Members to page 10, the first paragraph:
  "It is further, in our opinion, established that for the last 30 years, no cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease has existed in Canada."
  I read a little further down:
  "Lord Ernie, although he gave his opinion against the admission of Canadian stores, said he considered the Canadian cattle healthier than the Irish. We have had a great deal of evidence as to the health of the Canadian cattle, and in our opinion it established that they are healthier than the Irish."
  On page 11, it says:
  "We may point out that considerable inconvenience has recently been caused by the failure of stores from Ireland, owing to outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease."
  I submit that we have had it clearly established by the Royal Commission, first, that for 30 years there has been no disease in Canada, and, during that time, there have been repeated outbreaks of

  75
  disease in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members say No." I think they could not have heard the last, sentence I read. If they will kindly open their ears, I will read it again—
  "We may point out that considerable inconvenience has recently been caused by the failure of stores from Ireland "—
  An HON. MEMBER: I said Northern Ireland.
  Mr. PERCY: I said "Ireland," as mentioned in the Royal Commission's Report,—
  "owing to outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease."
  While, on one side, there has been no disease in Canada, on the other side there have been repeated outbreaks of disease in Ireland. I say to our opponents, with great respect, that if they would act in the public interest, for the safety of the stocks in England from infectious disease, they would do all in their power to stop importations from Ireland, where there has been disease, and import, as far as possible, entirely from Canada, which for a generation has shown an absolute clean bill of health. Surely that is the logical conclusion. But we are driven to another logical conclusion, and that is the danger and the folly of this country being dependent for her supplies upon one source. As I have already quoted from the Report, we have been put to considerable inconvenience on more than one occasion because of the shortage of supplies through disease, but I submit that if there were an outbreak of disease in Ireland, with a possibility of stopping, for a season, all the supplies, what would be the result? Great public inconvenience, if not suffering, and a financial crisis of the most serious character on the part of the British farmers. Take the figures. We have imported from Ireland anything from 250,000 to 600,000 cattle a year. Take an ordinary arable farm in England of 400 acres. The tenant must necessarily feed for the fat stock markets. His hay and his roots must be consumed, and his straw must be converted into that best general fertiliser, farmyard manure. A farm of that kind will feed about 50 cattle for winter feed. If we only take the small average of 300,000 a year, it means that 6,000 farmers will be entirely supplied from Ireland with their store cattle, and if that be stopped for a season, it must of
  76
  necessity caused the most serious financial strain on the part of the breeders in this country, and, indeed, hundreds of them, it can readily be conceived, would be driven into actual bankruptcy Vet we read in the same speech by the Minister of Agriculture that he would not be driven from his opposition to the removal of the embargo for any catch vote or newspaper stunt.
  "Oh but man, proud man!
  Dress'd with a little brief authority:
  Most ignorant of what he's most assured,…
  Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,
  As make the angels weep."
  I cannot but submit to the House that there is justification for saying that this bogey of disease has been held up to frighten the people for a long series of years, and there has been pursued a deliberate policy of prohibition, in order to protect the supposed interests of the breeders in this country to keep up their prices and to eliminate all competition. The authors of such a policy have been walking along the road of stupendous folly. Lord Ernle made the position clear when, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, he said that the real question was what the farmers would think. I should have imagined, with great respect, that it would have been more to-the point if he had said the real question was what the majority of the people would think was best for the people. I quite agree that the opinion of the farmers should be most carefully considered, but I do not agree that they should rule the whole situation. The Farmers' Union, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, have taken a very considerable part in propaganda on this question. They may speak for the breeders, but hey have no, authority to speak for the feeders. There is no general consensus of opinion between the breeders and feeders. The breeders of stock are entirely in favour of the embargo. The feeders of stock are bitterly opposed to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am only respectfully putting my opinion before the House. I may be wrong, but, from all my knowledge, gained on a large field of inquiry, I say that the feeders of stock, as a great body, are entirely opposed to the embargo. As far as the Farmers' Union are concerned, as I say, they may speak for the breeders, but I maintain that they cannot

  77
  speak for feeders, who are a large, important body, spread over the best lands of England and Scotland, for the most part possessing extensive farms, and engaged in the highest form of intensive cultivation, and backed by considerable capital, in the conduct of their business.
  The Farmers' Union demand the exclusion of all imported cattle except from Ireland. Their policy seems to be the elimination of all competition on behalf of the breeder. Their ideal is that the farmers of this class should never be asked to emerge from the cotton-wool of their infancy, and that they should be the spoilt and petted children of the State. Experience has taught us that a great many other trades, and a great many other people, are perfectly willing, like the Farmers' Union, to be the recipients of special privileges, and only too happy when they can make other people pay and bear the burden. The great body of farmers has had for years to bear the most stern competition from all over the world in practically everything they produce—their corn, their hay, their wool and their fat stock. The importation of chilled meat, and of meat killed at the ports of entry, has been the most formidable form of competition to this class of farmer, but they do not mind. They bear their losses with stoicism, and they make their profits when they may. But they demand—and rightly demand—that when they have met this keen competition from all parts of the world by free imports, they shall have the right of free import of their raw material from Canada, when there is no fear of infection. And there surely can be no infection where there is no disease.
  There is just one more point that I should like to mention, and which I profoundly hope the Government will keep carefully in view, that is, the Imperial point—possibly the most important point of all. As the matter now stands, we are allowing importations from Ireland and we deny them to Canada. What special debt of gratitude do we owe to Ireland that we should prefer her and ignore Canada, whose brilliant services in the days of our agony and trial stood out pre-eminent amongst the Commonwealths of the Empire? With blare of trumpets and with beat of drums the Government declared to the world only recently that in their Treaty with
  78
  Ireland that they had given her equal rights and equal privileges with Canada. Are they now going to refuse to Canada the same equal rights and equal privileges with Ireland? Surely not, unless they would be shamed and men would say of them, "With what little wisdom is the world governed!" We have in Canada a Dominion possessing huge territories, abounding in the most amazing potentialities, whose people, although not of one blood, yet possess but one heart of fervent loyalty to the old country and to their King; who when they speak of home speak of England. I can see her in the future years a great nation, beckoning with welcoming hand to those at home to go out to her, who are willing to take part in the carving out of her great destinies. Are we going to send our children there and yet refuse to help them by declining to deal with them in the products of their labours? Again, surely not! For if we did this unjust thing, if by our callous disregard we alienated her sympathies and loosened the bonds which now so firmly bind us, it would not be a misfortune for England only, it would he a calamity to the world.
  Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg to move to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "while taking note of the recommendations of the recent Royal Commission, is of opinion that it would be inadvisable to repeal or to alter the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, at the present moment for the following reasons: that this legislation has given a measure of security and stability to stockbreeding unknown under the conditions which prevailed before that legislation was passed; that there is severe depression in agriculture which any interference with existing legislation would tend to aggravate; and that the opinion of the Royal Commission is definite that the interests of the consumers are not involved in this question, the effect of the admission or non-admission of Canadian cattle on the price of meat being in their view immaterial."
  Language may, in this matter, as in others, misrepresent one's own thoughts, and misdirect other people's. The fact that this question has been commonly and conveniently referred to as the Canadian Embargo Question has blinded the eyes of many people to the fact that the existing law is not directed especially against Canada, but applies to all countries, and that it constitutes not an embargo upon the importation of cattle but

  79
  a provision that when cattle are imported—as they are—they should be slaughtered within a certain period. It is sought in certain quarters to suggest that the existing policy involves a violation of the principles of Free Trade. I do not like this argument, because it casts such an aspersion upon the Liberal Governments of 1906 and 1910; of which I was an ardent supporter; and I also repudiate it on the ground that it is untrue. I realise, however, that, perhaps, my own opinion in this matter will not be sufficient without the authority of some others, and so I venture to quote one who occupies a very high place in the hierarchy of Free Trade defenders. I refer to Lord Crewe. Speaking last year, in March, at a Conference, which was summoned by the City Corporation to consider this question, Lord Crewe said that
  "The question had of late been surrounded by a mist of misrepresentation. It ought to be made clear that this was in no sense a matter of Free Trade or Protection."
  It is regrettable to find that Lord Crewe has not been able to exercise more influence upon some of his colleagues. For example, I notice that Lord Lincolnshire, speaking the other day on this question, said:
  "As Free Traders the Liberal party naturally refuse to have anything to do with Protection, veiled or otherwise."
  It is rather curious that he of all people should have made that statement, because he was for some years himself President of the Board of Agriculture, and took part in a Debate in May, 1906, when he occupied that position. He then said:
  "This question, debatable as it is, is one neither of policy nor of principle. It is a question of industrial expediency, a sort of national insurance, and the point, so far as I understand it, is whether it is necessary in the national interests that this system of national insurance should or should not be continued."
  There was no question of Protection here, veiled or otherwise, when the Marquis of Lincolnshire himself was President of the Board of Agriculture. I notice also that the other day he made one of his characteristic sallies upon the Government and spoke of "these days of go-as-you-please inside or outside the Cabinet." But the Government of which he was so distinguished a member treated this matter in precisely the same way as the present Government. The reason was
  80
  explained by the Noble Lord in the Debate to which I referred, when he said:
  "The Members of His Majesty's Government had different views, as is well known."
  Then he went on to say:
  "There are three ways in which the Prime Minister can touch the heart of the British House of Commons. There is the affectionate way. He can go to the House of Commons and say, 'This is a debatable point and I would like to get your opinion upon the subject.' Then there is the violent or the autocratic way adopted by the younger Pitt. He might say, sic volo, sic jubeo, 'I do not care what your opinions are, you will have to toe the line.' Or he can use the sentence used by the late Marquis or Salisbury when he practically told a recalcitrant Archbishop of Canterbury, 'I do not care three straws what you think; what I mind is what you do.' Then there would be the diplomatic or Balfourian way. He might say, 'A disagreeable man has brought a disagreeable question before the House of Commons. It is a difficult thing to face, but there is one way of getting out of the difficulty—let us all stay away and not go near the place until the storm has blown over.' The Prime Minister has chosen the first of these three methods."
  In other words, what the Noble Lord commends in the Prime Minister of his own day he condemns in the Prime Minister of the present day. Having cleared away these misapprehensions, may I remind hon. Members that the present law dates from 1896, and was the result of 30 years' anxious effort to frame a policy which would give to every stockbreeder in this country that feeling of security which everyone realised he was entitled to expect, and which it was generally accepted was essential to the confident and successful conduct of the industry. I respectfully submit to the House that it ought not lightly to abandon that policy which has been in operation with such good results for so many years, unless very urgent reasons can be shown. The responsibility for establishing those reasons rests upon those who ask for the removal of the embargo. What are the reasons suggested?
  It is difficult to listen with patience—if I may be allowed to say so—to one point put by both hon. Members who have spoken. They have dragged in the loyalty and bravery of the Canadian soldiers. Yet these are the very men who talked about the slur upon Canada! I should like to know which is the greater slur upon Canada, to suggest that her cattle may bring disease to this country, or to suggest that her soldiers went to the War to protect the farming interests in

  81
  Canada? It is said that a pledge has been given. If that pledge was given by anybody, it was given by Lord Ernie, and it was given by him, speaking on his own responsibility, without previous consultation with the Government. Lord Ernie himself says that the words which he used do not bear the interpretation which it is now sought to put upon them. When the Report of the Imperial Conference is read, it is clear that the Debate was initiated on the basis of the stigma attached to the Canadian cattle, and the delegates from Canada expressly stated that they had no desire whatsoever to interfere with the internal policy which we in Great Britain might adopt. When what Lord Ernie said then is read in its entirety it becomes clear that whilst he did say that the English Board of Agriculture favoured the views put forward by the Canadian representatives, the acceptance of that policy was dependent upon the fulfilment of two conditions, namely, a large extension of tillage in the United Kingdom and the assent of the Irish Board of Agriculture.
  If Lord Ernle gave the pledge suggested, I, for one, find it very difficult to imagine any reason why he should seek to repudiate it. He has no particular ground for doing so. He is not a member of the Government. He owes no allegiance to the Government. He has no reason to fear the force of public opinion, or any section of it, and, apart from that, I think every hon. Member will agree that he is a gentleman who is not likely to seek to break a promise that he had made. Had he given the pledge that hon. Members opposite say he gave—in spite of what he actually did say—obligations of honour would have caused him to acknowledge it, and I cannot imagine any consideration that would induce Lord Ernie to repudiate it. I cannot help feeling that this question of a pledge has been introduced in order to distract attention from the merits of the case. When people talk so loudly nowadays about our honour, I would like to know where were these men in 1918, in 1919, in 1920 and in 1921? Where were they during the Dudley bye-election of 1921, when this question wag one of the main issues? It was not fought on any question of pledge. It was fought almost entirely on the argument that the removal of the embargo would lead to a reduction in the price of beef.
  82
  The "Times" newspaper, in a leading article on the election on the day of the poll, said:
  "At first the election seemed likely to turn upon the Irish question; but a gentleman from Canada intervened through the Press by raising the question of the embargo upon Canadian store-cattle… and Dudley almost forgot Ireland in fierce disputation about the price of beef-steaks."
  It was on that ground that this matter was fought at Dudley. The House naturally is jealous of its honour, but in the talk of the pledge what may be creditable to lion. Members' hearts may not be always creditable to their heads. Another argument to which great prominence has been given is directed neither to hearts nor to heads but to pockets, namely that the removal of the embargo would cheapen the price of meat. We were then told that it would reduce the price of meat by sixpence per pound, but the Royal Commission, dealing with this matter, have expressed their views in a sentence which is as concise as it is eon-elusive. They said:
  "We are quite unable to accept it."
  5.0 P.M.
  Since then the amount has consistently and persistently diminished, and there is hardly a practical man in the country who would venture to make a prophecy of any reduction at all in the price of meat. It is true that the Royal Commission did say in one place that this might cause a slight reduction, but when their Report is read, it is clear that that opinion is based upon two premises. One is that 200,000 cattle would be imported, and the other is that that figure represents about 8 per cent. of our whole meat supply. The latter assumption is based on faulty arithmetic and the former on a guess which cannot be substantiated. That opinion is also inconsistent with the other part of the very same Report, where they say that their recommendations might lead to a decline in breeding in this country, and that by an adjustment of supply to demand a reduction of price due to excess of supply would soon disappear. It is also inconsistent with the fact that the imposition of the embargo led not to an increase but to a reduction in price, and with the further fact that the price of meat is governed by the price of imported beef. Moreover, the figure of 200,000 is highly problematical. Before 1890 the largest number was 70,000. I do not know

  83
  whether the House realises that nearly a million more calves are born every year than are turned into beef, a fact which disposes of the argument to which the hon. Member opposite devoted a considerable part of his speech, and supports our contention that the number of cattle fattened in this country is determined, not so much by the supply of stores as by other practical considerations, such as the amount of land available and the resources available for fattening cattle.
  The result of the removal of the embargo would be that what the Commission contemplated as a contingency would be a certainty, that is, that the home supplies would be considerably diminished, though possibly not to the full extent of the imported supply. Despite what the hon. Member who spoke last said, I think this is a newspaper stunt. We all know that it was started by Lord Beaverbrook. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] it was run by him for all it was worth and a great deal more at Dudley, and the "Daily Express" put the "Times" out of joint—the "Times" had to join in, although up to that time it had taken up a reasonable attitude—these papers have raised a very hurricane of excitement, and my two hon. Friends who have spoken are orphans of the storm created by these newspapers. They have now been joined by a paper called the "Empire Mail," the editor of which tells us that "Canada is watching." One cannot fail to admire the manner in which this editor is able to combine this Imperialism with the announcement that the subscription for his paper is only 12s. per annum These views have been supported by a vigorous propaganda, and it would be interesting to know the source and the amount of money spent upon it. It is propaganda in the interests of the large graziers, and in the interests of certain towns which have facilities at their ports which they would like to see used—I am not sure whether Dundee is one of those ports—and it is supported by large associations of meat traders, particularly those in Scotland, who characteristically look forward to the time when they can welcome these cattle to their shores, and enable Scottish butchers to sell these cattle a few weeks afterwards to their English customers at
  84
  Scottish prices as prime Scotch ribs of beef. One writer in the "Times" of-10th June, says:
  "Some say that to keep and fatten a Canadian bullock for a short time and put it in our market as prime English heel is a fraud on the public, but I cannot see this."
  Under these conditions that great institution known as "the roast beef of Old England" will become as liable to suspicion as Canterbury lamb. Of one thing there can he no doubt, and that is that this policy has done infinite good to the interests of agriculture and the interests of the country generally. Before 1890 on many occasions the country was ravaged by disease, causing untold loss to the farmers and imperilling the food supplies of our country. Since then we have been comparatively free from the most serious diseases of cattle plague, pleura-pneumonia, and with the exception of a few occasional outbursts, of foot-and-mouth disease. The hon. Member opposite spoke of constant outbreaks in Ireland, but he was not doing that country justice, because there have only been six outbreaks in Ireland in the course of the last fifteen years.
  To-day as a result of this policy we produce better stock than any other country in the world, and we are generally accepted as "the stud farm of the world." Not only has our quality improved, but the number has consistently and steadily increased since the policy was adopted. With the exception of one county in England, every branch of the National Farmers' Union has passed a resolution protesting against the removal of the embargo, and the Agricultural Council of Wales has passed a similar resolution. In Scotland, although large breeders favour the removal of the embargo, the Royal Commission itself said that the removal of the embargo would make it difficult for crofters and small farmers in the Highlands to carry on their operations, and what is true of those in the Highlands is also true of the small farmers and smallholders in England. For these reasons I respectfully submit to the House that no valid reason has been shown for reversing a policy deliberately adopted after mature consideration, which has done infinite good, and the removal of which would, at a time when agriculture is passing through an almost unexampled period of difficulty and depression, deprive farmers of that

  85
  feeling of confidence and security which is in a special sense essential to the prosperity of Britain's oldest and greatest industry.
  Captain ELLIOT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  After what I may characterise as the masterly summary of the situation delivered by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, it seems almost superfluous for anyone to trouble the House further. I wish to say that I have listened to the hon. Member's speech with very great pleasure because he did not break out into Shakespeare on the one hand, or flap-doodle on the other hand. I think it would have been better if the Mover and Seconder of this Motion had saved time by cutting down their perorations, which must have done duty so often on the hustings in their own constituencies, and treated us to a little more argument on the subject we are discussing. I will proceed directly to deal with one or two of the practical points of this case because we have been subjected to a perfect bombardment of leaflets and threatened with every kind of other consequences to ourselves if we dare to oppose the will of Lord Beaverbrook in this matter, ranging from the break-up of the British Empire to the personal hostility of the "Daily Express" at the next General Election. In spite of that I think Members of the House of Commons have maintained an open mind on this subject, and in general a very keen interest in it has been taken by hon. Members who desire to be governed in their views, not so much by rhetoric as by the arguments of the case.
  There are one or two points which specially appeal to me to which I desire to draw the attention of the House. The first one is the aspect of the conditions which produced the Act of 1896. In so far as they relate to the spread of epidemic disease in this country, this was treated with great scorn by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, who said that there could be no valid objection whatever to the admission of Canadian cattle on the grounds of possible danger from disease to the herds of this country. The proof of the pudding, however, is in the eating. This Act was not adopted as a Protectionist Measure after insufficient consideration, but after 30 years' experience of the free importation of live
  86
  animals from all over the world into this country, with powers given to the Board of Agriculture to prevent the importation of any animals coming from a country that had disease in it. We have seen the result with the gradually growing series of epidemics which swept this country year after year, causing inestimable damage. Whether that is a coincidence or not I do not know, but, at any rate, it is a very striking coincidence that, when we passed the Act of 1896, the country became almost free from these epidemics. During the period between 1880 and 1885, which the Mover and Seconder of this Motion ask us to contemplate as a time when angelic conditions of agriculture prevailed, there was an epidemic every year of foot-and-mouth disease. In the year 1883 there were over 18,000 outbreaks, affecting 75 counties and nearly 450,000 animals.
  In the face of such outbreaks as those, how puerile is the argument that an interruption of the Irish store cattle importation would lead to financial disaster among the farmers of this country. Similarly with pleuro-pneumonia, the outbreaks in the 'seventies covered between 60 and 70 counties every year, and affected scores of thousands of livestock. One source of infection was undoubtedly the infecting of the market by foreign stock, and this led to the agitation for the closing of the ports, and caused the Act of 1896 to be introduced. I have taken out the figures from the Official Reports of the Department of Agriculture for the 20 years prior to the passing of this Act, and the 20 years subsequent to its passing into law. In the 20 years before the passing of the Act of 1896 there were 850,000 animals in Great Britain affected with either pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease. In the 20 years subsequent to the passing of that Act there were just over 4,000. These are very striking figures, because they show we had less than a two-hundredth part of cases of disease for each month. We had very nearly as much disease every month before the Act as we have had in the whole 20 years since we passed that Act. These figures require more than the ipse dixit of newspaper proprietors, or the resolutions of the corporations of large towns to sweep them away.
  It may be that our opponents consider that it is impossible to spread any disease with clean cattle coming from a

  87
  clean country across a clean ocean. That might be a sound argument if we had not practical evidence to the contrary. One of the chief reasons that brought about the Act of 1896 was the outbreak caused by affected cattle imported into this country in 1892, and in this case you had clean cattle from a clean country across a clean ocean brought into other cargoes of cattle in London, and later on foot-and-mouth disease was discovered amongst them. By that time 28 cattle had been sold, and it is interesting to follow the course of the disease. On the 4th of February the disease was in London; on 29th February it was in Edinburgh; on 5th March in Glasgow; 8th March in Leith; and 10th March in Westmoreland. There were 43 separate outbreaks, and enormous damage was done to other cargoes of cattle coming from all over the country. If that can be done with one clean country, there is no reason to suppose the same thing will not occur in the case of another. The risks of transit are no mere bogey. We have many cases in point. There is the well-known case in 1881, when we had a cargo of Canadian cattle taken to Glasgow, with 237 of them affected with foot-and-mouth disease, some indeed dying of it. They had not got the foot-and-mouth disease in Canada. They travelled to this country viâ Boston. They contracted the disease in transit. If that can occur in one case, may it not occur in others, and why should we be faced with these gigantic risks to this country? This is a case for not taking any avoidable risks and of making sure, at any rate, that we are going to have some gigantic benefit from this Bill before we take these great risks.
  It is a common contention of hon. Members in favour of this Motion that the policy which they advocate—the policy of free disease—is a policy of free or, rather, cheap meat. They say it will produce cheaper meat. Is it not a strange thing that the passing of the Act did not lead us to an increase in the price of meat, but was actually followed by a fall in that price? I do not say that the fall was due to the passing of the Act, although no doubt the freedom of our stocks from disease, which coincided with the passing of the Act, was a factor in producing cheaper meat for the consumer, because of the smaller
  88
  losses to the farmers of the country. The fall was not a small one, it was very pronounced. It was a fall of 8d. per stone. For the 10 years subsequent to the passing of the Act the price of meat at Smithfield averaged 8d. per stone below what it fetched in the days before the Act was passed. We, on this side, are as anxious as anyone to see cheap meat for the British consumer, but we claim, with a certain amount of justice, that it must not he assumed to be axiomatic that the sweeping away of public health regulations is the best way to produce cheap meat. Certain Members of the Labour party have been very vocal in their demands for sweeping away these sanitary regulations, but when shortsighted manufacturers have argued in favour of sweeping away restrictions on output for the sake of cheapness, Labour Members have been the first to protest against it. Can it be right to run these enormous risks to the stock of this country in order to secure a problematic cheapness?
  In this country we have adopted a policy of slaughter for the stamping out of this disease. We have stock in this country worth over £100,000,000_ We have an export trade in breeding stock which represents £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year. What would be the effect upon that if we deliberately bring in, not merely steers and store cattle for feeding, but heifers as well The question of our milk supply arises in this connection. If you are going to bring in breeding animals, what is going to be the effect upon our herds by bringing scrub animals from the Western prairies? One of the great helps to the smaller men in this country at present the grading up of shorthorn breeds, and if we are going to bring in cows and heifers the shorthorn market will soon be closed. It cannot be denied that the grading up of animals in this country will be affected if it is not known what crosses have been in the immediate ancestry of the animals. We know, in connection with the shorthorn breeds, that the first calf may probably show all the signs of the breed and yet the animal may subsequently throw a calf which has none of its characteristics. If you are to introduce a strain which has nothing to do with the old shorthorn blood in this country,

  89
  you are running a great risk. But these are technical points which I apologise for introducing.
  We cannot go back on that policy for the purpose not of a practical but of a theoretical protection. We know no more about foot-and-mouth disease now than we did in 1896. We have gone so far, I believe, as to give a subsidy of nearly £4,000 a year to agricultural colleges of all kinds for research into the diseases of animals, but we cannot hope on that basis to gain any solid scientific knowledge of the problems we are now attempting to tackle. If the House decides that it will be better in the long run to add 4,000 miles of ocean and 2,000 miles of rail to the chain at any point at which infection may occur and be brought into this country, if it decides that wherever a case of foot-and-mouth disease does occur, for, of course, the danger of infection in the market is 50 times greater than the danger of infection on the farm, if the House decides to increase the moving herds, and to do away with the decentralisation which we have carried through in the past 20 years, let it do so with its eyes open and begin by voting a sum for research which will enable us to tackle the problem of disease when it does arise, as it will undoubtedly do. To say that the decentralisation which we have carried out is a had policy, and to decide to go back to the idea of concentrating your herds in Canada and bringing them many thousands of miles co this country, even though there be no risk from war to the interruption of our supplies—a risk which the Royal Commission specifically declined to consider—at any rate, we ought to remember there is an increase of the risk in that chain of disease, because we have found not by theory but by practice that, when you had sea-born cattle brought into this country for feeding purposes, you had disease; when you had your ports open we had 850,000 cases of disease, while when the ports were shut we had only 4,000 cases; and when the ports were shut we had a fall in the price of meat, and not a rise. In short, whatever the risks from this policy are, the obvious advantages are extremely hypothetical, and, on these grounds, I have the strongest confidence that the House will reject the Motion.
  Mr. ASQUITH: It seems to me that the governing issue can be, stated in a few words. I am not going to attempt, even if I had the competence and capacity, to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in his extremely able exposition of what I may call the technical aspect of this question. These are important considerations, but they nave been, as I think, put aside and left out of account in the situation in which we now find ourselves. Let me just in two or three sentences review the past history of this matter. It has been a burning, or, at any rate, a smouldering political question, almost ever since I have been in public life. The legislation for the prohibition of the admission of foreign cattle—and by foreign I mean cattle from extraneous sources over the sea, whether it be from the Empire or from foreign countries—was proposed by a Government of which I was a Member in the year 1894, when Mr. Herbert Gardner, afterwards Lord Burghclere, was President of the Board of Apiculture. As I well remember, it was proposed, it was supported, and it was carried, not for the protection of the British farmer against foreign competition, but for a very different purpose. It was for securing the immunity of our herds and our flocks against the possible importation of foreign disease. It was in that sense, and in that sense only, that it was protective legislation. At that time there was very serious ground for apprehension that the free importation, particularly of cattle—I dare say it applied to sheep also—from extraneous sources including our own Dominions, was, or might be, a formidable danger, not only to British agriculture as an industry, but to the British consumer. I think that that legislation was well justified at the time, and it has undoubtedly provided necessary safeguards, which have been justified by experience, against the dangers which were then not only contemplated but imminent and actual.
  In the years which followed, a growing agitation arose, not only in the Dominion of Canada, but among the great urban communities in this country, for the relaxation, or indeed, the removal, of those restrictions as regards the Canadian source of supply. It was demonstrated as the years went on, and I do not think it is now disputed, that the forms of

  91
  cattle disease against the importation of which from outside we rightly endeavoured to safeguard ourselves, have, so far as Canada was concerned, ceased, or practically ceased, to exist. There was, however, for a long time a certain amount of doubt in that matter, and those who were responsible for the administration of the Board of Agriculture, and, indeed, the successive Governments of the day—for this applies not only to one Government, but, I think, to two or three—did not feel themselves, at any rate, unanimously, in a position to recommend adhesion to the Canadian demand. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Evans), who made a most admirable and interesting speech, referred to the fact, which I well remember, that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who was Prime Minister, left the matter, as is being done to-night, to the free decision of the House. As a matter of fact no Division took place, but that is immaterial. That very well represented the state of opinion, Parliamentary and otherwise, which then prevailed.
  Although for many years now I have been convinced that Canadian cattle ought to be, and might be, freely admitted to this country without any real danger to our own herds and to our own native sources of supply, I have always been ready to concede that there was a very strong case to be made upon the one side as well as upon the other, although the question of Canadian disease is, happily, now practically out of the argument. There are, however, two new factors which, it appears to me, without going into what I may call the technical merits of the case, ought to be conclusive to the House to-night. The first and more important is what took place at the Imperial Conference in 1917. I cannot conceive, and I have heard no argument yet which enables me to understand, how anyone who has read the proceedings of that Conference, and the official comments subsequently made upon them by no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself—I cannot conceive how they can seriously maintain that we are not hound in honour to one of the greatest of our own Dominions to implement the solemn promise which was then given.
  92
  I do not know that the exact language has yet been quoted, but, if it has, there is no harm in reading it again. The Conference was presided over by the then Colonial Secretary (Mr. Long)—
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): A former President of the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. ASQUITH: A former President of the Board of Agriculture, and recognised, as he has been for at least a generation in this country, as the typical representative of the agricultural interest. Mr. Walter Long presided over those proceedings. He was accompanied by the then President of the Boa-rd of Agriculture, Mr. Prothero, now Lord Ernle, and what took place took place in the presence of those two gentlemen, both of them by their official position, and, I think I may say by their special personal experience, perhaps more qualified than anyone else to speak for the Government of the day in agricultural matters! The House must remember that. What did they say? Mr. Prothero said:
  "As far as I personally am concerned, and so far as the English Board of Agriculture is concerned, after the War is over"—
  I leave out the intermediate sentence, which deals with war conditions—
  "we shah, f consider, be wise to remove the embargo. We do not believe that there is now, or has been for a great many years past, the slightest ground to exclude Canadian cattle on the score of disease."
  That was the statement of the President of the Board of Agriculture. He was followed by Mr. Long, whose language is more explicit, if possible, and more emphatic. Mr. Long said:
  "As far as I am concerted—my name has been brought into it—I can only say entirely agree with Mr. Prothero's policy. I think the time that has elapsed has shown that Canada has had a complete and clean bill of health during that time, and now"—
  let the House observe these words, and consider the impression which they were calculated to make, which they were intended to make, and which, in fact, as we know, they did make, on the representatives of Canada who were there—
  "now the position is that the restriction is to he removed. The Board of Agriculture will take such steps as are necessary for this purpose.
  Mr. ROGERS: Do not you think that we should have a Resolution"

  93
  Mr. Rogers was a wise and cautious man, and I think he was quite right. Whereupon Mr. Long said:
  "You do not want a Resolution, do you?—or if you like you can simply move that the embargo on Canadian cattle be removed as speedily as possible.
  Mr. ROGERS: I beg to move that.
  Mr. LONG: Mr. Prothero accepts that and there is an end of it."
  It really does not require any comment. Can you be surprised that every Canadian statesman—I think Sir Robert Borden was the principal representative of Canada at that Conference—that every Canadian statesman from Sir Robert Borden onwards, including, as we know from the statement which he has made in the Canadian House of Commons, Mr. Meighen, the late Prime Minister, took that as an explicit and direct pledge, given with the full authority of the Imperial Government, that the embargo would be removed, and removed as speedily as possible? This Amendment asks the House to go back on that. Quite apart from the merits of the case—which, I agree, are arguable—this Amendment asks the House of Commons to authorise the Government to repudiate a pledge given with as much solemnity, as much emphasis, and as much definiteness as any pledge could possibly be.
  Commander BELLAIRS: It did not bind the House of Commons.
  Mr. ASQUITH: You can repudiate it if you like. But consider the effect of a pledge, given as far back as 1917, to one of your principal Dominions. Is the House of Commons going to go back on that?
  Mr. TOWNLEY: It was given to the whole world.
  Mr. ASQUITH: It was known to the whole world. It was given to Canada. It was published here; it was known to the British people; and it has never been repudiated to this day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Does anyone say that it has been? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Well, I will give another quotation. That was in 1917. I come forward now to 1921, only a year ago. There had been various awkward little incidents in the meantime, to which I will not refer, but which made it necessary or expedient that there should he intervention on the part of the highest possible authority. I am now
  94
  quoting the language used by the Prime Minister on the 16th March, 1921, very little more than a year ago. He was then promising the appointment of a Royal Commission—on which I will say a word in a moment—under the stress of what particular motive it is not necessary at this moment to inquire. He was promising a Royal Commission, and was speaking of the scope of the inquiry and the ground of the inquiry by this Commission. I will quote his words:
  "This inquiry will take the form of a Royal Commission, the members of which will be selected expressly so as to constitute an impartial tribunal without representation of sectional interests."
  He went on to say:
  "The pledges given to Canada at the Imperial Conference in 1917 were very definite pledges on behalf of the Cabinet."
  Is that denied? It cannot be denied. It was a statement by the head of the Government on behalf of the Cabinet. He added, quite properly:
  "I agree it is a matter for the House of Commons to decide."
  I want the House of Commons to realise what they are asked to do to-night. They are asked to repudiate, after five years, those pledges which have been understood by Canada, by the whole of the Dominions, and, indeed, by the whole world, as definite and binding pledges given on behalf of the Government of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Captain STANLEY WILSON: They ought to have been consulted first.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Does the hon. Gentleman really say that, when an Imperial Conference is held, no pledge must be given which is not first submitted to the House of Commons?
  Captain WILSON: Not of that character.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Then I should like to know what is the value of an Imperial Conference? If you cannot enter into a friendly, intimate discussion on the basis of equal membership of this great Imperial partnership, if the accredited representatives cannot enter into such a Conference with confidence upon all sides that pledges given by the authoritative representatives of the various Governments concerned have got to be honoured, there is an end of the whole system. The House of Commons, of course, can do it,

  95
  but it can only do it by casting discredit and implied censure upon the Government by which those pledges were given.
  That is one fact which to my mind is conclusive and decisive for the purposes of this discussion, but let me add one other. The Commission which the Prime Minister promised was appointed. No one, I think, disputes that it was well constituted. As he truly said, it did not represent sectional interests, but it was an impartial, dispassionate, competent authority. I am not going to read all the findings of that Commission, but I will read just two of them. After finding that they are satisfied that there is no evidence of disease in Canada such as to render the importation of Canadian stores a source of danger, they go on to say in the second, third and fourth of their findings:
  "We think such admission would tend to cheapen in some measure the meat supply of the country, but there are no data on which the extent can be accurately gauged. We think in the long run the tendency would be to bring prices to a level somewhat, but not greatly, lower than that which would prevail if the embargo were maintained."
  That is one important finding. Here is the next:
  "We think that the importation of Canadian stores would tend to satisfy in some measure the increasing demand for fresh home-fed meat."
  That is another not unimportant consideration. Again:
  "We are of opinion that such admission is advisable as providing another source for supply of stores for the purpose of scientific agriculture with a consequent increase of the food supply."
  Those are the conclusions come to after an exhaustive inquiry, in which evidence of every kind was admissible, and, I believe, was admitted, by this able body of thoroughly competent men into what. I might call the merits of the case. Even apart from those findings of the Royal Commission you will he taking a very grave responsibility on yourselves as a House of Commons in going hack upon pledges given by the Imperial Government through its accredited agents to one of our great Dominions. It will become still more, impossible, if there are degrees of impossibility, to do so when your own Commission, I think properly appointed for the purpose, has made findings which show that those pledges were
  96
  not given lightly or unadvisedly, but were based upon reason and upon experience. The question seems to me to assume a totally different, aspect from what it did 20, 10, or even seven years ago, and I earnestly trust that the House of Commons to-night will show to our Canadian fellow-countrymen, who have relied upon these pledges, that we are not. going to break faith with them, and if any reason—no reason is required really for giving substance and effect to a solid promise—if any reason of policy were required to reinforce that determination it would be found in the Report of this Commission, that the carrying out of your obligations will not be in any way injurious to British agriculture or to the British consumer.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): This is essentially an agricultural question, and, as Minister of Agriculture, I desire to say a few words. I am not speaking for the Government as a whole. I am speaking my own views, and I am speaking for the views of the Department over which I preside. I claim to speak also for the great bulk of agriculturists. I am very glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words from a personal point of view. To read some of the newspapers it might be imagined that I was the cause of the whole of this trouble. It is said that my obstinacy has got us into this mess.
  Mr. IRVING: It keeps us there, anyhow.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: At the Dudley election it was actually stated and believed that I had put on the embargo. At that time I had been a Minister exactly five days, and if I had, that would have been a piece of administrative efficiency that. I think, clearly my colleagues might well envy. As a matter of fact, if anyone ever inherited a difficult question, I did in this embargo. The line I have taken has been precisely that of all my predecessors, including Lord Ernie himself, and I was in no way either the author of the policy nor was I in any way responsible for any of the conversations or the pledges, if there be pledges, given at the Conference in 1917. In my capacity as Minister of Agriculture, I intended, and I still intend, to deal with the matter from the agricultural standpoint. In view of the speech

  97
  of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I will at once say something about the pledge, as it is called, which is the principal argument put forward to-day, although at the Dudley election we never heard of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes, you did!"] Well, we hardly ever heard of it. The great argument at the Dudley election was that I was in favour of dear meat. There was nothing said about a pledge that I remember. I will deal with it at once, because, it is the argument which is being used now by those who wish to remove the embargo, though it is a better argument than the old exploded cry of dear and cheap meat. The right hon. Gentleman says there is a new factor. There is a pledge. We are bound in honour. The pledge has never been denied. It. has been understood by the whole world. I ask him what is the pledge which has never been denied? Was it a pledge to admit Canadian stores, or was it a pledge to remove the stigma? If he says it was a pledge to remove the stigma, I agree it was an absolute pledge, so far as Lord Ernie was concerned, to remove the stigma. I put it to my right. hon. Friend, Was there any definite pledge to admit Canadian stores? I will call his attention to Lord Ernle's speech in the House of Lords last week. After all. Lord Ernie is the man who gave the pledge, and he ought to know what the said, and, whatever hon. Members may think about Lord Ernle's policy, at all events everyone will agree that he is a man of the most unimpeachable honour, In the House of Lords last week he denied, in fact, that he ever gave any pledge to admit Canadian stores. This is what he said:
  "I do not agree with the Noble Marquis in his version of the pledge. There was a pledge undoubtedly given at the Imperial Conference of 1917. The obvious and simple interpretation of that pledge is that which the Noble Marquis has placed upon it, but I do not think that is the accurate interpretation. It was not my meaning."
  Later on in the same speech he said:
  "For that reason I have always thought and I believe my successors in office have always thought, that there was no definite pledge to reverse our domestic policy of exclusion."
  How on earth, in view of that statement, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that there is a definite pledge to admit Canadian stores?
  Mr. ASQUITH: I read the language which was used at the Conference.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I again refer the right hon. Gentleman to Lord Ernle's speech in the House of Lords, in which he said, "If you pick Out extracts from the Conference if you pick out individual sentences away from their context—"
  Mr. ASQUITH: I read the whole thing.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The whole of the White Paper?
  Mr. ASQUITH: The whole of the material parts.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Lord Ernie pointed out that if extracts are torn away from their context it is quite easy to create the impression that there was a definite pledge, but let him take the White Paper as a whole and let him take other matters and other correspondence that took place at the same time. The last thing I wish is to be guilty of breaking any pledge to a loyal Dominion like Canada. Lord Ernle twice said that he had not consulted the Irish Department, and he said that in order to make it quite clear that he was not in any position to give a definite pledge. How could one individual Minister, who was not, even a member of the Cabinet, who had not consulted the Cabinet, without even consulting his colleagues of the Irish Department when the Irish Department was vitally interested in the question—how on earth could he give any definite pledge which was to bind not only him but all his successors and the House of Commons and another place and the country five years afterwards? It is absurd. Again, Lord Ernie actually stated that ho thought he could do whatever he proposed to do by administrative action. At the time he apparently was not, aware that legislation was necessary. He had no conception that he was binding the House of Commons, and all that is apparent in the White Paper. But there is a great deal that is material to this question which is not contained in the White Paper at all. What was the first intimation made to this House, made to the country, and made to Canada, as to what took place at the Imperial Conference? It was not the White Paper. It was a question deliberately put in this House in order that Lord Ernie might explain the position. I have the question here. In

  99
  the White Paper you will find that Lord Long suggested informing the world what happened by a question in the House of Commons, and Lord Ernie agreed to have a question put, as Government Departments sometimes do arrange that convenient questions should be put. On this occasion he got no less a person than my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary for Ireland to put a question. A perfectly proper selection. My right hon. Friend is a good Canadian, and, naturally, interested in the question. This is the question that was put by my right hon. Friend to Lord Ernie, four weeks after the holding of the Conference:
  "Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether representations were made to him by the Canadian Ministers during their recent visit to this country on the subject of the prohibition of the landing of Canadian cattle except for slaughter at the port of debarkation; and whether be can make any statement on the subject?"
  Lord Ernie (then Mr. Prothero) gave a long answer, which was the first intimation to the country of what had happened. I will not read the whole of the answer but in the latter part of the answer he said:
  "I cannot say whether, or under what conditions, Canadian cattle, as defined above, might hereafter be permitted to enter this country except for slaughter at the ports. At present, when farmers at home are being asked to reduce their livestock, permission is plainly impossible. But the prohibition rests rather on the agricultural policy of the United Kingdom than on the risk of diseases from which, for many years, Canada herself has been most remarkably, if not entirely free."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1917: cols. 2635–2636, Vol. 93.]
  What did that answer mean? It meant that store cattle from Canada could not be admitted—that was the result of the Conference—at the time, and whether they could be admitted in the future would depend not on any pledge but on the agricultural policy of the country. I am prepared to take it on the agricultural policy, and I will tell my right lion Friend, as he has mentioned the name of Lord Long, that this was not the answer of Lord Ernie only, but the answer was submitted to Lord Long and approved by him before it was given in this House.
  There is a further point that I should like to mention. When this question had
  100
  been asked and answered, the Canadian High Commissioner, Sir George Perley, made inquiries about it He was dissatisfied, and he made representations to Mr. Long, who was then Colonial Secretary. Mr. Long sent these representations to Lord Ernie, and Lord Ernie wrote a letter, in which he said this it was on the 4th June, 1917, less than six weeks after the Colonial Conference:
  "As you are aware, the prohibition against the landing of Canadian cattle except for slaughter at the ports is under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896. I should be prepared, as soon as feasible, to recommend that Canada should he exempt from that prohibition under the Diseases of Animals Act, but the legislation by which this removal of the stigma upon Canadian tattle was effected would have to be accompanied by a Clause stating that nothing in the excepting Act permitted Canadian cattle to be landed as stores."
  That letter was shown by Lord Long to Sir George Perley. Therefore, it is clear that as early as June, 1917—the first intimation, the only intimation that had ever been made—the Canadian Government, the Canadian people, the British Government, the British people, and the House of Commons all knew that the pledge, so far as there was a pledge, was a pledge to remove the stigma; and there was no definite pledge whatever to admit Canadian cattle as stores. I would go a little further. I would suggest to the House that, even if there had been a definite pledge to admit these cattle as stores, such a pledge given by an individual Minister, who was not a member of the Cabinet, and who had not consulted the Cabinet, could not in any way be binding on the House of Commons.
  Let me give llustration of what I mean. I have quite lately, in the exercise of the discretionary powers that, I possess, permitted a certain number of Friesian cattle, breeding animals, to be brought into this country from South Africa. I did that for al express purpose, because the Friesian herd was based on rather a narrow strain, and there was a danger of in-breeding. I gave permission, and these animals came here. They were very fine animals. They fetched a very large price, and I congratulate South Africa upon the venture. Supposing the South African Government, in view of the success of this particular venture, were to come to me, as they would be perfectly justified in doing, and were to ask me whether I would give an undertaking that

  101
  in future I would allow breeding animals to come from South Africa to Great Britain, without let or hindrance, without quarantine, in fact, free from all Regulations, and supposing I gave such an undertaking without first of all consulting the Cabinet, without consulting the Secretary for Scotland, who would be vitally interested, and without consulting anybody in the Irish Department. Does anybody tell me that with possibly a new Government, a new House of Commons and a new Minister of Agriculture, this House or this country would be bound by my pledge five years hence? Such a suggestion is really ridiculous when you come to analyse it.
  Although I am most anxious to remove any ground of irritation, any cause of grievance which the Canadian Government may have, and while. I admit that there has been a grievous misunderstanding, and that this matter has been very badly bungled, I say that there has been no definite pledge to admit Canadian stores, but only a pledge to remove the stigma. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley did not read where Mr. Rogers and Sir Robert. Borden, the Canadian representatives distinctly laid it down that they had no desire to interfere in the domestic agricultural policy of this country.
  In view of these facts, I hold that this House is absolutely free to deal with this question from the agricultural standpoint, and no other. Let me say a few words about the agricultural standpoint. What is the meaning of this so-called embargo? Why was it imposed? What is the origin of it? I may say, in passing, that the word embargo is a very inaccurate one. There is no embargo on Canadian cattle. Any number of Canadian cattle may come here for slaughter at the port. Any number of Canadian cattle may come here as chilled beef. When we talk about Canadian cattle coming to he slaughtered at, the ports, I would point out that a great many more Canadian cattle came here after the so-called embargo was put on than before. In the year 1899, no fewer than 194,000 Canadian cattle came here for slaughter at the ports. It is not a, trade that I admire. It is inevitable, with all the precautions that you may take, that it should be accompanied by a lot of suffering, and I look forward
  102
  to the time when the traffic in live animals across the Atlantic can be brought to a close.
  There is no real stigma on Canada. How can there be The Act of 1896 does not apply only to Canada; it applies to every country. From no country, for very good reasons, is it permissible to send live cattle as stores, that is, to be distributed all through the country into Great Britain. There is really no particular slur on Canadian cattle. Why was the embargo imposed, such as it is—an embargo on store cattle? I will tell the House. We have to go hack a little into agricultural history. We used to be a great corn-growing country. We grew a great deal of wheat, oats and barley, and then, in the interests of our industrial population and our manufacturers, we repealed the Corn Laws, in 1846. I am not going into the question of whether that was right or wrong; but the effect was this, that as soon as ever conditions allowed the full effects of that policy to be felt, it became, obviously, an uneconomic proposition to grow corn, and especially to grow wheat, except in very favoured parts of the country. Our farmers who had made their livelihood out of corn, grown in most parts of the country, had to seek salvation elsewhere, and they found it in livestock. They were signally successful. They built up the finest flocks of herds in the world. We have become a great stud farm. Practically every nation that wishes to increase its head of cattle, comes here for its foundation stock and also to replenish its stock. Speaking generally, we have created an industry of great profit and great credit to our country. The value of the livestock in Great Britain alone was estimated two years ago at just under £300,000,000, and our export trade was £1,250,000. Now, are we prepared to take risks and to sacrifice all that we have accomplished in the past?
  Why was the embargo imposed? For many years, during which we were endeavouring to build up our live stock, we were terribly handicapped by diseases. In 1865 there was a terrific outbreak of cattle plague, which caused tremendous losses. From that year up to the nineties we were constantly troubled with pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. The country, realising that we had driven farmers out of corn growing

  103
  into cattle rearing, and realising the importance of that industry, took energetic measures to protect it. The country gave, first of all to the Privy Council, and later to the Board of Agriculture, very great powers of stamping out disease by slaughter. What is the good of stamping out disease by slaughtering here if we run the risk of importing it from outside? We found that our efforts in that direction were constantly being foiled by importations. Therefore, the country, first of all by administrative order by the Liberal President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Herbert Gardiner), and then, later, by legislation, laid down that no animals should come here, except for immediate slaughter at the ports. That policy has been signally successful. It has given our breeders a confidence against the risk of disease that they never knew before. Ever since that embargo was imposed there has been a steady growth in the number of our cattle, up to, at all events, two years ago, when, owing to the restrictions and control at the end of the War, there was, for a time, an excessive slaughter of calves. That has righted itself. We have once more replenished our numbers. We have 200,000 more cattle under one year old this year than we had last. year, and you have only got to maintain confidence among the producers for them to produce all the stores that you want in this country.
  There is another very strong reason why we should not reverse that policy. It is not only a question of immunity from disease, but it is a question of the purity of the blood of our flocks and herds. We have been doing a great deal, especially in recent years, to try to grade up and to improve the commercial cattle of this country, and the extraordinary thing is this, that not only are the great bulk of the farmers of the country entirely opposed to removing the embargo, but, so far as I know, every single agricultural expert and scientific farmer is of the same view—the men on whom we rely for agricultural research, the men on whom we rely for agricultural education. I may refer, for instance, to Sir Daniel Hall, or Sir Stewart Stockman, or Professor Wallace of Edinburgh, or Lord Ernie himself, who possess the greatest knowledge of agriculture. Every one of them is opposed to this policy. The fact
  104
  is that to remove the embargo would be a thoroughly unscientific and retrograde act.
  What is to follow? Are we to admit breeding animals? If we do, what happens to our scheme for live stock improvement? If we are going to allow any number of scrub bulls and heifers to come here, and breeding takes place, then good-bye to all that we have been trying to do during the last 20 years. What becomes of our milk-recording schemes We have been trying to improve, and have succeeded in improving, the yield of our dairy herds. What will happen if we allow any number of animals such as Canada would send—she might send us good animals or bad or indifferent animals—to come here, especially in view of the fact that the Canadian animals are good beef animals, but as milking animals they are very inferior? It would undo all the work which has been done by our milk-recording schemes.
  Then is there to be no tuberculin test? Will anybody tell me that the Canadian animals are free from tuberculosis? I saw a most deceptive leaflet circulated this morning. It compared young Canadian animals of one or two years of age with the great number of old animals of five or six, or with old cows slaughtered at Glasgow. As everybody knows, the older an animal is the more likely it is to have tuberculosis. You have only got to read the reports of the veterinary department of the Canadian Government to realise that they know perfectly well that they have got tuberculosis. They are making the most laudable and successful efforts to stamp it out, but what on earth is the good of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health bringing in a Milk Bill, one object of which is to stamp out tuberculosis in cattle in this country, if you are going to allow animals to be brought in which may have tuberculosis?
  Is there to be no quarantine? I gather that the people who are so anxious to remove the embargo will not hear of quarantine. I am willing to say that the Canadian animals are to-day exceedingly healthy. They have been so for 30 years, and it reflects the greatest credit on the Canadian veterinary service, but Canada has got a 3,000 mile land frontier with the United States, and

  105
  for us to allow animals to come from the American Continent without quarantine is simply to invite a reproduction of what occurred in the latter part of the last century, when cattle diseases of all kinds were constantly being imported into this country. I state freely that Canada has been very free from diseases, but I say also that she has been very fortunate, because she has not had foot-and-mouth and other diseases for over 30 years. When you have got a 3,000-mile land frontier, it does not say that you are not going to have disease. Scotland until lately had not had foot-and-mouth disease for many years. It came across the English border the other day, and Scotland had it very badly. The United States had foot-and-mouth disease very badly four years ago. It came very near to the Canadian border. How do we know that it will not cross it next time, notwithstanding any precautions which the Canadian Government may take? And yet without any kind of restriction, qualification, or regulation our friends here invite us to play ducks and drakes with the splendid cattle industry which we have built up, and to take risks that no nation would ever think of taking.
  There is not a country in the whole world which attaches importance to its cattle industry which does not impose severe regulations. In the. Argentine they impose 40 days' quarantine and a tuberculin test. In Australia they impose 40 days' quarantine and a tuberculin test, or 28 days, with a tuberculin test in England, and 14 days on arrival. In Brazil they have two months' quarantine and vaccination against redwater. In South Africa they impose a 28 days quarantine and a tuberculin test at the cattle testing station in this country. The United States of America have a 30 days' quarantine and a tuberculin test on cattle of six months of age and older, and, lastly, take Canada. Canada, when she imports our best pedigree animals, probably the cleanest cattle in the whole world, imposes 30 days' quarantine and a tuberculin test for cattle six months old and over. On agricultural grounds the case against removing the embargo is the strongest ease imaginable.
  What are the arguments on the strength of which we are asked to reverse this well-tried policy? Up to a little while ago
  106
  we were told that it was all a question of cheap meat. That was not found to be sufficient. So now exactly the same people talk about the pledge. The dear and cheap meat policy is, to my mind, the greatest fallacy that was ever put forward. How on earth could the addition of 200,000 Canadian stores—if there were such an addition—which are just about 2½ per cent. of the meat supply of the country, affect seriously the price of meat? It is impossible, and yet it is advocated chiefly by the butchers. I have never known the butchers so anxious to give the public cheap meat as they have been in connection with Canadian cattle. I had a little deputation of butchers at my office some time ago. They talked very big on the question. I said, "Gentlemen, what do you really want?" They said, "We want to give the public cheap meat." And I simply said, "Then why do you not do it?" I pointed out that the price of stores was only 28 per cent. above what it was in 1914, but that British beef was 75 per cent. higher, and the only result was that the deputation broke up in confusion, and they left my room with mutual recriminations.
  I cannot believe in either these generous graziers or benevolent butchers who are so anxious to assist the public to get cheap meat, and I must confess that I am not a little surprised that the Labour party, who profess to represent the consumer, should be caught so entirely in the tentacles of these capitalist gentlemen. They are simply preparing the way for the meat trust. The great obstacle to the meat trust collaring our meat supply in this country is the small British breeder. You cannot rope into the combine these small men, these small farmers, these smallholders, these ex-service men whom we put on the land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not many!"] We have put on a good many, though it may suit hon. Members opposite to pretend that we have not. Most of these small breeders are smallholders on upland farms, it may be in the Highlands or in Wales or the West of England or the North of England or the Midlands, and they are principally engaged in breeding on land that will not fat-ten animals. In order to benefit the philanthropic graziers and butchers, we are to sacrifice these people. They are a class of farmer that this country, and especially the Labour party, ought to

  107
  support in every way possible. I do not believe for a moment in this cheap meat cry. If anybody had any doubts about it, I think the Royal Commission entirely destroyed the argument. The Commission pointed out that it would be impossible that anything like 6d. a pound decrease in price would result from the admission of a small number of Canadian stores, inasmuch as those imports would not be in addition to the animals in this country. If you do this, you will destroy confidence among the breeders in this country, and for every Canadian animal that comes here there will be at least One calf less reared in this country.
  Apart from that, Canadian animals come, as I have said, fat for slaughter at the ports. The stores that come will come simply in substitution for those fat animals. There will, therefore, be no addition whatever to the amount of fresh meat in this country. On the contrary, all you will do will be this: you will destroy your home production and you will make us dependent on overseas stores for the supply of our store cattle. The same identical individuals who were talking so loudly of cheap meat six months ago are talking about nothing but the pledge now. I had two deputations of the same individuals. The first time, the talk was all of cheap meat. The second time it was all of the pledge. We must look at this matter from the agricultural point of view. It is not denied that the removal of the embargo will be a blow, and I think a serious blow, at the agricultural industry. So far as it is a Canadian question, I would say that there is nothing I would rather do, if I could, than assist a great and loyal Dominion like Canada. I would like to promote Empire trade. I was a supporter of the Imperial Preference policy of the late Mr. Chamberlain, and a whole-hog supporter, at a time when many of those who are now advocating the removal of the embargo on Imperial grounds were his bitterest opponents. But there is a difficulty, amounting almost to an impossibility. I do not see how we can accede to the Canadian request, a perfectly proper request for the Canadian Government to make—I have no complaint to make of their action—without doing serious damage to our own agricultural industry. However important the promotion of Imperial trade within the
  108
  Empire may be, so far as I am concerned, the interests of our own people at home must come first.
  On 30th June last the Secretary of State for the Colonies made a speech at the Canadian Dominion Day dinner. It. was a speech in which lie fully recognised the difficulties of the farmers and the importance of the agricultural industry in this country. My right hon. Friend spoke of the burdens on agriculture and of the struggles which those engaged in ear prime industry are compelled to make, and he went on:
  "I remain fixed in my opinion that means can he found to help sustain agriculture without placing an unwarranted and unworthy stigma on the herds or Canadian cattle,"
  Perhaps my right hon. Friend, in all friendliness, will allow me to ask him publicly and a little more closely what are the means. What are the means that can be found to help and sustain British agriculture? Is he prepared to support me in the Cabinet and elsewhere in asking for those means? I could tell him of several. We want a good deal of relief from the rates. We think that farmers are assessed for rates very unfairly. We want assistance in a scheme of agricultural credits. I hope my right hon. Friend will help me there. There are other means. Are these reliefs to agriculture to he concurrent with the removal of the embargo, or is the embargo to be removed first and these glorious things to happen afterwards? I can assure my right hon. Friend that the British farmer much prefers a bird in the hand to promises in the bush. This is an agricultural question and from the agricultural standpoint it should be judged. The agricultural standpoint is the national standpoint. Agriculture has been sacrificed over and over again to the supposed needs of the great towns and industrial population. There are limits beyond which it is not wise for any nation to go in sacrificing its agriculture. History tells us that no nation has ever succeeded in the long run if it has allowed its agriculture to decay, its fields to become derelict, its villages to be empty, and its whole population to be massed in the great towns. As there are no qualifications in this Resolution. nothing in any way assisting us, and as it is a bald Resolution that a thing is to be done which I say is to damage agriculture, I

  109
  can take no course, in my responsible position, except to vote against this Resolution, and to urge all my friends to do the same.
  Mr. JAMES WILSON: We have been told by the Minister of Agriculture that he has behind him, in his opinion, not only the big pedigree cattle breeders of the country, but all classes of the agricultural community. Let us see for a moment how far he can substantiate that statement, in the light of known facts. I at once join issue with him when be, claims to represent entirely the pedigree stockbreeders of this country in urging the House to vote against the removal of the embargo. There is no one who knows better than the Members of this House how difficult it is, if not entirely impossible, to find any community of people who are unanimous upon anything. On a question like this, the House should have some regard for the opinions of men who have given a lifetime of study and effort to their work, and have rendered great service in promoting the breeding of shorthorn cattle, until the breed in this country is second to none in the whole world. I will mention only one name, because it is a name with which I have been familiar ever since a boy. I refer to Mr. Duthic. He is a man with sufficient experience to justify our giving serious consideration to his opinion on such a question as this. He has rendered service, second to none, in promoting the breeding of shorthorn cattle, and he has a herd of shorthorns, reared under his personal supervision, second to none in the world. This gentleman has consistently advocated the removal of this embargo.
  I could quote from many other gentlemen of great experience who take precisely the same view. Why do pedigree stock breeders take that view? They take it for the very reason which is urged by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—because they know that we have become the stud farm of the world and that in the breeding of the finer kinds of pedigree cattle, we are not only supplying our own farmers at home but those of every country in the world, in which interest is taken in cattle breeding, with our surplus stocks of pure bred cattle. The breeders, therefore, say that anything that can be done to promote cattle breeding, especially in our Dominions is calculated to
  110
  increase the demand for our pure bred cattle, and to open up markets which are not available to us at the present moment. To encourage to a greater degree cattle breeding, in Canada for instance, its calculated to promote the interests of, and to make more assured the position of the pedigree stock-breeder. There is another reason why men such as I have mentioned, after a lifetime's experience, hold the view that this embargo ought to be removed. They hold that in the breeding of cattle in a country such as ours, owing to our insular position, there is a great danger present with us always to which my right hon. Friend referred, and which he terms in-breeding. Undoubtedly that great danger has manifested itself, and does manifest itself in this country at the moment, in the shape of tuberculosis among our cattle to a most alarming extent.
  It was my duty for some years to assist at the slaughter of home-bred cattle in a district which possessed herds second to none in the whole world. We slaughtered the best cattle which money could buy, regularly and in large numbers, for Smithfield market. Among the best of those cattle, for which in those days we were paying 20 guineas each to the farmer as the first purchase price, the visible and distinct traces of tuberculosis in apparently healthy and fine animals had reached alarming proportions. I do not ask the House to accept merely ray reasons for that condition of things. I do not believe it is due to anything inherently wrong in our herds, but in the opinion of men of very great experience, there is a two-fold reason. There is first the circumstance which I have just mentioned, namely, that we are suffering in these islands at the moment from in-breeding, and thy, second reason is that by a process of artificial feeding and the forcing of these animals to maturity long before their time, the vital organs of the animals are weakened and they are made easily susceptible to the tuberculosis germ. Those are the reasons advanced by men who have devoted a lifetime of study and labour to the question. If that be so, what can he better for this country than that we should have an infusion of blood from the cattle which have had natural conditions and have had to forage for their food in the health-giving and vast plains

  111
  of Canada and our other Dominions To suggest that such a condition of things is going to be prejudicial to the pedigree stockbreeder as such, is suggesting something which no facts have been advanced to prove.
  Let me turn to another section of my right hon. Friend's followers, the farmers as such, quite distinct and apart from the pedigree stockbreeders. My right hon. Friend tells the House that he speaks for the farmers in this matter. My own view, from my personal experience, reinforced by hon. Friends of mine who represent Scottish constituencies, is that in that statement my right hon. Friend is not expressing the sentiments of the Scottish farmer, and I question very much—if one can place any reliance on what one sees in the newspapers—whether he is expressing the properly ascertained view of the English farmers. I observe there have been many meetings of farmers in different parts of the country at which this question has been considered and decisions taken thereon. I read the other week a report of a meeting at which over 1,000 farmers attended, and over which an hon. Member of this House was reported to preside. According to the report, a resolution for the removal of the embargo was carried by a very large majority. If these be the facts, it is difficult for laymen like those of us who sit on this side of the House to understand the apparently rash statement of my right hon. Friend.
  7.0 P.M.
  I come now to analyse the different views held by different sections of the team of which my right hon. Friend at the moment claims to be the accepted champion. What do the farmers say about this embargo? They tell us that it would be useless and futile to remove this embargo. They say the most we can expect from Canada in one year is 50,000 head of store cattle, which would not to any appreciable extent supplement the stores in this country, but on the other hand, through the risk of imported disease, would make less secure the position of the home breeder and tend to reduce the number of home-bred animals. That is one of the reasons urged, by the team which my right hon. Friend is leading, for the continuation of this embargo. I listened with interest to hear what my right hon. Friend had to say to reinforce that con-
  112
  tention. There is another section of my right hon. Friend's following, which urges a totally different reason for the maintenance of the embargo. They say that to open the ports of this country to the admission of Canadian traffic would be to flood the country with stores above the number requisite and would result in the discouragement of home breeding. I suggest to my right hon. Friend's supporters that they cannot have their apple and eat it. If there is anything in which they are consistent, they are consistent in their contradiction of each other, and the House will find difficulty, from the speech of my right hon. Friend, in discovering which of the two sections of his team he is supporting in this matter. Not that it matters a great. deal, in my judgment, which of the two contending sections he supports. In the end they will leave us where we were, because they are both wrong as I shall endeavour to explain. We are told we can only expect 50,000 head of cattle from Canada. We are told that, in addition to the actual cost of the breeding of cattle in Canada, the freightage, which is estimated at £14 or £15 per head, will be such a burden that the Canadian stores cannot he sold in this country at a figure less than the home-bred stores. If that be so what are the farmers and the crofters complaining about? On the other hand, we are told that the importation of these stores to be fed here to supplement our home-bred stocks will do nothing to reduce the cost of fresh killed meat in this country. Let me point, out to my right hon. Friend—even assuming that he was correct in his first contention, which I do not for a moment admit—that there are two distinct ways by which you can reduce prices of foodstuffs more beneficially than those of almost any ether commodity. You can reduce prices by selling an article of the present quality at a lower price than that charged to-day. There s is another more beneficial way, and that is by selling a better article at the price which you are charging for the inferior article to-day. If, as appears to be the case, my right hon. Friend has a preference for frozen as against home-cured meat, I would invite him and all those who think with him to eat, their frozen meat themselves, because there is a great volume of opinion in this country which is incessantly and rightly demanding

  113
  that we shall be able to place on the market a much larger supply of home-killed meat than we can do at the present moment.
  When we are told, as we have been told, that the importation of Canadian cattle w11 tend to discourage breeding in this country, and consequently to diminish our own home supplies, one would have thought that such a result would have made itself self-evident during the years when Canadian stores were coming to this country. The facts are all to the contrary. During the years from 1886 to 1892, when Canadian stores were coming to this country in comparatively largo quantities, the herds in the United Kingdom rose from 10,830,000 to 11,475,000—an actual increase, in a comparatively short space of time, of about 750,000 head of cattle in this country. Be it observed that that increase does not represent Canadian cattle at all, because the census upon which these figures are based is taken on 4th July of each year, or just before the Canadian stores began to arrive in this country. When the time arrived in the following year for the census to be taken, such stores as had arrived had all been fattened off and killed, so that Canadian cattle never appear in the census of the United Kingdom. Concurrently with the importation of Canadian cattle, our own home: supplies in the short period of six years increased by no less a total than 750,000 head of cattle. If we have regard to what one of my hon. Friends on the other side of the House told us, that the ravages of disease during the period when Canadian cattle were coming into this country were serious, we should naturally have expected, not a very large increase, but a diminution in the total of home-bred cattle in this country.
  The figures I have given—I do not think they can he challenged, because they are the figures, not of my right hon. Friend, but are issued by his Department—speak eloquently for themselves. They give as complete an answer as can be given to the suggestion that during the period when Canadian cattle were coming here we were suffering from disease amongst our animals without parallel in the history of the country. That has been disproved, so far as cattle are concerned. What happened in regard to our flocks, because sheep are also included in this embargo? During the same period of six
  114
  years our sheep flocks increased from 28,888,000 to 33,562,000. I find that in the subsequent period our flocks have fallen to such an extent that in 1920 instead of there being 33,500,000 sheep in this country they have been reduced to 23,332,000. All that goes to show that not only was the importation of stores from Canada not a disadvantage to the British farmer but it stimulated and promoted the rearing of cattle and sheep in this country beyond anything of which we have any example in any corresponding period.
  Then we come to the crofter. My right hon. Friend, in dealing with the crofter, reminded the very much of the chairman of a board of directors at, an annual meeting making an appeal for the small investor and the widows and orphans during a year when he is only able to recommend a dividend of about 15 per cent. What is the actual position of the crofter in relation to the importation of stores from abroad? Do the six years in question indicate to us that the crofter suffered during the period when we were importing stores? If he did not, I see no reason why in this matter history should not repeat itself. During the period when we were importing stores from Canada many men who had several years' experience in agriculture, but who had had limited capital, were able to increase their holdings and take larger farms owing to their having entered into arrangements with importers of Canadian cattle to sell their surplus root crops and fodder. They were thereby able to stock comparatively large farms without having to have recourse to the money-lender and to carry the burden of interest on borrowed capital. That gave an encouragement and inducement to the small farmer to become a larger farmer; to the crofter to become a small farmer; and to the labourer, in turn, to become a crofter. Those are circumstances which have come under my own personal observation during the period in which I was engaged in agriculture, and during the six years we have now under review. Therefore, so far from this importation being an impediment or an injury to the crofter, the crofter has everything to gain and nothing to lose by the removal of this unjustifiable and iniquitous embargo. After all, it is not the crofter who derives any benefit

  115
  from the sale of his stores, even if he is able to sell them at a comparatively high figure.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Why not?
  Mr. WILSON: My right hon. Friend asks why riot. I will tell him. It is because, during a period of comparatively high prices for stores, on every occasion when a croft comes to be let the insane and mad competition amongst the respective holders increases the price to an extent sufficient always to keep the crofter's nose to the grindstone. Therefore any question of increased prices in our home stores does nothing to assist the crofter or the public, although it does at all times offer a contribution to the pockets of the landowners.
  Then, we are told that the people who are advocating the removal of this embargo have been guilty of a most despicable subterfuge in urging in the country that its removal would create additional employment here. I have made that statement on many occasions, and I am not going to apologise for doing so now, because I believe and know it to be true. Only the other week I noticed a statement in a London paper. It was not in the "Morning Post," it was not in the "Daily Express." It was in an organ which generally defends the Government, whether they be right or wrong, and I suppose that that organ would be supplied with figures from my right. hon. Friend's Department. What does it say? It says that in the autumn of this year we are likely to have a huge wheat shortage and that, in all probability, we will have to issue orders which will make the baking of white bread illegal, due to that contemplated shortage, and it goes on to point out that there were 500,000 fewer acres under cereals in this country this year than there were at this period last year. Apparently, 500,000 acres of land have been laid down to grass because there were no stocks to consume its product, despite the fact that during a similar period we have been battling with an unemployed army of nearly 2,000,000 people. Those 500,000 acres do not represent the whole case, for, in addition to the 500,000 acres less land under wheat, there are about 250,000 acres which would have been under root crops if the land had been farmed in the ordinary way. These
  116
  root crops have not been grown because there have not been the cantle in this country to consume them. The fodder which would have been produced by the growing of wheat has not been produced because there were no animals in this country to require it, and, consequently, you have had vast tracts of this country laid down to grass, employing no labour concurrently with a period of unemployment without parallel in the whole history of this country. My submission is that, if you increase your herds of cattle, you increase the demand for root crops and for wheat crops, and, in consequence, you find avenues of employment for our-people that are closed to-day. I make no apology, therefore, for having, submitted in the past, and for submitting to the House now, that the removal of this embargo will make a substantial contribution towards dealing with the unemployment problem.
  There is one other point to which I desire to draw some attention. In the multitude of literature that has been sent to me, as well, I suppose, as to every other hon. Member in the House, I have seen a statement that the Premier of one of our Colonies took the view that to remove this embargo would involve us in applying a similar decision to every one of our overseas Dominions. I hope that that is a misrepresentation of that gentleman's point of view. I hesitate to believe that any gentleman who has risen to the eminence of being chief statesman of any of our Dominions would proceed to build up his case on that assumption. It is reminiscent of my schoolboy days, when we used to argue about our marbles, and we used to proceed along those lines. I want to say, in parenthesis that there are many other people who have been supporting the removal of this embargo, and distributing literature to Members of this House with which I profoundly disagree and I wish to make it abundantly clear to them, at least on behalf of my own party, if not on behalf of the House, that this House alone is the responsible authority to determine upon the domestic policy of this country, and that while we should always be prepared to consider any representations from any of our Dominions with a view to improving and increasing the trade between the Colonies and the Mother Country, each case must be considered separately and upon its merits, and we could not allow ourselves to be

  117
  pledged in advance in applying a decision in the case of one Colony to another Colony with possibly totally different circumstances.
  If one on this side of the House would be pardoned for complimenting the Government upon anything, need I say that I very warmly approve of their decision to leave this to a free vote of the House of Commons? In the exercise of that freedom, which many of my hon. Friends opposite far too seldom have an opportunity of using, I would ask them o consider the ease that has been advanced for the continuation of this embargo and to see if there are any grounds, any sound foundations, upon which it has been placed. I think a calm and dispassionate consideration of the circumstances reveals that the grim end appalling spectre of disease that, in the imagination of those who desire to see this embargo continued, has been stalking through our land for years now lies broken and discredited by those who pinned their faith to it as a justification for the continuation of this embargo, and that the removal of this embargo will have the effect of increasing the supplies of home-killed meat, as all the evidence goes to prove conclusively. Therefore, if that he so, the law of supply and demand is bound in the very nature of things, ultimately to reduce the price of home-killed meat in this country. The removal of this embargo is, I have endeavoured to show, by a comparison between the periods when the embargo was in existence and when it was not in existence, not prejudicial to the farmer, to the breeder, or to the crofter, but is to the mutual advantage of all, and, in addition, there is another element that appears not to have been taken into consideration, certainly by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. It will not be to the prejudice, but to the advantage of the consuming public, who, after all have a view point on questions such as this.
  Lastly, that this pledge given to Canada could be disputed, especially by my right hon. Friend, passes entirely my comprehension. It was quite evident to everyone present during his speech that he himself felt that he was treading on very-thin ice, but to the average lay mind that pledge, given, reinforced, and accepted by the present Prime Minister of this country, was a pledge which
  118
  everyone in this country understood to be a pledge for the removal of that embargo. I have no doubt that that was the intention. Therefore, in conclusion, let me remind the House that one of the secrets of our success in Colonial administration has been that the citizens of our overseas possessions have always been able to regard the word of a British statesman as being as good as that statesman's bond. That that pledge was given, I think there is not the slightest shadow of a doubt, and we ask the House, therefore, by the removal of this embargo to implement that pledge and, consequently, to keep our good name with our Colonial friends.
  Captain DIXON: I have been asked to speak against the removal of this embargo by the 'Ulster Government, and by the Southern farmers of Ireland, who represent the breeders of 47 per cent. of the whole of the stores of Great Britain. I would like to say a word, first, on behalf of the Southern Irish farmers. As an industry, that of the Southern Irish farmers did as well as any other industry in Great Britain during the War. I have not a doubt that if any members of the War Cabinet were present, they would say that, the Southern Irish farmers, in carrying out the Regulations, often irksome and often stupid, which were laid clown by the British Government, and in loyally doing everything that was required of them, did as much as any other industry in this country to win the War. In return for this, they have been the people who have suffered most from the policy of this Government, and now this House is considering the question of taking away their sole means of livelihood. I raise this point of the Southern Irish farmers particularly for this reason, that in the propagandist compaign which is being carried on on behalf of the Beef Trust, people like myself have been approached because politically we are opposed to the Southern Irish, and it has been put up to us that this is a chance of getting at them. I may say, on behalf of myself and of my Friends from Ulster, that this is not the sort of advantage which we are going to take.
  This question was raised first at Dudley, where there was a stunt election, run by a stunt Press, in which a most respected Member of this House was unseated. The tragedy of it was that it was

  119
  in no way an expression of the will of the people of Dudley. The case for the raising of the embargo was won by two very crucial mistakes. One was that the Irish machine vote voted against the interests of Ireland, and the other was that the Prime Minister had forgotten that you should never lower the carrot before the donkey until you have got to the end of the journey. The two points which were made of this election were, first, cheap meat; and, second, that a pledge had been given. It was publicly stated there that meat would come down 50 per cent. Privately it was stated at all corners and elsewhere to the workers that meat would come down lower than pre-War. That case has been knocked sky high by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission has found that there will only be a decrease in the price to a certain extent. It has also shown that only 16 per cent. of the meat sold in the London market is home-killed meat, and that the whole of the remainder is frozen meat. This being the case, the fact that the home-killed meat is entirely bought by the richer classes knocks out entirely the statement that the meat of the poorer classes will be decreased.
  Then we come to the second part of this pledge, and, in my opinion, this is far the more serious. We are told that a certain Minister made a pledge that this embargo would be taken off. My, reply to that is, that no Minister had a right to make such a pledge, and for the reason that the British Government had entered into a contract with the Irish farmers years before. Before the Wyndham Act was brought in, the Government went carefully into the question of the actual amount the Irish farmers could pay. They took the value of their stock and their crops at the status quo. Had they not done that, Mr. Redmond and others, who were behind the scenes would never have agreed to the prices given by the Irish farmers for their farms. Those prices ran for 60 years, and they have only paid off 18, 19, or 20 years, and some only two or three years. So that that contract, really, has about 40 years to run with the Irish farmer. Supposing this embargo be taken off, what will be the position? Simply that this House breaks an absolute contract with the Irish farmers. It is an extraordinary thing to see the right hon. Member for Paisley
  120
  (Mr. Asquith) getting up and bludgeoning the Irish farmers as he does, and to see the Labour Members, who have received far more from the Irish votes than anyone else, turning round and trying to bring ruin on Ireland. It is breaking word with the Irish farmers, and bringing economic ruin upon Ireland. They make it absolutely impossible for the Irish farmer to pay his rent, and they, bring to a crash the Wyndham Act, and everyone knows what that would mean at such a time as this.
  The Whips are off to-night, and Members have a chance of voting as they think fit. I would like to say that this Government, and the policy of this Government, have made a hell of my country, and before passing a Resolution which will undoubtedly bring about economic ruin in Ireland, which will undoubtedly strangle the whole economic life of Ireland, and will, therefore, make this hell, which is now in Ireland, a permanent hell, I ask those in this House who have done so much evil to my country, to do a little good to us by trying to preserve its one great industry.
  Lieut.-Colonel GRANT MORDEN: I should first like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on a most eloquent and—almost—convincing defence. If I ever wanted an advocate to prove when a pledge was not a pledge, I would at once apply to my right bon. Friend. I approach the subject of this Debate from a different standpoint from almost any other hon. Member. I am a Canadian, but, at the same time, I am a small farmer and breeder in Buckinghamshire. Therefore, I have a knowledge of the subject from both ends, and, as a breeder in a small way and a farmer, I am thoroughly convinced that the removal of the embargo will not interfere with my farming operations, or with my breeding, but, on the contrary, if we allow Canadian cattle to come here. Canada is likely to buy mere of my pedigree cattle. Moreover, I am quite convinced, moving among farmers in my own district, and meeting farmers in other districts, that if a vote were taken of the farmers of this country with regard to the removal of the embargo, it might surprise a great many hon. Members of this House to learn of the number, if not the majority, of

  121
  the farmers who would favour the removal of the embargo. The agricultural societies of the various counties are largely made up, or dominated I should say, by large breeders and large landowners, and I do know that in many cases these large landowners are living more or less in the past, such as my Noble Friend Lord Chaplin, for instance. No one has a greater regard for Lord Chaplin than I have, but on various occasions, when I have discussed the cattle embargo with him, he has invariably harked back to a time practically before I was born, when he stamped out rinderpest in this country. I very much doubt whether even the farming community in Canada know what. is rinderpest. Those who are strongest against the removal of the embargo are living in the past, and not in the present. From many a standpoint, if I were Prime Minister of Canada, I would be more inclined to put an embargo on the export of cattle, and keep the by-products in Canada and also provide employment in. the making of in cans. But I am quite convinced, as a Member of this House, that the British public are not going to eat tinned beef, when they can get good, healthy cattle fattened here. I was interested in a pamphlet which I received from the Live Stock Defence Committee. I was ashamed to read in it the rather humiliating appeal to Canadian stockbreeders and farmers. They drew a harassing picture of the British agriculturalist. It says:
  "He knows that such diseases are not likely to be brought in by your cattle; he realises how fortunate you have been in the matter of disease, but he fears that once the door is opened to let in the healthy cattle from the Dominion of Canada every other country in the world which can show an apparent freedom from disease will clamour to be admitted, and cannot well be excluded."
  There has never been a suggestion made that the embargo against foreign cattle should be removed. It is only the embargo against our own Dominions overseas which so many desire to see removed. This Live Stock Defence Committee, as I have said, freely admits that there is no disease. Another document I have received, as I believe every other Member of this House has received, says:
  "The raising of the Canadian embargo, unfortunately, means the revival of cruelty to animals on a large scale."
  I yield to no man in my love of animals, as a breeder, as a master of foxhounds,
  122
  as one who is nearly always with animals. But this document is really amusing. There is in it an alleged photograph of a small ship from, I should judge, a foreign port arriving in Malta. Why do not the people who publish these things publish also a, photograph of Canadian cattle being brought in here to-day? Are they not aware that Canadian cattle under present conditions cross the Atlantic to be slaughtered at our ports How much better would they be treated if not for immediate slaughter? Then they have a terrible photograph of these animals being drawn up by their horns. Where can they take such a photograph at any port in this country of animals being treated in that way? Such methods to influence the sympathy of animal lovers is, in my opinion, beneath contempt. I turn to another document I received on Saturday morning from the National Farmers' Union. This document refers to the speech of the Prime Minister, and quotes the statement of the Prime Minister in this House on the 23rd: February, 1917. The pledge they quote, I submit, had no reference whatever to the Canadian cattle embargo, but the manner in which they put it here implies that it had reference to the embargo. They go on with the most unfair attack on the meat traders of this country. They say that the Members of Parliament are intimidated. The propaganda on the one side, I submit, has been quite as, and much more, inaccurate than the propaganda carried on by these in favour of the removal of the embargo.
  Members for agricultural constituencies have been threatened—I know that, from my own personal knowledge—and told definitely that if they voted for the removal of this embargo, they need never expect to be returned again for their constituency. In the document I have in my hand there is recited the fact that the
  "United Farmers of Alberta appointed a committee to examine the question of marketing beef by the chilled meat system and the committee recommended that the producers of livestock form a co-operative export meat company to handle this business as soon as possible. A recent Reuter's telegram showed that the export of Alberta chilled beef has already been begun."
  Is that the way to help the feeders and breeders of this country? To show how inconsistent is the statement of the

  123
  National Farmers' Union, let me continue to quote. They say:
  "It would cost 6d. per pound in freight to land the living animal in this country."
  They endeavour to prove that it is not economically possible to ship Canadian live beef to this country. The next paragraph says:
  "If the embargo is to be removed it will be dealing an irreparable blow to stock breeding and beef production in this country."
  That is utterly inconsistent. Again, their reference to Canada's representatives at the Imperial War Conference of 1917, who they quote, "Raised the question of the 'embargo' and a pledge was given to them which can best be understood from the following statement made in the House of Commons on 18th July, 1918, by the President of the Board of Agriculture"—
  "The Canadians say they do not mind us keeping on the embargo, but they ask us not to put it on the ground of disease which is a slur upon their cattle. On the ground of disease it would be taken off, but there is no suggestion whatever unless we bring in legislation in this country that the embargo will he withdrawn."
  This statement is only part of a statement, and gives an entirely false impression. Then they state that "the pledge has been honoured." I submit that this is not only a misstatement, but a violation of the truth. They refer again to the Royal Commission—I am sorry it takes so long to go into this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—but here is a document sent to every Member of the House, and I think it ought to be analysed—they refer to the Royal Commission. They say that the
  "Cabinet considered the matter and decided to maintain our national policy. The duty of the House of Commons is to support the position of the Cabinet and to implement the assurance given by the Prime Minister in 1917 to the farmers…in the future the country will not be indifferent to the agricultural interests of the State."
  What does that mean? It implies that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet had decided against the removal of the embargo, which is an absolutely misleading and untrue statement. Let me quote from a telegram I received from the President of the Board of Agriculture in February of last year
  124
  at the time of the Dudley by-election. The right hon. Gentleman wired me:
  "Many thanks for your telegram. The answers to your questions are

  (1) I have freely stated that the Canadian cattle are now, and have for many years been free from disease.

  (2) I have never stated that I definitely pledged myself not to give consideration to the question of lifting the embargo. The question is one for the Cabinet and the Imperial Conference."

  This was last year, and hardly conveys the impression that the Cabinet have, or had, decided the question. This document issued by the National Farmers' Union would certainly convey that impression. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement made by Lord Ernie in regard to what took place at the Imperial Conference. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) has read extracts from the Minutes of the Imperial Conference, and the Minister of Agriculture seemed to suggest that this only referred to the stigma on Canadian cattle. But, surely, the right hon. Gentleman underestimates the intelligence of Canadian statesmen to suggest that they in coming here and arguing for days to get the embargo removed so as to allow Canadian cattle to come in here, they were acting simply to remove a stigma, and not for the practical purpose of giving Western stock-breeders an opportunity to ship their cattle back home, for most of these breeders are mer who came from this country. They wish to keep up their relations with it in this way Let me read what the Chairman, Lord Long, said about this matter. The question was as to the restrictions being removed. What restrictions? The restrictions on the importation of Canadian cattle It is not a question of a stigma, a slur. Let me quote:
  "Lord LONG: Now the position is that the restriction is to be removed. The Board of Agriculture will take such steps as are necessary for this purpose, but upon the understanding that, there being no tonnage, there cannot be any arrivals.
  Mr. ROGERS: I do not want any misunderstanding about it. If there is no tonnage, that follows.
  The CHAIRMAN: No, I do not want there to be a misunderstanding.
  Sir ROBERT BORDEN: cannot become effective because there is no tonnage.
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot do that. I am sure the Shipping Controller would stop it at once.
  Sir ROBERT BORDEN We perfectly understand that.

  125
  Mr. ROGERS: We do not want to be placed in a false position.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture 11,1s undertaken to do it.
  Mr. ROCERS: Do not you think we ought to have a Resolution about it?
  The CHALRMAN: You do not want any Resolution, do you? If you like you can simply move that the embargo on Canadian cattle be removed as speedily as possible.
  Mr. Rogers: I beg to move that.
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Prothero accepts that, and there is an end of it."
  Can there be anything more clear than that pledge? I had a personal conference on the matter with Lord Long and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Canadian High Commissioner, and Lord Long definitely told my right hon. Friend at that meeting that a pledge had been made and must be honoured. [An HON. MEMBER: "By whom?"] Lord Long, the Chairman of the Imperial Conference, and Lord Ernie, both representatives of the British Cabinet. If the representatives of the Cabinet meet in conference with the Prime Ministers and Ministers of the Overseas Dominions and the representatives of the Home Government have no power to bind the Government, then Imperial Conferences in the future will be a waste of time. An Englishman's word has hitherto been understood to be his bond. The whole Anglo-Saxon world are waiting to-night to see if this is still true. There was never a time when we appreciated or wanted closer connections within our own Empire. Europe is devasted. We want and must have Empire trade. We have in our own great Dominions the markets that will keep our mills and works at home going. We have the raw material for those mills, and we have the country where there can be placed our surplus population, under the Union Jack. If we are going to shut the door in this way to the home market, shut the door upon the British Dominions to our own people, who have gone out to our Dominions, who to-day only ask for the right to trade freely with their Motherland, then I am afraid of what may happen. Small questions sometimes determine great issues, though I do not consider this a small question. I consider it a very grave question. If the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister were here, I should like to put to them a few questions. I should like to ask, "Suppose this pledge is not
  126
  carried out in its entirety, is it possible to have another Imperial Conference? If summoned, would any of the Dominions attend such a Conference? Would it not be most humiliating if the greatest Dominion invited to attend such a Conference should demand a guarantee that any agreement entered into by time representatives of the Imperial Government should be carried out?" Such a suggestion would be most abhorrent to hon. Members of this House. I, like every Britisher born overseas, have been brought up to look on the word of an Englishman and the pledge of the British Government as good as gold. I am certain that to-day this House, by the way its acts in the Division Lobby, will show to the Empire and the whole world that this still holds good.
  Sir HARRY HOPE: In the few words I shall address to the House I shall endeavour to lay before it the agricultural standpoint. We have to consider whether the denunciation of this embargo will be best or otherwise for the country as a whole. There is a conflict of opinion, we know, among farmers as to whether the embargo should or should not be removed. On the one side we have the breeders, and on the other side we have the feeders. To-day, however, we should take a far wider view and standpoint than that of competing interests. We have to consider agriculture as a whole, and to consider, too, how the industry can best serve the interests of the community at the present time. What we should not lose sight of is the desirability of not only keeping under cultivation the present area of land, but, if possible, to increase it with a view of supplying food for our people, and also the fullest employment for them. Anyone with a real practical knowledge of agriculture knows that you cannot grow grain crops consecutively with success. Root crops must be grown if we are to have grain crops. They are, in fact, the pivotal crop. They are valuable because they increase the fertility of the soil by abstracting nitrogen from the atmosphere and also because they are the means by which land can be cleaned of weeds. But root crops cannot be grown unless we have an adequate supply of store cattle to consume them, thus a full supply of store cattle is an essential link in the chain of agricultural success and development.

  127
  On this, I think, we can all be agreed, and it is valuable that there should be common ground to begin with.
  8.0 p.m.
  I think there has been a good deal of exaggeration on both sides in the advocacy of their case. If we consider how we can maintain our supplies of store cattle, we immediately see that there are two sources open to us, there is the home supply and the overseas supply. Our stock of cattle is about 12,000,000, and about 1,000,000 immature calves are slaughtered every year. This slaughter of young immature calves is a most serious matter—not only are calves of a fortnight old poor and soft meat, but we lose the numbers of home-bred cattle which are so needed. Ireland's supply is uncertain. The last Irish figures available are those which the Minister gave, in answer to a question of 11th July, when he said that for the year ending the 24th June, 1922, we imported from Ireland 160,000 store cattle as against 350,000 store cattle in the same period during 1913.
  So much for the home supplies. If we turn to the overseas, we find that in Canada all the five Eastern Provinces—that is, next the Atlantic—are stocked with cattle of the dairying breeds, and therefore it is not until we get west to the three Prairie Provinces that. we find the shorthorn cattle which used to come over for fatting. The Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are the homes of the shorthorn cattle in Canada. It is from those 900 miles of prairie lands extending from Winnipeg to the base of the Rocky Mountains that we get those cattle, but we know that those lands are rapidly being broken up for wheat cultivation, therefore the numbers of Canadian stores may, in the future, not be large.
  In view of this shortage of cattle, I have always held that the wise policy is to restrict the slaughter of our young immature calves and rely more on our home stock than on the overseas. No risk of disease would then result, and no chance of interference with the supply in case of war. But what does the Minister say? On the 16th May, the Minister of Agriculture, in answer to a question on this subject, said:
  "This question has been carefully considered at different times during the last
  128
  few years, and was also referred to the Livestock Advisory Committee which I appointed last year. The Committee did not favour the imposition of Government control, a view with which I agree, and I do not propose to take any action."
  I think that was an unfortunate statement. We all agree, that an adequate supply of store cattle is essential. We say that it is a necessity in our agricultural chain, and yet the Minister of Agriculture says that we can get no relief in that way. What I say is that the breeders cannot have it both ways, and if they will not submit to a restriction on the slaughter of immature calves, they ought not to have what they are now demanding. We have heard that the small farmers in the Highlands of Scotland, in Wales, and in some parts of England will be ruined if Canadian cattle are allowed to come over here. But is that not a gross exaggeration? The cost of transit from Canada is about £10 a head. Is that not a sufficient protection, and will that cost not prevent bad scrubby cattle being sent over? Undoubtedly it will.
  The only valid argument which can be brought forward against free importation is "the chance of disease. We in this country have our old memories and we remember the Rhinderpest of 1865. Those old memories still remain with us, and our breeders are afraid of these importations. I do not think that this House ought to lightly pass over that fact. But although we recognise that disease has to be guarded against, we are bound to take into consideration the findings of that expert Committee, which reported that
  "We are of the opinion that there is no substantial ground for the apprehension that such admission would introduce disease among the cattle in this country."
  It is all very well for us to guard against the importation of diseased cattle, and we ought to do it, but we are bound to take into consideration the expert evidence given before that Commission. Another argument used against, the importation of cattle, from Canada is that it results in so much cruelty to the animals. I think the pictures drawn on this point of the suffering on board ship have been very much exaggerated. I remember that the Canadian cattle which used to be brought over 30 years ago were very good cattle, and they were far better "doers" than the Irish cattle. As a rule, Irish

  129
  cattle take about four or five weeks before they start fattening, but Canadian cattle start fattening on the very day they are put to pasture or into cattle courts. I think that is a proof that the alleged hardship which they are said to suffer in coming over in no way injures them. I remember that Canadian cattle, after about three months' fattening, were generally ready for the butcher, whereas Irish cattle take a much longer period. I think that shows that Canadian cattle are a great advantage to the agriculturists of this country.
  If we get these cattle, we shall be able to maintain a larger area under root crops, and that is something of inestimable value. By this policy we should be able to give our people more fresh meat instead of chilled meat, and I think our people have a right to demand that more fresh meat should be sold to them. At the same time, by allowing in Canadian cattle, we should be able to do something for Canada in return for the preferential treatment she gives to our manufacturers. Taking all these points into consideration, if we can allow these Canadian cattle to come in without bringing disease to this country, as I think we can, I think we shall be doing a good and a wise thing. In the face of the expert evidence laid before the Royal Commission, I think we can let Canadian cattle come in with confidence, knowing at the same time that it is a wise step for us to take in the interests of the people of this country.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir GILBERT WILLS: In spite of the historical comments made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), when he drew the attention of the House to the fact that, under the Campbell-Bannerman Administration, this particular question was left to a free vote in the House, I must. say that personally I think it is a most extraordinary thing that on a question of such importance, over which we are led to believe that the great Dominion of Canada feels very strongly, and one which cannot possibly be without considerable effect upon British agriculture. His Majesty's Government have not been able to make up their collective mind sufficiently to give a definite lead to the House of Commons. Still more astonishing does that fact become
  130
  in view of the speech to which we listened earlier this afternoon of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. He has sources of information open to him which, if not closed, are at any rate less the concern of other Members of the Cabinet, all of whom have their own responsibilities. With that information the right hon. Gentleman apparently is fully convinced.
  What then has been his attitude in regard to his colleagues in the Cabinet? It would appear to be a fair deduction to assume that either he has not endeavoured to persuade them, or else that he has made that endeavour and has failed. From the point of view of British agriculture, I do not know which of those two alternatives can be regarded as the most unsatisfactory. But that is not all. We are informed that at a later hour this evening the Secretary of State for the Colonies will oppose the Minister of Agriculture, and speak from the same bench, and that Ministers in the same Government will advocate diametrically different courses for the House to pursue.
  I ask what is the position of the House when placed in a dilemma of that sort? We are almost like the child which is placed in the invidious position that if it obeys mother it disobeys father. With regard to the arguments for and against, I will try to be brief, because there are many other hon. Members who desire to speak. I do not think that this point can be laboured to too great an extent, namely, that at the present moment there is no embargo on foreign or Colonial meat or foreign or Colonial cattle. As has already been pointed out this afternoon, tens of thousands of tons of chilled meat are annually imported into this country. Tens of thousands of cattle share the same fate. 32,000 head of cattle came from Canada alone last year. One asks to what extent these facts are known to those who have been leading this great campaign for the removal of the embargo. If they did know them they have taken care to give them very little prominence in their propaganda and in the speeches which they have delivered.
  Statistics have proved that within five years after the embargo was imposed the tendency of the prices of home-killed meat was downwards and not upwards. I am one of those who do not believe for one moment that the admission of Canadian

  131
  stores into this country is going to affect the price of meat in a manner favourable to the consumer. If we may judge from the truly phenomenal drop in the price of fed cattle which has been taking place during the last 18 months or so, and if we also take into consideration the prices at which butchers' meat has been maintained, then I do not think there is much cause for imagining that the consumer is the person who is going to benefit even if Canadian stores can be introduced into this country at a price which is lower than that which the English producer has to pay. I believe, if there is any benefit at all, that benefit will go to the graziers, unless by any chance a Government Regulation is introduced making it compulsory to brand cattle at the port of entry. I have not seen that suggestion made, but if it were done, then I concede the butchers would share with the graziers in the benefit in price if they did not, in actual fact, take the lot. There is one point I would like to emphasise with all my power, and it is this. Unless the number of imported cattle is very much greater than the number of cattle we produce, prices are bound to rise to the same level as those for English fed, and therefore there can be no possible advantage for the consumer.
  I should like to say a few words on the position of the farmer in this country to-day. Farming is at a pretty low ebb. Any hon. Member connected with it will admit it is not in a position to stand many more buffets at the present time. It has passed through a long period of Government control and interference. First, farmers were encouraged, then they were ordered, and then they were bribed to grow corn, and, finally, they were told that they could do as they pleased. We are getting back to pre-War conditions—the conditions under which we produced corn only on the best corn-producing land. Corn has been recognised for centuries past as one of the main factors of English farming. I pass from that with the single comment that the bottom has been pretty well knocked out of the market. Let me turn to milk. I do not want to occupy the time of the House with detailed references to the controversy which has been raging during the past summer over the price of milk. I will only say that at the price which has been fixed it barely pays the
  132
  producer to produce milk at all, and within the past three or four weeks freshly calved heifers have been sold in the open market at £16 per head. If the House agree that the margin in the producer's profits, as far as milk is concerned, is very narrow, it will follow me when I say that for these reasons, which are not new facts to anyone who has been keeping in touch with agriculture, I, personally, for some time past have felt that the description which has been alluded to this evening, that the future of this island, as far as farming is concerned, is that it should be the stock farm of the world, is becoming ever more true.
  It is not true to suppose that the pedigree herds in this country, from which stock to South Africa, Rhodesia, New Zealand, Brazil, and Australia is provided, are all in the hands of wealthy enthusiasts and great landowners. More and more tenant and small farmers are paying attention to the breeding of their stock and by the careful selection of well-bred bulls they are en-deavouring to improve that stock. It is not an unusual thing for a quite small farmer to take the highest awards at some of the principal agricultural shows which are held in this country. That being so, the question of disease is a matter ever present, and must have importance in the minds of all those whose industry is connected with the raising of stock. I believe that Canada claims, and justly claims, that her herds are singularly free from disease of any sort. Let that be granted. The observation I would like to make in the first place is that if the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, is altered, modified, or rescinded in such a manner as to admit Canadian stores, then I ask hon. Members, what earthly assurance have we that within a, very short time similar requests will not be addressed to the Government from other British Dependencies and other British Colonies—demands which it would be extremely difficult for the Government to refuse if they are accompanied by a statement that their herds are believed to be free from disease? Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, or other hon. Members in this House who may be in a far better position to express opinions than I am, if it is possible that the vessels used for the transport of cattle from Canada to this

  133
  country can be kept unreservedly for that trade, and never used for the transportation of cattle to and from any other country. I should like to suggest there is absolutely no guarantee that the cattle which leave the shores of Canada in a state of perfect health will not be the means of disseminating disease in this country. The germs of contagious or infectious disease picked up on a cattle boat may not necessarily have gone through their incubation stages before the cattle have arrived, and have been passed from the ports through the markets, and finally find their way to their destination, scores of miles from the point of debarkation. Very little is known about the worst and most insidious forms of disease, which are a constant and a very real source of anxiety to all breeders of cattle in this country.
  I should like to remind the House of the figures which have been already quoted in the Debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot). If there be one Member now present who was not present when my hon. and gallant Friend alluded to those figures, I feel that I shall be more than justified in repeating them. The statistics he gave were based on figures which he had taken from official records in relation to what happened before and what happened after the passing of the Diseases of Animals Act. He drew attention to the fact that in the twenty years preceding the passing of that Act, over 800,000 animals were slaughtered in this country suffering from infectious or contagious disease, and that in the twenty years after the passing of that Act the number had dropped from 800,000 to 4,000. One wonders whether those figures were, consciously or sub-consciously, in the mind of Lord Ernie when, a few days ago, in another place, referring to the removal of the embargo, he said that it might be done with reasonable safety, but not with absolute safety. I am inclined to agree with the Noble Lord.
  I feel that I must, before I sit down, make some allusion to the question of the pledge. Were I not to do so, my opponents on this matter would think that I was running away from it, and that is the last thing in the world that I want to do. This pledge, it is claimed, was given by two past members of a past Administration, and in that connection I would call attention to page 113 of the
  134
  Minutes of the Imperial War Conference, 1917. Mr. Rogers, whose name has already been mentioned in this Debate, was speaking. He said:
  "If the Board of Agriculture conceive it to be their duty and to be in the public interest of Great Britain to have a policy of protection for their live cattle industry, then we should have no complaint and other no objection."
  In view of the speech to which we have listened from the responsible Minister, the Minister who is responsible not only to the Cabinet, not only to this House, but to the country, for the agricultural policy of this country, it seems to me that the conditions to which Mr. Rogers alluded have been fulfilled. Later, Mr. Prothero, in consenting to the removal, did so in a manner that appeared to be somewhat qualified, because he made these qualifying remarks:
  "On the other hand, there has been a considerable increase in breeding in this country, but if we have, as I think we shall have, a large extension of the amble farming of this country, we shall want to increase our reservoir of store cattle. Of course your Canadian cattle will come over here as what are called stores, that is to say, they are to he fed and fatted here in England. We shall want a great many more store cattle if we have this great extension of arable farming. We shall want more animals to trample the straw and to eat the roots."
  Yes, but in point of fact, as things have turned out, there is no more straw to trample and there are no more roots to be eaten. The conditions which were present in the mind of Mr. Prothero when he gave that answer have not been fulfilled, and, according to answers which have been given by the Minister of Agriculture, we know that during the last two years some 750,000 acres have gone out of cultivation. If it were pointed out that the present Ministry of Agriculture holds the opinion to which Mr. Rogers alluded, and if it were further pointed out that that assumption and two others were present in the mind of Mr. Prothero when he gave that answer, I venture to think that our fair-minded and large-hearted neighbours across the Atlantic in Canada would feel that this House was under no moral obligation to support what has been called the promise in relation to store cattle. For those reasons, I, as a Back-Bench and generally silent Member, would venture to urge other hon. Members who may, and for the most part certainly do, represent urban and industrial centres to give the matter their care-

  135
  ful consideration before running even the slightest risk of imposing a further disability on the industry of agriculture—which, compared with the other industries of the country in the aggregate, may be small, but which, from the point of view of its vital importance, is a very real matter for consideration, not only to the agriculturists, but to the urban and other portions of the population.
  Mr. GEORGE EDWARDS: I do not propose to deal with the arguments which have been used with reference to the pledge, but I shall endeavour to speak from the point of view suggested by the Minister of Agriculture, that is to say, from the agricultural point of view. In doing so I am afraid I shall have to differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman); and there are so many points upon which he and I agree in reference to agriculture, that I rather regret that I shall have to differ from him on this. In my judgment, he is backing the wrong horse. Listening to the discussion, and especially to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, one would suppose that agriculture consisted entirely of one system, namely, the rearing of stock. That is not the case. I come from a district which is largely a cattle-grazing district. Arable farming is carried on, and those engaged in agriculture there depend largely upon their store cattle. The last speech, although it was against the removal of the embargo, was, in my judgment, a strong argument in favour of its removal, for the hon. and gallant Gentleman informed us that a large number of acres of land had gone out of cultivation. If that be true, then it is an argument in favour of the removal of the embargo. We all know, that on land which is laid down to grass, stock-rearing employs but very little labour, and hence, when the land is laid down to grass, it means that there is a large depopulation of the villages. So, if the right hon. Gentleman's statement be correct, we claim that we who are advocating the removal have taken a course which is in the best interests of agriculture as a whole. The arguments in favour of its not being removed will not hold water. The Minister informed us—he is a splendid expert in setting up bogies and knocking them down directly—that, if it were removed, it would make no difference in
  136
  the price of meat—it would mean no difference in the price of the store cattle the grazier has to purchase, because the number of cattle imported from Canada would be so small. Then what on earth do we want to complain about its removal for? Where is the danger? If it is not going to reduce the price of the store cattle which our British breeders bring into the market, there is nothing whatever, from their point of view, to fear.
  I am anxious that the man who grazes cattle should have the opportunity to obtain his raw material at the very cheapest rate he can possibly obtain. What is happening? For some years past the cattle grazier—I am speaking now of small holdings as well as large ones—can only go to the market to purchase his store cattle at a certain season of the year, that is in October, when he has grown his corn. At that time store cattle are at a higher figure than at any time of the year. In about three months, after he has purchased his cake and used his roots and put about 2 cwt. on to the beast, in any number of cases he has to take it to the market and sell it, and there is a slump in the price of meat, because if the Canadians are not able to send in their live cattle they will send them in slaughtered. The grazier, therefore, will have to sell it at less per stone than he gave for it. That, however, does not mean that the consumber will get it any cheaper. That is placing the grazier in a most unfortunate position. I hold no brief for the farmer, but I am most anxious to see that he should be able to carry on his industry with some fair amount of remuneration. Not only that, but I remember that in the arable farming districts it is highly essential that we should he able to produce as much farmyard manure as we possibly can. How is the farmer to do that unless he can grow roots and consume them by grazing cattle? I am now going to take the side of labour. We who know anything about agriculture at all know that there is no system under which the industry is carried on that employs labour like a root crop does. We want to see wheat grown, but that entails less labour than anything the farmer puts on the market. Further, there is very little British land that will stand a wheat crop year after year. Therefore it is necessary that he should

  137
  farm under what we call the four years' system. He must have a certain number of roots every year, and unless you are going to make it worth his while to grow roots and ensure him that when he has done that he is going to get some remuneration for it, he is not going to do it.
  Therefore it is in the interests of our countryside that this embargo should be removed to enable those engaged in the industry to obtain their raw material at the very cheapest rate they possibly can. I do not believe the consumer is going to reap the benefit unless the Government breaks up the meat rings which are being formed at present. For these reasons I support the removal. A large majority of farmers, especially in my county, are in favour of it. A meeting was held at Norwich not more than six weeks ago, arranged not by wicked agitators, but by the farmers themselves. Over a thousand farmers were there, and only 12 voted against a resolution in favour of its removal. There are two sections engaged in agriculture which have got to be consideered. Surely we ought to consider the arable farmer, who is no unimportant factor of this very great industry. We are told that the Canadian is allowed to send his cattle here to be slaughtered on their arrival. Those who are in favour of frozen meat rather than the best old English beef can have two shares. They can have my share as well as their own. I am not fond of frozen meat, when I can have the good old English grade beef. It is well known that. the Canadian farmer cannot graze his cattle as we can graze cattle here. He does not produce the roots and the kind of food that would put the meat on to the beast, which would be of the same taste, relish and quality that we can do in England. Therefore, we are anxious that, even if the people would not get their beef cheaper, they shall at any rate have meat of the best possible quality, so that they may enjoy the fruits of their industry. I shall strongly support the removal of the embargo.
  Does anyone imagine that it is in the interests of the Canadian producer and the Canadian farmer not to see that his cattle are in a healthy condition? It is not to their interests to send over diseased beef. If it is not right, if it is not safe to have Canadian cattle over here to be grazed, then you ought to stop the
  138
  importation of Canadian cattle for slaughter, because if Canadian cattle are not fit to be grazed over here they are not fit for human food. It has been well known for years that we have not had a clean bill of health. Let us remember what happened last year. That disease did not come from Canada. Thousands of animals had to be slaughtered because of foot-and-mouth disease. In the last 10 or 20 years we have constantly had diseases, either foot-and-mouth disease or some other kind of disease. Therefore, the question of disease is not a strong argument to make against the removal of the embargo. In the interests of the grazier as well as of the breeder, I hope that we shall carry this Resolution tonight, so that one section of the industry will be able to get their raw materials at the cheapest rate possible.
  Mr. McCONNELL: In rising to address the House for the first time, I feel that, however important the removal of the embargo upon Canadian cattle is to English and Scottish agriculturists, it is a matter of life and death to the Irish farmer and stock-grazer. Ireland is essentially a country of comparatively small holdings, each holding having to maintain, as a rule, a considerable family. To all of these men life is a constant struggle for existence, and the margin is so small that they cannot afford to make any sacrifice or take risks in a, way that those who have larger resources can do. The repeal of the Corn Laws was the beginning of the ruin of agriculture in this country. It started a flight of emigrants from Ireland which in a little over half a century reduced the population by 4,000,000 of people. There were other collateral causes, but the root causes are as I have described them.
  Agriculture being thus largely destroyed, attention was turned to the raising of cattle, which became a great industry in Ireland. If the embargo on Canadian cattle were withdrawn, the only difference it would make to Canada would be that they would have the right to finish their cattle here and put them in prime condition on the market. As I will show, that means that no additional Canadian cattle would be brought to this country, because up to the present she has exported every hoof that is available. The only difference that it will make to Canada will be that she will sell her cattle on the British market at a higher price than she

  139
  has hitherto done. So far from this resulting in cheapening the price of meat to the average consumer the very reverse will be the case. If Canadian cattle are to be finished in this country, it means a larger sum expended on putting the finished article upon the market, and since the consumer pays, the price of meat must consequently be increased. That is so patent that I am amazed when I read or hear the specious and sham arguments that are put forward to secure votes in this House by the gross misrepresentation that the working classes will get their meat cheaper.
  If the House will allow me to say so, I speak as one whose knowledge and practical experience of this question is exceptional. The firm of which I happen to be the head is one of the largest, in fact the largest concern engaged in the cattle trade in Ireland. I speak, therefore, from knowledge based on long and intimate experience, and I tell the House, in all sincerity and deep conviction, that if this embargo be removed, while the results to Canada will be relatively small, it will be the death blow to the cattle trade in Ireland. I ask the House to look for a moment at the relative position of the Canadian cattle producer and the Irish cattle producer, and the relative position of the Irish taxpayer—by which, in view of the recent changes, I mean the North of Ireland taxpayer—and the Canadian taxpayer in Canada, the ranchers hold vast tracts of country at prairie prices. In Ireland, the hunger for land and the competition has enormously inflated the price, and the cost of cultivating the land is excessive, due to the fact that the smallholder is not able to afford the costly implements which are such a conspicuous feature of agriculture in Canada, and which tend enormously to cheapen the cost of production. These difficulties the Irish farmer has to face, and the competition is only lessened to a comparatively small degree by the freight charges upon Canadian cattle.
  Turn to the position of the North of Ireland taxpayer. He has to pay every tax imposed by this Parliament, and pay in equal degree to any taxpayer in this country. You are going, at one blow, to destroy an industry out of which, none the less, you propose to exact the last shilling of taxation that is open to you. When the coal trade was involved in a
  140
  crisis, you subsidised it in the interests of the British public. This House is forced to recognise that its first duty is to every material interest in this country before all others, whether they be Dominion interests or foreign interests. You make this country responsible for the whole burden of Imperial defence, and the cattle producer in Ireland has to pay his due share of the cost of the defence of Canada and of every other part of the Empire, while no such burden is imposed on the Canadian citizen, who pays nothing to Imperial expenditure in the same way that the British taxpayer does.
  Mr. T. SHAW: There were Canadians in France.
  Mr. McCONNELL: If you make the burden unequal in this way, equity demands that the persons on whom you lay the undue burden should be permitted at least to retain the position in their own country which alone enables them to sustain that burden. The cattle producer in this country is as fully entitled to some measure of protection in his own market as any other industry. If the producers of British cattle were free to enter the Canadian market in the same way as it is proposed that the Canadians should enter the British market, there would be nothing to complain of. But that is not the position. The demand is that they should have free access to our markets, and not only the right to sell dead meat or to have the animals slaughtered on arrival at the ports, but that they should add to those two serious factors the right to import the cattle on the hoof, finish them on the soil of British agriculturists, and then go into the meat market in conditions—because they are able to raise in Canada in vastly cheaper conditions than at home—that would leave the home producer at their mercy.
  If the British cattle producer is to be hopelessly crippled, what will be the position when you are left at the mercy of Canada and of the huge beef trusts of America that are really behind this movement? The history of every monopoly that has been established has been that of an effort to starve out or trample down all competition and then bleed the public white. That is what would happen in this ease, and no arts of casuistry or specious rhetoric, or fleeting imagination can get rid of that

  141
  ugly and deadly fact. There has been no serious attempt, upon grounds of practical common sense, to justify the withdrawal of this embargo. Not one of those who advocate the withdrawal would act similarly in his own affairs in everyday life or if he did he would soon be ruined. Every argument has been abandoned, and the whole case is now grounded on the fact that someone in a rash moment, possibly in a moment of after-dinner excitement gave a pledge that the Government would withdraw the embargo and that the Government must honour its pledges. I deeply regret that any word or act of mine should tend to discourage this new desire on the part of the Government to keep its word, even when that word has been wrongly pledged, as it has been in this case. The history of the Government in this and to other matters is that the pledges which it ought to keep it ruthlessly violates, and the pledges which it ought never to have made it insists upon, to its own dishonour and to the injury both material and moral of the interests of this country. Someone appears to have rushed into this pledge, and because it was given without consideration of the whole thing, and in a hurry, it must not be withdrawn. Judas Iscariot could have put up just the same defence—
  Mr. HAYDAY: Is he a Member?
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. McCONNELL: —for the infamy that was perpetrated in the Garden of Gethsemane. When you rely on the Irish markets for your cattle you are relying not only on the most convenient, but also on the most certain market. It is not open to the perils to which the Atlantic routes would be exposed in ease of war. At the present moment there are more than 5,000,000 cattle in Ireland, as against 6,300,000 cattle in Great Britain. 47 per cent. of the cattle of the three Kingdoms is approximately in Ireland. The official value placed upon the cattle exported from Ireland was £36,000,000, equal to £8 10s. per head of the population of Ireland. Not so long ago the Prime Minister, speaking in the Caxton Hall, on this subject said that if in future this country should have an enemy we must not put in anybody's way the temptations to starve us. If you withdraw this Canadian cattle embargo you ruin almost beyond redemption the Irish eagle trade, which I have shown is so vital to you,
  142
  you expose yourself to this peril, and subject the enemy to the temptation which, the Prime Minister tells us, might mean the ultimate starvation of this country in a war.
  I wish it understood clearly that I am as thorough an Imperialistic, and I speak for a party as thoroughly Imperialistic, as any other in this House, in Canada, or elsewhere, and I think that to make this a sort of keynote of Empire is ridiculous and preposterous. Not a single animal in Canada is to-day shut out to anyone who desires to bring it in. Not one. If you take off the embargo, it does not mean an additional Canadian animal. That is a common case. The only difference will be as to whether the animal is to be brought in dead, or slaughtered on arrival, instead of being kept here and fed and finished to compete against the British cattle-raiser to his great injury. The North of Ireland, from which I come, has contributed to Canada a great population, and the Ulster Scot has left his imprint large and deep in Canada. The greatest business concern in Canada, that of Eatons, is owned by an Ulsterman. I do not blame Canada in the least for having utilised to the utmost every opportunity for developing her market and selling her produce to the best advantage. That is her business. It is equally our business to see that practically the same spirit is applied to this country, and to see to it that the Britisher, whether he be a cattle-raiser, a textile manufacturer, a steel manufacturer, a coal producer, a shipbuilder, a shipper, or anything else, is in the same way, and in equal degree, protected by the Government which acknowledged it.
  I know that there has been a vast deal of lobbying, wire pulling and misrepresentation, and I must add mean intrigue, behind this movement. It has been, in fact, a newspaper stunt, and a side line for many of the vested interests. I trust that the destinies of this country are neither going to be left in the hands of, nor swayed by, such people. In this, as in all other matters, let us lay down the principle of Britain for the Britisher, and if we depart from that position in the matter of the cattle trade you will no longer be able to resist the demands for further encroachment upon any other industry which with swiftly he poured in upon you. Agriculture has suffered deeply

  143
  in these islands, and the folly of that policy was fully realised in the War, when we stood within measurable distance of starvation. Do not let us ever forget that the shadow of another European War still hangs over us, and that in last resort it is on your own country and your own agriculturists that you must literally depend for your lives. Do not gamble on your resources. Do not dissipate, and do not destroy them as you are asked to do by this proposal, and, above all, do not let us have foisted upon us a fantastical, outrageous misrepresentation of imperial sentiment to justify a wrong. An alliance that can only be held together upon the pretext that what binds us is the difference as to whether an animal shall be slaughtered upon arrival or kept here for a few weeks, or something of this kind, would not hold together a parish council, much less an Empire. No case has been made, nor can there be a case for the withdrawal of the embargo. No vote can be given in support of the Motion except under a complete misapprehension of the realities of the case or in gross disregard of them.
  Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member who has just spoken has used some rather strong language. I doubt very much whether strong language will add anything to the arguments addressed to this House by the Minister of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech which put the case for the agricultural interest as well as it can be put. I could not help thinking that those who agreed with him would do well to leave the matter where he left it. The Minister of Agriculture would have convinced me completely if I had felt that this case was the case merely for agriculture in this country. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman failed to deal very specially with considerations that were put forward by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). We have here to deal, not merely with local affairs; we have to deal with Imperial affairs. What did the Minister of Agriculture say? In alluding to the proceedings at the Imperial Conference in 1917, he stated that the promise made at that time by the then Minister of Agriculture was not a promise that Canadian cattle would be admitted to this country, but was a promise to remove a stigma. We have to
  144
  consider the circumstances of the case when we are judging what was the nature of the promise that was made by Mr. Prothero, as he then was.
  Let me first call the attention of the House to the White Paper which has been issued, and which gives an account of what took place at that Conference. Is this White Paper entitled, "Extract from the Proceedings at the Imperial War Conference for the Removal of a Stigma upon Canadian Cattle"? No, Sir. It is an extract from the proceedings at the Imperial Conference in regard to "The admission of Canadian cattle into the United Kingdom." When we are told that Mr. Prothero, in saying that the embargo would be removed, meant only that he would remove a stigma upon Canadian cattle, we have a right to ask what was in the minds, not only of Mr. Prothero and Mr. Walter Long, but what was in the minds of Mr. Rogers and Sir Robert Borden. Will the Minister of Agriculture assert that all they asked for was a pious expression of opinion that Canadian cattle were healthy, and that no ground existed for excluding them because of disease? Of course, what they were asking for was the admission of Canadian cattle into this country. That was the sense in which they understood the assurances which were given at that time both by Mr. Prothero and Mr. Walter Long. If we come down to later times, to the conversations between the Prime Minister and Mr. Meighen, we find that the Prime Minister said:
  "The pledge is very clear and it is unequivocal. It was undoubtedly the intention of the Government to act upon it at the earliest possible opportunity."
  What was in the Prime Minister's mind then? Again, you have to consider what be said in the light of what had been said just before. The statement quoted was in reply to an interruption by Mr. Massey. Mr. Massey had said:
  "There is a point which. I do not think has been sufficiently emphasised; the cattle referred to are not fat cattle."
  It was after that interruption that the Prime Minister said:
  "Yes, I thoroughly realise that. I know, and I have had it in my mind, and so have all my colleagues, that that pledge was given by Mr. Walter Long and by the then Minister of Agriculture. Lord Ernle."
  That pledge meant a pledge in respect of cattle that were not fat cattle. They are

  145
  what we now call stores, or what the Prime Minister would possibly call lean kine. The Minister of Agriculture has told us that this promise was qualified immediately afterwards by a communication which was made to Sir George Perley. I listened very carefully to the words that he used. I understand that what he said was this: To remove the embargo would require legislation. It seems to me that it would be feasible by legislation to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle by altering the Diseases of Animals Act, but that would have to be accompanied by a Clause to say that nothing in the amendment of the Act should imply that Canadians stores should be admitted into this country.
  What did he mean by the amendment of the Act? If he meant that the Act was to be amended so as to admit other cattle than stores into this country, what becomes of the whole argument that it is necessary to exclude Canadian cattle on account of the danger of disease? The danger of disease arises the moment you admit any cattle, whether stores or cattle for breeding purposes. All that the argument shows, to my mind, is that at the time when he was pressed by the Canadian representatives, he made a promise that they should be satisfied as to what they wanted, but afterwards Mr. Prothero found he was getting into trouble with his agricultural friends, and he began at once to try to explain away the words that he had used and to give them a sense which was not the sense put upon them at the time by the Canadians and was not the sense put upon them by anyone reading impartially the words which he used. This promise has been called a pledge by the Prime Minister. It. has been taken as a pledge by the Canadian people. We are told that what really matters is not so much the actual results that may follow as what the farmers may think that those results will be. Are we not to consider what Canada will think if we break what they think to be a pledge?
  I hope that Members of this House will realise what the effect of their vote will be in Canada. In Canada the national spirit has been aroused. To them this is no longer a question merely of the interests of a certain section of the farmers in Canada. It is not a question of the admission of cattle at all. It is a
  146
  question as to whether faith is to be kept between two of the nations which compose the British Empire. What the Canadians would resent above all things is that, having acknowledged their status as a nation, having acknowledged that Canada is equal in status to ourselves in the Empire, we should then treat them as we should never think of treating the United States and as we should never expect another nation to treat us. The Minister of Agriculture suggested that the pledge was now being brought up as a sort of after-thought by those who desired to remove the embargo upon other grounds. I hope that he would not associate me with any such suggestion as that. I know that it has been represented and is believed by many people in this country that the removal of the embargo would mean a cheapening of the price of meat and an increase in the production of milk, and that various other beneficial results would ensue. I cannot see that there is any likelihood that any large number of stores would come into this country even if the embargo were removed. I certainly cannot believe that such as would come in would lead to the results anticipated by hon. Members above the gangway. These are not the considerations which appeal to me, but I am deeply impressed by the danger to our future imperial relations if we do not remove the embargo. It will be interpreted all over Canada as a breach of a solemn pledge and undertaking given to Canada. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, I intend to vote for the removal of the embargo, and I hope the House will so decide.
  Mr. HARBISON: There are one or two points which have been only lightly touched upon so far in this Debate, and with which I should like to deal. May I, in the first place, congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the perfect argument he has presented in reply to a most imperfect case put against him. I wish to deal with certain aspects of this question from an Irish standpoint, but also from an Imperial standpoint. This is a vital question to us in Ireland, but it is an even more serious question to the people of England. We in Ireland are the largest producers of cattle in the British Dominions. We are constant and consistent suppliers of store cattle to England. We are told that if this

  147
  embargo is removed the number of cattle imported from Canada will be negligible. That may be so, but there is a likelihood that in some particular year, or in some particular number of years, there may be a large inflow of Canadian cattle into England. We know that the numbers of the herds in Canada fluctuate to an extraordinary degree. In some years the number of cattle may be something like 5,000,000 or 6,000,000, and in other years it may be 10,000,000, and it will be according to the numbers of the herds in Canada that you in this country will get your imports of store cattle. That will make the cattle market here very uncertain. Does the House imagine that when the Irish farmers cannot get a stable market for their cattle they will continue to breed store cattle for the benefit of this country? I do not believe they will, and I do not think they would be business men to do so, and I put it to Englishmen, as business men: Are they going to endanger the supply of store cattle from Ireland which is their biggest supply at the present moment? In putting that question I am speaking as much from the English standpoint as from the Irish standpoint.
  We have passed through one of the greatest crises in our history. Throughout the world War it was the constant flow of Irish cattle which supplied food to this country. Without that flow of Irish cattle—I do not think I am romancing in saying so—there was a grave danger that this country would not have achieved the position it is in to-day, that of a victorious country over a conquered enemy. In order to properly analyse the arguments for and against this Motion, the House should have the full facts. The House cannot discuss this question fully without having all the information at its command to which it is entitled. I have here the Report of the Royal Commission. The reference of that Commission was so circumscribed and narrow as to make it impossible for any jury of men or any Parliament to come to a just conclusion on the question of whether or not it is right to raise the embargo. The reference, in my humble judgment, does not meet The case which we are arguing here to-day. The Commission was set up
  "To inquire into the admission into the United Kingdom of livestock for purposes other than immediate slaughter at the ports:
  148
  whether such admission would increase and cheapen the meat supply of the country, and if so to what extent; and whether such admission is advisable having regard to the necessity of protecting livestock bred in this country from the introduction of disease, and of restoring a number after the losses to which they have been subjected during or since the War."
  I now read the three last findings of the Commission, and I will again point out their reference both to England and Ireland:
  "(9) We are of opinion that the admission of Canadian stores might make it difficult for crofters and small farmers in the Highlands to carry on their farming operations successfully owing to competition with them in the market for the sale of stores."
  "(10) We are of opinion that the admission of Canadian stores might to some extent deprive the Irish farmers of the market which they at present enjoy in Great Britain for their stores."
  Now I come to the last and most important of these findings, which is like the posteript to a lady's letter:
  "(11) We have not thought it within the terms of reference to enter into questions of Imperial policy, as regards the food supply of the country in time of war, protection of home industries, or the effect of possible political changes in the Constitution of the United Kingdom."
  Without any reference to, or inquiry into, those three points, the findings of that Commission, if I may say so with due respect, are not worth the paper they are printed on so far as this question is concerned. The real vital facts of the arguments against the raising of this embargo have not been touched upon. There is the question, again, of the relations between these countries. At the present moment, as the last words of that document state, there has been a change in the Constitution of these three kingdoms. Ireland, to-day, is passing through the throes of what is practically a revolution. She is doing her best, against terrible odds, to start, house on her own. I put it to this House, is it good Imperial policy, when the country which is, if I may call it so, the jugular vein of your whole system, so far as the cattle supply is concerned and which supplies you with the life-blood of your country, is in the throes of getting over a revolution and of establishing a Government—is it fair that her essential industry should be struck a blow from which she may reel and stagger? It will not be vital in her case, as it would be in the case of England. Thanks to the work of the Agricultural

  149
  Department in Ireland during the last 25 years, even if we lost the store trade, our Irish farmers, I am glad to say—I give all credit to the Agricultural Department—are educated farmers, now, and they could change to other branches of farming with success equal to that which they achieved with regard to stores. If they find that the raising of stores is not a profitable branch of their industry, they are able and competent to turn to other branches and to let the store trade slip. That is all I have got to say. This question is of vital interest to Ireland and it is of more vital interest to the people of this country. It is the one question which, to my mind, is vital to both countries. It is an indissoluble link between the two countries. No matter who in Ireland or who outside says that these two countries can be severed, I say that they never can be severed, but this is one of the binding links which hon. Members are trying to break. There are many links of common interest which must bind us for ever, but this is the chief link and hon. Members are trying to break it.
  Mr. ACLAND: The Debate this evening has turned a good deal on the Government pledge. I am afraid, having made a special study of Government pledges, that I am getting rather cynical about them. If the statements made by Lord Ernie and Lord Long, which we have heard this evening, were the only quotations on which the pledge rested, I do not think it would carry us very far. That sort of pledge, if it simply concerned different classes in the United Kingdom, or if, at the time it was made, it got the Government out of some difficulty, is, from my experience of other occasions, not the sort of pledge which the Government would have hesitation in breaking if it suited them to do so. There is, however, surely nothing more definite in what was said at the Conference itself than in the statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the General Election about nationalising the coal mines, or in that of the Minister of Agriculture. I think, however, there are other things more than that, and that it goes further. When you are dealing with matters in which your own people across the seas are concerned and not your own supporters in this country, you must look at the way the pledge has been taken by them, and not only at the words that may have been used by yourself. Un-
  150
  doubtedly, in Canada, it was taken as a pledge, and as being as sacred as if it had been embodied in a Treaty. We cannot, after all, expect the Canadians, owing to their distance, and their ignorance of our home affairs, to realise what we realise about the particular habits of this Government as to pledges. They take it seriously, and that makes a great deal of difference. It is very difficult, the pledge being what it was, for loyal supporters of the Government not to act up to the supposition that in matters between friends and relations the Government, when they have allowed a definite impression as to our intentions to become prevalent, must see to it that that impression is carried out.
  I should still have some doubt about the pledge, however, if it rested simply on what was said at the Conference. People who rely on the pledge argument need not go further than one particular thing, which the Minister of Agriculture, of course, did not quote, but of which I am bound to remind the House, namely, what was said by the Prime Minister, which put the hat on it, so far as British agriculture is concerned. In March of last year the Prime Minister said that the pledges given to Canada at the Imperial Conference in 1917 were very definite pledges on behalf of the Cabinet. The two Ministers, when they spoke, did not commit the Cabinet. They expressed their own views; they implied that the Cabinet had been consulted; they did not commit the Cabinet, the Government, or the people of this country. The Prime Minister's statement, however, seems to me to be almost impossible to get behind, and it must be taken—unfortunately, from my point of view—as a very ruling matter in the controversy.
  The Government has put the House of Commons and Parliament in an extraordinary position. One would have thought that, if the Prime Minister did hold that that Cabinet—and, of course, by succession the present Cabinet—were absolutely pledged in that matter, they would not have done what they have done. In the first case, for months the Government said they were determined not to make any change in policy then they said they would leave it, as they are doing this evening, to a free vote of the House. One would have expected, except for the curious habit of the Government as to pledges, that it would have been

  151
  carried out in the only way possible, by the introduction of a Bill, and by the staking of the reputation and career of the Government on the fulfilment of a pledge definitely made. However, it is left to us to discuss it, and by our votes this evening, apparently, it is to be decided. Therefore, one must assume that we are not supposed to be bound by what the Government has said on our behalf without any consultation with us, and without any authority from us.
  Taking it as if it were still an open subject—which I find it very difficult to feel it truly is, after what the Prince Minister has said—may I suggest this? I cannot get away from the general Free Trade standpoint, that the wider the area from which you can draw your supplies, and the larger those supplies, the better it will be for any country. The more your supplies, the bigger the market is; the more competition there is, the more choice there is between competing markets. If there is a falling off in one source of supply, there will probably be compensation from another source. That doctrine, however, rests on the assumption that you can keep conditions fairly steady, and if you substitute foreign for home supply, your home supply will not fail you. That is one particular point to which I want to draw the attention of the House. If we should get the certainty of foreign supply to make up for disorganisation of home supply, then I think on balance—though I take the farmer's point of view and am pledged to vote in support of it—there might be an advantage to this country. If there were on the side of Canada any sort of promise that they would keep up steadily, from year to year, say, for the next five or eight years, 200,000 stock coming over, at certain charges and qualities, and it may be with certain relation to world prices or English prices, then I think, on balance, there would be an advantage to this country.
  I am afraid, however, that our home supplies will be disorganised; of that there is no doubt at all. It is no use hon. Members saying, "Why do not farmers grow roots?" There are hundreds of farms in this country where it is not possible to grow roots, and where you cannot obtain an oat crop more than once in five years or so. There are all the crofting farms in Scotland; there are
  152
  thousands of acres in Wales and wherever hilly country of that character exists. There is no doubt, therefore, that you will disorganise our home supplies very greatly indeed. I hope the farmers are not more afraid than they need be, but they are desperately afraid of the total disorganisation of their industry, and what guarantee have you really got from the other side?
  Until quite recently this matter, from the Canadian point of view—I say it with all respect to them—has been a political question rather than a practical question. I do not blame them in the least, but what do they want? They have now got a. 30 per cent tariff against their cattle in the United States staring them in the face, and what do they want to do? They want an extra string to their bow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not!"] Certainly, but it is not practical politics from our point of view. They want an extra string to their bow, and they want to say to the United States, "The British market has been opened to our stores, and if you do not give us cheap maize to feed our stock, or allow us to bring our stock into your country, we will send 250,000 or 300,000 head of our stock to Great Britain, and you will never get it at all." They naturally want to use it in that way as a bargaining power to get the tariff of the United States taken down against them, and when the embargo is lifted we shall start one year with an importation of, say, 200,000 cattle, all our small men in this country will go out of their business, and then, the United States tariff being taken down, they will say, quite naturally and rightly, from their point of view, that they cannot send any more. They have said it over and over again. Their Minister of Agriculture said, quite recently, that he would never dream of giving a guarantee of a settled supply to our country such as would really replace the stock we have got now. We should have to whistle for our stores, and meanwhile our own industry would be disorganised.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The last speech clearly indicates the difficulties of the House in coming to a decision on this question. I always understood that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) was a champion of Free Trade. I listened to his Leader, the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith),

  153
  who first clearly indicated that there was a Government pledge and that that pledge ought to be fulfilled, but, apart entirely from the pledge, he argued that the general principle of Free Trade was in itself the best assurance that this pledge ought to be redeemed. My right hon. Friend says that, apart from any pledge, he clearly understands this to be a question of Free Trade versus Protection. Curiously enough, we have had other arguments introduced into this Debate. An hon. Member who spoke from Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Tyrone (Mr. Harbison) obviously forgot that this House has decided that shortly Southern Ireland is to become a Dominion Power. He asked the House not to lift the embargo, as that would be an injustice to Ireland, clearly assuming that the embargo that we are discussing is applicable only to Canada, when, as a matter of fact, if the embargo be not removed, we shall have hon. Members in a few months' time coming down to the House and saying, "By your decision you have done an injustice to Ireland." Was there ever such logic? Was there ever such confusion? The short truth is this, that the hon. Member knows perfectly well that this embargo is part of an Irish environment. We all know very well the circumstances in which it was made. The protection so far having worked in the hon. Member's favour, he ought to be the first to say, "Let us remove it now, because we will get the best of both worlds. Having had the advantage up to this moment, immediately it is removed we shall again get the advantage when Southern Ireland becomes a Dominion."
  On the other hand, we have heard the argument as to what is going to be the effect upon the British farmer. I think we ought in this matter to say, Where does John Bull come in? Where does the interest of the British public come in? On the one side, it is argued, clearly and definitely, that to remove the embargo will be an injustice to the British farmer, and from the point of view of the Irish farmer it is said it will be an injustice to Ireland, by bringing in a legitimate competitor whom they want to keep out. Is not the consumer, the British public, entitled to say, As between your sectional and personal interests, we ought to be considered? I think it is generally agreed, so far as one can follow the Debate and all that is written and said
  154
  about it, that, so far as disease is concerned, Canada is at least in as favourable a position as Ireland, to put it no higher than that. So far as the consumer is concerned, he will certainly benefit by the removal of the embargo.
  Sir F, BANBURY: No; he will pay for an article which he will not get.
  Mr. THOMAS: My right hon. Friend says "No," and he says "No" on the ground that the first result will be that the Irish, the Scottish, or the Welsh farmer will import Canadian cattle and sell it as either Irish, Scotch, or Welsh beef; in other words, that he, being such a consistent and pronounced stickler for honesty and integrity in all matters, is the first to say, "We, the House of Commons, have got to do an injustice to the consumer because we are afraid of the Scottish, Irish, or Welsh farmer perpetrating a fraud."
  Sir F. BANBURY: Not the farmer—the shopkeeper.
  Mr. THOMAS: The shopkeeper does not import the meat.
  Sir F. BANBURY: He buys it cheap and sells it dear.
  Mr. THOMAS: That, I put it to the House, is the clearest admission that we have got to consider the interests of the consumer. That, I submit, proves absolutely what I am contending, namely, that apart from the Irish, English, Scottish, or Welsh farmer, the English consumer in this matter is the one who is likely to benefit by removing the embargo. Therefore, upon those grounds, I am going to support the removal of the embargo. With regard to the pledge, earlier in the Debate the right hon. Member for the City of London challenged the statement that this House was under any obligation to redeem the pledge. When the right hon. Member for Paisley was arguing that the Government themselves, the Cabinet, had committed the Government, the right hon. Member for the City of London rather indicated by his interruption that he took the view that this House of Commons was not bound.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I certainly think a pledge given in another House of Commons by Members who are not Members of the present Government, or of the present House of Commons, does

  155
  not bind the House of Commons to repeal an Act passed in another House of Commons.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am sure my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that it is precisely the same Cabinet which gave a pledge, and which pledge was further endorsed at a later stage by the present Prime Minister. The same Government gave a pledge in 1917, and in 1921 the present Prime Minister said in substance, "Of course, we are bound by the pledge." The point I am making is this. Supposing that pledge were a contingent pledge. Supposing the Cabinet said, "Yes, as far as we as a Cabinet are concerned, we are prepared to pledge our word, subject. to the House of Commons endorsing it." Surely our position to-night would then be very easy. Canada would have understood that the pledge was a pledge contingent upon the verdict of the House of Commons. But that is not what we are asked to do tonight. What we are asked to say to-night by our vote is this. The pledge, having been given in 1917, and admitted in 1921 by the present Prime Minister, this House of Commons is asked to say to Canada, "We not only repudiate the pledge. We not only repudiate the Prime Minister; but we say to you that, at an Imperial Conference, no Cabinet Minister, or Prime Minister, has a right to speak for this country." I put it fairly to the House that that is exactly what we have got to say. With what result? At any future Imperial Conference the people of Canada and the remainder of our Dominions would be able to say to this House of Commons and to this country, "Although we send men to represent us; although we send to you our responsible statesmen, we refuse to send them as representing Canada; we merely send them as delegates without being able to say a word that binds us." That is exactly the situation that will be created if this House of Commons does not reverse this decision.
  I think a profound mistake has been made by the Press and speakers in this Reuse in introducing the loyalty of our Canadian soldiers. What right have we to assume that those who gave their lives, those who risked so much, those who fought so gallantly, those who went over the top, said, "I am prepared to risk my life merely for the removal of this
  156
  embargo"? It is a slur and an insult on them to say it. No, that is not the kind of tie that binds our Empire. That is not the kind of thing that influenced our Canadian soldiers in fighting our battles. That is not the kind of thing that influenced our Canadian people in supporting us in our hour of trial. All those things should be wiped out. What we ought to say is: "Can we first, as a Parliament, say that we will be a party to an injustice to one of our Dominions?" Secondly, "Can we, as a House of Commons, having made a solemn promise through our responsible Minister, and the Prime Minister himself, take the responsibility of repudiating their word given on our behalf?" That is an answer to the pledge, but, so far as the great mass of the British public are concerned, they believe that this is an artificial barrier. They believe that this does tend to keep up the price of meat. They believe that free importation would be better. For all those reasons, I support the Motion now before the House.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sure the House, without exception, will cordially agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said as to the introduction of the suggestion into this question of the Imperial spirit, which the Empire showed in the Great War, in the Dominions and Colonies, and particularly Canada. Everybody will agree with that. Upon the other two points he made, I should like to say a few words. He suggested that the interests of the consumer in this country were that the embargo should be removed, and I am certain that he made that suggestion perfectly honestly, and believing that it is so. May I suggest to him that the real interests of the consumer lie in getting the largest possible supplies, and the greatest possible security that those supplies will continue? My right hon Friend was in favour of free imports Does he realise how free importation is? The importation of meat into this country is absolutely free and unfettered, as regards chilled meat, as regards frozen meat, as regards live cattle on the hoof, provided they are fat cattle slaughtered at the ports. The only point on which there is not absolute freedom is that these cattle should come in fat, and should not come in as lean stores. Does my right hon. Friend really suggest that that small barrier, as to the class of cattle

  157
  which may come freely into this country, is not worth keeping up for the enormous security that it gives to the breeding industry in this country?
  That is really the point, and I am sure he will agree that it would be no advantage to this country, as has already been pointed out in this Debate, that these cattle should come here lean instead of coming here fat. You gain nothing by that, but what you will do is to make it absolutely insecure for the breeding industry in this country to continue its present operations. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Sir H. Hope) and the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. G. Edwards) both raised the point, which is a real point, but which only affects a very small area. They raised a real and an absolutely genuine point that there are districts in this country where stores have to be imported, because of the methods of farming there carried on, and they used the argument that the importation of more stores will increase the fertility of those areas. I admit the strength of their case. I do not wish to minimise it, but I wish to point out that that only referred to very small areas in this country.
  Mr. G. EDWARDS: Three counties.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Out of how many?
  Mr. STURROCK: What about Scotland?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There is a larger area in Scotland in proportion to England.
  Mr. STURROCK: Does my hon. Friend know that the Scottish Board of Agriculture, as a whole, is in favour of the introduction of store cattle?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have nothing to do with the opinion of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. I am speaking to the point as to what proportion of the area in this country is dependent upon imported stores. That is a very small proportion. The National Farmers' Union represents 100,000 farmers of this country. It has branches in every county. There are only two counties in England where there is a majority in favour of the removal of the embargo. In every other county there is a great majority against the removal of the embargo. The simple fact is that in a very large proportion of the rural areas where the cattle can be both produced and fatted off it is far more
  158
  advantageous. But there are large areas where the stock never can be fatted, because the land is wholly unsuitable for the purpose. May I also remind the House that these areas are not only seen in the mountain lands where there are smallholders, who are largely dependent upon breeding stores, but it also covers a large proportion, indeed almost the whole of the poor lands all over the country. One of the greatest difficulties we have to meet in agricultural conditions here is to keep the poor land in cultivation. I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Southern Norfolk (Mr. G. Edwards) said about his county is quite true; but in the adjoining county of Suffolk, where the land is very much poorer, the main industry is the breeding industry. It is on that breeding industry in Suffolk, and in large districts in the country outside Suffolk, that the maintenance of arable land depends.
  We plough out the arable land in these poor lands and districts. Whether we shall get a crop depends upon whether we get rain. This year we have got rain, but too late. Last year we had no rain at all. If it was not for breeding high-class pedigree stock it would be absolutely impossible to keep that land under cultivation at all. I believe that the breeding industry in this country is really the mainstay of British agriculture, not only from the point of view of maintaining the poor lands, but also because it is really the basic foundation of the whole meat trade of the world. I do not think I exaggerate in saying that, because all the stock which comes back to this country in the form of meat, or nearly the whole of it, whether it comes from the States or Canada or the Argentine—wherever it comes from—it all has its origin, characteristics, and continuance in the stock which is produced here—that is, the pedigree animals. Believe me, it is a very short view to suggest that this small measure of restriction to give security to that great breeding industry in this country which keeps our poor land in cultivation, which is the foundation of the whole of the meat supplies of the world, is wrong—to deny that small measure of security in order to secure pedantic adhesion to the extreme Free Trade point of view is really to sacrifice the best interests of this country.
  10.0 p.m.
  We cannot get security, as has already been pointed out, for our breeding indus-

  159
  try in this country, for our meat supplies, if we are dependent upon the importation of Canadian cattle, for that importation depends upon the continuance of the United States tariff. The Minister of Agriculture of Canada, in giving evidence before the Commission, used these words:
  "I do not guarantee that under no condition whatever the Canadian, whatever his patriotism, will send his cattle here over to Great Britain if he can get more money for them somewhere else."
  That is pretty plain speaking. If we are to become dependent upon foreign stores instead of upon home-bred stores it is quite obvious that this must diminish our security both in peace and war. But on that point I do not think anyone can add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture (Sir A. Boscawen). I have always felt very grateful for the efforts he has made in the interests of the agricultural community, but I do not think I was ever more grateful for anything than for what he has said to-night and its great influence in this Debate on everyone who heard it.
  I wish to say a word or two on the further question referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). He dealt with the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley Mr. Asquith)—whom I am sorry to see is no longer here —that this House was bound by the pledge given at the Imperial Conference. I think it is rather a large suggestion that this House should be considered bound, and absolutely bound, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, by pledges and arrangements which were come to at the Imperial Conference. It chanced that on the very same day, 26th April, the 14th day of the Imperial War Conference, that there were two Committees sitting, about one of which we have heard so much to-night. The other considered the question of Imperial preference. On that very same day, probably at the very same hour, this Resolution was proposed by the Chairman:
  "This is the Resolution settled this morning at the Imperial War Cabinet.
  The time has arrived when every possible encouragement should be given to the development of Imperial resources, and especially making the Empire independent
  160
  of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials, and essential industries.
  With these objects in view the Conference expresses itself in favour of the principle that each part of the Empire; having due regard to the interests of our Allies shall give specially favourable terms and facilities to the produce and manufactures of other parts of the Empire."
  I am not aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley has consistently pressed upon the House the urgent necessity of giving effect to that Resolution. I do not know whether he considers the House, or the House considers, himself or themselves bound by it. But there was a little difference between these two proceedings. We had an answer given on the Floor of the House some little time ago to the effect that the pledge given by Mr. Prothero and Mr. Long—as they then were—at the imperial Conference was not preceded by any Cabinet decision whatever. The thing merely arose in the discussion which then took place. But this Resolution which I have just read was very different. Sir Robert Borden—other Ministers being present—seconded the Resolution.
  "Sir B. BORDEN: I think it should be stated in connection with this, that the whole subject has been discussed very fully and exhaustively in the Imperial War Cabinet. The particular words of the Resolution have been settled after careful drafting; so that great care and attention has been given to the precise phraseology as well as the principle expressed. For that reason it is not necessary here to go into a full discussion on the subject.
  Sir JOSEPH WARD: I would like to say, too, that if this matter had not been up before and settled by the Imperial War Cabinet this morning, this Resolution would certainly have been the subject of very considerable discussion."
  That makes it perfectly clear that that Resolution about Imperial preference was exhaustively discussed and drafted by the Imperial War Cabinet, and that it had the fullest possible authority at the time it was passed, whereas the Conference to which reference is now being made had no such authority, and it also bears witness in the White Paper to having been of an extraordinary and casual character. I was very much struck in reading the Report of this Conference to notice that Mr. Prothero first of all said that he had only seen the papers that morning, and further on he says:
  "We were rather jumpy at that time on account of the cattle plague because just before 1896 we had been bringing cattle from the Argentine suffering from foot-and-mouth

  161
  disease, and that was why we made these most drastic alterations which we could not do by legislation but merely by order of the Board of Agriculture.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that is not so.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I have not looked into this thing for 20 years, and I am afraid that I have not looked at the Act on this specific point, but I will look into it."
  That hardly seems to be a foundation on which to give a pledge of this kind. Therefore, I claim that this pledge was given in a very casual sort of way. I also claim that it was a conditional pledge, and that was obvious, because preceding the giving of the pledge there was this expression of opinion by Mr. Rogers, who made out the case for Canada.
  "Of course we naturally argue that this embargo has been placed as a matter of policy by the Board of Agriculture for the development of British live cattle industry. If the Board of Agriculture conceive it to be their duty and in the public interest to have a policy of protection of their live cattle Industry we should have no complaint and offer no objection, but we do complain that an embargo is placed against our cattle which implies this protection that also carries with it the stigma that they are likely to convey pleuro-pneumonia."
  Therefore it follows that Mr. Long's pledge and the pledge given by Mr. Prothero were given on the strength of these views, that there was not to be any stigma against the health of Canadian cattle, and if, from the point of view of our own agricultural policy, the security of our flocks and herds, it was desirable that it should be maintained, then, if it did not place any slur upon the health of Canadian cattle, they had no objection to it. It was upon that understanding that the pledge was given, and I think that bears out Lord Ernle's statement that, in giving that pledge, he only thought that he was removing a stigma, and that is direct evidence that that was prevailing in his mind at the time.
  There is another point with regard to the pledge which I think makes it perfectly clear, as the Minister for Agriculture pointed out, that the insistence on the pledge now is rather an afterthought. At the time of the Dudley election the newspaper stunt was very much on a par with the Chinese Labour agitation which took place in this country some years ago. At that time the whole question was cheap meat, and it was said that we were going to get a
  162
  reduction of 6d. per 1b. in the price of meat. There has been a fall of 6d. per 1b. in the wholesale price of meat, for the farmer, and no doubt, if the embargo had been removed, we should have been told it was due to that But although there has been a fall of 6d. in the price of home-grown meat to the butcher, the fall in the price to the consumer has only been half that amount. Since then the meat traders have been extraordinarily silent upon the question of cheap meat, and we have heard very little from the meat traders since the change in the price took place.
  Now we hear a great deal about the pledge, and that is the whole issue according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, who used the expression that we need not discuss the technical question at all, and he says that all we have to consider is the pledge. If that be so, why was the Royal Commission appointed? If this House and the country were absolutely bound by a definite pledge given to the Canadian Government, that Canadian store cattle should be admitted without restriction, why was it necessary to appoint a Royal Commission? I have in my hand the Report of the Royal Commission, and I have the reference to it, and there is not one single word in that reference about a pledge. I think this is very remarkable. If the pledge is a main issue, why was it not mentioned? It is a fact that not even Canada was mentioned. The terms of the reference are
  "To inquire into the admission into the United Kingdom of livestock for purposes other than immediate slaughter at the port; whether such admission would increase and cheapen the meat supply of the country and to what extent; and whether such admission is advisable having regard to the necessity of protecting livestock breeding in the country from the introduction of disease and restoring their numbers as to losses to which they have been subject during the War."
  The Commission had not to deal with the pledge and, according to their own statement, not having to deal with the question of the protection of the home meat industry against competition, the first half of their Report was a very halfhearted and tentative statement that there might possibly be some small reduction in the cost of meat, but they were very doubtful about it. They did not seem to have any doubt whatever as to their opinion that the admission of Canadian stores might make it difficult for the

  163
  small farmers in the Highlands to carry on their operations, and that the admission of Canadian stores might deprive Irish farmers of the markets they enjoy in Great Britain. They did not think it within their terms of reference to enter into questions of Imperial policy as regards food supplies in time of war.
  Every word that is said there as regards the Highlands, smallholders, and the Irish farmers, applies equally to the whole breeding industry of this country, wherever it may be. It is perfectly clear that the Royal Commission were of the opinion that the importation of Canadian stores would be very detrimental to the breeding industry of this country. Everybody agrees that Canada has been extraordinarily free from disease for the last 30 years. Scotland was free from disease for 20 years prior to the last outbreak. We have been told that there have been continual outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, but it is a fact that during those 20 years when Scotland has been absolutely free from foot-and-mouth disease 2,000,000 stores have been introduced from Ireland into Scotland, and no single outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred. The fact is that the danger of disease comes from the 3.000 mile frontier in the United States. It is perfectly clear that disease can be air-borne. Contact is not required. Air-borne foot-and-mouth disease has come across the North Sea and the Channel, and it may at any time come into Canada. The danger to my mind is not so much that disease would be introduced from Canada into this country. The danger is its introduction from the United States into Canada. If it did there is no doubt whatever we should have to put restrictions on the import of Canadian cattle in any form whatever, and, therefore, there is an entire uncertainty of a constant and continuous supply from Canada to this country. Our supplies from Canada cannot be as certain as they are from stock bred here.
  Another point also made, which is of great importance, is that it is only our home-grown meat which is perfectly safe against interference by the Meat Trust. It is all very well, and it is perfectly true that as between Ireland and Canada there is naturally a very strong feeling
  164
  in this country, and bearing in mind the events that have happened during the War, this country is as much drawn to Canada as it is to Ireland. We do not want to carry on that feeling now, but, quite apart from that, one cannot ignore geography. Ireland is one of the British Islands, and naturally the market for Irish cattle is in Great Britain. We cannot get away from that fad. Just as naturally the market for Canadian cattle is the United States. As long as Canadian cattle—so we were definitely told by the Canadian Minister—can find a better market in the United States, they will send their cattle there and not here.
  I will not stand between the House and the right hon. Gentleman who is to follow me, but will only make one more point. I think it is quite evident that the reason why Canada prefers sending us stores to sending us fat animals, is the very same reason why the British farmers object to that course being taken—because they wish to increase their own breeding industry, and to increase the number of cattle produced in Canada. They would rather send their cattle to us as stores than fat them and send them to us as fat animals. We, on the other hand, know and feel that our only security for increasing home production, from the time when the animal is bred to the time when it is eaten, is to support our own breeding industry. In view of what was said by the Canadian representatives at the Conference, as to their desire to do nothing to interfere with our own agricultural policy, I feel perfectly confident that, if there were a round-table conference between the representatives of British agriculture and of Canadian agriculture, and if the whole case were laid before them as it has been laid before this House by the Minister of Agriculture to-day, Canada would never insist upon this pledge being carried out to the detriment of British agriculture. The case was never made. It was a perfunctory discussion. The circumstances were wholly different from what they are to-day. This House never has been pledged, and never can be pledged, to sacrifice British agriculture, to sacrifice the security of our own meat supplies, on such a trivial pretext as this, and I am quite certain that the House, having heard the Debate to-day, will come to the conclusion that, if this embargo be removed, there will be neither

  165
  a larger nor a better, nor a cheaper supply of meat to this country.
  I wish I could have put the case more strongly than I have, but I can safely leave it where it was left by the Minister of Agriculture. On the grounds which he put to the House, and which have been put repeatedly in this Debate by those who represent British agriculture in all parts of the British Isles, I think we may take our stand; and I earnestly hope that, when we go to a Division, we shall be able to say that for once British agriculture has been supported in a real, concrete case. We get a great deal of sympathy and good will in the abstract, but when a concrete case comes before the House we are told that the interest of the consumer prevails, and that the British farmer must go to the wall. I hope the House, when it goes to a Division, will not let the British farmer go to the wall on this occasion.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Although it falls to my task to speak at the conclusion of this Debate, I hope the House will realise that, like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I have no pretensions to speak for the Government. It is not as a Member of the Government that I intervene. But I should like to say on behalf of the Government, entirely as a non-partisan observation, that I think we have been thoroughly justified in the course we have taken in leaving this discussion, and the vote which is to conclude it, to the free discretion of the House. If ever there was a subject which should be left to the open vote of the House, it is this particular question; and, curiously enough, the precedents of the past justify that course. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) has reminded us, when this matter was last discussed in a serious manner in the House exactly the same course was taken by the Government of the day, although that Government and that Parliament were very differently composed from the present ones. The interests are very diverse on -this question. Every party in the State is split to its foundation upon this issue except, I believe, the Labour party, who are the only party united on this issue, probably the only issue on which they are united. The House has seen during the course of the Debate how different are the interests and the points of view. There
  166
  is the town interest versus the country interest. There is a certain difference, I am told, between the East Coast and the West. There are serious differences even in the ranks of the agriculturists themselves—between the feeders and the breeders. It is a question on which every party in the country has a right to express its opinion, on which every Member representing a constituency has a right to compare two points of view, first of all the main points in the interest of the country as a whole, and secondly the special interests of his constituency. I listened to the able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and everyone knows what an indefeasible title he has to speak on agricultural questions. I assure him, speaking for some of those who wish to see this embargo removed and who propose to testify it in a few minutes in the Lobby, that I absolutely disclaim any want of sympathy with British agriculture, most of all at a time like this and in a year like this, when that great and premier industry of this nation, and of every other nation, has suffered quite exceptionally from the movement of prices and, as we are assured, from the caprice of the weather.
  But it seems to those who examine the structure and composition of this country, with a vast industrial population, and mighty manufacturing power, on which our military and naval power have been upborne, that that industrial power and those millions who have come into existence on the basis of industrial power, have only come into existence by the assurance to this country of cheap and abundant supplies of food. And the mere fact that we have had to prefer this major interest—for irresistible forces have led us to prefer this major interest—should certainly equally lead us, out of the wealth we have acquired by industry, out of the strong position we have acquired through our manufacturing industry, to regard agriculture, which has suffered for the sake of this industrial development, as a fostered industry, provided that fostering and that favouring does not operate through the maintenance or creation of an artificial scarcity which cripples the main manufacturing power. As my right hon. Friend has said, sympathy is of very little use to agriculture, but in the Budget some of that sympathy took a practical form, and, for my part, as I

  167
  am challenged by the Minister of Agriculture to say what I mean by there being other ways of making up to, agriculture anything they may lose, or consider they may lose, by the settlement of a question like this against their wishes and their views, I say without hesitation that I will give him my support in anything that will foster agriculture provided it does not inflict the hardship of scarcity on the great mass of people of the country. Those who have listened to the whole Debate will be struck by the brilliancy of the hopes expressed on the one side and the appalling hues which the fears of others on the other side have taken. My view is that both the hopes and the fears are exaggerated. There is not nearly so much to be got out of the removal of the embargo, either for this country or Canada, as is expected. There is not nearly as much injury to British agriculture or disturbance of existing conditions as is apprehended by those whose lives are wrapped up in that industry. If hopes are dupes, fears may be liars. Take the first case, of an overwhelming inundation of inferior Canadian scrub cattle—I believe that is the expression used. In this matter I do not pretend in the least to have any expert knowledge; but I have a, right to state an argument to the House. There is the natural protection of distance across the sea, and distance along the railway routes, which is bound to play an effective part both as regards the quantity and quality of the imported cattle. I think it is common ground between both sides that no large importation is to be expected. It would also seem that inferior stock like these scrub cattle will not pay for transportation. There will be a protection as to the quality of the stock which will arise from the cost of transportation by railway and sea. We have heard arguments about cruelty to animals on board ships. Surely, we need not argue about that. It must be a matter of regulation, and of strong regulation. There will be no dispute with Canada about that. There will be no dispute with any part of the British Empire about that. By all means, Regulations must be made to protect these beasts from being ill-treated or landed in a damaged and broken
  168
  condition. These Regulations will add to the existing natural protection of distance, both by sea and land.
  As to the effect on prices, I am certainly not coming before the House to suggest that they should give a vote for cheap meat and dear honour. I am certainly not going to press a combination of such very opposite and unsuitable ideas. There is a hope, a reasonable hope, which is entertained, of a certain modification in the price of meat arising from a larger market in respect of those store cattle, but it is a hope that may be wrong. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture may be right when he says the effect will be very small, almost negligible. He says:
  "How on earth can — the admission of 200,000 Canadian store cattle seriously affect the price of meat?"
  If that is so, at any rate, agriculture is reassured so far as prices are concerned. I quite agree, as far as I have been able to study the question—and it is the view of the Royal Commission—that the effect will be from the point of view of prices, beneficial to the general public, but not by any means revolutionary or violent, and not likely seriously to affect the prices which may be realised by the agricultural producer. We are told that the Canadian stock being brought in will lead to a great reduction in the amount of cattle raised in this country. But for ten years before this legislation, I am informed, and it is recorded in the evidence given before the Royal Commission, that the herds of this country increased by 1,600,000 heads, and that there was the most rapid increase in proportion to the total that had ever been experienced. This enormous increase took place in spite of the ravages of foot-and-mouth disease, to which reference has been made, which were taking place at the time, and probably that importation was the only way in which a very serious shortage was prevented. When Lord Ernie, of whom I shall have a word to say before sitting down, gave his reasons for the Imperial Conference in 1917, he did not come to them and say, "If the Canadians want us to give up the embargo we will do so." He came forward and volunteered for good reasons, on the merits, the removal of this embargo:
  "So far as I am personally concerned, so far as the English Board of Agriculture is concerned, after the War is over, we consider that it would be wise to remove the

  169
  embargo. The demand for store cattle in the Eastern counties has been somewhat imperfectly met for many years past."
  All these passages are familiar to the House. Then speaking of Ireland, which was advancing most rapidly in its agricultural development—I am afraid that it is not advancing quite so rapidly at the present moment—he said:
  "If you get cattle from Ireland, they will increasingly come over as fat cattle. Therefore the supply of Irish store cattle will tend to diminish, and in that way again the fact that we can turn to Canada for store cattle will he of great advantage to us."
  Sir F. BANBURY: He said also that he looked forward to a great increase in arable farming, which turned out to be quite the reverse.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will not trench too deeply upon ground which I cannot profess to have spent my life in recon-noitring. I will shelter myself perhaps behind Lord Ernie, who has been held up to-night as a great authority, and is even now held up by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture as a great authority. And he gave good reasons on the merits, and not as a mere concession, for taking this decision. But all these complex arguments which are brought forward about the shorthorn book, and the milk supply, were submitted to the Royal Commission. And the Royal Commission has specifically dealt with nearly every one of them in its recommendations. There is a recommendation, all to itself, about the milk supply, stating that there would be no danger to the milk supply from the importation of Canadian cattle. All these matters were examined for many weeks by the Royal Commission which was particularly selected of impartial persons, who nevertheless had special aptitude for studying this matter. And the Royal Commission Report was on every single point unanimously in favour of the removal of the embargo.
  Commander BELLAIRS: They did not deal with food supplies.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not want to argue about it, because the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been circulated as a White Paper, and every Member can read over and judge for himself. It is upon the Report of the Royal Commission, and on the scientific merits of the agricultural problem that
  170
  those who are in favour of the removal of the embargo must necessarily take their stand. That volume, with its many hundreds of pages, represents one of the greatest scientific investigations of the age. We cannot all claim to be agricultural experts. The House, I know, is almost exclusively composed of agricultural experts. We who have to give a vote to-night on broad, general principles find this solid volume a very firm foundation on which to base our opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Have you read it all?"] Naturally, I should not presume to take part in this Debate if I had not read every word. But there is one argument which stands on an entirely different footing from all others. That is the argument of disease. If it can be shown that disease would come in from Canada, that our herds, worth £400,000,000, the greatest and almost the unique centre of the world in this respect—if it can be shown that these priceless herds, the pride of Britain and a most valuable element in our export trade, were to be endangered, then I agree that that would be the kind of issue on which ordinary Members, who have no special aptitude in regard to agriculture, would be bound to take a very decided part. But is there any question of disease? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I will quote Lord Ernie:
  "We do not believe that there is now or has been for a good many years past the slightest ground to exclude Canadian cattle on the score of disease."
  That was in 1917. But the most remarkable statement was made by the Board of Agriculture two years later, on 26th April, 1919. It is a, statement made in advance almost to answer the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, when he spoke of Canada's 3,000 miles of frontier with the United States. This statement was made after the Board had had two years to think over the pledge given in 1917:
  "It is admitted by the Board of Agriculture that the bar to the importation of Canadian stores can no longer be maintained on the score of health. For many years cattle born and bred in Canada have been exceptionally free from all forms of infectious disease; indeed there are probably no cattle in the world which can show co clean a bill of health. Even the possibility of the introduction of infection by cattle which somehow or other had crossed the long line of frontier between Canada and the United States can be dismissed, because suitable precautions would undoubtedly be taken to ensure that any imports allowed were cattle horn and reared in Canada, which

  171
  were leaving it for the first time for direct shipment to British ports."
  Then there is the Royal Commission which confirms that statement. I will not take up the time of the House by reading the Commission's findings; it is one of their definite recommendations that there is no danger from disease. On all the evidence which has been brought before us in the House during the whole of this controversy, the argument that we are shutting out Canadian cattle, because we are afraid they will infect our herds with disease, is mere pretence and indeed is no longer sustained by any of those who championed it—[Interruption]— except by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture who has just interrupted me to the effect that he does. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was— and I think I am expressing the general sense of all who were present in the House at the time—a magnificent Parliamentary performance. If anyone could champion this particular aspect of the British agricultural position it is my right hon. Friend, and those who hold that view were fortunate to find so stalwart, obdurate and pertinacious a defender, and one who rejoices in those settled convictions which result from complete concentration upon his special point of view. Now, from the point of view of disease, how can the Irish case be met? The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment opposing the removal of the embargo admitted that in 15 years there have been six outbreaks of disease in Ireland. Yet we have borne with that all the time, and British agriculture has got on in the face of an Irish importation vastly larger in numbers than anything that is anticipated from Canada, and far less immune from disease. This is a point which must be considered in relation to Canada. When Lord Ernie was asked at the Royal Commission why it was reasonable to import store cattle from Ireland, which was admittedly subject to foot-and-mouth disease, while they could not be imported from Canada, which was healthy, he answered:
  "If you ask me my candid opinion unofficially, I should say I would rather have store cattle from Canada."
  That is Lord Ernie—still an authority. You must consider this question of Ireland as a new factor in the situation.
  172
  Ireland is a Dominion, or will shortly be a Dominion.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Southern Ireland.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, Southern Ireland. It is a very serious thing to draw an invidious distinction between Canada and Ireland, to the detriment of Canada. It is not for me surely, at the present time, to disparage Ireland; I hope its services to the British Empire in the future will compare with those which we expect from the greatest Dominion, but at the present moment, surely, it is a very invidious thing to say, "We will accept any amount of cattle from Ireland, where there have been six outbreaks in the last 15 years, and where there is absolutely no sea quarantine, and we will refuse cattle from loyal Canada, which gave us such aid in the Great War, although she has been absolutely free from disease, and there is something like 10, 12, or 14 days' sea quarantine on the way over." I think that is a very dangerous course to pursue. My right hon. Friend said, "This is an agricultural question." He spoke as Minister of Agriculture, representing the Department. I am entitled to say to the House, "This is an Imperial question also." I am entitled to speak to them as representing the Colonial Office. I am bound to put the Canadian aspect before the House. Canada has never challenged our rights. Canada has never said to us, "You ought not to put a tariff on the cattle." On the contrary, Sir Robert Borden repeatedly, and Mr. Meighen repeatedly, said, "If we put a tariff on your goods, if you like tax ours. That is your business; but what we do object to is your putting a slur and a stigma upon our herds, which injures them not only in your markets but in the markets of every other country in the world." If this slur be not removed, if this stigma be not taken away, then I am bound to tell the House that undoubtedly you will have committed an injustice to Canada which will rankle and offend Canadian sentiment far out of proportion to the actual material injury which she will suffer. Canada does not threaten. Let me make it absolutely clear. All those who are our friends in Canada, the great mass of vigorous men and women who are working for the well-being of the British Empire, say, "Whatever you do, we shall continue to work for the unity

  173
  of the British Empire"; but they also say this "There are many new elements in Canada, there are many unassimilated elements in Canada, there are many interests in Canada which undoubtedly would be served by all kinds of tariff and other arrangements with the great Power which lies over the border. Do not place on our shoulders an unnecessarily heavy burden, do not hamper us unnecessarily in the work we have to do to promote the general and permanent unity of the British Empire." I think the House, in view of all that has been said, would make a very grave decision if it decided, by refusing all redress of this undoubted grievance and injustice, to place a stumbling block in the path of weaker brethren in Canada and hamper our strongest friends in working for Imperial consolidation.
  I must finish by referring again to the pledge. I have kept it to this moment because it has been dealt with so vigorously and clearly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) earlier in the Debate. There is no possible doubt about the pledge—none. There is no dispute about it. The words can be read by everyone, but Lord Long, who was the principal Minister there at the time it was given, stated only a few days ago, in decisive language, that the pledge is unmistakable and absolute. Lord Long made it perfectly clear that he meant the pledge as any one of us would read it, and that it was accepted by Canada in that same sense. It was not a pledge merely to remove a stigma, as has been stated. Anyone who reads it will see it was a pledge to remove the restriction, and the express term was used; otherwise, why should you have waited for the ships? You do not require ships to remove a stigma.
  The pledge was given in the sense that as soon as the shipping became available after the War the Canadians should be allowed to send their store cattle in here. That is their view, and that is the view of those on this side who gave the pledge. When this matter was brought up in 1921 Canada had, I think, been very patient. The Prime Minister said, "The pledge is undisputed; no one can dispute it"—I am not quoting textually. In answer to Mr. Meighen's demand that the pledge should be removed, he made the clearest and plainest admission, which he repeated in this House, that we were
  174
  pledged to it. He said that many interests were involved in this country, and so we were going to set up a Royal Commission, composed of impartial persons, to determine what was best to be done. That showed what concern we had for the agricultural interest.
  The Royal Commission has now reported unanimously in favour of the removal of the embargo and the fulfilment of the pledge as demanded by Canada. This view is held in the strongest and most explicit manner by every Canadian statesman with whom I have been brought into contact, by the late Government and the present Government, by Sir Robert Borden, by Mr. Meighen, by the late High Commissioner and by the present High Commissioner, and by the present Administration in Canada. Those hon. Members who have read the Debate in the House of Lords know that the late Governor-General of Canada, the Duke of Devonshire, has explained in the plainest way that they hold us to our word and bond—our word, our promise and our bond. I say that we cannot afford to break faith with them on a question of this kind, at this juncture. That would be entirely foreign to the path pursued by the British Government and the House of Commons in dealing with Imperial affairs. We must do our duty in keeping our promise, and then, if it be found that British agriculture has suffered and has paid an undue price for the pledges given on behalf of the nation as a whole, it will be for the House of Commons to consider in what way and by what methods we can sustain and support that industry. Let us support it by every method that is open to us, but do not let us support it at the cost of our good sense and our good faith.
  Mr. W. SHAW Mr. W. SHAW rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his consent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Commander BELLAIRS: If the statement by the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference constitutes a pledge, then a fresh pledge has been given on 29th July, by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
  "Of course, if the embargo were withdrawn, it would have to be withdrawn all round."

  175
  I wish the House to understand, when they go into the Division Lobby, that they will be voting for the removal of the embargo all round. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!" and "No!"]
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 171.

  Division No. 233.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Atkey, A. R.

  Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Morris, Richard

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Banton, George

  Gregory, Holman

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertitlery)

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

  Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Grenfell, Edward Charles

  Myers, Thomas

  Barrand, A. R.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Grundy, T. W.

  Naytor, Thomas Ellis

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Neal, Arthur

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Newbould. Alfred Ernest

  Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Halls, Walter

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Ormsby-Gare, Hon. William

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pearce, Sir William

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Hayward, Evan

  Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbrldge, Mddx.)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

  Perring, William George

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Hogge, James Myles

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Bromfield, William

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Bull, Rt, Hon. Sir William James

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Hope,Sir H. (Stirling &Cl,ckm'nn'n,W.)

  Ramsden, G. T

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Cairns, John

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Rendaii, Atheistan

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

  Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)

  Casey, T. W.

  Houlton, John Plowright

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Chamberlain. N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Irving, Dan

  Rodger, A. K.

  Clay. Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender;

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jesson, C.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Seager, Sir William

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoin)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kidd, James

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Simm, M. T.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Ednam, Viscount

  Lawson, John James

  Spoor, B. G.

  Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Lunn, William

  Stevens, Marshall

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Lyle, C. E. Leonard

  Stewart, Gershom

  Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Sugden, W. H.

  Fildes, Henry

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Sutton, John Edward

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Swan, J. E.

  Foot, Isaac

  Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Taylor, J.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Macnamara. Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Forrest, Walter

  Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West!

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Manville, Edward

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Gardiner, James

  Martin, A. E.

  Tillett, Benjamin

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Matthews. David

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Vickers, Douglas

  Glllls, William

  Mills, John Edmund

  Wallace, J.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Waterson, A. E,

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. w. (Stourbridge)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Watson, captain John Bertrand

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O. (R'diag)

  Younger, Sir George

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wignall, James

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.|

  Mr. W. Shaw and Mr. Percy.

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Wood,Major Sir S.HIII-(High Peak)

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Forestler-Walker, L.

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Allen,' Lieut.-Col. sir William James

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Newton, Major Sir Harry K.

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Gould, James C.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Ashley, Colonel Wilfred W.

  Green, Joseph F, (Leicester, W.)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Greer, Sir Harry

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich)

  Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Hall, Rd-Adml Sir W. (Llv'p'l.W.D'by)

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Harbison, Thomas James S.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil

  Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

  Henncssy, Major J. R. G.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

  Redmond, Captain William Archer

  Betterton. Henry B.

  Hinds, John

  Rees, Cast. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

  Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

  Halbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Held, D. D.

  Boscawen. Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Remer, J. R.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hume-Williams, Sir w. Ellis

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Huntor-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hard, Percy A.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

  Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

  Jeilett, William Morgan

  Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Carew, Charles Robert S.

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Blrm. W.)

  Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, East)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Thomas, Brig.-Gen. sir O. (Anglesey)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  Cope, Major William

  Lorden, John William

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col- George L.

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

  Whitia, Sir William

  Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Davidson, J. C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)

  M'Connell, Thomas Edward

  Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

  Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Windsor, Viscount

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  Mallaby-Deeley, Sir Harry

  Winterton, Earl

  Dockrell, Sir Maurice

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Wise, Frederick

  Donnelly, P.

  Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Day Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

  Wood. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Moles, Thomas

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Elveden, Viscount

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Morrison, Hugh

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Murchison, C. K.

  Mr. Evans and Captain Elliot.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved,
  "That this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle should be removed."

WAR SERVICES CANTEENS (DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS) BILL.
Read the Third time, and passed.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 4) BILL.
Read the Third time, and passed.

CELLULOID AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILM BILL [Lords].
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

AIR EXPENDITURE, 1920–21.
Resolved, That this House will Tomorrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Air Grants for 1920–21, and the application of surpluses to meet expenditure not provided for in the grants for that year.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
Ordered, That the Appropriation Account for the Air Department, which was presented upon the 13th of March last, be referred to the Committee.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

AIR EXPENDITURE, 1920–21.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  ILLUMINATED GLASSWARE.
  ILLUMINATED GLASSWARE.
  WIRE NAILS.
  WIRE NAILS.
  OPTICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS.
  OPTICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS.
  VULCANISED FIBRE
  VULCANISED FIBRE
  DUTCH GLASS BOTTLES.
  DUTCH GLASS BOTTLES.
  GLASS ARTICLES.
  GLASS ARTICLES.
  COCAINE.
  COCAINE.
  AUSTRIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  AUSTRIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  IMPORTED POTATOES (NETHERLANDS).
  IMPORTED POTATOES (NETHERLANDS).
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION v. KERSANS, LIMITED.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION v. KERSANS, LIMITED.
HOUSING.
  SCOTLAND.
  SCOTLAND.
  UNINHABITED DWELLINGS.
  UNINHABITED DWELLINGS.
POST OFFICE.
  WIRELESS BROADCASTING.
  WIRELESS BROADCASTING.
  VACANCIES, NORTH-MIDLAND AREA.
  VACANCIES, NORTH-MIDLAND AREA.
  ROYAL ARMY VETERINARY CORPS (PROMOTION).
  ROYAL ARMY VETERINARY CORPS (PROMOTION).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PARENTS' PENSIONS.
  PARENTS' PENSIONS.
INDIA.
  BRITISH BUDDHIST MISSION TO TIBET.
  BRITISH BUDDHIST MISSION TO TIBET.
EDUCATION.
  CHILDREN UNDER SIX (TEACHERS).
  CHILDREN UNDER SIX (TEACHERS).
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  REGENT'S PLACE, WESTMINSTER (PUBLIC MEETINGS).
  REGENT'S PLACE, WESTMINSTER (PUBLIC MEETINGS).
  EX-INSPECTOR SYME.
  EX-INSPECTOR SYME.
  NATURALISATION APPLICATIONS.
  NATURALISATION APPLICATIONS.
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (PRICE).
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (PRICE).
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  TREASURY SECURITIES DEPOSIT SCHEME.
  TREASURY SECURITIES DEPOSIT SCHEME.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  EX-SERVICE (CIVIL SERVICE).
  EX-SERVICE (CIVIL SERVICE).
  HAGUE CONFERENCE.
  HAGUE CONFERENCE.
  GREECE AND TURKEY.
  GREECE AND TURKEY.
  SIERRA LEONE RAILWAY.
  SIERRA LEONE RAILWAY.
  RAILWAYS, IRELAND.
  RAILWAYS, IRELAND.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, WILCOT, DEVIZES.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, WILCOT, DEVIZES.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ACCOMMODATION).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ACCOMMODATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I regret to say that I have a letter from the Chairman of Committees to the effect that he is unable to be in attendance to-day, owing to indisposition. I beg, therefore, to move that the Earl of Granard do take the Chair in all Committees of the House this day.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, read 1a, and to be printed.

SAINT MARYLEBONE BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Committees.
Moved, That the Order made on the 4th day of May last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 15th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SMOKE ABATEMENT BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords,
686
the Bill which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is the outcome of the Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee, which was presided over by my noble friend, Lord Newton. That Committee sat for about two years, examined a very large number of witnesses, visited the chief industrial towns, and produced a most voluminous Report, at, I understand, very small cost to the public—a fact upon which I think your Lordships will congratulate my noble friend.
The object which we had in mind in drafting this Bill was to produce a measure of a non-controversial character, and I hope we have succeeded in that task. It is true that my noble friend's Committee made certain recommendations which are not included in the Bill. We were bound to regard these as being of a somewhat controversial nature, and we therefore left them out. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, I would suggest that its further consideration should stand over until the autumn, when Amendments can, no doubt, be moved to allow the more controversial portions of the Report to be considered. Some time will thus elapse before the Committee, stage, and opportunity will be afforded for consideration by all the parties concerned, so that possibly an agreed measure may be the result.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to deal very briefly with the recommendations of the Committee, and to explain how far they are contained in the Bill. In the first place, as regards recommendations (a), dealing within dustrial smoke, the Bill extends the Public Health Act, 1875, so that all smoke, and not only black smoke, is included in the smoke nuisance. It also includes gritty particles, soot and ash in the term "smoke." I think this provision meets one of the most important recommendations of the Committee. In subsection (3) of Clause 1, we provide that the person charged with the nuisance may show that he, in fact, used the best practical means of preventing it. Thus we place the onus probandi on the person charged, whereas the recommendation of my noble friend's Committee, if he will allow me to say so, seems to imply that it should rest on the local authorities. We also include the Committee's recommendation that larger fines be imposed.
Another recommendation with regard to industrial smoke was that the Ministry of

687
Health should be given powers to compel defaulting authorities to administer the law with regard to smoke. We do not quite adopt that recommendation. We adopt the plan followed in other cases, notably one recently before your Lordships—namely, the Milk Bill. We adopt the procedure authorising the county councils to undertake the duties of any authorities who fail to carry out their duties under the Public Health Act. I think your Lordships will agree that only in the last resort should the Government undertake the functions of a local authority where the local authority fails to carry them out satisfactorily or at all. The county councils, of course, represent the whole body of the inhabitants of a district, and they are empowered to apply the remedy in cases of default. If the county council does not take action, presumably it is because public opinion in the area does not wish it to do so, and if the electors do not wish their own county council to take action, still less would they approve of a sanitary inspector coming down from London to do what the county council is empowered to do. So we meet the views of the Committee in allowing two or more authorities to combine under Clause 4. We do not suggest that the Ministry of Health should take the initiative, but we give the authorities power to combine.
The Committee recommended that the Ministry should assign one or more competent officers to advise with regard to the smoke problem. That is not included in the Bill because it is of an administrative nature, and arrangements are in force by which officials of the Ministry are already performing this duty. So far, we have not been able to devise means of adopting the recommendation that the Ministry should fix standards with regard to smoke. There, is great difficulty in carrying this recommendation into effect, and we do not at present see any practical method of doing so. It is not only confined to black smoke, such as the law in force defines as a nuisance. It may be practicable, and of course it is done with regard to noxious gases under the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Act, but when you include all smoke in a Bill you find it difficult to carry the recommendation into practical effect. When we come to the Committee stage my noble friend will very likely have suggestions to offer, and if he has, of course we will give them the most careful consideration.
688
I come then to the second part of the recommendations, which deals with domestic smoke. I think that the recommendation upon which the Committee laid the greatest stress was that of empowering the local authorities to make by-laws requiring the provision of smokeless heating arrangements in new buildings other than private dwelling-houses, and Clause 3 of the Bill gives this power to local authorities. With regard to the recommendation of the Committee as to the central housing authority, I fear we could not embody this recommendation in a Bill. It really is a matter of administration, and not one for legal enactment, and this provision, if it were possible to put it into a Bill, might increase the cost of houses to be built by local authorities or public utility societies. But the recommendation will be borne in mind, and given every consideration by the central housing authority in sanctioning any new housing scheme. The, next recommendation is that the Government should encourage research. This is already being carried out by the Industrial Research Council, and it is not a matter for legislation.
Now I come to (c), the general recommendation. This again could not be included in the Bill, because it is of an administrative rather than legislative nature, and it is a recommendation which should be addressed to municipal authorities rather than to the central Government. Recommendations (d) deal with noxious vapours. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 2 of the Bill we take power to extend the list of noxious or offensive gases mentioned in Section 27 of the Alkali, etc. Works Regulation Act, 1906, and the list of works mentioned in the First Schedule of the Act. Of course, as I have said, the fixation of a standard regarding noxious vapours is different from the fixation of a standard with regard to smoke, and this question is already dealt with in the Act of 1906, Part II, Sections 6 and 7. With regard to the recommendation that a general obligation should lie on every manufacturer to use the best practicable means of preventing the escape of noxious or offensive vapours, it is doubtful whether it would be practicable to enforce such an obligation, and we therefore think that the better plan is the one that we have adopted in the Bill, by extending the list of works and gases to which the Alkali Act can apply. In all works of this kind inspectors of the Ministry help the manufacturers

689
to provide moans of minimising the trouble resulting from noxious vapours.
I hope your Lordships will agree that we have gone a very considerable way to meet my noble friend's recommendations, and the Report of the Committee. So far as they are non-controversial, I think we have met them entirely, and we have also done as much as we can to deal with the other recommendations administratively. I venture to suggest that any further consideration on the other stages of the Bill should be postponed until the autumn, when the considered opinion of all those interested in the matter can be reached by private consultation. Your Lordships will notice that the Bill, as drafted, does not apply to Scotland, but I understand it is the wish of the Scottish authorities that it should be made to apply to Scotland, and no doubt, an Amendment to that effect can be moved at a later stage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, while I gratefully welcome this Bill as an indication of the intention of the Government to deal with a question which is long overdue, I confess that I cannot go so far as to say that it is a genuine fulfilment of the promise made to the people interested in this question. Sir Alfred Mond, when requested by a very influential deputation to do so, undertook to bring in a Bill founded upon the recommendations of the Committee to which the noble Earl has referred. What this Bill actually does is not to carry out the recommendations of the Committee but slightly to amend the Act of 1875, which has been proved to be thoroughly unsatisfactory in its working. I feel that the most important recommendations that were made have been practically ignored. Personally, I feel rather in the position of a man who has been promised a passage, say, to America, and has been given only enough money to take him to Southampton or Liverpool.
The somewhat unheroic course has been adopted of bringing in what is called a non-contentious measure and leaving all the contentious part to be dealt with by myself or by other noble Lords who are interested in the question. As some of our most important recommendations have not been adopted I am afraid that the Bill is not likely to effect very much change.
690
I do not wish to appear ungrateful, and I am ready to admit that up to a certain point the Bill may do good. But if, for instance, the recommendation with regard to fixing standards is ignored, I am unable to sec how Clause 1 of the Bill can do very much good. And, however estimable may be the Government's intentions, it ! is not a very practical proceeding to pass a Bill unless there is some provision for actually carrying it out.
The defects of the Act to which I have referred are known to everyone interested in this question, and the weakness of the Act is shown by the fact that most of the important municipalities in this country, such as Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Glasgow, Nottingham, and Liverpool, have found it necessary to bring in Acts of their own because the general Act has proved unworkable. One of the defects of this Act to which my noble friend did not allude is that certain industries, such as coal-mining and all works concerned with iron and steel, are exempted, and it is somewhat of an absurdity to exempt those particular industries, which produce more smoke than almost any others. I do not see any provision, either, for dealing with nuisances—and they are often very serious nuisances—caused by motor-cars and mechanically propelled vehicles generally. There is another point to which I would draw attention. The Bill contains no mention whatever of Government establishments. These are frequently the biggest offenders of all. I believe there have been constant complaints with regard to places like Woolwich; yet, apparently, they are to be completely exempted.
The two really important recommendations which we made are ignored altogether. The main recommendation, and the one that was likely to do most good, was that the duty of enforcing the law should be transferred from the small local authorities to county councils and county boroughs. At present, the law is administered by 1,800 small local authorities. If the recommendation which we made were adopted the law would be administered by only 140, which, in itself, would be a very considerable improvement. But in my experience I have found that it is the larger authorities, more particularly the county boroughs and the great cities, which are really anxious to do something. I have found in towns like Manchester and Glasgow, for instance, the utmost desire to

691
carry out the law, but they have never received the smallest encouragement from London, and they are completely at the mercy of their neighbours. Smoke is not a thing which is confined to the people who create it. You are liable to suffer from the smoke of your neighbours, and there is no inducement for a city like Manchester or Glasgow to carry out the law if the law is consistently neglected and defied by their neighbours. I might instance the case of London. The London County Council has always been most anxious to do what it could in this direction, but its action has been constantly thwarted by the neighbouring authorities, who never would put the law into force.
An equally, and perhaps even more, important recommendation is one alluded to by my noble friend, which the Government have found themselves unable to adopt, the recommendation, namely, that in the case of a recalcitrant authority the central authority—that is to say, the Ministry of Health—should step in and insist upon the law being carried out. Smoke is not a local or a petty question, it is really a national question, and unless you have some sort of Government stimulus it will be very difficult to get anything done. I think it is fair to say that for the last forty-seven years the Government, as represented by the Local Government Board, have done absolutely nothing in the way of enforcing the law. We have now a Ministry of Health, and a very expensive Ministry of Health. What is the sense, and where is the logic, of spending millions on so-called social reform if this particular Ministry is not going to pay attention to a nuisance which concerns millions of people in this country?
The noble Earl has suggested that what he calls controversial points should be raised at a subsequent stage, and has practically invited me to bring them up then. I am ready to accede to his suggestion, and I sincerely hope that I shall find some colleagues who will assist me, because it seems to me that the task of overcoming resistance to reforms which are absolutely necessary will be beyond the capacity of a private member of this or the other House. It is obvious that very important Amendments will be necessary in the Bill. They will have to be carefully considered, and I should like, if possible, to meet the views of the Ministry of Health. For that reason I agree entirely with the suggestion of my noble friend
692
that the Committee stage of the Bill should be taken at a later period; that is to say, in the autumn session.
I do not wish to say anything more on the Bill itself, but perhaps, as I have devoted a certain amount of time and attention to this question, I might be allowed to give my views—and they are the views of people with whom I have been associated—as to why further and more drastic legislation is required. I think everybody, or, at all events, all sensible people, will be agreed upon two points. The first point is that, however anxious we may be to abolish smoke and to purify the atmosphere of this country, the trade and industry of the country must not be prejudiced more than is absolutely necessary; in fact, I will go so far as to say that they ought not to be prejudiced at all. I think we shall all be agreed upon that.
The second point upon which I think everybody will be agreed is that, although we are, in the habit of priding ourselves upon our personal cleanliness, England and Scotland are, unfortunately, on the whole the dirtiest countries in Europe. Everybody knows what the condition of things really is. But let me point to the nearest example. Let me take the case of London. In the London area there falls every month in the form of soot no less than 25 tons per square mile. I forget how many square miles London covers, but I think it is a very large number. A simple calculation will show that if 300 tons of soot fall to every square mile within a year you could accumulate enough soot to construct a pyramid four or five times the size of Westminster clock-tower. That gives you an idea of the amount of pollution to which London is subjected.
In 1905 the damage to London by smoke was estimated, at pre-war prices, at £4,170,000. Let me take as an example the very building in which we are sitting. The Palace of Westminster was built, I think, eighty or ninety years ago. Its exterior, at all events, is in a perfectly deplorable condition at the present time. A large number of men are perpetually occupied in preventing the ornamental stonework from falling down and perhaps killing the persons who frequent this building, though some of them would not be much missed if they were killed. And a mischievously-disposed person could, if he liked, go round this building, and with nothing but his own hands pull off much of

693
the ornamental work, without any outside assistance at all.
I have instanced the case of London as showing that there is, at all events, considerable room for improvement. But whereas the fall of soot in London is only 25 tons per square mile per month, the fall of soot in Birmingham is 54 tons per square mile per month, and, although that may sound a good deal, there are very much worse places in England than Birmingham. I should be sorry to say what the amount of soot and other impurities is, at the present time, in some of the Lancashire and Yorkshire towns, but I am under the impression that the fall in a place like Wigan, or Rochdale, or Sheffield would be infinitely greater than that in Birmingham. We do not know the actual figures in the case of these towns because they are so ashamed of their condition that they have long ago refrained from publishing statistics. Birmingham is honest enough to show us what actually does occur there.
Let me take another case of what I might call a straightforward town—Manchester. Manchester, as we all of us know, is a very dirty town; at all events, the authorities there do not make any attempt to conceal the condition of the place, and elaborate calculations have been made showing that in Manchester alone, as compared with a clean town, no less than £50,000 a year is spent in the extra washing of collars, and the entire damage done by smoke to Manchester is valued at something like £1,000,000 in a year. Manchester is a town, as I have already pointed out, which really attempts to do its duty.
It is no exaggeration to state that there are millions and millions of people in this country—I am speaking, of coarse, of people who live in the industrial regions of the north—who, unless they leave their homes, have never realised what real sunshine is because they have never seen the sun except obscured by smoke. They have never seen the real colour of a tree trunk, and a good many of them are probably under the impression, which may last all their lives, that all sheep in this country are born black. The condition in certain parts of the north of England, and of Scotland, are so bad—I have had experience of this myself—that the in-habitants of certain towns literally cannot open their windows except at certain times when the works are closed, such as a Bank
694
Holiday. The great coal strike had, at all events, one solitary advantage—namely, that it enabled people to realise what the country really was like and what it could be made like if proper steps were taken. The coal strike must have had the effect of converting many people to the necessity of legislation.
Although new legislation is obviously required, what is, perhaps, even more important is the necessity that the law should be actually enforced. During the course of our Inquiry I persuaded the Minister of Health to allow the Lord Mayor of Manchester and myself to go to Germany and investigate the conditions there, and, as my noble friend has given me a testimonial with regard to economy, I should like to mention that this tour of the Lord Mayor and myself, winch extended over ten days, cost the country very little over £40. I consider that on the whole the country got very much better value out of this particular Mission than it has done out of many of the more ambitious Missions with which we are familiar. I might mention, incidentally, that we received every civility both from the German Foreign Office and German officials generally. The result of our investigation was somewhat of a surprise to me and to my companion. We were under the mistaken impression that Germany was a law-ridden country and that the regulations there were infinitely more drastic than they are here. To our surprise we found that the opposite was the cast. There was much less of what I might call paper legislation in Germany then there is here, but in spite of that fact the conditions were immeasurably superior.
The favourable conditions of industrial Germany as compared with industrial England may be attributed, roughly speaking, to three or four reasons—to the almost complete absence of anything in the nature of domestic smoke; to the more general use of gas for power and so forth; to the much greater efficiency in the use of fuel, and, lastly, to the greater foresight shown with reference to the expansion of towns and their industries. I must confess that the contrast between great German industrial towns, such as Cologne and Dusseldorf, and similar towns, such as Manchester and Leeds, in this country, struck me as extremely painful to an Englishman; and the comparison is equally painful when you go lower down in the scale. If you compare, for instance,

695
a town like Essen, which I suppose is the most smoky town in Germany, with Sheffield, which is the analogous town over here, the comparison is very greatly in favour of Essen. One simple fact will illustrate better than anything I can say the superiority of the conditions in Germany, and that is that whereas in this country, in a town like Manchester or Sheffield, a manufacturer, as soon as he can get sufficient money, hastens to get as far as he can away from his place of business, in Germany, in a town like Dusseldorf or Cologne, the manufacturer remains and lives in the town because it is an agreeable place of residence.
There cannot be any doubt that the reason we are dirtier than any other European country is to be found in the indiscriminate use of raw coal for all purposes whether domestic or industrial, and if you regard it simply from the point of cleanliness cheap coal has been little short of a great disadvantage to this country. Cheap coal is a phenomenon which we are not likely to experience much in the future; the miners, no doubt, will see to that, and the increasing price of coal will, in all probability, force the householder to alter his arrangements and adopt a system which will be infinitely superior to the present one. Unfortunately, many of the residents in the industrial districts of which I have spoken have become so accustomed to the state of things in which they were born and have grown up, that they are accepting that state of things without making any effort to remedy it. They find their local authorities apathetic; the local authorities find the central authority in London apathetic. Therefore, a large number of persons have come to the unfortunate conclusion that there is nothing to be done and that nothing will be done.
Unfortunately, the belief is also general, especially amongst uninstructed people—and I might add that it is largely encouraged by a certain class of manufacturers—that dirt means wealth and that the dirtier a country is the more prosperous it is and the happier is the community. I have found this extraordinary delusion to prevail in very high quarters. I remember an incident which made a most vivid impression upon me many years ago. About thirty or forty years ago a new railway was opened from a town called St.
696
Helens in Lancashire to some other town, and the Lord Derby of the day, uncle of the present Lord Derby, was invited to perform the ceremony of cutting the sod. The local joke was that it would be impossible to find a sod in St. Helens because, as anybody who knows that town is aware, owing to the industries which were being carried on there with great success, all vegetation had been killed.
The day arrived, and Lord Derby came to take his part in the ceremony. All the principal persons were present, and an imported sod was produced which probably had been removed from somebody's lawn tennis ground. Lord Derby divested himself of his coat, was presented with a silver-gilt spade, or whatever the proper implement was, and proceeded to cut the imported sod. Then, turning to his audience, consisting of all the representative persons in the town, he said: "Before I came here I was told that my work would be useless, because there would be no sod in St. Helens to cut." My reply was: "All honour to St. Helens." This sentiment was received with perfect rapture by his audience, and though I was a young man at the time I could not help feeling that it was a most deplorable utterance. As a matter of fact, it was the utterance of the typical Philistine of the Victorian period.
We have, fortunately, progressed since those days. I cannot believe that any Minister of this Government, or any future Government, will be found who will go down and congratulate a municipality upon having successfully destroyed the natural amenity of their neighbourhood. My impression is that their course will be the exact opposite, and, so far from congratulating neighbourhoods on performances of that kind, they will do their best to remedy such a state of things. It is for that reason I warmly welcome this Bill. I think it is much weaker than it ought to be, but it is at all events a step—a weak and faltering step it may be—towards the end. It shows that the Government, as represented by the Ministry of Health, have at last realised that they have a duty in this matter, and that that duty consists in removing a nuisance which affects the lives of many millions of our fellow citizens.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POSITION IN MESOPOTAMIA.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to draw attention to the position in Mesopotamia, and to ask His Majesty's Government how the Mandate, the Treaty with King Feisul and the "Independent Arab State," which the Secretary of State for the Colonies said on the 10th instant that "we are creating," can be reconciled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the control of Mesopotamia was one of the great objects of pan-Germanism, and the concession which was obtained by the Deutsche Bank for the construction of a railway in 1888 was the first important step towards the realisation of that object. The idea was to establish colonies all along the line, and the effect would have been, in time, to obtain the political and military control of the whole of Mesopotamia, with a strong grip upon Asiatic Turkey, and a very long arm stretched out far towards the East. Before the war the pan-German publicist Karl Radek made this explanation of the military importance of the Bagdad Railway:—
"The strengthening of German Imperialism, the first success of which, attained with so much effort, is the Bagdad railway, the victory of the Revolutionary Party in Russia, the prospects of a modern revolutionary movement in India, the movement towards nationalism in Egypt, the beginning of reform in Persia—all this has raised to an extraordinary degree the political significance of the Badgad Railway."
Now, we know from Prince Lichnowski's revelations that just before the war the Government was engaged in negotiating a Treaty with Germany, the effect of which would have been to give Germany complete control in Mesopotamia, together with other advantages.
Why the Germans did not close at once with this fine bargain, and put off their war, I do not know, but the fact that they did not do so is one of the strongest proofs that they were determined at that time to fight. Their great and very carefully designed schemes have all been shattered by the great war, and it has cone to pass, by the force of circumstances not entirely within our control, that we now find ourselves in power in Mesopotamia. We arrived there, of course, to protect the oil fields along the Karun river, which would otherwise have been destroyed by the Turks. We then made the very grave mistake of the premature advance on Bagdad, which led to disaster, and the terrible suffering of the troops which is
698
described in the Report of the Royal Commission. Then came General Maude's brilliant campaign, and we were led irresistibly onwards until now the whole country, about 600 miles long by 160 miles broad, has fallen into t lie hollow of our hands. I think that the immense increase of our territory since the war is a great drawback, in view of our present impoverished financial position. The Empire was large enough before, and we were not developing it as we ought to have been developing it. There is the further disadvantage that we are viewed by other nations as insatiable land-grabbers, and that we are regarded with special suspicion in America and in France, because we are thought to be seeking control of the oil fields which are believed to exist in Mesopotamia. I need hardly say that suspicions of that kind are totally undeserved, but we have to reckon with them, because they happen to exist.
Since the Armistice we have spent fully a hundred millions sterling upon Mesopotamia, and some of that amount, I am quite certain, has been wasted. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has recently said that he has reduced the expenditure to about £11,000,000 this year, and he promised further reductions if all goes well, but he did say that he was not without some feeling of anxiety. There have been no troubles recently, except in Kurdistan, where four British officers have been killed. The Kurds were originally intended to have self-government, but that intention was never carried out, and their present position is peculiar and uncertain. Mr. Churchill said that Southern Kurdistan was at liberty to take part in the impending General Elections if it chose. To my mind the association of Kurds with a General Election suggests comic opera. But the point is that the situation in the very mountainous regions of Mosul, where we have no frontier, is far from satisfactory at the present time, and until peace is concluded with Turkey there must be danger of risings in this region.
We have three military forces in Mesopotamia at the present time. The first is the Regular Army of 2,210 British troops, and 5,556 Indian troops, with 7,107 followers. Secondly, there are the native levies, which are under the control and the orders of the High Commissioner, and for which we pay the sum of about £600,000 a year. Thirdly, there are the

699
Arab forces, paid entirely out of the revenues of Mesopotamia. As the Secretary of State said on July 11—
"The presence of three armies co-existing together in the service of one State, differently paid and variously controlled and commanded, does lend itself to humour."
That also, I think, has a touch of comic opera about it. The Air Force appears to be in general control of all the Imperial forces, and it is proposed that it should operate from a fortified loop somewhere on the Tigris. Whether it could really deal effectively with a rising on a large scale in the north I will not attempt to discuss. I must point out that it has already absorbed a number of aircraft which are urgently needed for the service of the Navy.
Politically, the position seems extraordinarily complicated at the present moment. We have fulfilled in Mesopotamia the pledge we violated in Palestine, and we, have set up a native State under King Feisul. We are now making a Treaty with him, and on the top of the Treaty is the Mandate of the League of Nations, though Mr. Churchill did say distinctly that we were creating "an independent State" in Mesopotamia. An independent State is quite incompatible with the Mandate, which, I believe, is most unpopular among the people of Mesopotamia. The Treaty and the Mandate might be exceedingly difficult to reconcile because neither a Mandatory Power nor a mandated State has any freedom of action. The draft Mandate for Mesopotamia contains seventeen Articles, some of which would never be strictly carried out by any Arab State. But if any failure occurred it would be open to Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, or the Hejaz, all being original members of the League of Nations, to bring railing accusations against King Feisul's Government, or our own Government, or against both, before the League of Nations.
I assume that the Treaty, the terms of which I do not know, will embody the obligations contained in the Mandate. But who will be responsible? And what are we to do if the independent Arab State fails to conform to the meticulous provisions of the Mandate? I suggest that this is not a workable arrangement. It may land us in difficulties of all kinds, which we cannot now entirely foresee. I hope the noble Duke will tell us plainly what the policy really is in regard to Mesopotamia.
Viewing the economic possibilities I see no certainty whatever of profitable oil production, but I believe that the agricultural possibilities of the country are enormous. If they are to be developed we shall require great irrigation works, more railways, improved navigation on the great rivers, a sufficient settled population of agriculturists, a strong and stable Government, and a huge influx of capital. Is there any chance of those conditions being fulfilled at the moment? Under the auspices of a Lord Cromer, acting with a perfectly free hand, I can imagine Mesopotamia becoming a very rich and prosperous State, but we must remember that Lord Cromer's great work in Egypt is already beginning to crumble away, as is that vast and splendid work which generations of Britons have accomplished in India. You cannot repeat in Mesopotamia either the experience in Egypt, or the experience in India, without Western economic control, which seems now out of the question, and we can only hope that the people of Mesopotamia will be happy and contented if they muddle along in the good old Eastern fashion.
Meanwhile, we shall continue to spend something like £11,000,000, which we cannot afford now that we cannot find money to provide aircraft to make our Navy secure on the seas, or our great towns safe from bombardment on land. Our military strength is not sufficient for the needs which may any day arise, and I see a suggestion is made that it should be reduced to 90,000 men, being 30,000 less than the numbers which have been allowed to Poland. I hope there is no possibility of any such suggestion being looked at for a moment.
I was strongly opposed to the abandonment of Mesopotamia, and I said something on that point in this House. But I can now only come to the conclusion that we should abandon the whole country except Basra and the line of the river to Kurna. We cannot do this at the present moment, but it should be our fixed policy as soon as the independent State which we are creating has shown that it can maintain order and protect life and property. That will not be till we have concluded peace with Turkey. I note that King Feisul has been already informed that we reserve the right to throw up the Mandate. I find no provision in the Covenant for throwing up the Mandate, and I hope the opinion of the Law Officers of the

701
Crown was taken before this important communication was made to King Feisul.
I have reached the conclusion that we ought to abandon Mesopotamia as soon as we can, with the greatest reluctance, and only because I put the financial restoration of this country in the forefront of my wishes. We cannot afford the constant drain which Mesopotamia will create, or the large amount of unknown liabilities which are certainly involved. Incidentally, by abandoning all Mesopotamia except the narrow strip of territority to which I have referred, we should prove to all the Powers that we have no dark designs upon the oil fields of Mesopotamia; and that, in itself, would be something to the good.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I assume that the statement to which the noble Lord refers is that made by the Secretary of State in the course of a debate in another place on July 11. My right honourable friend's words were—
"We are not entitled to disclaim the Mandate, but we are acknowledging an Arab State. We are creating an independent Arab State, and making a Treaty with that State."
I do not quite understand the difficulty that the noble Lord finds in reconciling the policy of the Mandate with that of a Treaty with the State of Iraq. The Mandate defines the responsibility of His Majesty's Government as Mandatory Power towards the League of Nations. It does not define, or purport to define, our relations with the Iraq State, which will be regulated by the proposed Treaty as soon as it has been signed.
The position is this. His Majesty's Government in accepting a Mandate for Iraq accepted the obligation to advise and assist a country, whose existence as an independent nation had been provisionally recognised, until such time as it was able to stand alone. That is the language of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandate, when its terms have been approved, will explain and define the extent of the liabilities that we have incurred towards the League of Nations under this arrangement. Our acceptance of it constitutes the sanction under which we are empowered to enter into special relations with the Iraq State, and the special relations into which we propose to enter are those that will be set forth in the Treaty. If it were not for the Mandate we should
702
have no legal basis whatever for claiming a special position in Iraq, or for seeking to enter into Treaty relations with the Iraq State.
As it is, the authority of the Mandate gives us the necessary locus standi, and enables us to proceed as rapidly as possible with the process of converting the "provisional independence" of Iraq—which has been acknowledged by the League of Nations—into a definite and permanent reality. That is exactly what we are doing. It may perhaps be said that we are proceeding with the process more rapidly than was contemplated when the mandatory principle was first formulated. I do not resent that kind of criticism in the least. On the contrary, I welcome it as a tribute to the success which His Majesty's Government have achieved in the difficult task that was entrusted to them.
We informed the Council of the League of Nations in November last, before the negotiations for a Treaty with Iraq had made any progress, of the lines on which we intended to proceed. We have received no protest or criticism of any kind from them. We are, consequently, justified in assuming that they see no objection to the course on which we have embarked, and that they, at any rate, do not regard our action as in any way inconsistent with the obligations undertaken under the Mandate. I think, when noble Lords see the text of the Treaty, that they will realise that our whole policy is in strict accordance both with the spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations and with the general conceptions underlying the mandatory system.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I think there must have been a little terminological inexactitude when Mr. Churchill used the words "independent Arab State." I think that was not, perhaps, exactly what he meant, because I cannot see, and I do not think the noble Duke has explained, how any independent State could exist in a state of independence under the Mandate. May I understand from the noble Duke that it is intended, when Mesopotamia can stand alone, to throw up the Mandate, and that such will be the policy of the Government as regards the future?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: That depends on how the independent Arab State turns out. If it turns out well, that might be possible.
LORD CARSON: May I ask the noble Duke whether it is true that this is costing us £11,000,000 a year?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I have not the exact figures here at the moment, but, if I may have notice of that question, I shall be very glad to give the noble Lord the information at any time.
LORD SYDENHAM: I think the figure of £10,500,000 was admitted in another place, but there were some other charges, which could not be brought in. It is somewhere about £11,000,000.

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (AMEND MENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF GRANAND in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
1.—(1) The Royal Irish Constabulary shall be disbanded on such day, not being later than the thirty-first day of July nineteen hundred and twenty-two, as may be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant, and on or before that date every officer and constable of that force shall retire from the force as and when required by the Lord Lieutenant, and shall on his retirement be entitled to receive such compensation as may be awarded to him by the Treasury in accordance with the rules contained in Part I of the First Schedule of this Act and, in the event of his dying after a compensation allowance has been awarded to him, the Treasury shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified.
(2) The provisions contained in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply as respects compensation allowances awarded in pursuance of this section in like manner as they apply as
704
respects pensions under the Royal Irish Constabulary Order, 1922, with the substitution of references to a Secretary of State for references to the Inspector-General.
(3) If any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance has been awarded in pursuance of this section takes service in any police force to which this subsection applies the allowance may be suspended in whole or in part so long as he remains in such force. This subsection applies to any police force the expenses of which are defrayed in whole or in part out of moneys provided by Parliament or by any Parliament in Ireland or out of funds assisted by the Exchequer or by any Exchequer in Ireland.
(4) Sections eight and ten of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, which relate to continuous service in two or more forces and to services in more than one capacity, shall not apply to the service in the Royal Irish Constabulary of any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance has been awarded in pursuance of this section, or to his prior service in any other police force so far as the same has, for the purposes of the award, been reckoned as service in the Royal Irish Constabulary, but if any such officer or constable takes service in any police force, and on his ultimate retirement therefrom is awarded a pension, then, if the amount of the compensation allowance when added to the amount of his pension exceeds the higher of the two following sums,—

(a)two-thirds of the salary on which his compensation allowance was calculated; or

(b)two-thirds of the salary of which lie was in receipt at the time of his ultimate retirement;

or should those sums be equal, exceeds either of those sums, his compensation allowance may be suspended to the extent of the excess:
Provided that where the officer or constable on his ultimate retirement is awarded a lump sum instead of or in addition to a pension, the annual amount which would represent that sum, if converted into a life annuity, shall be determined by the Treasury, and the amount so determined shall, for the purpose of the foregoing provision, be deemed to be or to form part of his pension.
(5) The Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882, shall apply to any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance is awarded in pursuance of this section in like manner as if he had retired from the permanent civil service of the Crown on the abolition of his office, and any terminable annuity payable to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of the commutation of a compensation allowance shall be paid out of the same funds as the allowance:
Provided that in such cases and on such terms as the Treasury may by regulation prescribe, the Treasury may, on the application of any such officer or constable, commute a portion of the compensation allowance so awarded to him as aforesaid for an annuity for a term of two years but ceasing on his death if he dies within that term, and in such case the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) the capital sum representing the portion of the compensation allowance to be commuted shall be ascertained in

705
accordance with the tables and the rule for determining age for the time being in force under the Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882;

(b) the capital sum so ascertained shall be applied by the National Debt Commissioners in providing an annuity for such term as aforesaid, and the National Debt Commissioners shall have power to grant such an annuity;

(c) in calculating the amount of the annuity, the same rate of interest, shall be assumed as is assumed in calculating such capital sum as aforesaid;

(d) subject as aforesaid the annuity shall be calculated in such manner and in accordance with such tables, and shall be payable in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may by regulations prescribe;

(e) sums payable or paid on account of any such annuities as aforesaid shall, for the purposes of sections six and eight of the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871, be treated as amounts awarded as commutations of pensions under that Act as applied by this subsection.

(6) Section nine of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883 (which relates to the punishment of persons obtaining pensions, etc., by fraud), shall apply in the ease of compensation allowances, commutation annuities, pensions, and gratuities awarded or payable in pursuance of this section in like manner as it applies in the case of pensions and gratuities under that Act.
(7) Where, for the purpose of expediting the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, any member of that force has, since the twenty-fifth day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two and before the passing of this Act, been discharged with compensation, his discharge and the grant of compensation to him shall be as valid and effectual as if they had been expressly authorised by this Act, and the compensation shall be treated as compensation payable under this Act, and the provisions of this Act with respect to a compensation allowance awarded in pursuance of this section shall apply to any annual allowance so granted.
(8) All compensation payable to officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary under this Act (including any compensation which is to be treated as so payable), and any pensions and gratuities granted to widows and children of such officers and constables in pursuance of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(9) The powers of the Lord Lieutenant or inspector general with respect to pensions, allowances, or gratuities of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, their widows, children, or dependents, under the Acts or Orders relating to that force may, after the day fixed for the disbandment of the said force, be exercised by a Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury.
(10) For the purposes of section fifty-seven of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, so far as it relates to pensions of officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary payable at the date of transfer, the day fixed for the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary shall, so far as respects Northern Ireland, be treated as the date of transfer.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that in awarding such pensions no deduction shall be made by reason of the fact that any compensation has been awarded in respect of injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties by such officer or constable."
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the first Amendment which stands in my name upon the Paper, I hope the House will excuse me if I digress somewhat from the Amendment, as I do not think it is possible for the House to understand either any of the Amendments which we propose or the proposals of the Government without having recalled to their minds what is the real subject matter with which you are dealing when you come to the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I venture to assert that there never has been under British rule any case of a similar nature, and, unless your Lordships keep that in view, and keep before you a picture of what you are doing, the men to whom you are doing it, and the reasons why you are doing it, you will be likely to inflict very grave injustice.
To some people, of course, this is a purely business matter, an effort to get rid of the force as cheaply as possible, but in reality it is a matter which in the gravest way affects the whole honour of British government. Let me tell your Lordships why. Who are the Royal Irish Constabulary? They are men recruited from the Irish people their selves; 90 per cent. of them, I should think, are Roman Catholics, and, therefore, certainly in recent years, the men who have undertaken the duties of constables in Ireland have done so with the knowledge that they would be surrounded by the extremist hostility of their own people, at home or in the districts to which they might be sent. They undertook to serve the British Government, therefore, under difficulties which, I venture to suggest, have not confronted any other force that was ever raised.
In 1919, His Majesty's present Government entered upon a policy of extreme suppression for the restoration of law and order, and the machinery they used was the Royal Irish Constabulary. These were the men who had to confront the rebellion, these were the men who had to carry out the Governments policy of reprisals, these were the men who had to tackle, in the extremest fashion, the very class from which they had been recruited; and

707
the Government did not spare them in that task. I have not the figures, but the numbers murdered, maimed, ambushed and wounded present one of the saddest tales in the history of any country. The most savage warfare—now all forgotten—was carried on. The present friends of the Government did not hesitate to use dumdum bullets, and every cruel method of savagery that has ever been invented. I remember many cases being brought before the House of Commons when I had the honour of being a member of that House, where policemen were found lying upon the roads with their entrails lying upon the pavements beside them, and this led to many wild acts of retribution—and no wonder!—by their colleagues.
These men were asked by the British Government to undertake this task in loyalty to their Service, and in the belief, as they had the right to believe, that they would not be in any sense abandoned by the British Government if they served it faithfully. They did serve it faithfully. Then it became convenient to His Majesty's Government to make friends with the men who had been murdering the police, the chief of whom, I believe, had himself sixteen warrants out against him for murder. Then the police became inconvenient to the Government, and they had to be got rid of with the offer of a pension and of an opportunity to go and live under the government of the men whom they had, up to that moment, been hunting, at the Government's request, for these crimes which I have been trying to depict to the House. They were told: "So long as you get this pension, you will be able to go back and resume your original position"—which, of course, was impossible. I say, therefore, that, in considering the whole of these Amendments, I claim your Lordships' sympathy for a case unique in history—certainly in the history of this country—that of the men who yesterday were your mainstay in Ireland, and whom now you want to get rid of because you have made friends with those whose crimes you asked them to put down. That is shortly and plainly and truly the case.
This first clause provides that compensation shall be awarded on the terms set out in the Schedule. On this Amendment I shall not go into the terms of that Schedule, nor, indeed, have I any authority or power to do so. I shall assume for a moment that it is the Schedule which the Government are going to grant.
Of course, nobody but the Government can propose a financial pension for these men. But, after subsection (1), which says that these pensions should be granted and that in the event of a constable "dying after a compensation allowance has been awarded to him, the Treasury shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified," I ask your Lordships to insert these words:
"Provided that in awarding such pensions no deduction shall be made by reason of the fact that any compensation has been awarded in respect of injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties by such officer or constable."
What that means is this; under the law as prevailing in Ireland, at all events up to the time of the Treaty, and I suppose it prevails now, a constable injured in the discharge of his duties had a right to claim against the district in which he was injured, to be levied out of the rates, certain compensation for those injuries. For instance, if a man lost a leg or an arm, he—or if he lost his life his representative or his family—could claim against the county or district a certain compensation for malicious injuries. Numbers of these police have been so injured in the past two or three years, and from time to time they have been awarded, and in some cases paid, either wholly or partially, varying sums, sometimes considerable sums and sometimes smaller sums, for the injuries that they have received. What I ask is that in computing their pensions—on compulsory disbandment recollect—these sums paid or awarded for injuries received should not be taken into? consideration; in other words, that they should be taken as payments for their injuries, as was intended.
Your Lordships will test it best in this way: Two constables out doing duty fall into an ambush laid for them by the Sinn Feiners. One of them is injured—perhaps loses his leg or suffers some other minor injury—and he is awarded a sum in the manner I have told you. I want to have it indicated that he should get exactly the same pension, having regard to the number of years served, as the man who is not wounded at all. All the more for this reason, that none of these men would ever be able to get any employment again in the south and west of Ireland, and these wounded men, if they come to this country, will not have the same chance of employment as the unwounded men. Therefore, I say that the money awarded to a con-

709
stable for malicious injuries should not in any sense, or in any circumstances, be taken into account in assessing his pension under these rules.
There is another matter. Your Lordships will observe that under this clause where a man dies after his pension has been awarded to him the Treasury "shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified." I also want to have it applied in such a case that any sum received for malicious injuries shall not be taken into account, in awarding a pension or gratuities, under the circumstances stated in the; clause, to the widow and children.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Might I interrupt my noble and learned friend? I am not sure whether he contends that his Amendment applies to the case with which he is now dealing, or whether the case that he is now bringing forward is referred to in a later Amendment, because I understand the present Amendment does not cover the case to which he is now alluding Will he explain if he contends that it does?
LORD CARSON: My Amendment deals with all the pensions mentioned in subsection (1).
VISCOUNT PEEL: As the Amendment reads it says—
"Provided that in awarding such pensions no deduction shall be made by reason of the fact that any compensation has been awarded in respect of injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties by such officer or constable";
but the noble and learned Lord just now was, I understood, dealing with the case where the man had died.
LORD CARSON: The noble Viscount misunderstood me. I was reading the words in the clause—
"and, in the event of his dying after a compensation allowance has been awarded to him, the Treasury shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified."
I say that in that case, in awarding a pension to his widow or children, no account should be taken of the fact that the husband had received money for malicious injuries.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I entirely understand the argument, and I will not interrupt the noble and learned Lord now, because I
710
should argue that his Amendment does not apply to that. I will deal with it later.
LORD CARSON: If my Amendment does not apply to that I hope it will be made applicable by the draftsman. I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I am somewhat pertinacious about it, because it is a very vital matter. This clause contemplates that the police constable or officer who is retiring may die after the compensation allowance has been awarded to him. In that case the Treasury
"shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified."
But what I say is that in that case, as well as in his own case, you should obliterate and leave out of consideration altogether any moneys which have been paid for the malicious injuries which he has received.
It may be said that under the rules there is no power to take into consideration this money paid for malicious injuries. All I know is that it has been taken into consideration, and it is impossible to know from reading the schedule what the powers are, because it is in these general terms—
"The annual allowance shall be calculated in like manner as the pension which the officer or constable would have been entitled to receive if he had retired for length of service under the existing enactments applicable to him, and had been qualified in respect of his length of service for a pension."
I do not know what that means, and I do not know whether under the existing enactments they claim to do that which I wish to prevent. But that they have been doing it I am made aware by the cases which have been put before me. In any event, if it is said that previous compensation is not taken into consideration in fixing these pensions, I would ask your Lordships to make it perfectly clear on the face of the Bill that it shall not be taken into consideration.
Do think what it is to these men and to their families. They are marked men, every one of them, wherever they go. I had a letter from one the other day who went to a place in Scotland, where, no doubt, there is a large Irish population, and there were several small appointments that he tried to get under various local bodies. He told me that the moment it was known he was an ex-Irish Constabulary man they would not look at him, because they were afraid, as he was a marked man, of the effect it would have

711
on the other employees of the bodies to which he had applied. Therefore, the last hope of these men, who have to leave their country and who will find great difficulty in getting employment elsewhere, lies in what Parliament does for them now.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Carson.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I wish to express the hope that the Government will adopt this Amendment, and I express that view with the more satisfaction because of the cordial appreciation which I, in common with everyone who has been connected with the Irish administration, have always felt for the celebrated force of which we are now speaking, not only for their splendid efficiency but for the tradition and public spirit by which that efficiency has been inspired and maintained. This Amendment is not based on a matter of sentiment, but of justice, and of justice all round. The noble and learned Lord in introducing the Amendment cited some very painful and melancholy facts, which we all deplore. Perhaps it is not absolutely usual in moving an Amendment that a matter somewhat beyond its immediate scope should be mentioned, but I perfectly understand the reasons why the noble and learned Lord should wish the House to hear him. Perhaps I had better abstain from even suggesting the desirability of justice all round including cases of other people who have been subjected to pains and penalties through no fault of their own in connection with the recent and present distressing state of affairs, but notwithstanding all that we have heard from the noble and learned Lord about the deplorable trials and difficulties to which these men have been subjected, I hope that this illustrates perhaps the last phase of the present critical condition of affairs, and that, when things do become settled, even these Royal Irish Constabulary men who are now placed in this difficult position will find that they can live in Ireland in peace and safety. I am thinking especially of the older men, because I understand that they do not come under the scope of the operations of the tribunal at the Home Office, which deals with the subject.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): I do not wish to take up any of your Lordships' time by
712
repeating what I said on the Second Reading concerning the feeling of everybody about the, services rendered by the Royal Irish Constabulary. I feel that your Lordships, in considering these Amendments, will examine them sympathetically, with a desire to do all that you can for the distinguished force which is now, owing to circumstances familiar to your Lordships, being disbanded. I would only point out first, that however desirous your Lordships are of doing all that you can for these men, we in this House, as your Lordships well know, are limited by financial considerations. The second point is that this Bill only makes provision for the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and for other purposes incidental thereto. The noble and learned Lord has stated a case on behalf of the widows and others who may receive pensions as the result of the deaths of their husbands, and he suggests that any compensation which these men may previously have received from injuries sustained shall not be counted in, or have any effect upon, the pensions that these widows receive.
The noble and learned Lord, rather to my surprise, said that in such cases pensions had been abated because allowance had been made for compensation already paid in respect of those injuries. That is totally different from the information that I have myself. I was informed that there was no provision, in this Bill or elsewhere, which would either entitle anybody to take, or insist that anybody should take, into account compensation so paid in fixing the pensions. But if there is any doubt upon the point, I am perfectly ready to accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. That is the intention. If it can be carried out and it wants putting into the Statute I have certainly no objection, if it has not been carried out. I reserve this point. I am not quite sure whether the drafting exactly covers the point, but, subject to that, I will accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that the noble Viscount accepts the Amendment as it stands on the Paper?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have said so. I thought I was clear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I know the noble Viscount said so, and he is always clear. But he did say that he was

713
limited by one consideration—namely, the difficulty of privilege in the other House of Parliament. I think he said so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Certainly; unfortunately, we all are.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount is in the same case as all your Lordships. It is true that we are in that position. I only rise at this moment because it seems to me to be material to say, so that it will not be necessary to repeat it later on in the consideration of these Amendments, that we are limited by privilege; that is to say, if the House of Commons chooses to insist upon its privilege. But I cannot help hoping that the House of Commons will not insist upon its privilege because this is an appeal not only to the compassion of this country but to the honour of this country, and I cannot believe that they will use the weapon of privilege in order to defeat something which must appear, I was going to say to all honest men, at any rate to all reasonable men, to be what is natural and right as a mere matter of justice. I venture, therefore, to make this appeal to His Majesty's Government and to the noble Viscount opposite, that they will use their influence with their colleagues in another place so that privilege may be waived in this urgent case. For my part, I cannot believe that if these points had been before the House of Commons they would have been ignored by that House.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They have all been before the Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry to hear it. I am not so familiar with what goes on there as the noble Viscount is, of course, from the information at his disposal, but I have been a member of the House of Commons, as he has, and I know that a good deal of business goes through that House possibly without full consideration owing to the pressure of business. But I cannot help thinking that if the noble Viscount and the noble Lord who sits by him urge upon the Government how necessary it is to forego privilege in this case privilege will be waived. I am certain that public opinion out of doors would never sustain the Government in resisting what is but justice to this body of men who have shown such great devotion to this country.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I am anxious to support, with all the force I can command, the request which has just been addressed to His Majesty's Government by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I approach all these questions, of course, naturally and inevitably more from the point of view of a member of the House of Commons, in which I had the honour of sitting for more than forty years, than that of a member of your Lordships' House. I can recollect many instances in which the Government of the day, impressed with the fact that Amendments introduced here have improved a Bill and made it more satisfactory for the purpose for which it was originally intended, have done their best, with due precaution as to there being no precedent created, etc., to waive the right of the House of Commons to overrule this House in regard to financial provisions.
I desire to support my noble friend in his request, for this special reason to which reference has been made by the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment and the noble Marquess—namely, that this is the last occasion upon which it will be possible, I will not say to do justice, but to avoid doing irreparable injustice to men whose debt is unpayable in money and whose services have been of indescribable value to this country during a long period of years. It is not a question of doing justice; it is a question of avoiding a very grave injustice. And if your Lordships will allow me I will venture to remind the House of what I stated on a previous occasion—that these men, by force of circumstances, are now being scattered not only all over the United Kingdom but all over the British Empire and, indeed, possibly beyond it. They feel that they are being forced from their homes and with, no will of their own are sent away as a consequence of the policy of the Government, of this country.
I would entreat the Government to remind their colleagues with whom the settlement of this question will rest in the House of Commons, to bear in mind that it is worth the waiving of some particular privilege; it is worth some little departure from ordinary practice to make such alterations in this Bill before it receives His Majesty's assent as will make it a measure of peace and good will to these men, and will remind them to the day of their death of the fact that England was not willing to do an injustice to them. On those grounds I would most urgently ask

715
the Government not to reject this Amendment simply because it involves a question of privilege, but to go further, as the noble Marquess has suggested, and to do all in their power to bring about that which in this case is justified if ever it needed justification.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not want to prolong the debate but, speaking as I do from a different point of view from either of the noble Lords who have just spoken, I desire to join most cordially in begging His Majesty's Government to use all their influence with their colleagues in another place for the waiving of privilege in this particular matter. It has often been my fortune, when sitting on the bench where the noble Viscount is, to be obliged to point out to the then Opposition the view which was likely to be taken on certain questions of privilege; but I can entirely endorse what has lately fallen from the noble Viscount, that with all Governments there have been cases in which, in another place, on the representations of the Government there, the House of Commons has cheerfully and sometimes with great satisfaction waived its privilege when it has been a question of justice to individuals.
I need not add anything to what my noble friend opposite said about the Irish Constabulary. Like all who have had to do with the government of Ireland, I feel that we owe an incalculable debt to that body, and as this is the last occasion on which, in the terribly difficult circumstances in which through no fault of their own they find themselves, we can do something to relieve their hard lot, I most earnestly trust that the noble Viscount and noble Lords opposite will make the strongest representations to their colleagues in another place on this particular matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: Shortly stated, the point of my Amendment is this. This subsection enacts that if any of these men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are being disbanded, whether officers or constables, obtain employment in some other police force they lose either in whole or in part the pensions that have been given them on disbandment from the Royal Irish Constabulary. That, to my mind, is a
716
most unfair thing. What does it mean? It means that you may get any position you like except the particular position in which you have been trained, and you may keep your pension as well as the emoluments of that pension, but if you take up police duties (the one thing in which you are trained) then you must lose the pension which has been given to you by the British Government. I say that is absolutely unfair and unreasonable. This is called the condensation allowance in the Bill. Why should a man be told: "It is far better for you to go hanging about doing nothing than to take re-employment as a policeman, because if you take such reemployment you will make nothing out of it, since you will lose the compensation that you would otherwise have got under this Bill." I do not understand the reason for putting this in. The noble Viscount shakes his head, but I have some knowledge of Acts of Parliament, and this is what I find printed in the Bill—
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord was making a mis-statement. I am sure he did not intend to do so. He stated that if a man did nothing he would be just as well off as if he had gone into a police force. That is incorrect, because the noble and learned Lord omits to state that he gets pension for the years he served in the other force, and therefore it is not true to say that if he does nothing he gets just as much as if he joins a police force.
LORD CARSON: I do not understand that, but I am wrong probably. I take the Bill and what are the words? They are—
"If any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance has been awarded in pursuance of this section—"
that I understand is his pension; is not that so?—
"takes service in any police force to which this subsection applies the allowance may be suspended in whole or in part so long as he remains in such force."
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is correct.
LORD CARSON: Supposing, therefore, he takes service in a force in which he is paid the same sum as the pension, he gains nothing by getting that work.
VISCOUNT PEEL: He may lose his further pension. The noble and learned Lord will see in the Bill that there is an arrange-

717
ment about pensions in which the service he renders in the second force counts towards his pension.
LORD CARSON: That is in regard to the pension ultimately given to him, but I am talking now of the man who takes service in a force, and I say that under this subsection, if he takes service as an officer or constable, and the pay is no higher than his pension, he loses his pension so long as he keeps the position as an officer or constable in the new force. He may lose it in whole or in part. That is absurd. Why should be lose it if he takes that, particular employment? Why should not be lose it if he takes employment as a prison warder (which is one of the occupations they sometimes get), or as a caretaker, or as anything else? Why is he to be mulcted because he takes the class of work for which he is best suited? I hope your Lordships will lay it down that the compensation which is given under this Bill is given because the man is being kicked out in the circumstances I have already explained, when he does not want to go, and after he has faithfully served the Government up to the present time The idea of trying to save something because a man happens to get into another police force is, I think, unworthy of the Government, in circumstances such as those with which we are confronted here.
So far as I recollect—I may be wrong, because I have not verified it—this subsection was not in the Bill when it was originally brought in. I think the Government introduced it in Committee or on Report, but in regard to that the noble Viscount will know. I urge your Lordships to leave out this subsection. Conceive what would happen. A man goes about idling from day to day finding it impossible to get employment, and suddenly he finds an advertisement that a man is wanted in the police force. He says: "There is no use going for that, because I shall get nothing for my work." Or take the case of another man becoming sick of doing nothing, or having gravely encumbered himself by reason of doing nothing; he goes into the police force and finds the same state of affairs. I submit that is unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances, and I hope your Lordships will strike out this subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines to 13, leave out subsection 3.—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord has commented very severely on this provision in the Bill, and has said that it is quite unreasonable and unworthy of the Government. When we were dealing with this matter on Second Reading your Lordships proposed and carried a Motion against my advice. Although I ventured to tell your Lordships that a good deal of time would be wasted upon it, and that you would not shorten proceedings in the Committee of the House, an Amendment was moved that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Your Lordships had the whole control of the matter. No member of the Government was even asked to serve upon that Committee. That courtesy was not given to the Government by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. The result was that this House selected its own members, and I dare say selected far better members—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to interrupt, but I should be sorry if it was thought that I was discourteous to the Government. It certainly was not my intention. I was consulted about the appointment of this Committee, and I understood at the time—I now know wrongly understood—that the Government did not want to take part in the Committee. I ought to have consulted them, and I beg to express my apologies for not having done so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, and I acquit him of any discourtesy. It was rather the wisdom of the course on which I was venturing to comment just now. Here was a Committee of five under the chairmanship of Lord Muir Mackenzie. The Committee was composed of men of singular knowledge, experience and ability; indeed, a great tribute was paid to their capacity by, I think, the noble Marquess himself. They have examined everything in the Bill carefully, and they support this proposal. I want to make it clear to your Lordships that you sent this matter to a Committee of your own choosing, and they say this is a good proposal. But the noble and learned Lord says it is absolutely unworthy of the Government. Is it unworthy of the Committee? What is the use of referring this matter solemnly to a Committee selected by your Lordships, and then meekly, perhaps at the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, throwing over this Committee?
LORD CARSON: You are moving to leave out everything they did.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Will the noble and learned Lord wait till I have finished? If it is so unworthy of the Government, is it unworthy of the Committee? Anyhow, I am glad to say that the Committee in this case are in the same boat. It is true that I am going to move to leave out one of the Amendments of the Committee, for reasons I shall then state, but I want to make it clear to the House that the noble and learned Lord is quite at variance with the Committee to which your Lordships entrusted your fortunes in this matter. The Amendments inserted by the Committee were passed by your Lordships without any discussion, and if it had not been for myself I suppose we might not have recommitted the Bill. I think the onus to some extent is on the noble and learned Lord to show that this is a good Amendment. I ask your Lordships to consider this matter carefully. One ought not, I think, to be guided entirely by sentiment in these matters, but ought to consider them as a business proposition. Subsection (3), as the noble and learned Lord says, enables the compensation allowance in pursuance of this section to be suspended if he "takes service in any police force to which this subsection applies." The argument of the noble and learned Lord is this. He says why not suspend this allowance if they obtain work or employment in any other occupation or force; why limit this suspension to the case in which they are entering upon similar work to that to which they are accustomed? It is clear from his argument that he does not in the least understand the principle on which this compensation allowance is given.
LORD CARSON: Very likely.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think he does; and I am trying to make it clear that, under this proposal, twelve years is added to the length of service of these men in the force, and on that their compensation allowance is based. Why are these years added? They are added because they are disturbed in the employment to which they are accustomed. But if they go into another police force supported by public funds—it is limited to the public funds which the British and Irish Government contribute out of Taxes—
THE EARL OF DESART: It was not so limited when the Bill was first introduced.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble Earl will only wait I will give him the story, but if he wishes to make a speech in the middle of mine I will give way. I was stating, when I was interrupted, what the principle of the Bill was. The principle is this: that as they are disturbed in their particular occupation, the disturbance would be much less if they took service in another and similar service in the United Kingdom, paid out of public funds and did precisely the same work; there was comparatively little loss of employment. The case of suspension was discussed in another place and it was limited to the particular case of the man going into the police force and into exactly similar duties as he had been performing in the previous police force.
This provision is not, as the noble and learned Lord thinks, an arbitrary provision. It is based on the general principle that the State ought not to be burdened with the payment of compensation allowance or pension to a man while he is earning effective pay in other employment, and it is thoroughly well established throughout all our State arrangements. It has been limited in another place, and it is that limitation which seems to excite the indignation of the noble and learned Lord. It applies to all pensions under the Superannuation Acts, to all police pensions in Great Britain, and to Irish Constabulary pensions since 1883; and it applies with greater force to cases where pensions and allowances are granted on account of temporary loss of employment. Where a man subsequently obtains employment of a similar character there is no loss to be compensated while he remains in that service, and he cannot claim and receive pension for loss of employment and full pay for that particular employment at the same time. That is the principle on which the matter is based.
The noble and learned Lord was not accurate in saying that the man might as well do nothing and might just as well not enter the police force because he is not as well off. That is not so. While he is in the other force, though his compensation allowance is suspended, he is earning pension, and raising the amount of compensation which he will ultimately receive when he leaves that second service.
LORD CARSON: You take a bit out of that, too.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The principle of the subsection commended itself entirely and unanimously to the Committee which dealt with this matter, and, though I should not suggest that your Lordships should not give full sympathy to the claims of these men, I ask you to consider that in this matter you are infringing a broad principle, and one which would have a much wider application than that of the case of the Irish Constabulary—namely, the principle that a man ought not to be paid twice over at the same times for the work he is doing. I hope your Lordships will support your own Committee which unanimously reported in favour of the proposal which the noble and learned Lord now desires to omit.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: May I appeal to the noble Viscount on the ground of public policy? It is, of course, open to the Government to say that the Committee have reported in favour of this provision in the Bill, but as a matter of public policy does it not occur to him that the measure is working as badly as it can? You have a body of men admirably trained for a particular purpose. Then you say: "Go into anything you have not been trained for, but if you go into the one thing for which you have been trained you must be fined heavily." That is not the intention of the Government, and it would have been far better to have dealt with this question by making an attempt to use the whole body of these men en masse in some similar calling. The present position is disastrous. Under the present Bill no man who goes into a police force will be certain—
VISCOUNT PEEL: A police force paid out of Government funds.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: No man who enters a police force can be certain whether his allowance will be suspended in whole or in part. That is an uncertainty which will prevent men offering themselves for the one service in which they are liable to be mulcted, not by the noble Viscount, but by any official who has to deal with this matter. He will decide whether in whole or in part this allowance should be suspended. I suggest that it would be better to state what deduction would be made.
722
It is true that the State will gain financially if it has not to train other men, but as they have been trained it may be fair to say that one-third of their pension should go if they join a police force. But it would give them some certainty. The noble Viscount has, I know, expressed great sympathy with them, but as I look at the matter on public grounds I hope he will look at it from that standpoint. I firmly believe it would conciliate the whole of the opposition.
THE EARL OF DESART: I think a great deal of the discussion arises, and may arise on future Amendments, because the noble Viscount and the Government really look at this question from a different standpoint from that of my noble and learned friend and those of us who are interested in the Irish Constabulary. He applied rules which I quite understand to this Bill and the abandonment of this force. We contend and, we think, rightly, that there is no precedent and no parallel to the position in which the Royal Irish Constabulary are placed, and we think that this question ought to be approached quite independently of the considerations to which I myself should in most cases be the first to attach weight.
With regard to this particular Amendment, the Bill first came before the Committee with no reservation at all in this clause, so that, if the constable or officer joined any other police force, he might have his pension reduced or removed. The Committee adopted a course which, to them, seemed to be one step in advance, namely, that that removal or reduction of the pension should, at any rate, apply only where the man took service in forces which were paid or contributed to out of public funds. I think it was the view of the Committee, as it certainly was my own view, that this was a great advance. I thought it would be likely to be accepted by the Government, and I confess that I was influenced by the desirability of adding to the Bill something that was quite obviously reasonable in itself, and which we reasonably hoped might be accepted by the Government. That was the view of the Committee, but the fact that I served on the Committee does not preclude me from having views of my own that may be in advance of those of the Committee, and, while I am glad and obliged to the Government for having conceded this point, I certainly, in the circumstances of this force—which I do not

723
want to dwell upon, because they have been so ably stated by my noble and learned friend—should be extremely glad to see my noble friend's Amendment adopted, and I shall support it. The argument he put forward, which was supported by my noble friend Lord Midleton, is a strong one, because—and I think this point has not been dealt with by Lord Peel—if a man becomes a warder, or anything of that sort, he retains the whole of his pension, although a warder may also be paid, to some extent, out of public funds; whereas, if he goes to the work for which he is mainly suited, he runs the risk of losing the whole or part of it. While, therefore, I appreciate the fact that the Government have, in this particular respect, made a concession, I wish they were going to do it in others, and, apart from the recommendation of the Committee, I shall certainly support my noble friend if he goes into the Lobby.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I desire to say one word on this question, because I find myself in very complete agreement with the noble Earl who has just sat down. The noble Viscount said that, in sending this Bill to a Select Committee, the House had committed the fortunes of the Bill—I think that was the phrase he used—to such a Committee. The House does nothing of the kind. The House, when it sends a Bill to a Select Committee, desires to have the benefit of a close examination by several highly competent noble Lords, who are told off for that purpose, but it in no way sacrifices its power or its right to make any further alterations in the Bill when it returns from that examination.
I think the noble Viscount was otherwise engaged when my noble friend behind me was speaking, and may not have heard what the noble Earl said about what happened in the Committee with regard to this particular clause—namely, that, when it reached the Committee, it involved the sacrifice of the compensation if an ex-constable took service in any police force anywhere; that is to say, in the Colonies or anywhere else. The noble Earl, however, and his friends on the Committee, anxious to get half a loaf if they could not get the whole, made the restriction apply only to forces in this country, feeling that His Majesty's Government might accept that, at any rate, although they would not, as appears to be the case, have accepted the rejection of the entire provision.
724
As a matter of fact, we are, no doubt, engaged in committing another breach of privilege. I am afraid that cannot be denied, but I do not know that we need be worried by that, because all the privileges of another place do not curtail our right of discussion or of representation on any subject, with a view of causing the other place to waive its privilege on financial questions, if we can convince it that it ought to do so. But I agree with my noble friend who spoke last that, in taking the course which they have taken, His Majesty's Government are adopting a somewhat pedantic adherence to a very well-known rule. Of course, it is the rule that if a man obtains a pension in some branch of the public service and then is appointed to another post in a different service, so long as active service continues, his pension in respect of the first post is suspended. That is a rule with which everybody is familiar.
But I do most heartily agree with the noble Earl who spoke last, and, I think, with other noble Lords who have spoken, that you cannot in fairness apply that rule to the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary. When a service of active men is abolished offhand and, as has been pointed out, many of these men would have the opportunity of finding work of the kind to which they are most accustomed, and to which they are most suited, no dangerous precedent and no injustice to others will be caused by a practical abandonment of that rule. I cannot help feeling that what is being done involves far too close an adherence to the mere letter of the rule, and that its spirit might be thoroughly well enforced by adopting the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to say one word in reply to the noble Marquess. He has far more experience of this House than I have had, and I am always ready to defer to his view on all matters of procedure. I certainly was under the impression that one ought to pay considerable deference—perhaps, in the opinion I held, too great a deference—to the Report of a Select Committee which had examined a Bill, and, if I have erred on the side of respect to the findings of the Committee, I should be very glad to apologise, and to treat it in the manner which the noble Marquess wishes. I shall certainly look with a more critical eye upon some of the subsequent decisions

725
of that Committee, and I trust that, in that respect, the noble Earl will be good enough to follow the good advice which he has so kindly given me.
I want to give your Lordships an example, because I am not quite sure that the House fully appreciated the whole effect of what is being done. The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, seemed, I think, to find that there was some difficulty in deciding what the reduction should be in the case of these particular pensions, and what the abatement was, and I think he suggested details of that kind should be put into the Statute. Some weeks ago I laid upon the Table a Paper entitled Revised Terms of Disbandment, and I am afraid that owing to his many preoccupations, avocations and duties the noble Earl has not had time to read the passage in that Paper, which would have made the matter quite clear to him.
Perhaps he will allow me to read it:
"The principle on which this provision—"
that is, the suspension of compensation allowance—
"will be applied will be that if the pay of the new employment plus the compensation allowance exceeds the pay which the officer or man was receiving at the date of disbandment, the compensation allowance will be suspended to the extent of the excess."
Thus it is clear from that rule that in no case in which a man has joined another police force will he be paid any lower pay than he was receiving in the previous police force in which he was employed. Does the noble and learned Lord contest that point?
LORD CARSON: I do not know whether that is a Statute you are reading.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am reading from the Revised Terms of Disbandment. They have been laid on the Table, and the whole of the operations are proceeding upon those terms.
LORD CARSON: It is not in an Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It has not been put into an Act of Parliament, but it is just as sacred as an Act of Parliament, because it has been laid upon the Table and it has been stated by the Government that
726
it is upon those terms that they are proceeding. The money voted by the House of Commons for these particular payments was based upon this Paper, which I have now in my hand. May I quote the example given there. "If a constable of ten years' service who at the date of disbandment was in receipt of £4 10 s. a week and is awarded a compensation allowance of 38 s. a week, takes service in another police force at £3 10 s. a week, his allowance will be suspended to the extent of 18 s. a week." Now, under your Lordships' proposal, which I think you have to consider fairly, this man would get 38 s. per week in addition to the £3 10 s. per week which he was getting in his new employment. Why should he get that? He gets it although he is doing probably just the same class of work, and therefore is in no trouble about learning a new trade or going into a different and more troublesome line of life. In such a case he does not change his business. He goes into exactly the same class of work, and he has the immense advantage that instead of living in Ireland he lives in this country, which is a far more agreeable country to live in. That advantage is worth at least a pound a week, and I hope your Lordships will not break through this great general principle to which I have alluded.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, the speech of the noble Viscount to which we have just listened shows how little he understands the real problem for which we are contending. The principle to which he has alluded applies to the ordinary civil servant. He says that the ordinary rules which apply in such cases ought to apply to the case of these police constables, and he winds up by saying how gratified these men should be at living in England instead of in Ireland. He says that that is an advantage which is worth at least a pound a week to a man who has been driven out of the country where he has lived his whole life, where all his relatives are, and where his home and the homes of his forebears have been for generation after generation—the country where, of all countries, he would prefer to live. It shows the spirit in which the noble Viscount, who, of course, knows nothing about Ireland—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I know all about England.
LORD CARSON:—and who is only deeply concerned about India now, tries to consider this matter. None of these principles apply to this case, and for this reason, that it is the British Government and the British change of policy which have brought about the whole of this difficulty. It is through the British Government that these men are brought into the position in which they now stand. It is the British Government who are turning them out of an employment which they had taken up for their lives. It is the British Government who, through their policy in putting the men whom these constables were set to keep in order in the position of being the masters of these constables, are driving these constables out of their own country and compelling them to bring their families over here, or to go to the Colonies. Very many of the families of these men will be quite miserable at the thought of leaving Ireland, even although Ireland is in this condition. Anybody who knows anything about Ireland knows that the one thing which they hate is being uprooted in this manner.
Perhaps the House will allow me to read a letter which I received just before I arrived here from a man who has just been disbanded—an ex-district inspector. It will show you the problem with which you have to deal. On being disbanded he went home, and he says:—
"On March 26 a crowd of the Irish Republican Army raided my house, carried off my motor car, smashed my gates and doors, and terrorised my wife and children. A few nights afterwards they again raided my house, broke several windows and fired shots. On my return on April 28 my house was raided on several occasions by the I.R.A., under pretence of searching for arms. They smashed various articles of furniture and insulted my wife, using very bad language. I then received notice to leave, or else I would be shot. All the men of the R.I.C. who were living there received similar notices. In the night of May 18 all our houses were then raided, shots fired into them, and many of the men pulled out and beaten. I left a few days afterwards for another district, where I was promised protection by my friends. In the meantime, I had disposed of some of my furniture, but I had to leave some behind. I also had to leave a valuable garden, which was planted with potatoes, vegetables, etc., behind, valued at about £70. A few weeks after my arrival at the new place a party of I.R.A. told me I would not be allowed to live there without a permit from the I.R.A. I told them I would not ask for such a permit. This party told me that if the war started in Cork myself and all loyalists would be shot. I had to leave on the 17th inst. and came on here, Most of the loyalists in County Cork have now cleared out, leaving their property and effects behind them, and the British Government do not appear to be doing anything to relieve us."
728
That is the kind of life that a disbanded man has to live.
That is the man you are dealing with—not the comfortable civil servant, who probably lives somewhere in the suburbs of London, and who, when he has retired, gets his pension. This man will be hunted—and so will they all be hunted, and are being hunted—from pillar to post. And then you tell them: "Under all your difficulties, driven out of your own country, driven out of your home with your wife and family, whom you have taken away for fear they should be killed, taken away into entirely new surroundings, remember, if you dare to go into another police force in the country to which you have gone, then your pension will be cut off, in whole or in part." I hope your Lordships will not allow it. I hope you will say that these men have earned these pensions, and, so far as I am concerned, I will divide the House on the subject in the hope that we may get justice for these men.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord alluded to the hardships which a great number of these men had to suffer in leaving their country and coming to this country. That is not so in the case of a great many of them. Although they may possibly leave their own county, hundreds of them have taken service in the Ulster police force.
LORD CARSON: That is a pleasant place!
VISCOUNT PEEL: It may not be a very pleasant place, but it is, at any rate, a portion of their own country.
THE EARL OF MEATH: May I say a few words, as an Irishman who has in former days been able, with your Lordships' approval, to do what was possible for the Royal Irish Constabulary? What we have to do is to get out of our heads altogether the idea that we are dealing with Englishmen in England, and officials in England. There is no precedent that I know of for the disbandment of a whole force, without any warning whatever. My noble friend, Lord Peel, seems to think that it is possible for them to go to Ulster.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Hundreds of them have gone.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I know they have, but I will tell you what happened in one case. A man had gone over to Ulster, thinking that he had always been good friends with his neighbours on the other side, and the other day he was taken out of his bed and shot. That shows that even in Ulster an Irishman who has been a constable is not always safe.
What I want your Lordships to do is to look at it from the point of view of Irishmen who have been loyal to you for centuries, without whom it would have been impossible for you to govern the country. They have been excellent friends with the people until quite recently, but you have disarmed the loyalists. Formerly they had the support of the loyalists in Ireland, but you sent round lorries and took away the arms of the loyalists. You did not take them from the disloyal, because you could not; you did not know who were disloyal. It was loyalists who could have told you who were disloyal and who were not, but we were handed over like sheep to be slaughtered, without arms. Never before in the history of Ireland was there an occasion when such a thing was done. Formerly, who was it who maintained order in Ireland? Was it the British Army? Think of what happened in the great rebellion of 1798. You were in the war—you could spare hardly a regiment. We had two or three militia regiments over there, and who was it who put down the rebellion? It was the yeomanry and the country gentlemen. Why? Because they were armed.
I want you to look upon this matter as one in which you have to do justice to Ireland. You have done great injustice to these men. We cannot look upon it simply as a business transaction. You are on strong ground if you regard it simply as a business transaction, but not if you look upon it from the Imperial point of view. Think of what it would be if you suddenly deserted the Army that you had sent out to support order, we will say, in Canada, or anywhere else. This case is far worse, let me tell you, because the Irish race are scattered throughout the whole world, and these men, if they go over to America, or to Australia, or Canada, are always marked men. There are enough fanatics in the world to make it impossible for them to be safe anywhere. I therefore say that we ought not to look upon this as a matter of business. There
730
is no precedent for such action as has taken place. Let us throw ourselves on the generosity and patriotism of the House of Commons. We do not question that the House of Commons has got the right to reject these financial Amendments, but we appeal to all who have hearts, to all who know what these men are suffering; for God's sake let them not do an injustice which will throw disgrace upon themselves and the British Empire.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble and learned Lord said: In principle this Amendment raises the same question as the last Amendment which has been agreed to, because what it proposes is that, when a man ultimately retires from a police force, you should take away a portion of the compensation that has been given to him if he has received a pension from the other police force that he has entered. As under the last Amendment, he is now permitted to go into a police force, as he would go into any other employment, I think it follows as a logical consequence that he ought not to be docked of the pension that he would receive on his ultimate retirement from the second force.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 14 to 42, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is another Amendment which may put a fresh charge upon the taxpayer; in fact, most of the sue ceeding Amendments are of that character. Sections 8 and 10 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, are, I understand, the sections which the noble and learned Lord wishes to put back, in which case the final pension a man is to receive is apportioned according to the number of years he has spent either in one force or the other. But the scheme of these sections really applies only to the case where a man transfers from one force to another before he is granted a pension. They are not applicable to cases of a kind in which he gets his pension allowance after he has served in the first force. Therefore, the sections are not relevant to this case at all, and I urge your Lordships not to restore sections which have great relevance to the case of ordinary transfer from one Service to another, but not to cases of this kind which, as your Lordships have distinctly said,

731
are not the case of civil servants passing from one branch to another. I hope, therefore, the noble and learned Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CARSON: Yes, I must press it because it is a matter of principle. If this Amendment is accepted it will allow these men to obtain their compensation, to have also the new start to which I say they are entitled, and to gain whatever they can by their own efforts afterwards.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARSON: May I ask the noble Earl what has happened?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Subsection (4) has been struck out.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "twenty-fifth day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two," and insert "sixteenth day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-one." The noble and learned Lord said: Your Lordships will see, on reference to page 4 of the Bill, that subsection (7) provides that—
"Where, for the purpose of expediting the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, any member of that force has, since the twenty-fifth day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two and before the passing of this Act, been discharged with compensation, his discharge and the grant of compensation to him shall be as valid and effectual as if they had been expressly authorised by this Act, and the compensation shall be treated as compensation payable under this Act, and the provisions of this Act with respect to a compensation allowance awarded in pursuance of this section shall apply to any annual allowance so granted."
The object of my Amendment is to put back the date from January 25, 1922, to December 16, 1921, the latter being the day upon which Parliament ratified the surrender in Ireland.
It became apparent from that date that the Royal Irish Constabulary would have to be disbanded, because from that date the Government withdrew, or were withdrawing, all protection from people in Ireland, and everything that took place afterwards was merely the evacuation which eventuated on the surrender. Therefore, any men discharged alter the Treaty were really disbanded, or ought to be treated as having been disbanded, under the Treaty for the purposeof handing over the government, as it has been handed over, to what is called the Pro-
732
visional Government at the present time. My Amendment seeks to ensure that these men shall have exactly the same treatment as those who were disbanded later on, since the date fixed by this subsection. The whole question of disbandment is a very difficult one, but I would ask the House, and I would especially ask the Government, to remember that all that has taken place since the Treaty and all that is going on at the present moment is entirely illegal.
The disbandment of this force which is a statutory force was entirely illegal and without statutory authority. It is on that account that Clause 5 of this Bill validates anything which was done or omitted to be done in the execution of the Acts relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary. I am not saying that it was not proper for the Government to carry it out, but they must remember that in dealing with these men they were acting in a purely arbitrary executive manner without any sanction whatsoever from Parliament, without any statutory sanction. Therefore, if you are to fix a date at all at which the compensation is to begin under this Bill it ought to be the date of the Treaty, and not the artificial date of January 25, 1922. That, no doubt, would save several men, some of whom were wounded and by reason of their wounds were unable to go on serving. Those men would now be serving and would be getting the benefit of this Bill but that they had to retire because they were wounded after the Treaty had come into force. I, therefore, ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment I have placed on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("twenty-fifth clay of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two") and insert ("sixteenth day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-one").—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think your Lordships will permit me to deal very briefly with this Amendment because this Bill applies to disbandment and to those who are disbanded. The noble and learned Lord wants to apply it to persons who retired and received their ordinary pensions, and, of course, the compensation pensions for injuries received, before the disbandment took place. I am afraid I must make only two very brief remarks upon it. One is my old answer that this, of course, increases the public charge—a

733
thing which your Lordships have already criticised. I should like to point out how very considerably your Lordships are adding to the public charge by the Amendments you have already accepted. The other remark is even stronger—that the Amendment is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. I should waste your Lordships' time if I discussed Amendments which are outside the scope of the Bill and which, therefore, can have no effect upon it whatsoever.
LORD CARSON: I entirely disagree with the noble Viscount that my Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. It will not be outside the scope of the Bill if your Lordships put in my date. The date of disbandment is fixed for some day in July; but why is January 25, 1922, put in here? Why is that put in any more than December 16, 1921?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Because that is the day on which disbandment began.
LORD CARSON: That was not the disbandment; that was your getting rid of the men. Disbandment is what is authorised under this Bill, which ratifies what you have done, and it can just as well ratify it up to December 16, 1921, as it can up to January 25, 1922. When you are pleading over and over again that this is a breach of privilege, if that breach of privilege inflicts a wrong on these men, I say, let the House of Commons take it upon their shoulders and let us not take it upon ours. It really is nothing to what these men are suffering, and what they have been to you and what they have been through for you. It is a miserable thing to have to sit here and listen time after time to the argument that it will be a breach of privilege of the House of Commons. Let us at all events do our duty fearlessly towards these men, and if the House of Commons like to act in this way—and, of course, the Government can prevent them if they please—then these men must bear the consequences.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Viscount if he would develop his answer slightly on the one point as to what the precise meaning of the date, January 25, is? If the noble Viscount is right in saying that on that day something particular happened which was the beginning of disbandment, and that there had
734
been no question of disbandment before, and that there had been the continuing course of disbandment ever since, then I think it is an answer to the contention of the noble and learned Lord behind me, and the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord may not fall within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Viscount will explain how that happens. I confess I do not profess to have followed the course of everything, and I should like to know what exactly was the real reason for making January 25 the commencing date.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is the date on which disbandment actually began, and disbandment could not be considered—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: By Proclamation, or how?
VISCOUNT PEEL: By action. It is impossible to deal with disbandment, or to talk about disbandment, before January, because it was not till January that the Treaty was approved in Ireland.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, at the end of subsection (9), to insert "subject to right of appeal to the tribunal mentioned in section two." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is perhaps the most important of those in which I am interested. I am very sorry that it should fall to my lot to make so many speeches upon the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that it is no pleasure to me to do so, but I feel very keenly about the way in which it is proposed to treat these men. Nothing is more necessary in the disbandment of this force and in seeing that its members obtain their proper rights than that matters should not be left entirely to the Treasury.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They are not left to the Treasury; it is the Treasury with the Secretary of State.
LORD CARSON: I know, but what does the Secretary of State know about it? The present Secretary of State has no means of knowing, except what the Treasury report to him. Pensions, even in normal times, were fixed with the approval of the Inspector-General. You had somebody to say a word for the policemen. The complicated provisions of this Bill are now to be administered by the Treasury with-

735
out any representative of the police. No doubt, the Secretary of State has nominally to confirm what is done, but the Secretary of State has no knowledge and has nothing before him in the way of material that would enable him to judge. Moreover, he is engaged in other matters. Supposing, for instance, the noble Viscount opposite was Secretary of State, what chance would these police have? What opportunity would he have in the India Office of inquiring into the matter, even with the best of good will? The number of complaints which are coining from the men who are being disbanded is so great that it is impossible to grapple with them. I have at least seventy of them on my desk at the present moment which I have not yet been able to read. They all indicate actions of a mean and a petty kind designed to reduce the pensions payable to these men.
Let me take one or two examples to show why we so much want a tribunal. Here is a letter I have received since I came into the House to-day, from a man who has been driven out, and who is now living in Kensington. It is the case of Riley, an ex-constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He says—
"I served 14 years 5 months and 21 days in the R.I.O., and was discharged on disbandment on April 5 last—"
He was discharged because it was convenient for the Government to get rid of him, and not because he wanted to go. He was ready to serve, and had gone in with a view to putting in his life in the service.
"I made application to the county inspector previous to disbandment to be allowed to serve until on or after April 15—"
that is, ten days more—
"having served 14 years and 5 months and gone through hell for the last three years, when I would then have completed 14½ years' service, which would entitle me to an additional year's service for pension purposes, in accordance with the terms of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920."
It is laid down in the terms that if you serve six months of the year it counts as a year towards your disbandment pension.
"My application was refused, and I have consequently lost £10 a year in my pension, which is a big sacrifice owing to the conditions under which I now have to live. A large number of the B.I.C. are still serving, many of whom had no benefit to derive by being kept on in the matter of pension, although, as I have shown, it would have meant a great deal to me and several others
736
who have been similarly treated on disbandment. I am writing in the hope that you may be able to do something for me. Under the circumstances I think it is very unfair treatment, as I have had several records for good police duties in the R.I.C., and I expected that at least I would be entitled to this small concession from the authorities."
I see it is stated in another place that this Act is being administered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is one of the few duties still left to him. Somebody who is acting under him takes the case of a man who, if he had been allowed to serve ten days more would get £10 more a year in his pension, and turns him out, thereby depriving him of £10 a year pension. Is that fair? This I would emphasise is not a man who is going because he wants to go, but is only going because the British Government put him into this position. He says there are many others who are in a similar position. Is not that a case that should be enquired into by a tribunal? The Government have boasted a great deal and published a document about setting up a tribunal to inquire into these matters. The Select Committee added that the tribunal should be made statutory, and all I propose is to refer these cases to the tribunal the Government themselves have appointed to hear these hard cases. That proposal is now being resisted.
I need not go through the number of heart-breaking cases I have here. Take the case of men who have been injured since the truce; the agreement for surrender in December. Many of these men have been retired out of the force because they are unfit; they have not been retired on disbandment pay. What is the consequence? If two men were out fighting the Sinn Feiners and one was injured, he is retired because he is unable to go on. He does not come within the terms of disbandment. The other man goes on and gets the terms of the disbandment. He is not wounded, and he gets five, ten, or twelve years, added to his pension. He is an unwounded man who can work. The man who is wounded is turned out; he is told that he could not have gone on in any case. He is invalided out of the force and does not get the disbandment terms. He ought to get more, because he may possibly never work again.
In a letter sent me the other day, the solicitor acting for the police stated that there are a large number of men waiting at the present time to be retired owing to ill-

737
health caused by injuries in the course of their service, to whom the Government refuse to give the disbandment terms. He sent me a copy of a letter he had sent to the Chief Secretary on the subject. I have no doubt it is somewhere in the archives of the Irish Office, or whatever remains of that office. I plead for these men. I am not pleading that they should get money, though I think they ought to get it. I am not asking for that. I am asking that the position of men to whom I have referred, such as the man who was within ten days of having an additional year added to his service, should be considered by some tribunal, outside the Treasury, who would fairly and squarely deal with such cases. I gave two instances. There are many varied instances, and it is impossible to go through all of them. The noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall, made an appeal earlier on account of the effect the ill-treatment of these men will have when they are driven out of Ireland to various parts of the Empire, and state their case there and tell of the injustice that was done to them through no fault of their own. That is a consideration well worthy of attention by the Government.
Here, at all events, we are not up against the plea of privilege. The question of an independent tribunal going into these matters and not leaving them to the Treasury is one that comes into almost daily life as regards the administration of all services. Just fancy if you had an Income Tax collector as the only person who could assess your Income Tax at his own sweet will, and you had no right of appeal to the Commissioners, or any power, as you have, to go through all the Courts until you come to the House of Lords where we consider many of these cases. Why should not these men have a similar right? This is their all, their life, everything they have, after mapping out the career which was offered to them by you, and I, therefore, with some confidence, hope that, as the question of privilege does not enter, the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Line 33, at end insert; ("subject to right of appeal to the tribunal mentioned in section two").—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is another instance in which the noble and learned Lord throws himself quite athwart the
738
Report, of the Select Committee. It is rather remarkable that, although you had a Select Committee to which this Bill was referred, not one single member of that Committee has got up to defend his own Report. One member did get up, but it was in order to throw over the Report he himself had signed. It is the most paradoxical Committee that ever sat, and however it could be considered that such Committee could save the time of the House when it is silent as to the advantages of the Report I really cannot understand. This Amendment is one which no Government, however constituted, could possibly accept.
It is a perfectly useless and futile Amendment, and I will show not only that it could not work but that it would be most unfortunate if your Lordships did send down to another place so absurd a proposal. Let me briefly put the position. There is now no Inspector-General or Lord Lieutenant responsible for the particular administrative changes which were carried out in a previous period. The Bill provided originally that the Treasury should be solely vested with these particular duties; that is, to decide pensions and so on. They were given absolute and unfettered control. The Select Committee made an Amendment which I was prepared to accept; I am not quite sure whether I have not already accepted it.
The disadvantage of this method of procedure is that these Amendments are entered sub silentio. No one explains the Amendments inserted by the Select Committee in the Bill, nobody understands them, as I said would be the case. This was one of the decisions of the Committee which I accepted—namely, that the Treasury should not be unfettered, but that the subsection should be amended by giving these powers to the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury, thereby guarding and controlling to some extent the Treasury. These powers will be exercised in the future by the Secretary of State and the Treasury just as in the past they were exercised by the Lord Lieutenant and the Inspector-General. This is not good enough for the noble and learned Lord, and he proposes—really a most astounding suggestion—
LORD CARSON: Try to bear up.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of course, the whole thing is a farce, I know,—
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear. Of course it is. The whole treatment of the Constabulary is a farce. That is a good admission.
VISCOUNT PEEL: He wants to make statutory a tribunal which is only a temporary tribunal, dealing with certain things like separation allowances and other matters. The noble and learned Lord deliberately wishes to set up a tribunal which cannot possibly function, and I say therefore that the Amendment is a complete farce. Whoever heard of an outside Committee, composed of officials and non-officials, to which people may appeal from the decision of the Treasury and of the Secretary of State? You might as well give an appeal from the decisions of the Cabinet to a Committee of outside officials and non-officials. I hope that your Lordships will take this Amendment more seriously than the noble and learned Lord, and will not send down so unconsidered a trifle for the consideration of another place.
LORD CARSON: I am quite prepared, in the cause which I am advocating, to bear with the offensive phrases used by the noble Viscount, and, as I am well aware that he has no knowledge whatsoever either about Ireland or about the administration of the Police Acts, I can, I think, very well bear to submit to the accusation of trifling. It is he who is trifling, it is the Government who are trifling, the Government who are abandoning these men, and who show no concern for them. I am surprised to think that one of them—I do not want to attack him, as he is not a member of this House—should be the present Irish Chief Secretary, who so often relied, in the House of Commons or elsewhere, upon the action of these constables. Every word that the noble Viscount has said as to the Committee throwing over the Report, as to this being a claim to a tribunal which could not function, as to its being absurd, is easily demonstrated to be the purest imagination or malice of the noble Viscount.
I will tell the noble Viscount why. It has been put in the Bill—as he is probably not, at the moment, aware—by the Select Committee. This very tribunal is in the Bill. He says that the Committee threw over all that they had done, or failed to support it. What a farce that is, when the noble Viscount has on the Paper now before us Amendments to undo almost
740
everything of importance that was done by the Select Committee! The Bill, as it now stands, sets up this tribunal. If the Bill passes it will be a statutory tribunal, and, so far from the Committee taking any view that was hostile to the Amendment that I have put down, I notice that one of the matters which they said was to be considered by the tribunal was—
"such other exceptional provision as any individual case submitted to it may appear to require"
So far, therefore, from this being something that could not come within the purview of such a Committee, the Committee itself contemplated that there would be other cases, which they could not or did not attempt to define, and it is my anxiety that, among the matters in connection with which there ought to be an appeal, this question of compensation or pension should be made more specific. That is why I have put this Amendment upon the Paper.
I hope your Lordships will not be terrorised by the idea of the noble Viscount that you are going to do something foolish if you support this Amendment. I hope you will pay no regard to his remark that he wonders how I could suggest such an unintelligible and unworkable Amendment. I can assure your Lordships that I speak here with full reponsibility, not only having regard to myself as a member of this House, but with full responsibility for the position I occupy in this House, and we shall gain nothing in the controversy over this or any other Bill if a Minister, when he has nothing else to say, merely gets up and abuses the attorney of the opposite parties, which is an ordinary method, well known in a certain class of courts, as the noble and learned Viscount is perfectly well aware.
I ask your Lordships to consider this as probably the most important Amendment which has yet been moved. I should like to hear something from the noble Viscount about the cases that I quoted. Your Lordships will observe that he always gives the go-by to the cases that have arisen, the actual facts, such as the case of the poor man deprived of £10 a year by not being allowed to serve ten days longer, or the cases of poor men who are wounded, and retired because they are wounded, and then not allowed to come under the disbandment. Surely, it is with the realities of the case the the noble Viscount ought to be

741
dealing. He should not treat this thing as if it were some ordinary political farce, being played out before the public, either here or in another place. The matter is too serious for that, and, so far as I am concerned, I believe that innumerable injuries will be done to these men, through no fault of their own, simply because they are allowed to have no representative to look after them, unless your Lordships agree to pass this Amendment, which I certainly intend to press to a Division.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): I do not rise with the object of adding anything at all to any controversial atmosphere which may have sprung up, but to make two observations alone. The first is that the progress of this debate can hardly, I think, have encouraged any of your Lordships to take the view that the setting up, in a matter of this kind, of a special Committee, upon which no member of the Government is asked to sit, is a very useful contribution to the Parliamentary stages of the measure. The noble and learned Lord—well within his rights—has on one or two occasions made proposals, not only not covered by anything that the Select Committee recommended, but, on at least one point, very evidently discordant with it, and it is true that my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill has found it necessary, on grounds that I am satisfied are abundantly justified, to put down Amendments to avoid consequences, which would be not only inconvenient but almost ludicrous, implied in some of the proposals of the Select Committee.
Upon the present Amendment, I do not rise to say more than this, that, whatever security the facts relied upon by the noble and learned Lord may suggest to be necessary, it is certainly not the recommendation that is contained in this Amendment, and I would ask any one of your Lordships who, in any capacity, has experience of Government, who has ever reflected in the least upon the history of constitutional matters in this country, to consider what this proposal really comes to. The Select Committee, as I understand it, recommend that there should be added to the Treasury, to act in co-operation with the Treasury, the Secretary of State, and to that no particular objection, as I understand, is entertained. But it is now proposed, going further than the Select Committee, that a tribunal
742
which was in existence, as the noble and learned Lord truly says, for the purpose of discharging quite different functions, should have added to those functions one which on the whole must be pronounced to be the most remarkable that has ever within my knowledge been proposed under constitutional government.
You have the Treasury, with all the direct primary, almost exclusive, responsibility which in financial matters the Treasury must have, which has been reinforced by the Select Committee with the co-operation of the Secretary of State, and you are to set up a body to act over the Treasury and the Secretary of State. It is to be a tribunal which was created for quite a different purpose and to which functions as far apart from this function as the poles have been committed. That there should be set up a tribunal of this kind, to act as a court of appeal from the Treasury and the Secretary of State, is a paradox so novel that I could not have believed for a moment that your Lordships would have thought of accepting it, and I do not, indeed, know where the process is to end. The Treasury may be composed of sagacious or foolish men, the Secretary of State may be a sensible or a foolish man, but you cannot correct these errors and weaknesses, if they exist, by constituting a tribunal such as this to sit upon them as a court of appeal; and while my noble friend has not thought that any useful purpose would be served by troubling your Lordships with a Division on earlier questions, and although I do not know that we shall divide the House upon this Amendment, although we shall register our protest against it, I cannot think that such a proposal as is now made would add to your Lordships' reputation for experience, or even for giving great attention to the specific proposal.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Tribunal for dealing with individual cases of hardship.
2. For the purpose of dealing with questions arising in the administration of this Act there shall be appointed a tribunal with such powers and duties as appear in the Second and Third Schedules to this Act.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Viscount said: If I may make a short reference to the work

743
of the Select Committee, in deference to my noble friend who presided over it, I think he will have observed that I have done my best to accept as many of its Amendments as possible; I have accepted three or four. I said that I thought it was unfortunate that owing to the procedure—of course, I am not criticising him for a moment—these Amendments were not moved and defended before they were put in, but that is the fault of the procedure and not the fault of my noble friend. Several of these Amendments I have already accepted, but I would ask your Lordships' attention to Clause 2. As I explained to your Lordships on the Second Reading this Bill does not deal with the whole field of what is to be done by the Government on the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary. So far as that constabulary is concerned it really only deals with the compensation allowances.
Besides the compensation allowances there are a large number of administrative provisions dealing with all sorts of matters, such as compensation for disturbance, payment of separation allowances, and a great many matters of that kind. These I call the administrative provisions and arrangements, which were not included in the Bill, but which have been embodied in a White Paper presented to your Lordships and to another place. Moreover, these administrative arrangements have been followed more than once. They have been improved; that is to say the provisions for these different payments have been improved and a vote has been taken in another place for the necessary estimate. What some of the Committee wished to do was to make all these arrangements statutory. I think there can be only one reason for this, and that is the idea that these arrangements might be altered to the detriment of those pensioners.
I submit that that is impossible. First of all, these arrangements have been laid upon the Table of both Houses, and a vote of the House of Commons has been taken for providing the necessary money, and therefore my first point is that it is wholly unnecesary to introduce these provisions into the Act. My second point is that it is not only unnecessary but dangerous, because once you have these arrangements made statutory they cannot be altered without another Act, and if you want by administrative arrangement to improve the position of some of these pensioners—
744
increase the separation allowances or give railway tickets to any other part of the Kingdom—you cannot do it without an amendment of the Act. I submit that the insertion of all these administrative provisions in the Bill is positively dangerous and may act to the detriment of these pensioners. Therefore, I am going to ask you to reject these proposals, because the whole tendency of the discussion shows that your Lordships want to do what is best for the pensioners. I hope that you will not fetter the Government by making these arrangements statutory.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not propose to go into the arguments addressed to your Lordships by the noble Viscount, because there seems to be a preliminary difficulty in the way of accepting his Amendment, and it is that we have just passed an Amendment conceived in these terms "subject to right of appeal to the tribunal mentioned in section two." I do not think that it would be a convenient process to leave out Clause 2 after that. In fact, it would be impossible because the Bill would not read and would no longer make sense. I do not want, of course, to treat the argument of the noble Viscount with any disrespect, and it may be that in respect of the want of elasticity to which he drew attention at the end of his speech some modification may be required on the Report stage, but I submit with some confidence that it would not be at all convenient, and indeed not at all regular, to leave out any statutory reference to the tribunal altogether, when we have already agreed to the words that Clause I should be administered subject to the right of appeal to a tribunal which will then not have been created at all. I submit for these reasons that it would not be wise to leave out Clause 2.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord Carson only proposed to put in words to entitle the constable to appeal to the tribunal in Clause 2. My noble friend merely wishes to point out, in spite of the logical Amendment of Lord Carson, that Clause 2 creates a tribunal which may be very serviceable to the persons concerned—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It will be necessary to deal with that at another stage. It would not be possible now.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think the Committee stage is not an inappropriate moment to deal with the general lines of a clause. This clause, appoints a tribunal. It does not say what tribunal, or of whom the tribunal is to consist, or who is to appoint it, and it is only when you come to the Schedule, that you find what its duties are. It has a very singular duty. Its duty is to recommend increases of allowances—not merely its power, but its duty—and if anybody under Lord Carson's Amendments submits his case to that tribunal it apparently is the duty of that tribunal to recommend an increase.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It arises on the Schedule.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, I merely point out that your Lordships may have to amend this a good deal on subsequent stages.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provisions as to disturbance, allowance, etc.
3.—(1) The provisions as to disturbance allowance, free railway warrant, and separation allowance contained in the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to any officer or man of the Royal Irish Constabulary who is serving on the date of disbandment, or who at that date has been awarded a pension and is at that date resident in Ireland.
(2) This section shall have effect until the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and no longer, unless before that date it is extended for a further period by His Majesty by Order in Council.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out Clause 3. The noble Viscount said: This clause deals with some of the administrative provisions, and seeks to embody them in the form of an Act. I have already discussed on the previous Amendment the question of the policy of stereotyping administrative provisions in this way. But this clause has further objections, because it applies not only to men who have been disbanded and will be disbanded, but also to all the Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners resident in Ireland. It therefore is an immense extension of the Bill. It is wholly outside the scope of the Bill, and wholly out of order, and therefore by no possibility could it be accepted in another place.
I do not know the exact number but I think there are seven thousand of these
746
men to whom, by the insertion of this clause, these privileges are extended. The proposal, in fact, extends to men who retired from the force a great many years ago, many of them under Regulations governing their retirement on pensions on the ground of long service, or of sickness, or injury, or incapacity, quite independently of anything connected with disbandment of the force. This Bill is not intended to remedy the grievances of pensioners. In regard to all pensions there are hard cases, and whenever the scale of pay and pension is increased there always arises some grievance—a natural grievance—on the part of previous pensioners who have not enjoyed those advantages. That may be so, but I am not concerned to discuss the matter at any length, because it is outside the scope of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF DESART: This is a matter to which I and some of my friends attach very great importance. The disturbance allowance under the Regulations, as they are at present, extends only to the men who were actually serving in the force at the time of disbandment, and one understands why it was put in that way. For reasons which are apparent, other men besides those may, and probably will, be placed in precisely the same position as those serving at the time of disbandment, with whose cases the disturbance provisions are intended to deal. I am unable to see why a man who, because he has served in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and because of that only, is turned out of his home, and has to leave his country and make a home elsewhere—has to do, in fact, every single thing that a man actually serving has to do—should be left absolutely without any provision of any kind.
The criticism of the noble Viscount is that there are many men whom we pensioned years ago, and it would be difficult to see how far an addition might lead us. Might I point out that it could only relate to men who were driven out, and it is not likely that it will go back to men who were pensioned many years ago. Therefore, I do not think questions of that kind ought to affect the decision of your Lordships on a point of such importance as this. It is absolutely necessary to do justice to these men who, for the same reason, are placed in

747
precisely the same position as the men for whom you have already decided to provide disturbance allowance and some means of settling in another country where they can make themselves another home. I can see no reason, if you really desire to do justice to these men who have served you, why you should exclude the pensioned men. I do not accept the argument that it might possibly take you a long way; it is very likely not to go beyond the men who have been serving in the force comparatively recently, who are known to have served in the force, and who may have acquired the ill-will of those who are now in power and who are able to make their lives intolerable to them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
". Any officer or constable of the force who since the first day of January nineteen hundred and nineteen has been retired by reason of unfitness caused by injury inflicted in the course of his duty shall be entitled if still living to the same pension as he would have been awarded if he had continued to serve up to the date of disbandment under this Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a matter to which I have drawn attention already and my object is simply this. I take January 1, 1919, because that is the date which the Government have fixed in the Act as the time at which they commenced to do—well, just as they pleased, for the purpose of trying to restore law and order in Ireland. That is the date on which the police were taken in hand by the Government with a view of taking what I might call advanced action in order to put down the rebellion. My proposition is that if these men had not been wounded in the special work to which they were put, and which the Government afterwards entirely changed, they would have gone on and would have got these terms of disbandment. But because, in the course of carrying out the policy of the Government, they were wounded and knocked out they are to be deprived of the advantages they would get in having years added to their service.
How any Government can contemplate treating wounded men, men knocked out in their service, in the way they are doing in this Bill, entirely passes my comprehension. My Amendment is a perfectly
748
clear one. It is that those who were wounded in this last stage of the Irish war should not be worse off than the men who were not wounded; that they should be treated, notwithstanding their wounds, as if they were still serving, and that they should come under the terms of disbandment under this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This clause, of course, comes within the objection to which your Lordships are, I am afraid, already accustomed. It is a privilege Amendment. It places, or proposes to place, a very large charge upon the Treasury. It is also outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore, it can do neither harm nor good. It is perfectly useless sending an Amendment of this kind down to another place, because even if they wished they could not accept it, as it is entirely outside the scope of the Bill.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON indicated dissent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is so. Therefore, sending it down is an entire waste of time. I should, however, like to say this, because I think that anyone who has listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord would have supposed that these men who have been wounded and pensioned during the last three years had been badly, or unfairly, or unkindly treated. That I do not think can be said to be the case, because the scales of pensions for injuries vary, of course, according to circumstances and the length of service. They may in some cases amount to full pay, and the minimum is above the ordinary pension rate. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord has really no business to suggest to your Lordships' House that at any rate substantial provision is not being made for these men. He wishes to bring all these men under the additional pension terms which have been provided for the men who are being disbanded under the Bill. I need not take up your Lordships' time in trying to argue the point, because it is obviously useless to discuss a matter which is wholly outside the scope of the Bill with which we are dealing.
LORD CARSON: Not for the first time has the noble Viscount opposite given as

749
his only excuse that the matter is outside I the scope of the Bill. If that is so, so much more disgrace to the Government for forgetting these wounded men—
VISCOUNT PEEL: They are not forgotten.
LORD CARSON:—and taking no concern in having them treated as well as the men who have not been wounded. The noble Viscount said that they were so handsomely dealt with, as I understood him, that they did not require this. All I can say is—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that.
LORD CARSON:—that if they got the terms—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say so.
LORD CARSON: The noble Viscount did not; very well. I understood him to say so. Then, I understand him to say that they have not been handsomely treated.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The; noble and learned Viscount must not misrepresent me. That is a matter he can do in another place, but not here. What I said was that these men have received substantial pensions. That is what I said.
LORD CARSON: Of course they have!
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is what I said, and I will not have my words misrepresented.
LORD CARSON: The noble Viscount need not be afraid that I will misrepresent him. He need not be insolent, and he need not be always referring me to another place. I am trying to do my best for these men. He is trying to do justice to this act of surrender and abandonment of these constabulary men. That is all the difference between us. I care about these men, he cares about his Government; that is all. I do not mind his insolence, even if he treats me like a nigger, not in the least; it does not matter. The question is, what are these men to get? Let us not get away from it by any questions of that kind. The question is simply this: If these men had not been wounded they would now have been getting this disbandment allowance.
750
The noble Viscount knows very well that they got nothing like that, although they were wounded. He is asking the House to say that because they were wounded and could not go on serving up to now in the force they are to be worse off. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The statement of the noble and learned Lord, of course, is not correct.
LORD CARSON: Of course not!
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have stated that in many cases these men who, unfortunately, have been wounded are getting higher rates of pay or pension then they would have got if they had not been wounded and had come under the provisions of this disbandment. The only reason I criticise the noble and learned Lord is this. I am entirely indifferent to what he says about me but he has no business to misrepresent me; that is the only thing I shall object to if he does.
LORD CARSON: I never did misrepresent the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
First schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
PART I.
Rules.
1. The compensation which may be awarded to an officer or constable shall be an annual allowance.
2. The annual allowance shall be calculated in like manner as the pension which the officer or constable would have been entitled to receive if lie had retired for length of service under the existing enactments applicable to him, and had been qualified in respect of his length of service for a pension, save that, for the purposes of that calculation, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) There shall be added to his completed years of actual service if the proportion of salary on which his allowance is calculated is one-fiftieth, ten years, and if that proportion is one-sixtieth, twelve years:

(b) His salary shall be taken at the amount which it would have reached if he had continued to serve in the same rank for the number of years so added, and in the case of a district inspector of the third class, as if he were entitled to promotion to the second class on the completion of one and a half years'

751
service in the third class, and, in the case of a district inspector of the second class, as if he were entitled to promotion to the first class on the completion of eleven years' service in the second class;

(c) If the number of his completed years of service, as reckoned under this rule, is less than the minimum number of years of service for which provision as respects pensions is made in the appropriate pension scale, that scale shall apply with the substitution of the number of his completed years of service as so reckoned for that minimum number; and

(d) If he has, in addition to his completed years of actual service, served for a period exceeding six months, his service for that period shall be reckoned as a completed year of actual service:

Provided that in the case of the surgeon of the Royal Irish Constabulary his compensation allowance may, should he so desire, be calculated in like manner as the pension which he would have been entitled to receive on retirement under the existing enactments applicable to him if the years to be added as aforesaid were added to his years of age instead of to his completed years of actual service.
3. The allowance awarded to an officer or constable shall in no case exceed two-thirds of the salary on which the allowance is calculated.
4. In the event of an officer or constable dying after an annual allowance has been awarded to him under this Act, the Treasury may, if they think fit, grant a pension or gratuities to the widow and children of the officer or constable in tike manner as if the allowance were a pension granted to the officer or constable on retirement, and as if his years of service had been the years in which the allowance was calculated.
5. In these rules the expression "existing enactments" means enactments in force at the time of the passing of this Act, and includes any orders made under those enactments and in force at that time.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, at the end of paragraph 2, to insert:
" Provided that in the case of a county inspector who has served as a divisional commissioner his compensation allowance shall be calculated as if he were serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary and holding the rank of divisional commissioner therein and his entire salary as such commissioner were actual pensionable salary."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the ease of the divisional commissioner. Your Lordships will remember that the divisional commissioners have to do the most responsible work of all in the Constabulary and take risks equal to, if not greater than, those taken by any other officer or man. My Amendment seeks to provide that in the, case of a county inspector who is now serving as a divisional commissioner, his compensation allowance
752
shall be calculated as if he were serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary and held the rank of divisional commissioner therein, and his entire salary shall be regarded as his actual pensionable salary. That is to say, I am endeavouring by this Amendment to provide that the divisional commissioner shall have his pension fixed on the basis of his salary as a divisional commissioner and not on his previous salary as a county inspector.
There were, I think, six of these very distinguished officers who were chosen from the ranks of the county inspectors, and who did this very responsible work. The appointments were made about two years ago, and their salaries were fixed at £1,200 a year. Some time after the appointments were made the officers in question were told that they were only to consider their posts as temporary ones, with the implied inference, therefore, that on the abolition of the posts they would not have pension rights on the basis of their position as full commissioners. The moment these officers realised this position they sent a deputation to the Chief Secretary, and they received from time to time various assurances.
On the occasion, for example, of one of their number losing his life, the Chief Secretary is understood to have said to I them: "If you live through, I will see that you are generously dealt with." Presumably it was already known that these men would become entitled to pensions as county inspectors, and, therefore, I think it is an obvious inference that the Chief Secretary's words implied that something more than a county inspector's pension should be given, for he said to them: "If you live through, I will see that you I are generously dealt with." On another occasion the Chief Secretary said to these officers: "You need not continue to press for new legislation to regulate your claims as, knowing your dangerous work, you are only kicking at an open door." Again, when these representations were made, and the officers pressed for legislation, the Chief Secretary used these words: "Legislation is not necessary, as we have every means to meet these claims."
I do not want to emphasise at length the great responsibility and importance of the work of these very distinguished officers, as I think it is known to your Lordships, but their duties were very onerous, and were carried out in the midst of great

753
danger. Of the very small number of district commissioners, two unfortunately lost their lives. I do not think that I am putting it in an exaggerated way when I say that of the officers in Ireland at the time, civil or military, none were called to take such great risks as these divisional commissioners. Their claim is that they should not be treated merely as county inspectors for the purpose of pensions, but as divisional commissioners—that is to say, that in the assessment of their compensation they should be treated as existing officers at the time of the disbandment of the force, and as holding the rank of district commissioner. They also claim that they should be given compensation of one year's salary for disturbance. I do not set up as an arbiter as to what is the correct monetary compensation that should be awarded to these very distinguished officers, but I think their claims are entitled to be heard by your Lordships.
They make this further claim, that on a previous occasion district commissioners were not treated as it is proposed to treat them on the present occasion. I will take an example of what occurred at the end of the last century. One district commissioner appointed in 1893 received, when the office was abolished in 1898, a pension of two-thirds of his salary as a district commissioner. His pension was not based upon his previous salary as county inspector. At that time, therefore, the district commissioners received more generous treatment than the district commissioners themselves are now asking to be granted to them. I have put down their claim, which I venture to press upon your Lordships, in the form of an Amendment. If it is certain that their particular case can be heard by the tribunal I agree that it would not be necessary that these proposed, words should be added to the Bill, but without the assurance from the noble Viscount that these distinguished officers will be able to go before the tribunal I must press my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid I must apply one observation that I have already made to my noble friend's Amendment, and that is that he seeks to impose by his Amendment a further charge upon the
754
taxpayers. He proposes that the compensation allowances should be calculated on the acting rank in the case of these district commissioners. The acting rank carries with it, I think, £1,200 a year, and its effect would be to increase the compensation allowance from £600 to £800 a year. My noble friend must be aware that he is starting upon a very wide business indeed by suggesting that the allowances should be based upon the acting rank and not upon the substantive rank.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: If I may interrupt for a moment, I did not make myself quite clear, as I did not wish to detain your Lordships more than was necessary. I have stated the claim of these officers, which I thought they were entitled to have laid before your Lordships. I have not said what my opinion is as to what exactly they should get, but have said what their claim is. I am asking your Lordships to consider whether the tribunal I should not be allowed to deal with these cases.
VISCOUNT PEEL: All I wished to point out was the result of the far-reaching suggestion made by the Amendment. You could not confine the compensation allowance based on acting rank merely to commissioners. If you conceded it to commissioners you would have to extend it to other ranks. You could not do it in the one case, without doing it in the others. But in answer to the specific question put to me, I understand that these men can represent their case before the tribunal. I am not sure that does not meet the point made by the noble Earl. I could not, of course, accept an Amendment of this kind, because it would set up a very difficult precedent, and one which could not be applied in one case only but would have to be applied all round.
THE EARL OF DESART: I am glad my noble friend put this Amendment down, although I recognise what the noble Viscount has said as to the difficulty of making it a practical Amendment. I do not think the noble Viscount realises the position in which we all find ourselves. We receive communications of every sort and kind, some reasonable and some not so reasonable, from very many people, and we find that there is a widespread feeling among these men, who have served you so well, that they are not getting justice this way, that way, and another way.

755
If they could look to some place where they could get their cases heard and reconsidered, that would give them some satisfaction. I received only two days ago a letter from a number of men—not a large number—who think that they suffer from some such hardship as that indicated by my noble friend. I was very glad to hear what the noble Viscount stated, because I think the one thing we can do in Parliament for these men is to make them feel that there is a place to which they can go to get these things considered and reviewed. If we can do that, I think we shall have done good work for them. Do not let these men have the feeling that they have not had a chance of going before some tribunal to state their grievances.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that I address myself exactly to the Amendment moved by my noble friend—
THE EARL OF DESART: I do not think I have gone beyond it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not suggesting that. I ought to say that they do get disturbance allowance. They have been allowed it in the revised terms on their acting rank.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: If I understand that these individual cases will be treated by the tribunal—
VISCOUNT PEEL: Can be, not will be.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH:—that the tribunal is still empowered to act with regard to these cases, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Tribunal for dealing with Individual Cases of Hardship.
The powers and duties of the Tribunal appointed under this Act shall be as follows:—
1. To recommend—

(a) The extension up to a maximum of six months' pay of the disturbance allowance for the purpose of removal which may be granted under the Third Schedule to this Act, in any case, where in the opinion of the Tribunal the amount which has been so granted is inadequate.

756

(b) In exceptional cases the payment of gratuities, in addition to disturbance allowance, up to a maximum of six months' pay.

(c) Such other exceptional provision as any individual case submitted to it may appear to require.

2. To deal with matters referred to the Tribunal under the Third Schedule to this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the noble Viscount not to move his Amendment to omit this Schedule? I do not think the Amendment is in order as the Second Schedule is embodied in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move the Amendment because I am afraid that both the Second and Third Schedules have not been carefully drafted. There is a reference to an officer who has entirely ceased to exist, and they omit from the functions of the tribunal very important functions as regards computation. If you are going to put a number of these administrative duties in the Bill it should have been done fully. To leave out some and put some in will lead to great confusion. Under the unfortunate drafting of these Schedules great confusion will be caused. I am not responsible for that because I moved to omit the particular Amendments. I was defeated by your Lordships. Your Lordships are entirely responsible for what will make sad nonsense of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the Second Schedule.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that the drafting of these Schedules will have to be considered, but as you have them in the body of the Bill I do not think you should move them out.
VISCOUXT PEEL: I shall not divide.
LORD CARSON: As I understand there is to be no Division, all I need to do is to protest against the noble Viscount's statement that the Government have no responsibility, when this House passes a Resolution, of seeing that the draftsman puts it in proper form. I think it is the duty of the Government to see that the will of the House is carried out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had not intended to take part in the discussions again, but I think I must make our view perfectly plain. We were prepared, in

757
ordinary Committee of this House, to give any assistance in our power to those who hold the view that the proposals of the Bill wore inadequate, and they would not have found us inattentive to, or impatient of, any Amendments they might have brought forward. The House, by a most unfortunate Resolution, decided that these matters could be better investigated by a Select Committee. I ventured humbly to express my opinion that it was a most unfortunate decision, but the House, nevertheless, persisted in it. They set up this Select Committee, and either myself or my noble friend Viscount Peel would have felt it our duty, though we disapproved of the procedure, to have assisted the Committee had we been invited to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble and learned Viscount allow me for a moment? He was not present earlier in the proceedings when I explained that I took responsibility for what occurred. I understood that the Government did not wish to be a party. I know now that that was a mistake; and I expressed my apology.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will not say another word about that. We who had given great attention to this Bill, were prepared to consider the matter in all its bearings, but we felt that we had been rather repelled from its consideration.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule.

THIRD SCHEDULE.
(a) Disturbance Allowance.
If any officer or man, owing to molestation or danger or for any other cause whatsoever, moves his home either to another place in Ireland or to any place outside Ireland, he shall be entitled to be repaid the reasonable costs incurred in connection with such removal up to a maximum of one month's pay for unmarried men, two months' pay for married men with less than three children, and three months' pay for married men with three or more children.
These allowances will be payable on application at any time within six months of the date of disbandment.
In order to avoid any delay in the payment of these allowances, they will be payable on demand at the date of disbandment or at any time within six months thereafter; every officer or man who receives such allowance will be required to produce to the Tribunal appointed under this Act, evidence that he has in fact moved his home; and if he has not moved his home or if the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such removal are less
758
than the amount of the allowance which he has received, the Tribunal may require him to refund the whole or part of the allowance, as the case may be.
In cases of officers and men holding acting rank above that of their substantive rank, disturbance allowance will be calculated upon the pay of the acting rank. In cases where officers or men holding acting rank have already been disbanded and have received disturbance allowance calculated upon their substantive pay, application may be made to the Deputy Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabulary, Dublin Castle, for the payment of the difference between the sum received and the disturbance allowance that would have been payable if it had been calculated upon such acting rank.
(b) Free Railway Warrants.
Every officer and man will be entitled to a free railway warrant from the place of his disbandment to his home. In addition to the above, it will be open to any member of the force who considers that he would be in danger if he were to return or after having returned to remain at his home after disbandment, to apple for a free travelling warrant to enable him to remove himself and his family to any place in Great Britain and Ireland. Such warrants will be issuable in respect of the member of the force, his wife and children, or other dependent normally supported by him as a member of his household. Where a member of the force is moving his family, and finds it inadvisable actually to accompany them, a separate warrant will be issued for their use. Travelling warrants will be issued on application prior to dispersal.
(c) Separation allowance.
Separation allowance will be payable during the first three months after disbandment to any married member of the force whose home is outside Northern Ireland and who proceeds either to Great Britain or Northern Ireland, leaving his family in Ireland. This allowance will be in addition to the compensation allowance granted under section one of this Act, and will be made at the rates approved for the several ranks of the force, viz., 14 s. a week for constables and sergeants, 17 s. 6d. a week for head constables, and 28 s. a week for officers of higher rank.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move, formally, to leave out the Third Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the Third Schedule.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Third Schedule agreed to.

AIR MINISTRY (KKNLEY COMMON ACQUISITION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD GORELL): My Lords, this Bill, as its title shows, is to confirm and give Parliamentary sanction to an agreement come to between the Corporation of the City of London and the President of

759
the Air Council. The Air Council are acquiring by agreement 50 acres in the Kenley Common area for an aerodrome, and by arrangement with the Corporation of the City of London they are acquiring and giving to the Corporation a contiguous estate of 60 acres. It is necessary to ask for Parliamentary sanction because the Kenley Common estate was acquired by the Corporation under the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act, 1878, in 1883, and they cannot voluntarily cede it without Parliamentary sanction. All the rights of the public have in this case been fully safeguarded. Under the Bill if the estate of 50 acres is no longer required as a military aerodrome it will go back to the Corporation of the City of London as well as the 60 acres mentioned in the Bill. Under the Second Schedule the public will have the right still to use the common on public holidays, and the Air Council further undertake not to place any buildings upon it. At this late hour I do not think it is necessary for me to go further into detail.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had given Notice to call attention to the opposing views publicly expressed by Cabinet Ministers upon the question of the embargo on Canadian cattle; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they do not regard this question as one of Imperial importance upon which it is imperative that the country should have the guidance of an united Government.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I did not perceive when I put down this Question that I should be keeping two or three of your Lordships so late, while I was making a few remarks to the Editor of our debates. But this controversy about Canadian cattle has raised quite a definite issue which I thought required special notice. That issue lies in the fact that this very day two Cabinet Ministers, I understand, are leading opposite sides on this question in the House of Commons. My Question has nothing to do with the merits of the embargo. I feel profoundly the importance of the Imperial question, so forcibly stated by Lord Long of Wraxall, that I could hope
760
that some answer to him has been agreed upon. I think the whole business of shipping cattle overseas is a cruel business.
My only point is that the Government are not entitled to indulge in a neutral mind on a question like this. I do not want to speak too strongly, but, as the noble Lords representing the Government know, there are numbers of people, like myself, who have come to assume that a Coalition Government was a natural form of Government. Now we are, day by day, being driven from that position by remarking that on numbers of questions the Government has alternating minds in alternating months, and on numbers of questions it shows an immense resolution in facing both ways at the same time. I do not know whether this is the result of Coalition, or whether it is part of the illustrious qualities of the Prime Minister, but it is at any rate an instance of that of which so many of us complain.
Is there any real precedent for the action the Government are taking in this matter? I understand there was the case concerning Canadian cattle in which, under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Government left it as an open question to the House of Commons, and different Ministers took different sides. That was a question of Canadian cattle, no doubt, like this, but was it any real precedent? There was no question of a pledge then; no question of the honour of the country; no question of the subtle foundation on which the stability of this Empire rests. It is not a question like Woman Suffrage, that has been left open in the same way. A question on which a Cabinet has no better means of judgment than I have, or the 'bus conductor has, was quite rightly left open.
But it seems to me that this is a question of a totally different kind. What is the position? On one side there is a pledge, given or allowed to be understood to have been given, by one country within the Empire to another country within the Empire. That is the case on one side, and the possible case on the other side—I should like to think that there is a possible case—is that, in all the circumstances, the circumstances in which the pledge was given, the present circumstances of agriculture on both sides, the present state of feeling on both sides, and so forth, the pledge is not one of which instant and literal fulfilment is due, as between one

761
self-respecting country in the Empire and another.
If that is a fair statement of the case, surely it seems to follow that no one else can have the knowledge of the matter and means of judgment that the Government are bound to possess, and that it is emphatically a question of a kind on which, after the right usage of our Constitution, the Government must give us a decided lead. I shall be very glad indeed if my noble friend who answers me has a case which will enable him to crush me, and I shall accept, on public grounds, that uncomfortable process with some relief. But I think your Lordships will perhaps pardon me for having thought that this is a point to which some one ought to have called attention in this House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, my noble friend is very pessimistic if he thinks that I am going to crush him. Far from it; I shall do nothing of the kind. The views of Cabinet Ministers upon this point are conflicting. There is no concealment of that fact. The difficulty arose at a moment when post-war problems, problems which did not necessarily arise out of the war, did not receive the attention, in the spring of 1917, which immediate war problems did receive, and, as Lord Charnwood has observed, the result is that Cabinet Ministers take different views on this particular subject.
It is, of course, a subject of great importance, and Lord Charnwood claims that he is entitled to the guidance of an united Government. If the Government is not united, he cannot get its united guidance, and I suppose he argues from that—quite a legitimate argument—that the Government ought to retire forthwith. But the Liberal Party is not united, and, if Lord Crewe, Lord Charnwood and their friends came into office to-morrow, the same fissure would appear between members of that Government. I believe that the Labour Party is not united. England, as a country, and Scotland as a country, are disunited on this problem.
When Lord Charnwood said that neutrality is unjustifiable, he immediately quoted a very obvious and very well-known precedent, where, on this very point of Canadian cattle, neutrality was justified, not by this Government, but by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. At that time the Liberal Party was so much divided that, since this was not a Party question
762
in the least, it was not considered necessary to put on the Party Whips. I do not think Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman ought to have been blamed for refraining from bringing Party pressure to bear upon his supporters when no Party problem was at issue. Not only then, but on the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, on Woman Suffrage, and, I dare say, on many other important, subjects, it has been recognised that, where great divisions of opinion exist, apart from legitimate divisions of opinion on ordinary Party questions, matters are left to the judgment of Parliament as such; and this is a case, for right or for wrong, where that precedent has been and will be followed.
[From Minutes of July 20.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Post Office (Pneumatic Tubes Acquisition).

Saint Marylebone Borough Council (Superannuation).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
RAMSGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

  SHEPTON MALLET WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  [From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, July 21.]

GUARDIANSHIP, ETC., OF INFANTS BILL. [H.L.]
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee, and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.
House adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Tyrone (M. Waterford)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PORT OF LONDON AND MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  RIVER CAM CONSERVANCY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

POST OFFICE (PNEUMATIC TUBES ACQUISITION) BILL.
To be read 2a to-morrow (Lord Stanmore).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
To be read 3a on Wednesday next.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
To be read 3a to-morrow.
EASTGATE BAPTIST CHAPEL AND PRO CEEDS OF SALE OF CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL (LOUTH) CHARITIES BILL.
To be read 2a on Wednesday next (The Earl of Onslow)