laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred to the First Heading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance Society Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

Huddersfield Coporation Bill. Read the third time and passed. Bacup Corporation Bill, Cardiff Gas Bill, Great Eastern Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Todmorden Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

County of Aberdeen (Monymusk Bridge and Road) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL

"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bath, Cheshunt, Hove (two), Nantwich, Oystermouth, and Tamworth (Rural)," presented by Mr. Runciman; read the first time; to be referrred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL

"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ashton-in-Makerfield, Cardigan, Darlington, Hoylake and West Kirby, Plymouth, Salford, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Totnes, and Tyldesley-with-Shakerly," presented by Mr. Runciman; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

LONDOL GOVERNMENT SCHEMES (LONDON AND PENGE, &c.) BILL

"To confirm certain Schemes made under The London Government Act, 1899, relating to the county of London and Penge, the county of London and Hornsey, the county of London and Barnes, and the counties of London and Kent," presented by Mr Runciman; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

said he had already received some consideration from the House when first addressing it; but, needless to say, he should that day, occupying a more onerous position, naturally appreciate very much a further extension of the kindness he had experienced, and if it were accompanied by an equally ample support in the Lobby it would not be any the less acceptable. In asking the House to pass the Second Reading of this Amending Bill to the Diseases of Animals Act of 1896, perhaps it would be better if he recapitulated one or two details as to the methods in vogue prior to that Act. The Board of Agriculture prior to 1896 had discretionary power, and, under a rigid system of inspection, they were in the habit of excluding or admitting foreign animals, according to the circumstances of the case. That that method was considered adequate was testified by the fact that in 1894, although there had been cases of alleged disease detected in foreign

† See (4) Debates, cliii., 876.

animals, the Government did not consider it necessary to alter the regulations, in spite of the fact that Mr. Chaplin moved an Amendment to the effect that foreign animals should all be slaughtered at the port of landing. The Government resisted the Amendment. Therefore, although disease was at the time known to exist, yet it was not considered necessary by the then Government to alter the regulations or to amend the law. In urging this Amendment, Mr. Chaplin used words to which he (the speaker) wished the House to pay special regard, because they constituted a justification, if Justification were required, for the present amending Bill. He said—

"Whenever a country becomes free from disease, then the Act may be repealed in this particular."

They knew that from the passing of the Act of 1896 there had been an agitation up and down the country against it by those who considered they had suffered injury. That agitation had become more and more accentuated, and, as far as they could see, it was more likely to increase than to diminish. After the passing of the Act of 1896, appeal with regard to the reversal of restrictions was through Parliament, instead of the Board of Agriculture, and he considered that a clumsy method of procedure. It meant that before any real grievance could be remedied, they had to go through the precarious method of passing a Bill through the House of Commons, and sending it on to another place where, perchance, it might be reviewed in a spirit contrary to the spirit which prevailed in this House. His point was that the powers of the Board of Agriculture previously exercised were thoroughly effectual for their purpose. At the time the Act was passed, the whole of the Liberal Opposition resisted it, and the hon. Member for South Somerset, who represented the Board of Agriculture at the present time in this House was the only Liberal who supported the action of the then Conservative Government. Lord Burghclere, when Minister of Agriculture, in 1893, in reply to deputation, said—

"He would not be justified in restoring the privilege of free entry in the case of Canadian cattle until he was in possession of the additional evidence which would be afforded by a systematic examination, extending over a reasonable and sufficient period, of the cattle landed here for slaughter. He trusted that the result of such an examination might be to confirm the view that the requirement of slaughter at the port could be waived with reasonable security against the importation of diseased animals, in which case, and in the absence of any unfavourable news from Canada, he considered that he would be bound under the statute to allow free entry to be resumed."

He also said that—

"The cattle breeders were afraid that some day Canada, the United States, Argentina, and other countries would be able to show a clean bill of health, and the prices would fall to a ruinous extent. What was desired was to give a monopoly in store cattle to the breeders in this country. No one could deny that this legislation was for one class and one trade and he felt it his duty to oppose it."

What had been the result of this legislation? It had secured entirely the home market for store cattle and for cattle for dairy purposes to breeders in this country; it had increased the importation of fat cattle which had to be slaughtered at the post of debarkation not then in the best condition to be slaughtered; it had lessened the supply of first-class home-fattened and home-killed beef, it had rendered consumers more dependent upon imported dead meat—frozen, tinned, and preserved—about the inspection of which we knew little or nothing; and it had denied to our industries the byproducts which living animals always brought with them, viz., hides, hair, bones, etc. It was absolutely essential that we should have free and ample supplies of fresh meat for our industrial classes. They were the bones and sinews of our industries, and their stamina and physique were of the first importance. There had been deputations from consusumers, and, if anyone doubted that it was a consumers' question, he would like to ask their attention to the representative character of the deputations which presented their views before the responsible Departments and in other quarters. Agriculturists, local authorities, harbour and river trusts, cattle dealers, shipowners, co-operative societies, all were represented, and their numerical strength was an argument in favour of abolishing the restrictions. The benefits would not be confined to one class, but would be conferred upon many, in contradistinction to the one class which enjoyed the benefit of the present prohibition. The Co-operative Societies—what was their interest? Surely that of the consumer. The Co-operative Societies of England and Scotland, representing a population of about 9,000,000, were unanimously in opposition to the Act of 1896 and were in favour of the proposed Amendment. Was not that a fair indication that it was a consumers' question? What about the agriculturists? They had the courage to speak out, and were in advance of their colleagues. They said that they paid higher prices for store cattle and that that prevented them from supplying the markets at prices low enough to compete with the level produced by the importation of dead and inferior meat. The stores were the raw material of their great industry. Their importation stimulated the industry and benefited the consumer. He could refer to one engaged in the industry on a very large scale. He was a gentleman in Sussex, farming 2,000 acres, feeding 300 dairy cows, and who formerly used to fatten 300 cattle. He was also a breeder, and he (the speaker) was sure his statements would carry weight in the House. He said—

"The decrease in the annual growth of roots is a practical illustration of the effect it is producing on the arable farms. Very many thousands of acres of the cream of the land in this country have already ceased to return any profit to the occupiers, and not only is the land being gradually forced out of cultivation, but the labour otherwise required in connection with the fattening of cattle, and the growing of roots and corn, is also being displaced, and during all this time British farmers are being hopelessly beaten by their foreign competitors in the beef markets, and for that reason fatten only the least number of cattle possible."

That was by a practical man.

Might I ask the hon. Member who that farmer is?

^* said he was not sure that he had the gentleman's permission to give his name, but he would be glad to give it to the hon. Member privately, and he could assure the House that he was well known. The agriculturist with arable land had to buy in a restricted market and to sell in an unrestricted market.

They asked for the liberty to conduct their industry in their own way. They all agreed that agriculcurists in this country had had gratuitous advice given them galore in recent years, but when level-headed, far-seeing men who understood the question and saw where the shoe pinched and what the remedy was came and asked for that remedy, strong interests sought to push them back. The men who were most anxious to have Canadian store cattle were men who had full knowledge of them. They had had experience, and he was sure that fact ought to have weight with the House. He thought that in this matter they had an object lesson. They might put on a restrictive measure for a certain purpose and say they were not putting on a protective measure, but that would not prevent its being protective. He thought it was just as well to know that here they had a concrete illustration that intentions did not amount to much in this matter. He put this question to all those hon. Members interested in stock breeding. If there was no risk whatever of the importation of disease, would they be in favour of this Bill. [Cries of "Yes."] Then how did they account for the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented Ireland, although his Bill did not affect Ireland, were opposing it to a man although not an animal could at present be imported into Ireland from Great Britain, nor could any enter under this Bill?

I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not think the importation of cattle from Canada will affect the price of Irish cattle.

said that was exactly the point. The late Mr. Hanbury, replying to a deputation at Edinburgh on the 19th October, 1901, said—

"There is one reason which I am pound to say weighs with me, and it is this—given the fact that although a country may be free from disease, what would happen if the importation of store cattle, say from two countries free from disease at the present moment—Canada and the United States—were to be allowed? The first thing that would happen undoubtedly would be that the price of English stores would naturally fall to the price of the stores sent from Canada and the United States."

Lord Burghclere said on November 28th, 1902, in a letter to The Times.

"The Act forbids for all time and from all parts of the world the introduction of store cattle into this kingdom. It is said of course that the consumer does not suffer, owing to the large import of dead meat from the Colonies and elsewhere; but it must be remembered that dead meat is practically the manufactured article and store cattle the raw material, and to admit one and unnecessarily exclude the other is purely to violate the elementary canons of free trade."

They would all admit that the Government must take every precaution against the introduction of disease into this country. In dealing with the question of disease he would ask the indulgence of the House while he gave a series of figures. It was necessary to go into rather more detail than he would desire in order to arrive at the present condition and the past history of this question. In 1890 the cases of diseases in our home herds were pleuro-pneumonia 2,649, and anthrax 288. The Canadian imports were 121,312 and there was no case of disease. In 1891, pleuro-pneumonia, 1,314; anthrax, 369; Canadian imports, 108,289; disease, none. In 1892, foot and mouth disease, 1,248; pleuro-pneumonia, 593; anthrax, 453; Canadian imports, 98,239; no disease whatever for nine months, and in September four cases. In 1893, foot and mouth disease, 30; pleuro-pneumonia, 30; anthrax, 877; Canadian imports, 82,925, in which there were four cases of disease. In 1894, foot and mouth disease, 7; pleuro-pneumonia, 15; anthrax, 632; Canadian imports, 82,323, diseases 6. In 1895, pleuro-pneumonia, 1; anthrax, 608; Canadian imports, 95,993; diseases, 2. From the 10th of July, 1895 to the 20th February, 1896, the date when the right hon. Member for South Dublin introduced his amending Bill, not one further case of disease had occurred amongst Canadian Cattle. Up to the 23rd of March, the date of the Second Reading of the Bill, no case occurred, and up to the 22nd of June on the Third Reading not a single case had been reported. The intention of the Act would appear to have been to exclude these imported cattle altogether. Since the beginning of 1896 up to February, 1906, ten years and two months, there were in our home herds 259 cases of foot and mouth disease, ten cases of pleuro-pneumonia; 7,714 cases of anthrax, and yet of the 1,216,709 Canadian cattle landed there was not a single case of disease of any kind, and that under the strictest system of inspection. It might be said there were other diseases than those scheduled. Let them take tuberculosis. Tuberculous carcases in this country were destroyed as unfit for human food. That was not under the Board of Agriculture, but the local authorities, and it was very difficult to get figures for the whole of the United Kingdom. He had, however, the Returns for the City of Glasgow, which might be taken as typical of the rest of the country. In the five years 1900–1905 of 252,805 carcases of home cattle inspected, there were 39,407 which were tuberculous, fifteen and a half per cent. of the whole. Of those, 5,616 were wholly destroyed, 4,268 partially destroyed, and 29,528 were passed. Of the 207,080 caresses of foreign cattle which were inspected, 1,751 were tuberculous, less than one per cent. of the whole, viz., ·85 per cent., and of those eleven were destroyed, sixty-nine were partially destroyed and 1,671 were passed. That was to say, that for every 101 home carcases destroyed as unfit for human food only one foreign car-case was destroyed. Did not that point clearly to the fact that the sooner we had these healthy animals amongst our herds the better. These Canadian animals were the healthiest in the world. It should not be forgotten that for years we had been exporting our best cattle, and that those we sent abroad had to pass the tuberculin test. The Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the City of London upon the meat supplies of 1904 stated—

"The superabundance of second class and imperfectly prepared meat has been the most notable feature, and this in spite of poor prices obtained for it. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a lessened demand for the home-grown product, and the reason for the deterioration, as before mentioned, is probably in great part due to the large export to foreign countries of our finest breed of cattle."

He thought that if they took the facts and figures he had given—and he did not use the figures as illustrations, but as absolute facts—the bogey of disease had been completely laid. The fears that disease would be brought over to this country by these cattle were legitimately held by many people here, but they did not know the facts. He felt sure that when the facts were known these people would come to the conclusion that it was not only safe but eminently desirable that we should as soon as possible import these Canadian store cattle. One word with regard to this question on the Canadian side. Since this embargo was imposed, and especially since the Act of 1896, the Canadian?, Government and people had never ceased to complain, and they still complained that we unfairly excluded their animals. If disease existed in their herds, the Canadian Government would never complain or consider that we should, admit their animals. They had said so. But when they knew that they enjoyed immunity from disease, he thought they had a right to complain in the strongest terms. The Canadian Government spoke in the name of the Canadian farmers—intelligent men trained in their industry—whose grievance was that they could send store cattle to foreign countries but not to the mother country. We should do our utmost to develop trade with the colonies. At the Congress of the Chambers of Commerce at Ottawa, on the 20th August, 1903, the following Resolution was passed—

"That the present restrictions on the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain are unjust, in so far as they are based on the dread of disease existing among such cattle, since any outbreak of disease is as rigidly guarded against in Canada as in the mother country, and no infections disease exists in Canada; and that such restrictions are also undesirable, as they result in interference with the free development of trade, a decreased supply of cattle, and increased cost of meat to the British consumer: and. that in the opinion of this Congress, the present regulations of His Majesty's Board of Agriculture, so far as they relate to the importation into the United Kingdom of Canadian live cattle under reasonable precautions, should be at once reconsidered."

Many people in this country were under the impression that it was by the action of the Board of Agriculture that this exclusion of Canadian store cattle was maintained, and they were unaware that there was an Act passed which permanently excluded the cattle. A gentleman who knew Northumbrian farming very well, and was now in Canada wrote—

"Here in the West we have an abundant range for bringing cattle to a certain degree of perfection, but as yet we have little of the intensive cultivation necessary for 'finishing' cattle. At home you have a highly perfect condition of agriculture with a market at your doors, but an insufficient supply of store cattle."

The question, Why restrict this Bill to Canada? was a perfectly legitimate one, and the answer was obvious. They only asked that the Bill should extend to a country where immunity from disease was proved. If any other hon. Member brought in a Bill to extend the same privilege to other countries similarly situated, and proved the facts as conclusively as he had done, he was sure it would receive the support of everyone who approved of the present Bill. He considered that we should advance our own interests by adopting legislation of this character, we should advance the interests of the consumer, and of the agricultural industry, and should be doing a tardy act of justice to our most important colony. By excluding Canadian cattle we had driven Canada to trade with the United States. When we complained that the trade from Canada to the United States was increasing we ought to remember that we contributed to it by forcing them to export their cattle to the United States. He asked the House to consider all these aspects of the question. He could not pretend to touch upon them all, but he would quote the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who summed up the position when writing to a conference of farmers at Perth in 1901. The right hon. Gentleman wrote—

"The existing restrictions on the importation of cattle are, in my opinion, uncalled for upon sanitary grounds, vexatious to the trade, injurious to the farmer, especially in the east of Scotland, and contrary to the interests of the general consumer. I trust that we may look for their early removal."

Finally he would appeal in the words of Mr. Chaplin—

"Whenever a country becomes free from disease, then the Act may be repealed in this particular."

He trusted the House would follow the course there indicated, and repeal the Act in that particular. He begged to move.

^* thought the House would agree that they had had a most admirable and exhaustive statement on this subject from his hon. friend. The speech of his hon. friend had one effect besides his own eloquence and the authorities he brought forward, for it drew a very pertinent interruption from the hon. Member for Tamworth. He was delighted at the interruption because it tore away a veil from the real feelings of Gentlemen in this House and outside which were usually well concealed. When they discussed this question in this House the idea of protection, or the artificial raising of prices, was always put on one side by hon. Members who were in favour of the existing legislation, and it was truly refreshing to-day to hear honestly, frankly, and boldly, from an hon. Member on the Opposition side, the declaration that a change would affect the price of Irish cattle. As hon. Members knew, he spoke for a part of England which he supposed fattened more cattle, and he thought better, than any other district in England. He believed that in some districts they found the breeders against the feeders, but in East Norfolk, big and small farmers, and agricultural labourers, all took the same view on this question. The reason was that their principal industry, the one that really paid them with their arable land, was seriously damaged by this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman who was instrumental in passing the Act in 1896 frankly admitted that they would be probably under some disabilities, but the right hon. Gentleman made a prophecy which sounded very well, namely, that as a result of the legislation stores would be bred all over the country, and that there would be an ample supply from Great Britain and Ireland. He was sorry to say that that prophecy, like so many other prophecies, had not been fulfilled. On the contrary, they had suffered from the scarcity of stores and the high prices which naturally followed. He believed he was right in saying that the average price per head had been something like 30s. or £2 higher, and every hon. Member who understood agriculture would know that to people whose principal industry was feeding stock that was a terrible disaster. From Ireland and the West of England they got at first some very good stock, but towards the end of the season they begun to get some of the cast-offs, because where people both bred and fed they kept the best stores themselves, and sent to market those which they did not want. The existing Act had led to an increase in the number of cattle for milking, and therefore the tendency was to turn arable land to grass, thus displacing labour. Those cattle were good for milk, but not for feeding purposes. In France it was recognised that the fowls which were good for laying eggs were not so good for the table, and it was equally true that some cattle were good for milk, but not for feeding purposes. What had been the result upon the root industry? In his district roots had rotted on the farm because the farmers could not afford to buy enough store cattle to feed them off. There was no market for them, because the condition of other farmers was just the same as their own. What they wanted was cheaper stores or more money in their pockets. The little men in Norfolk had not the capital, and never had sufficient to buy their own stores, and the practice had been that the dealers had bought the store cattle from them and placed them on the farms under a profit-sharing arrangement. There was now so little in the business that the dealers would not go in for it to the same extent. The result was that the land was being turned into inferior pasture. It might be asked why they did not go in for the dairy business. His reply was that if they did they would lose between 2,000 and 3,000 agricultural labourers, who would displace labour in the towns and help to swell the ranks of the unemployed. It was said that this was a question of disease. He remembered that in the debate one hon. Member spoke of it as a form of insurance; but it was a delightful kind of insurance under which others paid the premiums and the insurers got the bonus. At any rate, this legislation hit them seriously. He would ask, was it right that they should be hit? He agreed that it was if it could be shown that there was a real national object to be served, and a real danger of disease. They had never suggested that for their own benefit, even to save them from ruin, they should run the risk of introducing disease into this country. He had received a document from the Central Chamber of Agriculture giving a list of diseases which they might expect to get from Canada. Even the Central Chamber of Agriculture admitted that Canada was extraordinarily immune from disease and that Canadian cattle were amongst the healthiest in the world. The sea voyage from Canada was a very great security. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] At any rate diseases would show themselves in the course of the sea voyage and at least foot-and-mouth disease would be almost sure to show itself. He did not think they had ever had that disease from Canada. He wished hon. Members to recollect that although they shut out Canadian cattle the sole risk from it was pleuro-pneumonia, which was the only disease of which there was any real risk. [Cries of "No, no."] He thought it would be agreed that the sea voyage at any rate gave time for the period of incubation, and that was distinctly a safeguard. He would point out to the House that they never thought of shutting out foreign forage or hair and wool that came from abroad. There was an outbreak of foot - and - mouth disease when his right hon. friend opposite was at the head of the Board of Agriculture. Where was that disease imported from? Nobody knew absolutely, but the Board of Agriculture agreed with most of the people in the neighbourhood that it came over from the continent with some forage. If they were afraid of disease why not shut out all foreign forage? In the case of forage nobody could see whether on the sea journey it was diseased or not, but the animals showed it at once, and when they were landed the inspector saw it and took steps to see that it was not spread. He believed that even his right hon. friend opposite would admit that there was a considerable amount of scientific authority against the view taken by the Board of Agriculture. The subsequent course of events and the whole of the circumstances surrounding them, including the post mortem appearances, made him feel very strongly that these cases of pleuro-pneumonia were not contagious. The Chamber of Commerce did not say anything about the condition of our own flocks and herds. There had been more foot-and-mouth disease in this country during the last few years than Canada had had during its whole career. In this country anthrax was always with us. There was another disease called hard tongue, and when such beasts were bought it was generally found that ten or twelve in every hundred cattle would not fatten. It was a very delightful thing to meet hon. Members opposite who on this matter did not think about money and making £2 a head extra, who thought more about this dreadful disease being spread amongst the breeding herds of England, and who were going to oppose this Bill although it did not make one penny difference to their constituencies, and although the disease did not affect Ireland in the least. With regard to the disadvantages: first of all, this legislation prevented English breeders from refreshing their breeds of cattle. When he was in the United States five years ago he was talking about cattle to a person who was originally an Oxfordshire man, who was engaged out there breeding Hereford cattle on a large scale, and who used to buy very largely over in this country. He informed him that during his last three or four visits he found that some of the best strains of cattle in this country were getting very thin. He showed him two or three fine beasts, told him their pedigree, and assured him that if they wanted to keep up their Herefords to the old standard they would have to come for some of their strains to America. When the Scotch deputation went over to Denmark some time ago to see the dairy industry, they were immensely struck with the milking power of the cows there, and they were very anxious to introduce into this country some beasts of Danish breed in order to see how they would do here. The present state of the law prevented that from being done. When they saw a nation succeeding in agriculture as Denmark was doing to-day, and when they had in the United Kingdom some of the finest pastures in the world he submitted that it was worth while trying to get animals like those to be found in Denmark.

Would this Bill help us to get them?

^* admitted that the Bill would not, but it was what might be called the thin end of the wedge. Perhaps his hon. friend would like to know why this Bill was in its present shape. It was because it dealt with that part of the subject which had the largest driving power behind it. That was a positive fact. The promoters of the Bill wanted to go along the line of least resistance, and this they believed was the line of least resistance. His hon. friend had pointed out that his logic applied to other countries as well as to Canada, so long as the conditions which obtained in Canada obtained in other countries. The Junior Member for York, who took a great interest in this matter, would admit that our supremacy in breeding was in danger. There was no doubt that the supply of first-class beef was not such as it ought to be. He was not talking of ordinary beef, plenty of which was coming from America. They did fatten some of the very best in Norfolk, but Just as "you cannot make a purse out of a sow's ear," so superior animals could not be made with inferior stores. They could not at present turn out beef of the quality which they used to produce, but they would be able to do it if they could get better stores. One of the cruelest things in Norfolk was that most of the land was not capable of being laid out in pasture. It took about nine years to turn it into pasture, and when that was done it was not good. One of the worst things from which the country was suffering at the present moment was the depopulation of the country districts, and legislation of the kind of which he was complaining tended to that result. The only advantage it gave was a possible security against disease, but he believed the risk of disease was very small. His hon. friend had challenged him as to mange. It was a disease which he did not know much about, but according to a report of the Central Chamber of Agriculture it was a disease which could be postponed for an almost indefinite time by dipping. [An HON. MEMBER Two dips.] If the restrictions on the importation of cattle were removed he would be willing to put the feeding industry under liability to give the animals three, four, five, or even ten dips. He liked that sort of disease. He hoped if he ever caught a disease himself it would be of a kind which could be dealt with by two dips. He believed that mange did not prevent cattle from fattening, and did not affect the milk they produced. He sincerely hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading. Portions of this country had been under a disability which they had done nothing to deserve. He trusted that this House which was composed so largely of free traders would recognise that what was now being done in regard to the importation of cattle was not in accordance with their principles.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

said he had been asked by the farmers of this country to do all he could to prevent this Bill from being carried. If his hon. friend had seen the deputation that waited on Lord Carrington he would have seen that the farmers in almost every part of the country were represented except those of Norfolk. This was a matter between farmers, and it did not concern the rest of the public. As to what was said about labourers, it was quite evident that his hon. friend was not a farmer himself, for, if he were, he should not have told the House what he did. It was a question as between arable and grass land, and his hon. friend had admitted that the districts where labourers would be displaced could not be turned into grass. He believed that more labour would be required if farmers turned their attention to dairy farming rather than to the raising of fat stock. There were other products of a dairy farm besides butter. He had had some experience himself both in dairy farming and in the fattening of cattle. He could assure his hon. friend that even when producing butter there were many farmers who could make a fair profit. The existing law had worked well all through, and it had not had the effect on prices which had been asserted. [Cries of dissent.

He had the statistics and he would submit them for the information of the House. Although he approved of the present law in this matter, he claimed also to be absolutely a free trader. It had not been shown that a law passed for the purpose of safe-guarding the health of our herds was really "protection," but he did not say that there were not protectionists who regarded it as protection, or that there were not others against protection of any sort who said that the present restrictive legislation was contrary to their principles. It was very difficult to ascertain the prices of store cattle, but he had been supplied with some statistics recorded by the Teviotdale Farmers' Club and the Border Union Agricultural Society, showing the average prices each year from 1891 to 1905. The table prepared by the Teviotdale Farmers" Club showed that in 1891—the year before Canadian cattle were excluded—the average price of a two-year old of the shorthorn breed was £12 7s. 6d. while in 1905 it was £11 5s. The statistics recorded by the Border Union Agricultural Society showed the average prices of other breeds during the same period. In 1891 the price of a two-year-old was £13 as against £12 7s. 6d. in 1905. These were the prices for particular years, but if they took an average of a number of years the price had been a little less since the restriction was put on. It might be said that that was for one particular place. It might be said that one particular case did not prove the general rule. But he had the average price of store cattle.

^* asked if the hon. Gentleman argued that by limiting the supply of store cattle the price was. reduced.

said that his contention was that, on account of the existing law, the home and Irish supplies of store cattle had been increased and the price had not been materially altered. He wished to emphasise the fact that farmers had a terror of the introduction of any infectious cattle disease. He should like to read one or two farmers letters which he had received in order to give an idea of the strength of that feeling. One farmer wrote—

"In the early seventies, when as a young man I was struggling with the difficulties usually attending a first start in life, I was unfortunate in experiencing outbreaks of both foot and mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia in my herd of forty cows. I remember with distinctness the terrible strain, the worry and anxiety of that time, and I pray that it may never be my lot to again go through such a time. I remember in the case of foot and mouth that the skin peeled off in huge pieces from the mouth and tongue of the poor cattle, leaving them raw and sore and quite unable to eat, and they were so bad that it was miserable to see them about. I remember our difficulty in drenching them with gruel, which we had to do to keep them alive, and in the end, when recovered from the disease, their milk was gone and they themselves so emaciated as to be mere bags of hones. The attack of pleuro-pneumonia was more deadly in its results, nearly every affected beast dying. I cannot give you figures of my losses, but I know that it was only with the greatest difficulty that I did not succumb. In the present day the losses would be much more difficult to bear as the margin of profit per acre is so much less. Since that day labour, rates and taxes, and indeed well nigh every expense (except rent) has increased, and the value of the produces, milk and cheese, has decreased."

Because we had got rid at present of the disease that was no reason why we should incur any risk of its introduction again. Another farmer in the Market Harborough district wrote—

"In the year 1877 I was farming 400 acres at Risely, Bedfordshire, in November of that year I bought thirty Irish bullocks at Leicester fair at £16 per head. I bought other ten home breds reared by a neighbour. The forty were put into four yards divided from each other by rail fences, with a common drinking trough in the centre. Shortly after being put into the yard one of the Irish bullocks was taken ill, and the vet, was called in. He pronounced it to be a case of pleuro-pneumonia. Then another fell ill and still another, till by April, 1878, twenty-two had been buried, after which the magistrates, under great pressure, assented to the remaining eighteen being sent to the London market."

It would be seen from that letter that the cattle were at once sent to the London market when there was any doubt as to what was wrong with them. He could read many more letters, but he had quoted a sufficient number to show the feeling that existed among farmers in regard to this question. They were not asking for any protection as to their prices. What they were asking for was protection—immunity from disease. He had gone carefully into this question this last year; he had had many opportunities of meeting farmers at farmers' clubs all over the country. He had talked to hundreds of individual farmers in widely separated districts, and in every case he found that the fear of the re-introduction of disease was enormous. He really believed that if the farmers of England and Scotland were polled, nine out of ten would be against this Bill.

^* : No, no!

said there was another curious point. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill cried, "No, no"; but why was it that he went to shipowners and such people for support for it?

Would the hon. Gentleman mention a single case in which I have applied to a shipowner for support?

said it was notorious that this agitation had been got up in the great towns and not by the farmers. The only farmers' clubs in favour of this Bill, or a farmer here and there, were in Norfolk and in the East Coast and Lowlands of Scotland. Throughout the country the opinion of farmers was at least ten to one against any alteration of the present law. As to the amount which was saved in compensation to farmers who had suffered loss from the death or destruction of cattle by reason of these diseases, accurate figures were difficult to get. But in the four years just before Canadian cattle were excluded, the amount of compensation paid reached £151,491, exclusive of what was paid in Ireland. Of course, they knew now that Ireland was free from disease. But during the last four years the amount paid in compensation had only been £8. That affected the ratepayers in the country, although not the ratepayers in the great towns-Having put the farmers' case, he now came to the question of the danger of introducing disease into this country by cattle from abroad. He admitted that in Canada the authorities did al they could to keep disease among cattle out of the Dominion. They kept out cattle from other countries except under a two months quarantine. That was equal to the operation of the present law in this country, for if we had here a two months quarantine it would have the effect of keeping out all store cattle. But unfortunately there were in Canada a frontier of 1,000 miles which was only an imaginary line, and cattle could walk over that line without the supervision of any Customs authorities. This was notorious, for, when the price of corn went up in the United States the farmers in Canada drove their corn across the line without being stopped by the United States officials, and sold their corn in the United States at enhanced prices. [Ironical cries of "Shame."] Well, that was a bit of luck. Furthermore, it was well known that cattle disease was rampant in the United States, and that the precautions taken to prevent its spread were very slight indeed. The people who dreaded the introduction of cattle disease into this country were farmers who had bred and reared cattle all their lives. Of course it might be said that they did not know their own business, but a good many people told others that. However, experts all protested against any alteration of the present law. The only expert evidence which was absolutely independent of any feeling one way or another was that given by the experts in the Board of Agriculture, and that was against this Bill. He knew that some members of the Government were of one opinion in regard to this matter and some of another; therefore he did not expect the Government to give any assurance as to which way they were going to vote on this Bill as a Government. He would be satisfied if the Government left it an open question. As to the effect of the present law on the price of meat, from 1880 to 1892 the average price of meat of inferior quality was 3s. 5d. per stone, of second quality 4s. 8d. per stone, and of the best quality 5s. 3d. per stone. From 1892, when Canadian cattle were prohibited from coming in till this year, the average prices were 2s. 8d., 3s. 11d. and 4s. 7d. Was not this proof that the price of beef had not been affected by the tax? If they took the price of mutton in regard to which there had been no regulation, it had not fallen very much. In 1891, taking the average price per hundred as a base at 105·5 for a great many years, in 1891 it was 98·6 and in 1892, the year of prohibition, it was 94·4. The next year it fell to 91·5. It therefore appeared that in the actual year in which the prohibition came into force there was a distinct fall in the price of meat, and he thought that since that date the average price had not been increased by the alteration. He had the average prices of meat per stone from that year onwards up to 1905, and they had been very steady and had not increased in the least degree from the year in which the alteration was brought about; the price had actually fallen. A more important question still was the price of milk. If that were raised, great injury would be done to the children, and the country would deteriorate, as its inhabitants would become weaker. If the supply of milk were decreased, the population of the country would have to resort more and more to condensed milk and foreign food stuffs, which were really deleterious to the health of children. There were a large number of cattle diseases in Canada which did not prevail here. It was quite true that they were not scheduled, but they were many of them new, and the Board of Agriculture in this country knew nothing about them. The moment, however, that our ports were opened to Canadian cattle that Department would have to know something about them and would have to schedule them and deal with the difficulty of coping with them. He would not talk of the long names which some of them had, and they were so novel that some of them had not names which the farmer could use, as they were only scientific. To take a disease the name of which was familiar, there were two kinds of mange in Canada, the dry and the wet mange.

said the Board of Agriculture in Canada knew nothing about wet mange.

said that he had in his possession a letter from the secretary of a cattle company in Canada in which the evils of wet mange were dealt with. There were, besides, a lot of other diseases in Canada which we did not have here.

pointed out, as a matter of order, that he had stated upon the authority of the Board of Agriculture in Canada that they did not know and had never heard of wet mange. They had not got the disease there.

^* : That is a matter of argument, not of order.

said it was a question of fact.

remarked that if the hon. Gentleman said that he had had a communication from the Government of Canada to the effect that they had not wet mange in that country, that was one thing, but it was quite a different thing to their saying that they did not know of it. He had not seen the Canadian cattle himself, but he simply said that they were subject to these illnesses. But besides the different varieties of mange there were various other diseases from which Canadian cattle suffered, and which, if they were imported, would be most deleterious to the cattle of this country. Nobody could call this a free trade Bill because it gave a preference to one country over all others—that was to say, it conferred a preference upon Canada against all the other countries in the world. It was most absurd to describe a Bill containing such a proposal as a Free Trade Bill. The promoters of the Bill apparently did not think there was enough driving power to carry a free trade measure, as they knew perfectly well that if the proposal was to let in cattle from all foreign countries the feeling would be very strong against such a proposal, and that they would not have a chance of getting the measure through. Therefore they brought forward a Bill with a view to benefiting one country, and after they had passed it he supposed they would deal with other countries one by one. If there was any question of free trade in the matter he should not be there to oppose the Bill. He had worked for free trade all his life and would vote against any restriction of it. But in this case the fear and the danger of disease would do a great injury to our trade, and over and over again the most avowed free traders had put into practice pro- tectionist measures against that danger and in doing so had in no way violated the principles of free trade. If it was found that the hides and hair brought in disease as had been argued, then their importation could be prohibited. The importance of free trade was so great that he would make considerable sacrifices for it, but this was not a free trade Bill. In the interests of cheap food, in the interests of the poor children of the country whose milk supply would be affected, in the interests of the farmer and of the agricultural labourer, he asked the House not to pass the Bill. On behalf of all these interests he asked hon. Members to vote against this Bill and not to be led away by the false echoes of a great Party cry into doing an injury to the country and especially to the agricultural classes. He begged to move.

said the hon. Member for Newcastle, in the speech he made upon the introduction of this Bill, reminded one of the Englishman who said—

"It is a fine day; let us go out and kill something."

The hon. Member had chosen as the field of his activity the most important industry of the country, the agricultural industry. The agricultural interest had the least representation and the fewest speaking Members in this House. That could be seen if hon. Members looked at the names on the back of this Bill. Many interests in this country, with the exception of the agricultural, were represented by those whose names were on the back of the Bill. There were shipowners, ship-brokers, merchants, barristers, a town clerk, a doctor, an engineer, a cake manufacturer, and every kind of interest save that of agriculture. He noticed from a Report recently issued dealing with infant mortality, that one half of the infants born in Newcastle died before they were a year old. They died because they had not sufficient fresh milk or from some other cause, and he thought the hon. Member would have been far better employed in investigating the causes of that infant mortality in his own constituency than in introducing this Bill. He (Mr. Wason) had the honour to be associated in his opposition to this Bill with hon. Members opposite representing Ireland, by being specially alluded to in the whips sent out by the interests supporting this Bill. The House wished to know why they opposed this Bill when Ireland was specially excluded and when it was supposed that the Irish Members were taking no interest in it. He was opposing the Bill on the ground of great Imperial and national interests. It was not because Orkney and Shetland were cut out of this Bill that he opposed it, but because they had suffered, as Ireland had suffered, from cruel landlords and evictions, and they hated and detested the great cattle ranches in whose interests wholly and solely this Bill was framed. He himself was born in South Ayrshire, and since he had come home from the Colonies he had lived among the small farmers in that county. He had received a petition from them which represented the whole of the farmers of South Ayrshire praying that this Bill might not be passed into law. They pointed to the great cattle plague of 1866 when many of the farmers were ruined. It did not interfere with the landlords any more than that they suffered some little inconvenience from it, while those who held the farms were ruined and went to the workhouse. The debates upon this question showed that there was no idea whatever of protection in the minds of the Government who proposed carrying the Diseases of Animals Act 1896. The fundamental idea of that Government, who wisely carried that amending Act, was to take it out of the power of any weak and squeezable Ministers to put aside these regulations in the interests of a particular class. They all knew from the experience of the last few years the pressure which could be put upon Ministers. When a number of Members could go to a Ministry and say "You must do this or out you go" a state of things was brought about which constituted a very great national danger. It was for that reason that this Bill was introduced and it was for that reason that the farmers were bitterly opposing it. Why had they this motley crew of philsophical philanthropists on the one side, shipping industries, harbour boards, trusts, every industry in the world, except Agriculture? Was it not a little curious that there was not one farmer who supported this Bill? He knew no farmer who supported it, and they had all these motley interests supporting it, including the Tariff Reformers. He did not wonder that the Tariff Reformers supported it, because the crux of this Bill was tariff reform, and preferential trade with the Colonies, a policy which had been most emphatically condemned at the last election. Here were the farmers with practically no representation in this House. Was it to be wondered at that they took a keen interest in this matter? Hon. Members on both sides of the House who represented the varied interests which supported this Bill were only fighting for their dinner. The farmers were righting for their lives, their very existence. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but what he said was true, as every agriculturist in the country knew. The speech of the hon. Member for East Norfolk was a curious admixture of cajolery and threats. He threw his fly over hon. Members sitting below the gangway, representing organised labour, and threatened them that unless they supported this Bill he would send all the stalwart lads from Norfolk to flood their labour market. Norfolk labourers would do very well in Norfolk if they had some of the land which was going to waste for want of Canadian cattle. They opposed this Bill because it attacked the cattle of this country. The cow was the poor man's friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham rose to the greatest pinnacle of renown upon the policy of "three acres and a cow." That is one of the policies upon which the Prime Minister had come into power—to make the country a treasure round for the nation instead of a pleasure ground for the rich. One hon. Member had spoken about protection, and had said that this was a protectionist measure. Let them take it so. If it were then they were in very good company. Where was the hon. Member for the Cocker-mouth Division? [An HON. MEMBER: Having his dinner.] He wished he had been having a drink. The hon. Member for Cockermouth was the strongest free trader in the House, but what would he say if anyone suggested that there should be tree trade in drink? He and the whole Temperance Party would be up in arms against it in a moment. The hon. Members who represented the interests of organised labour did not carry out the true principles of free trade, and there were others who were bitterly opposed to Chinese labour, which could also be defended on the principles of free trade. Therefore, if they were wrong they were in good company. They felt very strongly on this question with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in one of the debates upon this very question had summed up their position when he said free trade in humanity was no part of the policy of the Liberal Party of this country. Nor was free trade in diseases. The hon. Member for East Norfolk had certainly made out some sort of case for fresh blood. But if he wanted to bring in fresh blood from Norway OT from Canada or from anywhere else, for the benefit and the improvement of the Norfolk herds, why did not he say, "Do away with this Bill altogether and we will give you all the restrictions you desire to put upon us." Our Australian Colonies imposed a very heavy quarantine. Canada, America, France, Germany, the Argentine, all protected their country from disease by quarantine. This country alone was to open its ports to disease of all sorts on the bare word of another country. If a similar course were taken in this country he did not know but what we should be as well off as we were now and at the same time if anyone wanted to improve their flocks and herds they would be able to do so. That might possibly be to the ultimate advantage of the country. At all events it would do away with the ridiculous cry of "free trade versus protection." The expenses of the quarantine would all fall upon the importer who wanted the cattle, and everyone would be satisfied. Hon. Members could not for a moment prove that the restrictions under the present law had increased the price of meat. They knew perfectly well that since these restrictions had been placed upon cattle coming into this country there had been a large increase in the number of cattle bred in this country; that freights had gone down; and that the price of food had gone down. Of course it might be said that the price might have gone down further still, but more likely it would have gone up. In his opinion it was hon. Members representing urban constituencies who had a better right to complain, because although sweet, sound, and wholesome beef and mutton was bought wholesale at fourpence or fivepence a pound the retail price had not gone down. Much of the beef eaten in the country and possibly in the dining rooms of this House was purchased for about fourpence or fivepence wholesale, but when people wanted to buy it retail they had to pay a shilling and over a shilling a pound for it. They knew that cattle had increased in this country, and that the price of meat had gone down to a very considerable extent; that they got dead meat from the Argentine and the United States, and that that meat was infinitely more wholesome than meat procured from raw - boned animals coming into this country, and fed up with all sorts of oil cake and things for six months, and then was sold as "beef." There was one other matter which he would rather have left untouched in this debate, but as a Colonial he was bound to dwell upon it for a few moments. It was the despatch sent to this country last September by the Governor-General of Canada. Prior to that despatch they had a message from the Minister of Agriculture in Canada, Mr. Fisher, who told the Government that the imposition of these restrictions was an unfriendly act. We had never in all our histroy had such an insulting communication from any of our Colonies. If it had come from France or from any other Continental Power stocks would have gone down, our fleets and our troops would have been mobilised, and war might have ensued. Luckily for this country the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was not Colonial Secretary when that message was received, otherwise there might have been some pretty recrimination. A milder Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) was then Colonial Secretary, and he received the message with due humility, but the idea of saying that our domestic legislation in this country was an unfriendly act was an insulting thing. Canada had imposed import duties against this country, and we had never made the slightest remonstrance. Yet when we passed a measure to protect our flocks and herds we were told by the Canadian Minister for Agriculture that it was an unfriendly act. The Resolution of the Dominion Parliament was couched in unveracious and insulting language.

rose to a point of order. Was the hon. Member entitled to speak of a communication from a Colonial Government to the Government of this country as unveracious?

^* : I think it very undesirable that that epithet should be applied. It is liable to misconstruction. Perhaps the hon. Member would substitute some more moderate expression.

^* said he would at once withdraw at Mr. Speaker's request the phrase objected to, and would substitute for it the phrase, "a despatch liable to misconstruction." It was said that the Canadian herds were now and had been for some time past free from the particular diseases against which this embargo had been imposed. That was the statement of which he complained, because, as everybody knew, the Board of Agriculture could by regulation apply the embargo to diseases which were now prevalent in Canada. Canada was not free from any particular disease by reason of which this embargo had been imposed. The Act was passed ten years ago, and this country was now told that that Act cast an unjust imputation on Canada. They knew from the Board of Agriculture in Canada itself that the Canadian herds were not free from tuberculosis, mange, and other diseases, which we did not want here. He wished to impress upon Irish Members particularly that, outside cattle breeding, the great industry of Ireland was horse breeding, and in this very Report of the Canadian Board of Agriculture last year there was a detailed account of a disease which modesty almost forbade of his mentioning, namely a venereal disease among the horses of that country, which if it were imported into Ireland would be a most serious matter. The Canadian Board of Agriculture did not know where this disease came from, but they knew it was there. For this reason also they objected to this Bill, and there was another reason, and that was his final reason for objecting to it. When the late election was pending, when they were all, so to speak, fighting for their lives in the constituencies, they were assailed with all sorts of cries. They were called pro-Boers, Home-Rulers and everything else. At that time the Government was accused, he believed wrongfully accused, of pledging themselves, to remove all restrictions on all cattle coming over to this country. Those statements were circulated far and wide, and a deputation waited upon Lord Carrington actually while the elections were in progress of being held. Lord Carrington made a speech on the subject in reply to that deputation, in the course of which he said the matter was one of the very gravest concerns to the country, and that he was bound to state that the vast mass of opinion was against the introduction of these cattle. He gave the electors of the country very clearly to understand that he was going to be no party to the removal of these restrictions. On that ground they opposed this Bill. But that was the position, that this distinct statement was made while the elections were actually pending, and while hon. Members were going through the country. Those who represented agricultural districts would feel very strongly upon this matter, and their constituents would feel much gratified if after what had happened on that occasion the Government would take a strong and direct line upon it. He appealed to those Members of the House who had some conscience. Conscience was a peculiar thing, and had been well defined as being an inward feeling usually dormant only raised by-indigestion and the fear of death. The hon. Member for Newcastle he was sure would have indigestion if he had his way, but in this House they were not in fear of death. It was a new House in the vigour of its prime, and he hoped they would reject this Bill. He had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment of his hon. friend.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—( Mr. Warner. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

^* said he did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman while he was speaking, but he wanted to ask him on what authority he stated——

^* : The hon. Gentleman has addressed the House once.

^* : Not on this subject.

^* : All that is permitted to the hon. Gentleman is to make a personal explanation.

^* said he wanted to explain that the remark the hon. Gentleman had made with regard to the infant mortality in Newcastle-on-Tyne was absolutely untrue.

On a point of order, asked whether an hon. Gentleman was entitled to say of another hon. Member that he had made a statement which was absolutely untrue.

^* : The words "absolutely untrue" are certainly never used in Parliamentary language.

^* : I beg your pardon, Sir; may I say the statement was incorrect?

said he did not make a statement, but only said that he saw a report of this mortality.

^* said he had to congratulate himself that he was able to make his maiden speech in this House in support of a measure which he honestly believed would cheapen an essential article of diet in this country, and would remove a long-standing injury and insult to 6,000,000 of our loyal kinsmen. Speaking as a Canadian he regretted the criticism of a despatch sent by the Privy Council of the Dominion of Canada to the Colonial Office of this country—a despatch which was not framed in the spirit the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had suggested. When the hon. Member urged the House to vote against this Bill in order to keep out Canadian horses, he wished to remind the hon. Gentleman that this Bill had nothing whatever to do with Canadian horses, upon which there was no embargo. He believed the whole of the argument in respect of disease was originally based upon a diagnosis of the lungs of one poor Canadian cow, that was alleged to have died of pleuro-pneumonia at Glasgow in 1892. He did not intend to go into the question advanced by various experts, but he would say, with the authority of the Dominion Government expressed in memoranda sent from year to year during the past ten years, that neither prior to 1892 nor subsequently had there been a single case of pleuro-pneumonia or foot and mouth disease in the Dominion of Canada, and it was utterly impossible for pleuro-pneumonia to originate, incubate, and remain restricted to one beast among the hundreds of thousands of cattle that roamed the hundreds of thousands of acres in Canada. Since 1892 over 2,000,000 head of cattle had been shipped abroad from Canada to this and other countries. They had been examined by veterinaries before being slaughtered, and their carcases were examined after slaughter, and in not one case had there been symptoms of any of the diseases in question. No other country in the world had the spotless record for its herds that the Dominion of Canada had. More than that, there had been from Lord Onslow, the late Mr. Hanbury, and Mr. Ailwyn-Fellowes, distinct pronouncements during the last few years that no disease was existent in Canada; and he felt bound to make a vigorous protest against the way terms were used in reference to diseases, implying that these diseases existed in Canada, although a direct accusation was not made. He would remind the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that Texas was not a part of the British Empire nor a part of the Dominion of Canada.

But it is for the purpose of this Bill.

^* said this Bill was restricted to the importation of cattle from the Dominion of Canada, of which Texas was not a part. The northern portion of Texas was about 1,000 miles south of Canada. He protested against the suggestion that cattle disease of all kinds existed in the Dominion of Canada, in face of the statements made by successive Ministers of Agriculture that no disease existed. The suggestion had been made by the hon. Member for Lichfield that mange existed. He admitted that a kind of mange did exist in Canada, but it was of a kind that was not only innocuous so far as the beef was concerned, but, more than that, no mangey beast had ever been landed in this country from Canada. The Board of Agriculture in this country, which was certainly never backward in framing measures for the restriction of Canadian cattle, had no restriction, so far as he knew, against mange at all. Let him give the career of one of these much discussed Canadian bullocks from birth to beef. He would remind the House in the first place that they were bred from selected breeding stock in this country. From only those which could pass the severe tubercular test could be bred the Canadian herd. In this country tubercular cattle were bred and were increasing every year, but in Canada, where the ancestry was carefully selected, the beast was reared almost entirely, if not entirely, in the open, and was free from tuberculosis. When in condition to be shipped to this country, which was one market for these beasts, it was carefully inspected by a veterinary officer of the Dominion Government before being put on the train. It was taken to the dock, and was there again inspected by a Dominion officer in company with a shipping or insurance officer; and he, from personal observation could vouch for the care and adequacy of the inspection. When the ship arrived off the coast of England the Board of Agriculture of this country had a further inspection. After being slaughtered, the carcase was yet again inspected; and was it possible for any diseased beast, assuming there were diseased beasts in Canada, to get through this inquisitorial sieve? He would that hon. and free-trade Members who were voting against this amending Bill were put through as severe a test. Underlying the objections to this Bill was implied the argument that the Canadian Government and people were desirous of dumping into this country diseased animals. [Cries of "No"]. He maintained that that was the presumption underlying the whole argument against the Bill. Lord Strathcona had even offered to pay the cost of a Commission to inquire into the whole question, but that challenge had never been taken up by the Board of Agriculture or any private section of fanners in this country. The whole honour and credit of the Dominion people was at stake in this question. They were not desirous that their beef, butter, or any other commodity should be stigmatised by the accusation of disease, and the paramount reason why the Canadians wished to have this embargo removed was that the intolerable stigma of this accusation of disease might be swept off the Statute Book of this country and the quality of the Canadian herds properly recognised. It had been said this afternoon that whilst there might not be disease in Canada, there was disease in the United States, and a frontier line of a thousand miles was no protection against the incoming: disease from the American beasts. In the first place he would remind the House that there had been no cattle disease for the last four years south of that American line, and he had it from the Minister of Agriculture himself that there was not the slightest danger of American cattle being smuggled across the border. Moreover, every beast in the United States had to be branded with the brand of its owner, so that its place of origin could be at once detected. Again, the Canadian Government had, in their memorandum to the British Consul, offered to provide any system of quarantine against American cattle, and to make even more rigorous the present rigorous inspection of their own herds. The Government of Canada in this matter had again and again done its best to meet the wishes of the mother-land, and he regretted that up to the present these requests had been met with scant courtesy, and with no arguments whatever. One of the most regrettable things about the debate was the fact that the Irish Party was against this Bill. He had heard the hon. and learned Member for Waterford say that his Party was always loyal to the interests of democracy. What democracy was the Party loyal to in this case?

We pay taxes, and you do not in Canada.

said he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that Canada did not cost this country a shilling. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Nor Ireland.] The profits made by Irishmen out of the men who bought the Irish store cattle were artificially high. He contended that in this particular issue the Irish Party for the first time, so far as he knew, was opposed to one, and indeed the greatest, of the self-governing Colonies. It was unanimously requested by the Dominion of Canada that this embargo should be removed. In that they were opposed by the Irish Party, and by some of those Imperialists who believed in closer commercial union with Canada when it could be got at the expense of some other industry than the breeding industry. It was also opposed by some free traders—alleged free traders—who retorted by saying that this was a preferential Bill. He accepted the retort, but the preference understood by those hon. Gentlemen prior to the general election was a preference to raise the price of imported wheat. This was a preference to decrease the price of imported meat.

We deny it.

said that recent election experience prompted him to answer these unruly hecklers were it not that he was more afraid of offending his friends than his enemies. He was glad that this Bill had the support of the Labour Party to a man. The Labour Party represented the democracy in this country in a measure that no other Party could honestly claim. He regretted that he could not carry with him in this matter those men who called themselves Imperialists, but who on the first opportunity they had of doing an Im- perial and just act to a great colony intended to vote against it. Let him advance an argument on the constitutional side of the question. The Dominion people and Government had again and again protested against this embargo. He was certain Parliament could not always resist this insistent, and, he thought, just protest from a great self-governing colony like Canada. The Canadian Government had couched its protest and its wish in most respectful and courteous terms. It was intolerable that the home country should by statute as at present attach to Canada the stigma of disease when disease did not exist. This Bill simply gave back to the Board of Agriculture that discretionary power which it had prior to the Statute of 1896. Let the Board of Agriculture use its own judgment whether or not these cattle should be admitted. It ill became this Imperial House to refuse this opportunity of granting a tardy measure of justice to 6,000,000 loyal kinsmen who did not cost this country a penny; and in granting that tardy act of justice to the Canadians they would be carrying out the principles of free trade, without the advocacy of which many of those who opposed the Second Reading of this Bill would not now be ornamenting the Benches of this House.

said he was not at all disposed to quarrel with the position taken by the supporters of this Bill. It was quite right that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down should have spoken, as he so eloquently did, for his own country. It was only natural that hon. Members representing certain parts of England should try to cut down the price of store cattle in their own districts. But he thought the hon. Member who proposed and the hon. Member who seconded the rejection of this Bill had shown clearly that this special class was a very small matter in comparison with the general agricultural interest not only of Ireland, but of England and Scotland; and that in point of fact the passage of this Bill, and what it would lead to, would go very far indeed to put an end practically to profitable agriculture in the kingdom. He did not know how far Englishmen or Scotsmen might be prepared to go in relying upon trans-Atlantic cattle, but if he were an Englishman or a Scotsman he should regard agriculture as a valuable industry and the foundation of a country's prosperity. Englishmen and Scotsmen were the best judges upon that subject; but this he knew, that so far as Ireland was concerned the passage of this Bill and what it would lead to would render at the very lowest 200,000 holdings in Ireland absolutely unprofitable and unproductive. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had professed amazement that the representatives of Ireland were opposed to this Bill. Why, in fighting this Bill they were fighting for their lives. There were in Ireland 490,000 holdings, the mean value of which was £12, and 215,000 of those holdings did not exceed fifteen acres in extent. To that enormous mass of poor people the immunity of their cattle from disease was so vital, their experience from former cattle diseases had been so terrible, the prices of their yearling cows and two-year-olds was so indispensable an element of their budget, and the present prices so low, that if there were any new outbreak of disease such as visited Ireland fifteen years ago, and if the Irish, Scottish, and English markets were to be glutted with a tremendous rush of Canadian or Argentine cattle, there would be no means of making the land pay. As to any immediate recurrence to tillage in Ireland that would be something too crude and farcical to talk of to practical men Beyond raising a crop of potatoes he did not know anything that an Irish farmer under present conditions could do in the way of tillage to keep himself and his family alive, not to talk of paying rent and taxes. The hon. Member for East Norfolk who seconded the Bill suggested that they were making a claim for protection for Ireland. They were not doing anything of the kind. On the contrary, so far as there was any question of protection in reference to Ireland, the existing system clearly acted as a protective tariff as against the Irish farmers. Owing to cheap ocean freights and to their unlucky high rates in Ireland, cattle could be landed in English ports from Canada or the Argentine, upon cheaper terms than beasts could be put on the English market from West Cork. It would be very absurd for them to object to fair competition, and they did not object to it; on the contrary, the most thoughtful men in Ireland were engaged at present in bracing up the country to meet that competition by every improved form of agriculture, by industry, and by hard work; but he ventured to submit that there was such a thing as unfair and destructive competition, and that that was what the enormous mass of small farmers in Ireland would have to face in case this Bill should lead to the destruction of the Irish cattle trade, and should open the door once more to a terrific invasion of cattle plague such as occurred in the year 1882, when foot and mouth disease brought down the exportation of Irish cattle from 780,000 to 240,000 in a single year. The hon. Member for Newcastle who proposed the Second Reading of the Bill had spoken eloquently of the desirability of consulting the needs of our young colonies; but was there no Imperial interest in making it humanly possible for the Irish people to live and to fulfil their engagements? It was nothing in the way of a plea in forma pauperis, but a plea for bare justice that they were making, because this was unfortunately one illustration of what it cost Ireland, a poor country living by agriculture, to be governed and absorbed by a rich country. It was tending more and more to abolish agriculture altogether. Those who would shut their eyes, through any dogmatism about free trade and protection, to the extremely peculiar conditions under which Ireland was struggling, and who would content themselves with passing not merely what would be a protective Bill in favour of Canada but in favour of a flourishing young colony of which they were all proud, and which they all wished every sort of good luck, but which was already abundantly provided for—all he could say was that if men shut their eyes to the difficulties of Ireland in a matter of this kind, they would be furnishing a very dangerous argument to those who perhaps had already arguments enough as to the fatal results of the present union. The seconder had actually declared that the Bill did not refer to Ireland, and that Canadian cattle were only to be landed in British ports. He was sure the hon. Gentlemen who framed the Bill intended kindly by Ireland in nominally excluding her from its operations, and he entirely acquitted them of any desire to play a very poor practical joke at her expense; but did hon. Gentlemen really expect them to treat seriously the argument that the nominal exemption of Ireland made it a matter of entire indifference to Ireland? The magnanimous arrangement as to Ireland was simply this: Canadian cattle were not to be landed at the nearest port, where nobody wanted them except a handful of graziers, but they were to be quite free to inundate the English and Scottish markets, which were also the markets for the Irish cattle; and thus having destroyed the markets for the Irish cattle trade, he would like to know what there was in the Bill which would prevent a change in the present regulations as to importation between England and Ireland. They were told it would all be within the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture whether they were to be landed at all, but it was just that discretion to which they very strongly objected; they objected to entrusting to any individual a discretion which might cause them a new cattle plague and the loss of £68,000,000 worth of Irish property, and that the chief property and wealth of Ireland. They might be inclined to trust a good deal to the present Minister of Agriculture. They knew him, but they did not know who the Minister might be in the future, and they could not afford to run such a terrible risk. There was no question of a permanent exclusion of Canadian cattle. There was nothing whatever, if the circumstances were to change, to prevent the House from repealing the restrictions; but he submitted that it ought not to be done in a hypothetical case. It ought to be done with the full weight, advice, and responsibility of his Majesty's Government. It ought not to be done at the instance of private Members in the interest of a special class, no matter how legitimate it was from their point of view. The two Acts of 1894–6 formed a sort of fortress that was an essential barrier against a great national danger, and he ventured to submit that if that fortress was to be abolished, it ought to be with the full responsibility of the Government and of the House of Commons, and not by allowing this Grecian horse to be introduced within the walls. The hon. Member for York had made a powerful appeal to the Labour Party. Nobody sympathised more cordially than he, and he thought every Member for Ireland, with the desire for cheap meat that had induced some of the Labour Party to throw their powerful interest in favour of the Bill. The workers of Great Britain had no more cordial allies than they in working for everything that could help to improve their comfort, and to secure to them a full share of the good things of this world; but he submitted that very naturally they did not know and understand the results of the cattle trade and that they were not aware that the best judges and most skilled agriculturists he had ever heard discussing the question were of opinion that prices had reached as low a figure as would pay. It was the big grazier and the butcher who would have the benefit of any temporary reduction of prices, and leaseholders, he thought, would very soon find that if any diminution in prices occurred for the moment they would, if once the supply for the Irish field were closed to a great extent, very soon return to their former price. Like the Labour Party, it was not for the rich, but for the poor, that they were pleading. They were pleading for at least 100,000 extremely small holders in Ireland who were not farmers but mainly holders who had only one cow upon which they depended for their living. Anyone who knew Ireland and what it meant to these poor families when a cow was sick could imagine how terrible it would be if another plague were to sweep through their houses. They were obliged to kill their calves or sell them for a few shillings for veal. There was no earthly reason for not being perfectly candid with regard to the position of Ire and in the matter. Already the mere danger of the passage of the Bill had brought the cattle trade to a standstill. No event had occurred m Ireland since the great famine of 1846–7 which had been the means of bringing so terrible a disaster in Ireland as would follow the passage of this Bill and the other Bills to which it would lead. Hon. Members were not in a position to realise fully what those consequences would be. Every judicial rent fixed since 1894 was based upon this legislative security against the importation of foreign cattle. In every one of these cases—and they were well over 100,000—the farmers had been rented upon the supposition that Parliament would not repudiate the engagement entered into against the admission of foreign cattle. There was no disguising the fact that if once the basis upon which these rents were adjusted was altered the whole of those judicial rents would be thrown into the melting pot. Then they would have to deal with another 100,000 new peasant proprietors in Ireland. He would remind the House that something like £40,000,000 worth of property in Ireland had passed into the hands of now proprietors inevitably upon the calculation and supposition that at all events there would be no sudden dislocation or destruction of the very foundation on which agriculture had rested in Ireland for many years. He refrained from attempting to picture the state of things with which they would be face to face if these 100,000 peasant proprietors were to find themselves exposed to some new and terribly devastating plague. He did not wish to raise any unnecessary alarm in this House, but, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said the other night, things were going on in Ireland which were laying the foundation of permanent and solid prosperity for that country. Those things would continue to go on if only this House would give Ireland fair play. As to the new proprietors not being absolutely faithful to their engagements under the Land Act, so long as it was humanely possible they would fulfil their obligations, and no man who knew the facts would suggest any doubt as to their honesty and good faith. Therefore those loans were quite safe. He asked the House, however, to consider their position. They were now passing through the most critical transformation of their country in Irish history. Owing to the coming together of all parties and classes and creeds in Ireland the land had now passed to the ownership of the tenants. They were now on the eve of great changes in the way of educational enlightenment, of enterprise, and of the allocation of new capital to Irish industries, and within the next ten or twenty years the new peasant proprietors in Ireland would obtain a much firmer grip upon British markets in regard to a great many things besides cattle. This, however, would have to be a slow and gradual process, and if they were suddenly and without a moment's notice to strike this terrible blow at the cattle industry, which was the very life of agriculture in Ireland, he ventured to say that they would be inflicting upon these new peasant proprietors a money loss every year which the best judges he had heard on the subject calculated would mean at the very lowest as much as the yearly payments for their holdings. No British statesman could contemplate with equanimity the consequences of a precipitate adoption of this Bill, which would be an act of rashness. It would be all the more inexcusable now that Ireland was on the high road to success. He asked the Members of the Labour Party and the Members of the House generally who did not wish to see agriculture abolished in Ireland to think very carefully before they went into the Lobby to support a Bill which really affected only the limited interest of a few big grazers, which would expose British agriculture to other dangers, and which might very easily, indeed, embark them upon a sea of anarchy or ruin just at the moment when the Irish people had an opportunity such as they had not had for centuries past of working out their own salvation.

This debate has been remarkable for the ability of the speeches which have been delivered and the great knowledge of the subject which has been displayed by those who have addressed the House. The speeches have had a fervid and impassioned character beyond what we are usually accustomed to on Friday afternoons. We have had very strong language used, dreadful predictions made, and some words so violent hurtling through the air that Mr. Speaker has had to stretch out his hand and stop them in their career. I will endeavour to be dispassionate. There are two questions in the subject before the House. The first is whether it is right to have a statutory bar to prevent cattle being brought into this country from Canada. The second is whether cattle should be admitted from Canada. The first point is one that has arisen only within the last ten years. In 1896 a Bill was carried through both Houses of Parliament which was strenuously opposed by the Liberal Party, because we thought it was an interference with the proper control by Parliament from year to year over a subject which affects the people of this country very closely, because it stereotyped for a long time, if not for ever, a particular order of things, and because it constituted a practical interference with the freedom of that House of Parliament which represents the people directly, by interposing the necessity, in order to obtain any relaxation of the rules imposed, of obtaining the assent of the other House of Parliament. I am as much opposed to that legislation now as I was at that time, on the grounds which I have named. Moreover, I am disposed to view with disfavour anything which seems to be a slight on a great Colony of this Empire—that may be a somewhat novel character for me to appear in according to the views and the endless assertions of hon. Members opposite— a Colony whose interests we are bound to consider to the utmost of our power. We have heard of proposals for the preferential treatment of Canada. But the Act of 1896 is penalising treatment, and I am lost in amazement that the Imperialist Party opposite, who talk so much about the Colonies, should insist with such tenacity and almost ferocity as they have done upon a measure which they know to be distasteful to the majority of the people of Canada and which really casts a stigma upon the agriculture of that Colony. Those are the views which I hold on the subject. I prefer infinitely the old system of leaving these matters to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture. If the Board of Agriculture is not strong enough, is not competent, is not well advised by the best expert opinion, then we should strengthen the Board of Agriculture. I believe that it is perfectly competent to embrace all the facts that are necessary, to weigh them and to understand them, and to act as a watch-dog to prevent disease from being introduced into this country. A great deal has been said as to whether Canadian cattle should be introduced into this country, and we have had most diverse opinions from the different branches of the farming industry. Ultima Thule said one thing, the Highlands another; the east of Scotland had one opinion, the south-west another; the north of England, the Midlands, Norfolk, and Suffolk all have an opinion. I do not know that the south of England has spoken out very strongly. Ireland has a strong and almost unanimous opinion. We have all these different opinions, so that we are dealing here not with any agricultural question as a whole, but with the different branches of agriculture with their separate interests, separate prejudices, and it may be separate ideas on the subject. That constitutes a very mixed state of things. I believe that in the present circumstances there will be a case for the immediate removal of legislative restrictions, and the placing of the matter under the authority of the Board of Agriculture in regard to the admission of Canadian cattle. But I think we ought to consider very fully and sympathetically the nervousness which is felt in many divisions of the country, even if we are not satisfied that that nervousness is entirely justified by the facts. I take two instances. There is a great and, I believe, beneficent and promising transformation going on in agriculture in the direction of the larger employment of the soil for the purposes of dairy farming and the removal of it from other purposes. That, of course, is a thing to be encouraged; at all events, it should be allowed a free course. But I can conceive few things more likely to check it, and prevent its rapid development either here or in Ireland, than a really intense fear of the importation of disease. Again, I recognise the force of the argument used by my hon. friend the Member for Cork that the present transitional state of affairs in Ireland ought to be dealt with very cautiously. I go not upon uncertainties, not upon wise predictions, but it may be on fears for which there is not very much ground on the part of those who entertain them, that mischief may be done by all these things. It is not unnatural that there should be hesitation in immediately adopting the policy of throwing the ports open. For my part, I have the good fortune to live in a part of the world where cattle are fattened, and my neighbours, so far as I am aware, with very few exceptions, are in favour of the earliest possible admission of Canadian cattle under proper restrictions, and with proper precautions, of course. A year or more ago I had occasion to meet a number of the farmers of my neighbourhood. They told me their views and I expressed my sympathy with those views, knowing what a material matter it was to them to have the most abundant source of supply for their business, but I took occasion to warn them that I very much doubted whether the House of Commons, and, above all, the other House of Parliament would be likely at the first blowing of the trumpet to lower these walls of Jericho. I observe that a noble Lord yesterday said that I was engaged in explaining away my statements, but I have said enough to show that my statements have not to be explained away, and that they have merely to be repeated here. While I fully sympathised with the desire of my neighbours, and while willing to give them a hand in endeavouring to bring it about, yet I thought they must not be too sanguine and expect that it could be done in a day. The hon. Member for Cork City said this legislation did not give any permanent exclusion of Canadian or other cattle, and it could be repealed if the circumstances justified it. I think my hon. friend on reflection will see that it is not easy to repeal an Act of Parliament even if the necessity for it has long passed away.

I only suggested that it would probably be easier for a Government to do so than a private Member.

Oh yes, a good thing is good from either source, and a bad thing bad. But the question before the House now is whether we are to remain hide-bound by an Act of Parliament which leaves the House of Commons no direct power over this matter, and which departs from the old principle of leaving the discretion to the properly - constituted public authority, which appears to be the wholesome way to leave this. The second question is as to the merits of the policy of soon introducing Canadian cattle, and on that I recognise the great differences of opinion, not only among Members of the House, but among different interests in particular parts of the country. Seeing that that is so, I think the House ought to be left, in a question such as this, without the interference of the ordinary influences of Party, and, having explained what my own feelings and views on the subject are, I wish to say that the Government have no desire to interfere in any way with the action of the House.

said he would not trespass at any length on the attention of the House. He believed it was exceedingly unfortunate that in a matter of such grave importance no Member who sat on the benches behind him had yet risen to take part in this debate. The Prime Minister, who was naturally anxious to intervene in the debate, had not the advantage of hearing the view of any representative on the benches behind him of the case against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had heard only one representative from Ireland, and he must have seen from the large number of Members on both sides of the House who had risen whenever a speaker sat down that the general interest taken in this question was very great. He thought the Prime Minister had failed to appreciate to the full the meaning and importance of the comment made by the hon. Member for Cork. It was not a question of the thing being good or bad as it proceeded from the Government or a private Member. The question raised was whether a subject so important as this, and which affected as this did so many interests in the country, and being dependent for its solution upon information for which the Government and the Government alone should be responsible, should be left in the hands of a private Member for solution, whether it was either fair or reasonable to expect that the subject could be adequately debated on a Friday afternoon, knowing that a very limited number of Members could possibly take part in the debate. The Premier had told them what his views were, and he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to be assured by him that any opinion which he expressed, whether they agreed with him or not, would be received with respect. The right hon. Gentleman would understand him when he said that they were entitled in a debate of this kind not to hear merely the opinion of the Prime Minister, important though it undoubtedly was, and entitled as it unquestionably was to respect and consideration, but that they ought to have had to-day—and he hoped the House would hear before this debate terminated—what the opinion of the Board of Agriculture was. What was the course recommended by the Prime Minister? It was that they should revert to the condition of things existing before 1896, and that the discretion as to the exclusion of these cattle or cattle from any other part of the world—because the argument was as good in one part as the other; it applied equally to cattle permanently excluded under Acts of Parliament as to the Canadian cattle they were now discussing—should be left in future to the Board of Agriculture. Yet, what assurance had they got that the discretion would ever be exercised by the Board of Agriculture? What evidence had they to-day that the opinion of the Board of Agriculture was voiced by the Prime Minister? The Board of Agriculture had a representative in this House, and so far he had taken no part in the debate The President of the Board of Agriculture had spoken in another place and in the country, and certainly, though the noble Lord declared himself on both those occasions unable to express what the views of the Government were, it was not difficult to ascertain that if he were free to express the opinion of the Board of Agriculture he would have said what the Board said in 1896. If the advice of the Prime Minister was to be taken and if it was to be left to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture, what assurance had they that the Board of Agriculture in excluding or attempting to exclud these cattle would be allowed to act on their own opinions any more than they were allowed to act on their own opinions to-day? He was responsible for the carrying of the Act of 1896, and he used then words which he would venture to quote to the House to-day. He said then that he thought it his duty to state what the view of the Department he represented was. He said that it was the opinion of the Department that a very serious responsibility was cast upon them in the discharge of its very difficult duty; that they felt it was impossible to be satisfied that pleuro-pneumonia had not been imported at any time under the existing regulations; that it was disease extremely obscure in character, and that it often lay latent in an animal for a long period and that occasionally it was almost by mere accident that it was discovered. These were his views as the head of the Department for which he was responsible, and they were the views of every Member of the Department in 1896. They were the views of the veterinary officers who had had unrivalled experience in dealing with these cases. He thought if they adopted or rejected regulations to-day they were entitled to know whether the views of 1896 were the views of 1906, and if they had been altered then he was entitled to ask why they had been altered, and what was the ground for holding a different opinion now from the opinion which on behalf of the Department he expressed ten years ago. He was not going to deal with the question of Protection. They had had some pretty fighting on both sides on this very small point. There were hon. Gentlemen in this House who found Protection in everything which was suggested, in every kind of Bill, and were very indignant because it was an invasion of the sacred rights of Free Trade. But if it was an invasion of Free Trade, surely it was a case for preference of one Colony to another. He thought they could leave that argument where it was. For his part he had never hesitated to face the argument about a Protection side of the question. What he had asked the House of Commons before, he asked again to-day. It was, if it could be established—and it had been established by the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill to-day—that these restrictions were necessary in the interest of the health of our stock. Were we to refuse to take advantage of our insular position and to remove regulations which were justified by results because it was possible for some ingenious persons to find another application of some shred of that protection to which they were so entirely opposed? Were they to abandon the regulations which alone had given the clean bill of health we had today because it followed from their application that there was some measure of protection to the poor farmers in Ireland who raised this store stock? The hon. Member for East Norfolk, in dealing with the question, had related a piteous story about Norfolk farmers, but, like many another story, it lacked completion. The hon. Member said the Norfolk farmer could not get stock to-day except at higher prices. The hon. Member for Lichfield, who followed, showed that if they took the price of store stock throughout the country generally there had been a fall in the price and an increase in the number. The hon. Member for East Norfolk did not agree with that. But this was a case where both were right. The general supply of stores had increased by some 300,000 and the price had fallen about £1 or 21s. But the hon. Member for East Norfolk could not get the stores he wanted. When they talked of stores they talked of yearlings or animals two years old at the most. But the hon. Member for East Norfolk wanted the beasts for which Norfolk was famous—cattle which had spent three and a-half years in Canada. The hon. Member complained that they could not now get that class of animal. The same thing obtained exactly with a small section of men in Scotland. When they come to him in a deputation they told him he was taking their livelihood from them. He asked them what their livelihood was, and they told him that it consisted of buying three-year-olds and keeping them three months in Scotland, and then selling them as prime Scotch beef. That might be the principle of free trade, but it was not the principle of fair agriculture. The hon. Member for Cork, who had spoken on behalf of Ireland, and other Gentlemen had been met with the statement that they were afraid of competition. The introduction of the Act of 1896 and the determination of the Government to carry that measure had nothing to do with the question of competition. What had been their experience? If the House cared to go back to the period from 1860 to 1866 or 1867, when the question of disease in the lower animals of this country had assumed serious proportions, they would find that the agricultural interest of the country was so paralysed by the possible results of disease, that men were afraid to employ their capital in raising great herds because at any moment they were liable to be devastated by disease. That cost the country many millions of money. Lord Aberdare, when he was dealing with this subject many years ago, stated that it cost over six millions sterling to the country in extermination and loss to capital. He had a great admiration for the hon. Member for York, who had spoken, as he was entitled to speak, for the great colony of which he was a worthy and distinguished representative in this House. He himself had had a great many interviews with Canadian statesmen and Ministers of Agriculture on this question. He discussed it in 1896, and had discussed it often since that time with the Agents-General in this country. He thought the hon. Gentleman's eloquence gave as much power and authority to the charge of stigma as it was possible for anybody to give to it. He did not think that in reality the action of the Government was regarded as putting any stigma on the Dominion. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill had made a remark the importtance of which he did not apparently quite realise. Interrupting the hon. Member for Lichfield, the hon. Member had said that the Canadian Minister of Agriculture stated he did not know of the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in Canada. He wished to know whether he meant that he did not know it existed or whether he meant that the disease did not exist at all.

He says it is unknown in Canada.

said there was all the difference in the world between saying "It does not exist," and saying "I do not know of its existence." There was evidence of the existence of the disease in many of the herds in Canada. It might be disputed. They had had disputes with the Canadian Government whether the pleuro-pneumonia introduced from Canada was pleuro-pneumonia or not. It was no offence to the Canadian representatives to describe it so, and no discredit to the home Government that they in their responsible position adhered to their views. It was no offence to the great Dominion of Canada to say to-day what they said in 1896, that the invasion of our herds by disease was the greatest injury that could possibly be inflicted upon the best and largest branch of British agriculture. They had only succeeded in getting the clean bill of health they had to-day by imposing strict regulations and keeping out of this country stock in regard to which it had to be said that, although they might be perfectly healthy, it was possible at any moment that disease might occur, and if that disease found its way into this country the loss to stockowners and the British public would be incalculable. The last case he had to deal with when he was at the Board of Agriculture was that in which pleuro-pneumonia broke out in a herd of cattle, and it was absolutely necessary that every head of that herd and all the cattle that had come into contact with them should be destroyed. That cost the country £15,000. The country was liable to that at any moment if the regulations were withdrawn. The question had been discussed to-day as if it exclusively affected farmers. It had, relatively speaking, very little to do with farmers. If they profited by the experience they had gained in the Board of Agriculture, and by the experience which the Board could give to-day if they spoke through their representative, they would find that millions had been spent in exterminating disease. They had tried to exterminate disease by slaughter at the port and they had tried by waiting until the disease was detected, but they never met with any success until they took advantage of the fact that we were on an island with a real boundary which enabled us to protect ourselves in this matter by excluding cattle from other countries, Since then what had happened? It was said this was a consumer's question. In what way? He wondered if the introducer of the Bill had seen, as he had seen, foreign cattle arrive in this country. These cattle went for immediate slaughter and there was no greater been to the poorer people of this country than the enormous impetus given to that trade by the regulations. There was provided to them a large supply of good meat which by the circumstances of its import had to be sold very rapidly. The result was that in every country village they would find on two or three days a week carts going round selling small joints at threepence and fourpence a pound. That had been the result as far as the consumer was concerned. Let the House be careful not to interfere with a result so beneficial to the people of this country. It was said that if this Bill passed stock-owners would get more store cattle. But were they quite sure they would do so?

The number of Canadian cattle imported into this country had never reached in one year more than 140,000, and out of this how many were stores? Nobody knew, but it was believed to be only 25,000 or 30,000. And that was because the Canadians were learning to turn their store cattle into fat cattle, to be sold for a larger profit than could be obtained for stores. And what guarantee was there that the Canadians would not do the same again? They were not likely to sacrifice their own interests even to please the hon. Member for East Norfolk. He opposed the Bill because by the energy and devotion of the officials of the Board of Agriculture and the Privy Council, and by the wise policy of exclusion, we had preserved a clean bill of health for the stock of this country. He was old enough to remember the days when rinderpest and cattle plague devastated the country. Any one who remembered those days and had seen the cattle dying like flies, and farmers brought to ruin by a condition of things over which they had no control, must on those grounds alone offer strenuous opposition to this Bill. If they were going to let these colonial cattle in, they must have a much more rigorous inspection than they had at the present time. At the time of which he had spoken, millions of money were spent in exterminating the disease, and these millions came out of the pockets of the consumers. Did they want to go back to those days and to the probability of incurring the same heavy expenditure? The Prime Minister had talked about leaving the matter to the Board of Agriculture. It was not the Board of Agriculture he was afraid of, but the Cabinet which controlled that Board. The same principles would obtain as had obtained in the House to-day, and the present debate was in itself the strongest justification for the rejection of the measure. If the Board of Agriculture, through their representative, gave their opinion based on their own knowledge it would, he ventured to say, agree in every detail with the opinion he gave on behalf of the Board ten years ago. The real truth was that if a Bill of this kind were carried, not only would the case of the consumer be injured, but they would be embarking again in a great gamble with the food of the people. Under the old system shipowners embarked in this particular trade; they built ships to carry live cattle to this country. But what happened? Disease broke out on board ship at sea, and those cargoes were lost not only to he shipowners but to the British consuming public. We had now, however, got this trade established on a well-understood basis, and statistics had been quoted which showed that under the present law no injury had been caused to the British consumer. They had also heard the case from Ireland; and surely if there ever was a case in the world in which protection would be justified on behalf of the poor farmers of Ireland, who had done wonders in the last ten years to improve their stock and rear them for the English feeders, it was this case. He was entitled to speak for the Department with which he had had the honour to be associated for some years; and he could say with truth that their policy had had no connection with competition or the raising of prices. Their action had been based on conviction of what was best for the interests of all classes of people in this country. His opinion was then and now that the only way in which we could get security against disease was to take advantage of our position as an island and protect ourselves against the introduction of cattle disease into this country. He maintained that farmers generally, as well as stock breeders and feeders, would not embark their capital in an industry which was liable to such losses as had been experienced in the past. He held that this House had no right to expose them to such losses. Those farmers and stock breeders were entitled to say to Parliament, "You are bound to protect us against this disease, from which we have suffered and of which we are now in fear, if you carry this Bill." He most earnestly hoped that in the interests of agriculture and of the community as a whole the House would reject the Bill the Second Reading of which had been moved.

^* said he represented an agricultural constituency, and he could only say that if he were to vote against this Bill he would be afraid to face his constituents. The hon. Member for Litchfield had said that nine-tenths of the farmers were opposed to this Bill.

What I said was nine tenths of the farmers of Great Britain.

said that the majority of the farmers alone the East Coast of Scotland, at any rate, were in favour of the Bill. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture had repeatedly declared in favour of removing the restrictions on Canadian cattle. One would suppose from the speeches made against it that the Bill was meant to allow the entry of cattle into this country without any embargo whatever. If that were the object of the Bill he would be as keenly opposed to it as anyone. He represented a constituency which, if disease were imported into this country, would suffer as much as, if not more, than any other district; but his constituents were willing to see the Bill passed. They did not wish to remove the restrictions against the importation of foreign cattle entirely; they only desired to restore the condition of things which existed before 1896. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had said that he had full confidence in the Board of Agriculture, but not in the Cabinet. In 1892, however, the Board of Agriculture dealt too drastically with the matter in the belief that there was disease amongst Canadian cattle, and they refused to admit them. But it had been shown that no disease really existed on Canadian cattle. 1,500,000 Canadian cattle had been slaughtered at our ports, and no disease had been found in a single one of them. He maintained that the existing system was pure protection. [Cries of "No, no."] It was protection of the worst form, because it excluded the raw material while it allowed in the manufactured article. His hon. friend's case was that the imports of meat from foreign countries had largely increased, and that the price of meat was cheaper than before; but by the present law they were driving an important industry abroad. He might be allowed to read the opinion of a farmer in his part of the country, who had a large experience in store cattle. That gentleman said—

"I have myself ewes and lambs on land which twenty years ago let at almost £4 an acre, and a fourteen-stall stable is now fitted up as a lambing shod. The day is not far distant, unless there is a change in the shape of giving us more store cattle, when our arable farms will be the sheep runs of this country. What does that mean? It means more rural depopulation. On the farm I spoke of there are at present one caretaker and one shepherd, where a few years ago there were ten married ploughmen, two or three boys, and a few women employed. The bringing hack of the population to the country is, to my mind, an easy matter. It is simply a matter of money. Put us in a position to earn more money from our land and we will very soon bring back the people from the towns. Give us access to the same markets for our store cattle as our competitors have."

He maintained that the restrictions on Canadian cattle at present were leading to great agricultural distress and to the depopulation of the country. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had said that his hon. friend the Member for East Norfolk and himself wanted to get store cattle that had lived for three years in Canada and a few months in this country, and then to sell them as prime butcher meat. All he could say was that they would have the greatest difficulty in doing so. It seemed to him that the present restrictions were simply undisguised protection. Coming from the Opposition side of the House he could not be surprised that it was supported there; but he was surprised that so many of his hon. friends who were returned two months ago to this House pledged as free traders were willing to how down to the Baal of protection, because they recognised on the head of that many-visaged god the horns of their own cattle. He did not know if it was any use appealing to hon. Gentlemen opposite who declared that they were not protectionists, but at least they said they were in favour of colonial preference. He appealed to them, therefore, to give this preference to Canada. He noticed that the Toronto Globe stated that—

"The removal of the embargo of Canadian cattle in Great Britain was at least as important to Canada as any preferential duty on grain which Great Britain is likely to impose.',

On these grounds he asked his friends opposite to support the Bill, and he turned to his own friends and invited them, on the grounds of free trade also, to support this measure.

said that although he knew that it was not very palatable to the House he wished to read extracts from a document which had come from the constituency of the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill, At a meeting of the North Eastern Agricultural Federation held in Newcastle-on-Tyne, on March 24th, the following circular-letter was approved, and a copy was ordered to be sent to each Member of the House of Commons—

"Permit us, the members of the North-Eastern Agricultural Federation, directly representing over 2,000 tenant farmers in the Counties of Northumberland, Durham, and North Yorkshire, to place the following facts before you, in the hope that you will give them fall consideration before recording your vote in the division on Mr. Cairns' Bill, on 6th April, for the free admission of foreign cattle. This is in no sense a question of Party politics with us, as our members are of all shades of political opinion; our action is solely due to a strong feeling of the dangers to which British cattle will be exposed by a reversal of the present policy of slaughter at the port of debarkation, under which we have for so many years enjoyed our present immunity from infectious disease amongst cattle.

"The immunity has enabled the British farmer to largely increase the numbers of cattle in this country, and, at the same time, it has been no hindrance to the free importation of fat cattle from abroad, nor has it had any effect in raising the price of beef to the consumer, as witness the constant and gradual fall in price during the time these regulations have been in force. We do not quote the figures in full, but in Newcastle Market the average price of beef in 1883 was 10s. 6¾d. per stone of 141b., and since then there has been a gradual and almost regular fall to the low average of 7s. 7¼d. in 1905. This is sufficient proof that the consumer has not suffered by the restriction. Indeed, it is impossible that he can do so, as the free importation of fat cattle to be slaughtered on arrival provides for an ample and regular supply of fresh beef. On the other hand, the admission of foreign cattle to mix with our English herds would expose them to the constant danger of infection, would check, production in consequence, and disorganise the industry generally, whilst an outbreak of disease would be disastrous to the farmer, and most serious to the consumer. The first effect would be to stop importation except in the form of frozen or chilled meat, and if a disease like foot-and-mouth disease (the commonest, and at the same time most infectious, but not most deadly, of the diseases we have been freed from) should gain a footing amongst our herds, the effect on the milk supply would be felt at once, as the milk of affected cows is absolutely unusable. The consumer would thus suffer from shortage of both beef and milk. That our fear of such infection is not baseless, the fact that both Argentina and the United States have suffered of recent years from outbreaks of disease is proof sufficient, and the following extracts from the Canadian Blue-book of 1904 show that Canadian cattle are at present suffering from various infectious diseases.

"On page 63 of the Blue book for that year, the Veterinary-Inspector-General, speaking of cattle mange (amongst several other diseases) says: 'The following figures will give some idea of the extent of the operations, and the magnitude of the problem which had to be faced in making an honest effort to stamp out this troublesome malady, which has for long been causing both directly and indirectly a large annual loss to the cattle owners of Western Canada. 411,061 cattle have been up to the present date dipped once, while of these 176,685 have received the second treatment called for by the order. If the weather remains open for a few weeks, it is altogether likely that all of those reported to have been dipped once will have their second treatment completed, and that a considerable additional number will still be dealt with.'

"In view of the above figures, and of many others relating to other diseases of cattle, horses, sheep and pigs which appear in the Veterinary Inspector's Report in the same Blue-book, the contention that Canada is free from infectious diseases of live stock is amply proved to be untrue. Even if it was for the moment true, the impossibility of guarding the long land frontier of Canada renders that country always liable to infection from other parts of America.

"The following extract from the report of the Commissioner of the North-West Mounted Police shows the danger and difficulty that exists at present:—'For many years it has been a source of complaint on the part of our ranchers that American cattle were allowed to graze in Canada without restriction; that the owners often drove their cattle to the boundary, so that they would drift into Canada, where grass and water were more plentiful.' As many of the most serious cattle diseases can be carried by wild animals, it seems impossible that the extensive land frontier of Canada can ever be effectually guarded, leaving the country liable to constantly recurring outbreaks of disease. Under these circumstances we hope your vote will be given against any interference with the present arrangements, which, whilst safeguarding our cattle from disease, ensure a cheap and pentiful supply of beef to the consumer."

He would also road a quotation from a speech recently made by Sir Horace Plunkett, Vice President of the Hoard of Agriculture in Ireland, who was a practical man, had branches in America, and who knew all about the cattle trade in the United States as well as in Ireland. Sir Horace Plunkett said—

"It may be well to state briefly the general considerations which I think will secure the continuance of the status quo. It may be that at the moment Canadian cattle can show a clean bill of health; and while the existing restrictions remain they may, and I hope will continue in this condition. But if the restrictions were removed I do not believe it would be possible so to police the thousands of miles of border between the Republic and the Dominion as to safeguard us from the danger of admitting cattle from the United States. I speak with some knowledge on this subject, as I have been in charge of large herds of cattle on both sides of that border, and feel myself capable of dodging the police if I were in that line of business.

Just imagine the right hon. Gentleman dodging the police, although he dared say that he could do it as well as any other ordinary man!

"But in any case, the uncertainty as to the safety from disease of our flocks and herds would dislocate the entire cattle trade of the United Kingdom. The graziers on the rich lands of Leinster might reap some slight immediate, but not lasting, advantage. The owners of second-class lands would suffer for a time, at any rate, while the injury inflicted upon the breeders of young stock would probably be more permanent."

So much as to the efficiency of guarding the frontier. He would remind the House that the introduction of disease amongst cattle in the United Kingdom was a matter of extreme importance. It was only those who were really in the business who could realise what it meant. He remembered to his sorrow and his cost when the foot and mouth disease prevailed in Ireland, and when the cattle trade was dislocated; and later on the visitation of pleuro-pneumonia. He insisted that the agitation for the repeal of the present restrictions did not come from the consumers or the tenant farmers. [Loud cries of "Oh, oh."] Hon. Members had a right to differ from him, but he stated what he believed to be true. He believed that this agitation was engineered principally by shipowners and dock companies. That was his belief, and he know that shipowners and dock companies had given large subscriptions in order to have this agitation engineered and carried on, and he defied contradiction to that simple statement of fact. It was to be assumed that those who were engaged in the cattle trade should have a knowledge of how the trade was carried on, and the House could have no conception of what it would mean to those engaged in that business if this Bill were passed, and the dislocation of trade which would result quite apart from the interest of the consumers. Those who supported the Bill entirely overlooked the fact that if it was passed into law it would lead to less stock being raised. This was not merely an Irish question; it affected the whole of the kingdom. If those who bred cattle at the present time were discouraged by this Bill what would happen? One could not raise cattle like mushrooms in a night Then when the breeding of cattle had been lessened, and disease broke out and importations stopped, where would the supply come from? This was a crux which had not been touched upon by any other speaker. He claimed to know as much about this question as any other member, as he was President of the Irish Cattle Traders and Stockowners Association and had been so for fourteen years. If a disease broke out the dealers in and feeders of cattle were in a good position—whether it was pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease—owing to the fact that the local authorities came in, seized and destroyed the cattle, and paid the owner their value. But what was the position of the unfortunate producer? He was in a very difficult position if his whole trade was shut up, by restrictions, general dislocation, and reduced demand. And yet hon. Members who knew nothing about this business introduced a Bill of this kind which would dislocate the whole cattle trade of the three kingdoms and brought it forward as a private Member's Bill. Might he suggest to the House that a matter of this kind which really went to the root of agriculture should not be brought forward in that way, because, under our system of free imports, the farmers were not able to grow corn at a profit and, therefore, agriculturists were dependent upon the animal industry. That being the state of things, they had a private Member bringing in a Bill of this kind which had to be disposed of in four hours, a Bill which disturbed the basis of the agricultural industry. This House ought not to decide a question so vital to the agriculturists of the three kingdoms in that hurried fashion. He protested against preferential rates being given by railway companies against British and Irish producers, and pointed out that if the system proposed by the Bill were carried out native producers would be in a worse position than they were now. Then there was the question of the introduction of diseases which were unknown in this country but which were known abroad. He had put a Question in the House of Commons and had appealed in vain to the military authorities not to allow a certain disease, viz., epizootic lymphangitis, to be introduced into this country through the medium of two horses. What happened? The disease came. Fairs were stopped and shows were prevented, but of course the opinions of private Members like himself, whose privileges had been so curtailed that they were reduced to being parts of a mere mechanical legislative machine, were not worthy of recognition. But what he had said all came true. Exactly the same thing might happen in regard to the diseases of cattle, of which hon. Members opposite were so profoundly ignorant, just as the Minister for War was ignorant of that horse disease about which he had put the Question during the Boer War. The Irish Party had been taunted by an hon. Member with the fact that Canada got no money from the British Exchequer. That might be so, but in his own country they had a 33 per cent. duty upon imported goods, and a quarantine of two months, and a poll tax upon every animal entering Canada. His hon. friend came as an advocate of free trade. Was that his idea of it? Those who paid the piper had the right to call the tune, and he thought that Irishmen paid far and away more than their just ratio of taxation but they were not free agents in regard to its imposition or if anything was to be discussed in regard to it. Ireland paid about five millions too much a year in taxation, too, and now hon. Members wanted to destroy their cattle trade. He thought he had a right to speak, as he could claim a larger constituency in this matter than any other hon. Member of the House. He was President of the Irish Cattle Traders and Stockowners Association, which had members in every county in Ireland, and he thought he had a right to speak. That association had passed a resolution against this Bill, as had also the Dublin County Council. Every agricultural and leading association had passed resolutions; he had received 150 resolutions against this measure. The Irish people had good reason to resist this legislation, because upon it largely depended the future of Ireland, and he appealed to the sense of fair play of the House to see that it was not passed. Irish farmers had taken advantage of the Land Act, never anticipating such a change as this, which would tend to reduce the value of their produce and to that extent reduce their ability to pay their instalments, it was an extraordinary thing, moreover, for the Government to acquiesce in legislation that would tend to reduce the value of its Trish land securities. Ireland had the cleanest bill of animal health in the world at present, because there was no importation of foreign disease, and the veterinary de- partment were skilful and energetic. He therefore trusted that if a division was taken the Bill would be rejected.

opposed the Bill, and said that if passed it would be detrimental to the cattle-breeding industry in the country. As a Liberal he came from one of those constituencies which had done much for the free trade cause, and constituencies of that sort were solid against the repeal of the Act which dealt with the importation of cattle His hon. friend the Member for York had made an appeal to the democracy of the country, but he would like hon. Members to remember that they had a democracy in the rural districts. This was a farmers', not a landlords', question. In the event of cattle being slaughtered on account of an outbreak of disease, two thirds of the cost would fall on the rates and a third on the farmer. The hon. Member for York had said that there had been no disease during the last four years, but when he was in the States in January, 1903, there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which decimated the whole of the cattle of that part of the States. He believed it would be fraught with the very gravest danger if the Bill were passed into law. That Canada asked for such a Bill was no reason for passing it. The first duty of the House was to have regard to the agricultural interest of this country. The existing restriction in no way infringed the principle of free trade, and it, conduced to the preservation of our cattle - breeding industry in a sound condition.

^* asked where was the Canadian grievance? Canada had the great cornfields of the world, with unbounded means for the growing and fattening of Canadian cattle. She did not get the price of store meat for them as she would if the Bill was passed, but she got the full price of the fat animal. Figures showed that this was a great and growing market for Canada. In 1902–3 her exports of live cattle to this country were £1,500,000. In the following year they had grown to £3,000,000. We could not teach the Canadian his business. What good would this Bill do to the consumer in this country? What sources of moat supply had he at present? First of all the prime meat grown in this country, then the meat grown in Canada, America, and the Argentine, which came alive to our ports and was killed there and sold as fresh meat, and thirdly the immense supplies of dead meat from America and other countries. How was this Bill going to do the consumer any good? Suppose it was passed, and Canada no longer sent fresh meat but stores which were fattened in this country. How was this going to help the consumer? At present he was able to get meat which was killed at the port of entry, considerably cheaper than meat grown and killed in this country. To a certain extent the cattle were bruised on the voyage and the meat when it arrived was not in a prime condition, but it was a second grade fresh meat. By this Bill they would cut off this second grade meat which was now open to the consumer in this country. He asked them to take the point, of view of the breeders. The breeders were not all millionaires. They were nut in the same category with the owners of gold mines in South Africa. There were breeders of all classes. Ninety out of a hundred breeders in this country were small men. The passage of this Bill would hung a sword over the heads of all the breeders in this country—the sword of possible disease. He did not think that was a fair position to put breeders in. The Prime Minister had said he was going to turn the land into a treasure house for the nation. This was a nice start.

rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

And, it being half-past Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.