[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] Sin,—I should like,
with the utmost respect, to suggest that nothing is better calculated to mislead the public than the heading which you give to your topical article, " The Canadian Cattle Embargo." Both Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Rogers, Canada's representatives at the " embargo " discussion in 1917, were apparently unaware that the statute was applicable to all countries (see pp. 3 and 4 of CZ. 8673), but at this stage it is surely quite unjustifiable to suggest that there is any discrimi- nation against the Dominion. Yet from the beginning to the end of your article it seems to be assumed that the " embargo "
is something which affects Canadian. cattle alone. You state in regard to those who desire the retention of the " embargo "
that " in British farming the wishes of the few—or at least of a party, though a strong one—are being confused with the wishes of all." All the evidence in our possession goes to show that the overwhelming mass 'of agricultural opinion in Great Britain is in favour of the retention of the "embargo." In only two counties in England and Wales, viz., Northumber- land and Norfolk, is the opinion of farmers notably divided cm the question. In Scotland, I believe, a majority of the farmers, large and small, favours the existing policy. So far as the agricultural workers are concerned, I understand that their organizations South of the Tweed have not sought the views of their branches, but Mr. Joseph Duncan, Secretary of the Scottish Farm Servants' Union, has expressed himself emphatically against the anti-embargo agitation. Even the Finlay Commission did not venture to suggest that the oppo- sition amongst agriculturists to any tampering with the 1896 Act represents "the wishes of the few," and I have no hesita- tion in saying that the experience of those members of the Council of the National Farmers' Union who attend farmers' meetings all over the country attests the fact that farmers generally, particularly the small men, are very gravely con- cerned at the threat to British stockbreeding. The National Farmers' Union has never been concerned to stress the question of disease in the case of Canadian cattle. The Act of 1896 was a sanitary measure, it is true, and the requirement that im- ported live cattle should be slaughtered at the port of entry applied to all countries outside the British Isles. The policy so adopted gave our breeders a confidence they had not pre- viously possessed, and they have retained it for close on a generation. Impair that policy—hit the stockbreeder in 1922 as the cereal-grower was hit in 1921—and the confidence of the most important section of British agriculture will have been gravely shaken. There must be stability of policy if agricul- ture is to prosper in any degree.
One passage alone in your article is sufficient to destroy your case against the "embargo ":- "Under the present system during the past few years the feeders of cattle have been losing heavily on their store beasts. The inevitable sequel is that cautious men reduce the number of beasts they feed if they do not cut them off altogether. Less manure is progressively being put into the land."
If your suggestion be that the price of store cattle has been too high, I would ask you to read the evidence of the Canadian
Ilstinister of Agriculture before the Finlay Commission. He stated, quite unequivocally, that, in the event of the lifting of the " embargo," the first person to suffer from low prices in Great Britain would bo the Canadian, and that if prices here fell Canadian stores would go to the U.S. market if prices were higher there. The significance of these statements was not lost upon feeders in Great Britain, and they are not anxious to see British breeding decline when they know that the lowering of the II.S. tariff would immediately divert Canada's exports of stores. British feeders want regular, not spasmodic, supplies. I would add that if feeders, who have to look six months ahead, are exercising caution our breeders, who must look two years ahead, must be under a similar necessity in view of the threat to their livelihood. Our present policy gives the greatest encouragement to British stock- raising and beef production and, by maintaining home pro- duction, prevents the complete domination of our market by the American Meat Trust. Wo have submitted a full statement of the case in support of the retention of the " embargo " to every Member of Parliament, and it has remained unanswered because, I venture to say, it is unanswerable. Because it is unanswerable our opponents talk of nothing to-day but the "pledge " to Canada. I will not trespass further upon your space to comment upon the novel constitutional doctrine which is now being written in that connexion—in my humble opinion it would be best criticized by Mr. Montagu. All I will say, in conclusion, is that the grievance which Canada brought before the Imperial Conference in 1917, viz., the alleged "stigma" on her cattle, has now technically been removed, and that for the rest Canada has consistently disclaimed the least desire to interfere in our domestic agricultural policy for the came reason as she would resent our interference in matters of Canadian domestic policy.—I am, Sir, &c., CLEVELAND Free
(Parliamentary Secretary). National Farmers' Union, 45 Bedford Square, W.1.
[We must congratulate the supporters of the embargo on putting up a gallant fight. As a large part of their case is Protection in the economic sense, we cannot be expected to open up an argument on so wide a subject. We will say only that we entirely disagree with it. If Captain Fyfe had read our article more carefully he would not have made one statement in the first paragraph of his letter. He says that " from the beginning to the end of the article it seems to be assumed that the embargo is something which affects Canadian cattle alone." On the contrary, we pointed out that at present the British farmer who buys store beasts is restricted to home- bred or Irish cattle—in other words, that no live cattle can be imported.—Ea. Spectator.]
Previous page
