Lords Sitting of 10 November 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE (Deputy Speaker) on the Woolsack.
EARL BUXTON.
The Right Honourable Sydney Charles, Viscount Buxton, G.C.M.G., having been created Earl BUXTON—was (in the usual manner) introduced.

RINDERPEST.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any information concerning the reported existence of rinderpest in Belgium and in France; whether in the event of an outbreak of rinderpest in Great Britain they have adequate preparations for inoculation or other methods for the prevention or cure of this disease; whether also, if these reports are correct, they have in view the provision of further legislation to insure the immediate destruction by fire of packing straw coming from infected countries.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Question because a considerable amount of anxiety has been expressed by breeders in this country, and persons engaged in the export of live stock from this country abroad, owing to rumours that rinderpest has broken out both in Belgium and in France and is understood to have come across from Russia I sincerely hope that the noble Lord the Minister for Agriculture will be able to tell your Lordships that there are few, if any, grounds for this anxiety. I have not looked up when the last out break of rinderepst occurred in this country, but if I remember rightly it was somewhere about the year 1865, and it was brought over by hides landed in Birkenhead.
As to the second part of my Question, whether His Majesty's Government have taken adequate precautions for inoculation or other methods for the prevention or care of this disease, a good many years ago rinderpest in South Africa and Rhodesia was, as far as I remember, clearly and adequately dealt with by means of simple inoculation, and if there is anything in these rumours, I would be glad to know whether the Ministry of Agriculture have made any preparations of this kind.
The third and last part of my Question is whether it is possible to issue Orders to enforce the destruction by fire of straw and such materials coming in packing cases, etc., from these infected countries. I know that it is a subject of extreme difficulty, but in view of the danger of an outbreak of rinderpest and the very serious losses which have already occurred from foot-and-mouth disease brought over, I suppose, by some of these means, it is well worth considering whether it is possible to introduce any legislation of this kind. I am not at all sure that it is possible to make our country absolutely free from these diseases as long as hay, straw, and those classes of material which carry infection can come over from infected countries.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, I hope that generally speaking there is no acute cause for anxiety at the present time with regard to the possibility of the spread of rinderpest to this country. The existence of the disease was first reported to us by the Belgian authorities on August 11, and general and very rigid precautions were at once taken by my Ministry to prevent its introduction into this country. My noble friend asks me about France. There was a report, I know, to the effect that the disease had also appeared in France, but that has been contradicted by the French authorities and I believe there is no foundation for it.
My noble friend mentioned the possibility of the disease having come from Russia. That is the first suggestion of the kind that I have heard, and I do not know that there is any information which would lead one to suppose that it came from that direction. It is something of a mystery as to how it came to Belgium. The original theory was that it was owing to the importation of a certain number of zebu cattle which had touched at Antwerp and had brought it with them either as disease-carriers—in fact, I think as disease-carriers—rather than as being directly and obviously infected. The whole matter is somewhat shrouded in mystery, owing to the fact that it is now being made the subject of a very strong political attack upon the Catholic Minister of Agriculture in Belgium by the extreme Socialistic Press; and really the issue is so much confused as between theology and politics that I rather hesitate to express any confident opinion as to what the real source of the infection may

235
have been. After all, that is less my business than it is to see that it does not spread to this country, and the most energetic action that we can think of has been and will continue to be taken.
It is reassuring to know that the disease has died down very rapidly in Belgium. The latest communication from the Belgian authorities through the Foreign Office shows this. We had a telegram only yesterday or the day before in which our Minister said—
"The Department of Agriculture yesterday stated that only one new case has occurred in the last five days; that the cattle plague is considered to be vanquished, and the Belgian Government hopes shortly to be able to permit the export of animals and manure."
The question as to when we decide to admit animals and manure or anything else in these circumstances is one which will be most carefully and anxiously considered.
My noble friend's second Question is with regard to the preparations for inoculation. I can assure him that the moment we received information that rinderpest existed in Belgium arrangements were made to obtain a supply of anti-rinderpest serum from Egypt, which is the nearest source of supply. It was ordered by cable. The serum was at once despatched by express, and there is now an ample supply of it in cold storage in the Ministry's laboratory in case it should be needed. Undoubtedly it will be used at once if the necessity should arise though I am fairly confident that it will not be required.
With regard to the third part of my noble friend's Question, as to further legislation, I may remind him that the landing in Great Britain of cattle, sheep, goats, and all other ruminants and swine from the Continent is prohibited under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, and the Foreign Animals Orders issued by the Ministry; and the landing of hay or straw from any Continental country, with the one exception of Norway, otherwise than when in actual use as packing for merchandise, is also prohibited. We have considered this matter very carefully with regard to the hay and straw used in packing, and have come to the conclusion that it would not be justifiable to introduce fresh legislation to prohibit the importation of packing of this kind or to provide for its immediate destruction by fire on coming from the Continent. So far as our knowledge goes, rinderpest is spread exclusively either by the infected animals themselves
236
or by fresh portions of their carcases. I really would not be practicable to ensure the immediate destruction of packing straw and hay which is used for an immense variety of imports, particularly having regard to the almost infinitesimal risk, as I am advised, that there would be infection from any such material.
I need hardly say that we are very keenly alive to the importance of this matter, but after most careful consideration we do not believe that the position would be materially safeguarded, if at all, by the introduction of fresh legislation to deal with packing materials. To sum up, I believe the situation is now thoroughly in hand, not only here but in Belgium, and I have every ground for hoping that there is no reasonable probability of the disease coming to this country.
LORD HINDLIP: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his very reassuring statement.

THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India—

1. Whether the average pension paid to a retired Indian civil cervant was estimated by the Public Services Commission at £750, the balance of £250 being made up by deductions from his pay.

2. Whether, in estimating the figure of £250, allowance was made for the contribution of civil servants who died before taking their pension, and, if so, what proportion of the £250 represents the contributions of deceased members.

3. Whether since 1913, when the calculation was made, the amount of contributions as well as their sterling value has largely increased.

3. Whether the authors of the Report on Constitutional Reforms recommended that the pensions paid by the State should be £1,000 per annum, and that the amount subscribed by members should be funded for their benefit.

5. Whether the only action taken on this recommendation is to refund subscriptions made after 1st April,

237
1919, and to refuse any refund of subscriptions before that date to retired or serving members of the Service.

6. Whether the Royal Navy, the Army, the Indian Army, the Indian Medical Service, the Indian Uncovenanted Civil Service, and the Home and Colonial Civil Services have had their pensions recently increased from 25 to 60 pet cent. in consideration of the present cost of living.

7. And whether the case for consideration of the Indian Covenanted Civil Service is not equally strong.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's first Question is Yes. The answer to the second is also Yes, and the portion representing contributions of deceased members is 11 per cent. The answer to Question 3 is as follows: —Between 1913 and 1919 the contributions increased by about 14 per cent. Since April 1, 1919, they have been placed to the credit of the officers in a provident fund. In October, 1917, the rupee rose from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 5d., and in April, 1918, to1 s 6d., and the sterling equivalent of the contribution was increased accordingly.
I will answer Questions 4 and 5 together The Commission recommended that the pensions of officers of the Indian Civil Service should be fixed at £1,000 a year free of contributions, but subject to the proviso that the concession should not operate retrospectively in respect of deductions from salary already made. This recommendation has been accepted by the Secretary of State, with effect, as I have just mentioned, from April 1, 1919.
With regard to Question 6, I am aware that the Services referred to have had their pensions increased by varying amounts for persons retiring since the war; but, apart from the increases recently sanctioned for small pensioners under the British Pensions (Increase) Act, no increase has been sanctioned, so far as I am aw are, for officers retired before the war, except in the case of those re-employed on paid naval or military duty. As to Question 7, the date from which the annuity deductions shall be funded for the benefit of the officers was carefully considered before the Secretary of State's decision was given, and, as at present advised, he sees no reason to alter it.

HELIGOLAND.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the Agreement of 1891) embodying the cession of Heligoland to Germany has definitely lapsed as a. result of the war; and whether, if so, His Majesty's Government can secure the continuity of the rights of the islanders, as well as other conditions affecting British interests, which were provided for in that Agreement.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question is based on the touching appeal that the Heligolanders made to His Majesty's Government, which appeal I am sure your Lordships must all have seen. Their position is very peculiar at the present time; perhaps I might almost say that it is unique. Their fathers and grandfathers and most of themselves lived happily under British rule after 1807, when we occupied the island during the Napoleonic wars, until 1890. In 1890 the blessed word "self-determination" had not been invented, and the islanders were handed over to Germany under an Agreement which guaranteed them certain rights, and also guaranteed certain rights to British subjects.
I have not been able to read the debates which occurred at that time, when I was absent from England, but I have always thought that this cession was a mistake, and I cannot believe that it was ever fully considered and approved by the Admiralty. If it had brought us, as may have been hoped at the time, the good will of Germany, I think it might have been justified. I now believe that the island was strongly desired by the Germans in connection with their naval ambitions, which were beginning to dawn at that period. Unfortunately no stipulation was made that the island should not be fortified, and because it was fortified it played an important part during the war, both as an advanced observation post and as a base for submarines. I understand that a proposal was made to attack it, as it was found to be exceedingly inconvenient; but it was most wisely decided at the time not to risk ships on an operation for which all the experience of war shows them to be quite unfitted. It was the ignoring of that experience, and also of the great object lesson obtained at Alexandria in 1882, which led to our failure at Gallipoli. The idea was an excellent one, and it had every chance of success if it had been carried out in the right way.
After the Armistice the whole question of the status of Heligoland must have been discussed at length, and there were several possible courses that might have been followed. The island might have been placed under the care of the League of Nations, or it might have been returned to the Danes, who held it, I believe, for nearly a century, and I understand that most of these people still speak the Friesian dialect. By the Treaty of Versailles, however, it was handed back to Germany or rather it remained a German possession, but under Article 115 of that Treaty the fortifications are now being or have been destroyed. I am not sure whether that includes the sea defences; perhaps the noble Earl (Lord Crawford), when he answers, will be able to tell me. If these defences are removed then a great part of the island will in a short time disappear under the action of erosion. But if that does not happen, I am very much afraid that in twenty-five years we shall find that Heligoland is a strongly fortified position again.
The petitioners recall and lay stress on the fact that they were handed over to their German masters without their consent, and then they go on to say—
"We would have preferred to remain under the British Flag exercising our liberties under British justice; we would prefer it to-clay. It might be claimed by us that if the Agreement is declared void we revert to Great Britain, but if this no longer possible we appeal to Great Britain to support our just claims to the rights she guaranteed to us at the time of our cession to Germany."
I feel that this helpless little community deserves our warm sympathy, and that we cannot avoid certain direct responsibility for their welfare. I am afraid that the rights which we secured for them in 1890 have disappeared now that the Agreement has become null and void by reason of the war. I ask, therefore, whether it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to much such representations to the German Government as might lead to the continuance of the rights of the Heligolanders and the rights of British subjects in future. I hope that your Lordships will think that my plea is not either unimportant or unreasonable, because it is only in this House at the present time that such a subject as this can be brought forward and discussed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, Lord Sydenham briefly states that the rights of the Heligolanders as granted to them under the Treaty of 1890
240
have been diminished, that they desire that their allegiance should revert to Great Britain, and that finally, in his opinion, the refortification of this island is probable in the future. I will very briefly state what has actually occurred.
Lord Sydenham is correct in assuming that the Agreement of 1890 has lapsed. What occurred was this. Under the Treaty of Versailles Article 289 gave each Allied Power the right of reviving bi-lateral Treaties which they might select as being useful, provided that the notice of revival was given within six months before July 10, 1920. The Treaty relating to Heligoland of 1890 dealt not merely with Heligoland but with Africa and other important subjects in relation to the comprehensive Agreement made with Germany in that year. It was not thought necessary to revive that Treaty. Accordingly, the Agreement has lapsed, not through any repudiation on the part of the German Government but by His Majesty's Government itself. But the fact that the Agreement has lapsed does not imply that German sovereignty over the island has disappeared. The status of Heligoland is clearly laid down in Article 115 of the Treaty of Versailles. That Article provides for the destruction of the fortifications of the island.
I do not think that Lord Sydenham would press that the British sovereignty of the island which existed before 1890 should be resumed or revived. He is, however, concerned with the future of the islanders themselves. At one time I think it appeared that the electoral powers of the islanders might be swamped by the immigration of a large number of men who are now living there in order to destroy the fortifications. The actual words about fortifications in Article 115 of the Treaty are as follows—
"These fortifications, military establishments and harbours shall not be reconstructed; nor shall any similar works be constructed in future.
I have not the complete text, but that is part of it, and it is clearly connoted in those words—"fortifications, military establishments, and harbours shall not be reconstructed"—that it is in contemplation to destroy those which already exist. Lord Sydenham says they will be rebuilt. That is possible; it would be a breach of the Treaty if they are, and it is just as easy to say that any other Article of the Treaty is going to be disregarded by Germany. I have no doubt that the Allies would be

241
quite able to deal with that point if it arose.
The other matter on which I need trouble your Lordships is as to the actual political status of the inhabitants of the islands. In August last the Government of the German Republic amended the Constitution of the Republic as a whole in such a manner as to give special advantage to the inhabitants of Heligoland. The Treaty of 1890 secured that native law s and customs then existing should remain undisturbed as far as possible. The Prussian Government, bearing those guarantees in view, I suppose, have substituted a special franchise which in effect must safeguard the inhabitants of Heligoland. Instead of the single year franchise which prevails throughout the German Republic a three years residence franchise has bee a substituted. That appears to me to prevent the interests of the Heligolanders being submerged under any considerable immigration of Germans from the mainland, and it is a concession, I think, which is of some moment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend on the cross-benches has raised this question because the position of Heligoland is highly interesting, both from the past history of that island and from its present condition in consequence of the war. There is no need to go back to, or to regret, what occurred in 1890. I very well remember that, having spent a great part of the previous year in South and East Africa, I formed the opinion that so far as the African bargain to which the noble Earl opposite has alluded was concerned it was a pretty fair one in itself, dealing with Damaraland and German East Africa and other matters, but that the cession of Heligoland was thrown in by Her Majesty's Government, as it was at that time, simply in the hope of securing the good will of Germany. There was nothing in the general Treaty which justified in any way the cession of Heligoland. That being so, it seemed to be specially incumbent upon His Majesty's Government to safeguard the interest of the islanders in every way. In this House at the time there were a good many discussions. I remember that Lord Salisbury spoke of the whole proceeding having been confidential, and Lord Granville raised a laugh by asking if they were confidential with the islanders—that is, between the islanders as a whole and the German Government and ourselves.
242
But the cession took place without any desire on the part of the inhabitants of Heligoland to be joined up with Germany. I think that is historically true. Therefore we have felt bound, or should have felt bound, to regard their interests as of special moment to us. Heligoland, as has been stated, was fortified on a large scale; it also became a most fashionable German bathing place. There was a tendency to Germanise the island against the assumed wishes and interests of the original inhabitants, who cannot by any stretch of language be described as German, and therefore I think we still ought to maintain a somewhat special interest in their affairs. I conceive that the noble Earl is quite accurate in saying that an ultimate attempt to re-fortify the island would be a breach of the Treaty and would have to be dealt with accordingly. Whether the substitution of a three years' for a one year's residence for the purpose of turning a man into a Heligolander is sufficient to prevent the absorption of the voting power of the population by Germany I do not feel quite so sure. I am not certain that the original Heligolanders would regard that as a complete safeguard, and I cannot help wishing that a somewhat more direct interest had been taken at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty in the fate of this small population than apparently was taken. It is, of course, a small matter compared with a great many which the Supreme Council at Versailles had to decide. Very likely they thought little of it. But these small matters cannot be regarded as negligible, and I wish something more had been done.
LORD SYDENHAM: I am not quite certain, from what the noble Earl said, whether or not the sea defences of Heligoland are to be destroyed. He said, I think that the harbours were not to be reconstructed, but I am not sure whether that implies the protection of the land from the action of the sea.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is rather a technical question of the interpretation of the words, but the Treaty provides that the fortifications, military establishments, and harbours shall be destroyed. If these are destroyed any other outworks would be, I imagine, of very little use. It is a technical point on which I dare not offer an opinion. A few million pounds is being spent on blowing them up, and I do

243
not think there is much base on which to erect others if such a course was permissible

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl is able to say what business is likely to come before your Lordships' House during the next few days, and, if possible, during next week.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, yesterday I informed your Lordships that the Government of Ireland Bill was expected in the course of a few hours. My proposal that the Second Reading debate should be commenced on Thursday, November 18, was unacceptable. I therefore suggest that the Second Reading should begin on Tuesday, November 23, and continue as long as your Lordships think necessary. My noble friend Viscount Peel is most anxious that progress should be made on the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill, a measure upon which gigantic sums' of money, in which the State is concerned, depend. I therefore invite your Lordships to meet on Monday, November 15, at the usual time in order to take the Second Reading of that Bill. If possible, we should like to get the Committee stage on the following Thursday. We are precluded from taking it on Tuesday, as that day is particularly reserved for an important statement initiated by the Marquess of Crewe on the question of Persia. There is no business of any consequence on the Paper for to-morrow, and I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if we adjourned until Monday next, except of course for judicial business. I beg to move accordingly.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Monday next.—(The Earl of Cranford.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Can the noble Earl say on what date the Agriculture Bill may be expected?
The EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am informed that we may receive it either next week after.
LORD CAWLEY: Can the noble Earl tell us when the Report stage of the Patent Medicines Bill will be taken?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Not with undue haste.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of November 9.]
The Lord ORMATHWAITE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No.3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read lª to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS, OMNIBUSES, AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee, for the consideration of the said Bill; (viz.), M. Dufferin and Ava, E. Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Ancaster, L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss) (Chairman), L. Ranksborough; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 23rd instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be beard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock