Lords Sitting of 21 May 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Monteagle of Brandon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his nephew.

GOLDERS GREEN (JEWISH) BURIAL GROUND BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (PALEWELL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUILDFORD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
ROSS AND CROMARTY (DORNIE BRIDGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. The purpose of it, as your Lordships will remember, is to enable the debate to-morrow on Lord Lloyd's Motion with regard to defence to be taken first, and I understand that that meets with the assent of everyone. I am proposing that the House shall meet at three o'clock to-morrow, in order to afford sufficient time to deal with that matter. If your Lordships will pass the Motion

969
I am now moving we can then proceed to take the Notices standing in the names of the noble Lords to whom my Motion refers.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Notices standing in the names of the Lord Strachie, the Marquess of Salisbury, the Lord Portsea, and the Lord Rennell, now standing for Wednesday next, to this day.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for making these arrangements.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given accordingly.

RENFREWSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (LOCHWINNOCH, ETC.) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
STIRLINGSHIRE AND FALKIRK WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice that he would move, That in view of the recent serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Dorset, it is desirable that the Minister of Agriculture should have power to prohibit the introduction of hay and straw or other imports into Great Britain from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is known to exist. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a week ago I asked a Question of the Minister of Agriculture as to the position in Dorset with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and the answer that I got was rather alarming, in a sense, because it was stated that the number of separate outbreaks was ten, and the animals slaughtered numbered 5,418, composed of
970
1,199 cattle, 3,236 sheep and 983 pigs, at a total cost exceeding £25,000. This year already there have been outbreaks in five counties, costing another £46,000; so we may say that up to the present moment slaughtering has cost this country over £70,000 this year. I am not for one moment complaining of the slaughtering of these animals. I suppose that at the present time it is absolutely necessary. But I want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that, while undoubtedly very liberal compensation is given, it does not compensate a man for his entire loss of business. Suppose he is a dairyman, he loses his contract for supplying milk, and the whole of his business is upset. On the other hand, often very valuable herds are slaughtered for which no scale of compensation can adequately pay. I saw the statement in a newspaper—and no doubt the noble Earl will tell me whether it was correct—that a particularly valuable flock of horned cattle in Dorset was isolated. I should like to ask, if that was so, whether it was effectual. Another point is that very heavy loss is suffered by farmers who are unable to send their beasts for slaughter to the markets in their areas. Many men have suffered very much indeed in that way and in those cases there is no compensation whatever.
When I bring the question forward and ask whether something more can be done, the answer given is that:
"Exhaustive inquiries have failed to reveal any circumstances to which a source of infection can be attributed."
It seems to me that so far as this country is concerned that is always the answer: it is impossible to tell how a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak arises. I notice that in another place the other day the Minister of Agriculture was answering questions from the Dorset Members, who are no doubt very much concerned about this matter. Mr. Elliot, in reply to Mr. Hanbury, stated that he was fully satisfied that the relative freedom of this country from foot-and-mouth disease could not have been maintained in the present state of knowledge other than by the slaughter of infected animals and those in contact with them.
I am quite ready to agree that up to the present moment that is absolutely necessary, but then Mr. Elliot went on to

971
say that the only alternative to slaughter in existing conditions was a policy of isolation and treatment. I think all of us who know anything about this matter are agreed that it is entirely out of the question, except in very rare cases indeed, to have isolation, and that slaughter is necessary. But the Minister of Agriculture says that there is practically no alternative. I want to impress upon the noble Earl who represents the Ministry that something might be done on the lines that are followed in the United States and Canada. The noble Earl has previously informed me that there is power for the Minister to prohibit the import into this country of straw or hay used as packing. He informs me that it is always burnt after it has come here, but I should have thought it was very difficult to make certain, taking the country as a whole. For instance, I do not think the noble Earl will tell me that the straw envelopes, in which large quantities of wine are brought over from France and other parts of Europe into this country, are burnt afterwards. That is not my experience. These straw envelopes are usually simply thrown away, and it would be very difficult to insist that every one who has wine coming over in that way should burn the straw envelopes. I doubt very much whether it would be possible to carry out such a regulation.
What happens in the case of the United States and Canada? They lay it down that no hay or straw used for packing purposes for goods coming into those countries will be allowed unless a certificate has been given by a medical officer of health or a veterinary officer that that hay or straw has been properly disinfected before it was used for packing purposes. That seems to me to be what we do not do in this country, and such a system might help to prevent infection from being carried by hay or straw. So far as the Channel Islands are concerned, I understand that, after the last outbreak that occurred there, they positively said that it was due to straw packing that arrived with some furniture. New Zealand is even more stringent than Canada or the United States, for it absolutely prohibits the packing of goods arriving from Europe in hay or straw. The only exception they make is that in the case of Great
972
Britain and Ireland they allow such goods to come in if a certificate has been given, either by a medical officer of health or by a veterinary inspector of the country from which the goods come, stating that it has been disinfected.
There may be difficulties about the matter, but still it seems to me desirable to have more stringent provisions than we have. I know that in the old days the argument used to be advanced that it would interfere with trade, but I do not suppose the noble Earl will say that to-day; he will be inclined rather to say that all necessary precautions have been taken. In my Motion I have suggested that there might be some other imports which might cause infection. When one observes that in the United States and Canada they have no foot-and-mouth disease at all, one is inclined to say that if they have been successful in keeping it out why should not we be equally successful? In fact, being an island, we ought to be able to do it more easily. Certainly, New Zealand has been successful, because it has never had any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I do not wish to make any attack on the Ministry of Agriculture. I am perfectly certain that they are as anxious as anybody to keep out foot-and-mouth disease, but I can assure the noble Earl that in the West of England the feeling is very strong indeed that something more should be done to prevent these outbreaks which do so much damage. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in view of the recent serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Dorset, it is desirable that the Minister of Agriculture should have power to prohibit the introduction of hay and straw or other imports into Great Britain from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is known to exist.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very important question, and he certainly has not exaggerated the cost of this disease to the State, to the farmers whose herds suffer, and indeed to their neighbours who have the movements of their stock restricted. He has referred to the amount of disease that there is in this country, but I think if he compares our figures with the figures on the Continent,

973
he will realise that the incidence of foot-and-mouth disease in this country is really extraordinarily slight; indeed, it is so slight that there is never an outbreak that is not fully reported in the Press. That is one reason, I think, why the disease always seems to be so prevalent in this country The noble Lord has referred particularly to the case of Dorset, and he referred to the number of cases and extent to which the disease had spread down there. It is almost certain that the main reason why it spread so much in that area was the lateness of the notification of the disease, and I can assure the noble Lord we are taking active proceedings to deal with that matter. He asked me whether it was the case that there was one floek—I think of Dorset horns—that had been isolated. I can tell him there has been no isolation down there at all.
The noble Lord has asked me to deal with the possibilitity of infection coming over here in imports of hay and straw particularly, though he has mentioned the subject of imports generally. It might interest your Lordships to know the steps that His Majesty's Government take with regard to this matter. With regard to live animals, your Lordships are aware of the fact that all imports are prohibited from infected countries. With regard to carcases and other animal products, the Importation of Carcases Order, 1920, forbids the import of fresh carcases from Europe. At His Majesty's Government's request, the Governments of South American countries have prohibited the export to Great Britain of carcases from any herds affected with foot-and-mouth disease, and there is a most carefully administered system of inspection at the meat works which has been repeatedly checked and which we are satisfied is carried out in full. Then we come to feeding stuffs. That is an item into which we look very carefully. It has been frequently suggested that infection might come in imported feeding stuffs, but from all our investigations this looks as though it is most unlikely. We have carried out our investigations, particularly in Scotland, where unexplained outbreaks are very few but where the amount of imported feeding stuffs is high.
Then there is the question to which the noble Lord specifically alluded—namely, hay and straw and other packing materials. With regard to foreign hay
974
and straw, that was dealt with by an Order in 1912 by which imports of hay and straw for either fodder or litter from infected countries are specifically prohibited. With regard to hay and straw used for packing purposes, that, as the noble Lord has already said, has to be destroyed. The noble Lord has referred to the difficulty of checking that particular Order. I quite agree with the noble Lord that that must be an extremely difficult Order to check, and I should like to look into that matter myself before giving him any definite answer on the subject; but I might say that within the last ten years there have been only three cases in which it was even suggested that hay and straw might have been implicated, and in every single one of these cases we were unable to establish any proof that that was so.
We come next to another kind of import that is frequently suggested as a source of infection—namely, vegetables and fruit. There again in the last ten years there have been only five cases in which these particular commodities have been subject to suspicion, and again no proof could be established. Then, of course, there is the old suggestion that the disease might come over by means of migrating birds. I think your Lordships are aware that that has been very thoroughly investigated, and it is certainly interesting to note that there is no regular correspondence at all between initial outbreaks and the migratory seasons. We should certainly expect Scotland and Ireland to be particularly subject to foot-and-mouth disease if that were the case, and that is not so. Lastly we come to the Wrapping Materials Order, 1932, which deals with wrapping materials for meat. It has been frequently suggested that these wrapping materials might be responsible. In 1932 the Government took action and laid it down that the wrappers for meat from infected countries should be striped with red, and that they should not be allowed to come into contact with animals, and further that no meat wrappers should come into contact with animals until sterilised.
I am afraid, as is usual with questions regarding the source of foot-and-mouth disease, that my answer is inconclusive. The fact of the matter is, with regard to all these outbreaks that we have—incidentally, as I say, far fewer than

975
your Lordships may probably realise—that there is a great variety of causes, and never has it been possible to trace the infection to any one source. There is, however, at the present moment a Committee sitting, the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Arkwright, of the Lister Institute, who is also a member of the Agricultural Research Council. This Committee has been asked to examine this question particularly. They have been investigating the general question of establishing immunity, and that, after all, is the solution at which we should all hope to arrive; but in the meanwhile we are hoping that they will very shortly issue an interim report on this question of the source of the disease. I can assure your Lordships that, if anything transpires from that investigation, His Majesty's Government will not be slow in taking up any suggestions and putting them into force.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for going so very thoroughly into this question. In asking leave to withdraw my Motion I would remind him, as regards the question of the disease being brought in by way of imports, that during the War, when these imports did not come here, there were no outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. That shows that the disease is brought into this country in some way or other. I hope after what the noble Earl has said in his sympathetic reply to my Question, that His Majesty's Government will leave no stone unturned to investigate the matter and see if it is not possible to keep out any possible source of infection. I am sure that he and his Department realise that this is a very serious matter.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRESIDENCY OF BURMESE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY asked His Majesty's Government whether Sir Oscar de Glanville has been removed from the office as President of the Burmese Legislative Council and on what ground, and whether the Governor has concurred in his removal, and why. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I had the advantage a few months ago of being brought into relations with certain
976
Burmese gentlemen who came to attend as delegates the Joint Parliamentary Committee upon Indian Reform, and I found them, as I think all of us found them, a cheerful, light-hearted race, but perhaps not very well experienced in constitutional practice. The Burmese Legislative Council has been in trouble about its President. The law as to the appointment of a President in the Legislative Council of Burma is contained in the existing Government of India Act, the Seventy-second Section of which prescribes that he shall be appointed by the Council, and, after the first appointment, all subsequent appointments are by the Council. It also provides that an elected President may be removed from office by a vote of the Council with the concurrence of the Governor.
Sir Oscar de Glanville was appointed President by election. He was not an untried man; on the contrary, he had been, in former years, for two years President of the Legislative Council. He was re-elected to that position by the Council in 1932, and he has now been removed, as I understand, from his position. I put the question formally to the Government as stated on the Notice Paper: Has this gentleman, Sir Oscar de Glanville, been removed under the provisions of the existing Government of India Act? He was appointed in 1932. The first Motion to remove him was made in 1934. It was unsuccessful. The Motion was defeated by a single vote, but those who were opposed to Sir Oscar returned to the charge, and in August last year a Motion to remove him was carried by a majority of eighteen. The allegation was that he was insufficiently acquainted with the Burmese language and that he was not impartial. That allegation was the foundation of this Motion which was carried, and the Motion was submitted, as it ought to be under the Act, to the Governor.
The Governor did not agree with the majority, and he sent a message to the Council in which occur these words:
"I am bound therefore to examine the grounds on which this vote for the removal of the President has been passed and satisfy myself not necessarily that I agree with them but that they are reasonable and sufficient for such an important step."
He proceeds to discuss the reasons and then gives his final conclusion:
"I am forced therefore to the conclusion that the grounds… which have been put

977
forward are inadequate and that in the discharge of the responsibilities to which I have referred"—
that is, the responsibilities contained in the terms of the section which I have mentioned to your Lordships—
"which the Legislature has placed upon me, I am bound to withhold my concurrence from the Motion passed by the Council.''
That is to say, the Governor carefully considered and examined these grounds, and it was not a question with him whether he agreed with them or not, but whether they were reasonable and sufficient for such an important step, and, having given the matter his close attention, he came to the conclusion that they were not sufficient and refused his consent under the terms of the Statute.
They are very persistent in Burma, and so they came back again this year, 1935, and again passed a Resolution to remove the President. Up till now the Ministers had voted, as Ministers would be expected to do, with the Governor, but this year, when the Motion was again submitted, the Ministers ranged themselves with the majority, a sort of thing which, I am sure, none of my noble friends on that Bench would think at all correct. The Resolution was again carried. They added one or two extra reasons, but they were trivial and were abandoned. Therefore the only reasons which are of importance are the old reasons of insufficient knowledge of the language and the accusation of partiality, which, your Lordships will remember, the Governor had considered and had rejected, This was quite properly submitted again to the Governor. I am only giving to your Lordships the information as it is supplied to me, but it is part of my Question to ask the Government whether what I allege is accurate—that is to say, whether the grounds were such as I suggest they were for the action of the Legislative Council, and whether the Governor's action was also such as I suggest.
The matter was again submitted to the Governor, and this time he gave a different reply, as follows:
"The responsibility for the decision rests on the Council and I must assume that they have carefully weighed the whole matter. I am not in any sense a Court of Appeal from the Council and it is for the Council to assess the value of the grounds on which they propose to act. I do not think I am justified in again refusing my concurrence,
978
but in giving this I wish to make it clear that it does not imply either my approval of this action or my acceptance of the reasons."
Therefore the attitude of the Governor, upon this second presentation to him of the Resolution, was that he adhered in every respect to his view. That is to say, he did not go into the question whether he agreed or riot that the reasons were in any sense reasonable, and in giving his concurrence on this second occasion he affirmed that he had not changed his mind in the least upon the merits.
That is the case as it is submitted to me. I would like to ask my noble friend who is going to reply whether in fact the President of the Council was removed, whether the Resolution for his removal was based on the grounds suggested and whether the action of the Governor was such as I have indicated. I should also like to ask my noble friend to be good enough to tell your Lordships why the Governor took the line he did take—that is to say, refusing his concurrence on the first occasion, but giving it on the second occasion, although he affirmed in the most definite language that he had not changed his view of the grounds which he formed at the time when the original demand was submitted to him. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, my noble friend has asked me very explicit questions and I will do my best to answer them. I think it will be convenient if I try to answer them together. I may state at the outset of what it will fall to me to say in reply that so far as if have been informed my noble friend has quite truly stated the general facts of this rather difficult situation, and I do not think that there is anything in his statement of the course of those events to which I should wish to take exception. It is true—and I repeat this for a particular reason—that under the section of the Government of India Act to which he referred the President of a Provincial Legislature and, in the case of Burma, of the Legislative Council of Burma, is a member of the Council and is elected by the Council subject to the approval of the Governor. I repeat that for this reason, because I think it is evidence of what I have always myself

979
conceived to be the true relation between the President and the Council—namely, that the President was and is regarded as the servant of the Council much as the Speaker of another place is regarded as the first servant of that place. The section further says that the President may be removed from office by the vote of the elected Council with the concurrence, as my noble friend said, of the Governor.
The facts as to these votes in the Burmese Legislature the noble Marquess has quite correctly given to your Lordships. I entirely associate myself with him in his—if he will allow me to say so—rather pleasing estimate of the Burmese people with whom he and I had the pleasure of establishing I hope most harmonious relations a few months ago. No doubt they are much less skilled in constitutional matters certainly than the noble Marquess. I would not place myself in that exalted standard, but I do not think the Burmese would seriously challenge that they have not the experience in this field which the noble Marquess can claim. It is quite true that on the first occasion when this vote was carried removing the President of the Council from his office, the Governor replied in the terms that my noble friend read, and, in the main, said that he felt obliged to withhold his concurrence as he did not conceive the grounds to be adequate. I think the main question that my noble friend has it in mind to ask is, if the Governor thought that the grounds were inadequate on the first occasion and if the grounds were, in fact, substantially the same on the second occasion, by what process did he justify to himself concurrence, having refused concurrence when the matter was first brought to him? On that I would wish to make several observations, and the first of them is this.
I do not myself pretend to be a trained lawyer and I should not venture to advance too far in any attempt to interpret the precise wording of Acts of Parliament, but I think that anybody reading the Government of India Act will not fail to be struck by that to which I drew attention in the first remarks that I made—namely, that when the President of the Council is elected the Governor is required to give his approval, but when the Council votes for the removal of the President the Governor is then invited to concur. I should have thought that that implied a certain distinction in the
980
intention of Parliament as to the action of the Governor in the two cases. The fact that Parliament provided in the Government of India Act machinery by which the President of the Council might be elected, but that the Governor had in the one case to approve and in the other case to concur, will suggest to your Lordships that Parliament had in mind two things. It had in mind that the relation of the Legislative Council and its President was of that intimate sort that it was not primarily created or terminated by any outside authority. At the same time Parliament, I think, also had in mind, by the provision it made with with regard to the possible action of the Governor, that it was proper to give the Governor a locus in the matter with the object that he might place at the disposal of the Council his constitutional experience and advice, and that he might have the definite opportunity of trying to bring that experience and advice to the adjustment of disharmony if such had arisen.
If that was in fact, as I think it was, the view of Sir Hugh Stephenson, I cannot myself see that there is any inconsistency in his action in the first place of saying to the Council, "I do not think your reasons are good for voting the removal of your President" and saying a few months later, "My judgment about the reasons may or may not be in any way altered, but I have done my best as Governor to draw your attention to the gravity of the step you propose to take and if you insist upon going forward with it it is not my duty"—as he said—"to act as a court of appeal; having drawn your attention to the difficulties, I therefore feel myself justified in concurring." It is worth noting that the present arrangements—I say "present"; the arrangements at the time that this unhappy controversy developed in Burma—may fairly be held by the Governor to have been of a transitional kind. My noble friend will be aware that, before the present Government of India Act was in operation, under which the provisions as to the President, Council, Governor and so on are as he detailed, the old plan left the power in that matter almost entirely in the hands of the Governor, who presided himself. Then we came to the Montagu-Chelmsford plan, incorporated in the Government of India Act; and

981
under the present Government of India Bill, as my noble friend will be aware, this provision as to the necessity for the approval or concurrence of the Governor with the action of the elected Council in regard to their own elected servants is removed altogether.
I therefore think that Sir Hugh Stephenson was quite entitled to have present to his mind that, in that extremely difficult constitutional position, he was dealing with a state of things that was by its very nature transitional in kind. It may be that this also was present to his mind. I have not had the opportunity of discussing the matter with him, and therefore I cannot speak in this respect with confidence. I have, however, of course, had the pleasure of working with Sir Hugh Stephenson for many years, and there are few people for whose judgment I should have greater respect and regard than for his. I think this may have been in his mind.
No one who has had to work the constitutional machinery in India in any degree can have at any time been tempted to under-rate the immense importance to India of the establishment, of the convention that prevails here, that the office of President should be regarded as completely non-political and not subject to vacation with the change of political groupings in the Legislative Chamber. That convention is as yet not very firmly—perhaps some would say not firmly at all—established in India and in Burma. I would suggest to my noble friend—who, I think, would not disagree with this argument which I am endeavouring to put—that however desirable that convention may be, and is, the last way to get it established would be for the Governor to attempt to constitute himself an. insuperable obstacle to the repeatedly expressed wish of the Council. My noble friend will at once see what that would, in the eyes of the Council, imply. It would imply that the Governor was allying himself with one political Party where Parliament had expressly left the right of initiation to the Council.
I think, indeed, that the Legislative Council must learn by what is for many of us the best way of learning: by making mistakes. I think that it was perfectly justifiable for the Governor to take the action that he did. If this was at all his view, he gave the Council the
982
opportunity to reconsider the question, but, when satisfied that the clash was continuing and that, for reasons good or bad, there was no hope of harmonious adjustment, and realising that it was quite evident that the Constitution was completely unworkable by attempting to maintain in office against the repeatedly expressed wishes of the Council a President against whom it had twice expressed its views; then, and then only, did the Governor give his concurrence. Therefore, my Lords, the answers to my noble friend's questions are as he himself stated them. It is the fact that Sir Oscar de Glanville has been removed from his office as President of the Burmese Legislative Council. The grounds were, I think, also correctly stated by my noble friend as alleged in the Council debates; and, for the reasons that I have sought to give, the Governor did not think it right to withhold his concurrence from the proposition advanced by the Council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am obliged to my noble friend.

NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
LORD PORTSEA LORD PORTSEA had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government: If a report of the visit of the Earl of Plymouth to Nigeria will be published, and if so at what date. If they will state if any grant is given to civil servants towards a passage home, and if same grant is extended to the wife of a civil servant. If travelling allowance and/or bush allowance have been withdrawn, and if these allowances were promised to civil servants. If it is proposed to extend service in Nigeria to two years without a home holiday. If any "cuts" are imposed on civil servants, and if so the amount or percentage of such cuts, and if such cuts are determined by His Majesty's Government or by the Governor himself, and if the Governor is himself subject to such cuts. If they can state if the health of Kano has been satisfactory and the percentage of illness and of invaliding in Nigeria among civil servants. If there is a Widows' and Orphans' Pension Act or scheme and if it is a contributory scheme. What is the total amount in hand and to what purpose is this amount being used. Does the Budget balance, and if so is His Majesty's Government aware

983
that the import duties on British articles necessary for the civil servants are very heavy?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this very long Question of mine, though it only touches the fringe of the subject, is to draw attention to certain legitimate grievances which affect the Nigerian Civil Service. In that Service there is at present, and has been for some considerable period, discontent where there should be no discontent. As your Lordships are aware, the Gold Coast and Nigeria itself are not exactly healthy places. No white child can live there, and white women suffer very considerably if they stay there any length of time. The invaliding and the death rates are very high, considering in addition, of course, that the health of all those who are selected is extremely good or they would not be selected.
I will state their troubles as shortly as I can. They complain first of all that there have been levies on what they consider their not too large salaries. Their salaries have been cut. There is an absence of allowance for bush traveling. Bush travelling is expensive and the work is hard; it is something like "hard lying" in the Navy. Travelling allowance is cut down. There are heavy duties on all British "necessaries," as they may be called, while what may be called foreign "necessaries" are admitted at a cheaper rate. Ice is unprocurable; no British mineral waters can be bought, and British beer, which is largely drunk in hot climates, costs 24s. a dozen. These are, of course, prohibitive prices to people whose income is remarkably small. Then there is the question of pension. As I understand it, there has been a compulsory levy on all civil servants in Nigeria for a scheme of pensions for widows and orphans. That money, as one of my correspondents put it, has disappeared. He does not mean, of course, that it has been stolen, but he means that it has been taken over by the Government for the benefit, apparently, of their scheme. No doubt the Government scheme is a good scheme, but what I should like to know is his: is it more generous than the scheme for which this money was compulsorily taken from the civil servants of Nigeria? What is more, I understand also that the pensionable service in Nigeria has been raised from seven years to ten years, and those who have done
984
only seven years have no hope of pensions at all.
Then I understand that the period of service without home leave has been increased and that the system of passages for married women has been practically done away with. Home leave means gain in efficiency. I do not make that statement without knowledge. I was appointed to a position in Egypt, and in that position they were good enough to allow me leave for two and a half months a year. When I returned from my first leave I found many young fellows who looked more like corpses than human beings. There was among them a distinct loss in efficiency, enthusiasm and ability to work. In a place like Nigeria home leave is necessary. The noble Earl to whom I have addressed my Question has just returned, I understand, from a visit to that country, and although he would not have seen the worst stations, he has seen what the work is amongst those very brave men, and even braver women, who give their lives to the service of their country in that land. It is also said that holiday at home is not assisted. Unless passage home for the women is assisted, then it is more or less a sham, because the incomes of these people do not run to passages home and back.
It may be possible legally, and I speak as a very old member of the Bar, to justify alterations in conditions of service after a man has been appointed to that service, but with all deference to the law I do not think that any such proposition is wise or honourable. I think all these interpretations of conditions should be made in the spirit and not merely in the legal sense of those conditions. The point is this: Are we to go back now on a large number of people who have trusted us, I believe, and who have thought that not the letter but the spirit of their engagement would be carried out? I have received a large number of letters from gentlemen who have retired from the Service, and from their wives and others, and I cannot believe that it is intended to back out of any of our engagements, or implied engagements, to Nigerian civil servants. That, however, will be for my noble friend to answer, and I assure him in the strongest possible terms that I am not at all attacking him, or his Chief, or his Department. That is far from being my

985
intention. I do, however, ask his assistance in enquiring into these matters personally, if he can do so. I have had consider able experience in another place in trying to get matters remedied, and I always found that if the Chief of any Department was good enough to undertake himself to look into matters, in very many cases grievances disappeared. I beg to ask my Question.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I would like first to say that my recent visit to West Africa was made with the object of obtaining personal knowledge of the conditions and of learning at first hand of the problems which arise in connection with the administration of the Colonies, and that it was at no time contemplated that I should submit a report on my tour. The noble Lord who has asked these Questions has suggested that there is a certain amount of discontent amongst the members of the Nigerian Civil Service. I cannot accept that for a single moment. I recognise perfectly well that a certain sense of insecurity has been engendered by the recent economies and retrenchments which have had to be put into effect not only in Nigeria but in practically all the other Colonies in our Empire, and that there is a certain amount of anxiety on a number of points; but to suggest that there is general discontent amongst members of the Civil Service is I venture to say, not only from my short experience out there but for other reasons, without foundation.
LORD PORTSEA: I have received scores and scores of letters from those who have served, and are serving, in that Dependency.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I cannot, naturally, suggest that the noble Lord has not received a number of letters, but I feel perfectly justified in having made the remark which I did. Referring to the specific Questions which he asks me, I should like to say, with regard to the condition of service of European officers in Nigeria, that a free passage is granted to an officer when proceeding on leave and when returning to duty, and if, with the permission of the Governor, the officer is accompanied or followed by his wife" he is paid half a single fare out
986
wards, and if she remains in the Colony six months, or if she or her husband is invalided within that period, half a single fare on returning to this country. No doubt it will interest the noble Lord to know that the Committee of which I was Chairman, having dealt with these matters, such as the length of tour and conditions of service, have recommended that a full fare should be granted under the conditions which I have enumerated to the wife of an officer in the Nigerian Civil Service.
In view of the financial stringency, travelling allowances have been suspended for some time and bush allowances have been reduced. These allowances are payable under local regulations, which are variable at the discretion of the Government, and no question of a breach of faith is involved. The Committee, of which I was Chairman, and which recently considered leave and passage conditions for the Colonial Service generally, in its Report recommended that the normal minimum tour of duty for an officer serving in West Africa should be placed at eighteen months, and suggested that, at any rate for officers serving under ordinarily favourable conditions, twenty-four months could be regarded as a not unreasonable period of service, the Governor being left at the same time with discretion to grant an officer leave after twelve months resident service. These proposals are at present under the consideration of the Colonial Governments. A salary levy varying with the amount of the salary was brought into force in Nigeria from May 1, 1933, and was withdrawn from April 1 last. Both measures were taken with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the Governor's emoluments were made subject to the levy under the Ordinance by which it was imposed.
The health of Kano has been satisfactory, except that a small outbreak of yellow fever occurred there at the end of 1934. The vital statistics relating to European officers serving in Nigeria show that there has been no undue increase in the rate of invaliding, which has shown a very marked and, on the whole, steady decline during the last twenty years. I will send the noble Lord a copy of these statistics as soon as they are received from the printer. Provision is made for the payment of pensions to widows and

987
orphans of officers under a contributory scheme, the contributions to which are paid into general revenue, the Government being responsible for the payment of pensions based upon tables compiled by an actuary. The whole question is now under review. The estimates of revenue and expenditure of Nigeria for the present financial year show a surplus of £37,551 after providing for a withdrawal of the salary levy, already referred to. It will be understood that Dependences such as Nigeria rely heavily on Customs Duties for revenue, but I have no reason to believe that the Duties imposed in Nigeria place an undue burden upon European officers. I think I have in my answer dealt with the specific Questions which the noble Lord raised, but I should like to say in conclusion that the noble Lord can rest assured that every suggestion or proposal coming from a responsible quarter will be considered with the utmost sympathy by the Secretary of State.

SUPPLY OF WAR MATERIALS TO ABYSSINIA.
LORD BENNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the allegation made in the Italian Press that Britain is "equally guilty with France, Belgium and Czechoslovakia" in sending war materials to Abyssina or allowing them to pass through their territories, and whether His Majesty's Government have reason to believe there is any justification for such an allegation.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has raised a matter in regard to which the Italian Press is
988
evidently imperfectly informed. As is well known, the export of arms and munitions of war from the United Kingdom is very strictly controlled in the sense that every consignment so exported, even though it may but amount to one individual revolver, must be covered by an export licence issued by the Board of Trade. When applications for licences are made, each is most carefully considered on its merits, consideration being given, amongst other things, to (1) the nature of the consignment, (2) the consignor, (3) the conditions obtaining in the country to which the arms are intended to be exported, and other factors which may bear upon the situation. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government are always in a position to know when war material is being exported from the United Kingdom and to what particular destination it is being shipped.
In the specific case of Ethiopia, no applications for export licences in respect of war material ordered by the Abyssinian Government have been made for a considerable period of months; none in fact since before the present tension between Italy and Ethiopia unhappily became acute as a result of the Walwal incident of December 5 last. Nor, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, has any such material from foreign countries passed across British territory adjacent to Ethiopia on its way to Abyssinia. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand on what basis the allegations which have lately been published in the Italian Press have been made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, before we adjourn I should like to remind your Lordships that we propose to meet at three o'clock to-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.