Lords Sitting of 7 August 1918

Preamble
The Earl of ELGIN AND KINCARDINE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, this is the usual Motion before an adjournment. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing Documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Autumn Recess.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
ASYLUMS OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
TRADE BOARDS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

INCOME TAX BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move that the Commons Amendments be agreed to. They simply carry out the recommendation made by the Joint Committee to whom the Income Tax Bill was referred. That recommendation was this, that effect should be given in the form of the Bill itself to what is the fair result of a decision of this House with regard to the meaning of the word "person" as applied to the section relating to a right to abatement of Income Tax. The Amendments are embodied in the Report in Appendix II as set out there in terms. In the Report itself the reason for the Amendments is explained at length, and also the reasons which led the Committee, instead of making the Amendments themselves, to leave them to the Commons to make, whilst suggesting the form that the Amendments should take. I submit to your Lordships that the recommendation of the Committee was right, and that the Amendments are proper ones to be accepted by your Lordships.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

ECONOMIC POLICY.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP rose to call attention to the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies announcing that His Majesty's Government has decided upon a Preferential scheme of trade within the Empire; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it will not be necessary, I hope, to detain your Lordships at any great length this afternoon in considering this question. My object is not so much to initiate a debate as to try and elicit some information, if it is possible to get it, and, if necessary, to register a protest. My first criticism must be directed to the method in which the announcement was launched upon the country. Here is a matter which has been the subject of discussion between two political parties for fifteen years. It has actually divided people in this country;

623
it has frequently been made a matter of discussion both in this House, and in another place. I venture to think that Parliament is the proper place in which the announcement should first have been made; instead of which the Secretary of State for the Colonies, at a casual luncheon somewhere in the City, made a reference to this, and the matter was so ill-understood by the people of this country that since then there has been more than one explanation issued on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to try and explain what exactly was meant. And, my Lords, even now we would like to know, if possible, exactly what this Resolution is. I should like to have the terms of the Resolution, to know whether they are the same as the terms of the Resolution which was passed last year on a similar occasion by the Imperial War Conference, or whether this is something new.
Sir Robert Borden spoke the other day and threw a good deal of light upon the question. He said that neither the Imperial War Cabinet nor the Imperial War Conference has had under consideration this year the question of Preference. "The, recent announcement on that subject," he said, "was made on behalf of the British Government as a statement of the domestic policy of the United Kingdom; and as Canada claims and exercises the right absolutely to control her own fiscal policy, so the representatives of our Dominion necessarily refrain from attempting any interference in the fiscal policy of the United Kingdom." That was a welcome declaration on the part of Sir Robert Borden, directed, I cannot help thinking, not only to the people of this country, but also to his colleague Mr. Hughes. For Mr. Hughes has been busy making a series of speeches upon this question, which I do not think anybody could refrain from describing as partisan. It puts us all in a position of very considerable difficulty. If Mr. Hughes forgets that he is the guest of this country we are most unwilling to forget it. Therefore I should wish to abstain from any word of criticism of what has been said by Mr. Hughes, but I should like to hear from His Majesty's Government—if they can tell us—whether, when he makes speeches of this partisan character, Mr. Hughes is speaking in his capacity as a member of the Imperial War Cabinet, or of the Imperial War Conference, or as Prime Minister of Australia, or merely as a private individual. I cannot help feeling
624
that the same success is likely to attend his efforts to convert the people of this country to Protection as attended his efforts to convert the people of Australia to Conscription. Certainly if anybody had been in Australia last year and had made speeches on that subject on the lines of those which have been made by Mr. Hughes this year, he would have heard a great deal about it in very strong language from no less a person than Mr. Hughes himself.
I think there is yet another point of fair criticism. His Majesty's Government is a Government for conducting the war. As I understand—and I hope I am right in saying so—this is a policy which is not to be carried out during the war, but is only to be adopted when the war is over; and this Government, unless it is in office at that time, is under no pledge, and no Government is pledged, to carry it out. Now, my Lords, even if the noble Earl is able to give us the terms of the Resolution, I confess that we shall wish to know something more about it. The more we are told the better we shall be pleased. Resolutions are often used not only to expose a situation but very often to conceal thoughts and also actions. We have an example only lately in a cognate question of the Paris Economic Conference. On that occasion Resolutions were passed which some of your Lordships welcome as going as far as they wish to go in the direction of Tariff Reform; whereas others, and not the least my noble friend the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in this House, would say that those who took part in that Conference certainly thought that those Resolutions had no such import at all. Therefore it will be necessary for us, when we have the terms of Resolutions, to examine them with a good deal of care.
There are two way in which a Preferential Duty may be imposed—either by adding to the taxation which exists already, or else by subtracting something from duties which already exist. I have understood from one of the communications which have been made in the papers that His Majesty's Government do not intend to put a tax on food. But there does remain, as a possibility, the alternative that existing duties may be reduced in the case of those articles which come to us from the Dominions or from the Colonies. That is an alternative policy, and it is

625
one which is not excluded by anything that has so far appeared in explanation of this Resolution. I venture to think that there will be a special difficulty if that is the idea of His Majesty's Government, because after the discussion which took place in this House on Monday night it is quite clear that the Treasury will be most unwilling, and scarcely able, to forego any of the receipts which they have been accustomed to receive during the past few years. The money cannot be spared, and it will be difficult to convey in that way any Preference to the self-governing Dominions.
And, my Lords, this new method of preferential tariff does go in direct opposition to the old dictum of Mr. Chamberlain, that "if we were to give a preference to the Colonies we must put a tax upon food." We understand, as I said just now, that His Majesty's Government do not propose to impose any fresh taxation upon food which is now exempt from it. There remain, of course, other goods which might become subject to taxation—raw materials, timber, and wool. I do not think that there is anything which has yet been suggested which seems to indicate that raw materials, including timber and wool, are among the subjects that are to receive preferential tariffs under this Resolution.
I turn to the various articles that come into this country which might become the subjects of differential tariffs in this sense, that the imports which come to us from our self-governing Dominions might be subject to a lower rate of Import Duties than those which come to us from outside the Empire. If one examines the actual figures, it is difficult to see that any substantial relief can be given in the matter of tea. The Empire is almost self-supporting, with the exception of special tea which comes to us from China, and which probably no amount of duties would prevent people from drinking—it is drunk by a class of persons who would pay whatever the duty might be. Then there is sugar, tobacco, and coffee, of which the supplies from this Empire are wholly inadequate to meet the needs of the country, and which for a great many years to come must, as far as one can possibly foretell, come to us from places outside; the British Empire. Finally, there are various liquors, wines and spirits, on which, if we were to make any substantial difference to those goods of that class which come to us from the Colonies, the
626
Excise would suffer so severely and the benefit to the Dominions would be so small, that I cannot think they are likely to be the main subject of taxation in this direction. Therefore, looking round, it seems to us very difficult to see what exactly is meant by the intentions of His Majesty's Government. We are very anxious to have the opportunity of seeing the Resolution and of examining it for ourselves, so as to try and find out what it really means.
Last year Sir Robert Borden, who had been present at the Imperial Conference here, made a speech when he returned to Canada in which he exposed the meaning of the new policy (as it was then) of the specially favourable treatment and facilities to the produce and manufactures of other parts of the Empire. I will venture to quote to your Lordships some extracts from what he said—
"I should say at once that this Resolution does not necessarily purpose, or even look to, any change in the fiscal arrangements of the United Kingdom. It does not involve taxation of food It does not involve taxation of anything. But what this proposal looks to, as I understand it, is this—that we can within this Empire get better and cheaper facilities of communication than we have enjoyed up to the present time. That, I believe, is the line along which the change indicated will proceed. I hope and believe there will be concerted action and cooperation between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Governments of the Overseas Dominions, by which speedier, better, and more economical transportation will be provided between the Mother Country and the Overseas Dominions, and between the Overseas Dominions themselves."
This seems to foreshadow, if that is also the policy of His Majesty's Government, a policy of freight wars between this country and other countries who certainly are at the present time allied with us. That appears to me to open out a very dangerous future. After all, a freight war is a game at which two can play; and when we consider how very precarious is the merchant shipping industry in the future of this country, the immense extent to which America has been building and is building ships; the possibility that the Trident will pass from our hands to those of the United States of America—it seems to me that it will be very dangerous for this country to embark upon a war of freights in which we might so easily fail to secure victory. Any policy of this kind, though its immediate effect must all upon the people of this country, will also have a very much wider effect.
But it is not a merely local or domestic question. It is true that we believe that any taxation of this kind must raise the price of these various goods to the people of this country. Certainly if we are to enter upon an extensive freight war, this must be the result. But it is not only that the price will be raised to the people of this country at a time when food has already become so expensive that there are a great many complaints upon the subject, but it is that other interests will also suffer. We have yet to learn how it will be possible to make any scheme of this kind equitable; how, if food is not to be taxed, Australia and Canada and South Africa are to derive any benefit from the imposition of these duties. I should hope that it may be possible to hear from His Majesty's Government whether they have taken into consideration the question of India, and whether India is to be included and is to get some benefit at the same time as our self-governing Dominions; and, if so, it will be interesting to know in what direction India would gain.
Then there are also the interests of other people besides our own Empire to be considered. There are the interests of our present Allies. After all, you put on a preferential tariff in order to benefit somebody; then it is perfectly obvious that other people are going to get the worst of it. And, if we are to put on this tariff, in order to benefit the self-governing Dominions and the Colonies of the British Empire, it seems to me a most unfortunate moment to do it, when we ought to do all we possibly can to help that gallant little country Belgium, and not only Belgium, but also our Ally, France. It appears to me that it would be a most unfortunate thing if one of the first results of this war should be that we were to put on preferential duties in order to tax, and to some extent to impede, the trade of the nations of Belgium and France with this country.
There is yet another subject, one upon which I touch with some little reserve. For some time I have had on the Notice Paper of your Lordships' House a Question with regard to the most-favoured-nation treaties. I have postponed it at the request of the noble Earl, and I have been very glad to do so. But it is very difficult in connection with this matter not to refer to it, however briefly; and I hope that I may receive some assurance that this matter, and the effect of preferential duties upon
628
this, has also received some attention from His Majesty's Government, and that it will receive more attention.
Finally, there is yet another, and, perhaps, the biggest interest of all to be considered—namely, how this question of preferential duties will affect the League of Nations. I will venture to quote to your Lordships one of the points made by President Wilson in his Congress Message on January 8 of this year. He said—
"…the removal so far as possible of all economic barriers, and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the Peace and associating themselves for its maintenance."
We understand, from a speech which was made by the Prime Minister last week, that on the Paris Resolution America has expressed no opinion; and I imagine that she has expressed no opinion either upon this new determination of His Majesty's Government. I would press upon the noble Earl, and upon His Majesty's Government, the great importance that there is of acting in the very fullest possible co-operation with the United States of America in this matter as well as in all others; and express the hope that before anything is definitely determined upon, still more before anything is done, they will have secured the assent and the agreement of all our Allies. As I say, I hope that this matter in all its various aspects, and as affecting all these various interests, has already received the deep and serious attention of His Majesty's Government.
That being so, I feel sure that there are some Papers which have been drawn up in the various Departments dealing with the question. If that is so, those are the. Papers for which I wish to move this afternoon—Papers which will show the reasons which have guided His Majesty's Government in coming to the conclusion at which they have arrived, and which will enable us (the people of this country, who will be so vitally affected by this matter) to judge for ourselves as to whether we approve of the conclusions and of the reasons which have animated His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, my noble friend the Secretary of State for War had undertaken to reply to the noble Earl this afternoon, but having been unfortunately called away elsewhere on important business he has asked me at

629
the last moment to take his place. In these circumstances your Lordship will, I am sure, pardon me if my reply to the important questions which have been put by the noble Earl is less full or less authoritative than that which would have emanated from my noble friend Lord Milner.
Through the earlier part of the remarks of the noble Earl there seemed to run an impression that some novel and rather startling declaration of policy had recently been made by the Government with regard to Imperial Preference, and reference was made to a speech by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which appeared to the noble Earl to justify that inference. That is not how I, at any rate, or the Government regard the matter. Resolutions as to Imperial Preference have played a part in the proceedings I believe, of almost every Imperial Conference for years. I have not had time to verify my references in this respect, but I should be greatly surprised if they did not figure in the proceedings of every Conference for at least a decade past, presided over sometimes by members of the Party to which the noble Earl belongs. The last occasion to which I need refer is one with which I am most familiar, because I happened to be in the Government at the time, and that is the case of the Imperial Conference last year.
Now let us see exactly what passed on that occasion. The proceedings of the Conference are, as your Lordships know, laid before Parliament, and indeed the noble Earl himself referred to the particular Resolution which I am about to read. This is the wording of the Resolution which the Conference unanimously passed on April 26, 1917—
"The time has arrived when all possible encouragement should be given to the development of Imperial resources and especially to making the Empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials, and essential industries. With these objects in view this Conference expresses itself in favour of—
"(1) The principle that each part of the Empire, having due regard to the interests of our Allies, shall give specially favourable treatment and facilities to the produce and manufactures of other parts of the Empire—"
I call attention to that remark with regard to the interests of our Allies, in view of the great stress which the noble Earl laid upon the importance of acting only in accordance with the interests of our Allies—
"(2) arrangements by which intending emigrants from the United Kingdom may be induced to settle in countries under the British Flag."
630
It is stated there, and is indeed a matter of common knowledge, that that Resolution was also passed at the Imperial War Cabinet, and therefore had behind it the double authority of the Imperial Conference and of the Imperial War Cabinet, and the policy there announced stands as the policy of His Majesty's Government at the present day. No departure has been made from it, and, so far as I know, no expansion has been added to it.
In the course of last year a statement on the subject was made by the Prime Minister in a speech which he delivered in the Guildhall of London, when he received the Freedom of the City. I have not the exact date in my mind, but I was present on the occasion, and I have verified my recollection of the words that he used. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read them to the House. This is what the Prime Minister said—
"We have given grave consideration to this problem, and have decided that in order to develop these enormous territories in the future" [alluding, of course, to the wider area of the Empire] "it is necessary that exceptional encouragement should be given to the products of each part of the Empire. We believe that a system of Preference can be established which will not involve the imposition of burdens upon food. We believe that it can be done without that, and, of course, with food at its scarcest and at its dearest, this is not the time to talk about putting additional burdens on food. But for purposes of Preference that would not be essential. You can secure that, by other means, and more particularly by taking measures which other lands have taken for improving the communications between one part of their dominions and another. By these means the products of one country inside this great Imperial Commonwealth can be brought more freely, readily, and economically to the markets of the others."
Those sentiments are substantially identical with the quotation which the noble Earl read from the speeches of Sir Robert Borden in Canada and elsewhere.
Next we come to the proceedings of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies in a speech to which reference was made, alluding to the fact that he had been chairman of a Committee to advise the Cabinet as to the best method of carrying out this principle when the time should arrive—the principle being that where duties are in operation, or where new duties are imposed, in the United Kingdom, preference should be given in respect of those duties to the production of the Dominions and of the Colonies; and that principle, my Lords, the War Cabinet, acting in accordance with the previous history that I have described, affirmed.

631
The noble Earl asked me more than once for the text of the Resolution or Resolutions. I am afraid I have no idea to what he referred. There is no Resolution or Resolutions. There was a decision of the War Cabinet. The Resolutions of the Imperial Conference are published annually, as a matter of course; and if the matter comes before the Imperial Conference on this occasion and it sees fit to reaffirm its declaration of last year, or substitute a new one, that will be made public. The noble Earl himself pointed out that Sir Robert Borden had somewhere or other stated that the question had not been specifically under discussion at this Imperial Conference. I believe that to be the case; not that it has been altogether excluded, because of course the Conference never meets without discussing economic matters, but no resolution, so far as I know, has yet been tabled, discussed, or passed. In the same way, the matter has not yet been before the Imperial War Cabinet this year. Obviously it is a subject that ought to be and will be discussed at the Imperial War Cabinet before the statesmen from our Dominions go back to their homes. No decision so far has been arrived at, except one, as the noble Earl himself pointed out, quoting Sir Robert Borden, which commits the views and action of His Majesty's Government at home.
The noble Earl laid great and becoming stress upon two considerations. In the first place, the importance of acting in complete concert with our Dominions in this matter; secondly, assuming their agreement—because His Majesty's Government have, as has been shown, come into line with the policy which they have advocated for years—to the even greater importance of acting in concert with our Allies. This is all the more necessary because, as he pointed out, some of these Allies—I think he mentioned Belgium—have suffered cruel injury from the ravages and shocks of war, and it is clear that no policy ought to be adopted by us without regard to those considerations and without prior conference and consultation with them.
He further alluded to the immense importance of carrying the United States with ourselves. That we all freely admit, and we may admit it not only on general grounds but because of its obvious impor-
632
tance for the future. The fact will emerge that, at the end of the war, the British Empire and the Allied Nations in combination—if, as I hope, they remain in combination—will be masters of the greater part of the economic resources and raw materials of the world. If it is necessary at any time to use that weapon against the enemy it is quite obvious that it can only be used with advantage if there is agreement among those who wield it. Therefore it is that, in the other House of Parliament, my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has more than once, in reply to questions during the last few weeks, said that when Parliament re-assembles in the autumn it will be right and just that a full statement should be made to Parliament on this subject. Your Lordships would hardly expect that it should emanate from me in the closing hours of the present session in any circumstances; and still more, in view of the fact that there has not yet been time for that final discussion with our friends from the Dominions—and, even less, with the Allies—is it desirable to postpone the full announcement which has been promised until that collaboration has taken place. When that has happened in the autumn I can assure, the noble Earl that there will be no reluctance to give the House and the country full information on the subject which he has raised this afternoon.
Now, may I allude to one or two of the positions taken up by the noble Earl in his speech? He once again placed before us the old and familiar argument that Preference would be of no use to the Dominions unless food taxes were imposed. That is what the noble Earl himself says; but the remarkable thing is that it is not what is said by the Dominions themselves. It is certainly not what is said by their representatives when we discuss the matter with them here. They tell us that they will be only too glad to accept Preference in any form that may be decided upon as suitable. Surely, my Lords, Preference is not a question of tariffs only. Tariffs need not be the most important subject of Preference.
The noble Earl talked rather ominously about a freight war. Upon that no one would say that His Majesty's Government should embark; but as regards transport and shipping, I should have thought it by no means impossible to treat parts of the Empire better than we treat other people.

633
And, even if it were a question of tariffs only—and I have been arguing that it is not—surely that does not mean that you need have food taxes. You can, of course, impose taxes on other materials. The noble Earl went at some little length into the question of the difficulty of so doing, and he analysed some of the raw materials and other objects which might be the subject of such Preference. He will not expect me this afternoon to follow him into that branch of the subject; but, speaking generally, I would reaffirm that all that the Dominions, so far as I understand, ask is that when you do impose taxes, if you decide to do it, you will give them Preference.
The noble Earl then alluded, in terms of criticism if not of disparagement, to the oratorical performances of Mr. Hughes. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Earl was a little too sensitive upon this point. When the statesmen from the Dominions come here it is quite true that they come primarily to discharge their functions as members of the Imperial Conference and the Imperial War Cabinet, but they also come—and, indeed, they are expected—to make speeches on almost every platform throughout the country. That, I believe, in their opinion is by far the hardest part of the ordeal which they have to undergo The fact remains that while they are here they are much more acceptable as speakers throughout the country than any of us are. Nobody asks a war Cabinet Minister to come and make a speech, but bring a Minister from the Dominions, and thousands assemble to hear him, wherever he is kind enough to speak.
Broadly speaking, these statesmen, it seems to me, do accept the theory that they are not here to interfere with the domestic policy of our Government, and I have not, in so far as I have followed the Speeches of Mr. Hughes, traced any unfair or improper desire to dictate to us as to what our politics ought to be. But I think there would be considerable danger in muzzling Mr. Hughes, or in muzzling any representative of the Dominions when he comes over here; and what I would suggest to my noble friend is this—that if he is dissatisfied with these performances, or if he thinks they transgress the bounds of decorum, he should himself enter into the field against Mr. Hughes. I am certain that many platforms could be found in the country which would be adorned by the presence of
634
the noble Earl, and I cannot conceive a more interesting spectacle myself than a meeting addressed both by Mr. Hughes and the noble Earl. Anyhow, I think you would hardly expect me in this House to say more in defence of Mr. Hughes than that I believe, so far as I know, that he has not knowingly transgressed the very sound principle which the noble Earl has laid down.
The noble Earl asks me another question about "most-favoured-nation" treaties. With the general principle of the denunciation of treaties which contained "most-favoured-nation" clauses the Government has, in another place, expressed its agreement. More than once I recall that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said—as, indeed, the noble Earl recognized—that the matter is one of the very greatest complexity, and he has promised a full statement upon the matter after the recess, which, if your Lordships desire, can, of course, be made also in your Lordships' House.
The last question to which the noble Earl referred was this. He seemed to be possessed by the idea that the adoption of a system of Preference would jeopardise the prospects of the institution of a League of Nations, to which he, in common with so many members of your Lordships' House, attaches such extreme importance. I listened to his argument, but I own I found some difficulty in following it. Why should it have that result? Does the noble Earl contend that nations cannot enter into a binding engagement for the maintenance of peace in the future—which is the object of a League of Nations—without pledging themselves to the mutual adoption of free imports? Is no nation to be admitted to a League of Nations unless it pledges itself either to have no tariffs, or not to differentiate in its tariffs between imports from its own possessions and those from foreign countries when they are members of the League? If the noble Earl takes that line I must confess that I think he is raising a new, an unnecessary, and what might, in the last resort, very likely turn out to be an insuperable, obstacle in the way of the realisation of a League of Nations. It is difficult enough in all circumstances. Do not let us go out of our way unnecessarily to increase those difficulties.
In the debates which we had a few weeks ago various ideas were expressed as to the composition of the League of Nations, and

635
what nations should, or should not, belong to it. But one thing is absolutely certain. A League of Nations is wholly unthinkable that does not comprise France and the United States of America. Let me point out to the noble. Earl that both these countries are firm and unswerving adherents to the principle of Preference within their respective dominions, and, indeed, they carry it much further than it has ever been proposed that we should do in this country. Let me state what I mean. The United States differentiate strongly in favour of Cuba and the Philippines; France differentiates in favour of her great colonial empire. Are we going to decline to join France and the United States in a League of Nations unless they surrender their traditional and deeply-rooted convictions in this respect; and, on the other hand, is it contended that they will decline to join us because we have decided to adopt, perhaps rather late in the day, a system to which they have clung so tenaciously for so long. Therefore I venture to suggest that to mix up the question of Preference with that of a League of Nations is really to confuse the issue and to run the risk, which I am sure the noble Earl would be the last to wish to incur, of spoiling the chances of both.
I have now answered all the questions which my noble friend put to me, with the exception of the one about the production of Papers. For the reasons I have stated there are no Papers, to the best of my knowledge, which it would be possible at the present moment to lay; but when we have the fuller statement, which I have promised in the autumn, it will be open to the noble Earl or to any one else to ask that Papers should be laid in support of any declaration that may be made.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, if I ask permission to intervene in the debate for a single moment it will only be because, in days gone by, I took a very prominent part in all the discussions with regard to fiscal and tariff reform which were, so common and so constant in those days. I listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and it confirmed the impression I had formed during the delivery of the speech which immediately preceded him, that this really was a somewhat inopportune time to have raised many of the questions which the noble Earl has raised.
636
There is nothing in the speech of my noble friend opposite that more cordially appeals to me than what he said about Belgium, and in that I am sure your Lordships' House will unanimously concur. I do not agree in any respect with what fell from the noble Earl below the gangway with regard to Mr. Hughes. It has been my pleasure to make the acquaintance of Mr. Hughes, and I have heard him speak on more than one occasion. I am not in the least surprised at the popularity he has earned in speaking in different parts of the country whenever he has appeared on a public platform, and I am certain it indicates that, in the opinion of the British public, the views which he has advanced are not so unpopular as the noble Earl would have us believe.
I wish to say nothing further upon this point myself, but I should like, to add that whenever an opportune time arrives for the discussion of the question of Preference generally—and the time will come when we shall have to face the Herculean task of meeting our obligations when the war is over—I would utter just one word of warning with regard to that industry which is connected with the production of food. It is this, that if Preference is given to any other industry in this country the agricultural interest, which after the war will resume the position it always occupied before, as the largest, the most important, and greatest industry in the whole of the United Kingdom, will never consent to be left out in the cold.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I came down to the House feeling not a little regret that the necessity had been imposed, as I thought, upon my noble friend below the gangway, or upon some other noble Lord holding similar views to his, to raise this question at this moment. It undoubtedly appeared to me, as it also appeared to him, that this particular question of Imperial Preference had fallen into a new phase, and that it had received, definitely, a new impulse, from the speeches lately made by Mr. Long and Mr. Bonar Law, and that it was therefore almost imperative for my noble friend, or somebody else, to endeavour to elicit from His Majesty's Government the actual facts.
We have heard now from the noble Earl who leads the House that nothing has happened at all; that there has, in fact, been no advance made either by the War

637
Cabinet or anybody else in the direction of Imperial Preference over and above what, according to the noble Earl, has been the view of the Imperial Conference for a great number of years past, even, as I gathered from him, before the war. I am not certain that I can accept the accuracy of that statement, but the noble Earl's explanations will disabuse a great number of people of the opinion which they have formed, as we had, from what has happened within the last few weeks. It certainly was formed at any rate by Sir Robert Borden. The noble Earl passed rather lightly, I thought, by Sir Robert Borden's speech, and it was not clear whether he had even seen it. But it was quite evident that Sir Robert Borden's speech was made with the deliberate purpose of removing the possible belief, which was beginning to enter the minds of a great number of persons, a system of Imperial Preference having been accepted, as we all believed, in a new form by the War Cabinet, and therefore liable to be proposed in Parliament at the earliest possible moment, presumably after the war, that the Dominions might be expected to agree to such a proposal very probably involving a tax on food, with regard to which Sir Robert Borden carefully guarded himself.
We are bound to remember, after all, that this is not a new question, although the circumstances are so new. We are sometimes told that the war has altered everything, and that, former beliefs and convictions may be held to be swept away by the altered circumstances. But the war has not altered a number of elementary facts. Two and two still make four, not five; and in whatever respects fiscal policy may be altered by circumstances and the needs of the day, it need not be assumed that people will change their minds about what they believe to be the fundamental troths upon which political economy is based.
I confess that even after the noble Earl's explanation I am not entirely clear in my own mind as to what the; actual position with regard to Imperial Preference is. There is no need to go back upon ancient history, when we all remember that the year before the war Imperial Preference was announced as the accepted policy of the then Opposition. They pledged themselves to bring it into operation as soon as possible if they were returned to power, as
638
it always seemed possible they might be after another General Election, and the question of a tax upon food was left in a dubious state. The general position appeared to be that Imperial Preference would be instituted without a tax on food, but that, having got the principle assorted, efforts would then be made, in consultation with the Dominions, to pass on to the position of preferential duties upon food, on the ground, which, after all, is not ours but Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's, that for anything like a wide or effective system of Preference you must have at any rate a tax on food even if you do not desire to have one on raw materials.
The noble Earl tells us that now the Dominions would welcome the establishment of a system of Preference, even if in some case they might apparently get nothing by it at all. My impression is that, for instance, on the existing taxes New Zealand would get practically nothing out of a preferential tariff. We, of course, can take it from the noble Earl that the mere assertion of the principle is so valuable that it would be welcomed even without any material advantages whatever. But I confess I regret that it has been necessary to resuscitate this question at this moment, indeed on somewhat new lines, in spite of what has fallen from the noble Earl, and largely for the reasons which have been stated by my noble friend below the gangway. It seems to me altogether premature even to mention Colonial Preference, and certainly premature to put it, as it is now put, as the one fiscal change on which His Majesty's Government are determined, before it is possible to state what the general fiscal policy of the Government will be in respect of the war and the conditions arising out of the war.
I had the honour of being one of the representatives of His Majesty's Government at the Paris Conference, of which we have heard so much, in company with Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Hughes. Nobody yet has finally decided or; behalf of the Allies what the future dealings either of this country or the other Allied countries will be in commercial matters with Germany, when any such dealings will commence, and how far they may be limited by the discretion of the countries concerned. And rightly, because these limitations must obviously play almost a primary part—certainly a very important part—in conducting negotiations for peace, and to

639
discuss them at present would be altogether futile. Neither have the Allies so far been able to arrive at, or at any rate—if the various consultations which have, been going on have led to an agreement,—to announce, the various terms on which we shall be able to trade among ourselves during the transitional period after the war, or for the further period ahead.
The noble Earl mentioned Belgium, and the wrongs of Belgium, which we are pledged to right. Who can say what the necessity of righting the wrongs of Belgium may impose on us in relation to the question of Preference within the Empire? I am not at all prepared to say that this country would agree in many material matters to give worse terms to Belgium than to all countries within the Empire, and yet a system of Preference, blankly and uniformly adopted, would have that result. Then, again, the position as we examined it at the Paris Conference has been altered in the most material degree by the conversion of the United States from a neutral Power, as they then were, to an Allied power—a fact which of itself shows how wise we were in 1916 not to attempt at that time to formulate definite proposals. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it is a misfortune that His Majesty's Ministers, sadly and painfully misunderstood as the noble Earl has endeavoured to show us, have somehow put themselves into a position where they have caused it to be supposed that this question of Imperial Preference is raised in the very front line of matters which have to be dealt with at as early a date as possible.
My noble friend, the noble Viscount behind me, who has just spoken, naturally is greatly rejoiced, because he has been all his life a most convinced champion of Protection in all its forms, and since I believe it to be the case that it is impossible to establish a system of Imperial Preference without a system of general Protection—of that I am entirely convinced, and challenge contradiction upon it—I naturally regard these proposals as part of a great whole. Holding, as I do, the views of one who believes that Free Trade for revenue should be the rule subject to certain exceptions, practically all of them concerned with national security in one form or another, I naturally take a different view from those who, like the noble Viscount behind me, believe that a protective
640
system should be the rule, and that concessions should only be made to free imports in certain cases of necessity.
The noble Earl replied to complaints which were made by the noble Earl below the gangway regarding some of the speeches made by my right lion, friend Mr. Hughes. It undoubtedly has been conceived here that Mr. Hughes has somewhat overstepped the line in some of the speeches he has made in recommending action by Government on matters which are held to be of domestic rather than of Imperial concern—domestic concern in the same sense, as my noble friend pointed out, in which Australian conscripton is a domestic concern, although it is also in the highest degree an Imperial concern. I think this has to be remembered about Mr. Hughes in his discussion of fiscal matters. I do not conceive that he looks at them from the point of view either of a Protectionist or of a Free Trader; he looks at them simply from the point of view of an opponent of Germany. So far as I am able to judge, although I have no doubt he would express an opinion in favour of Imperial Preference, his prime desire is to found our system of Imperial trade on a rule that we should have no dealings with Germany, either immediately after the war, or indeed at any other time, so far as it is possible to look ahead. And holding that view as he does, his speeches on the subject are naturally highly coloured.
I have no desire to discuss the particular points of Imperial Preference—the limitations of taxes on food, the possibility of taxing some raw material, and the like; but I desire to say this, that if all that is meant by a system of Imperial Preference is a system of subsidised steam-shiplines for the benefit of the Dominions and Colonies and of nobody else, that may or may not be a right thing to do, but it is not Imperial Preference in the sense in which it is ordinarily understood. The phrase "Imperial Preference" has become a term of art meaning tariffs. As the noble Earl pointed out, there are some other respects in which Preference can be given to the Dominions or the Crown Colonies; but if tariffs are excluded from this new scheme, then I think the term loses some of its meaning to most people, and some of its charm to many people, such as my noble friend behind me.
As it is, I am glad that this debate has taken place. What my noble friend

641
believed and what, a great many of us believed to be an important matter has been minimised and pared down to the smallest dimensions by the noble Earl, opposite. I suppose we are allowed now to go home and forget all about the matter. I hope we may assume that if speeches are made in the autumn the country will not be stumped in the interests of Imperial Preference, either from the Tariff Reform point of view or any other: that, in fact, the whole business has only come up by a pure accident and something of a misunderstanding, and that, being as we are all united in our devotion to the Empire, we can go home and feel that we are all perfectly agreed.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I did not like to interrupt my noble friend, but I wish to say this, that when he described me as the champion of Protection in all its forms, that his never been my view or the policy that I should wish to pursue. I have been, on the other hand, a determined opponent, from the first time that I took part in politics, of a system which was wrongly called free Trade, for I have never yet learnt and I do not know to-day of any leading country in the world with which our trade is free.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sure my noble friend knows that I have no indention of misrepresenting his views, which I hope are well known to the world.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not think the occasion has come for a full-dress debate on the subject of Free Trade and Tariff Reform, but, after such a speech as that to which we have just listened from my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, it is quite impossible for those who hold my views and those of the Party which I represent to keep their silence, because such a speech is the more noteworthy, coming as it does immediately after the speech of the noble Earl below the gangway and after the references to this subject of Lord Emmott in the debate yesterday.
As I understand my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, he and his friends of the Liberal Party adhere absolutely and without qualification to the doctrines of Free Trade which they held before the war, and they think that any proposals for Preference within the. Empire are premature. To us that is a most amazing
642
confession. We believe the experience of the war to have shown that the Free Trade system, as pursued and believed in by the Liberal Party before the war, is incompatible with national safety. I put it no lower than that—incompatible with national safety. And to secure national safety the qualifications and reservations would have to be so numerous and so large as absolutely to destroy that system, in the belief of which the Liberal Party have flourished for so many years.
As for saying that it is premature to consider whether there should be Preference within the Empire with our Dominions, our Colonies, and India, that language almost seemed to us strained and unintelligible in the days of Imperial Conferences before the war; but when such language is used to-day, after the way Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and the other parts of the Empire, have stood by us in this war, and seeing that they still ask for that Preference which was consistently refused them before the war, I take the earliest opportunity of dissociating myself entirely from the view expressed by the noble Marquess. Nor do I think that he gave an accurate account of what my noble friend the Leader of this House said. What my noble friend said was that no fresh decision in respect to Preference had been taken this year; but the Resolution which he read out to us from the proceedings of the Imperial war Cabinet of last year, and the Imperial Conference of last year, surely mark a completely fresh departure in the history of this matter. It is quite true that time and again this subject his been brought up at Imperial C inferences, and we know the attitude which the Government, of which my noble friend was an ornament, always adopted towards those Resolutions when brought forward by Sir Joseph Ward, or some other Colonial statesman. But, according to my recollection and understanding of the position, for the first time last year His Majesty's Ministers in this country joined with His Majesty's Ministers from the Dominions in asseverating the necessity for that policy, and passed Resolutions in the Conference and in the War Cabinet to which His Majesty's Government here in the United Kingdom was just as much a partner as His Majesty's Government in the Dominions over the seas. Therefore, while it is quite true that no fresh departure has been made this year, a very fresh departure was made last

643
year, and one which will mark the turning of public opinion. Because I do not mind prophesying here that my noble friends the Liberals are absolutely out of touch with national feeling if they think that the nation, Liberal or Conservative, is any longer reluctant to accept the principle of Preference with our brethren beyond the seas, or that at the next General Election you will not, whatever Party is returned to power, have an almost unanimous national vote for doing all that is in our power to assert that doctrine of Preference.
Nor is the noble Marquess behind me justified in whittling down my noble friend's statement about the nature of Preference. My noble, friend did not say that communications and transport were the only forms of Preference. He said that tariffs were not the only forms of Preference, and that there were, in addition to this, means of assistance through transport and communication. That is a totally different statement from the one which the noble Marquess tried to fasten on my noble friend. I do not want to go further into this matter to-day, but I could not possibly lot that speech pass without making my protest.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I approach this question from a somewhat different angle from that which I believe your Lordships have taken. I have always been a Free Trader, not because I did not think that a sound tariff was by far the best policy, but because I have never been able to see the way by which a country which is ruled by Parties and by votes could hope to obtain a scientific tariff. I was in Melbourne when the first tariff of the Commonwealth was being framed, and what I saw and heard there confirmed me most strongly in that view. It was said at the time that if the Parliament which was framing that tariff had sat at Sydney, which was the capital of the Free Trade Colony of New South Wales, the tariff would have been something very different. I believe that to be true, but if it is true it means that the mere chance of the location of the place at which Parliament sat determined the form of tariff. Could anything be more unscientific than that? 0n Monday last Lord Emmott gave us what seemed to me to be the; wisest possible advice. He said "Postpone all tariff questions till after the war." I believe that this is the right course for the country to take now. We have to win the war,
644
and when the war is won we can again talk about questions of Tariff Reform. It seems to me that a wrangle between Tariff Reformers and Free Traders and Protectionists during the war would be really worse than unprofitable. When the war ends there will be many uncertainties, but one thing seems to me to be absolutely certain—that there will be a frantic scramble among all countries for raw materials, and we must safeguard our interests and those of our Allies in the scramble which I believe must take place. I believe that the best way to do that would be to pass the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill, which is hung up somewhere in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act to be voted afresh every year. By that means it seems to me that we should obtain a lien on our own raw materials, and that we should secure an orderly distribution to our Allies. The enemy countries could then have the surplus, if there were any, which seems to me to be very unlikely. But if that is not done I am not at all clear that Germany may not outwit and outbid us in the scramble which I think is certain to come.
We do not know what stocks of raw material are under the control of Germany at this moment. We do know that such stocks have been discovered in America; and we have been so much more tender to German interests in this country than the Americans have been that it is quite possible that considerable stocks are in some way or another now controlled by Germans waiting to be used when the end of the war comes. I think that in a promiscuous scramble which may happen after the war Germany might succeed in getting an undue amount of raw materials, which would be, ostensibly of course, sent through neutrals. So that I believe that the plan I suggest is the safest course, and I have reason to believe that it will be welcomed by France and by Italy, and probably also by the United States. I believe also that it would have considerable effect and exercise a great amount of pressure in Germany. It would bring pressure to bear upon Germany because so long as that law continued so long would Germany be restricted in her materials. It would therefore be to her best interests to behave in the best possible way so that the time might come when she would have an equal chance in free markets for obtaining the materials which she requires.
EARL BRASSEY: My Lords: I was very anxious for some information as to the policy of the Government as regards imperial Preference, but for very different reasons from those of the noble Earl who opened the discussion this afternoon. I was anxious to know what the policy of the Government is, because it seems to me that the position of this country is very serious, and that the outlook for the future of our trade after the war is full of anxiety.
I disagree with what fell from the last speaker and also with the view of the noble Marquess on the Front Bench. I think it is absolutely important that this question of Imperial Preference, of fiscal policy, should be decided now during the war, and that we should not wait till the end of the war before we come to a decision on this question; and for this reason. It is absolutely important for manufacturers to know during the war under what conditions the trade of the country is going to be carried on after the war, that they may lay out their plans with proper forethought for providing employment for those masses of our people who will be no longer in the employment of the Government at the end of the war. I look upon the present position as serious, because in every war in which this country has been previously engaged the trade and shipping of the country have prospered in spite of the war. In the present war conditions have been very different, as we learnt in the debate which took place in this House on Monday last. I think I am correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, told us that from his experience a good deal of our international trade had gone without prospect of recovery.
A fact which was not mentioned in that discussion, and which impresses me profoundly, is that the balance of imports over exports has now risen to something like £80,000,000, and during the first six months of the present year amounted to £400,000,000. In pre-war days the balance of imports over exports represented the earnings of our shipping and the interest on our investments abroad. During this war the Mercantile Marine has suffered enormous losses. Lord Inchcape told us, I think, that 8,000,000 tons of British merchant shipping had been sunk; and the shipping that has not been lost is under Government control.
646
Whereas the shipbuilding of the Allies as a whole has, I believe, now overtaken the losses due to enemy submarines, that is not the case with regard to British shipping. Our investments abroad are largely in the hands of the Government; and, therefore, the present position is that the balance of our imports over exports is largely increasing our indebtedness to foreign countries, and it is of more vital importance than ever for us to keep our export trade going.
I would now like to say a few words on what seems to me to be the chief lesson to be drawn from our experience during this war, which has caused so many people—Liberals as well as Conservatives—to change their opinions. The first lesson which I think we should draw from the war is that every country should in its own interests establish, as far as possible within its own borders, all essential industries, of which the most important are the production of food-stuffs and materials for munitions. I think it is true to say that the loss of her oversea trade would long ago have brought Germany to her knees if she had not for many years before the war, of set purpose, pursued the policy of building up essential industries by securing to her own producers their home markets. What was the result? A phenomenal progress in agriculture and in commerce of Germany; emigration ceased, and there was a large growth in population. We pursued a very different policy, and what was our position at the outbreak of the war? We were dependent on foreign countries for a large proportion of our food-stuffs, and for articles essential in the production of munitions; and that despite the fact that we had in the British Empire the raw materials for the production of many of these articles. I refer especially to the zinc concentrates from Australia which were sent to Germany to be smelted under the German Metallgesellschaft, and we then bought the zinc back from Germany, with the result that, when war broke out, our ordinary supply of zinc, which was very essential for the manufacture of munitions, was cut off, and we had to pay for zinc from America something like £100 a ton, when that commodity was worth a few days before from £20 to £22.
There is one other point which very much impresses me in connection with Imperial Preferene—namely, the question of settling ex-Service men in the Dominions, which is

647
occupying a great deal of public attention. The Dominions can give inducements to ex-Service men to settle by offering land on favourable terms; but the British Government has no right, no Government has any right—I do not suppose it would attempt to do so—to prevent ex-Service men emigrating to any country where they can sell their labour or employ their capital to the best advantage. If we want to ensure British emigrants remaining under the British flag we must give a preference to the products of the Dominions. I think that there can be no possible question that, if Imperial Preference had been adopted when Mr. Chamberlain proposed it, the British Empire would have gone into this war very much stronger as regards population, and would have been in a very different position from that in which it is to-day. It is possible that many people—like the noble Earl who opened the discussion this afternoon—may adhere to the old principles of Free Trade; but the lessons and experiences of this war have caused many others to alter their opinions. It may, perhaps, interest the noble Marquess of the Front Bench to know that my father—than whom there was no more staunch champion of Free Trade for over eighty years—in the last year of his life completely changed his opinion and became a firm believer in Imperial Preference; and we who had differed on this subject for fifteen years were in agreement during his last year of life.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks I feel great anxiety about the present and the future position of this country. I am not sure that, in the prosecution of the war, the permanent interests of the country have not been too much lost sight of. I welcome the announcement that the Government intend to go forward with a policy of Imperial Preference, and I trust that ere long we shall know that they have taken effective steps in that direction.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw my Motion I should like to offer my best thanks to the noble Earl the Lord President for the very full answer he gave to the Question I put on the Paper. The fact that he was willing to take the place of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War is another example, if he will allow me to say so, of the unremitting labours which he is always ready to place at the service of this
648
House. I am very much obliged to him for having done so.
I will only say that his statement was a matter of very great satisfaction to me, as I am sure it will be to those who think with me. I understand that there is nothing new on the part of His Majesty's Government; that no new policy was inaugurated when Mr. Walter Long made his speech. The satisfaction which I feel is not likely, I confess, to be shared by those who do not agree with me; and I am afraid the announcement will be received with a good deal of dissatisfaction by some of the noble Earl's own supporters. But, in view of the fact that there are no Papers beyond those circulated last year, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CONTROL OF ROADS AND BRIDGES.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether it is proposed that the newly appointed Controller of Roads and Bridges in the United Kingdom (a military officer) shall control the construction, maintenance, and management of all roads in the United Kingdom.

2. Whether this officer has had any experience of road construction, traffic management, or local government.

3. How many officers and staff this new military-control department of roads possesses.

4. What is the annual cost, including salaries, of the Controller and his staff.

5. Whether the Road Board, the County Councils Association, and local authorities, county and borough councils, and district councils now responsible, by law, for road construction and maintenance, have been consulted.

6. Whether there is any intention of superseding or abolishing the Road Board or of continuing military control of roads and bridges in the United Kingdom after the end of the war.

649

7. What statutory authority, if any, the new military Controller possesses enabling him to interfere with and over-ride the considered policy and wishes of local authorities, and whether any special legislation is proposed to authorise interference with roads and bridges now maintained almost wholly by the ratepayers.

8. Whether in the new organisation there are any representatives of the interests of the users of roads or owners of vehicles; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for raising this subject. The question is a very important one in war time, because roads are, or will be, subjects of the greatest possible; interest in this country, not only to county authorities but to the many classes of roads users.
Fortunately, to-day, I hope to be very brief, because since I put down the Notice on the Paper I have had certain communications with the War Office, and we have at any rate come to a preliminary measure of agreement with regard to certain aspects of this question. I know I shall be excused if, for a moment or two, I give the history of the controversy and also the views of the Road Board, on which I am the English representative. The roads in this country are in the charge at the present moment of something like 2,500 local authorities. The mileage of the roads under the district, county, and borough councils is about 230,000 miles, and it would be a very serious thing, and indeed unprecedented, if even under the Defence of the Realm Act any serious attempt was made by the War Office, or any Government Department, to take over the control of these roads.
The real history of this dispute between the Road Board and the War Office is rather difficult to fathom, but I may say this, that from the beginning of the war till the end of 1917 there had been, as far as I know, no serious controversy between the two bodies. The Road Board acted as agent for the War Office and other Government Departments in the repair and maintenance and in some cases the construction of new roads. At the end of last autumn there appeared a new title given to one of the officers of the Department known as D.L. 2—a title suddenly
650
established—of Controller of Roads and Bridges in the United Kingdom. I was overseas at the time, but I am informed by the local authorities that that title gave great offence, and they read into it an attempt, on the part of the War Office to assume considerable powers of control over roads. I have since been assured that perhaps the fears were exaggerated. The fact is that in these days, although local authorities are only too anxious to assist the Government in every way, we all know that the Defence of the Realm Act has been strained in many directions, and I venture to think in this direction the provision of Section 5A, which is the particular section which gives the War Office power to deal with roads, has been very much strained indeed.
I do not wish, however, to go into any great controversial matters about this, but the fact was that until the end of 1917 the Road Board had done a very great deal of work for all Government Departments, who I am glad to say expressed satisfaction at the way it had been carried out. It still to-day is employing 8,000 hands by direct labour and superintending a great deal of improvement and maintenance work through the county and district councils. The particular section under which the War Office have undoubted power to control to a certain extent the repair of roads, was materially helped by an Order in Council of February 5 of this year, which gave the War Office power to take control over the maintenance of highways, and deal with damage done by extraordinary traffic, if the local authorities declined to make that damage good, but I may perhaps differ slightly from the noble Lord who is going to answer my Questions in thinking that that is where the Defence of the Realm Act has been strained. It is only in the case of damage being done and the local authority being recalcitrant that the War Office are entitled to interfere to any serious extent with the repair of roads.
The county surveyors also have represented to me that they have to do double duties. They have to attend on the engineers of the Road Board, and also on the controlling officers who act under D.L. 2. This gives them extra work and shows a certain amount of overlapping. I may mention that there has been one very useful result, I think, of the War Office taking an interest in the roads,

651
namely in the establishment of the Road Stone Committee, which was appointed to take over the control of the output of stone quarries and to regulate the supply for the more important work that had to be done. That was, I think, an important departure on the part of the War Office, and I have nothing but praise for that. I believe it has worked on the whole fairly well. The County Councils Association feel very strongly about the matters to which I have been referring, and I am assured by the county surveyors that they feel very strongly about it; and so the Road Board in what I have said is not only representing its own views, which I think are moderate and can be sustained, but also the views of the local authorities and the County Councils Association, which recently passed a resolution supporting us.
No one denies that the War Office ought to have complete control over roads, and traffic over roads, in cases of invasion, and that they ought even without invasion actually occurring to see that main roads are suitable for military traffic. Nobody will grudge them that power, but I think they have gone a good deal beyond that, and thus this rather difficult position arose. I have also to admit with some regret that Sir George Gibb, who has been the very able Chairman of the Road Board since its formation nearly ten years ago, was taken away for other duties in connection with arbitration work and the Committee of Production, and therefore has only been able to give nominal attention to his duties at the Road Board. I do not think he will disagree with me in my opinion that if he had been able to attend regularly a good deal of the trouble that has arisen would not have occurred. We cannot blame the War Office for taking up certain work which had been abandoned to a certain extent, unwillingly, but owing to force of circumstances, by the Road Board. I venture to suggest to the Government that if the services of Sir George Gibb are so valuable, as I think, in his capacity as arbitrator and as Chairman of the Committee of Production, they should make some definite arrangement by which he should be relieved of the duties in connection with the Road Board or spared for those duties by giving half time service to the Department over which he has been appointed and in respect of which he is paid a considerable salary.
I am glad to tell the House that this afternoon I shall not trouble them with any long debate, and as regards the Question on the Paper if the noble Lord who is going to answer it will give me the satisfaction of an answer to paragraph 6 I will spare him, with the greatest pleasure, the task of giving detailed answers to the other paragraphs, which are rendered unnecessary by the friendly conversation which we have had since I put the Question on the Paper. I do not want to go into details of the arrangement which I hope may be come to, but I may tell the House this, that I have suggested to the Government that we should have a Joint Road Committee on which certain Government Departments and certain local authorities should be represented; that that Committee should take over certain duties from the War Office and certain duties which the Road Board are carrying out, and that it should be a Committee acknowledged by the Government as a Committee to deal with road repair and construction during war—with that class of construction and repair due to military or special traffic—because it must be remembered that a good deal of this friction has arisen over the question of the assessment of damage by timber traffic, which is a necessity of the country at this moment. In my opinion, it is not primarily a military necessity, although it is a national necessity. The Board of Trade is really as much interested in that matter as, or even more than, the War Office. I speak in no hostile spirit whatever to the War Office, because—as, perhaps, I may remind your Lordships—I have had experience for four years in India in the military sense, in connection with the roads on the North-West Frontier, and, in fact, at the present moment I produce a report every year for the Government of India on the roads from a military point of view.
I cannot be considered entirely a representative of the local authorities in this matter. On the other hand, I can claim to have been a very old member of the Hampshire County Council and, for a number of years, of its highway committee, and also a member of the County Councils Association. I trust, therefore, I shall not be accused of unduly favouring either the side of the military or that of the local authorities. I have no doubt that if this Committee is formed, as I hope it will be, we shall be able to secure the cordial cooperation of the local authorities. Certainly,

653
so far as I am concerned, and so far as the members of the Road Board are concerned, we shall do everything we can to make the Committee, or some body like it, a success.
I think I shall be safe in asking the noble Earl to tell us when he replies that this authority, when it is created, will not be continued after the war and that then the whole question of the roads will possibly have to be reconsidered afresh. Military control of our roads should cease at the earliest possible moment after our military necessities, due to the war, have disappeared. There is nothing in which our county and district councils are more sensitive than the question of interference with their local rights in regard to roads. I am quite sure that my noble friends, who have written me on the subject, will agree with me in that statement. My object in raising the debate, although we have come to some form of agreement, is to say that I am glad we have been able to do so, that I dislike extremely the fact of Government Departments quarelling at all during the war, and that, so far as I am concerned, my efforts have been directed towards trying to get a compromise arranged, and to get some method whereby we could secure harmonious working between the War Office and other authorities. I hope the noble Earl will assure me on the point of continuing War Office control after the war. I can assure him that I shall try to work with the new Committee to bring about harmony between the War Office and local authorities.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Question on the Paper upon the same subject—
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the scope of the authority of the Controller of Roads and Bridges in the United Kingdom, and the extent of his duties.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I intervene to ask the noble Earl, when he replies, to be so good as to answer the Question standing in my name, which is germane to the subject just raised by the noble Lord. This Question has a somewhat pathetic interest in it from the fact that the last time the noble Earl, Lord Lich-field, was in the House—your Lordships know he was the very able spokesman of the County Councils Association—he asked me to take charge of it for him, as he would
654
be unable to be present at the end of the Session. I undertook to do so. Therefore, I thought it necessary to put the Question, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, and to ask the noble Earl what is the scope and authority of the Controller of Roads and Bridges in the United Kingdom and the extent of the duty which the Government propose should be entrusted to him.
I should like also, on behalf of the County Councils Association, to ask to what extent will this Controller have power to interfere with local authorities in their control and management of, and expenditure upon, roads. When I say local authorities I include not only county councils, but, as the noble Earl knows, rural district councils, urban district councils, and municipal authorities which, in certain cases, have control of the roads in their own areas, and which, of course, enter into this matter as well.
I want to know farther whether, supposing the Controller orders new roads to be made, or roads to be improved because, he does not think their standard is good enough, or because he wants alterations, that will be done entirely at the expense of the Government, or will the local authority be compelled to contribute the whole or part of the cost? I can assure the noble Earl, on behalf of the County Councils Association, in the same way as my noble friend, Lord Montagu, has assured him, that of course then is no hostility to the War Office in this matter. As local authorities we are willing to do all we can to assist the Government. On the other hand, we have a duty to our constituents and to our ratepayers to see that, if obligations of national importance are put upon us in any particular area, their cost should not fall entirely on the local rates, but that the expenditure should be borne by the country at large, for whose good the expenditure is made.
LORD ROUNDWAY: My Lords, I eranestly hope, as Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has led us to understand, that the appointment of the Controller of Roads and Bridges will be only of a temporary character. I may venture to say that I have been closely associated with the subject for a good many years, as chairman of the main roads committee of the county in which I happen to dwell. I can, therefore, speak with some small knowledge and ex-

655
perience of the value and ability of the experts who, in recent years, have had control of the roads in my own county. I cannot speak too highly of their ability and their earnestness of purpose. I believe that these gentlemen—they happen to be two in number—are typical of the county surveyors throughout the length and breadth of England.
With the knowledge at present at my disposal it seems to me that it would be very unfortunate to interfere in any way with men who have such a thorough knowledge of their business, and I sincerely hope that no friction will arise. I am sure that the county surveyors will do everything in their power to meet the War Office or any other great public authority in these important matters. They realise the direction in which their duty lies, and they are willing to do their utmost. I do hope that their authority will not be interfered with more than can possibly be helped, and I will only add that, apart from that, so far as I can judge, the introduction of fresh authorities is only an additional source of expenditure at a time when the country has to consider every penny of expenditure.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, perhaps before I answer the specific Questions which have been put to me by noble Lords opposite, it would be to the convenience of the House if I give, very briefly, an outline of the genesis and development of the Department at the War Office. I think there has been a good deal of misunderstanding on the subject, partly on account of an unfortunate name, and perhaps I may be able to do something to remove it. In the early days of the war camps, military centres, aerodromes, and munition factories, as your Lordships know, sprang up all over the country. Some of them were situated close to main roads, but many of them were badly situated in that respect, being served only by small roads which were quite unfitted to take heavy traffic.
It was, of course, at once obvious that the damage caused both in constructing these factories and camps, and, still more, by the actual traffic afterwards, would be very considerable, and that the cost of repairing the damage was not fairly a charge which could be put on the local rates. It then became necessary to allot the damage,
656
where it had been at the instance of the State, to the taxpayer rather than the ratepayer. The Directorate of Lands Branch of the War Office, which prior to the war was responsible for dealing with claims for compensation in cases of damage to roads by extraordinary military traffic, has continued to deal with these claims for compensation after war broke out, and a section of that Directorate, D.L. 2, was made responsible. The Road Board was asked to become the agent for the War Department in settling these questions with local authorities, and from that time the officers of the Road Board have given us most invaluable assistance. We have consistently used the officers of the Road Board for giving us technical advice, and we have also been, of course, in very close touch with the surveyors of highway authorities, who have given us every assistance in their power. Therefore, your Lordships will not be surprised when I tell you that the Controller of Roads himself made very strong representations, when the House of Commons Retrenchment Committee in 1915 proposed to close down the Road Board for the period of the war, that the Committee's recommendation should not be adopted, as he was anxious to continue to make use of the technical staff of the Board.
Subsequently the Ministry of Munitions, and later still the Air Ministry, made use of this Department of the Directorate of Lands at the War Office to deal with the roads with which they are concerned. Apart from the actual damage to the roads, there were obviously many side roads which required widening, and also new roads to be made, purely and simply to connect main roads with factories and camps. At a later state difficulties arose in carrying out the necessary work owing to the shortage of material, and still more to the shortage of labour, and it became necessary to allot both labour and material to the places where most urgently needed. For that reason Defence of the Realm Regulation 5A was made, enabling the Army Council to take over the maintenance of roads where the highway authorities were unable to do the work themselves. The power has been very rarely used, and, as far as I know, it has never been used in opposition to the local authority. It is merely to assist them where they are unable to get the necessary labour to do the work which they would otherwise be ready to do. Thereafter a further Regulation was

657
passed, Regulation 9GG (5), under which the Road Stone Committee was formed to control the output and sale of road material so as to ensure sufficient for the roads of national importance. The Committee consists, as your Lordships know, of representatives of the Road Board, local highway authorities, and the War Office.
Then there arises, finally, the question of damage from timber haulage. A large amount of timber was cut all over the country and used almost entirely for Government purposes. Contractors refused to do the haulage unless they were protected to some extent from claims for damage which it was quite impossible for them to foresee and which might be very considerable in amount, and, as they thought, possibly unfair to them. As the timber haulage was almost entirely for national purposes, the Government decided that it was only right that they should take over the responsibility for this damage under certain conditions. The first of those conditions was, obviously, that there should be some machinery by which the pocket of the taxpayer should be safeguarded from unnecessary damage by controlling, as far as possible, the traffic to roads which were able to stand it. Regulation 5c was therefore made, and the officer at the head of the section of the Directorate of Lands became known by the title of Controller of Roads and Bridges, United Kingdom. As the noble Lord said, that name gave rise to considerable apprehension.
The Army Council never contemplated forming a great military Department to control roads, or to maintain roads and bridges, nor to take away the duties of local authorities. All that was intended was to safeguard the taxpayer from the liability of any unnecessary burdens, the actual work of maintenance being carried out under the highway authorities in consultation with the Road Board. It was proposed that officers should be appointed to regulate and control traffic so as to cause as little damage as possible, and to see that only such damage was paid for as was chargeable to the State. The officer at the head of that Department has been engaged on this work since September, 1914, and has had experience of a somewhat similar character before the war. He has a staff of thirty-six, of whom fourteen are officers, and the total cost is under £8,000.
As to the question asked by Lord
658
Montagu of Beaulieu whether it was the intention of the War Office, to continue this military control of roads and bridges after the war, I imagine there will certainly be some control for a short period after the war, for obvious reasons. Camps will have to be pulled down which are no longer required. But the Defence of the Realm Regulations will come to an end with the war, and—though I cannot, of course, give a pledge that a future Government will not abolish what this Government may decide to do—I shall be very surprised if there is any question of establishing a military control over roads and bridges once the necessities of the war and demobilisation have been met. The Army Council have never had any intention of undermining the authority of local bodies, or of displacing the Road Board. I am bound to admit that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding and friction, I think quite unnecessarily, chiefly because of the name "Controller of Roads." The very last thing that is desired by the Army Council is that there should be any misunderstanding or friction with local authorities. We are absolutely dependent on their good will and assistance to carry out this scheme of control, with, of course, the co-operation of officers and members of the Road Board. Therefore, we have no intention of taking up an obstinate attitude.
I am very glad to be able to tell your Lordships that, largely owing to the assistance of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, we hope we have now a scheme, which we are about to inaugurate, which I think will do away with any misunderstanding. The scheme has been approved in principle by the various Government Departments, but not in every detail; therefore I cannot give it in full to the House. The general lines of it are that there shall be set up a Committee, called the Joint Roads Committee, which will consist of representatives of the Road Board, local authorities, and the Government Departments concerned. It will not be a new office, but the Committee will take over the work of A.L. 2 at the War Office, and, of course, also the work of the Road Board, and we hope by combining these duties and responsibilities, and by getting representatives of the other Government Departments concerned, we shall be able to avoid any possibility of friction and overlapping. As your Lordships see, our desire is to work very closely with the local authorities; and I can only repeat that it is thanks to them and to the way in which

659
their officials have helped us, that we have been able to carry on the very large amount of traffic of an extraordinary character entirely due to the carrying on of the war that has been thrown on the roads.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very interesting reply, and in the circumstances I withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MIDWIVES BILL.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE rose to ask whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to proceed with the Midwives Bill [H.L.]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I placed on the Paper the Question standing in my name my attention has been called to the fact that a similar Question was asked in another place, I think two days ago. As the answer that was there given was of a quite perfunctory character, I think that we have a right in this House to know a little more about the matter, especially as the Bill originated from this House.
The Minister in another place said that the Bill had come to an end owing to an error in drafting, but that it was proposed to bring forward a similar Bill next session. In reference to a Bill of this very serious character, affecting issues which are vital to the life of the nation, I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that that kind of answer is not satisfactory. It is not a sufficient reason to be told, after a very great deal of trouble has been spent in drafting this Bill, and after a considerable amount of discussion has taken place on it in this House, and after it has been amended and sent down to the other end of the passage, that it has been abandoned because of some error in drafting. We cannot accept its dissolution on the mere statement that there has been an error in drafting, and with being told that the Government intend to produce a similar Bill next session. This method of Parliamentary procedure will not commend itself to people outside who are studying the progress of this Bill.
This is a Bill the importance of which it is impossible to exaggerate, and it seems to me that the untimely fate which it has suffered is an argument in favour of coordinating legislation of this kind, dealing with the health of the nation, under a single
660
authority. It is sincerely to be hoped that the Government will press forward with the Ministry of Health Bill in order that mistakes of this character may not occur in the future. I do not wish to blame anybody in particular for the loss of this Bill. It is the system which appears to be at fault. But it is not very satisfactory to those who wish to promote the welfare of those who were contemplated to be dealt with under this Bill to be told as we may be told, that the difficulty in the way of its passage is that certain lines in the Bill were not printed in italic, and that for that reason the whole object of the Bill is to stand over until next Session. There may not be time to introduce a Bill next Session. It may be put off in a dozen different ways. I therefore beg the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government to give your Lordships the information to which we are entitled concerning what it is that has stopped this Bill, and to reaffirm the promise given by the Government in another place that they will introduce this Bill, or one similar to it, at the earliest possible moment next Session.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, may I say one word before the noble Viscount replies. I was taken quite by surprise on hearing the account given by the noble Lord opposite of the fate that has befallen the Midwives Bill. I was aware that it had been postponed, and I could not understand why, because the Bill seemed to have been recognised as one of great importance, and when it was discussed a question was raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as to whether there was likely to be any conflict between the Maternity Bill and the Midwives Bill. There was no suggestion made at that time that the Midwives Bill was in any sort of danger, and it seems almost incredible to me that the explanation given by the noble Lord opposite can be the real reason for the dropping of the Bill.
If there was some mistake in drafting, what difficulty can there have been in making that right and letting the Bill pass? I hope that it is not actually the case that the Bill has been dropped. The session is not at an end by any means, and if it be only a question of a little trouble in putting a piece of drafting right it really seems monstrous on that account that a Bill of such importance should be allowed to drop. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Viscount that the Bill has not been dropped,

661
and that there may be some prospect of its proceeding this session.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I will try, in answering the question of my noble friend, to be as little perfunctory as I can, but I am afraid that there is not a great deal of information to give him. I think that he is under some misunderstanding about the Bill, because he seemed to be under the impression that it was the fault of some Public Department and due to want of co-ordination. This is not one of those matters that would be at all affected by the establishment of a Ministry of Health. I think that the noble Lord is under another misapprehension as to an undertaking or promise that the Bill should be brought forward in the next session of Parliament. The promise that was given was that the President of the Local Government Board would do his best to bring this Bill forward again, not next session, but after the adjournment, which the noble Lord sees is a different thing.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: The noble Viscount is quite right; that is what I should have said.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That consoles the noble Lord to some extent.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Not very much.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It means a delay of two months instead of six. I join the noble Lord in deploring the fact that this Bill, over which this House spent a great deal of trouble—and upon which there were keen debates and on one important matter I believe the Opposition beat the Government, which is always a legitimate source of satisfaction to any Opposition—should have been delayed in its progress in the other House.
With reference to what my noble friend behind me says, that if it is only a matter of drafting why could not that be put right in another place, I have to state that it is not a matter of drafting. It is a matter of privilege. There were certain clauses in the Bill connected with the raising of rates which ought to have been altered in a particular form when they got into another place, and ought, in fact, not to have appeared in the form in which they did appear. Nobody is responsible fortunately
662
in this House, and so your Lordships may consider that you did everything you could to promote the fortunes of this Bill. It appears also that it was not one of those cases of privilege where the other House might have waived its privilege. It was one of those cases where the authorities held—and held, I believe, inevitably—that the Bill could proceed no further.
There is, therefore, no other remedy than that proposed by the President of the Local Government Board, who will do his best to bring forward the Bill after the recess. In that case I trust that your Lordships, having welcomed the Bill, will give it a very ready passage through this House, so that it may become law at the earliest possible date. I am afraid that is the whole state of the matter, and I regret that I cannot give a more satisfactory answer to my noble friend. I hope, however, that he will not consider the answer which I have given perfunctory.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Lord above the gangway will not regard the reply of the noble Viscount as perfunctory, because he expressed all the regrets that a man in his situation could express. At the same time I am bound to remark that this particular incident is very extraordinary and untoward. Here is a Bill on which, as the noble Viscount stated, a great deal of time was spent here and deep interest was taken in what was considered an important though a not very wide matter of social reform; and it certainly is very disappointing, and, I am sorry to say, rather of a piece with the manner in which your Lordships' House is sometimes treated elsewhere, that more care should not have been taken to see that the Bill was considered in another place in its proper form. As the noble Viscount observed, nothing more need be said in the sense that there is nothing more to be done; but a great deal more might be said although there is no great purpose to be served in saving it. I trust that my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will consider it a matter of absolute obligation to make the reproduction of this Bill his first care when we again meet.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I shall be very glad to convey to the President the desires and wishes of the noble Lords who have spoken and especially what the noble Marquess has said.

THE POPE'S NOTE
LORD BRAYE LORD BRAYE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to repudiate the secret treaties; and to call attention to a statement made on June 13 last by His Majesty's Government that they had replied to the Pope's Note, and to the fact that no such reply has been as yet received at the Vatican.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I placed the Question and the statement which appear in my name on the Paper in separate form, but I find they are printed together. I will say only a very few words in reference to the Question. These secret treaties were alluded to in the debate of June 13, and I will take this opportunity of reminding the House of Lord Lansdowne's words that they are not pleasant reading. Secret diplomacy has been condemned by the President of the United States in no measured terms. I may well say that secret diplomacy is a snake in the grass, which poisons and kills all those who tread the field of political expediency. However successful it may be at first, it is sure at last to be the cause of the decline and fall of Empires.
With regard to the statement that I have placed on the Paper, it appears that no answer has been given during this very considerable period of time by the British Government to the Note which the Vatican addressed to all the Powers of Europe, and which most of those Powers answered, not only in the form of what I might call "Yours to hand," but in a detailed and dignified way. The best thing I can do in support of my statement is to read a letter which I have received from Rome, an inspired letter written with authority. It contains these words—
"Lord Stanmore said that the British Government, in accepting the answer of President Wilson to the Holy Father, did not deem it necessary to reply directly—"
This, of course, is an allusion to the Question which I ventured to propound on June 23 in reference to this Note—
"but it should be noted that, though the Press gave out reports to such effect, the Holy See has never received a communication from the British Government informing it of this acceptance——"
"Acceptance" there I take to be equivalent to association—that is to say, that the British Government professed to, and I
664
believe did, associate itself with the answer which the President of the United States gave on that occasion to the Holy See, and in that sense they accepted and supported and gave their consent to the President's answer. The letter continues—
"Therefore no reply has come to the Pontifical Note. When Lord Stanmore goes on to say that no offence was given to the Holy See by excluding it from the Peace Conference, since only the belligerent Powers will participate and all neutrals will be excluded, attention should be directed to the mention solely of the Holy See as agreed upon in Article XV—"
That is to say, the Holy See alone is mentioned as the Power to be excluded from any possible Conference which may take place—
"There is no mention of other neutrals. By an odious discrimination one alone is singled out for special exclusion; this exclusion gives offence to the Holy See. Obviously Article XV will be deemed offensive as long as it is in force. Therefore the failure of the British Government to reply to the Papal Note was stated correctly in the House of Lords."
As I say, that letter is sanctioned by authority, and if there is any solution to the apparent contradiction which commends itself to me it is this, that the British Government did send an answer of sorts—whatever it was I do not know; we never received the text of it—and they certainly expressed their adhesion to President Wilson's answer, but the reply was not given at Rome by our Envoy to the Pope, That is the only solution that I can conjecture, but if there is any other explanation of the matter I feel sure that the public, not only in this country but also, or more so, in Ireland and in the Colonies, will be very satisfied to have it and to know what actually took place.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, in regard to the first Question asked by the noble Lord, as to whether it is the intention of the Government to repudiate the secret treaties, it is not the intention of the Government to repudiate those treaties. In fact, of course, a secret treaty is in every way just as binding as any other kind of treaty.
In regard to the noble Lord's second Question, he rather gave the impression that no answer of any kind had been returned to the Papal Note. What actually happened was that Count de Salis had an interview with the Cardinal Secretary of State, at which he informed His Eminence that the King had gladly complied with

665
the wishes of the Pope and had at once transmitted to the Heads of the States not in diplomatic relations with the Holy See His Holiness's proposals with regard to peace. Count de Salis added that His Majesty had received those proposals with the most sincere appreciation of the lofty and benevolent intentions which had animated His Holiness, and that His Majesty's Government, would study them with the closest and most serious attention. Shortly after that, as the noble Lord pointed out, the President of the United States made his reply to the Pope's Note, and His Majesty's Government publicly stated that they associated themselves with that reply.
LORD BRAYE: May I ask the noble Lord whether the text of this reply will ever be published, or is it what I may call a confidential communication from the Government to the Vatican?
LORD STANMORE: Which reply?
LORD BRAYE: Either or both.
LORD STANMORE: The fast was in an interview.
LORD BRAYE: I understood there was an answer conveyed by Count de Salis, and then alter a considerable lapse of time, several weeks, there was another answer to the effect that we adhered to the reply of the President of the United States. There were two occasions.
LORD STANMORE: The first answer was conveyed in an interview, the substance of which I have given to the noble Lord. The second statement was made publicly in the House of Commons.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN DENMARK.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I rise to ask whether any information has been received by His Majesty's Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs as to the working of proportional representation in the first elections under the new constitution for the Lower
666
House of Parliament in Denmark, and, if so, whether the information can be furnished to the House.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am pleased to be able to inform the noble Earl that the Foreign Office are quite ready to print the document to which he refers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD HYLTON: The noble Earl the Leader of the House, who is unable to be in his place at the moment, desires me to inform your Lordships that it is intended, at the meeting of the House to-morrow, to propose an adjournment until October 15. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until twelve o'clock to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of August 6.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at six o'clock until noon to-morrow.