Lords Sitting of 29 March 1928

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
PLYMPTON ST. MARY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]

  BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOTR ROAD AND FERRY BILL. [H.L.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to the two Bills appearing first on the Notice Paper I beg to move the Motion standing in my name, that Standing Order No. 143 be dispensed with. That Order makes it necessary for certain Bills to be deposited for three days at certain public Departments before the Third Reading stage but as the normal time for the three days is to expire to-morrow, and as your Lordships are adjourning for Easter sooner than some people anticipated, I do not think you will do anything wrong in suspending the Order. These Bills, of course, are still subject to the usual stages in another place.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: Bills read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LITTLEHAMPTON GAS ORDER, 1928.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name.
  Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 13th instant be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  THE USE OF ETHYL IN MOTOR SPIRIT.
  LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER had given Notice to ask: (1), what is the constitution of the Committee set up to inquire into the danger arising from the use of lead tetra-ethyl in motor spirit; (2), why they are not sitting in public; (3), when their report is anticipated; and to move to resolve that serious warning should at once be issued by the Ministry of Health as to the possibility of danger from its use. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I ought to begin the discussion upon the Notice that stands in my name by asking the excuse of the Ministry of Health for the form in which I have prepared the Resolution that I trust your Lordships will adopt, because as it runs it looks as though I were going to ask your Lordships to resolve that the Ministry of Health ought to caution the people against the use of the Ministry—and that really was not my desire. It is not their activities, it is their inactivities of which I complain; and if the Resolution be altered so as to show that the warning which I ask them to issue is against the use of the spirit known as ethyl spirit my purpose will be accomplished.
  The first two parts of my Question will, I think, be capable of being readily answered. The first asks that we should be informed as to what is the constitution of the Committee set up in pursuance of the Resolution which was before your Lordships a month ago. I imagine that two or three hours at the outside would be enough to determine who were the people that you desired to select to make the Committee and by the use of the telephone—and possibly avoiding the telegraph—you would be able to obtain information as to whether they would assent or not in a very short space of time. I am aware—and I desire to recognise, the wisdom and the liberality of the Ministry of Health in the action—that they have asked Professor Baker to serve upon the Committee and he has informed me that owing to ill health he cannot sit at present, but I sincerely hope his place will be taken by a man equally distinguished and equally independent. Therefore the constitution of this Committee can, I imagine, be no longer in
  698
  doubt, and I think that the country ought to know how it is made up.
  The next thing is this. I want this Committee to sit in public. The Government, not in accordance with wishes that I hold but in accordance with their own view, determined to set up an inter-Departmental Committee upon this question. It appeared to me to be a matter of public importance and as the object of the Inquiry was not to determine who was responsible for the delay in handling his matter but for the purpose of considering whether the public ought to be warned against the use of this spirit, I thought an inter-Departmental Committee an inadvisable form of tribunal. However, it has been set up and the noble Marquess met me as far as he could by promising that outside people should be added to the body. Whether it is an inter-Departmental Committee with outside people added to the body or not, this is a matter on which the public is entitled to know what the evidence is. There is no secret in the matter; there can be none. They ought to hear the evidence on both sides and by that means, if by no other, they may be warned by some of the evidence as to the grave risk which people think is run by the use of this spirit.
  Those are the two first branches of my Question. In the last I want to know when the Report is anticipated. Possibly I shall be told it is impossible to know. I dare say it is, but the thing I want to know is that this matter should be prosecuted energetically. In my opinion this matter is far too grave to allow of Government Departments reclining in Olympian case while people may be suffering whom it is their business to protect, and therefore I am anxious, and one of the purposes of this Question is to secure that there should be no unnecessary time lost in the prosecution of these inquiries. And now we come to the substance of this matter, which is to ask your Lordships to adopt a Resolution calling upon the Ministry of Health to issue without delay a warning to the people who are brought into contact with this spirit and have to use it. At the present moment, although this spirit has been in use for a considerable period of time, and was advertised in this country more than nine months ago, no form of warning has been issued to any person who is compelled by his occupation to use it. I have asked

  699
  one or two people at some of these petrol stations whether they have heard of anything with regard to the danger connected with the use of this spirit. They told me "No," and one man, a very nice young fellow, told me that this stuff was splashing over his hands every day, and he could not help it. I said: "Do you know it is said that you are in very grave danger of illness if this happens?" He said: "I thank you very kindly for having told me; I know nothing about it." And that must happen every day.
  It is hard to believe that the only warning that has been issued has come from a newspaper—a paper with whose outlook upon the world I cannot be supposed to sympathise, but which has rendered a great public service in attempting to call attention to the character and quality of this spirit and to demand inquiry as to its use. It is rather remarkable that it is not the first time that that paper has anticipated what I regard as the normal functions of the Ministry of Health. There was a patent medicine that was being advertised and sold all over the country. I had entreated the Government to place under the Ministry of Health the control of patent medicines, and I received a quiet and gentle answer—which never disarms me, but which you often have to accept in the place of a definite promise—and nothing was done. It was reserved for this newspaper to say that this medicine, which was being sold and used, contained noxious and deleterious qualities, which ought to prevent its use. The paper challenged action by the proprietor of the preparation. That action was never brought, and the medicine was stopped. I do not think it is creditable that a public Department, set up and maintained by the taxpayers' money for the public good, should allow its obvious functions to be usurped by a newspaper. But that is what happened in this case.
  Is the danger resulting from this material serious or not? No answer has ever been given to the grave and serious reports that I read on the last occasion from two distinguished people, a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Cambridge and the President of the Chemical Society. No answer at all was given, and since then further information has come to my hands. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who answered me, as he always does, with candour, if sometimes
  700
  with a little acrimony, said that there was no evidence whatever of danger. Let me call your attention to another letter, which I have received, and lest you may think that these letters are from anonymous correspondents of no account, let me tell your Lordships that it is from a man who is a D.S.O., M.D. of London University, and a doctor with the diploma of the Society of Health at Cambridge, which, together, constitute, I imagine, the finest medical degrees that you can possibly get.
  This gentleman says that he has read with interest what has taken place, and goes on to say:—
  "I would like to say that on December 15 last there was submitted to me for examination parts of a car which had been run some 3,000 miles on ethyl petrol obtained from garages in this country. The deposits proved to contain over 50 per cent. of soluble lead, and in view of the dangerous nature of this material I immediately communicated the fact to our member—the Right Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lisfer—and, as arranged, I interviewed the petrol superintendent of the Board of Trade, and Mr. J. L. Jeffery, of that Department, came to my laboratory, examined the parts, and confirmed the chemical findings. He informed me that he would minute his report to the Home Office that same day, and suggested I should invite their representatives to do, as he had done, and 'see for themselves.'"
  Here is an expert man sent down from one branch of the Government and the result of what he finds is to be minuted on to somebody else, who in turn is to come down. This gentleman continues:—
  "In accordance with this suggestion, I telephoned to the Home Office, and was informed by their Chief Medical Inspector of Factories, that I should put my information into writing for their consideration, and further, that they could not move in the matter save only upon such written information. Astonishment was expressed at the fact that ethyl spirit was obtainable at garages."
  I should have thought that astonishment could not be exhibited anywhere, except in the close confines of a Government Department. He really could not think that something that is known to the world is unknown to the very Department whose business it is to control it. However, such appeared to be the case.
  On December 22 this confiding gentleman handed all the facts in writing to the Home Office, and received a printed acknowledgment, but no other communication since. Here was another man, a

  701
  man who, as I say, was entitled by his position to some consideration and who really has achieved the remarkable position of having had his report minuted by a Government Department, and yet nothing further has been done. If some unhappy man had died, as the result of the use of this spirit, there would be put over his grave the statement that the evidence was minuted to the Home Office on December 15, 1927. This doctor has written in the Medical Officer, a substantial and trustworthy paper, on January 14, 1928, some more information about this matter, which I should have thought, again, it would be the business of the Ministry of Health to know. Surely the Ministry of Health looks at the scientific and medical papers which are published. There must be some means by which you can penetrate to their intelligence. If it is not by letter or telephonic messages, if it is not by signboards outside the garages, there must be some method. I should have thought it was possible to do it.
  This is what that doctor said in the Medical Officer. I would ask the noble Marquess, who replied to me on the last occasion, to bear in mind what is said:—
  "On account of the secrecy observed, it is not possible to give exact figures as to the number of acute cases"—
  on account of the secrecy, observe, and not unnaturally, it is not possible to give exact figures—
  "as to the number of acute cases of industrial poisoning associated with the handling of this substance in the United States, between the autumn of 1923 and the spring of 1925, but the figures available with regard to fatal cases vary from 11 to 16. About 100 non-fatal cases are also known to have occurred. Cases of serious poisoning were reported"
  elsewhere. Then he goes on to deal with a number of matters with which I will not trouble your Lordships; but he point out what is undoubtedly true—that one of the most terrible effects of this poison is that death is preceded by one of the most hideous forms of insanity.
  I believe those figures are challenged. It may be easy to say: "Oh, eleven to sixteen men." Why have they been killed, and for what good purpose? We ought to know. In the interests of science, for great causes, men's lives may, and should, be sacrificed; but not for this purpose. What is it? To enable somebody who normally exceeds the speed limit by 100
  702
  per cent. to exceed it by 150 per cent. without difficulty. If you say: "This is of great value to us in our Government factories for the purpose of aeroplanes," I ask whether you have warned your employees and told the people in these factories to be careful how they use this thing; that it is a substance about which scientific opinion has expressed the strongest possible views; that they must not let it touch their hands, nor must they breathe the vapour; they must take the uttermost care, because if they do not they may fall upon some disaster, which we would prevent. If it be absolutely essential that it be used in a Government Department, it may be that the men, properly warned, must run the risk. But for private motor cars there is no reason whatever, and there is no ground upon which you can justify the fact of a single man hazarding either his life or his health simply for the purpose of enabling petrol to be used which would drive a car faster than the law permits it to go.
  That is not all. There is a great deal more to be said. I find in a local paper another scientific man writing. He gives a full account of all this, and then he gives an account of the diseases that follow. He says that:—
  "In the account of four of the deaths by poisoning, with lead tetra-ethyl in the United States, which took place October 25–30, 1924, it is said"—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Where did these deaths take place—in America?
  LORD BUCKMASTER: In America, most undoubtedly. You have not had time to kill people here yet:—
  ".… it is said that the victims became raving madmen, much resembling those suffering from delirium tremens. In those cases, which lasted longer, there was constant excitement, with hallucinations. The sufferers imagined themselves beset with foes of every kind about to injure them, while in those who recovered loss of sleep, terrifying dreams, morning sickness, loss of appetite, headache, great weakness …"
  I do not want to read to your Lordships the whole medical catalogue of all the sufferings which these wretched people had to undergo. It is sufficient to say that the result of this poison, if it does affect people, is something which is indisputably grave, that it is almost incapable of remedy, that it is cumulative, and that it is slow in action. Those

  703
  are the very things which I should have thought we ought to have protected ourselves against.
  I have received further letters, but my hesitation in quoting them at all in detail is due to the fact that I never like to quote to your Lordships' House something about which I have not got what I regard as firm and competent evidence. Up to this moment I do not think that anyone can challenge any of the authorities I have used. Their names I have given and their qualifications. This is written by a woman from New York. I cannot say whether it is right or wrong, but what she says is that Dr. Harris, the Commissioner of the Board of Health of New York City, has a long time since forbidden the sale of this spirit in New York City, although it is allowed in New York State. In its use, too, it is still forbidden in New York City according to her. Nor is it more remarkable—as your Lordships must know and I fancy even the Ministry of Health must by this time have learned—that Switzerland, a country which is pre-eminent throughout the whole of Europe for the high quality of its medical men, has forbidden the use and the sale of this spirit throughout the whole country. Why? Do you think they have done it out of spite? Their hills are hills for which, surely, it is necessary you should have this intense power of compression and this added power in order to enable motors to climb them. Why have they done it? They have done it because their scientific knowledge informs them that its use is dangerous and they will not submit their people to the danger which apparently the Ministry of Health is quite willing to submit ours to.
  I know that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) thinks that in this matter I am beset by some strange antipathy to this spirit. Really I have no feeling about the spirit at all. On the last occasion the noble Marquess criticised or reproved me for some words that I used. Part of his reproof was no doubt due to the fact that, by an accident which is common to all of us, who have to listen to debates and rely on our memory as to the accuracy of words, he quoted something that I had not said. But the general tenour of his criticism
  704
  was this, that even if he were an eminent lawyer and Judge he would hesitate to make so strong and unsupported a statement as I had made to the effect that trade had no conscience and that if you wanted to protect people from the operations of commerce you had to protect them from without and you could not rely on protection from within. Any criticism from the noble Marquess is a thing that I examine most carefully. I can assure him I am speaking with the utmost gravity when I say that. I have examined my words and gone through them to see if I was wrong. I am not prepared to withdraw one single word of what I have said and I am prepared to repeat it whenever occasion arises.
  The noble Marquess asks me for evidence. I would ask him to go back in history. Was it the operation of industry and commerce that redeemed our factories from the disgrace of child labour, or was it not a great-hearted member of your Lordships' House whose name ought always to be borne in honourable remembrance by all Parties and most notably by the Party opposite, to which he belonged? Was it the tenderness of conscience of the distilleries that stopped the sale of raw spirits to the infinite degradation and demoralisation of the native races of Africa? Has it not been by the operation of the inspection of industries that we have been able to get, little by little, the reforms that we have established with regard to our factories and workshops? If the noble Marquess can assure me it is not, I will reconsider what I have said. I have never said, I have never thought, that individual manufacturers and individual employers are not as kind to and considerate of their workmen as any one would desire them to be, but I have said, and I repeat, that, take industry as a whole, that is not the case.
  The object of all law and of all restrictions is to bring the general standard of conduct of all the people up to the level of those of the highest principle in their class. Really, when one considers this matter, as I say, as between commerce generally—not individuals but commerce generally—and the employers, I would ask your Lordships to see how this matter is reflected in the debate that preceded our former debate on this subject in this House—the

  705
  debate about the appointment of factory inspectors. Nobody, for a moment, questions the humanity and the feeling of Lord Joicey. When he spoke on that occasion it was not, as he said, because he desired to prevent men being protected but he did not want further inspectors. He concluded his speech with these words:—
  "One would think, to hear some people talk"—
  by some people, I suppose, he includes myself—
  "that employers had no interests in this matter, but surely it is a very serious loss to employers when an accident happens. We have very heavy financial penalties, going up to something like £600 if a man is killed and a considerable sum if he is injured."
  I do not for a moment say that that is the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Joicey. I say that that is a statement of the attitude of industry as a whole.
  What he said amounts to this: "Consider our financial risk if a man is killed." Just see if you can picture to yourself for a moment the two sides of the balance sheet—on the one side the loss of a man's life, of a darkened home and of the immeasurable calamity that is involved in the meaning of those two phrases, and on the other side the equivalent of £600 and the account is settled. That is not the way this matter should be regarded. We all of us know that the order and the comfort of our lives does depend upon hazards and risks that we are not called upon to share, and I believe myself that the knowledge of that fact disturbs the happiness of many people. Yes, that is true. We all know it. A storm at sea or an accident at the pit is a thing that is brought home to us at once. We acknowledge our obligations and we may make some fainthearted effort to discharge the debt to lives that are sacrificed for no real value.
  I have never said in the House that the reports that I have quoted are absolutely true. I do know this, that the men whose names I have given believe them to be true. I do say that they raise what we in the law would call a primâ facie case against the use of this spirit. What I ask the Government to do is this. In the face of that evidence, in the face of the facts, do take steps to
  706
  warn the men against its use. You are the only people who can do it effectively. You are set up for the very purpose. Why is it that it is not done? At least I ask your Lordships to say that it should be done, and done without delay, and then, if the Government decline and an accident happens and if only one man loses his life, it will not be with us but with them that the responsibility and the guilt will lie. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That serious warning should at once be issued by the Ministry of Health as to the possibility of danger from the use of tetra-ethyl.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot exactly have been said to have displayed a spirit of undiluted confidence in the attitude which the Ministry has taken up. Nor do I anticipate being able to relieve the gloom which he feels in the matter, except that I am able on behalf of my right hon. friend to announce that in response to the representations the noble and learned Lord has made and in conformity with the promise made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) some time ago, the Committee for which he pressed has been set up, and I will now read the names. The Chairman is to be Sir Frederick Willis, Chairman of the Board of Control; the Departmental representatives are: Ministry of Health, Sir George Buchanan; Home Office, Dr. Bridge, Senior Medical Inspector of Factories; Air Ministry, Mr. D. R. Pye, Deputy Director of Scientific Research; the Medical Research Council, Sir Charles Martin, Director of the Lister Institute; the Government Chemist, Sir Robert Robertson; the War Office, Major Galwey, Director of Experiments in the Chemical Warfare Department; and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Dr. C. H. Lander, D.Sc., Director of Fuel Research. The non-official members are Professor A. C. Chapman, an eminent chemist, Sir William Willcox and Professor W. E. Dixon.
  I do not think I need say anything about these gentlemen, whose qualifications can be seen in any work of reference. It will be seen that the Committee is principally an inter-Departmental one, but that it has, in addition, a number of independent experts among

  707
  its members. Considering the importance of the matter which they have to investigate, which was so fully brought out by the noble and learned Lord himself, I do not think your Lordships will find fault with the Government for having spent a month in choosing and corresponding with the personnel. The noble and learned Lord will perhaps strongly disagree with this, but those who have the duty of appointing such Committees take a different view in such a matter. I understand the Committee are ready to sit immediately, and in conformity with the usual practice it will be left to them to decide whether they will take evidence in public. I am therefore unable to give the noble and learned Lord definite information on this point, but I am informed that there is no reason to suppose that they will have any objection to his suggestion.
  As the noble and learned Lord anticipated, it is, of course, impossible to give any accurate forecast of the date on which the final Report will be presented. It must be evident that, having regard to the length of time occupied by the American Commissions, the investigations of this Committee, if they are to have any value, must be very extensive and prolonged. The Committee may have to examine conditions throughout the country in order to see what precautions are actually taken by the manufacturers and by the distributors, how far the action of the trade in informing the public is itself sufficient, and how far it may have to be reinforced by statutory Regulations. Laboratory research may be necessary, and some of the American experiments may have to be repeated and such other experiments conducted as the Committee may think fit. The noble and learned Lord, who takes the view that this spirit is a most poisonous and dangerous substance, will no doubt say, and in fact has said, that this delay will have the most serious consequences, and that pending the result of this Inquiry the Ministry ought to place some embargo, the nature of which he has not very clearly defined, on its further use. That raises the whole question as to whether the use of this substance is really as dangerous as he makes out or not.
  708
  It must be evident that the marketing of oil fuel is a competitive business, and obviously it would be a very strong measure for the Government to take if they were to prejudice the products of a particular firm by such an official warning unless they had the very strongest reason for doing so. I will, therefore, invite your Lordships to consider the various aspects of the case as they presented themselves to my right hon. friend. The noble and learned Lord has stated the case against ethylated petrol with his usual comprehensiveness and force and has based it on the testimony of several professors whose eminence and disinterestedness nobody can question. They have said that there is a possibility of serious results following on the continual and indiscriminate exposure of the human body to tetra-ethyl. My information is that nobody has attempted to controvert this pronouncement, but I do wish to point out that it is exactly what was said when the spirit was first introduced in America some five years ago.
  It resulted in an agitation there of considerably greater dimensions than the agitation has reached in this country, so much so that the firm which introduced it voluntarily suspended the sale of the petrol until inquiry had been made. There has not been one inquiry only in the United States, but three inquiries. One was by the United States Mines Department, which I believe took place in 1923, one was conducted by the company itself, and therefore of course was not an impartial inquiry, and one was conducted by the Surgeon-General's Department in Washington, from the Report of which the noble Marquess quoted when he last spoke. Those inquiries were very elaborate and the inquiry by the Surgeon-General's Department, in particular, entailed experiments not only having regard to the effects of this particular substance on animals but also on human beings. Reports of an extremely voluminous character were issued and the noble and learned Lord, should he so wish, can have access to them or to anything in the possession of the Ministry of Health. Those Committees, as has been stated already, have not found any actual evidence that harm has resulted from the ordinary commercial use of tetra-ethyl

  709
  petrol. They did recommend—though I think I am right in saying that no legislation was introduced—that certain precautions should be adopted both in regard to its manufacture and its distribution in the garages.
  Those precautions were not taken very seriously in the last debate by the noble and learned Lord. Nevertheless, whether it is due to those precautions or whether it is due to some other reason, I think the following extract from a letter, dated March 3, written by the Surgeon-General to the Ministry of Health, is very important as bearing on this matter. The letter says:—
  "As a result of this Report, the precautions recommended by this Commission [that is the American Commission] for the manufacture of the substance have been carried out and the effect of the use of ethyl spirit on the distributers throughout a large area of this country has been under the immediate observation of the Public Health Service in co-operation with the authorities of the University of Cincinnati and others. I may add that notwithstanding the late publicity given to the investigations and the general use of the substance all over the United States and Canada, no instance of lead poisoning has been reported in the lay or medical press or to any of our Federal or State authorities."
  The noble and learned Lord, of course, carries great weight and authority in your Lordships' House, and he may have succeeded in persuading your Lordships that the Ministry of Health are conniving at a subtle, deep-laid, almost Borgian, conspiracy on the part of this oil company to poison large sections of the English motoring public.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: No, no.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: But before condemning the Ministry I submit that your Lordships should take into consideration the experience of the whole of the Continent of North America where, after a precisely similar agitation conducted both by private individuals and the Press, after prolonged experiments and observations by the most authoritative examiners, no one during the whole of the five years that this spirit has been in use has been able to discover a single case of lead poisoning arising from the use of this substance, although its consumption, I am given to understand, runs into several millions of gallons a year. I am informed, I believe accurately, that the conditions under which this tetra-ethyl is blended with
  710
  petrol in this country are precisely similar to those prevailing in America. They are under the close supervision of the Home Office, who have satisfied themselves that strict attention paid to all the precautions found necessary in America, and that these precautions are fully adequate to meet the risk of poisoning. I am further informed that the conditions of distribution in this country are precisely similar to those prevailing in America where, as I have stated, they follow exactly the recommendations of the Surgeon-General's Department.
  That is the case from the point of view of the Government. Our Committee, if they find evidence which may controvert in any way the findings of these American Committees, can, of course, at any time issue an Interim Report, and on that Interim Report the Minister could make immediate application to Parliament for powers. I might point out that there is a Bill in progress and now awaiting Third Reading in another place, the Petroleum Bill, a clause of which enables the Minister to make Regulations as to the distribution or manufacture of any class of petroleum spirit which appears to him to be dangerous or injurious to health, and this Bill will be before your Lordships immediately after the Easter Recess. I hope I have said enough to make it clear that, if we adopt the course suggested by the noble and learned Lord and issue a warning which is to have an effect greater than that produced by the agitation with which he has himself been concerned and the agitation produced by the Press, we shall be making a very serious intrusion into the realms of competitive industry in a manner which has been conclusively proved by all previous experience to be unnecessary.
  I understand that substances containing lead compound equally poisonous in nature are manufactured and retailed subject only to the same restrictions and Regulations as prevail in the manufacture and distribution of this ethyl petrol. I am speaking, of course, of commercial products, not of chemical compounds. My right hon. friend has set up this very strong Committee, and he is at present seeking powers, which no doubt he will get, to enable him to deal with any dangers that may possibly be brought to his notice at any time by this Committee or by any other body. He sees no useful

  711
  purpose in prejudging the result of this Inquiry by condemning this substance before the Committee has reported at all, and he is not in the least persuaded that, until that Committee has had time to issue at least an Interim Report, the public will suffer any serious risk. He hopes that your Lordships will think that his view is just and reasonable.
  VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, so far the statement which the noble Viscount has just made is more satisfactory than the statements that we sometimes have on occasions like this. A Committee has actually been set up, and some of the names are names which I recognise as those of persons of eminence and experience. But I do not think that the announcement is satisfactory in all respects. I quite agree that the subject is a very difficult one and you must not allow a movement of this kind to be used to the prejudice of any particular manufacturer unless you have reason to imagine that by what he is doing he is putting the public in peril. You have to make out that case. On the other hand the matter may be very urgent. If what my noble and learned friend has said be true, it is very urgent. This does not, of course, dispose of the difficulty.
  I am informed that the evidence which was taken in the United States is very voluminous. There were reports, I think, from two Committees, and very eminent physiologists and others took part in the inquiry. There was not complete unanimity of opinion. It may be, nevertheless, that information has been obtained to show that there is a primâ facie case for restriction—not for final restriction, but restriction ad interim. If there is reason to suppose that the use of lead tetra-ethyl is the use of a dangerous and highly deleterious substance, then that use ought to be restricted if there is any primâ facie likelihood of its turning out that the substance is of that character. I listened attentively to what the noble Viscount said. He said, among other things, that the Committee is to have power to make an Interim Report if it thinks it desirable to do so. But that is not enough. We are concerned with this matter from a larger point of view. We wish to protect the public, and I would ask that the Government should issue an instruction to this Committee to make an Interim
  712
  Report on the question whether primâ facie this substance is of a dangerous character and whether there ought not to be some restriction on its use.
  It is satisfactory to learn that we shall have a Bill before us immediately after Easter which will contain a clause enabling regulation to take place. If there is an Interim Report on which we can act, this will be enough to enable the Ministry of Health to propose proper and adequate restriction. I am not talking of a final pronouncement on a matter which may be very difficult. It may take a long time to get the exact truth about this matter. We want to get the exact truth, and we do not want the use of the substance to continue unrestrained in the meantime. If the Committee think that the case is one for an Interim Report to the effect that the substance is primâ facie a substance which cannot be used with any assurance of its safety, it is better that we should be told this, and that we should have power to regulate in the meantime. That will not prejudice the ultimate decision. It may be that lead tetra-ethyl will turn out to be an innocuous substance used under proper precautions, but on the other hand it may be that it is a substance about which there is sufficient doubt to make it right that we should be informed, and that, ad interim at all events, its use should be restrained. My criticism of what the noble Viscount has said is that we have no guarantee that we shall get an Interim Report from this Committee on that point, and I do not think that it is enough to leave it to a Committee of this kind, which is large and cumbrous, which will not sit continuously and which will probably take a very long time before it comes to a conclusion, to embark upon its task without being directed to report ad interim as to whether they are satisfied that primâ facie the position requires some Government interference.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise for one moment to tell the House that, so far as my experience of tetra-ethyl is concerned, and the experience of others with whom I have spoken, no very definite bad results have been found so far. I would not say for one moment that this is not a dangerous fluid in certain respects. I dare say that many noble Lords know that lead glazing was

  713
  a very dangerous trade, and that legislation was brought in to protect the people who were engaged in that trade. It was some time before the danger arising from lead glaze was found out and determined, and the remedy applied. In regard to tetra-ethyl, the curious thing is that there is affinity between lead in this form and lead glaze. If you put tetra-ethyl on your hand, and let it rest there, the chances are that you will become poisoned, and the effects of lead poisoning will in many cases very soon become apparent. Wherever you have lead in suspension in very small quantities there is that danger.
  Then there is the other form of danger from using tetra-ethyl, arising from the nature of the exhaust. The ordinary exhaust from a motor-car consists of carbon-monoxide. If you add a certain amount of lead in the form of tetra-ethyl it makes carbon-monoxide more liable to cause insensibility, and I have had definite cases, the facts of one of which I hold in my hand, of the effects from the exhaust of a car running on the road, upon both the driver and the occupants of the saloon that was being driven. I think the matter is certainly one which should have been inquired into before now. Something has been said about the many inquiries in the United States. I think I am stating the fact when I say that those inquiries are not very conclusive, when read carefully, and, in addition, the sale of tetra-ethyl is not allowed in New York City, and it is absolutely barred in the tunnel which runs under the Hudson River, because of its effects. Only a few days ago I had a letter from a gentleman residing at Aldershot, in which he said that the son of a friend was suffering from bad lead poisoning as the result of absorbing tetra-ethyl through an abrased knuckle. I have other letters, and I think there is sufficient evidence to make people who use this petrol very careful in doing so.
  I am also of opinion that the Government have been somewhat dilatory in setting up an Inquiry, because it has been well-known that there is danger, and I think it should have been inquired into before. We may be very grateful to the particular newspaper which has brought this matter into prominence, but I still think that an Inquiry should have been held by the Government on the
  714
  first introduction into this country of this product. I made inquiries in France, when I was there about a month ago, and I found that tetra-ethyl is not sold there. The reason given to me by garage proprietors was that it was considered not particularly safe, and that although it might be used in some cases without any harm, it was considered dangerous in the garage to people working there. That is exactly the charge which has been brought against this product by the noble and learned Lord opposite, and I think there may be something in that charge. Since, however, the Government have appointed a Committee, and a distinguished Committee, all we can do is to await the result of its deliberations. It will sift the evidence most carefully and we shall have a conclusive and definite Report on the subject.
  I rather agree with what the noble and learned Lord opposite said as to the necessity for using this petrol. Any of the standard brands of petrol used to-day are good enough for any reasonably good car, and as regards this particular petrol it is not good for the engine of a car. I have seen evidence of the deposit of a brownish-coloured scale on the inside of cylinders and the exhaust-valve, and I doubt whether after trial it will be considered worth while to employ it. It might be worth while for racing purposes, but for the ordinary careful user of the road I think there is no necessity to use tetra-ethyl. At any rate a wise man will abstain from using it until we have had the Report of the Committee. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I thought that the House might like to hear this explanation.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to say a very few words, because of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, which had so much reference to myself. May I say, in the first place, that I am very sorry indeed if he has reason to complain of any words which I used against him on the last occasion when we discussed this subject. I did think that the noble and learned Lord was rather over-keen in his advocacy of the case which he had at heart, but if I went beyond

  715
  what he had a right to expect I can only express my apology. After all, we are not so very far apart. The noble and learned Lord came to the House a few weeks ago and said: "What I want is a Committee appointed to look into this matter." Those were the terms of his Motion. We have appointed a Committee. There is no such obstructive character about the action of the Government as you might perhaps have expected from the tone of the noble and learned Lord's speech. He asked for a Committee. A Committee has been appointed. The names have been read out by my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Health, and they are a very distinguished body of men.
  As my noble friend said, Professor Baker, who had given a great deal of the information upon which the noble and learned Lord relied, and who may certainly be considered to be in no sense prejudiced against the views of the noble and learned Lord, was asked to form part of the Committee. He was unable, for reasons which we were sorry to learn, to accept, but I think it shows the impartiality of the Government in this matter and their desire to arrive at the truth, that they should have asked a man who was a protagonist against the use of tetra-ethyl to sit on that Committee. The Committee have been appointed and they are going to sit at once. Further than that, the Government are anxious to show no kind of dilatoriness in this Inquiry, and the Committee have been asked to expedite their proceedings. I really do not see what more could be done, so far as this Committee is concerned. They are appointed, they are going to sit at once, and they are being asked to expedite their proceedings.
  It is not as though—I must press this point upon your attention—this matter had not been considered before. I do not stand here to defend all American inquiries, but undoubtedly this was very carefully inquired into in America, and the results were read out to your Lordships, partly on the previous occasion when the matter was debated here, and partly by my noble friend to-night, and I am not sure that your Lordships realise the great importance of the letter which my noble friend read out. It was written from the Federal capital of America by a prominent official
  716
  there, who had himself had his attention directed to this subject, who knew all about the inquiries which had taken place, and who wrote to a prominent official in the Ministry of Health that
  "notwithstanding the great publicity given the investigation and the general use of the substance all over the United States and Canada, no instance of lead poisoning has been reported in the lay or medical Press, or to any of our Federal or State authorities."
  That is a terrific statement. I do not want to give my personal guarantee for it—of course not; but it is a tremendous statement, and it must be balanced, I think, against a great deal of what the noble and learned Lord has said.
  And may I say, with reference to those terrible instances which he gave—which I do not deny—that they refer to the handling of the poison itself before its combination with the petrol. And of course it is admitted—and I admitted it on the last occasion—that the poison is a very strong poison, and its potency cannot be denied. Of course it is a very dangerous thing to deal with, as, indeed, there are many other elements in what goes to make a commercial commodity which are dangerous. And yet we do not forbid them; what we do is to insist that certain precautions shall be followed in the handling of these very dangerous substances. My noble friend has told your Lordships that the same kind of precautions are taken in England as have been found to be necessary in America. It may be necessary to go further. The Committee will report—the Committee which is to sit at once, and whose proceedings we hope to expedite. What more can be done? Are we to say that when statements are made that a substance is dangerous we are thereupon, without reference to any proper inquiry, to forbid its use? May I say to the noble and learned Lord, with my profound respect for his character, that that is a very unreasonable thing to do.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: I never asked you to do that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I apologise. What the noble and learned Lord asked was that we should give a warning. I think I have satisfied him as to the names of the Committee, and the only thing that remains is that we are

  717
  to give a warning. May I say that the noble and learned Lord has taken precautions which amount to a warning? He has raised this debate twice, and there is not a doubt that among all those who are interested in this subject throughout the length and breadth of the land it is known that there have been questions raised in Parliament as to the poisonous character of this substance. I do not think we can go further, but I will certainly consider with my right hon. friend if anything further ought to be done. And, as regards what the noble and learned Viscount said just now, as to whether there ought to be a suggestion made to this Committee that an Interim Report would be of importance, I certainly will see that that suggestion is considered. I do not think we can go further. I ask the noble and learned Lord to be satisfied with the fact that by his exertions he has advertised the danger of this substance, that by his efforts he has persuaded His Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee, that that Committee is going to sit at once, and going, we hope, to expedite its proceedings, and that in the meantime every precaution which is necessary to be taken by the Government in those circumstances will, of course, be taken.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, it is, of course, impossible to be content with the answer of the noble Viscount. The Committee, though it seems a large one, no doubt contains the names of excellent people, and I dare say in due course its Report will be received and will be found to be valuable. I hope the noble Viscount will not think me unfriendly if I say that I may have been mistaken, but it appeared to me that he was reading to us in a very attractive voice an elaborate preparation that had found its origin either in the Home Office or the Ministry of Health, or a combination of both, and those things, of course, rob answers of all their value and their vitality, because they are nothing but official pronouncements, prepared by a Government Department that desires to maintain its position, and we do not get the independent opinion of the member of the Government upon which this House desires to rely. I may be wrong in my hypothesis, but that is what appeared to me. With regard to the noble Marquess's statement, I hope he will permit me to
  718
  say that I believe that misunderstanding between himself and myself could never last long, and that there was no need for any apology. The whole matter rose and fell in the course of debate, and I certainly never felt about it anything beyond this, that whenever he says anything reflecting on what I say, I think it is necessary to examine closely what my words have been.
  For the rest, I admit that I am puzzled. Is it denied that precautions are necessary in using this spirit? I wish somebody on the Government Bench would answer that to me, "Yes" or "No." Can they answer me? Then of course the answer is: "Yes, precautions must be used with regard to the use of this spirit." And, indeed, if evidence were wanted, apart from what I have quoted, the astonishing instance given by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, of a boy who had actually got lead poisoning through the accident of some of this stuff getting on an abrased knuckle—surely that is evidence that precautions must be used with regard to its use, or the health of men who are compelled by the nature of their occupation to use it will be imperilled. In those circumstances what is the answer of the Government? "Oh, you have taken all precautions that are required. See what you have said here in two debates." The debates do not pass the walls of this House, and your Lordships know it too well. They may find a place in one paper, they do not spread through the country; and this substance is not being used here, it is being used all over the Kingdom. Do you really think that what I say is going to reach throughout the length and breadth of this country? I know it is not. There is only one way in which that can be done, or in which it ought to be done. It ought to be done by the Government Department which has the care of the public health.
  What is it that I ask them to do? Forbid the use of the spirit? I have never asked them that. Say that the spirit is dangerous? I have never even asked them to say that. I have always declared from the beginning of this matter that a primâ facie case has been made against it which needs investigation. What I have said, and what I repeat, is that if people are going to use this spirit without precautions, without

  719
  warning as to its danger, there is overwhelming evidence that there is a risk, which ought to be averted. Really, the health even of a single person, if it is in danger of being utterly ruined, is something worth preserving. Is it not worth while making an effort? You do no harm. All you do is to issue, through the Ministry of Health, with official sanction, a statement saying that people who are going to use this spirit should be careful of this, that, and the other. It is all I have asked. Why cannot you do it?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? People are not so foolish or unreasonable as he thinks. I happen to hold in my hand a notice that is issued by the people who sell this fluid. It says:—
  "Not to be used for washing, cleaning, lighting or any other purpose";
  and then, in printing which catches the eye,
  "Avoid spilling."
  All those things are in the nature of a warning. But I have already told your Lordships and the noble and learned Lord that I will consider with my right hon. friend whether any further precautionary warning might be necessary. Something has already been done, and it is possible that something more may be done. I do not promise that it shall be done. All I promise is that the thing should be considered. That I have already done.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: When I hear that a Government Department is prepared to allow its authority to be usurped by a trade concern—
  Several NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
  LORD BUCKMASTER: But it is true. This trade concern is issuing advertisements, which may never be read, and which, so far as I know, are not read by the people who handle the spirit. The people I have spoken to who handle the spirit had no knowledge whatever that
  there was any more danger in handling it than in handling any other spirit. There are no means by which they can know. Your garage attendant, the person who handles the spirit for your motor car, how can he know? He does not see the trade advertisements. The people who sell it may know. It may even be that the people who buy it know. But the people who sell, and the people who buy it are not the people I am concerned with. I am concerned with the men who work in your garages and drive your cars. I say there is no evidence of any precaution or of any warning issued to them, and I want to know why they are not going to be warned. They are the people who will suffer, and they are the only people who will suffer. Why are they not warned? The noble Marquess says, why I do not know, that this is pre-judging it. It is nothing of the kind. Nobody denies that this spirit is dangerous. There is evidence before the House, which is uncontrovertible that it can be very dangerous. The Ministry of Health is the body whose business it is to issue this warning, and I want to know why they have refused to do so.
  VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the reports of the American Commission be placed in the Library so that we can see them? We have nothing but snippets which are doled out to members, and the Reports are difficult of access here normally. If one copy was placed in the Library we could refer to it and satisfy our minds.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount is not unreasonable. I have never seen the actual reports myself and I do not know what the volumes are or what their character is; but I will consider it.
  On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?—
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 21: Not-Contents, 36.

  CONTENTS.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

  Northbourne, L.

  Russell, E.

  Carson, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Charnwood, L.

  Shandon, L.

  Chaplin, V.

  Gorell, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Southwark, L.

  Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

  Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Muir Mackenzie, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Bertie of Thame, V.

  Danesfort, L.

  Cecil of Chelwood, V.

  de Clifford, L.

  FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

  Desborough, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Airlie, E.

  Novar, V.

  Greville, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Peel, V.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Eldon, E.

  Askwith, L.

  Jessel, L.

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Kylsant, L.

  Midleton, E.

  Bledisloe, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Mildmay of Flete, L.

  Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

  Wharton, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Cushendun, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  COUNTRYSIDE ADVERTISEMENTS.
  LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER rose to move to resolve, That it is urgently needed that the Government should take immediate steps to prevent the disfigurement of the countryside by the advertisements of oil companies. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for troubling your Lordships twice in one evening; but this question is distantly associated with the question we have just been discussing. What I desire is that steps shall be taken, or rather that this House should ask the Government to take steps, to protect our villages from the vulgarity of oil advertisements, and that the House will support them in their efforts. It is useless to hope to preserve the beauties of our towns. In the fierce race for wealth the beauties of architecture and the delights of the old places we used to know are all trampled underfoot, but there still remain to us some of the villages in our countryside, and I am certain that they speak to every member of this House with an appeal which is difficult to shape in words.
  We know the characteristics of them well—the tower or the spire of the village church, which, even to the most irreverent, is an object of respect as having witnessed for centuries the supplications and the sorrows of the men and women of our race. And scattered round it or clustering near are the cottages which for generation after generation have been the homes of our people and the village street straggling away until it loses itself in the fields. To all of us this presents a picture the
  722
  feeling of which it is difficult to describe, but it gives rise to a sentiment for which, after all, men were prepared to give their lives, and I will undertake to say the memory of such places as I have imperfectly attempted to describe was before many of our soldiers during long hours of pain and weariness in hospital and camp. Into these places that mean to us far more than words can express we now find inserted what I regard as the complete acme of abominable vulgarity—red and yellow pumps of the most hideous kind desecrating and defiling something which to us is really sacred. I wonder why it is that the people responsible for this cannot realise that what may be a suitable decoration and is even an ornament to the streets of Chicago is out of place among the Cotswold hills. It is this that I desire to preserve.
  As each one of us gets older and the wear and tear of our restless, busy life takes more and more toll of our energies, I believe in the mind of every one of us there is just one of those places to which he wants to go back. And to go back there and then find the very heart of it defiled by these things is to inflict upon him that which is very hard indeed to express. I know that our country is crippled by debt. We are a country that is faced with immeasurable social difficulties. It is not easy for us to know what lies ahead, but there is still one thing which we still do have that no other country in the world that I have ever seen possesses. It is just these country villages that I have imperfectly attempted to describe. I ask your Lordships to say that you will do everything in your power to see that their further desecration shall be prevented. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That it is urgently needed that the Government should take immediate steps to prevent the disfigurement of the countryside by the advertisements of oil companies.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
  LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, I beg to move as an Amendment to the Resolution of my noble and learned friend, that the words "and others" be added to his Resolution, so that his very just complaints may be directed to other advertisements besides those of oil companies. I should like to say at the outset that I should be very grateful to my noble and learned friend if he will accept my Amendment, but if for any reason he thinks it advisable not to do so, that it might jeopardise his Motion, I would certainly not desire to press the Amendment. My noble and learned friend has dealt with the oil companies, but your Lordships, if you will go by rail or road anywhere, will find large hoardings by the adjoining fields containing advertisements of the supposed merits of somebody's manufactures, which, by reason of their numbers, in my opinion at least, are even more offensive than the advertisements of the oil companies.
  An attempt was made in 1907 to deal with this nuisance by permitting local authorities to issue by-laws, and by the Advertisement Regulation Act of 1925 the local authorities are empowered to make more extended by-laws to prevent the disfigurement of the countryside. Advertisements existing at the time of the by-laws have five years' grace before they can be removed, but the local authorities—I beg your Lordships to note this fact—if they issue by-laws have power to prevent the erection of new advertisements. I am informed by the Scapa Society, a letter from whose hon. treasurer appeared in The Times this morning, that thirteen county councils are still acting under the 1907 by-laws and have not availed themselves of the 1925 Act, that nine county councils in England and Wales have not made any by-laws at all and, further, that new advertisements are constantly appearing all over the country, even in the districts where the by-laws have been made. I suppose your Lordships would think I was exaggerating if I said that these Acts have failed in their object, but anyhow your
  724
  Lordships must feel doubts as to whether all the local authorities will make the necessary by laws and, still more perhaps, whether those by-laws will be properly enforced.
  I submit that the beauty of the landscape is a great national possession and that it is not right to leave the protection of the landscape to the uncertain policy of local authorities. My view is that the Government ought to act as Sir Herbert Samuel acted in Palestine. He, in 1920, made a decree or law saying that all outside advertisements were to be prohibited, except those under licence. If we had that law in this country it would be right that the local authorities should have some say in the matter and I think they might be the people to issue the licences. I visited Tunis earlier in the year and I found there that the French Government had also entirely prohibited outside advertisements. Why? It is because they realise, as I am afraid we do not, or at all events not altogether, that the beauty and interest of a country is a great national and a great material asset.
  No doubt the beauty and interest of the two places I have mentioned, Palestine and Tunisia, are greater in relation to their other sources of wealth than is the case in this country, but, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the landscape of this country at its best is unique and incomparable. I also call to mind, as the noble and learned Lord has done, a village—it is as well known to him as it is to myself—which is typical of the repose and beauty of a bygone age, and your Lordships can all recall many such. It really does seem to me something of a disgrace that we should permit the disfigurement of what is literally—not rhetorically but literally—a priceless heritage, and that for ends which serve no national purpose whatever. As you pass through the country I am sure that you must sometimes reflect, as I do, that the descriptions of it by our old poets, which we used to consider immortal, are now rapidly becoming out of date. If you should expect to see some glorious morning "gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy," you will find it gilding the most unheavenly pigments of a petrol pump, or if you think to see it "kissing with golden face the meadows

  725
  green," you will find it kissing an advertisement of Mr. Carter's Little Liver Pills.
  Amendment moved—
  At the end of the Motion add the words ("and others").—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)
  LORD BUCKMASTER: I will accept the Amendment.
  LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, as far as I am personally concerned I can only say I wish I had the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord to enable me to express what I really think about all these advertisements, especially the petrol advertisements. It may be of service to the House, however, if I state what is the law at present. I am afraid that as the Motion has now become such a very wide one it will require further consideration before I can accept it on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble Lord accept my Motion without the Amendment?
  LORD DESBOROUGH: I think I had better explain the position. The noble and learned Lord may not be quite aware of what has taken place. I am willing to go as far as I possibly can. It is not only these advertisements to which I object, but the internal combustion engine, which I think I have stated before in this House is not only dangerous but is extraordinarily ugly. I think it has ruined the earth, made the air dangerous and made the sea foul. However, one cannot go back. It may be of service if I state simply what is the present law regarding advertisements. As the noble Lord behind me has just said, the Advertisements Regulation Act of 1907, as amended in 1925, has done a great deal, as the result of the exertions of my noble friend Lord Newton, who I am sorry not to see in his place. Practically the matter now rests in the hands of the county councils and the county councils can delegate their authority with regard to these matters. They have authority to make by-laws for—
  "regulating, restricting or preventing within their district or any part thereof the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect—

  (a) the view of rural scenery from a highway or railway, or from any public place or water; or

  726

  (b) the amenities of any village within the district of a rural district council; or

  (c) the amenities of any historic or public building or monument or of any place frequented by the public solely or chiefly on account of its beauty or historic interest."

  Some progress has been made since 1925. No fewer than forty-one out of sixty-three county councils have already drawn up these by-laws as they were empowered to do under the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1925.
  In regard to petrol it is noteworthy that a few years ago the leading oil companies—Pratts, Shell Mex and B.P.—withdrew their roadside advertisements by agreement. That was a step in advance, and was taken no doubt because of what was said in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. There are, however, still some ten companies who are not parties to the agreement and who still maintain their advertisements. All I can say is that I hope they will soon be converted and see the error of their ways. As far as petrol-filling stations and advertisements at such stations are concerned they have still to be dealt with. Those horrible pumps—
  LORD BUCKMASTER: Those are the things I dislike.
  LORD DESBOROUGH: You cannot dislike them more than I do. No by-laws have been drawn up dealing with them, but I may say that the Government are fully alive to the horrible disfigurement the countryside by these advertisements and especially the petrol-filling stations. They have rather anticipated my noble and learned friend's Resolution by taking steps to place before Parliament proposals for dealing with these artistic horrors. There is included in the Government programme a Petroleum (Amendment) Bill. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend is aware that it is proposed by that Bill to empower county councils and borough councils to make by-laws regulating the design and appearance of filling stations or prohibiting the establishment of filling stations in certain positions, for the purpose, as stated in the Bill, of preserving the amenities and beauties—or perhaps I may be allowed to say such amenities and beauties as still remain in this country. Petrol-filling

  727
  stations are defined in the Bill as including any advertisement used in connection with those stations.
  The Petroleum (Amendment) Bill, which is through Committee in another place, will, of course, come before your Lordships' House and my noble and learned friend will then have an opportunity of trying to strengthen the Bill and, I hope, of supporting it. When it comes before your Lordships' House there will be an opportunity of considering whether its clauses are satisfactory to the House or whether your Lordships think it does not go far enough. One of the biggest oil companies has under consideration the question of withdrawing all their advertisements at petrol-filling stations, and there is likelihood, I am told, of other large companies—assisted, no doubt, by a little gentle prodding from the action of my noble and learned friend—taking a similar course and withdrawing their advertisements. I venture to submit that as the matter will be before your Lordships in the shape of a Bill, it is perhaps unnecessary now to tie your hands by passing any Resolution.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I should like to be quite satisfied by my noble friends on the Government Bench that it will be quite clear that under the proposed Bill Regulations can be made which will require the withdrawal of all these stations. I do feel most strongly, with the noble and learned Lord who moved the Motion and the noble Lord who supported it, that this is a very serious grievance indeed, because from the very nature of the case the places where these disgusting erections are made are the most beautiful parts of the country, which are the places to which motorists naturally go. Accordingly you have a very strong case for drastic action in this respect and, unless it is taken immediately, there will be such a growth of these stations and such large vested interests established in them that it will be far more difficult to deal with them in the future. I hope we may be quite satisfied that, when the Bill to which my noble friend has referred comes before us, it will be fully possible for this House to make whatever amendment may be necessary to secure the withdrawal of these stations, and not only the erection of future ones.
  LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, under that Bill there would be power to prohibit the erection of new stations. There may be some difficulty with regard to the five years which were mentioned in reference to an existing Act. I do not know whether that would have to be repealed but, when the Bill comes before your Lordships, it will be competent for you to decide in what form it shall leave this House.
  LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: May I ask my noble friend who has replied for the Government whether we shall have an opportunity of dealing with advertisements other than those of the oil companies when this Bill comes before your Lordships' House?
  LORD DESBOROUGH: I am afraid that the Petroleum Bill will not include all the other matters.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I think that, so far as the Petroleum Bill is concerned, our position is reasonably secure, and my object this afternoon has been achieved, because what I desired to do was to assure the Government of the strong feeling in this House that will be behind them in dealing with the matter. I think there will be abundant power to amend the Petroleum Bill, and it will be extremely difficult for the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, to devise an Amendment so strong that I shall find myself unable to support it. As for the rest, I cannot say, with regard to Lord Hunsdon's Amendment, that the Petroleum Bill would cover these other advertisements, but that is a matter for him and not for me.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble and learned Lord desire to press his Motion?
  LORD BUCKMASTER: No, I have no wish to press it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  DISARMAMENT.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to furnish any information as to the progress of the American proposals for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy,

  729
  and as to the negotiations recently referred to by Count Clauzel with regard to the principle of limitation of armaments; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a very few minutes. I only desire to ask whether my noble friend can give us any information on two points. The first is the question of the American proposals for the renunciation of war. I do not know how far those proposals have gone, and I do not know whether my noble friend can tell us, or whether there was any communication to the Government of this country on the subject. I do not know, indeed, whether my noble friend is in any case in a position to say anything about the position which the Government have taken up with regard to it. I certainly feel very strongly that the proposals made by the American Government are of very great importance and merit the most favourable and careful consideration by the Government of this country. I shall be very glad to hear if my noble friend can give us any information on the point.
  The second point has reference to some observations which were made, I understand, at Geneva by Count Clauzel, the representative of the French Government. He seems to have said, according to the reports that I have seen, that negotiations were in progress with His Majesty's Government as to the adjustment of the different points of view held by the British and French Governments on the question of the restriction, limitation and reduction of armaments, and particularly with reference to the method by which the naval strength of the two countries should be measured. That is what I understood from the reports, and that, I think, was the impression conveyed by the statements in the public Press. I shall be glad to know whether they are true. I should also like to know whether my noble friend can tell us anything at all about the negotiation which Count Clauzel said were in progress between the two Governments. This is evidently a matter of great importance and we should know something about it, if it is not inconsistent with the public interest to give that information. I remember very well that it was partly, at any rate, in consequence of the difference of opinion between the British and French
  730
  Governments that it was difficult last spring to make progress in the discussion of the questions in which we were then engaged. I do not desire, at this stage at any rate, to say anything more, but I shall be very grateful to my noble friend if he can give any information on the subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD CUSHENDUN): My Lords, I should like first to answer the question put to me in my noble friend's concluding words. It is a little difficult for me to say what was reported and what was not reported. I have not seen very many of the English papers dealing with the matter, and I have not seen the procès-verbal. My recollection, however, is that, if Count Clauzel was reported to have said that which my noble friend has repeated, this was a confusion between a report of his words and a general summary given by the pressmen out there, in their usual manner of dealing with these discussions. They cannot give a verbatim report, but they give a general impression. I am pretty certain that I am right when I add that there were two things which Count Clauzel did not say. He did not specify, I think, that the conversations to which he referred were between the French Government and ourselves—I do not think he specified any nationality—and I am also more than confident that he did not give any indication as to the subject-matter of those conversations, and that he did not say anything about disputes over naval matters.
  My noble friend wants a little more information, if I can give it him, on the subject of these conversations. The difficulty is that in these days the word "conversations" is beginning to acquire, in regard to diplomatic matters, a rather more solemn significance than the actual connotation of the word itself, and the consequence is that it is becoming rather difficult to use the word at all without giving a false impression, because not only does "conversations" in these days apparently mean something which is not quite describable as negotiations, though very nearly so, but we also have to use the word for ordinary casual talk. These conversations to which Count Clauzel made reference were really conversations in the old sense of the word. They were not in any sense and could not be

  731
  described as negotiations. So far as I know—I may not be fully informed—there was no formal conference and no notes have passed with regard to any point between these different representatives. What did happen, not with ourselves alone but with other nationalities, was that the technical experts met, some of them in Paris, some at Geneva and some, I believe, actually between those two places in the train.
  These representatives, as my noble friend knows, are always meeting out at Geneva in a social way. They meet at the luncheon table and the dinner table and on the golf course, and there is constant conversation and talk going on between them. To use a very ordinary expression, they are always talking "shop." "Shop," to them, consists in the various point of agreement or disagreement that have arisen at the various Conferences they have attended, and in that sense the conversations which took place, I am told, although I have had nothing to do with them myself, at Paris and in the drawing-rooms elsewhere, were with a view to a better understanding of the particular points upon which, as my noble friend knows very well, there has up to now been an unfortunate disagreement with regard to disarmament. Count Clauzel referred to these conversations which he knew had been going on, and expressed the hope, and I expressed the same hope, knowing that they had been taking place, that they indicated that these points of disagreement are really not insuperable, and that with a little more patience and perseverance an attempt to come to an understanding might lead to more gratifying results. I do not mean to say—I am not in a position to say—that I would like to make any confident prediction as to its being a more fruitful result. I am not in a position to do so, and perhaps I am not of a very sanguine temperament—at all events I should not like myself to go very far in the direction of prophecy—but I certainly do hope, from what I have heard of the conversations which have taken place, that there may be an agreement arrived at, and not only with ourselves.
  I do not want my noble friend to take the idea, which he appears to have got from Count Clauzel's remarks as reported, that it was mainly, or entirely, with ourselves that this conversation took place,
  732
  or that it was on matters dealing only with the Navy. I think quite as important a point, and one which was quite as much discussed, had nothing to do with the Navy at all, but was as to a reduction of land forces, a point with which my noble friend is very familiar. That point, with regard to the reduction of effectives in land forces, so far as outward agreement is concerned is in exactly the same position as when he spoke upon it at Geneva last year, but there have been since that time attempts, of course, to arrive at an agreement with regard to the matter, not only as between the French and ourselves, but other nationalities, because it is a point on which there was a good deal of difference of opinion. Of course the naval question was not excluded, but it was more on this point that the conversations took place, and it was to a reduction both of naval forces and military forces on land that Count Clauzel referred in the speech to which my noble friend has referred. I am sorry that I cannot be more precise—not the less because I have nothing at all that I want to conceal—simply because there is no more to be said.
  Then my noble friend asks me also about "the American proposals for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy." On that subject I am afraid that I can tell him even less. I will tell him exactly how the matter stands. We are not, ourselves, engaged in negotiations on this matter at all, as yet. We do not officially know anything about it. What has happened is, as I need not remind the House, because the despatches have all been in the Press, that there has been correspondence going on between the French Government and the American Government, based on the text of a proposed Treaty. Those two Governments have not yet arrived at an agreement. Of course, we know substantially how the thing goes on, and the actual correspondence has, I think, without exception, been published in the Press. We watch it, of course, as interested observers, and we have had the text unofficially communicated to us, stated to be for consideration; but we have no certainty that the original text will be the final form when an agreement has been reached between the French and the American Governments. Therefore, of course, until those two Governments have arrived at an agreement, and then,

  733
  as we are told they intend to do, submitted it to us in a more official way and asked for our opinion upon it—until that stage has been reached it is quite obvious that it would be premature for me to express any opinion at all upon the merits of the proposal that has been made. I am afraid that is all the information that I have upon the two points put to me by my noble friend.
  LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon what has been said by the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am sure we are much indebted to him for the clearness of his statement, although I am afraid that that clearness results necessarily, as he thinks, in very slight information. I should like to see whether I understand him aright on the two points dealt with. So far as Count Clauzel is concerned, he states that there have been no negotiations, and nothing more than conversations in the ordinary sense of the term. Of course, there is a great distinction between a mere conversation, as he put it, at a dinner table and negotiations of a more formal character, but the noble Lord did express the view that whether there have been negotiations or conversations some progress was being made.
  If he can answer this, I should like to ask him one question, as to whether progress is being made in what is called in the Question "the principle of limitation of armaments." I put stress on those words for this reason, that I have always felt that it is a mistake to go into expert detail until the general principle of what you desire is fairly fully understood, and as I read what was going on at Geneva it appeared to me that on that side of the question little or no progress was being made. There was some discussion about disarmament, and the noble Lord himself gave the figures of disarmament in the case of this country, but when you talk about principle what you want to know is whether any progress is being made in a League scheme, backed by the League as a part of the League policy. It has appeared to me that so far from getting nearer to the ultimate solution that we desire there is a tendency rather for people to drift apart, because they are not considering the real principle involved but are too much concerned with matters of detail.
  734
  As regards the American question, I understand the noble Lord to say quite clearly that so far as we are concerned we are not officially taking part in that at all. It is regarded as a matter that is going on between France on the one side and the United States on the other, and whatever ultimate form that Treaty may take it has not yet been decided. I only want to say that I admit personally I have great sympathy with what appears to be the effort of America to introduce what is called the renunciation of war, and I hope that if opportunity does occur and the opinion of the Government is asked, or if negotiations commence, all our influence will be thrown in the direction of a real all-round world peace policy.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I only rise for a moment to say that in the circumstances I do not propose to press my Motion for Papers, because I understand that my noble friend thinks there are no Papers which could usefully be presented. Of course, that is conclusive so far as I am concerned on this occasion. So far as the American side of it is concerned, I do not wish to say another word. I agree with what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Par-moor, as to the desirability of doing our best to co-operate in this movement, if that call be done, but I quite recognise the difficulty of the situation. I confess I heard the noble Lord's explanation with regard to Count Clauzel's observations with some disappointment. I understood that what had happened at Geneva, though it is very difficult to follow these things in the reports which reach us by telegram, was this. Last spring we drew up the outline of a Treaty. A great many of the more important points were unfortunately left undetermined. The most important of the undetermined points, the one, that is to say, which produced the most definite clash of opinion, was the naval question, the question of method. The difficulty of arriving at an agreement over that was the final thing which made it impossible to get anything like an agreed convention.
  LORD CUSHENDUN: May I interrupt? That is quite true, it was the final thing, but that was only because when dealing with the earlier point of military disarmament my noble friend himself, finding

  735
  himself in a minority, very wisely proposed to leave it aside for the moment and go on to the other. But I do not think that my noble friend's recollection is right if he leaves the military question out of account, and makes it even secondary to the other in importance?
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not want to go too much into the merits of these questions, because they are very technical and very detailed, but, broadly speaking, the view I take—I may have been entirely wrong—and the view I took at the time was that in matters of the Army it was necessarily the big military nations that were principally concerned. In matters of the Navy it was necessarily the big naval and maritime nations that were principally concerned. And, whereas I thought it was reasonable that we should do our best to meet the views of the big military nations on military matters, I thought they also ought to do their best to meet our views on the naval questions. That was the broad line which seemed to me to be a reasonable line to take, and it was because we failed altogether to get an agreement on the naval question that the negotiations were for the moment suspended.
  When I read Count Clauzel's speech I very much hoped that there had been an approach to an agreement on this difficult question. Now that it has been explained that all that happened was that some of the experts on each side, or on all sides—because I gathered that there are other experts besides British and French experts—who were concerned were talking casually about it, and hoped to get somewhere nearer to agreement, particularly on the military side, I confess that that is rather a disappointment to me, because in effect nothing was done towards an advance as far as a convention was concerned at Geneva this time—nothing at all, in spite of almost a year's consideration of the difficulties. And I confess it seems to me rather difficult to answer those foreign critics who are now saying that the proceedings at Geneva did not indicate any great expectation of a successful result. However, this is not a criticism of my noble friend's courtesy on the present occasion. I gladly recognise that he has done the best he can to meet our desire for information. I can only express my great
  736
  regret that he has not been able, from the nature of the case and from the facts of the case, to give us more satisfactory information, or information of a more hopeful character than he has felt able to give.
  LORD CUSHENDUN: I wonder whether the House would allow me to say another word. I should like to be allowed to, after what has fallen from my noble friend, because I think it quite possible I may have given him a false impression. It is not very easy to reproduce exactly what has happened when these conversations are going on, but I think that the very thing which he said he was hoping might occur was what did occur. These conversations between the experts are, of course, reported to the leaders of the various delegations; and I do hope that the result of these conversations may result in an agreement on those very points which, as my noble friend says, could not be agreed upon last year. I do not quite agree with him in putting the naval question in such a prominent place in comparison with the other. That is the only difference. But the conversations certainly were upon those very points, and, although, as I said before, I cannot make any very confident prediction, I am hopeful that it may meet with some better result.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CANADA AND THE ANGLO-EGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
  LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the statements recently made by the Prime Minister of Canada on the subject of Chanak and the proposed Treaty with Egypt; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on more than one occasion I have attempted to draw your Lordships' attention to opinion in our Dominions, and particularly in our great Dominion of Canada, on general questions of foreign or peace policy. More than once I have asked that documents might be produced, and particularly on one occasion when, in the Canadian Parliament, the same request was made, and the answer was given that the Canadian Government would have been perfectly ready to produce the documents,

  737
  but that the Home Government had raised an objection. Now, only such a short time ago as March 26, a very remarkable speech was made in the Dominion House of Commons in Canada on questions such as we have been already dealing with to a certain extent to-night—namely, on questions of world policy in connection with peace. I am one of those who think that what has been called the spirit of a peace policy is essential if you are to meet with success in the promotion of a real world settlement in the future, and it is upon that particular point that I want to call the attention of the noble Marquess.
  On March 26 Miss Macphail, who is a member of the Dominion House of Commons, brought in what one would call in this country a pacifist resolution. That pacifist resolution was talked out, and therefore I do not put any particular weight upon what she said, because I want to point out what was said on this occasion by Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister. I have a resumé of what he said here:
  "His Government, he contended, was whole-heartedly committed to a pacific policy."
  It may be said that many Governments have said that. But Mr. Mackenzie King went beyond that point, and said that he would give two illustrations which would show the reality of the facts on which he made the statement. The Prime Minister of Canada said this first of all in regard to the Chanak affair, which of course was in 1922, though I had no idea that his statement would go so far. It is stated that—
  "he claimed"—
  this is one of the reasons he gave for the reality of his pacific policy—
  "credit for averting a serious European War by the stand over the Chanak affair in 1922."
  In other words, what he says is that had the Canadians been prepared at that time to send their forces in connection with the Chanak affair, in his view there would have been another European war. We know, of course, that they would not do that, and that they stood out against it. But the claim he makes requires very deep consideration—that because they stood out, and in consequence of the attitude of Canada, the danger of what he calls a European war was prevented.
  Then he goes on to say—and this seems to me to be extremely important, and I ask the noble Marquess whether he can lay Papers—that
  "within the last few months his Government had been asked whether it would be a party to the Treaty which was being negotiated between Great Britain and Egypt. Having examined the terms and discovered that the Treaty involved both military sanctions and a military alliance, the Ministry felt that Canada's adhesion would not promote either the interests of the British Empire or larger world peace."
  And he goes on to say, in expressing this opinion, that the Canadian Parliament would not endorse the Treaty.
  We have had several discussions in recent years as to the exact status of what is called the sovereign independence of our Dominions at the present time. That was more particularly recognised after the Imperial Conference of 1926. I agree it is recognised—at least it seems to me to be recognised—that no Dominion can be called in to help this country apart from its own consent and, in the case of Canada, the consent of the Dominion House of Commons. There may be a further difficulty under International Law, which is present to our minds and which I need not discuss this evening. Those two instances show, what I have always felt to be the case, that our Dominions have adopted a more peace-loving policy than we have. That is more particularly true of Canada. It is also in accord with what I found at Geneva, that the representatives of all the Dominions were in favour of what I would call the high-water mark of international peace policy. I would ask the noble Marquess whether he can lay any Papers upon the table in reference to what appears to me to be an extraordinary statement by the Canadian Prime Minister. It is entirely in accordance, I may say, with the opinion of M. Dandurand, who has represented Canada at Geneva on many occasions. He was always in favour of settling disputes by other methods than war; I do not say merely as a pious opinion, but in actual practice. And I have several times noticed indications of the same spirit in the discussions in the Dominion Parliament. But here is an actual statement by the Prime Minister of Canada, who says: I stopped a European war at one time, and I would not take part in the Egyptian Treaty because in my view

  739
  it was military, and would not promote either the interests of the British Empire or a larger world peace policy.
  It has often been said that the Dominions and the Mother Country together exercise a great influence for peace. I do not deny it for a moment. What I want to emphasise is that there can be no doubt in the mind of any one who has studied what has passed in many of our Dominions—I need not go into all of them, and the statement of the Prime Minister of one of them is before your Lordships—that they are earnestly desirous of doing all they can practically and in action (it is not merely a matter of pious talk) to promote a real peace policy both in the Empire and in the world. I do not deny for a moment, of course, that our Government desires peace. All Governments desire peace. What I say is that in discussing the position of the Dominions on the question of a peace policy they do not give sufficient weight to the real peaceful opinion which exists in those Dominions at the present time. I know that at Locarno permission was given, as it were, to the Dominions not to come under any obligation. I know also that, as between the Dominions and ourselves, we can determine that no such obligation shall be undertaken. But while there is one sovereignty over the whole Empire we cannot avoid the fact, under International Law, that if one part of our sovereign Dominions is at war, it may mean war for the whole. That is not within our power or jurisdiction. It is a necessary inference, and probably always will be, from one of the primary principles upon which International Law is founded.
  On the occasion to which I have already referred—and the occasion is less important—Mr. Bourassa, who is well known as a pacifist in Canada, also made a statement. He said that Canada had a right to preserve a neutrality in all cases. I do not agree with that, and I will say no more. It is a matter which has been discussed lately between General Hertzog and General Smuts. It may be a matter for discussion at some subsequent time, and I do not want to discuss it now. But will the noble Marquess give us further information as to what it was that passed in relation to the Treaty between Egypt and ourselves,
  740
  which caused Mr. Mackenzie King to make to the world the statement I have quoted, on the ground—and here I am entirely with him, though I do not know the particular facts—that a peace policy would promote the interests of the Empire, and that anything outside a peace policy would be detrimental (and it certainly would be) both to the interests of the Empire and to the world at large. I ask the noble Marquess whether he can give your Lordships any further information and Papers on that point. I beg to move.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with regard to the closing words of the noble and learned Lord's speech, he will recognise, or I hope he recognises, that the object of the policy of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain is precisely the same as the policy which he has ascribed to His Majesty's Government in Canada—namely, to preserve peace. There is no difference between us on that great issue. Of course, we are intent upon preserving peace. But, undoubtedly, the relations between the various component parts of the Empire in respect of these high matters are of some difficulty. The noble and learned Lord went back a great many years—right back to the incidents of 1922. He quoted an observation by Mr. Mackenzie King on the subject of what is known as the Chanak incident. The facts are agreed, up to a certain point at any rate. Undoubtedly the Canadian Government were asked to associate themselves with the British Government at that time, and were asked whether they would be represented by a military contingent in case military action was required in those regions. I have personally no responsibility at all for the action of the then Government. It is true that subsequently to that question and that answer there were no military operations, but I would not like to lay it down that the result was entirely due to the action of the Canadian Government. My recollection, for what it is worth, is that there was a very strong feeling in this country against military operations on that occasion, and I think it would not be rash to say that the strong opinion expressed in this country had at any rate a partial effect, just as much as the opinion in Canada had, in bringing that question to the end which it reached.

  741
  I turn to the more recent case of Egypt. We are under a difficulty in discussing that matter. The noble and learned Lord was under the same difficulty as myself. We have not yet received the whole text of Mr. Mackenzie King's observations. We have only a very summary telegraphic report to go upon. I must do my best to answer the noble and learned Lord with that very important limitation. I have to say that in all the negotiations which led up to the draft Treaty with Egypt, the Dominion Governments were kept fully informed of every step which was being taken, but the terms which were proposed to the Egyptian Government, as the noble and learned Lord will recognise if he reads the draft, were expressly limited to the relations between His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and Egypt and on the face of it did not include any of the Dominion Governments. If he wishes for the reference he will find it on page 36 of the White Book which has been distributed. He will see that the British Plenipotentiary was named by "His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; for Great Britain and Northern Ireland," so that there was no question at any time of asking the Dominions to take part in being responsible for the Treaty or the results of the Treaty.
  What was done was this. Their concurrence in the general policy embodied in the Treaty was asked for, which is a very different thing from asking people to be parties to the Treaty. I admit that diplomatic language of this kind is necessarily very technical, but there is the broadest distinction in principle between asking the Dominion Governments for their concurrence in the general policy of the Treaty and asking them to be parties to it. With regard to the second, that never entered into the heads of His Majesty's Government here. All the Dominions replied to this request and they all expressed themselves satisfied with the prospect held out to them that there would be an agreement, or might be an agreement—unhappily it has not yet taken place—on this subject with the Government of Egypt. I need not say they raised no objection
  742
  whatever to the terms. That I take to be the situation.
  The noble and learned Lord says that he would like to have Papers laid upon this subject. I am afraid I am not able to gratify him. There is, of course, the White Book and he will find in the White Book references in my right hon. friend's Despatches to this request for the concurrence of the Dominions and to the fact that he records having received answers from them, but if I am asked to go any further in laying Papers upon the Table I am bound to say that the Government do not think it in the public interest to comply with that request. I do not myself see that anything is required except the frankest exchange of views between the various Governments of the Dominions and of the Mother Country. If these views are to be frankly exchanged then confidence is absolutely essential and it is not possible, if we are to speak out to each other as we ought to speak out, that everything should be laid before Parliament and in that way published to the world.
  The noble and learned Lord has gone into the very difficult subject of the actual relations between the Dominions and the Mother Country and the international status which they occupy. I am not going to follow the noble and learned Lord into that subject. The bonds which unite us are not legal bonds. We are as members of the same family. A brother or a sister is not bound to support the action of their relative, but the bond is none the less a real one between them, and it is of bonds of that kind that the bonds between the Dominions and the Mother Country consist. We do not ourselves claim for a moment that we have any control over the independent action of the Dominions. They are self-governing Dominions, but we do not for that reason abandon our confidence in the bond which unites us. We believe, and being Englishmen we believe all the more, that it is a matter of feeling and not a matter of obligation; at any rate in the great experiment of the British Empire we are prepared to face the future relying upon that point. I do not think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord will gain anything either for himself or—what he cares for much more—

  743
  for the country, by trying to make precise a relation which, powerful though it is, is not capable of being described in precise language.
  LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in answer to the speech of the noble Marquess, not by way of making any complaint, but by way of elucidation. As regards the last part of his speech, no one—at any rate I think no one—feels more strongly than I do what he has denoted by the family relationship, but what I would indicate to him is that if you leave a lot of undetermined obligations, particularly as regards questions of international rights, then, however strong the family relationship may be, you run the risk of a breach, a risk which ought to be avoided, which is a very different proposition. I did not enter into these matters to-night, and I explained the reason why I did not do so, but I certainly feel very strongly that these questions ought to be elucidated in the sense of the members of the family coming to a common determination of what they desire and of what their attitude ought to be. I cannot see myself that there is the slightest inconsistency between that and what he calls the family relationship. On the contrary, to make the family relationship as strong as possible you must avoid unnecessary disputes.
  On another point I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Marquess. I do not think that frankness and publicity are inconsistent. I know that is the old diplomatic view, but I am strongly in favour of publicity in all these matters and the essence of publicity is that there should be frankness. There is very little good in publicity unless you have frankness. It is very important in my view, because undoubtedly, as the noble Marquess knows very well, the whole outlook as regards Geneva and our foreign policy and the peace of the world must be and ought to be very largely influenced by the opinion of our great Dominions. There is only one other point, and that is one which I think the noble Marquess misunderstood. When I quoted the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, my point
  744
  had no relation as to nearness or farness. I quoted him as representative of Canadian thought. I will not go back to the opinion about Chanak—no doubt there are different views about that and I am not prepared to hold the balance between them—but there is no doubt as to what is the view of Mr. Mackenzie King and there is no doubt that as Prime Minister of Canada he largely represents Canadian opinion. It is Canadian opinion I care about. Canadian opinion is the important point, and if I may refer to one other passage as regards this altered relationship between us and Egypt, I would point out that Mr. Mackenzie King expressed the opinion that the Canadian Parliament would not endorse the Treaty. That is a matter to be considered. Whether we asked them to do it or not is, I think, a different matter altogether.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We did not ask them.
  LORD PARMOOR: I will deal with that in a moment. If you want family Dominion opinion expressed as it ought to be expressed, as a common opinion which we all hold, then of course you ought to pay great attention to what the views of a great Dominion like Canada are. That was my point. I accept what the noble Marquess said that their opinion was not asked. I should have hoped it had been asked.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord must not in these very delicate matters read into my speech any words I did not use. They were undoubtedly asked to concur in the general policy. They were not asked to be parties to the Treaty.
  LORD PARMOOR: That emphasises my point, because what was said by the Prime Minister of Canada, as regards the view of the Canadian Government and the Canadian Parliament, was undoubtedly on the general question and not on the details of the Treaty. He said it was a military Treaty to be supported by military means and he thought it was not for the good of the peace of the Empire or the peace of the world. I should like to emphasise again that there is no difference between the noble Marquess

  745
  and myself. I said that in the family outlook we ought to go together, and if we do that, to use an expression with which I think the noble Marquess will agree, I am sure the Empire may be made the most potent factor in the world for peace throughout the whole world. I will not press my Motion for Papers.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  EASTER RECESS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that we do now adjourn till Thursday, April 19.
  House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.