File No. 841.711/962
The Chargé in Great Britain (Laughlin) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 21.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that on the 3d instant the House of Commons resolved itself into a Committee of Supply to consider the Colonial Office vote, and that in the course of debate a controversy arose between free-trade and protectionist members over the question of a proposed export duty on palm nuts from British West Africa. Mr. Bonar Law, the Colonial Secretary, who was in charge of the bill, is of course, besides being a member of the Coalition Government, the Unionist leader in the House of Commons and a tariff reformer, which in this country means the opposite of a free trader.
As the free-trade members were pressing the Colonial Secretary rather strongly on the question of export duties, Mr. Bonar Law, with a view apparently to discrediting free-trade arguments generally, made a somewhat remarkable statement, which is enclosed herewith as it appeared in the official record of Parliamentary Debates in the House of Commons for August 3d, 1916, volume 85, No. 81, page 590.1 In the course of Mr. Bonar Law’s remarks he read from a photograph of a letter which he stated had come into his possession in some manner not specified, from a representative of a firm of margarine makers in a neutral country to some third person, explaining what he proposed to do in the way of starting propaganda in the House of Commons against the export duty on palm nuts. From the remarks of certain other members who followed Mr. Bonar Law in the debate, it will be observed that several of them took the attitude that Mr. Bonar Law had suggested that they were being used as tools for foreign propaganda in the free trade interest and resented these insinuations.
On August 8 it will be seen from the second enclosure that Mr. King, a member of the House of Commons, asked the Secretary of State for War, from whom the military censor depends, whether it was the policy of the military censorship not only to prevent military information being improperly disclosed, but also to provide ministers with material for attacking their political critics. Mr. Lloyd George’s answer, as well as his answer to a supplementary question [Page 620] by Mr. King, is worthy of note. The Secretary for War states in effect that it is the practice of the censor to communicate to public departments concerned any information on matters of public interest which may be obtained through the censorship for such use to be made of it as the particular department may consider desirable, and further, that the British Government are perfectly within their rights in so doing.
In this connection I would draw your attention to the question asked by Sir G. Toulmin, who followed Mr. Lloyd George, whether there were cases in which prices had been discovered in intercepted letters and passed on to departments with whom business relations are concerned, as giving some indication of the effect of Mr. Lloyd George’s statements on the minds of members.
The Foreign Office have done what they can to counteract the unfortunate impression created by Mr. Lloyd George’s answers, and have stated that the margarine letter in question was written in this country, and that consequently no improper act was committed in using it in the manner indicated. But the fact that a minister of the Crown, speaking in his official capacity in the House of Commons, should state that the British Government held themselves free to make any use they chose of intercepted letters is not without interest to neutral countries in connection with the controversy in respect of the detention of mails.
I have [etc.]