POPE'S PEACE NOTE.

HC Deb 14 February 1918 vol 103 cc374-96

Mr. McKEAN

I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words: But respectfully represent to Your Majesty that the dual action of Your Government in, firstly, having sent to the Peace Note of His Holiness Pope Benedict XV., dated the 1st August, 1917, no reasoned reply such as its importance and ordinary courtesy demanded; and, in the second place, by the cognate policy of Your Majesty's Government in adopting and endorsing without exception or reservation the terms of the secret treaty with Italy, signed by Your Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 26th April, 1915, including Clause 15 thereof,. which imposes unjust and impolitic restrictions on the potential activities of the Holy See in regard to any steps it might take with a view to ending the present calamitous War or arranging the consequent terms of peace, is calculated to seriously impair the military and naval efforts of Your Majesty's Forces by spreading demoralisation among Catholic soldiers at the war front and Catholic seamen and officers in the Navy, and to weaken the morale of their friends and co-religionists at home, and calculated at the same time to prolong indefinitely the suicidal struggle that is causing the loss of so many precious lives and devastating so many otherwise productive lands by precluding the intervention of the greatest influence on earth for the purpose of effecting a just and enduring peace, and by excluding from the deliberations of the peace conference the representatives of the Holy See, to render the terms of settlement that will there be arrived at less safe as a guarantee for future peace of the world and devoid of the high and solemn sanction they would have derived from the approval of him who is the traditional peacemaker on earth. I have no doubt that it will seem very ungracious on my part to begin my re- marks by an emphatic but a respectful protest against the arrangements made in accordance with which my Amendment is taken at this hour of the evening. I do not know exactly to whom to direct my protest, nor am I particularly concerned to inquire, but it is directed to whoever is responsible for the arrangement of business in this House. Any person of much meaner intelligence than you are possessed of, Mr. Speaker, or the other parties who are responsible for this arrangement, must know that by the very nature of my Amendment and on its merits it ought certainly to get, if not the premier, certainly a most prominent place in the order in which these Amendments were taken. If any proof is wanted of the claim I make in this matter I can furnish it. The issues with which my Amendment deal have been made the subject of public pronouncements within the last week by their Eminences Cardinal Logue in Ireland and Cardinal Bourne in London, and the position which I take up with regard to these issues is almost identical with the position taken up in those pronouncements.

What is the essence and gravamen of my charge? The acts I take exception to, the acts to which their Eminences and other members of the Hierarchy in England and Ireland take exception to, are the acts of the Government. They are not acts of irresponsible people, but they are the acts of responsible Ministers. This country is ruled under Parliamentary forms. Every Member of this Parliament, unless he puts on record his dissent from the acts of the Government, is indirectly and constructively responsible for those acts. I happen for the time being to be a Member of this Assembly, and if I did not rise here to-night to express my disagreement with the acts of the present Government, and the acts of its predecessor, I should be constructively responsible for them. If I stood absolutely alone among the Catholics in this House, or amongst the Catholics of England, Scotland, and Ireland, I should still decline to sit in this House or to be a Member of it and to be responsible in any degree or to any extent for the conduct against which I rise to protest— conduct on the part of His Majesty's Government. My Amendment deals with two subjects; but, before addressing myself to them, may I make one or two preliminary remarks? Had there been a larger number of Members present, I might have been told this is an inopportune moment for raising such a question. I might have been reminded that we are in the midst of a great war, and it is not right to distract the attention of the House or of the country by raising these irrelevant issues. But I submit that the issues I seek to raise are not irrelevant. On the contrary, they have an intimate and most important bearing on the conduct of this War.

I go further, and say that it may be possible in the considerations I shall place before this House and before the country there may be found a solution to a problem which it has hitherto been impossible to solve. That problem is the successful conclusion of the War— the bringing of the War to a successful issue. The solution of it has not been found in Debates either in this House or outside. No one speaker has really gone to the root of the problem, and perhaps even a humble individual like myself may be able to indicate some new line, which, if followed, might lead to a more successful issue. This is, I know, an unpopular subject. I have always noticed that any subject which has the least reference to religion is very unpopular. I do not share that view, and I think it speaks badly for the British Parliament that it entertains such objections to discussing that class of subject. Religion is so important a matter that any aspect of it must always be interesting to the better and higher class of men. May I, before submitting any comments of my own, read the opinions of some personages whose thoughts are more important and more valuable than mine could be. I would read what the Catholic Bishop of Northampton, a very intellectual man, has said on this subject, and these words will show that if I stand alone here there are outside people who think as I do, and think very strongly. Such people are to be found all over the world, although they may not have given expression to their thoughts so far. Bishop Keating, speaking to the Catholic Society of the University of Liverpool, towards the end of last month, said: Was it wise to damp the enthusiasm and heroism of Catholic regiments and seamen? Was it wise to play into the hands of Sinn Fein Irishmen, of pacifists in England and of Bolshevists everywhere? Catholics had a right to express in the strongest possible way their feelings to the No Popery campaign carried on so recklessly and so long. Did not those people recognise that the Pope was a sacred person, the Vicar of Jesus Christ? I want to release the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) as soon as possible. I am very grateful to him for being here. I have certainly no fault to find with him. On the contrary, I feel a great debt of gratitude to him. I do not blame the Noble Lord or his chief at the Foreign Office in regard to the matter which constitutes the subject of my Amendment. The only fault I have to find with them is their lack of initiative and of independence. Their own intelligence must have shown them that a great blunder in diplomacy had been made, but they had not the independence and courage to admit that the position was untenable and indefensible, and to advise the Government to retire from it. I am confident that the Noble Lord, a man of singular intelligence and of great skill in all the matters with which he has to deal, a man who is bound to rise a great deal higher in his career, must recognise that a mistake of the very first order has been made— a mistake that really constituted a grievous surprise for the Catholics of the whole world. If he wants to be considered a man of great moral courage he must have the courage of what I cannot help thinking are his convictions, and he must admit that the matters with which I am immediately concerned, dealt with in a secret treaty, constitute a blunder of the first magnitude.

8.0 P.M.

The first count in the indictment I prefer against the Foreign Office in particular and the Government in general is that they vouchsafed no reply of any sort which the circumstances demanded to the last Peace Note to the Pope. Let us examine that position for a moment. If any Member of this House doubts that a slight has been offered to the Head of the Catholic Church all over the world, let him make the case his own. Suppose that he had written a latter to, say, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and had merely received in reply a formal acknowledgment, not dealing at all with the merits of the matter. Would he not feel snubbed? If he would, as I feel sure he would, is there no insult to the Head of the Catholic Church in giving no detailed reply, but merely a formal acknowledgment to his communication? I understand the Noble Lord has put on record somewhere— I do not know where— that the British Government excused itself from replying to the Pope's Peace Note on the ground that it had adopted the reply of the President of the United States. Is not that a very extraordinary position for the Government of a great Empire to take up? Might we not go further, and leave-it to the President of the United States to answer all our correspondence? It is-a most absurd and most impossible position for the representatives of a responsible Government to assume. If anybody wants proof that the attitude I take up-in this matter is the right one, I can give-it. If it was right for the British Government to reply vicariously to the Pope's Peace Note, why did not President Wilson take up a like position? The Pope sent his Peace Note, not to the United States, but to the King of England, and asked His Majesty to send it to the President of the United States, to the President of the French Republic, to the King of Italy, and to other people. The President of the United States might very well have said, "This Peace Note has not been addressed to me, but to the British Government, and I will let the British Government reply, and if I approve of the terms of their reply I will adopt it." But since the President of the United States thought it incumbent upon him to send a detailed reply, surely the British Government was equally under an obligation to reply. If it was right for the British Government to have its correspondence with His Holiness, the Pope, conducted vicariously, why did not the King of the Belgians take up the same attitude. His Majesty did not say, ''I adopt the reply of the United States," but he replied himself to the Pope's Peace Note. Every representative of the Catholic Church who has dealt with this subject has dealt with this. "No Reply" in the sense in which I am dealing with it to-night and in the sense in which I have dealt with it from the beginning. I submit that this action of the British Government and of the Foreign Office in not replying to the Pope's Peace Note was a characteristic act of the British Government. I will tell the House what I think to be the characteristic of the British Government. I have been in this House now for nearly sixteen years, and, although I have said very little from these benches, perhaps I have thought a great deal, and seen a great deal. I will tell the House what the characteristic of British Governments, as I have seen them in this House, is. It is weakness, cowardice, lack of individuality, lack of the power of thinking for themselves— a certain official slavishness; that is really what explains the situation. One set of Ministers succeeds another. They assume that those who went before them were divinely inspired people, which is a very erroneous impression indeed. At all events, in this spirit of official loyalty they will never correct a mistake of their predecessors. Let us have some initiative, let us have some independence, let us have some strength at last on the part of the Government. I think I can explain, too, why they did not reply. It was through terror of the Press. We know how subservient this Government is to the Press; it is dominated by the Press; its actions and its policy are dictated by the Press; and I say this much— a very good thing indeed. I hear a lot of people in this House making uncomplimentary remarks about Lord Northcliffe and the Northcliffe Press, and I am not afraid to say that I think England can never repay Lord Northcliffe and the Northcliffe Press sufficiently for its services during this War. I have known nothing more wonderful than the prescience and the courage of the Northcliffe Press, and all I can say is that I hope Lord Northcliffe will come down some day to this House with his big sweeping brush and clear the whole place out. That is what we want in this House. The whole Government machinery worships the machine. I think that the members of the Government must have some picture of the Government machine, and that they say their prayers before it every night.

As I say, the characteristic of British Governments is utter lack of initiative, utter want of moral courage. It was the outcry in the Press, I dare say, that accounts for no reply having been sent. The Press, with one howl of execration, received the Pope's Peace Note as a German-inspired document. If you crystallise their attitude towards it, that was their attitude— that it was a German-inspired document. I will examine very briefly the Pope's Peace Note; and, mark you, it well deserves and will well repay examination. I say that a nobler or a more statesmanlike document has hardly ever appeared in the English language than that Peace Note. I will examine it very briefly, and we will see whether it was German-inspired or not. I quote practically from memory the substance of the Pope's Peace Note, and what were its terms. They were these. First that right should be substituted for might in the relations between States, and in the settlement of their disputes. Secondly, that arbitration — a corollary of the first— should take the place of a recourse to arms. Thirdly, that there should be complete freedom of the seas. I take it that the claim for complete freedom of the seas was the ground for calling it a German-inspired document; but let any man here turn to the message of President Wilson to Congress early in the month of January and he will find the very same thing— the freedom of the seas. Where, then, does the excuse of it being a German-inspired document, come in? Let us examine some other of the terms of this Peace Note. Another of its fundamental principles was this: that there should be mutual condonation for damages brought about by the War, that there should be mutual restoration of territories conquered or occupied during the War, and that territorial questions such as those as existed between France and Germany, on the one hand, and Italy and Austria, on the other, should be settled in a conciliatory spirit. Mark you also, that these questions should be settled by reference to the peoples of the nations, and to the questions of equity and justice. I ask any fair-minded man here, and I ask the fair-minded section of the public outside— because I should not be speaking here to-night only that I know that although I have a small audience here, please God I have a large audience outside— to appreciate these facts. I have paid a compliment to one section of the Press of this country, but I hurl back at the Press the accusation, the utterly false accusation, that this was a German-inspired document. It was nothing of the sort.

There is just one thing more that I forgot to say about no reply having been sent to this Peace Note. It is a very remarkable thing that a Socialist deputy, an ex-Minister in France, thought that there should be replies sent. M. Albert Thomas, the ex-Minister of Munitions, put it on record in "L'Information," the French journal, that he was surprised that the British Government sent no reply to the Pope's Peace Note. I have referred to the Press, and I have to say one or two things more about the Press. I know nothing more discreditable than the attitude that the British Press has taken up with regard to the Pope and his acts during this War. But, of course, there is no item in my Amendment dealing with the Press, and, therefore, I do not propose— and, besides, the acts of the Press are not actually the acts of the Government, although we know, as I said before, that this Government is absolutely under the thumb of the Press and that there never was a Government that was so thoroughly under the thumb of the Press as the existing Government— to deal at length with that subject. Nevertheless, their whole position with regard to the Pope and his acts during this War is a position that they cannot maintain or defend. It is not merely in the newspaper Press that the Pope has been attacked; and, mark you! we cannot separate the two counts in my indictment from this universal campaign of calumny that has been carried on. It has reacted on the Government, of course, as I have already shown. There was a pamphlet published among the publications issued from the Press by a non-Catholic, and here is the position the non-Catholic took up. He said: From the great palace on the Tiber the Vatican has power to issue an Encyclical that would make the lords of war tremble with fear. He said: If the Pope spoke out, it is quite conceivable that the War might be appreciably shortened with a corresponding saving of scores of thousands of lives. He goes further, and says: The voice of the Pope could be a trumpet-call of hope and inspiration to the hearts of millions, but alas, that voice, so eagerly listened for. has not been heard. The Pope has kept a sphinx-like silence, a strange silence in the presence of the convulsion of the nations, and the vast moral issues concerned. Let us see if the Pope has been silent. The Pope was elected on the 3rd September, 1914, and on the 8th September he issued an exhortation to all the Governments of the world. I should like to read that, because it would well repay me, at least I should like to read parts of it, and indeed the same remark applies to every single pronouncement the Pope has made on the War. If hon. Members have some time to spare I would advise them to get a book in which they will find copies of all the Pope's utterances, and I say that no man in our generation has ever given utterance to such noble expression. How do the Pope's pronouncements differ from all other pronouncements? We have had many wonderfully able pronouncements on this War. President Wilson's messages have been most statesmanlike productions, but there is one thing they lack which you find in the Pope's Peace Notes. What is that one thing? In President Wilson's messages— in the one that was published two days ago— you find greatness of the head, but in the Pope's Peace Note you find not merely greatness of the head, but greatness of the heart. The heart of the man speaks out in words of statesmanship in the Pope's Peace Notes. In the same year he issued the usual encyclical which the Pope sends out after his election. I will read one or two sentences from it. I am sure that it will pay hon. Members to listen to them. He says: The dread image of war overshadows the world and absorbs nearly every thought. The strongest and Wealthiest nations are in conflict. … There is no end to the ruin, no end to the deaths; each day sees the earth flowing with fresh blood and covered with dead and wounded. Who would think that the nations, thus armed against each other, belong to the same human family? Who could realise that they are brethren, children of the same Father in Heaven? Further down he says: Therefore, we earnestly beseech princes and rulers that, moved by the sight of so many tears and so much blood, they delay not to bring back to their peoples the life-giving blessings of peace. We beg all those who hold in their hands the destinies of nations to give heed to that voice. If their rights have been violated, they can surely find other means and ways of obtaining redress. At Christmas the same year, replying to an address of the Cardinals, he dealt with the subject again. At the Consistory, on 22nd January, 1915, he strikes the same note. Then, on 28th July, 1915, after a year of war, he sent out one more appeal "to the peoples now at war and to their rulers." I will read one or two sentences.

He says: Thinking with unspeakable regret of our young sons who were being mown down by death in thousands, we opened our heart, enlarged by the charity of Christ, to all the crushing sorrow of the mothers, and of the wives made widows before their time, and to all the inconsolable lamentations of the little ones too early bereft of a father's care. Then he goes on to adjure the rulers of the nations in these terms. [Interruption.] If you want to talk, you can go outside and talk. You ought to have some manners. In the Holy Name of God, in the Name of our Heavenly Father, by the Sacred Blood of Jesus, the price of man's redemption we conjure you, whom Divine Providence has placed over the belligerent nations, to put an end at last to this horrible slaughter, which for a whole year has dishonoured Europe. It is the blood of brothers that is being poured out on land and sea. The most beautiful regions of Europe, this garden of the world, are sown with corpses, and, with ruin everywhere, havoc and death.…You who bear before God and man the awful responsibility of peace and war, give ear to our prayer, to the fatherly voice of the Vicar of the Eternal and Supreme Judge to whom you must render an account of your public undertakings as well as of your individual actions. Again, on 5th December, 1915, he spoke of the subject in different terms, but striking always the same human note— the note of the father whose heart is bleeding for the lives of his children. Again, reciprocating the Christmas greetings of the sacred colleges, he once more returns to the subject. On 25th May, 1915, he ordered three days' strict fast to be observed by Catholics. That brings me to what he has done. I will sum up what he has done. This writer, the non-Catholic, says: In the catastrophe that has burst upon the world, what has the mighty Church of Rome done? What is she doing? Since he throws down the challenge, I will take it up. We will see what the Pope has done, and we shall be able to compare what he has done with what any other Power in the world has done. What has the King of Spain done? What has the King of Sweden done? Practically nothing. Now we will see what the Pope has done. He arranged for the interchange of prisoners rendered unfit for further military service. That was the first thing he did. At the opening of the Reichstag Bethmann-Hollweg expressed the thanks of the German Government. He said: I wish to add a special word of gratitude to his Holiness the Pope, who conceived the idea of the exchange of prisoners, and who has given evidence of his unceasing interest by many charitable acts. That was the first thing he did. The next thing was this: He had an arrangement effected in favour of wounded and sick prisoners of war not wholly unfit for military service, with a view to rendering their condition less grave and to facilitating their recovery. He was thanked by the British Government. It was a wonder they did it. It was an act of grace such as they do not often perform: The English Government hastened to convey to the Holy See its thanks for the efforts thus crowned with success. On 4th May, 1916, Sir Henry Howard, instructed by Sir Edward Grey, conveyed to Cardinal Gasparri the following Note: The German Government having made known that it accepts the proposal for the reciprocal removal to Switzerland of invalided prisoners of war, English and German, His Britannic Majesty's Government hastens to express to the Holy See its warmest gratitude for having made this proposal. It was inspired by those great humanitarian sentiments of which His Holiness has given such frequent proofs during the course of the War. and His Majesty's Government is convinced that the action so happily initiated by the Holy Father will be fruitful of benefits to many British prisoners of war. There are hundreds of thousands of military prisoners in the hands of the enemy. These, too, are kept in view. by the Common Father. He has issued instructions to his bishops and to his priests to give them every attention and not merely spiritual comfort and help, but temporal help. Where there was no one to help them and no one to give them pecuniary aid it was given to them without any distinction of creed from the limited funds of the Holy See. Another thing that the Pope did was this: He established a bureau of information for tracing missing prisoners. Up to August, 1915, they traced no less than 40,000 missing. The expense of that was very great. The Vatican bore it all. I cannot tell you all the financial aid that the Vatican has given to Belgium, to Poland, to East Prussia, and to Lithuania. It was 25,000 francs, and more in many cases. That, mark you, out of the limited funds of the Vatican. The revenues of the Vatican have been seriously depleted by the course of this War. In addition, at one stage of the War, massacres were proceeding in Armenia. They were stopped owing to the intervention of the Pope. The schismatic Patriarch, confessing his own inability to do anything, warmly thanked the Holy See for its intervention and for the relief sent to the survivors. I could put before you other acts of the Pope-Here is a message from Count Hertling, the Bavarian Premier, who says: In reply to yours of the 26th ultimo (February), I have the honour to acquaint your Excellency that the efforts of the Holy See for a satisfactory solution of the question affecting the Belgian working-men have not been without success. According to reliable information from Berlin, the competent authorities are disposed to abstain from forcible deportations of working-men from Belgium to Germany, and to allow the return to their own country of all those who, owing to possible mistakes, were unjustly deported. I do not know whether any hon. Member has noticed this or not, but I have. At the beginning of this War we saw frequent reports in regard to the cruel treatment of prisoners in Germany. Did we hear anything about this cruelty within the last year and a half? To whom is that fact due? To the Pope. Yet we are asked what has the Pope done? What I ask is, what is it the Pope has not done? What other neutral Sovereign in the world has the same record of noble service to his credit in this War as the Pope has? The Pope's power is limited; he cannot do everything You have prevented the Pope from doing very much. This brings me to the secret treaty with Italy. If any man blames the Pope for failing in any way, I ask him to remember the limited opportunities of the Pope. There was a time in the history of the world when the Pope was all-powerful. There was a time in the history of the world when the whole world recognised the Pope's sway and when the whole world was obedient to the Pope. Those were the days when the evils of war were reduced to a minimum and when wars were avoided. Now we come to see how the British Government circumscribes the power of the Pope and gyves and manacles him at the instance of Italy. To speak in parenthesis a moment, the Prime Minister appeared at a banquet some time ago at Gray's Inn, when he had a sneer at the Pope's expense. He asked whether we were to grasp the hand of the malefactor, and he wont on to say: The Kaiser has told us so, Austria has told us so, and the Pope has told us so. and there was laughter. He laughs best who laughs last. We shall see whether the Prime Minister will laugh in the months to come. The Prime Minister is quite ready to grasp the noble hand of Italy— Italy that is so unselfish, so disinterested; Italy that has been so loyal to treaties, so faithful to her friends. The Prime Minister did not make any joke at the expense of Italy. He was quite ready to grasp her noble hand. Now we come to the treaty. I put several questions to the Noble Lord with regard to this matter. I will not say that the Noble Lord dodged. Whatever he did in the way of evasion I well know was official evasion, but it was evasion all the same. There is no getting away from the fact. We come to this clause in the treaty which I say it is impossible for this Government to stand over. I go further, and say that no success shall you have in this War till you retract the terms of Clause 15 of the secret treaty— never! You have not succeeded so far, and you never will. The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster said two or three nights ago— I forget his exact words, but the substance was this— that anyone who twitted the Pope with disrespect had to pay the price. Never was there a truer sentiment than that. I take one great case from history. Mind you, that underlying this there is a great, principle. I want to emphasise the words of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. Napoleon Bonaparte carried all before him till one fatal moment. What was that fatal moment? It was the moment when he laid violent hands on Pope Pius VII. and brought him a prisoner from Rome to France. From that time his star began to wane. Elba came not very long afterwards, then Waterloo, and the star sank in gloom behind the black rock of St. Helena. Let me read Article 15 of this Treaty: France, Great Britain and Russia pledge themselves to support Italy in not allowing the representatives of the Holy See to undertake any diplomatic steps having for their object the conclusion of peace or the settlement of questions connected with the present war. That is one of the most extraordinary clauses ever inserted in a treaty. I asked the Noble Lord whether he did not consider it inconsistent that the Government should send an Ambassador to the Vatican and then go behind the back of the Vatican and sign this treaty, and ho said that there was nothing inconsistent in it any more than in sending an Ambassador to any other neutral Power. Mr. Speaker is rather sharp with some people and did not allow me to press the thing home to its logical conclusion, but I can do it now. Did the Government agree to a clause imposing these disabilities on any other neutral Power? No, they do not, and that is where the inconsistency comes in. Lest my views should have no weight I will read the views of someone else. Here is what Bishop McKenna, my own bishop, says about this Clause. He comes from the same place as the ancestors of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna). It will be well worth the Noble Lord's while to hear what a Catholic bishop, who is generally a man of some judgment, thinks about this secret treaty. Here is what he says: His (the Pope's) efforts for peace and reconciliation among the warring nations so far have failed. The world to-day knows at least part of the reason why. The champions of justice and liberty have plotted that it should not be, had bound themselves by secret treaty' to support Italy in opposing any and every diplomatic step on the part of the representatives of the Holy See for the conclusion of peace, or in regard to questions arising out of the present war.' Then the Pope's aims and motives were misrepresented, his impartiality was impugned, and, worst of all, one of the signatories to the secret compact treated him with insult not very unlike that with which our Divine Lord, Whose Vicar on earth he is, was treated at the Court of Herod. The English Government, with a profession of respect and friendship on its lips, was guilty of the outrage of mocking him by sending an Ambassador to his Court, while all the time they were bound by secret treaty not to listen to his voice nor allow it to be heard in the councils of Europe. Whatever flickering confidence in the sincerity of the lofty and altruistic professions of the Allies still lingered on in a not too credulous world was suddenly extinguished by the revelation of this astounding duplicity. Yet when I characterised this action by the very mild term of inconsistency the Noble Lord scouted such a construction. I could quote other views on the same subject to the same effect, people of distinction, whose opinion is much more valuable than mine. For instance, there is a very interesting little paper called the "Catholic Bulletin," published by one of the leading Catholic booksellers in Dublin. There is a very distinguished writer under the nom de plume of Scotus. He characterises this action on the part of the British Government as a piece of gross hypocrisy.

Sir C. CORY

Divide!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

The hon. Member has occupied a good deal of the time of the House. Will he bring his remarks to the point that he wishes to address himself to in criticism of the Government.

Mr. McKEAN

I was not aware that I had wandered away from the terms of my Amendment. I was dealing with Clause 15 of the Secret Treaty with Italy, which is referred to more than once in the notice that I gave. I object very strongly indeed to hon. Members coming in here—

Sir C. CORY

Divide!

Mr. McKEAN

You can divide if you like.

Sir C. CORY

Divide!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the hon. Member will be good enough to address the Chair the Chair will see that he has such a hearing as he is entitled to.

Mr. McKEAN

Two hon. Members have been carrying on a conversation during a great part of my remarks, and I am not aware that they were called to order. I have therefore to take the matter in hand myself.

Sir C. CORY

Divide!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Order, order!

Sir C. CORY

Is it not competent for any hon. Member to cry out "Divide"? The hon. Member has spoken for over an hour, and I understand it is quite in order to call out "Divide." I therefore claim the right to do so.

Mr. McKEAN

The meaner and baser sort of Member does that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If hon. Members would leave that to the Chair it would be much better.

Sir C. CORY

Do you rule, Sir, that it is improper to call out "Divide"? I have heard it done over and over again. I have had it done to me when I have been speaking, and I claim the same right as other people.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have given no such general ruling. It is entirely in the hands of the Chair to maintain order in the House.

Mr. McKEAN

I am very sorry to have had any part in the incident that has occurred, but the fault is certainly not mine. I did not in any way provoke the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory). I said nothing to him. I was addressing my remarks to two hon. Members who, in defiance of good manners, carried on a conversation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Will the hon. Member be good enough now to resume his speech?

Sir C. CORY

Is it in order for you to call hon. Members to order for speaking? I have had the experience of hon. Members speaking when I have been speaking and I want to know why any different method should be extended to me from what is extended to others? Conversation goes on at every sitting.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I was not charging any hon. Member with anything improper. Will the hon. Member be good enough to proceed?

Mr. McKEAN

I am most anxious to proceed if I am allowed to do so. If there has been any interruption the fault certainly is not mine, but that of unmannerly Members.

Sir C. CORY

Divide!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Will the hon. Member take the opportunity, which has been very liberally given to him, of making his remarks pertinent to the matter before the House?

Mr. McKEAN

I could read other opinions bearing upon Clause 15, and the construction put upon it by every one of the speakers or writers is exactly that which I put upon it, except that theirs is expressed in even stronger terms than mine. I want to know if the predecessors of the present occupant of the Foreign Office asked for the reason for this extraordinary Clause, which certainly requires justification, and I should like to know the justification for it.

Sir C. CORY

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member is repeating himself over and over again. That, I understand, is out of order. I suggest that his speech ought to be brought to an end. He has said all that he is now saying many times before. There ought not to be repetition.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is a very good rule, and I hope that the hon. Member will observe it.

Mr. McKEAN

I was saying that it is all a piece of blundering diplomacy and a very bad business. I want to show how it is bad business from the Government point of view and from the point of view of the country. Every humane man must in his heart desire peace, honourable peace. There would be great difficulties, apart altogether from the merits of the case, in bringing about peace even when both parties heartily desire it. Why will that be so? The difficulty in bringing about peace will be in bringing the parties together. One party will want one set of tenets which the other will never accept, and there will be a deadlock. The opposing parties are so powerful and so proud that it will be very difficult to bring them together. There is one force in the world that could bring the contending parties together, but that force has been excluded. I say, therefore, that it is very bad business. Not only that, but when the Peace Conference does come the Pope will be wanted there. His representatives will be wanted there. Difficulties will arise frequently. An impasse will be reached from time to time and things will get into a tangle. The one man who could reconcile the conflicting interests, the one man who could cut the gordian knot is the man whom the British Government, at the instance of the Italian Government, have put out of court and make it impossible for him to play his part. When peace is concluded, and I hope sincerely that it will soon be concluded, there is one safeguard for the future peace of the world. What is it? It is the safeguard that has existed for over one thousand years. I could quote the opinions of Protestant after Protestant historian and writer who have assigned that power to the Papacy— the one great power that has safeguarded peace in every age is the Papacy, and the British Government has ruled out that power.

I will show why on practical grounds my contention is well-founded. Suppose peace is declared to-morrow? What safeguard will there be for the maintenance of that peace? The safeguard for the peace of the world will be America. So long as you have America on your side the peace of the world will be pretty safe, humanly speaking. But there is one other condition that would make for peace in Europe and in the world. It is this condition, that you should detach from Germany, Austria. Austria commands the situation. If you are able to detach Austria in the future from her alliance with Germany, then, humanly speaking, you have taken one of the very safest measures for the future peace of the world. Do you think that by your anti-Papal policy you are going to secure the adhesion of Austria, a Catholic country? Never! I think I have proved to any reasonable man, and any intelligent man, that what I say is well-founded. There are certain things that require repetition, and there are some things of such enormous importance that you ought to repeat them, and I certainly do repeat with emphasis what I have said, that Clause 15, putting out of court the Pope, is the worst possible business from the Government point of view. I want to draw some practical conclusions from facts. Whether they are facts of history or passing facts, they have no importance except from the lessons that we learn from them. What are the lessons to be learned from them? Take the military situation. Is it as satisfactory as it was two years ago? The Pope has already been vindicated. If you had accepted the advice of the Pope two years or three years ago, you would have been in a far better position than you are to-day. Time has already vindicated the Pope, and time will still more vindicate him.

I am very sorry to have occupied so much time. I had no desire to do so, but the question with which I am trying to deal effectively is very important, and the issues are very great. I am trying to draw some practical conclusion from the facts, and I think it is of some use. You have still got to consider what is the one condition that is necessary to win the War. One of the first conditions necessary is to rescind Clause 15 and to renounce absolutely and for ever your anti-Papal policy. I tell you that until you can say to your French comrades that their anti-clericalism will no longer pay, you will not succeed. I am speaking to-night as a Catholic. I am not ashamed or afraid to profess my religion openly. I was forced to profess it, and I have had the courage to do so. It is no longer a paying game to bait the Pope. Anti-clericalism no longer pays. Of the Catholic Church your famous countryman, Lord Macaulay, in his wonderful and inspiring tribute has said—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I really must ask the hon. Member to make his remarks relevant to the matter before the House. It is quite impossible to wander so wide of the subject. The speech must be made relevant.

Mr. McKEAN

I always bow to your ruling with the greatest respect and deference. I am very sorry that my remarks were not relevant, but I was drawing to a close, and in those circumstances people sometimes do not observe the rules of relevancy too closely. I was going to notify that the policy embodied in these two acts— no reply being sent to the Pope's Peace Note, and Clause 15 of the Secret Treaty— will no longer pay. The Catholic Church has risen from the grave to which it was consigned without ever being dead. It is a growing power all over the world, and its power will grow, and it will make its power felt, and if my voice will reach outside this House of Commons I call upon my co-religionists all over the world to organise themselves and to defend the Pope and to defend their faith.

Sir J. D. REES

I beg to second the Amendment.

9.0 P.M.

The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil)

We have listened to a speech which certainly has been somewhat elaborate, and, I have no doubt, has proceeded from a very sincere and earnest belief in the cause which the hon. Member has put forward, and I hope that he will not think me in any way impertinent if I suggest that had his speech been a little shorter it would have been three or four times as effective. I admit most fully the great importance of the subject which he has brought before us. The hon. Member appears to think that the Government is committed to some anti-Papal policy. That is an entire mistake. The Government, as everyone in the House is perfectly well aware, is trustee for the good administration of an Empire which contains many tens of thousands, many millions, of Roman Catholic subjects, and, quite apart from any personal feeling that one member of the Government or another might have on the subject, it would be failing in its duty if it launched out into action disrespectful or injurious to the Holy See. In answer to questions which the hon. Member has put before on this subject I have endeavoured to assure him, speaking on behalf of the Government, that none of the motives which he thought underlay the policy of the Government really had any bearing upon its action, and since he did not appear to be convinced by any of those asseverations, I do not know that I shall do any good by repeating them; but in case the Debate which we are now conducting should reach other ears than those to which it is directly addressed I say once again that the terms of the Secret Treaty, the action with regard to the Papal Note, and the other matters to which the hon. Member has alluded, were not in any way dictated by any anti-Papal feeling on the part of the Government, and were not intended as, and did not constitute in the opinion of the Government, any insult or disrespect to the Pope or to the religion over which he presides, and I hope that the hon. Member will assure his friends that that repudiation is made in absolute sincerity on behalf of the whole Government.

If the hon. Member will not think me disrespectful I propose to deal with great brevity with the substance of what he has said, because although a great part of his speech was concerned with explaining the many services which the Pope has rendered during the War, and the importance and the strength of the Roman Catholic communion, and other matters, I do not think that those matters really have any bearing on the discussion in which we are engaged. Certainly, I have no intention whatever of traversing them, and as I do not propose to traverse them I do not propose to make any comment on them either. I come to the two substantive attacks that the hon. Member made. He said that the Government did not deliver any reply to the Pope's Peace Note. What actually happened was this: We received the Note at the beginning of August last year. On the 16th August, or very shortly after that, a reply was sent to the Pope to this effect, that His Majesty's Government had received his proposal with the most sincere appreciation of the lofty and benevolent intentions which animated his Holiness, and His Majesty's Government would study them with the closest and most serious attention. I cannot think that there was anything disrespectful in that attitude. Shortly after that, on the 29th August, President Wilson made a reply in which he dealt at some little length with the contents of the Papal Note. It became necessary for the Government to consider whether they would answer or add anything to President Wilson's statement. I do not know whether they were right or wrong in their conclusion— and on that any hon. Member can form his opinion for himself— but they did arrive at the conclusion that there would be nothing gained by adding anything further to what had been said by President Wilson, and it was so stated. For that reason solely, and for no other, they did not give a further reply. I may point out that this reply was delivered on the 29th August, and it was not until September that the enemy Powers delivered any reply at all to the Pope, so that there was no delay in dealing with the matter.

Mr. McKEAN

But they did reply in detail.

Lord R. CECIL

Yes; I believe they did. But the fact that they replied in detail does not show that they paid very much more attention to what His Holiness said. However, I do not want to enter into that matter; I do not think that really arises at the present time, and, so far as the substance of the matter is concerned, I do not think we can carry it any further. The incident is altogether past. The hon. Member said that the Government in March or May, or whatever the time was, in the spring of 1915, entered into a secret treaty with Italy which contained a certain Clause. He has given a version of it to the House, based on some publica- tion which, I believe, took place in Russia, and which was subsequently repudiated in this country. He suggested that it was owing to the existence of that Clause that we did not reply to the Pope's Note.

Mr. McKEAN

I did not suggest that, but I read a quotation from a periodical.

Lord R. CECIL

At any rate that has been suggested. It is really an entire mistake; it has nothing whatever to do with it; it never crossed our mind that we were in any way precluded or hindered from replying to the Pope's Note because of the existence of this Clause. Let me point out how clearly mistaken that view is. According to the hon. Member, the Clause appears to compel us to support Italy in preventing the Pope from entering upon any negotiations in connection with peace, or any subject connected with the War. The hon. Member quoted a number of cases in which the Pope had assisted in connection with the War. That has not only not been objected to, but it has been gratefully received by the Government, and there are many occasions in which the Pope has interfered in connection with this War, and interfered most benevolently, and in a way which has earned the gratitude of every person in this country. There are other cases to which I could refer, cases in which His Holiness obtained better terms for prisoners, the repatriation of prisoners, where he has rendered service in regard to hospitals, and in regard to the graves of our soldiers in Italy. He has also taken action with regard to matters of civilian relief, and so on. as to which we have had many diplomatic conversations in this country, and as to which we have always treated all his representations with the utmost respect, and we are grateful for the many things he has done to alleviate the condition of our prisoners and others who have suffered through the War. The idea that we were precluded by this Clause from allowing the Pope to interfere in any matter connected with the War is clearly and obviously untrue, and equally untrue in reference to the bigger matter such as the Papal Note. The hon. Member talked about the manacling of the Pope. I have tried to explain to him that the only thing that this Clause does is to say that if Italy objects to the Pope sending a representative to the Peace Conference we would support that objection. That is the whole thing; there is really nothing die; and there is really nothing in the provision as to the Peace Conference.

Mr. McKEAN

Why not? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Lord R. CECIL

The Peace Conference will be held between the belligerent Powers. They and they only will be entitled to attend there, and, therefore, to say that the Pope shall not be allowed to attend it. He would not be allowed to attend, and could only be admitted by general consent, and that would necessarily be the case whether this Clause existed or not. I can assure the hon. Member his objection is based on a misapprehension of what the Clause really provides, and if I were to quote its exact terms I am convinced he will see that I have interpreted it correctly. The hon. Member says, "Abandon the Clause." We cannot do that. We must really regard the Clause as part of the treaty. We cannot abandon a part of the treaty; we cannot pick and choose; this Clause as a part of the treaty must remain a part of it, just as do the other parts of the document, because this Clause is binding upon us exactly in the same way as the other parts of the treaty. I do not think that there is any advantage, if I may say so very respectfully, either for the country at large or for the hon. Member's co-religionists, in suggesting that this Government is guilty of disrespect or of insult to the Pope, when such an attitude of mind is absolutely removed from us all.

Mr. WHYTE

I would like to add a word or so to what the Noble Lord has said on the subject. I had some part in the first publication of this treaty with Great Britain, and I should like to point out that the difficulties have arisen in regard to the interpretation of it owing to the fact that, in one case, the translation was made direct from the Russian into English, and, in another case, direct from the Italian into English, with the result that the two published forms vary considerably in the words used, and they vary materially, I think, in the reference to the intervention of the Vatican in the politics of the War. One form in which it is published suggests that the signatories to the treaty between the Entente Powers and Italy made in April, 1915, would resist all endeavours on the part of the Pope to play the part of peacemaker, that is to say, to bring the belligerents together at the proper moment. The true interpretation is that we have pledged ourselves to Italy not to recognise the temporal position of the Vatican in the sense of permitting the Pope to appear as a recognised member of the Peace Conference. I think that explanation is due, because, as I have explained, the different interpretations of the treaty as published in English have arisen largely from it having been translated by different hands, in a sense different from the originals, and has so given rise to different interpretations.

Amendment negatived.