HC Deb 16 April 1919 vol 114 cc3000-22

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. CLYNES

(resuming: I was saying that I do not think the Government has used all its available powers to produce those particular things which the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin convinced us were essential to the speedy peace of the world. I reject entirely the view of the Prime Minister that a continuance of the blockade has been necessary in the case either of Russia or of Germany, or of both, for military reasons at least in the case of Germany. The weakened and torn condition of Germany makes it impossible for her to offer any effective resistance, if she were disposed to try it, because of the Armistice conditions that have been imposed upon her. It may be innocently, but to the Government in reality is due a continuance of the disturbed state of the world, because we cannot have restored trade, we cannot have internal conditions that will give us stable and responsible Governments in these other parts of the world so long as the people are in a starved condition and in regard to their food and trade requirements. The free flow of food supplies and the inter-play of trade and commerce as between one country and another are impossible so long as the blockade is there. So soon as we were secure in a military sense it would have been, I think, the wisest statesmanship for us to make it easy for the different countries of the world speedily to resume their normal trade and economic relations. The Prime Minister pointed out that when the Brest Treaty was forced upon the representatives of Russia that there were territories then forming part of the Russian Empire which rebelled against these conditions and against those who, for the time being, were acting in the name of the Russian people. Had we decided then to help those who were in revolt by means of material, money, and men the case might have been different. Yet the Prime Minister acknowledged that effective assistance on any large scale must be moved out of the question. In a matter like this where Germany failed, when powerfully equipped with all the necessary material, we could not hope to succeed, and therefore any serious military attack, even acting without allies, would be impossible and could not hope to be successful. The conclusion I come to is that military interference with what is going on in Russia on a large scale is beyond our power, and must be ruled out as totally impossible, and even if it could be undertaken on a large scale, there would belittle prospect of success in the long run. On the other hand military intervention on a small scale is futile, and mischievous indeed so far as the creation of public opinion is concerned. That is why so many labour voices have been raised as to what are precisely our objects in Russia in our military enterprises.

I am not arguing that if British subjects are in danger in any part of Russia, or even those who are our allies in Russian territory are in danger, that we should leave them unprotected. I would go to the length of offering military assistance based upon voluntary military service, for the purpose of protecting the lives and interests of those who come either under the description of British subjects or are our allies in a great cause. I think the Prime Minister has failed to justify the policy of the Government in regard to Russia, and it is little use hon. Members here continuing academic discussions as to what ought to be the conditions of government in that part of the world. It will not avail us much to try and weigh and balance what ought to be the particular form of government which the Russian people ought to have. They must settle for themselves the, quality and value of their particular forms of government. The Prime Minister said that this country traditionally is against interfering with the affairs of any other country, and we ought to leave them alone. Hon. Members in this House who support the Government ought not to urge them to use our resources and the military power of this country in order to interfere with the system of government in Russia, in order to make them adapt it to our view. I had an opportunity of seeing, in my position as Food Controller during the period when the Armistice was signed, how much the food situation determined great political issues. We have seen since how much the food situation has had to do both with creating and allaying internal trouble.

I detest the idea of Bolshevism, and its methods are as reprehensible to me as anything can be. So far as I can come to a conclusion on the facts, I think it would be better to try and kill Bolshevism by feeding it rather than by fighting it. It is a state of panic and distraction, the people being not only torn with their own divisions and their own momentary wretchedness, and this has driven a large portion of the Russian population to extremes. I reject altogether the definition of the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that our attitude towards Russia is determined by our hostility to Bolshevism. He stated that there is now in Russia an aggregation of Socialist States, and he seemed to attach the same meaning to the words Bolshevism, Communism, and Socialism, but all these words to me have very different meanings. Bolshevism is the very negation of Socialism, as I have understood it, for Socialism is a state of government in a country in which social needs are socially owned and controlled, but Socialism is necessarily a companion of democracy and inseparable from it, and democracy is inseparable except it exists through the medium and finds expression, through Parliamentary institutions acting not for any one class but for the whole community, and working through the will of the majority of the people's elected representatives, and acting for them in the ordinary democratic manner. Bolshevism does not express itself through elective institutions. The leading Bolshevists are not working-class representatives, but are self-appointed persons having, their own view of what government should be, and pursuing definitely, by a revolutionary method, the attainment of their views by domination, and by the extermination of the classes who differ from them. The more the working classes understand how vicious, unjust, tyrannical, and dictatorial Bolshevik methods are, the more unitedly will they reject them.

I would like to refer to the Prime Minister's reference to the steps which have been taken at the Paris Conference to establish by international means something like uniform labour and industrial conditions in the various countries of Europe. My first criticism is, that the Government would have done better had they acted more generously and openly by inviting accredited representatives of organised Labour in this country to take part in the discussions of these problems and in their settlement. I have the greatest respect and the highest regard in every respect for the personal qualities and, ability of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), but I repeat that he is not accepted as a repre- sentative of industry in its organised sense. He is not connected with the Parliamentary Labour party, he is not the spokesman or representative of any organised body outside in the country, and, useful as I am certain that his labours have been and great as I know his knowledge to be on these questions, yet I say that the Government would have enlisted a greater measure of the confidence of the working classes of this country and of organised Labour had they done the generous thing in this matter and lived up to the spirit of certain pre-election statements that were made on behalf of the Government as to the place that Labour would have in connection with the peace deliberations. It is of the highest importance that our high level of conditions in respect of wages and working hours shall not be undermined and destroyed by the low level of the state of things in certain other manufacturing countries in the remote parts of the world. Indeed, I think we shall find it very difficult to maintain our high standard if at the same time we do not, either by international action or by some other method, make it impossible for the sweated goods of other parts of the world to come into our country in keenest competition with our own products produced under better terms

The Prime Minister asked us to give him and the whole of those who are acting on behalf of the Allies, our confidence in the belief that when their work is finished it will be seen to have been fully in harmony with the pledges that were given to the electors of this country. I am not content with that invitation. This House and the country are entitled to know more of what is actually going on in Paris. Though we can, as I know, overdo a certain form of criticism and nag too much at those who are acting in our name, yet we are entitled to be more fully informed as to certain of the main lines upon which these discussions and negotiations are proceeding. What becomes of all the promises of open diplomacy? What about all that talk of bringing these great doings of the statesmen of Europe to a level where at least some of them can be understood, if we are to be told on any occasion when there is any criticism that we must keep these matters secret until finally we have secured the signatures of the representatives of the German people? I am driven almost to the conclusion that we in this House will get our news of the main outlines of this settlement, not from our own Government, but probably from Germany. They probably will be first to make known to the world what are these terms as soon as they are supplied to them. It will be nothing more than the humiliation of this House to have to receive its information first from that quarter. We are entitled to press upon the Government to take this House more into their confidence. If the confidence of the country is expected by those who are acting for us, then in turn we are entitled to call upon them to give us some information periodically in order that our confidence may be enlisted, and in order, acting for our constituents and for the country, that our wishes can find some expression in the affairs which are now being determined.

I am the last, I hope, to say a word which would interfere with the great authority which our representatives are wielding at this Conference, but those of us who are in close touch with the mind of Labour in this country know how much it is disturbed because these negotiations are so long drawn out. The outstanding mistake of those who are acting for us, in my judgment, is that they are seeking by this preliminary stage to settle great and varied details when they ought to have proceeded on the other line of coming as speedily as possible to a settlement with our great enemy, Germany. They could, in a very short time, in the course of two months' labour, have so settled matters as to have restored a balance to enable trade and commerce to resume its normal state of things. Instead of that we still have a great volume of unemployment at great cost, and it is still growing. There is a deepening dissatisfaction at the delay of these negotiations. We find ourselves at the stage when, in the course of a few weeks' time, everything will have been settled practically behind our backs, and the Prime Minister naturally will come down to this House expecting a Vote of Confidence in terms and conditions to which the House has in no sense been a party.

Lieutenant-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER

The House is tired, this Debate is dying out, the Front Bench is almost empty, and it would be most unbecoming of me to detain the House for more than a very few moments, but there is an explanation which I should like to offer to the Prime Minister and which refers to the telegram, the famous tele- gram, which has been criticised in so many different ways. The Prime Minister this afternoon assured the House that this telegram would serve some useful purpose before he had done with it. The "Daily Express" the other day, with its characteristic courtesy and its proverbial good taste, described it as "a blackmailing message"; and the following day Mr. Asquith, in the more abstemious and more temperate language of post-prandial orations, described it as "a minatory round robin." May I say at once that this telegram was sent in no minatory and in no threatening way to the Prime Minister. Perhaps you will allow me to say for the edification of the author of the inspired article in the "Daily Express" that until now at any rate the gentle art of blackmail has not permeated British polities, however common, however usual, and even however lucrative it may be to a certain class of newly-imported journalists. This telegram was signed by over 300 Members, 370 Members, of this House. It was signed in all good faith, and it had only one object in view. That was to strengthen the hands of the Prime Minister in the gallant fight which I believe he is making in order to see that a just and an adequate and a right amount of indemnity is imposed upon the enemy. We thought that it might help him if not only our representatives, but if the foreign representatives knew that behind the Prime Minister there was the great bulk of the Members of this House, solid and stolid, solemnly pledged to do everything in their power to exact the uttermost farthing that Germany could pay compatible with reason. I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is present. I do not know whom he is representing, whether it is the Prime Minister or a certain unimpeachable authority. But if he is representing the Prime Minister, will he kindly inform the right hon. Gentleman—because it is impossible to do it in any other way—that this telegram was written in good faith, and that it was signed by only his supporters? It was framed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and myself in the very best interests of the country.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS

I only wish to say a word or two on an aspect of the Peace Conference already touched upon by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieutenant-Colonel Guinness), who, towards the close of his in- teresting speech, referred to what is, perhaps, the most urgent of international problems—the problem of Poland. The hon. Member went so far as to say that the influence of the Prime Minister alone prevented the cession of Danzig to Poland. It would require overwhelming evidence to convince me that my right hon Friend at the head of the Government, who is a great friend of small nations, as well as the Prime Minister of Great Britain, should be wanting in sympathy, or ability, or ingenuity, in securing that the problem of Poland should be adequately dealt with and fully achieved at the Peace Conference. But, of course, there have been circumstances lately which have given very natural anxiety to those who believe in a strong Poland and in the revival of that Poland which was one of the great Powers of Europe for five centuries, and which some of us think to be an indispensable element in a permanent peace. We are naturally disturbed by one or two things that have happened lately. I know the controversy as to the introduction of Allied troops into Poland through the port of Danzig, which ended apparently in a verbal acceptance by Germany of the power to do that combined with its not being used at all, would seem to the observer as if the port of Danzig were to be quite sacrosanct from the footsteps of Poles, armed or unarmed. I hope that the House, on this occasion, as this is an opportunity for discussing this problem, will not think it impertinent in me if I express the warm hope that my right hon. Friend, who is doing so much for his country in Paris, and to whom I, for one, desire to offer my whole-hearted congratulations upon, and to thank him most cordially for his magnificent speech to-day, will see his way clear to secure a complete solution of the Polish problem.

One has seen sometimes in the Press statements made which give a perfectly false impression of the historical constitution and position of Poland on the Baltic Sea. There are old men still living in this country who in their youth have met people who unloaded ships in the port of London which flew the free flag of Poland and which came from the independent port of Danzig, from an independent Poland. Therefore it is only one generation removed in the history of human memory when this was the port on the Baltic Sea of Poland, and it remains to this day an indispensable mouth for the Polish State. Without it no guarantee, no extension of territory, no striking alliance with Western Powers, can save it if the time should come in the future, as it came in the past, when Germany and Russia together made up their minds to destroy it once more. With Danzig as its port it is in touch with this country and with France, and as long as the British Navy holds the position which it is the intention of every Member of this House it should hold, so long shall we be in touch with our Allies on that shore. If Poland can only ensure at the Peace Conference adequate shore territory with the port of Danzig, then are we in touch with Poland in the future, as it was in touch with us in days gone by. It is not true to suggest, as is done in some quarters, that Danzig was Polish some five hundred years ago and has not been Polish since. Its place in mediæval history and policy was distinctive as between the West and Royal Prussia, so called because it belonged to Poland and East or ducal Prussia—so-called because it belonged to ducal Prussia and was independent of Poland. No one asks for the restoration to Poland of the whole West of Prussia, but it is of the highest consequence that the solution come to at the Peace Conference should have an element of permanency in it. In Poland, and in Poland alone, have you the spectacle of a great nation which was politically destroyed and which now can be politically resurrected. Poland of all civilised nations the most prolific, and of all prolific nations the most civilised, in many respects more civilised than Germany, and obviously more advanced than Russia, presents to-day the spectacle in Europe of a gallant and brave nation fighting for freedom. It is on the strength of Poland, with its access to the sea, and the security that it can thereby get by being in touch with its Allies in Western Europe, that the future peace of Europe may largely depend. The question which arises in connection with Poland does not arise in the case of other smaller nations. The Jugo Slavs have suffered, but there has not been any period in modern history when a great Slav Kingdom existed with access to the Adriatic in the way in which Poland has existed with free access to the Baltic. The magnitude of the issue cannot be over-estimated, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will realise that it is in a spirit of most devoted loyalty and gratitude to him that I venture to represent to him. and respect- fully to the House, how this and this alone is the accepted time for completing the restoration of a great nation and for making the future of Europe secure.

Lieutenant-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON

I should like to congratulate the House on the satisfactory temper and tone which have been apparent during the last fortnight. I have had the honour of sitting in many Parliaments, and I know it always takes a little time for new elements to come together. But I am sure all will agree with me that during the last two weeks we have acted more unanimously together than has been the case since the new House was elected, and this I am confident will tend to great efforts in legislation which must be for the benefit of the country at large. I listened with great interest to the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon, and I was very glad to hear him state that he intended to stick to his election pledges right through. I was especially pleased with what he said on the question of indemnities. The country is concerned at the present moment chiefly with questions of foreign policy, with the indemnity which will supply us with capital by means of which we shall revise our industries, with the removal as quickly as possible of the restrictions which have been necessarily placed on trade during war-time, with the immediate reduction; of unproductive expenditure by large Departments which are no longer needed, with the encouragement of increased production and with the removal of the control of trade conditions, both external and internal, leading to a revival of trade and to increased employment. With regard to the question of the indemnity, the country is quite determined to get the largest amount it is possible to obtain from Germany. There is one strong point we ought to make. We should put in the full bill for what we consider we are entitled to, and let that amount be final. The details of how Germany is to pay is a questions which should be settled afterwards. It has been suggested that we should make the Central Powers pay as much as possible now and that we should keep on readjusting the amount they will have to pay as time goes on. That would be fatal, because there would be no inducement to Germany to make a great effort to pay off her debt. She would feel that the more she paid the more we should ask for, and, therefore, we should discourage her efforts to pay us off. We ought to settle the amount now, put in the full bill, and then settle the best conditions under which Germany can pay us and give her such time as is necessary to pay all that it is in her power to pay. The Prime Minister asked for time and patience. I entirely agree with him. It is no good having a patched-up peace, made in a hurry, which will not last I am sure that the House in its present temper will be most patient and will give the Prime Minister all the time that is necessary. I would emphasise strongly that there is an immense feeling in the country that peace at home and peace abroad should be settled as soon as possible. Until we have peace in Europe, our trade will not revive and all the evils of unemployment and industrial unrest will remain. The sooner we get peace abroad, the sooner we shall have industrial peace at home. I assure the Prime Minister that so far as I am concerned I shall do nothing to hinder him, but everything to help. I hope he will make the greatest effort known in history to bring about that universal and lasting peace which we all so greatly desire.

Mr. SEDDON

The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is not in his place, otherwise I should have something to say with reference to the remarkable speech he delivered this afternoon. He seemed to be speaking as a new leader of the Labour party.

Mr. CLYNES

No!

Mr. SEDDON

I am glad that my right hon. Friend corrected his crude economics and his ideas of what Socialism and Communism really are. With reference to Bolshevism, I can hardly trust myself in this House to use language to describe it as I apprehend it, and I will content myself with quoting a couplet from Lord Bryon— With such been the devil would fear to dwell, Or in their sculls he'd find a deeper Hell. I want to deal with one or two questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes). He was a little unfair to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). He paid my right hon. Friend a compliment for his probity and honesty, but seemed to have a grievance in that, because he did not belong to the party who occupy the Opposition Front Bench, he was not a fit and proper person to represent Labour at the Peace Conference. I have known the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division for a good many years, and I would put my money on the right hon. Gentleman having a very high place in the ballot among the sane trade unionists of this country. It has been said that we must not do anything to hurt or possibly create suspicion in the United States. That suggestion coming from the Labour benches shows that they have forgotten one or two incidents during the War. All will admit that Mr. Samuel Gompers, the President of the American Labour movement, does speak for organised labour in America. When he arrived in this country, great efforts were made to secure his support for a Stockholm conference or a conference to be held in Switzerland. As spokesman of the American Labour movement, he laid it down definitely that they were not prepared to meet the Germans. The Labour party evidently did not think they would annoy America by taking a different course. Mr. Gompers refused to go to the conference, and in doing so I think he was wise. The Labour party went, but there was no suggestion then that in taking that course they were in any way creating dissension between organised labour in America and organised labour in this country. If the representatives of the Americans would not meet the Germans, I am positive that they are not prepared to meet the Bolsheviks in any circumstances whatever.

The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Prime Minister had adopted the methods of secrecy in his diplomacy. He forgets the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, that the peace terms are terms that have been agreed upon between himself, President Wilson, the French Premier, and the representative of Italy. Does the right hon. Gentleman want the Prime Minister of this country to break faith with his three colleagues at the Peace Conference? If these men, who have honestly been trying to bring about a just peace whereby Germany shall suffer for her crimes, are agreed, surely in the name of common-sense we ought to give our confidence to our own Prime Minister, who is standing loyally by the three other gentlemen who represent the other great Powers in this War. It is riding a theory to death and reducing it to absurdity to say that the British Prime Minister, having come to a compact with America, France and Italy, should be the one to break faith. Speaking for myself, I am prepared to trust the Prime Minister to carry out the negotiations. I am exceedingly sorry that the representatives of the Labour party have tried, in effect, to invite the Prime Minister to break faith with President Wilson, the French Premier and the representative of Italy. To ask the Prime Minister to make an announcement as to the Peace terms in the House of Commons, when it has been agreed that they shall not be discussed by the respective Parliaments until they have been communicated to the Germans, seems to be asking our Prime Minister to do something which is dishonourable. I would thank the Prime Minister for his courageous speech this afternoon. He has faced the issue with great frankness up to the present, and I am prepared to trust him for the future, believing that he is animated by the desire with which every patriotic Briton is animated, namely, that the best shall be done for the country to which we belong, and that Germany shall pay to the uttermost farthing for the crimes she has committed against humanity.

6.0 P.M.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth)

The greater part of the questions discussed to-day have been those that fall naturally to the consideration of my Department. On the larger issues, of course, I shall say nothing. There is nothing that any Member of this House could usefully add to the speech of the Prime Minister. But on one or two of the smaller points the House will, perhaps, think it only courteous that I should reply to the observations of hon. Members. There was one note struck by the hon. Member (Mr. Seddon) which I do not think has been struck often enough either in this Debate or in similar Debates on other occasions. We so frequently discuss these matters as though it were only the British Government that is concerned. We cannot too often remind ourselves, while the Peace Conference is in existence, there is hardly one of those considerations to which we have devoted our minds to-day which is not a consideration for the four great Powers in the first instance and in many cases for many other Powers, and not a consideration solely for the Prime Minister or His Majesty's Government. It is no secret that the interests of Poland are matters of particularly tender solicitude, not only to His Majesty's Government, but to the representatives of the Allies in Paris. An hon. Member desired that some pledge or guarantee should be given in regard to the recognition of Admiral Koltchak. All these are matters which concern the Entente and the Allies, and it is not possible for any spokesman in this House to pledge the Government on these matters: they are questions purely for the consideration of the Peace Conference in Paris. All one can do is to make a note of the suggestions of hon. Members and, if need be, draw the attention of our own delegates to what those opinions are.

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) touched on some aspects of the blockade. I am for the time being responsible for British interests in the blockade, and I should wish to have had an earlier opportunity of allaying some of the apprehensensions and dismissing some of the misapprehensions that exist in regard to the blockade. The right hon. Gentleman says, in his judgment, the continuance of the blockade is no longer necessary in military interests. Up to now the blockade has been maintained during the Armistice period almost exclusively for military reasons. If the time should come—and it may come quickly—when the high Military or Naval Authorities agree that the blockade is no longer necessary as an instrument of pressure, I need not assure the House that on the civil side of this question, from the Foreign Office point of view, we shall be only too glad to see the last of it. No one can question that the blockade inflicts hardships and interferes with the re-opening of trade; but such have been the relaxations made recently that the blockade only operates as a blockade of Germany and Hungary. There never has been a political blockade of Russia. There have been physical blockades of Russia. It is quite obvious that as long as the Dardanelles were closed there, was a blockade of the Black Sea. There has been a blockade no doubt of Petrograd. But it may well be said that the difficulties of food supplies in Russia are not those of a blockade, but those which are imposed by physical considerations and the politically confused state of the country. I have a very strong opinion that there is in Russia a sufficient supply of food if it could only have been properly distributed. If they had in Russia an administrator of the capacity of my right hon. Friend, with the proper machinery at his disposal, there need not be any privation in Russia at all.

Mr. SPOOR

Is it not a fact that every attempt to get wagons has been defeated by the Allies?

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I could not speak as to that, but as long as the Soviet Government uses the deprivation of food as one of the chief instruments of government, they cannot expect other people to go out of their way to assist them with food supplies. The food supply of Germany and Hungary is not at present being materially affected by the blockade at all. The question of supply and relief to Central Europe and other countries is now in the hands of the Supreme Economic Council in Paris, of which my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) is the principal delegate. The blockade authorities do not, and cannot, interfere with or hamper the action of the Supreme Economic Council in the provisioning of Central Europe or any other distressed country. I am myself a member of the Supreme Economic Council, and I have taken the responsibility, ever since I have discharged my present duties in regard to the blockade, of saying that I will not take any part in depriving the Central Powers of whatever food can be spared to them from the general food supplies of the world, and in that we have been backed by our Allies throughout. The four Powers represented on the Blockade Council and the Supreme Economic Council have worked with the utmost cordiality in this matter of relieving the privations in Allied, neutral and enemy countries.

I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) in his place. I was a little afraid I should not have an opportunity of referring to his very remarkable speech. I shall not myself seek to combat his views about Bolshevism. During this Debate three or four Members who are, perhaps, entitled to regard themselves as directly representing Labour, have addressed themselves to the subject of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech, and they have, I think, left nothing for anybody else to say in regard to his views on Bolshevism. I can hardly believe, although I know how earnest his character is, that he advances those views with complete seriousness. My hon. and gallant Friend was pleased to devote a considerable part of his remarks to the Foreign Office, which he described as more reactionary than any other Government Department, however reactionary, and he pointed to a happy time when there was in existence a "Garden Suburb" in Downing Street, which exercised some sort of beneficent influence over the Foreign Office. He remarked that since that "Garden Suburb" had disappeared, the Foreign Office had reverted to the courses of reaction. I was a member for two years of what is called the "Garden Suburb" in Downing Street. I am not aware that the "Garden Suburb" ever appeared as such in foreign policy at all. If the Prime Minister's Secretariat— to use a more unfamiliar term—did exercise so tremendous an effect upon foreign policy, it ought to comfort my hon. and gallant Friend to think that a member of it now occupies a humble, but useful position in the Foreign Office.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Yes, if you were a stronger man.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I do not know what the view of the other 700 Members of this House would be if I were to act with the kind of strength that would call forth the encomiums of my hon. and gallant Friend. He spoke at one time and another as if the Foreign Office controlled the whole Government, dictated the policy of the Government, and, one would have thought, dictated even the policy of the whole of the Allies. I can assure him, and I do not think I am betraying any secret in saying it, that in point of fact the Foreign Office does not exercise this overwhelming control over the destinies of the universe. My hon. and gallant Friend may know, as he is often in friendly communication with myself and other people at the Foreign Office, how very industrious a body it is, trying to do its best in very difficult circumstances, having regard to the fact that its functions are divided between London and Paris, and that it is not governed by principles of reaction. I must say that I have heard with disappointment my hon. and gallant Friend's reference to the Noble Lord the Acting Secretary of State. He belongs: to a different party from that to which I have the honour to belong, and I dare say his views on many subjects are profoundly different from mine. But I can say, in regard to the great problems that have come up for consideration, during the last few weeks especially, that I have found him, if I may respectfully say so, as liberal in his views as any of his great predecessors in his great office. I do not think that the House will expect me to go into any further detail.

Mr. BILLING

The evidence of this House can, I think, only be taken as evidence of complete satisfaction with the Prime Minister's latest pronouncement, and the evidence of the complete emptiness of the Opposition Bench as a symbol of vague utility. There was, I think, only one point which occupied my mind in the Prime Minister's address, and that was the effect of his speech on the House, the public, and, what is much more important, the Press. There is no doubt that in the first part of his speech he satisfied an extraordinary amount of anxiety which existed in the minds of many hon. Members as to the attitude of the Government on the very many questions which are before the Peace Conference. Any criticism of Russian policy was merely wasted words after the extreme clearness of his statement. When he said that the sending of troops to Russia was purely for the purpose of preventing the lava of the Bolshevik volcano from overrunning more peaceful lands, I presumed to interrupt him to ask whether he was also prepared to give an undertaking that those troops should only be used for defensive, and not for offensive, operations; but presumably we may accept that from his staement. Now I wish to be allowed to do a most unusual thing. May I extend to the Prime Minister, as an independent Member of this House, a deep, heartfelt expression of appreciation for the courageous speech which he made? I have been used, particularly in the case of the Prime Minister, to look for cunning rather than courage in his addresses. Quite a number of new Members of this House, having regard to the criticisms which have been hurled at him, both in this House, on public platforms, and in the columns of the Press, since his last visit to this country, anticipated that we should see him arrive in a white sheet. I knew quite well that he would arrive with a flaming sword. He did, and proceeded immediately to carry war right into the enemy's camp, that part of the political world which he enjoys so much. I do not know whether many hon. Members of this House appreciated the fact that at any rate the majority of hon. Members on the Labour Benches—I was sitting among them—listened with considerable interest, and I took the applause which emanated from the Labour Benches as a sign of something which I shall refer to in a moment. I was very satisfied to feel that Labour so applauded. I wonder whether many hon. Members of this House realise that the Prime Minister's speech has put a period on the duration of this Parliament. The Prime Minister has declared war against the strongest Press combine that the world has ever known. The Prime Minister for doing that deserves the good wishes and support of every Member of this House. I do not say that because I have any animus against any Press combine. My views on the Press—and I may say, I believe, without blushing, the views of the Press upon myself—are too well known for me to proceed on any line of attack of that sort. But I do feel that, when the Prime Minister came to this House, he realised that he had either got to succumb to or meet in open combat the most extraordinarily powerful vehicle of public opinion in this country, where that particular class of vehicle is more powerful and penetrating, more influential, more creative of public opinion than even the Press of America.

I suggest that within a few days, possibly within a few hours—for in the stirring times in which we live nine days is a long time for a wonder to last—certain things will happen. To-morrow you will not see any attacks on the Prime Minister, but you will see fulsome flattery in the Press, for the Press are cunning, and those who marked him down are too cunning to defy him to-morrow, but in three or seven days the effect of the Prime Minister's speech will have passed. To really appreciate its effect one needed to be in this House, because, as the Prime Minister would be ready to admit to his intimates, he is a greater actor than an orator, and his charm is as much in gesture as in words. The way in which he held this House to-day is one of the greatest Parliamentary triumphs I have ever seen. I heard one of the most independent men in England, who has the reputation of being possibly as independent as I am myself, saying that the Prime Minister's speech almost made him join the Coalition Government. I trust that no oratory will ever cause me to surrender what I regard as my priceless position of independence in this House, but I do say that I was swayed by the Prime Minister's speech.

There are many points of view that he expressed that no reasoning man could take exception to. There is nothing to reply to in his speech, but there is one satisfaction. When I saw him take off the gloves, as he did this afternoon, I said to myself that the people who thought they were using him are going to be used by him. Therein lies the hopes of this country. If the people who put him into power, if the people who financed him—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"]—are going to suffer, and if he is going rather to make use of them than to allow them to make use of him, then there is indeed a bright future not only for this country, but more particularly for Labour in this country, which I predict the present Prime Minister will be leading in the next twelve months. It is easy to see the course of events which are likely to take place. The powerful Press upon which he has declared war will gradually show—[An HON. MEMBER: "The cloven hoof"]—yes, the cloven hoof it may be, but it will be done so gradually that nobody will associate it with to-day's speech. Every morning at the breakfast table in your penny, your twopenny or your threepenny Press insidious poison will be at work. Three times on Sunday, by different methods, will that gradually soak in. By cartoon and by caricature in five different editions of evening papers will it gradually be rubbed in, and it will be quite possible to see a group of newspapers which are not renowned for fighting for the Tories, turning on the present Prime Minister and giving the Tories the opportunity which they had well in view when they asked him to be their temporary leader. That may sound an extraordinary prophecy. I hope from the bottom of my heart that it will prove to be true. The only chance I can see for this country is to allow a period of Labour legislation to come into force with the least possible delay. Labour intends to make itself felt in this country and Labour is capable of making itself felt in this country. We fear nothing from Labour which is properly led, and I cannot think that the Labour party could find a finer leader, a man with more vision than the Prime Minister in his most inspired moments. I have distrusted him intensely in the past, not for his expressions of opinion, but through the friends and the company he has kept, and by the sort of people who supported him at the last election. That is why I fought him tooth and nail at the last election and denounced him from nine platforms every night for fourteen days. If I feel that he is going to use these men rather than be used by them, if I feel that he is going to allow Labour to come into its own, then I think there is hope. Even the friends of the Prime Minister will admit that he is an opportunist. I do not say that in any offensive way. If you are an opportunist in the interest of the country, you could not do better and no one could have a more valuable colleague; but if you are an opportunist in the interest of yourself, you are sometimes a danger to your friends.

I suggest to the Prime Minister a very simple way under the present industrial and political impasse into which his speech will bring him and will bring the Members of this House. That speech will change the life of many political aspirants in this House. It means that we shall have a General Election within six months from now. It means that many Members who adorn these benches, or who should be adorning these benches now, will cease to have the priceless opportunity which they are missing this evening, and will only come into this House by means of a green card instead of another. I suggest to the Prime Minister a way to meet the enemies upon whom he has declared war to-day. Certainly never in the history of this House has a political opponent, a Napoleon of the Press, been more thoroughly trounced from the Treasury Bench than a certain leader of the Press of this country was trounced this afternoon. I am sure that if it were not for the privilege of this House an action for libel by gesture might almost lie. This fight which began this afternoon will end at a General Election. We shall see the Prime Minister going to the country on the Labour ticket. I sincerely hope we shall. Let me offer him this advice: Let him take the bull by the horns, and get rid of every reactionary Tory in the Government immediately on the signing of peace, and put in their places good sound Labour men, if he can find them. There are some good sound Labour men in this House, and if he puts good sound Labour men into his Administration there will be a far greater likelihood of success than by the present Tory jobbers. I am speaking as an old Conservative. I say let the Prime Minister reform his Govern- ment at the earliest possible moment in the interests of the people of this country and by the people of this country I am not merely speaking of the working classes, because there are a good many men who vote for Labour who do not earn their living by the sweat of their brow. Let him give this country three months' experience of the administrative ability of the various Labour Members whom he shall select, so that he can go with confidence to the country and say, "Send mo back to carry on the administration." Then we shall have a fight between the reactionary Tory and all that is best in Labour, not the Bolsheviks. I had the honour and privilege of first dealing with the Bolsheviks in this House. I dealt with Lenin and Trotsky, and I was denounced by many Labour Members of that day for saying hard things about them, in fact, I was called to order by the Chair. In conclusion—and I hope some of the friends of the Prime Minister will tell him this—I will say, let him take the earliest opportunity of showing the country that Labour can administer, that it can be constructive as well as destructive. Let him form such a Cabinet as will gain the support, not only of the working classes, but of the great middle classes, and even of some of the upper classes, who are not so reactionary as their titles might suggest, because it is capital rather than title that makes men reactionary. Let him do that. Let him go to the country and fight it out between all that is best in Labour and all that is worst in Toryism, and God speed him in his task.

Major JAMESON

My only regret at the end of this Debate is that the Prime Minister was not here in person, in order to have his ears charmed by the eloquent encomium just pronounced by the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing). The hon. Member was fully justified in singling out as the leading note of the Prime Minister's speech the note of courage. The note of courage always appeals to this country, and this House, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will resound as a trumpet outside and among his Friends upon both sides of the House. It is, of course, as the Prime Minister did shadow forth, undoubtedly the fact that probably the peace which will be upon us soon will not be a peace entirely satisfactory to any one party. If a peace of that sort is entirely satisfactory to any one party, it is likely to be extremely un- just to all the other parties. You cannot entirely please everybody, and you should not entirely please any one party in negotiations of this kind.

I speak here as one of the Members who do not belong to what one might describe at the philo-telegraphist section of these benches, and I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Lieutenant-Colonel Lowther) say that the telegram which was sent was not in any way meant to cast doubt on the confidence with which the Prime Minister was regarded by the great bulk of the House and the country. I do think, after the courageous and eloquent speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon, that he has never stood higher in the confidence of the House and the country than he does to-day. Every sensible man will agree with the Prime Minister when he says that you cannot in these delicate and difficult negotiations have that complete publicity which some people would seem to demand. After all, what is a negotiation of this sort? It is a matter of finding out difficulties, differences, and conflicts of opinion, and then adjusting these differences, finding a middle course, and making all the parties agree on one common basis. You cannot conduct procedure of that sort in the presence of a whole Press gallery and a cinematograph recorder. But that is the sort of thing which some extreme advocates of the new diplomacy appear to wish.

I listened with pleasure to the vindication of the Foreign Office by the hon. Member for the Luton Division (Mr. Harmsworth). I do not think that that vindication was entirely needed. There is hardly a Member, except the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who really needed to be convinced that the Foreign Office was not engaged in an attempt to oppress any of the rising democracies. As the Under-Secretary for the Foreign Office said, the Foreign Office has not the last word in the foreign policy of this country. The Prime Minister is by no means a sleeping partner in these matters, and I do not think that anyone in his wildest dreams could picture the Prime Minister starting upon a sort of new crusade throughout Europe in order to uphold the tyranny of the landholding and aristocratic classes. I do not think that we are likely to see that sort of palinode of Limehouse written by the Prime Minister in letters of blood all over Europe. I think we can have confidence in the Foreign Office, the Prime Minister, and everybody concerned, that there is certainly no idea that the Government of this country, in all these countries in the East of Europe, is concerned only with maintaining the rule of the landowner and the aristocracy.

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman naturally was remarkable more for what it left out than for what it expressed— on the general question before the Paris Conference, and in the view of every sensible man in this House, quite properly so! But a matter on which he was more explicit was the policy of this country with regard to Russia. That is a burning question in the politics of Europe to-day. I do not underestimate the tremendous difficulties before the Government of this country in selecting a policy with regard to Russia. Every policy with regard to Russia must be a subject of the greatest difficulty which will be open to criticism from all sides. But I do think that this country ought to have some policy. No doubt whatever policy it chooses will be a policy to which there may be great objections. As a matter of fact, the policy of our Government seems to be a sort of sample of all the policies and all the points of view with regard to Russia. In the first place, there is the policy of leaving Russia to herself, and regarding the whole Bolshevik question as an entirely internal affair. If that were so, I would certainly be the last to want to meddle with this sort of internal affair of Russia. I am bound to say from my experience that the general attitude of the people of this country is that they are inclined, if I may use the expression, to be fed-up with Russia and Russians altogether. The fact of the matter is that in the last five years Russia has been, so to speak, going from one circle of Hell to another. Lenin and Trotsky are extremely disagreeable characters. We must remember we were just as little attracted by the Stunners, the Proto-popoffs and the Rasputins of the Czarist regime. Really, the attitude of this country is—it may be right or wrong— to regard all forms of Russian Government as honeycombed with corruption and treachery and every form of vice a Government can suffer from.

If this were merely an internal Russian affair, Russia should certainly be left to herself. But it is not an internal Russian affair; it is an affair, upon the showing of our Government, is of the most vital importance to all the countries of Europe. I only wish to emphasise that I think the Government will have to make up its mind with regard to Russia. I do not think the ring-fence policy will do. Your ring-fence has broken down and the expense of keeping up that ring-fence is enormous. You can keep sheep in a ringed fence but not ravenous wolves, like the Bolsheviks. Sooner or later you will have to fight the Bolsheviks. You will have to fight them in Russia, at the Vistula, at the Rhine, or at your own doors. It is not a question of our invading the Bolsheviks, but whether they are going to invade us, and the policy of keeping up a defensive war against Bolsheviks is the policy of all defensive wars. The best form of the defensive is the offensive, and I think it would pay the Government to strike a blow at the vitals of Bolshevism and prevent it running over Europe.

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Thirteen minutes before Seven of the clock till Tuesday, 29th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.