§ Mr. LYNNI desire to draw attention to the question of the British Mission to the Vatican, and in reference to the objection of an hon. Member to the Foreign Office being represented in this House by-an Under-Secretary, I would like to say that I think the Foreign Office is remarkably well represented in this House. I wish to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to the fact that the -British Mission to the Vatican is in violation of the Act of Settlement, and, further, that it reverses the policy of this country that has been steadily pursued for 400 years. It may be said, in 'the words of the old 827 Latin saying, that laws are silent during wars, but I think we have got out of the War, and that it is time to get back to the law, and to see that the Act of Settlement, which has been a useful Act to this country, is carried out. Therefore, I would like some information with regard to the legal aspect of this question. Then there is the practical side of it. I put down a question to the Prime Minister, and lie informed me that the cost of this Mission had been £16,500. I want to know as a practical man what advantage we have got from that expenditure. This House and the country have a right to know what return we have got for our £16,500. As far as I can understand, the only thing we have had is some abortive Mission that was sent to Germany and that very nearly put us into an unfortunate and premature peace. But during the War, let us not mistake this fact, one of the most deadly enemies that Great Britain and the Allies had was the Vatican. It is quite easy to prove it, and I think, if the Prime Minister was here, he would have no hesitation in proving it, and if the records of the Foreign Office were laid bare to the public they would show that the Vatican was one of the most deadly enemies we had during the whole War.
§ Mr. LYNNThere is no necessity to prove it. It is well known. The Vatican condoned the sinking of the "Lusitama."
§ Mr. MacVEAGHIt did not.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LYNNIt did, and the justification it gave for the sinking of the "Lusitania" was that the German children were not getting milk. It also used its influence in Ireland, in Australia, and in Quebec for the purpose of preventing Great Britain getting recruits. That, is an undeniable fact. We know it was the Vatican in Ireland that killed recruiting, in spite of the efforts made by Mr. Redmond. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"] My hon. Friends can say nothing better than "Oh !" but "Oh" is not a reply to a statement of fact. I want to know what advantage we are getting from the Vatican now. If we have a Mission there, surely it is of sonic service to us, and I hope my hon. Friend will enlighten the House on this subject. We were told, when the Mission to the 828 Vatican was appointed by the late Government, that it was to be a temporary Mission, but is the Government going now to make it a permanent Mission? Surely, at any rate before it makes a permanent Mission, it should inform the country of the fact and take the views of the country on it. There are evidently some Members here who think we ought to have a Mission to the Vatican, but I think they are expressing their own views and not the views of their constituents. After all, this country is a Protestant country, and it has not suffered in the past by reason of the fact that it had not a Mission at the Vatican, and I do not think it would suffer in the future if the Mission were withdrawn. Therefore, I would ask for some information with regard to it.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSI must pay a tribute to the burning conviction which, no doubt, inspired the speech of the hon. Member for Woodvale (Mr. Lynn). He told us that in attacking the Vatican no necessity for proof of any statement could exist.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSAt any rate he said it was not necessary and he showed that it was not a matter of evidence with him, but a matter simply of conscience. To me it is a matter of expediency. But I understand his feeling, and to a great extent I respect it. I happen to have served in France with the same brigade as a very eminent Irish Regiment. In the retreat from Mons they were very nearly surrounded, and the commanding officer told me that, to his astonishment, when they were about in the. worst position they had been in, one of his Ulstermen, who was simply beaming all over, said, "It's a fine day for Ireland"! "Well," said the commanding officer, "I am very glad you think so, but it occurs to me as if we are going to have a very hard fight to-day." The Ulsterman said, "It's a fine day for Ireland; I am just after hearing the Pope's dead." That is the sort of spirit which animates the opposition to the Mission to the Vatican. If you can do any evil to the Vatican, even though it is at your own expense, it is a meritorious act. It seems to me we have got quite enough difficulties in the International situation nowadays without creating any more of our own seeking, and I think the 829 War has shown us how absolutely essential it is that we should have our case properly put at the Vatican. What was the position at the beginning of the War? We had no representation at all, and France had no representation at all. Italy was not then a belligerent, and the German influence had the whole field to itself. Although Prussia is a Protestant State, there was a Prussian Minister, there was a Bavarian Minister, there was a Saxon Minister, and there was au Austrian Minister, and we had got absolutely no one to put the other side. We had no opportunity of presenting our case officially, and the enemy influence was absolutely omnipotent. Under those conditions it was no fault of the Vatican that their only channel as to the state of affairs in the Allied countries was through the Irish College at Rome, which is a notorious Sinn Fein body. You cannot avoid having some sort of relation with the Vatican, and all these matters were driven into non-official channels, which is most undesirable. If you have diplomacy at all it should be conducted through the Foreign Office, and under the responsibility of the Foreign Minister. After a few months of war the Government very wisely took the opportunity of congratulating the new Pope on his election by sending Sir Henry Howard to Rome. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Woodvale is right in saying the Vatican was anti-British and pro-German in any part of the War. Anyhow, if it was anti-British at the beginning of the War, that is an overwhelming argument. in favour of continuing the Mission, because after we had that Mission no reproach could be levelled at the Vatican for any breach of an entirely neutral position. On the contrary, they went out of their way on several occasions to do a good turn to our interests in various parts of the Empire. First of all, they undoubtedly discouraged the Sinn Fein movement. In reply to the interruption -of the hon. Member, if he came in contact with Roman Catholic Ireland, he would find that the older men are by no means in favour of Sinn Fein. It is the young firebrands, who are out of hand, who are in favour of Sinn Fein. I say it with perfect conviction that the Vatican took up an anti-Sinn Fein attitude, and discouraged, also, the Anti-Conscription movement in Ireland. Besides the direct assistance they gave us, they were very 830 helpful to many of the Allied nationals in tring to trace prisoners, and in other good works.
Apart from the War, we must remember that there is a very large Roman Catholic population in various parts of our Empire. In our Dominions, Quebec, and Australia, we have a Roman Catholic population that yields nothing in loyalty, even to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodvale. To my mind it is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of politics. The question is whether you prefer to allow the British case to go by default at Rome or have it fairly stated by an authorised representative. It would be more satisfactory, on the whole, that we should have a Protestant representative at Rome, so as to make it-quite clear that the Mission is a political and not a religious one. In that connection it is worth remembering that the Prussians always had a Protestant Minister at Rome.
The hon. Member for Woodvale really produced very little in the way of argument. He depended chiefly upon prejudice. I do not agree with that attitude. Even though I were to join in stating "to Hell with the Pope," I should see no reason to deprive him of diplomatic advice while he remains in Rome. In any ease, we have to recognse that the Pope is a very powerful influence, an influence working through unseen channels, an influence that will continue for a, very long time, and perhaps grows stronger in the reaction after the War. We cannot possibly afford, in a matter of this kind, under present conditions, to be swayed by sentiment. I hope that instead of satisfying my hon. Friend the Member for Woodvale the. Under-Secretary will assure us that, so far from withdrawing our representative from Rome, the Government will decide to make our Mission there permanent.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHI desire, in the first place, to express my delight at the speech of the hon. Member for Woodvale, not because I agree with him, but because I am convinced that the more speeches of the kind from Ulster Unionists the better it will be for Irish Nationalists. The hon. Member is a novice in Parliamentary affairs. If he ever is as long in the House as I have been he will have learnt long before that bigotry and intolerance count for nothing here. That spirit is out of date altogether, and when the hon. Member tries to preach that doctrine here he is on hopeless ground. The hon. Member 831 takes every available opportunity to talk about the Pope. He thinks about him all day long, and dreams about him all night. I am delighted when he breaks into the Debate, because he lets us see that there are still men in the Ulster Unionist party whose only asset in politics is their religious bigotry. The Icon. Gentleman wants an assurance that this Mission to the Vatican will be discontinued. I do not care a brass button whether it is discontinued or not because it has never been used for the benefit of Ireland. It was established in English interests, and has always been used for English interests, and I do not care how rapidly it is removed. If I were an Englishman, I think I should be disposed to look at this question from a different angle. The Pope is the spiritual head of 275,000,000 human beings to-day, and this is more than half of the total Christian population of the world. And yet this voice from the Shankhill Road gets up and hurls insults at the head of these people. The next time you want to use the Pope for British purposes I am afraid you will appeal in vain. You said that we went to war to defend poor little Belgium, and to take vengeance for the violation of its neutrality, but you were not really doing that.
During the War you asked the Pope to receive a Mission from the British Government. You used the Pope during the War, but now the War is over, on the order of the Gentleman from Shankhill Road, the Mission is to be at an end. Throughout the War the Vatican was appealed to, and I could name half a dozen Protestant Members of this House who appealed to the Vatican, through the Archbishop of Westminster, to implore the Germans to give information as to the whereabouts of their missing relatives, and they traced them in this way. If the Gentleman from Shankhill Road had lost a relative, he would have gone to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or perhaps he would have gone to the Pope himself. Not only were most valuable services rendered in tracing missing relatives, but millions of pounds were spent and a fund was raised all over the world for the relief of distress occasioned by the War, and this was distributed without distinction of nationality or religion. Of course the hon. Gentleman opposite does not recognise that, and all he sees is that it cost £16,000. You went over as a Government to Ireland to arrest four men, and you brought gunboats, 832 and you arranged for the running of a barbed-wire fence round Wormwood Scrubs, and you put spikes on the roof to prevent them escaping—in fact, you spent nearly,16,000 on those prisoners, and the Gentleman from Shankhill Road does not say a word about it. The hon. Gentleman comes here and says that it is a horrible business to think of spending 16,000 on a Mission to the Pope. He will not sleep to-night; whatever you may say, he will still be unhappy; but what I, as a Nationalist, have to say is, remove the Mission if you like, and there will not be a word of complaint from any Irish Nationalist.
Sir J. D. REESI could not let this subject drop without saying how desirable it seems to me that this country should be represented at so great a centre of Christianity as Rome. For my part, I would be glad if it were always represented; I am convinced it should be so represented. I rose, however, to ask the Under-Secretary if I rightly understood that for every £1 subscribed, let us say, by an Austrian towards the hospitals in Vienna the British taxpayer, say, the taxpayer in Nottingham, is to pay I No Member can sympathise more than I do with the people of Austria and of Vienna. It seems to me deplorable, sad, and really pitiable that this light-hearted, charming people should be reduced to the last straits of misery and starvation owing to Prussian intrigue. No one can sympathise with the Viennese more than I do, having had the advantage more than once of being in Vienna and of knowing the inhabitants there were always friendly to this country, and that it was only owing to Prussian intrigue and duress that they were ever forced into the position of being our enemies. At the same time, if one can sympathise, as I do from my very heart, with Vienna, he can sympathise even more with the taxpayers of, say, Nottingham that they should be required, when it is most. difficult to obtain sufficient. contributions to the hospitals of Nottingham, and when even Lord Knutsford is at, his wit's end to get money for the London hospitals, to subscribe £1 for every £1 voluntarily subscribed all over the world. I cannot understand, and I want to ask my hon. Friend to throw some light on this question. One day I came into the House and found that there was a provision for educating Serbian youths in London. Can anything be more remote 833 from the British taxpayer? Another day one finds across the way, in another place, an earnest movement for the retention of a camp costing some £3,500 per day for distressed Armenians. How in the name of wonder can the British taxpayer, with his pockets from which he pays his rates and taxes both empty, support these things? There was an English poet who said that he was "a philanthropist, a democrat, and an atheist." I have no concern to connect the atheist with the democrat, although the Bolshevists have given us ample reason to establish such a connection. As for the connection between the democrat and the philanthropist, it is democracy run mad to imagine that the British taxpayer or philanthropist is going to pay out of his own pocket for everybody. To continue to support hospitals in Vienna and camps for Armenians, to educate Serbians in London, and to send officers to Oxford and Cambridge to get an expensive education at public expense—surely that is an impossible thing to expect even from a man once rich and still the most generous taxpayer on the face of the earth. If my hon. Friend can throw any light on this matter and tell me I am wrong in supposing that the British taxpayer, who has to pay so much already out of his nearly empty pocket—staggering as he is under a most tremendous burden—is also to pay pound for pound subscribed for hospitals in Vienna I shall be only too glad.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI believe I can give the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J D. Rees), which I have no doubt the tinder-Secretary of State will bear out, that this pound per pound relates to money voluntarily subscribed in this country. Perhaps the hon. Member has seen the appeal signed on behalf of these unfortunate Viennese by, among others, three very gallant British generals —Lord Haig, Lord Home, and the Earl of Cavan. If the hon. Member had seen the sights in Vienna which our own soldiers sent there on Staff work have described, I think he would give the remainder of the money in his pocket which is already so heavily taxed. May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend beside me in deprecation of what, I think, was a most unseemly and uncalled-for attack on the Holy See by the hon. Member for Woodvale (Mr. Lynn). Unnecessary and in bad taste as it was it will give offence to Catholics in Australia and Canada and all over the world.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe Holy See has been of great service; he has kept the land of Christianity alight in Europe when it was nearly muffed out by the awful catastrophe of the War. I rose to make a comment on the speech of the Prime Minister in reference to Turkey. We all, I believe, wish to see the subject Christian races of Turkey and the subject Mahomedan races free from the tyrannical rule of the Turk, but I hope it will not mean that they will be placed under any other tyrannical rule. One voice should be raised in this House to cry halt to this anti-Turk wave which is sweeping, apparently, through Government circles in this country. After all, we are the greatest Mahomedan Empire in the world. Our rule in India has been almost founded on the loyalty of 70,000,000 of Mussulmans, but we must be careful that the Turks are left to govern their own people—people of their Own race in their own country—and that their holy places are not interfered with; also that the spiritual power of the Khalif is not in any way lessened. Our policy should be towards regaining the friendship of the Turk which we enjoyed in the past, which has been of such inestimable benefit, and which we may need in the future, The Turk has many fine qualities: he is a fine soldier, he had great belief in the past, and I hope will have in the future, in the word and honour of England. We may need all the friends in the East that we can get in the future. While wishing happiness and freedom to these subject races, I hope that a curb will be put on the ravenous appetites of certain predatory Powers in the Eastern Mediterranean, the jackals of Eastern Europe, who are seeking mandatory powers in order to exploit the country to the detriment of British trade and British merchants, and certainly to the betrayal of our good Mussulman friends.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. C. Harms-worth)The question of the Mission to the Vatican has already engaged the. attention of the House on two or three occasions this year. We have had it discussed in the Estimates Committee and on the floor of the House. On former occasions I have been obliged to say that the matter —which, after all, is one of very considerable importance, and one with regard to which opinions differ very widely—is under 835 consideration. I can say no more than that it is under consideration still, and that I hope it will be possible to make a definite statement in regard to the Mission at the time the House reassembles in February. I may be permitted, however, to make a few comments on the speeches that have been made on this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodvale (Mr. Lynn) is strongly under the impression that the mere existence of the Mission constitutes an illegality. I do not think we need be under any doubt that that matter would have been gone into most carefully by Sir Edward Grey when he made the first appointment to the Vatican, but since my hon. Friend gave me notice that he was going to raise this question I have had an opportunity of consulting high legal opinion at the Foreign Office, and I am assured that the establishment of the Mission is not in any respect contrary to any Article of the Act of Settlement, nor in any respect is it contrary to the Oath of the Sovereign at his Coronation. This may be taken as being as high a legal opinion as can be given on this subject. I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied with it.
It has been stated to-night and previously that the first. object of this Mission was to congratulate the present Pope on his accession to the Holy See. A further and, of course, a larger object was to place the Court of the Vatican in possession of the views of His Majesty's Government from time to time during the War. I have every reason to believe that the Mission has been very useful in that regard. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) has pointed to other respects in which this Mission has been of great service to this country. I do not know that we are called upon to estimate the value of diplomatic service by reference to a profit and loss account. Indeed, if that process were adopted in regard to every activity of the Foreign Office, or, indeed, of any Department of State, I am not sure you could get an exact record in figures. In my judgment, so far as I have had an opportunity of studying this matter—it has been called to my attention prominently on more than one occasion—and I am satisfied at least that this mission to the Vatican has been fully justified, not merely on the score of expense, which is, after all, a negligible factor in this connection, but on the score 836 of its service to this country. The Government has thought it right to consult the Government of the Dominions, Their replies have been received, and they will be very carefully considered in forming judgment, which I hope will be announced when the House re-assembles. The hon. Member (Mr. Lynn) cannot fail to have observed that every other Member of the House who has spoken on this subject has been a supporter of the Mission to the Vatican. That is sufficient evidence that this is not as simple a matter as it looks. The Government is well aware that in some parts of the country, and not only in the North of Ireland, strong feeling is entertained in regard to this Mission. Butt on the other hand, there is throughout the country, among many people whose opinion is of weight and value, feeling that the Mission ought to be retained.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will not think it discourteous if I do not feel justified in adding anything in regard to Turkey to what was said to-day by the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman (Sir J D. Rees) has referred to the situation in Austria. I somewhat regret that he should have raised the question in this form. A fund has been established under which the Government promised to give £1 for £1, up to a limit of £200,000. I do not think there is any limit of nationality or place of residence of the subscribers. I do not see why there should be any limit. I should like to think that there were wealthy Austrians who could contribute to the relief of their own country. This subject of relief in Austria is one which has very earnestly engaged the attention of the Foreign Office and the Government during the last few months. It is a subject which seems only to have been discovered within the last few days by some active and energetic spirits outside. Unless relief is found for Austria we shall be confronted with one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the world.
Mr. HARMSWORTHNo, it will not prevent it, but it would be a great contribution to the relief of this great difficulty. This is a problem that cannot be solved by such methods as these. It is only by a general reconstruction of Europe that you can hope satisfactorily to meet the needs of Austria; but the needs are so 837 urgent and pressing for the barest necessaries of life that I welcome heartily any effort that is made to meet them and I trust the hon. Gentleman will not do anything to discourage such efforts being made. Even the people of Nottingham would be quite willing to bear their pro rata share in this contribution to the needs of one of our former enemies. I can only hope that the public at large will contribute to this purpose with that boundless generosity that our people have always displayed in cases such as this.