HC Deb 15 May 1919 vol 115 cc1922-32

"Some Restrictions Relaxed.

"The Treasury have issued a general licence authorising all persons, firms or companies in the United Kingdom to engage in any transaction which by the terms of the Proclamation of 7th January, 1915, is considered a transaction with the enemy."

That sounds pretty general, and raises many hopes in the minds of those who do not wish in any sense to trade with the enemy, so long as it gives an advantage to the enemy, but are looking forward to the time when they can increase exports and receive payment for them. The statement goes on: At the same time, no transaction or business is authorised with or on behalf of a branch of an enemy firm or bank for the account of the head office or other office of a firm or bank in enemy territory, unless it is situated in territory the resumption of trade with which is authorised. Accounts may be sent to persons and firms resident in enemy territory. It must, however, be understood that the payment of money to enemies remains prohibited. That, of course, one can understand. I have given notice that I will raise this point, but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been able to ascertain exactly the meaning of this. It may refer to occupied territory. But the variety of announcements and the indefiniteness of these announcements is producing uncertainty and creating difficulties, in the mind of firms who are anxious to develop manufactures, and to give more employment, to people in this country, and if anything can be done to simpify this announcement and make clear what is the position, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will do a great service.

With regard to the continuation of the blockade, perhaps the most serious item of the blockade has been modified, and the importation of food to enemy countries—of which no one more approves than I from a humanitarian point of view—has been permitted. The one thing that in time of war was perhaps the most severe of all measures has been removed, but there still exists a prohibition to trade with the enemy in the matter of such things, for example, as linoleums, woollen goods, and other goods of a class made in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and in other parts of England and Scotland, where it is highly desirable that export trade should be as quickly as possible re-established and developed, and where there is plenty of room, if this trade can be secured, for further employment being given. I apologise for raising this question. I am sure the hon. Member who has the extremely difficult task of representing the Foreign Office in this House in existing circumstances has the sympathy of all of us in the difficulties which surround him, but I would like to urge this upon him. He knows that I for one would not suggest for a moment the relaxation or removal of the blockade, so far as enemy countries are concerned, if that blockade would be of any real service to the enemy countries or do any injury to this country. But it is difficult for some of us to understand how any military advantage at this stage is gained, or even any advantage regarding the signing of Peace, when food, quite properly, is allowed to go into Germany, when trade is allowed in occupied territory and countries surrounding Germany—and I am afraid that a good deal of what goes there percolates into Germany—how it can possibly affect the military situation or the peace that we should extend our exports into Germany, provided we can see payment for our goods and thereby encourage the manufacture of goods in this country. To my mind it only can be at the present time of greater injury to us than it possibly can be to the enemy that the blockade should be continued—this handicap—and restriction is placed upon us than upon the enemy. I shall be glad to hear what my hon. Friend has to say upon this matter.

Lieutenant-Colonel MALONE

It is with some diffidence I rise to add to the innumerable questions given to the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary to answer, but this Debate would hardly be complete without some reference to Russia. I feel very deep interest, and I am sure other hon. Members do, in the question of Russia. I have gone out of my way to inquire of all the authorities who have visited that country, and the more investigation I have made and the more people from whom I have inquired, the more I discover that the information at our disposal is absolutely inadequate. The House will remember that the question of the delegates to Lenin was raised in the Debate on 9th April. In his reply on that occasion the Home Secretary stated: I believe the whole story is of German manufacture for the purpose of making the people of other countries believe that the Bolshevist is a rather peaceful, civilised, and reasonable person. Later the hon. Gentleman said: I said that stories which had reached the Press of America, and so back to this country, that Lenin was willing to negotiate on reasonable terms were really of German manufacture, and that Lenin to-day is no more willing to negotiate on any kind of reasonable basis, and is no more fit to negotiate with than he was before."—Official Report, 9th April, 1919, col. 2176, Vol. 114.] I have no sort of sympathy whatsoever with the Bolshevik movement, but on inquiry I find that these gentlemen were sent to Russia with the full and explicit cognisance of the Peace Conference. Not only were they given facilities to cross the Channel on an American destroyer, but they had facilities given for crossing over to Russia, and they embarked at Newcastle-on-Tyne. I cannot conceive how this could be done without the knowledge of the Home Secretary and the hon. Gentleman opposite. If it was done without their knowledge, then it is very regrettable that the policy of the British Empire should be conducted on such lines. They brought reports back. Nobody probably believes them, but they are being spread all over the world. There were three of these men. I do not think they are lying. Their statements would seem to be more or less correct. One is bound to believe that our policy in Russia is extremely ambiguous. Let us see what they have brought back. First of all, they brought back definite and specific peace terms. I have them here. If I read them to the House I would be advertising the Bolshevik movement, which I most emphatically have no wish whatsoever to do. Then these gentlemen inform me that the negotiations at Prinkipo never even reached the Bolshevists, and that the reply published in the newspapers was an absolute fabrication. That is another story which has gained great currency. The most interesting fact is as to the internal conditions of Russia. One is informed that the Government of Russia is assuming quite a different character. I have taken great trouble to ask men of all parties, particularly anti-Bolshevists in regard to the situation in Russia, and I am told that Lenin is at present moving directly towards the right. The fact is that like all of us he realises that extreme Socialism is a farce. He sees the value of the assistance of capital. If this state of affairs really exists we have got to look into the matter more carefully, because sooner or later it may be neces- sary to recognise the Bolshevist Government in its new form. If it is really the fact that the internal conditions of Russia are changing from Socialism into, what shall we say, Radicalism or even Liberalism, we are committed to a very grave danger by opposing it. By fighting Bolshevism—and by Bolshevism I say now Socialism—you are driving the thing to worse extremes, Take the case of the Ukraine. I hear from friends out there that we have been supporting the wrong party. Instead of supporting the Centre party, corresponding to the Liberal party in this country, we have been supporting the extreme reactionary party which is admittedly and openly in favour of a return of the Czarist system. If that is the case it is indeed very regrettable. The state of affairs was explained by the Prime Minister to the House on 16th April, when the right hon. Gentleman said: Reliable information which we have received indicates that while the Bolshevist forces are apparently growing in strength, Bolshevism itself is rapidly on the wane."—]Official Report, 16th April, 1919, col. 2944, Vol. 114.] That would be an extraordinary statement from an ordinary person, but when we know the facts and that the Prime Minister was in full possession of the report of Messrs. W. Bullit and Lincoln Stephens I think we have a very good explanation of what was at the back of his mind at that time. Hon. Members who have followed the situation in Russia will probably think that there is only one form of Bolshevism in Russia. They may be right. But there is another of much more importance which I want to bring to the notice of the House, and to the representatives of commercial business interests. The other day a question was put to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs regarding concessions, even in Bolshevik territories. The reply was: "We have no information to that effect." I understand concessions have definitely been given to neutral countries including Norway and America. I have here a copy of one of the first concessions. Many important concessions have been made, concessions granting leave to construct a railway and all its attendant business, with the facilities accruing to railway development. I have got the actual Bolshevik Grant obtained quite recently. This was denied in the "Morning Post" a short time ago, and the "Morning Post" declined to publish a copy of the concessions for what they possibly considered good reason. I hear from Paris that Prince Lvoff, M. Maklokoff, and the other Russian delegates have issued a statement that they would repudiate all concessions so granted. I put this to the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary: Supposing that a neutral does get into Russia, and does make terms with Lenin to found a railway, to develop the country, to establish a large part of it, and so work up a prosperous trade, and there is no one in this House but who knows that Russia has boundless and; countless resources, every sort of crops, minerals, and other vast resources which everyone knows exist in Siberia and elsewhere, it means that British trade interests in Russia will be very severely jeopardised when Russia resumes her normal condition. The suggestion I put to the hon. Member opposite is that he should appoint a Commission composed of all members, without prejudice to any particular policy, and send them over there to find out exactly what is the state of affairs.

They can do the whole trip and be back again here in a month's time, and have interviews with all the important persons concerned. If that can be done, then a White Paper would be very much more authentic and convincing with regard to the actual state of affairs than the Paper that is now before the House, which is very scanty. If that is done a great deal will have been accomplished in the direction of enlightening people as to the political situation in Russia, which is a matter of world-wide importance. Russia is being watched by every country in the world, and if it be possible we should send to that country to inquire persons who are experts in politics and not pseudo-journalists. I submit this suggestion to the hon. Gentleman.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I have already made one reply, and I can assure the House I will confine my remarks within a much narrower compass than I did on the previous occasion, although we have now before us a very large number of problems, whereas when I spoke before there was only one. There are among the questions that have been raised this evening a large number which do not, in point of fact, fall to me to answer. They are questions which for a lack of a better designation I will call Prime Minister's questions or Peace Conference questions. We have to divide our responsibility in this country in regard to foreign affairs because, in point of fact, they are divided as to locality between two different places at the present time. I have been invited to deal with such questions as our general policy in regard to Russia and the future position of some of the German colonies, and another hon. Member has raised the picturesque topic of Spitsbergen. With regard to Spitsbergen, that question is undoubtedly in a most unsatisfactory position and there can be no question about that. There is always something attractive about a country that belongs to nobody. Active and energetic people of British nationality are engaged even at this precise moment in pegging out claims there, and when there is, in addition, two companies or nationalities making claims for the same territory, there is obviously much room and occasion for very serious international complications. I have submitted this matter to the authorities in Paris, and I am not without hope, although there has been, so far, no favourable response, that they will find time to effect a settlement of this question. I agree with the view put forward by my hon. Friend that to have an important group of islands which are said to contain considerable mineral wealth, and which are already the subject of competition in certain areas among different companies and different nationalities in this position, is a situation for which some satisfactory solution ought to be found without any further delay.

Colonel YATE

Can the hon. Gentleman say on what authority Spitsbergen is stated to belong to nobody? Can he state what England has agreed to?

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not ask me to go over the long and tangled history of these Islands, but I think there is a general view that there is a British claim to these Islands which is not enjoyed by any other nationalities.

Colonel YATE

If, as the hon. Member says, this is a terra nullius, on what authority does he make that statement, and will the Foreign Office repudiate that agreement without further delay?

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I think that is the exact situation. At the Conference at Christiania of the Powers which was held to consider this matter, there was revealed a considerable divergence of view and it was proposed that an international body should govern these islands. This particular Conference broke up at the outbreak of the present War without arriving at any decision, and that is the position at the present time. The islands of Spitsbergen remain in the same position as they did before the last Conference sat.

Colonel YATE

Then the Government will repudiate the idea that it is a terra nullius?

Mr. HARMSWORTH

My hon. and gallant Friend is extremely persistent, but I do not think that I ought to go any further. The question of the blockade has been raised. I do not think the House would wish me to enter on a long explanation of the present position, and much less to go at any length into the exceedingly difficult and intricate machinery by which it is operated, but hon. Members will have observed that during the last few months an immense number of relaxations have been made, and it is now true to say that the blockade does not operate against any countries other than Germany, Hungary, and parts of Russia. The Committee is aware that the relief of people of the distressed countries is now in charge of the Supreme Economic Council in Paris on which our principal delegate is the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord It. Cecil). I see from the Press, and I am invited to receive a deputation, that some agitated people believe that the blockade is still starving the people of Central Europe. There is no foundation of any kind or description for any belief of that nature. The Supreme Economic Council in Paris is supreme over the blockade authority. I am myself a member of the Superior Council of Blockade in Paris and of the Supreme Economic Council, and there has been no disposition on the part of those who are responsible for the blockade to obstruct in any possible way the re-victualling as far as food is concerned of the enemy countries. My hon. Friend the Member for the Consett Division (Mr. A. Williams) referred to food going to Syria. I shall possess myself to-morrow of a copy of the Official Report, and I will send his remarks on that subject to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin, because at the present time it is business which can only be authoritatively discharged by the Supreme Economic Council in Paris, which attends to the re-victualling, not only of enemy countries, but of Allied, neutral, and other countries in Europe. I was asked what was the use of the blockade? I have always regarded it as the most powerful and merciful weapon in the hands of the Allies. It is retained for the sole purpose of being used as an instrument should it not be found possible to secure agreement in regard to the terms of peace. I see that the Supreme Economic Council in Paris, whose proceedings I am not usually able to attend—and here I ought to say, and say with gratitude, that our interests are safely watched over by my hon. Friend the Member for the Maryhill Division of Glasgow (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson)—have announced—I ought to use the exact terms—that Arrangements have been made to remove the blockade against Germany immediately and completely as soon as Germany has formally accepted the Treaty of Peace. I understand that on Monday next a very large meeting is to be held at the Albert Hall, and I should like, therefore, to press the point that the blockade has not been operated for many months to impede the feeding of the people in Germany.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The hon. Gentleman will perhaps like me to tell him that the object of the meeting in which I am to take part is not towards raising the blockade.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I am speaking of a meeting of the Anti-Famine Association at Albert Hall.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Yes; I am speaking of that meeting, too.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

There is a blockade in regard to the feeding of Bolshevist Russia. One of my hon. Friends, I think the hon. Member for Leyton (Lieutenant-Colonel Malone), referred to the very unreliable information that we seem to get from Russia. Incidentally, I may say that I shall be very grateful to him if he can give me any fresh information as to the internal situation in Russia. There seems to be a general consensus of opinion, however, that the Bolshevists have made the use of food supplies a means of enforcing their policy on their unwilling fellow countrymen. We understand, according to the best of our information, that those who are most agreeable and most obedient to the Bolshevist rule receive the larger rations. Rations are on four different scales, and at the top are those who yield themselves to the behests of the Bolshevist Government. We have removed the blockade from the whole of the Black Sea, and the blockade has only (and for the first time, I should point out) been imposed on any part of Russia since this practice of the Bolshevist Government came to be known. Up to quite recent time there had never been any blockade of Russia at all. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) said that there was a differentiation in the administration of the blockade in regard to Belgium as compared with the occupied territories of Germany. Of course, Belgium has never been the subject of the blockade. It is only enemy countries, and, with the exception of Russia, no other country has ever been the subject of the blockade. It is not necessary for me to embark on any further remarks on the subject of the blockade, though I have long wished that a full opportunity would present itself for an explanation how latterly it has been operated.

Among the subjects that have been referred to is that raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Lieutenant-Colonel Murray), who devoted his speech to the vacant Embassy at Washington and the vacant Consul-Generalship in New York. He said, quite rightly with regard to the Embassy, that it is a matter that is engaging public interest and attention not only here but in the United States also. I can assure him—indeed he knows it—that it has occupied a very large share of the attention of the Government during a considerable period. But the Embassy at Washington is not an easy post to fill. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that to fill it adequately and properly, a man with quite exceptional attainments must be obtained. I think the Government have been wise to hesitate over the appointment rather than risk making a wrong appointment. I very much regret I am not in a position at the moment to announce the name of the new Ambassador, but I have no doubt the Government will do so as soon as the choice has been made. I desire humbly, but warmly, to echo my hon. and gallant Friend's sentiments in regard to the absolute necessity for the maintenance of the present warm and even affectionate relations that exist between us and the United States. When one surveys the devastations of the War there are one or two things that emerge from it which we are entitled to look upon as by-products not altogether disadvantageous. It has been some compensation, I think, and I am sure most Members of the House will agree, for this prolonged and bitter trial, that it has brought together the two branches of our race which, if wise statesmanship had prevailed a hundred years ago, would never have been separated. I do not know that there are other topics that call for special observation. I can assure hon. Members that if I have not replied in full to the many questions they had raised, I shall at least read their speeches to-morrow, and the points, many of them valuable, which have been put forward, will receive my attention, and the attention of those gentleman, often misunderstood, often misrepresented, those eminent and I may say, those most dutiful public servants who are good enough to give me some part, and in some cases the whole, of their time.

Colonel YATE

I should like to say a word or two with regard to the very unsatisfactory reply given by the hon. Gentleman with reference to Spitsbergen. The hon. Gentleman complained of my persistence. It is not my persistence that is to be complained of, but the persistence of the Foreign Office in giving away British rights whenever they have an opportunity of doing so. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman to give us the name of the Foreign Office official who went to that Conference and gave away British rights there without any authority from the Foreign Office, so far as we know, and certainly without any mandate from this country. Spitzbergen, as we all know, was annexed in the seventeenth century by King James I., as New Land. It was a great whaling district during that century, and was only abandoned when the whales left—no minerals being at that time known to exist there. Now the Northern Exploration Company and other companies have created great mining interests there, and at one time practically the whole place was under their control. There was a very small Norwegian company, and a small Swedish company working in association with them. Then a Foreign Office official goes to a Conference and gives away the whole thing, which practically belonged to Britain. That is the way the Foreign Office treats this country, and we are entitled to complain. Spitsbergen is a property that we have the greatest right to, and where we must insist on having permanent rights wherever British interests are concerned. There are valuable minerals. The coal deposits are most valuable for our Fleet in the North Sea. There is coal at the seashore ready to be delivered to our ships at Scapa Flow, within two days' sail. It is the finest steam coal that can be got. Our rights in Spitsbergen are absolutely essential to the safety of this country and not only as regards coal. The place is on the flank of our route to Archangel, Murmansk, and wherever we have intercourse with Russia through the White Sea and beyond. We know that the Germans established a wireless station there. They did not go to that expense for nothing. They saw the value of the harbours there on the flank of our naval defence. I do ask that this question may be taken up seriously by the Foreign Office, and our rights there established in perpetuity.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Lord Edmund Talbot]—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. G. THORNE

Can the Noble Lord state now what Vote will be taken on Monday?

Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)

The Government recognise the force of the appeal made this afternoon and the reason given for the postponement of the Ministry of Munitions Vote, and we will, therefore, have the Ministry of Shipping Vote on Monday instead.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Ten o'clock.