HC Deb 11 November 1919 vol 121 cc316-32

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. R. McNEILL

At Question Time yesterday I gave notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night I would call attention to some questions which I have asked and the answers I have received on the subject of Montenegro. For a long time past, throughout the War, I and other hon. Members have asked questions of the foreign Office on this subject, and until the present moment we have almost always failed to obtain any information at all. While the War was going on we invariably thought it our duty to respond to any appeal that was made to us from the Foreign Office not to press these questions. In February last, when the fighting was over, I thought the time had come when we might press the Foreign Office for some more information, and I gave notice that I would call attention to the question on the Motion for the Adjournment. Then, again, in answer to an appeal from my hon. Friend (Mr. Harmsworth), I refrained from doing so until yesterday, when I asked some further questions on the subject and was still told that as the matter was under consideration at Paris it was not thought right to give any information. In particular I want to call attention to my Noble Friend's refusal to lay on the Table of the House the Report which has been made by Count de Salis, who was sent by the Government to make a Report on the conditions in Montenegro. In the time at my disposal I can only deal shortly with a story which is a long one, involving the whole treatment of Montenegro by the Entente since the beginning of the War, and there are certainly some very strange circumstances, some of which I hope my Noble Friend will be able to explain, because they are by no means creditable so far as my information goes, either to this country or to our Allies.

7.0 P.M.

Montenegro has a very special claim on the esteem of this country and of every lover of liberty. It is the solitary State in the Balkans which has never surrendered her independence to Turkey in the past, and she was acclaimed many years ago by Mr. Gladstone as "immortal Montenegro." That character she amply bore out at the very beginning of the War. Two days after we declared war she threw herself on the side of the Western Allies'—on the side of liberty—and flew at the throat of Austria. It was a plucky thing to do, having regard to the feebleness of her military strength and her geographical situation. The consequence was that she had to share with Serbia the misery of being overrun and devastated by the enemy. The curious thing—and this I believe to be the secret of all that has happened—is that from the very first, Serbia, instead of treating. Montenegro as a gallant little ally, and a kindred nation, has pursued towards her an aggressive policy and has had aggressive designs upon her which has been carried out through a long system of intrigue both in Paris and elsewhere. At a very early stage of the War reports began to be spread which can be traced to Serbian sources, discreditable both to Montenegro And especially to the King of Montenegro, and it was said these reports went so far as to allege that the King and his Government had been guilty of treachery to the Allies, and had been in correspondence with the enemy, and it was even alleged at one time that some secret treaty existed between Montenegro and Austria. In fact, a raging propaganda, was carrid out by Serbian agents throughout Europe during the War, the object being that when the ultimate settlement of that part of the world came to be arranged, Montenegro should be incorporated in the Kingdom of Serbia, losing her own dynasty and her own independence. When the Austrian invasion took place in the summer of 1915, both the Courts and Governments of these two States had to go into exile. The Serbian Court and Government was established at Corfu, and that of Montenegro at Paris, and then a small subsidy was arranged to be paid by His Majesty's Government and the French Government jointly to Monte-negro to enable that little Kingdom to carry on its administration although in exile. From the very beginning, for some strange reason which has never yet been explained, instead of treating Montenegro as an honoured Ally, although of comparative feebleness in the Alliance, and treating her with respect and encouragement, the Allies, including His Majesty's Government, have treated Montenegro with studied slights. To begin with, she was the only one of the Allies who was never allowed to have a diplomatic representative in this country during the War. She applied for one and it was refused. I myself in this House asked the President of the Council, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, why a diplomatic representative was not to be allowed to Montenegro, and he replied very shortly that it was thought sufficient that her communications with His Majesty's Government should be carried on through on inferior official at the Paris Embassy. Sir George Grey. Up to the present moment she has never been allowed to have any representative in this country, and therefore no direct communication here with His Majesty's Government. Whether or not it was a substantial grievance, at all events it was a, marked slight. The same attitude was shown in another comparatively small respect. The House will remember that during the War there were anniversaries of victories and other occasions when messages of encouragement, hope and congratulation were exchanged between the heads of the various Governments. Our own Prime Minister sent messages, and he advised His Majesty to send messages to various representatives of the Governments of the Allies. I think I am right in saying that from first to last Montenegro was pointedly excluded from all such messages. Even on the conclusion of Peace she was excluded ostentatiously. When Siam and several other nations in both hemispheres who had been included in any sort of way in the Alliance received congratulatory messages, not one was sent to the Sovereign of Montenegro or to any member of her Government.

Here is a point to which I would especially call the attention of the House. It is an extraordinary thing that no explanation has been given of it. Montenegro was never invited to send representatives to the Peace Conference in Paris. She was one of the first States to spring into the Alliance and gallantly come to the assistance of the Western States, yet she was never invited to the Paris Conference. Although her destiny was closely concerned with the settlement of the Balkans, she never had a representative at the Paris Conference and has never been consulted from first to last one way or another with regard to that. I want to call the attention of the House to what happened when Austria was compelled, by the change of fortunes in war, to evacuate these States. The Serbian King and Government were restored as soon as possible, quite rightly and properly, to their own country, and every pains were taken by the great Powers who had fought for Serbia to see that the Government was restored and to bring relief and help to the devastated country and to the poor people of Serbia who had so desperately suffered in the War. Was the same thing done in Montenegro? Not at all. Why not? Why, when the enemy left Montenegro, was her Sovereign and her Government not immediately restored with such encouragement, assistance, and help as the Great Powers could supply? On the contrary, to this day the King of Montenegro and the Government of Montenegro remained in Paris, and the country of Montenegro was occupied by Serbian troops, and is so occupied to this moment. The Serbians owe a great deal to Montenegro, because in their hour of dire distress they were welcomed and given passage through Montenegrin territory. But when the enemy had to retire from the invasion the Serbians, instead of going back to their own country and opening the way to the restoration of the Montenegrin Government and. people, have remained there, practically as enemies, treating it as conquered territory to this moment, while the King of Montenegro and his Ministers are in Paris, are practically retained there as prisoners against their will, or if that is too strong an expression, it is not inaccurate to say that no facilities whatever have been given to them by the Great Powers to return to their own country and no steps whatever are been taken to clear out the Serbian troops, who have been occupying Montenegrin territory. They have not only been occupying it, but committing excesses of the worst description. The Serbian troops there have been imprisoning the natives of the country, driving them as refugees into the mountains. Many of them have been butchered, and a good many more of them have been starved. Not only that, but a relief scheme was devised by private enterprise in this country just before the Armistice was signed. Montenegro was in dire need of such relief. On that subject I asked some questions last autumn, but without obtaining any information. The fact was that instead of facilities being given for this relief to be sent, every sort of difficulty was put in the way by the Government acting, I suppose, in concert with the Allies in Paris, though that I do not know, but I do know that every difficulty was put in the way instead of facilities being given. The consequence was that we had this excessive contrast soon after the Armistice was signed, that while the Allies were taking steps to send relief as quickly as possible to our enemies in Vienna, it was actually being denied to our Allies in Montenegro, who were very much more in need of it. At a very much later period, some months ago, when at last relief was sent under an arrangement come to by, I think, Mr. Hoover, and made by the Americans, my information is—and I believe my hon. Friend cannot contradict it—that 70 per cent, of the relief that was sent was consumed by the Serbian troops who were in occupation of the country, and the remainder was sold to profiteers, who disposed of it at enormous profits to themselves.

The extraordinary thing which all these facts show is that while other parts of Europe have suffered from the ravaging devastation of a ruthless enemy, Montenegro has suffered almost as badly from devastation, not by an enemy, but by an Ally who ought to have been her best friend, and all this simply in pursuit of a policy which Serbia has had in mind from the first, to compel, if she can, in the final settlements the incorporation of Montenegro in her own territory. In other words, it is exactly the same thing which Italy is causing complaint about in regard to Fiume, while the Jugo-Slav States— quite rightly in my judgment—are complaining of the aggressive policy on the part of some sections of Italian opinion there, the Jugo-Slavs are carrying out precisely the same policy on a much greater scale in the allied country of the Montenegrins. I have been told in answer to questions time after time—this is the important point of policy—that the Montenegrin people should be allowed an opportunity, by free choice, to determine their own future, that is to say, to determine whether or not they will join a great Jugo-Slav State. If they like they can do so, either under some federal scheme or, if they prefer it, by an organic union, or, if they prefer to stand out altogether, they can maintain their independence. It is no concern of mine to suggest one policy more than another. All that I ask the House to agree with me in is in asking that whatever policy Montenegro pursues with regard to a final settlement, it shall be her own free choice and shall not be forced upon her by a more powerful neighbour. All through efforts have been made by some Serbian elements to frustrate this free choice by Montenegro. First of all in 1916 we had a meeting, or rather an arrangement which was called the Pact of Corfu. That was a pact which was signed by a number of gentlemen, none of whom represented Montenegro— whose opinion, was never asked—but who decided by that instrument that Montenegro was to be part of the great kingdom of Serbia and was to own allegiance to the Karageorgevitch dynasty. There was what was called a Parliament held at Podgoritza. It was a. bogus Parliament. I should like to see the De Salis Report for that very reason. I challenge my hon. Friend to produce it, because I believe that if it were produced it would show that the Podgoritza Parliament was an utter fraud. There was no genuine vote of Montenegrin representatives as we were informed they were electing to throw in their lot with Serbia.

While all this has been going on, whether it is owing to Serbian influence or not I do not know, but the very moderate subsidy which the French and British Governments undertook to pay to enable this State to carry on was stopped. It was stopped at very critical periods, and so far as my information goes the last time it was stopped was a few months ago. I want to ask my hon. Friend why at this moment when Montenegro is still unsettled, when her King and Government are still exiled, when she is in the occupation of troops which are not her own, this time has been chosen by the French and British Governments to stop the subsidy upon which her political existence depended? As as matter of fact—I do not know whether it has any direct connection —it is noteworthy that on the 17th September M. Pasitch presented a Note to the Conference in Paris in which he made a very extraordinary request. The House will remember that he is a Serbian statesman owing everything in honour to this little Allied and kindred State. He made the request to the Conference in Paris that they should no longer recognise the Government of Montenegro as representing that country, and that the subsidy should be withdrawn—a generous attitude for an Ally to take up. What was his or the Serbian object. Obviously they want to reduce this little country to such a state of despair, and to strip it so naked before the world, that it will be compelled, having no other course to take, to accept union with Serbia as the only way out of hopeless misery and bankruptcy. It is a mean, despicable device to compel this little State to accept a policy which she would not do of her own free will. For all this, His Majesty's Government cannot escape a great deal of responsibilty. My hon. Friend tells me that they have to act in concord with our Allies in Paris. Of course they have; but have Ills Majesty's Government ever used any powerful influence in favour of this little State which Mr. Gladstone called Immortal Montenegro? Have they ever said that they will not be a party to any policy, such as has been carried out, of tyranny and of oppression?

They will not produce the Report of Count De Salis. Why? My hon. Friend told me yesterday, in answer to a question, that it was not because they had received any communication from the Serbian Government. I accept that statement, but there are other methods of making known the wishes of powerful interests. I do not hesitate to say that the reason the De Salis Report is not given to this House is because there are Serbian influences and international financial interests in alliance with those influences which want to have it hushed up. My hon. Friend shakes his head. He will tell us, perhaps, why it is hushed up. It is not sufficient to tell us that the House of Commons and the country are to be denied all knowledge of it merely because of some general statement decided upon by the wiseacres of Paris. As long ago as February this year I asked that this State should be given freedom of choice. My hon. Friend at that time said that it would be premature to make any statement. In April they sent out Count De Salis, and there again they treated Montenegro with studied discourtesy. They sent out this Mission without having the politeness to notify the Government of the country they were going to investigate. The Montenegro Government, naturally and properly, entered a protest against being treated in that way, and when I called the attention of my hon. Friend to it he said that he had not even heard of this protest, though afterwards he was good enough to inform us that I was quite correct. From first to last we have been told that they were going to send out to ascertain the true wishes of the Montenegrin people, and that we must wait until the Report of this Mission was sent in so that we might know what were the true wishes of the people. We have now ascertained Count De Salis has come back and has reported. He has found out everything that he wanted to find out in order to answer the question, and yet we are almost told that it is impertinent to inquire into this matter at all, and that at all events the matter is still under consideration in Paris.

I can tell the House on this point what Count De Salis reports. I challenge my hon. Friend to deny it. Count De Salis reports clearly and unmistakably that in his judgment the wish of the Montenegrin people is to retain their own sovereign and their own independence. Not only does he do that, but he gives a valuable account of the proceedings of the Serbian troops in that country, and the inference that anyone would draw from the Report would be that unless some strong action is taken by the Allied Powers before the winter ends there will be, very little, if any, population left in Montenegro either to thwart or to satisfy the rapacity of their neighbours. Let me say that it is no pleasure to me to have to speak in these terms of a gallant Ally, which Serbia is, an Ally whose sufferings and sorrows in the War and whose steadfastness in the War won the respect and the sympathy of us all. In earlier periods of the War I myself spoke in this House in support of the legitimate aspirations of Serbia. I am a member of the Executive of the Serbian Society of Great Britain. All my sympathies are in favour of Serbia as a legitimate aspirant to the head of a yugo-Slav State. That idea of a great Yugo-Slav State under the leadership of Serbia is one that has my entire sympathy. What I protest against is that in carrying out that desirable policy the independence of this gallant little State should be sacrificed against her will, and I do maintain that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government and of the Allies to tell us now what steps they have taken to carry out the pledge that they have so often given that this free choice should be secured for Montenegro and that they would give us full information as to position, of affairs in that country, especially by publishing the Report of Count De Salis and his Mission which went out under orders of His Majesty's Government.

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

I had intended to preface my few remarks this afternoon with some observations on the alleged undue reticence of the Foreign Office in the disclosure of information. If there had been a larger attendance in the House, I should have been very glad of such an opportunity, but I may perhaps be permitted to say, if some hon. Members think that the Foreign Office or those Ministers who are responsible for the Foreign Office have any jealous view as to the value of information that they possess, that, speaking for myself, I have no such views at all. I would most gladly and most willingly share—sometimes I feel it to be an almost intolerable burden—with hon. Members, and of course with the public at large, many of those confidential matters which unfortunately, so long as foreign affairs are to be conducted at all, cannot be bruited abroad at particular junctures. Yesterday it was suggested that the Foreign Office had been closer than formerly, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) took part in supplementary questions on that subject. I have taken the trouble to look back upon the questions asked in this House during the last twelve months and before, and, even on this particular subject, I can only say that there has not been any greater reticence under the recent regime than there was before.

Mr. McNEILL

My hon. Friend must remember that the War was going on then, and that was quite a different thing.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

My hon. Friend perhaps will reflect that conditions with regard to foreign policy have been much more difficult during the period of the Armistice than they were during the period of active hostilities. During the period of active hostilities it was permissible for anybody responsible for foreign affairs to express himself with extreme freedom about a very considerable number of States. At the present time that number is greatly restricted, and the affairs of a great number of States are yet in a condition of unsettlement. I deplore as much as any Member of this House the delay—I believe the necessary and unavoidable delay—in the settlement of some of these difficulties in Europe. What is the real trouble with regard to Montenegro? The trouble mainly consists in the fact that the affairs of the States on the Eastern shores of the Adriatic are not generally settled. The House knows, and my hon. Friend will agree with me, that we cannot pick out a little State like Montenegro from this difficult territory and say that we will settle the affairs of that State without any regard to those profoundly difficult problems which confront us on the Eastern side of the Adriatic.

I have no complaint to make of the manner in which my hon. Friend has dealt with this question. He has been throughout uniformly restrained and considerate in his treatment of the Foreign Office in regard to Montenegro. He has truly said that on more than one occasion I have taken the liberty of asking him not to press questions in relation to Montenegro, and he has always most willingly agreed, although he takes a far greater interest in this question than perhaps any other private Member of the House claims to take. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the restraint which he has exhibited in this connection, and I may perhaps congratulate him. It was said yesterday that the House and the country were left in great ignorance on some of these foreign questions, I really think that has been overstated. To those who take the trouble to inquire and study there is an immense body of things open, and, although I am far from ready to pledge myself to every view that my hon. Friend has expressed, or indeed to guarantee the strict accuracy of everything that he has said, it is quite obvious that my hon. Friend knows a very great deal about the conditions in Montenegro and Serbia.

Much has been said about the Report of Count De Salis. I confess, quite frankly, that I have no sympathy with secret treaties or secret documents except in the latter case in so far as the documents must be at any given time secret. Here was a Report prepared by a distinguished public servant for the guidance and information of His Majesty's Government. In this Report Count De Salis speaks with the completes freedom of every aspect of this question, and the House will gather from the speech of my hon. Friend himself that there are several important countries concerned in the affairs of Montenegro. Count De Salis in this Report expresses himself quite properly and rightly with complete freedom in regard to the situation as he observed it. In the second sentence of his Report, indeed in the letter covering his Report when he sent it to the Secretary of State—

Mr. SPEAKER

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that if he quotes the Report he will have to lay the whole of it upon the Table of the House.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I am very much obliged to you, Sir; I had overlooked that fact. I am afraid that it rather stops me from proceeding. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I have had a conversation with Count De Salis, and in his judgment some of his informants in Montenegro would get into very serious trouble were the reports to be disclosed.

Mr. McNEILL

Trouble with whom? Does he mean that they would have their throats cut by the Serbians?

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I cannot commit myself to the gloss which my hon. Friend puts on his statement, but Count De Salis apprehends danger to his informants. That would not, however, be the main ground for declining to issue publicly a secret Report. I have considered it most carefully, and I have considered it from the point of view of a summary, though I do not know that this House would be prepared to accept a summary of the Report. I think this House would look with misgiving such a Bowdlerised edition of a Report of that description. It is almost impossible to disentangle particulars of a report of this character, which must be regarded for the present as purely confidential. I am in the hands of the House so far as my personal position is concerned. I have studied the Report with the utmost care, and my judgment is that that Report could not be pub- lished without causing far more trouble to everyone concerned than can easily be anticipated.

My hon. and learned Friend spoke, and very properly, in the very highest terms of Montenegro's contribution to the warlike efforts of the Allies. The House knows what that splendid history is, and I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that so far as I know there is nobody in the Government who does not share in the public admiration of the virtues of the Montenegrins. I think he went very far in suggesting that the Montenegrins have been subjected to a succession of marked and calculated slanders. I cannot offhand, rebut every one of the many points he Adduced in this connection, but it is not fair to say that the Government of the King of Montenegro is not adequately represented by us in Paris. It is represented by a very distinguished diplomatist, Sir George Graham, who is First Counsellor to the Embassy in Paris. I am not learned in these questions of diplomatic precedence, but the House knows that that is a very high rank in the diplomatic service.

Mr. McNEILL

The point is that they are not represented in London. I am not saying anything against Sir George Graham in Paris. Why was the ordinary course not followed, and they allowed to have their diplomatic representative here in London?

Mr. J. JONES

Why is not Sinn Fein allowed a representative in London?

Mr. HARMSWORTH

To neither question can I give a satisfactory reply at the moment. But I think from the point of view of this House it is very much overstating the case—and, if my hon. and learned Friend will pardon me saying so, it is very misleading—to say that a slight has been put upon the King of Montenegro and his Government in Paris. When we are talking about the way in which this Government has been treated, I need scarcely remind the House of the payment of a subsidy by the French and British Governments up to a recent date. It is not customary for great Powers to make subsidies to other Powers whom they desire to alienate or slight. I am sure there is no foundation whatever for any suggestion that there has been a desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to put any kind of slight on the Court of King Nicholas in Paris. As to the stoppage of the subsidy, we live in an age of great economy, and all subsidies, so far as I know, have been stopped by the Treasury.

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY

Except Denikin's!

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I think all subsidies have been stopped by His Majesty's Treasury. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that, so far as His Majesty's Government is concerned, there has been no intention in the withdrawal of the subsidy still further to reduce the strength of the Montenegrin Court and power in Paris. I am sorry that my hon. Friend made that suggestion. Certainly there has been no desire on the part of the great Powers concerned to reduce the Montenegrin Court and Government by what I should describe in his own words was "a mean device." Indeed, there has been no desire to reduce their prestige or power in any way whatever. This is a most difficult question The Leader of the House yesterday deprecated any discussion of the matter, and. I do not know that I should be wise or justified in giving any expression to any opinions of policy at this moment. Only a few weeks ago, in a letter dated 16th October, we were advised by our representative at the Peace Conference that the situation in regard to the settlement was reaching, as he thought, a much more satisfactory stage than that which had hitherto obtained. He looked for a solution of the difficulties of Montenegro on lines that would not be unacceptable to the Montenegrin people themselves. He said, I am reading his actual words—but I suppose I had better not do that, Mr. Speaker; otherwise the document will become liable to publication. This is a document of a very familiar character, from a diplomatic representative abroad of the Foreign Office. These documents are not meant for publication, and indeed could not conveniently be published. I may say, however, that according to the advice we have received from our representative in Paris, Sir Eyre Crowe, in whose judgment the Government and the Foreign Office very rightly place the very highest opinion, it would be singularly indiscreet to discuss the tangled problems of Montenegro and of the Eastern shores of the Adriatic at this particular moment. I think if the House will allow me I will leave it at that. I can only say again that it is ho part of my desire to withhold useful information from the House. I find that hon. Members who take a particular interest in foreign policy seem to be usually extremely fully informed, if not always entirely accurately informed. I think I can safely say this, that there is no other desire on the part of His Majesty's Government than that the Montenegrin people should achieve a form of government at their own desire and according to their own wishes, and such a form of government as is compatible with Montenegro's free and peaceful development. In that way, I think, I can safely say that all the good offices of His Majesty's Government, so far as they can be effective—and we are not without weight in the counsels of Europe—are at the disposal of the Montenegrins in working out their fate.

Commander HILTON YOUNG

I will not enter into all the details that have been entered into by the hon. Member opposite, but I will content myself with dealing with a single point in his observations which will enable me to introduce a matter which I desire to put to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The hon. and learned Member asked the rhetorical question. Why was the Montenegrin Government not restored upon the expulsion of the Austrians? He might have suggested to himself a very easy reply. It was not restored because the people of Montenegro did not desire it.

Mr. McNEILL

Who says that?

Commander HILTON YOUNG

The Montenegrin people themselves. If evidence is required, I will give it. Immediately after the expulsion of the Austrian Army and while the Serbian Army was still entering the country and before it was established an Assembly was got together and met at Podgoritza, consisting of 160 members, which resolved with practical unanimity for union with Serbia. The hon. Member opposite has referred to that Assembly as bogus. I suggest to him that all the evidence is directly contrary to that assertion. The decision of that Assembly was subsequently confirmed by a National Assembly at Cettinje, which decision was again confirmed by the free election of twelve Montenegrin delegates to the Skuptschina of Jugo-Slavia, and these delegates are still serving and taking part in the deliberations of that body. One of them is a member of the Cabinet of the Jugo-Slavs. To the best of my belief this Assembly was not the bogus Assembly that the hon. and learned Member suggested.

But there is better evidence than that. This is a matter on which we are much in the dark and upon which I should desire, if opportunity afforded, to ask the Undersecretary for information. I believe that something in the nature of a Commission was appointed by the Allied Governments to make some sort of inquiry into the conditions of Montenegro and into the form of this decision. I refer to the Commission, if that is the right description of it, presided over by General Franchetd' Esperay, and on which there was a British officer, General Bridges, and also an Italian officer, whose name I do not remember. I cannot profess to know, because I do not think there are any sure means of knowledge available, exactly what was the composition, the procedure, or the result of that Inquiry, but I have heard it very confidently stated that it pronounced favourably on the decision, referred to, and to the effect that the general opinion, and desire of the Montenegrin nation was in favour of union with Serbia. I would only suggest that if Papers are ever to be published and if information is ever to be given to the House on this subject, that they should include the proceedings and findings of that Commission, if any there were, I most heartily agree with the hon. and learned Member that we are left too much in the dark upon this question, as upon many other questions in connection with the Peace Conference, and I believe that from that ignorance in which we are left misapprehensions result. Such a misapprehension, I venture with diffidence to suggest, has made itself apparent in the speech of the hon. and learned Member. He has suggested that the cause of the present trouble is some form of oppression of the Montenegrins by the Jugo-Slavs. I suggest that the true interpretation of the present situation is that there are two parties quarrelling in Montenegro, and that the Serbian intervention is, on the whole, for the diplomatic purpose of trying to get peace between them and to protect the freedom of opinion in Montenegro from foreign intervention. Such evidence as there is at our disposal is, I believe, to the effect that the Royalist party is in a minority and is maintained for the most part by filibustering expeditions from abroad. I say again, with great respect, that I heard with some little surprise the grave charges brought against an Allied Government by the hon. and gallant Member, and I am confident that they have been disposed of in a manner that will satisfy those who know best the work of the Serbian nation and its achievements and sacrifices in the common cause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I wish to say a few words not on this particular question, but on the whole policy of the Government towards this House. The information which hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench give us is full enough but, so far as policy is concerned, we never have an opportunity of discussing it until it is presented to us as a fait accompli. The people of the country who send Members to this House to represent their interests have to find the money and the blood when these mistakes in policy come to fruition, and we have less control, so far as I can gather, in this House than the members of any constituent assembly in the world — certainly less control than the members of the French, Italian or German Parliaments. Questions of policy which should have the approval of the people of the country are fully discussed in these Parliaments but not here. I am not attacking the hon. Member. He is courteous and his Department gives very full and ready information; but as to questions of policy, as, for instance, the policy which has been carried out by Sir Eyre Crowe, we have no power whatever, and I doubt whether the Prime Minister has very much say in the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minute before Eight o'clock.