§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe I Minister of Education has made the best 814 possible defence for his Department. I would like to raise one or two local grievances about education, but I regret very much that I cannot continue the discussion. I sympathise with hon. Members from Scotland who desire to discuss Scottish education—nothing could be move important—and I sympathise equally with their demand for Scottish Home Rule. I am about to take the opportunity of opening up another subject that has not been touched upon in this Parliament, so far as I am aware. We have had five or six discussions on the question of the Ruhr, but there is another side to the European situation, not unconnected with the position in the Ruhr, which is of great importance to this country. I wish to ask one or two questions of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the present policy of this country with regard to Russia. I have said that this question is not unconnected with the situation in Western Europe. That is the case. At the present time the position is that the Government of the French Republic is on better terms with the Russian Government than is our Government. There is a section of opinion in France, not unrepresented in high circles, which is to-day advocating a reformation of the old alliance between France and Russia. On the other hand, in Russia, and in Moscow especially, there is a section of opinion among those who are members of the Communist party, that looks towards France. Should that alliance conic about between France and Russia it is very probable that the Italian Government will join; in fact it is almost certain. In that case, while we take up our present attitude towards Germany, Germany will probably be forced in too, and we will find ourselves faced with a European bloc and will be forced into a position of isolation without the strength or the independence to support it that we enjoyed in Victorian days.
I maintain that this situation is extremely serious. The fact that people here have an antagonism against what is going on or may be going on or has been going on in Russia, the fact that very terrible deeds have been done in that country, should not blind us to the fact that the high interests of Great Britain demand that a clear, settled and sagacious policy should be pursued towards the Russian Republic. I regret 815 very much that the official Opposition has not taken a better opportunity than this to raise this vital question. I make no apology for raising it. It affects the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I do not pretend to a very great knowledge of the matter, in spite of the fact that I spent just one month within the borders of Russia and returned only a fortnight ago. But I did not waste my time while I was there, and I kept my eyes open. First of all, I shall refer to the threatened shooting of certain prelates in Russia, following their recent trial. That matter was being discussed in Russia when I was there, and I used some small endeavours to advise those with whom I came in contact that I thought two years after the deed of which these prelates are accused was too long a time for any severe measures to be taken, and that any execution would have a deplorable effect on public opinion throughout Europe. I was assured, not officially, of course, but on all hands, that there was no chance of capital punishment being inflicted. I hope that that is so.
I dare say the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will give us any recent information he has on the subject. I would feel as horrified as anyone else at the execution of these elderly men, but at the same time we must not forget that we are talking about a country that has been through the most terrible turmoil, anarchy, war, civil war, and intervention, and that passions have been aroused that are not easily allayed. We should seek means for moderating opinion in that country, by supporting the moderates, who are getting powerful, and not playing into the hands of the extremists. We should also remember our own history in the matter. We should remember the number of ecclesiastics who were put to death by burning in the reign of the much-revered Queen Elizabeth and her sister Mary, and also that great hero of romantic history, their revered father, Henry VIII, who was as good at despoiling the churches as any Communist leader in Russia to-day. Russia is some generations behind us in civilisation, and has not to-day the advantage of constitutional government on our model.
I say that the present Government. in this country, while it has certainly in- 816 herited a very muddled state of foreign politics, has gone out of its way to pinprick and annoy the Russian Government and people in every possible manner. I will give a few examples. First of all, take the question of the position that arose in Turkey after the collapse of the Greek Army. I suppose that nobody but the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) could have reconciled the two hereditary enemies, Russia and Turkey, against us. The fall of the Greek Power in Asia Minor found the Russians and Turks bound together by an, alliance. It was most obvious to anyone who wished to serve his country without allowing sentiment and prejudice to stand in the way, that before we went into the Conference with Turkey it was absolutely necessary to come to some understanding with Russia. It was the common-sense point of view to take. Instead of that the British Government, through the Noble Lord who guides our foreign policy, purposely ignored Russia. If we had played our cards properly we should have had Russia on our side in dealing with Turkey. There is no country more vitally affected than Russia by the freedom of the Straits. We risked a great war; we alienated Russia and Russians of all sections of political opinion. Even people who are opposed to the present Russian Government feel that they have been insulted and affronted by the attempted isolation of Russia. It was a foolish, ridiculous policy and it will cost us dear. We risked a great and disastrous war and we are not yet relieved from danger in that quarter. We have not yet got a settlement with Turkey and if a settlement should break down the reason is to be found in our failure to come to an agreement with Russia on this and other questions. I do not care to speak of a matter of this sort, but I think it necessary to say that at the Lausanne Conference the Noble Lord the Marquess Curzon, so polite and courteous in his private life, seems to have gone out of his way—and I have had evidence of this from several sources and not from Russian sources at all—to purposely humiliate the Russian representatives there. It is most unfortunate that such a thing should have happened. I am sure it was unthinkingly done, but the fact is that the Noble Lord allowed his senti- 817 ments to make him forget, for once, his innate courtesy and politeness, and a personal atmosphere was created most unhelpful to the settlement of an admittedly difficult problem.
The third point to which I wish to draw attention is that, after the present Government assumed office, when M. Krassin, the head of the Russian trade delegation in this country—and, after all, the representative of the greatest country in Europe in point of numbers and size, and the second greatest in Asia —when M. Krassin wished to call on the Foreign Secretary or on the hon. Gentleman who represents him in this House, an interview was declined. Before this, M. Krassin had seen the Marquess Curzon on several occasions. The late Prime Minister had interviewed him on many occasions, as also had the late President of the Board of Trade, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Cabinet Ministers. This Government, however, refused to see him, which was a foolish, ridiculous and feminine attitude to adopt—the attitude of a woman who has been snubbed and who cannot get over it. He was, of course, given an audience by the gentleman who is an expert in this matter at the Foreign Office, but the point is that for the sake of avoiding five. minutes' conversation with the representative of a great people, we went out of our way to give this cause of offence. What has been the result? In Moscow the British Mission is headed by Mr. Hodgson, who, as I have seen from personal observation, is carrying out a most difficult and delicate task with efficiency and with, I think, on the whole, a good deal of success. He has a most difficult task, indeed, and I believe carries it out admirably, but; as a result of the attitude of our Government, to which I have referred, there has been a reprisal, and he is not now admitted to see the Foreign Minister of Russia or his deputy and is only received by comparatively:junior officials. I hope that state of affairs will be changed, and I hope he will be received by M. Tchitcherin with regard to such questions as the proposed execution of these ecclesiastics. At present, however, he cannot get to the fountain head at all. British merchants and business men, important British houses which are represented in Russia and doing business with Russia, in spite of the Government, find, 818 as a result, that such little attention and assistance as they can look for to our indeterminate mission is diminishing, and that is the only result of our very ill-advised treatment of the gentleman who is over here at the head of the Russian trade delegation.
I ask the Government for some statement of policy on this question. There are to-day two logical clear policies. One is to say that the Russians are perfectly hopeless, that there is no future for the present Russian Government, that there is no interest for British trade in Russia, and to tell the present Russian Trade Mission, after due notice, that the agreement is terminated and that they must clear out of London and that they will not be allowed back in any circumstances. That is the policy which certain Gentlemen on the back benches opposite have advocated. I do not agree with it, but at any rate it is logical. The other policy is to carry out the terms of the preamble of the original trade agreement and, after the present period of trial, to conclude a regular Treaty of peace. I am not going to press the present Government to recognise the Russian Government immediately, but I ask them at any rate to consider whether they cannot resume—I prefer to see them do it alone if other countries are doing it alone—the conversations interrupted at The Hague. Those conversations did not break down entirely, and I believe can be renewed with good possibility of success.
I wish to state the following facts about Russia. First, it is agreed by everyone in Russia of whatever political opinion that the present Government is absolutely firm. Lenin may die, Trotsky may die, all the other well-known leaders may die, but the Government will go on. Even the most bitter opponents of the Government are agreed on that, and I am sure the Under-Secretary is so advised by his experts in the Foreign Office. The only thing that could possibly upset the Government is foreign intervention on a large scale, which is outside practical politics. The next point is that there is in the large centers of populations—I only visited Petrograd and Moscow and several of the villages—but I spoke to people from Samara, Chita, Kharkoff and Odessa, and they all told me the same story—of com- 819 plete order and tranquillity. The system of government we may not like, but there is complete peace and safety. The third point is that Communism, as we are taught to regard it, has been abandoned in Russia, deliberately, admittedly and openly, for the new economic policy, and in that may be found the secret of the bringing to trial of the ecclesiastics. If I may digress for a moment, the fact of the matter is that in Russia there is a moderate party and an extremist party. In the Communist party, which governs Russia, there are moderates and extremists. The extremists fought hard against the abandonment of militant socialism and resisted the introduction of the new economic policy, but they have been overborne because the moderates were supported by the masses of people and the peasantry. Here is a political trial. It. is said that the Archbishops and priests helped the Poles against the Russians. I do not know what truth there is in that, if any, but it said: "This is a political question and not a question affecting the lives of the children of the country and the happiness of the people and we intend to have our own way here," and the result is the trials which have taken place. That is my reading of the situation, and it was a very lively topic of conversation when I was in Moscow a few weeks ago.
The new economic policy means really permission to accumulate private property and even private fortunes. It permits the banks to operate, it permits the Stock Exchange to operate and permits of trade intercourse between the towns and villages; it has succeeded fairly well and commercial activity is going on again in the cities and the country. There is enough warmth for the people in winter and everybody has clothes and boots and enough to eat. The people are poor, but the country is recovering. External trade is controlled and is likely to be controlled for some time, but it is possible to get permits to trade freely and certain companies and individuals and trusts—the semi-Government trusts operating in Russia—are trading externally quite freely with our people, including constituents of my own. Incidentally I may say that last year a ring was formed by the Scandinavian timber traders and it was broken by Rusian timber. To-clay we are getting 820 increased quantities of Russian timber into Hull, which has brought, the price down considerably. The timber has been excellent in quality, well above specification and has given great satisfaction, I understand, in Hull, where it can he got cheaper than Swedish or Finnish timber.
That is just the situation as briefly as I can put it. I have tried to paint some sort of picture, and I say it is time we took the necessary steps because at the present moment British business is to a certain degree hampered by the fact that there are no regular relations between the British and the Russian Governments. In Moscow you have the German Embassy with a very distinguished German diplomat as Ambassador. In this Embassy they have a German business man who speaks perfect Russian, and whose special function it is to chaperone all Germans who come to Russia on business or for other purposes, and conduct them to the different Government Departments where he says, "I come from the German Ambassador; this German citizen wishes for help or information," or whatever the case may be, and that man gets it. We cannot do that. The head of the British Mission in Moscow, to whom I wish to take the opportunity to give some praise, is not in a position to do that. We have not recognised the Russian Government. There are bad and not good relations between the two Governments, and in consequence our business people suffer. Furthermore, owing to this situation the position of the State Bank in Russia is indeterminate. Our merchants are being paid partly in Bills backed by the State Bank, and if some suitable arrangements could be come to between the two Governments that would put up the credit of the State Bank our merchants would be able to get these bills discounted at better rates, which would mean that we should get better value for our commodities. Those are just two examples of the present indeterminate position between the two Governments which are adversely affecting British trade.
Our Government say, of course, "The trouble is that the present Government in Russia engages in propaganda against us, and that they have not recognised debts and private property." As regards propaganda, the present Government in Russia denies that since the signing of 821 the trade agreement they have given money or assistance to people engaged in propaganda in this country. I have asked in this House for specific cases of this being discovered, and have never had an answer from the Government on that point. It is possible that the Third International does engage in propaganda, but there is as much connection between that and the present Government of Russia as there is between the Primrose League and the present Government in Westminster. From what I saw I should think that the Russian Government, which is fearfully short of money, which is going through a sort of Geddes period, and has had to cut down on education and other social services, has very little left for propaganda. They do complain of the very hostile speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), who, I am sorry to see, is not present, the Member for East Newcastle (Mr. A. Henderson), and other prominent Members, of the Labour party who, they say, are always attacking Russia. They say, "If the British Government complains of the Third International engaging in propaganda against them, why do they permit these Privy Councillors and men holding prominent positions to make these extremely bitter speeches and write these bitter articles against Russia?" I repeat that because it was put to me quite seriously by a very prominent Russian, Monsieur Kameneff, who is now Deputy Prime Minister and the most powerful person in Russia. It is a great pity that he was cleared out of this country with sin+ ignominy, although, as he is a man possessing a sense of humour, I do not suppose he bears us any grudge on that account.
They are prepared to discuss this question of propaganda on equal terms with us, and I dare say they could take steps to prevent the Third International engaging in propaganda in this country or in India. The Moderates in Russia recognise that more harm than good is being done by this propaganda, and the Noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, who represents the Foreign Office by his whole attitude plays right into and strengthens the hands of these extremists. Incidentally, the extremists have been gradually abandoning the idea of a world revolution, but they have again picked up hope at the French action in the Ruhr, which they think is so going to upset Europe that 822 there will be a chance for their long-looked-for world revolution after all. The Moderates who, as I have said, are in the ascendant, have given up the idea of a world revolution, or at least they think it is not coming in their time, and are prepared to work with us loyally for the mutual good of the two people.
On the question of debts, they have not refused to acknowledge their debts at all. That is absolutely false. They are prepared to acknowledge them in principle provided we are prepared to recognise them as the Government, and if we are prepared to give them some assistance as compensation for the immense damage that was done by our intervention and blockade after the Armistice. In return for a small credit they are quite prepared to recognise the debt in principle and after a moratorium to begin to pay interest and sinking fund, which, after all, is more than some of our Allies are prepared to do on the other side of the Channel. The fact. of the matter is that whether we like it or not the Russian Republic is there, the present Soviet régime is there, and it is not going to fall. Above all, the Russian people are there, a great people with great qualities, a people who towards the Englishman are particularly courteous and friendly for we have a great prestige still in Russia and Englishmen are personally popular, a most likeable people. You speak to a man whose father was a peasant but who himself is producing one of those great scenic spectacles which are unequalled anywhere outside Russia to-clay. The arts are flourishing, and are affecting our art and all to the good. There is a great future for these people, and we are only laying up trouble for ourselves by refusing to recognise facts. They are the greatest land people in the world, we are the greatest sea people in the world. Our natural affinities ought to lie together and we should try to work together with them for the benefit of the two peoples and of the world.
§ Mr. MORELI wish to associate myself generally with what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It is true that this is not a very propitious moment at which to raise this question in view of the events which have recently taken place or are threatened; but it is not always easy to choose one's time, and as far as that last point is con- 823 cerned, I have too much respect for the House to imagine that any passing event would deter it from examining a question on its merits. I associate myself with the indignation expressed with regard to these contemplated executions. I should share the horror of everyone if they took place. In my belief they will not, but even on that point let us have a little perspective. Ever since 1905, when relations with Russia began to improve, up to the War, there were thousands of people going to Siberia every year, the prisons were crammed with the hest intellects in Russia, and executions were taking place at the rate of 100 a week. We should keep a- sense of perspective. Russia remains to-day, notwithstanding all she has suffered in the War, by revolution, external intrigue and assault, pestilence and famine, a country with 130,000,000 people, which is rapidly recovering, and which still represents one of the greatest human and economic forces in Europe, and is a force without which we cannot settle permanently any of these Near or Middle Eastern problems.
I wish to ask the Government one or two specific questions in connection with our attitude, and then to amplify in one or two respects the case for recognition which has been put forward so ably by he hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). The Prime Minister has on two occasions in this Parliament defined the terms upon which we could recognise Russia. These are recognition of debts, restitution of property or effective compensation, and cessation of political propaganda. This answer allows of very widely differing interpretations. Take the matter of the debt. The chief item under debts is war debt. Does this mean that we are confining our demand to the payment. by Russia of war debts? The Russian war debt is £650,000,000. The first question I want to ask is, Do we really expect to get this sum out of impoverished Russia when we are not getting a penny piece out of wealthy France, who owes us a large sum? Does the Government adhere to the Balfour Note in respect to the Russian debt? If the Government adhere to the Balfour Note, which laid down that we only wanted to obtain from our debtors an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our creditors, then this debt 824 of £650,000,000 is automatically halved. The debt our Allies owe to us is £1,900,000,000, and we are to repay America £850,000,000. Are we pressing therefore for £650,000,000 from Russia or for.£325,000,000? If we are pressing Russia. for this debt, on what grounds of equity and justice do we refuse to recognise Russia's claims upon us for the damage done in Russia by the expeditions financed and equipped from London? Surely it is just and equitable, if we demand payment of our debt, that we should consider the claims against us by Russia for the damage we wrought in that country.
There is no question about the facts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Burghs (Mr. Lloyd George) in this house, gloried in the fact that we had expended more in trying to overthrow revolutionary Russia than all the other allies put together. He said it was an obligation of honour. On these benches we do not regard and we have never regarded the equipping of bands of cut-throats led by such ruffians as Koltchak, Denikin, and Wrangel and the rest of them to harry the Russian peasants, to devastate great areas of Russia and to increase the martyrdom of a people who lost more men in the War than all the other belligerent States put together—we have never regarded that as a matter of honour. Anyone who has read the details of the discussions which took place at Genoa and The Hague must come to the conclusion that the question of debts is not the serious item which is in dispute, but that the matter with which our Government is most concerned is the private claims against Russia by British subjects. These private claims, according to a statement which was made from those benches, amount to £347,000,000. Around these claims there is a veil of mystery. No list of these claims has ever been published. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made the astonishing reply in answer to a question I put to him die other day that the Government did not undertake to estimate whether the claims had been correctly calculated or not. We say we have a claim of £347,000,000 against Russia, and our Government reply that they cannot give a list of these claims or state whether they are correct or not?
§ Mr. MORELThe figure of £347,000,000 apparently includes securities, as far as I know. I do not say that some of these claims are not fair, but I venture to suggest of others that nothing would induce the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade or the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to disclose the nature of them to this. House. What is the position the 4msian Government take up in regard to these claims? They do not refuse to consider them. Indeed, they admit them in principle. We have admitted also that Russia had a perfect right to nationalise her property. No one can bring forward any argument against it. It was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Burghs, and it was admitted in the correspondence between this Government and the French Government prior to The Hague Conference. All the Russian Government declines to do is to agree to pay all claims without even having seen a list of them, and they decline to admit that these claims should be adjucated upon in Russia by a foreign body over which they would have no control.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill)Would the hon. Member tell I; to what claims he is referring? Is he referring to restitution of property or claims made in compensation for injuries done to personal property?
§ Mr. MORELI was referring to the two sets of claims which, as I understand it, are embodied in the figure of £347,000,000. I say in regard to these two sets of claims, as I understand it, that the Russian Government have never refused in principle to consider them, but have asked several times to have a complete list of them. They have not been able to obtain it. The Russian Government has declined meantime to accept a foreign body acting in Russia to determine the amount of the claims. The only rational solution of the problem of getting these claims settled—and there is no one on this side of the House who demurs to any righteous claim being paid —is to recognise in theory and practice Russia's sovereignty and settle these claims through the ordinary channels of diplomatic intercourse. As to propaganda, I 826 submit to the House that this question is not put forward seriously as a good reason for not granting recognition of Russia. There has been no evidence what-ever of propaganda being carried on by the Russian Government during the last few years in this country or in any Asiatic country under our rule. Any amount of forgeries have been produced, but there is no evidence of propaganda. Even if there is propaganda the way to get rid of it is to establish friendly relations with Russia.
4.0 P.M.
I want now to say a word, not only on my own behalf but for the party with which I am associated. We think that the time has come when this feud which is being kept up, and which has really now become senseless, between Russia and ourselves should be put an end to, that this ostracism of Russia should be put an end to, that we should recognise the right of the Russian Government to live by giving it de jure recognition, and that we should extend the hand of friendship and reconciliation to the Russian people. It is a matter not merely of international importance but of importance also to our trade interests. Both British and American experts are agreed—and much interesting information has been published on that subject by them—that at the present moment there is an enormous field for British trade and enterprise in Russia if we can only get on friendly relations with the Russian Government—millions of ploughs, millions of steel harrows, axes., spades, rakes, and every kind of agricultural implements are wanted. The Liverpool Corn Exchange recently sent representations to the Government urging it to consider the question of Russia from the point of view of our grain supplier, and the peculiar circumstances of Russia are such to-day that if we played our cards properly we could have a very large field for our trade.
The Prime Minister has stated that he does not know what is going to happen if we do not revive our foreign trade. Well, here is a field for the development of that trade. The hon. Gentleman opposite, with whom I had a correspondence some time ago, argued that the non-recognition of Russia is really not a trade deterrent, but I venture to say, with all due respect, that that is a complete fallacy, and I am certain that if he consults any business men who have 827 had any dealings with Russia, they will confirm what I say, namely, that the absence of normal diplomatic relations is a great stumbling block to the granting of trade facilities, and that our merchants, bankers, ship owners, and so on, are naturally shy at doing business, although they are doing business, to a certain extent, with a country where we have no Embassy and no Consulates to look after their interests.
It is true that trade is developing with Russia to some extent, but this question of trade and trade facilities ought to be looked upon from two points of view. There is the ordinary business done by commercial bills, with short term credits, but there is the very much bigger thing of great capital works, which are so urgently required in Russia, the reorganisation of the railways, and the whole of the transport, power stations, and so on, matters involving hundreds of millions of pounds, of which we could have a very large share if only there were normal diplomatic relations established between us. You will not get men in this country, or in any other country, to go into big capital works of that kind unless they have their own Government represented in the country. Moreover, de jure recognition is a guarantee to them that the Government of the country with which they are dealing recognises the commercial debts of that Government. I want to conclude that aspect of the matter by saying that I am advised, and, I believe, correctly advised, that at present there is room for an immediate expenditure of at least £100,000,000 on railway reconstruction in Russia alone, and that if there were de jure recognition, we could have a large share of that under the Trade Facilities Act.
The last point I want to bring before the House, which has already been dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, is the connection of Russia and ourselves in the general international situation. We had a Debate on the Ruhr yesterday, and we have had several Debates on the Ruhr, and every Debate we have had has been an illustration of the really extraordinary lack of vision which has been displayed by our foreign policy since the conclusion of the War. The British framers—I say British advisedly—of the political 828 settlement which was arrived at in 1918 seem to have foreseen nothing. They did not foresee the inevitable effect of a settlement of that kind, plus the arrangements made after it, the imposition of a fantastic indemnity upon Germany, the blessing given to France to cross to the right bank of the Rhine and to occupy three important towns of the Ruhr—because this invasion of the Ruhr is talked about as though it were something new, but three important towns in the Ruhr have been occupied for 18 months past. The failure to forsee that all this would keep Europe in a turmoil, would allow an opening for an attempted French military and economic hegemony in Europe and was bound therefore to bring us into acute conflict with France, that lack of vision has brought us to the position to-day of being in greater potential insecurity than at almost any period in our history, and has condemned our diplomacy in Europe to practical impotence in the face of an increasingly serious position.
That lack of vision has also been displayed in connection with Russia, and what I ask the House and the Government to consider to-day is whether this lack of vision, which has brought us to this perilous position in the West, is going to be pursued in order to bring us into a similar perilous position in the East, or whether we are going to be made wise by experience and alter oar policy while there is yet time. The attitude of our Government towards the policy which is being pursued in Western and Central Europe by those who are now running France, and which to-day is clearly seen to be, the dismemberment of Germany, camouflaged in some form or another, that attitude is at least intelligible. I do not say that it is intelligent; I think it is the reverse. It is not going to maintain friendly relations between us and France, but the reverse: it is not going to maintain peace in Europe, but the reverse. It. is a fatal policy for us, for France, for Germany, for Europe, but, in view of the real reasons for it—not the reasons given to this House, but. the real reasons—that attitude is, as I say, intelligible; but our attitude towards Russia is not even intelligible. There are a dozen reasons which could be advanced, reasons of strategy, of policy, of trade, of unemployment here, and so on, for the recognition of Russia and the 829 establishment of friendly relations with Russia. I have never seen an argument produced in this House or outside giving any solid advantages to this country in favour of maintaining our present attitude towards Russia. The attempted settlement of the question of Eastern Galicia and Vilna by leaving Russia out is only explainable by a wish on the part of the Government, heaven knows why, to maintain its enmity with Russia.
Why is this policy persisted in, because to say that it is not deliberate is to burl: the facts? Look at the whole of those negotiations at Lausanne. I have no doubt M. Tchitcherin, the Russian Foreign Minister, is a thorny person to deal with. He is a man who represents a country which is sore, irritated, fearful, suffering under just and legitimate grievances, many of them, and no doubt he is a peculiar and difficult person to deal with, but I ask anybody who has read that Lausanne Blue Book, Could anything be more—I do not want to use a word that is offensive, but could anything be more—disdainful than the attitude of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs towards the Russians throughout the whole of those negotiations? They were kept weeks at a time outside the Conference, although negotiations were going on of vital importance to themselves, and the text of the Convention was thrown to them, much as you throw a bone to a dog—take it or leave it. All this seems to me incredibly foolish and incredibly unwise, in view of the present state of Europe, and the dangers which are accumulating every day. I do ask the Government, and I do ask this House, to face the two alternatives squarely—he alternative of concluding friendly relations with Russia on the basis of de jure recognition, and the alternative of going on as we are at present. What; will recognition cost us? What will we lose by recognition? What will we sacrifice by recognition? On the other side, what has this four and a half years of confused, inexplicable and unintelligible quarreling with Russia cost us? What is it costing us now What are the dangers involved? I feel sure that if these alternatives are faced squarely, the decision can only be in the way I am urging on the Government and this House, of reconciling two great peoples who have need of one another, and a 830 reconciliation between whom is necessary for the peace and progress of mankind.
§ Mr. TREVELYANBefore the hon. Gentleman replies to what my hon. Friends have brought forward, I want to say one or two words in emphasis of part of their demand for recognition of Russia. I do not want to say anything further on the disastrous limitation of our trade with Russia which results from the persistent action of the Government. My constituency has suffered almost more than any other by the fact that Russia was not allowed to get locomotives owing to the refusal of our Government to recognise the Russian Government. I will not pursue that, but what I want the House to realise more and more is the growing ill-will between the Governments arid the problems arising in different parts of the world as the result of misunderstanding between the Governments, because it is no more than a personal misunderstanding, after all. It is all very well to talk about Labour not being able to govern, but I say that if a Labour, or any other Government represented at Lausanne, had started with the idea that the primary object of the discussions at Lausanne ought to have been either to become friends with the Turks or become friends with the Russians, there would have been some result from the discussions at Lausanne. I do not say that the offer which the Russians made to us of demilitarising the Black Sea necessarily was one which we could accept do not say its form was one which we could accept, but I do say that, in principle, it was one which our country, our people, ought to have looked at favourably. This country and this House ought to have had a chance of considering it. We have a Government which professes to wish for disarmament. What the Russians said to us was, "We will offer you partial—we will offer you local disarmament." Our Government would not, consider it. Why not? They might just as well have looked favourably at this offer from Russia, if for no other reason than in order to come to terms with Russia, so as to enable them to go to the Turks and say," We have made friends with Russia; now you must listen to the proposals which we put before you." It is because the Government did not come to terms with Russia in the East that we 831 now have this black cloud of enmity settling down between our two countries.
In the last few days I have been putting some questions to the hon. Gentleman about another question which has arisen since then. The Ambassadors' Conference have now made a decision with regard to Memel. Here is a town the trade of which is of enormous importance to Russia. Part of the timber trade, of which my hon. Friend was speaking, passes along the Niemen. The question of Memel and the Government and trade of Memel, and all that Baltic trade, must always be of more importance to Russia than to France and Great Britain. But the Ambassadors of France and Great Britain decide how Memel is to be governed. The Russian Government sends a despatch asking that it may he permitted to have some say in this question of how Memel is to be governed in future, and how the trade of Memel is to be regulated. The British Government do not even answer the Russian Government. They do not give reasons why the Russian Government cannot be considered in this matter. When we ask a question here, it is true we are told that. Russia had no locus standi at. Versailles, and therefore it cannot be considered in deciding what the fate of Memel shall be. That is exactly the point—that Russia is made a pariah Government by Versailles. Because the British upper class do not like the present form of rule in Russia, Russia is made a pariah State. It is not allowed to have anything to say as to the settlement of Europe at Versailles, and four years afterwards the question comes up, and they are told, that because this question was discussed in the first instance at Versailles, although it is a Russian question of far more importance to them than to Great Britain and France, the Russian Government is still excluded, in spite of its former protests, from having anything to say in the settlement of Memel.
In every part of the world Russia necessarily comes into contact with our interests, commercial, political, territorial, and yet wherever we come into contact, you have this attitude on the part of our Government that they are a pariah State, and we cannot touch them. We will not have anything to do with them, simply because of the prejudice 832 which our rulers have against the form of government which happens to be established there. There are differences even on these benches as to exactly the badness or the goodness of that form of government. There are differences, indeed, on the other side as to whether Mussolini is a hero or a criminal. At the same time, you recognise Mussolini, and if you take a thing, such as that which we have been discussing in the last day or two in this House, you have this House unanimous in its detestation of the possibility of the execution of these clerics in Russia. Supposing we recognised the Russian Government? Would not that recognition give us an infinitely greater influence in saving the lives of these men? We know that if Mussolini and his Fascists were trying to do something of the same kind in Italy the protest made by our Government would not be very effective in Rome if we had denied the recognition of Mussolini because of many of the things he had done. The truth is, there is no reason except political prejudice on the part of those who support the Government for not recognising the Russian Government. It is inconvenient, destructive to our trade; and it is becoming dangerous to our general relations all over the world.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSOn the point raised by certain hon. Members I only desire to say one sentence, and that is that it seems to me sound, cold, constitutional doctrine that you can recognise a stable and established Government without implying the faintest approval of its domestic policy. There is much in the Russian domestic policy which is, to my mind, simply detestable, but I believe that we have found from long experience that it is a wise thing to ignore, or to express no approval whatever, of domestic policy if we wish to regularise our relations with a great Power. I, however, do not want to pursue that further because I wish an assurance from the Foreign Office on a totally different point, and I am going to use this opportunity of trying to obtain it.
I want to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs to what I think I can correctly describe as a recrudescence of slavery in Africa. The Under-Secretary has, I think, in answer to certain questions rather put the matter on one side. In answer to a question 833 yesterday he denied there had been any recrudescence of slavery. At all events his attitude on questions has been: "If so, I know nothing whatever about it." As against that I should like to draw his attention to the fact that the League of Nations accepts our view. A resolution of the League of Nations at, I think, its last assembly, was as follows:
§
The Assembly decides that the question of the recrudescence of slavery shall be included in the Agenda of the Fourth Assembly in the year 1923 and requests the Council to present the Fourth Assembly with a report on the information which it shall receive on the matter.
§
Again, the First Lord of the Admiralty in his explanatory statement on the Naval Estimates says:
There has been some recrudescence of slave running in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. and His Majesty's ships have been actively engaged in endeavouring to suppress it.
§ I asked a question as to whether it could be traced to any particular country, and I was not at all surprised to find that these particular slaves which had been rescued by the Admiralty had been kidnapped in Abyssinia. I dare say there are a great number of people who think that this whole question of slavery was long ago finished with, that this is nothing but an echo of past struggles, for, as it has been said, there are few supporters of fallen tyrannies and lost, causes. I could quote further from the authority of Sir F. Lugard who, in his recent book, says that there is still a great deal to be done before the traffic is really exterminated. Discussion by the League of Nations is of great importance, and, I think, deserves the support of the Government. The League of Nations has had the control put into its hands of the Anti-Slavery Bureau which was established at Brussels under the General Act of Brussels in the year 1892, for the suppression of slavery in Africa.
§ The real thing that I ask the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary is that the Government shall facilitate this inquiry by the League of Nations. The special point where it arises is in Abyssinia. You have eyewitnesses who have actually seen slave-gangs 10,000 strong marching in quite the old-fashioned way up to the slave market. You have got other eyewitnesses who will quote you the price of the slaves. Between three years and 10 years the price is 17s. 834 to 43s., and from 10 years to 50 years the price rises from 43s. to 107s. You have British officers coming back and telling us that they have seen young girls up for sale being sold by half-caste auctioneers. To prove that I think we must ask far the assistance of the Government. The matter does not rest merely on evidence of individuals. There is a French official report, according to an article by a French Deputy, in a French paper which I have seen which states that a French official inquiry has revealed the fact that every month sailing vessels leave Tajura which acts as the port for Abyssinia, and that the Sultan receives one dollar for every slave shipped from this place, a somewhat crude form of export duty.
§ In spite of the fact that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs said that he knew nothing about it, I venture to say that he will not deny that the Foreign Office. is fully acquainted and has been fully informed about this state of things. The Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham in March, 1922, asked the then Under-Secretary whether His Majesty's Government had received in the last 10 years reports which confirmed the existence of a widespread and growing slave trade in Abyssinia. The reply to the first part of the question was in the affirmative and, therefore, that the Foreign Office had reports during the last 10 years which did confirm the existence of widespread and growing slave trade in Abyssinia of which we get confirmation by the French official report. It is also confirmed by eyewitnesses who have travelled in Abyssinia. The Noble Lord also asked whether it was the case that slaves were actually held in the British Legation at Addis Abbaba, and the answer was that there were such slaves who were owned by Abyssinian servants in the British Legation. I am glad to think that the predecessor of the hon. Gentleman secured the abolition of that, and the French Government, I believe, followed suit in a similar way. It does, however, show the existence both of domestic slavery there and of this gross form of slave raiding and slave trading, and the supply of slaves to the Arabian ports which gets interfered with by His Majesty's Navy.
§ I think that in the circumstances we are entitled. to ask for the publication of these reports, and I should like to ask 835 specifically for one. There was a Mission, known as the Maji Mission, in 1919. It included British officers and Abyssinian high officials. Can we have that published? I dare say the Foreign Office may fear that international complications might arise from the publication of these reports; I do not know; but it is not necessary for me to say that anything for which I am asking is entirely without any suppressed design upon the independence of Abyssinia, or anything of that kind. I have no such ulterior motive, but I think that in this matter we are entitled to ask the Government to pursue the historic rôle of British Governments in the past. If it is impossible, for high reasons of. State, to publish these reports, I would ask the Under-Secretary if he would put the whole of them at the disposal of the representative of the United Kingdom upon the Council of the League of Nations. I cannot quite understand why it is really necessary to ask for this, but it appears to be necessary, and, therefore, I press my request.
§ I do not wish to labour the point, but I think the task which this country has carried through, for a century past, in suppressing these great abuses, is one of the great services to mankind of which this country can be proud. We have surrendered territory to foreign nations, we have given them grants of money, in order to induce them to co-operate with us in our task. We have often in the past been accused of arrogating to ourselves a certain moral superiority over other nationis, and we have incurred unpopularity from it. The fact that the League of Nations is entrusted with these high duties does not, I think, give us any ground for shuffing off our own responsibilities and abandoning our task, but I do think it gives us a great opportunity of enlisting the full co-operation of all the nations of the world who are members of the League in the task, and I trust, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power, by giving the full information which they possess, and which I think it is necessary for the League of Nations to have, to see that this task shall be fully carried out by the League of Nations.
836§ Mr. McNEILLWith the- general spirit of the speech to which we have just listened, it is almost unnecessary, I am sure, for me to say I am in entire sympathy. The subject which the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House is one which no British politician, and still less a representative of the British Government standing here, could possibly shrink from discussing. I agree with very much that the hon. Gentleman has said, and it is a subject about which, so far, at all events, as principle is concerned, there is, happily, no sort of shade of difference of opinion, not merely in this House but in this country. Ever since. I suppose one may say, the time of Wilberforce and Pitt, down to the present time, through all the many vicissitudes of our political controversies, in an increasing degree there has been, to whatever party people belonged, whether Whigs or Tories, Radicals or Conservatives, a continuous and growing agreement of pride in the national tradition, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that under the British flag individual liberty should be the rule, and that any slave has only to find his way to British soil to enjoy, ipso forto, emancipation. I am certain that there is no national tradition of which we are more proud, or of which we have better reason to be proud; and, if I may say so, for that very reason, perhaps, whatever may be thought, looking from other angles of view at the immense extension during the last half century of British dominion in what used to be called the Dark Continent, I think we may at all events congratulate ourselves upon the fact that by that extension an enormous area of the world's surface has been added to what lies outside the danger of either legalised slavery or the toleration of traffic in slaves.
It is also part of that great tradition that this country has not been content with emancipating and insisting upon the freedom of slaves in its own territory, but that it has used its power and its influence with other nations of the world in order to promote the policy of freedom. I was asked at Question Time a day or two ago why certain old Treaties with other nations in regard to slavery and slave trading should have been recently denounced on the initiative of His Majesty's Government. I do not know whether anyone in the House can have 837 imagined that that denunciation indicated any sort of change of view on the subject. Of course, such was not the case. The reason for the denunciation of these Treaties was that, happily, they have done their work, and no longer apply to the present conditions in regard to the nations with whom they were made—that they have, in fact, become as obsolete as the old enactments with regard to the Algerine pirates and many other things of the sort.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to one particular country, namely, Abyssinia, and I think it is hardly too much to say that, certainly in the whole of Africa, and probably in the whole world, Abyssinia is, perhaps, the only one remaining State where slavery can be said to be an institution which is part of the economic and social arrangements of the people. The hon. Gentleman has said that there is evidence of the existence of slavery and of slave trading—and I draw a distinction, of course, between the two. He said that there was evidence of the existence of both in Abyssinia, and, of course, I do not deny that; I know that there is. But there are two questions which I think arise here. The first is that, although we in this country are opposed to any form of slavery at all, we must, in looking at other nations, draw a distinction, and recognise that there is a slavery and a slavery. There are forms of slavery or servitude, which, however repugnant to our ideals, at all events are not susceptible of the description of being grossly oppressive, and I think that to a very large extent the slavery which undoubtedly exists in Abyssinia belongs to that comparatively mild type.
The hon. Member referred to an incident which occurred recently at our own Legation, and it is quite true that the slavery which was going on there was such that it really was not known to our own representatives in the Legation until someone detected it outside and called their attention to it, and they had to make stringent inquiries before they ascertained that there was in point of fact a, species of serfdom existing among the employés of the Legation. It appears that in that country those who are in a position of what we call domestic service as a rule own slaves. may tell the House rather a curious incident which illustrates the state of society there that arose when we 838 insisted, once it was brought to our knowlege, that anyone employed in the Legation, whether living in the compound of the Legation or not, should emancipate any slaves that he or she possessed. There was one employé of the Legation who protested that he had no slaves and when he was confronted with evidence which made it quite clear that his statement was not strictly accurate he declared that the slaves belonged to his wives. It was a. species of fraud not unknown in this country, I believe, where people occasionally say their property, which their creditors want to get hold of, is not theirs but their wife's. It was not considered a sufficient reason for exonerating the man and he was told that, as long as the slaves were held in his family, he could not be employed in the British Legation. But he was a gentleman of resource and on the spot, before leaving the room, he issued a decree of divorce against the two ladies and told them they were no longer his wives. The British representative, feeling a little embarrassed at having been the means of bringing about this domestic crisis, said something by way of deprecation of such very hurried divorce proceedings, but the gentleman was not at all put out. He said the ladies could he very easily replaced and there was no need to interfere in the matter, and the result was, I believe, that the ladies, with their slaves, went off, and the gentleman was continued without slaves in the employment of the British Legation.
That is the sort of thing with which we have to deal when we are talking about slavery in Abyssinia. Slavery of that sort is as much part and parcel of the ordinary social arrangements of the country, I was going to say perhaps more so, than trade unionism is in this country, and one can imagine it would be a little difficult for any nation which was trying to bring their influence to bear on us to improve our morals and manners if they began by insisting that the first thing we should do was to rid ourselves altogether of the taint of trade unionism. It is something of the same sort of difficulty with which we are confronted when, from our higher moral standpoint, we try to use our influence to eradicate from their social and economic system something which is so absolutely established as slavery of that sort, especially as, so far 839 as our observation goes, it does not in most cases involve anything at all of cruelty or oppression. In the case of the slaves of the servants of the Legation, we had to buy them. The only way by which we could emancipate them was to buy them because otherwise, if we had insisted on the servants getting rid of them, they would sell them to someone else and we should have done no good. We cannot, of course, carry out emancipation upon an enormous scale by purchase, neither can we protest in any way to the Abyssinian Government. They are an independent State and the most we can do is by influencing public opinion so far as we can, letting it be known that we highly disapprove of an institution which is part of their life and hoping that in process of time they may come to view the matter in the same way that we do.
Of course, slave trading is a very different thing, and the hon. Gentleman rather startled me when he quoted from a French report, with which I am not familiar, and said ships loaded with slaves crossed the Red Sea monthly from Abyssinia to Arabia. He used the words "a recrudescence of slave trading." I have made such inquiries as I could at the Foreign Office and I have no evidence of anything which could really be called a recrudescence of slave trading. I have made special inquiry and it is quite true that one of His Majesty's vessels caught a slave dhow last July and freed the slaves, who were being transferred from Abyssinia to the Arabian coast. But that is only a single instance. I have not ascertained over how long a period it is a solitary instance, but I have been informed that it is the only one in comparatively recent times. I daresay our Navy in the Red Sea is not so well represented now as it was, but our vessels in those parts always have instructions to act a they have done for generations in freeing slaves, and it surprises me very much that slaves can be crossing the comparatively narrow waters there with anything approaching the frequency which appears to be stated in that French report and have all this time escaped the vigilance of His Majesty's ships. I need not say, after what the hon. Gentleman has said, that our representatives in that part of the world will be instructed to use still greater vigilance, and we shall certainly lose no possibe opportunity of 840 interfering with slave trading on the sea where we have the right to interfere. Owing to the settlement of Africa and the practical surrounding now of Abyssinia by territories belonging to ourselves or other European Powers, the opportunities for slave trading across the frontier must be enormously restricted. It can only be by a process of secret smuggling or by slave running across the narrow part of the Red Sea that there can be any considerable trade in slaves outside the frontiers of Abyssinia. What slave trading goes on within the frontiers of Abyssinia—between one part of it and another—I cannot say, and when one remembers that Abyssinia is a country at least as large as France and Germany put together there is no doubt that a considerable amount of slave trading may be going on inside that territory without our having any knowledge of it, or if we had any knowledge of it without having any means of interference.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the action of the League of Nations and asked—I sympathise, of course, with his desire—that we should facilitate its action in this respect. But what can the League of Nations do? It may, possibly, collect and publish evidence and reports, but will such action have any great result in either eliminating the system of slavery of which I have been speaking inside Abyssinia or preventing such trading as there may be there going on? Let me remind the hon. Member that if the League of Nations is to do anything, I do not suppose that the League would contemplate interfering by force inside Abyssinia. If it did, it could only do so through its members. Which of the members of the League of Nations is in a position at the moment to bring force to bear upon the Abyssinian Government with a view to destroying such slave trade as is going on? I am quite confident that neither France nor Italy would undertake that. What I feel afraid of, if we were to encourage the idea of the hon. Gentleman, is that if we were to urge the League of Nations, and to instruct our representative on the Council to take the initiative in this matter and push it to the front, so as to arrive at some decision by the League, we should find ourselves practically committed to taking some further action, which would probably be something which would go beyond anything that 841 public opinion in this country would be prepared to support and which, even if it were taken, I doubt very much whether it would be effective. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot at the present time encourage the hon. Gentleman to think that we shall instruct our representative on the Council of the League of Nations to take the initiative in interference.
The hon. Member asked me for certain figures and reports which he said are at the Foreign Office, but he quite clearly warned me that there might be reasons of high policy why these papers should not be given. I am thankful to him for giving, me that warning, otherwise I might possibly, in my desire to meet him, and with my sympathy in the case he has made out, have committed myself. I can only say that I will have the matter considered. I do not know whether there are any objections to that course being taken, but if there are not, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt see the papers. I am afraid that he will think that this reply is wholly unsatisfactory, but I can only finish as I began, by saying that so far as the spirit is concerned that has moved him to bring the matter before the House, I am wholly and absolutely in accord with him, and if the Government can see any case which it is possible for them to take up, and if they could diminish in the smallest degree any stave trading that may be still going on, or if they could, by influence or otherwise, diminish the amount of slavery in existence, whether in Abyssinia or elsewhere, they would certainly leave no stone unturned in that direction.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSCan the Under-Secretary give an assurance that our representative on the League of Nations Council will have these reports at his disposal for use by the League of Nations?
§ Mr. McNEILLI hope my hon. Friend will not press me on that point at the present time, because there may be considerations to be taken into account which are not present to my mind just now. I have already occupied the time of the House longer than I intended, and l must say something about the subject of Russia which has been raised by three hon. Members. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) was rather un- 842 fair in one phrase that he used, and I refer to it because it really underlies the whole question. He said, with great energy, that the whole policy of the Government and of this country towards Russia was governed merely by prejudice on the part of those connected with this Front Bench against the form of government existing at the present time in Russia. All the energy with which he humped the box added no force to the observations he made. There is not a shadow of foundation for his statement. It has nothing whatever to do with the attitude of this country or this Government. I am not going to pretend, and he did not pretend himself, that the form of government of Russia is one that we approve. It is not less tyrannical or unconstitutional than the Government of the Czar. I think it is a miserable form of government and that it is detestable, just as I thought the government of the Czar was detestable. From that point of view, one is as bad as the other, but to say that because we disapprove and would gladly see that form of government altered has anything to do with the action the Government is now pursuing has no foundation whatever.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) was almost as energetic, and his energy was specially displayed in order to convey to the House what a lamentable lack of vision there is in the present Government. I would not presume to question the penetrating clarity of the hon. Member's own vision, but at the same time I must say that when any of us say that somebody else is lacking in vision he means no more than that we do not agree with his opinion. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to agree with the opinions we hold on this side of the House or with the policy we pursue, but I take the liberty of thinking that those who are conducting the foreign policy of this country may be endowed with vision not less clear than his own. Both the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, spoke of the danger of our present policy towards Russia in regard to the larger European questions which are now occupying attention. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull spoke of what he conceived to be the danger of some Franco-Russo-German bloc arising owing to the very inconsiderate way with which his Russian friends are being 843 treated. May I say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, by the speech he made this afternoon—and it was a very interesting speech—has very amply repaid the hospitality he has been recently enjoying in Moscow. I am sure his friends there will read his words with very great gratification, but to discuss the particular danger of a Franco-Russo-German bloc at the moment would hardly be grateful to the House at 5 o'clock on the last day. I can only say that those who are responsible for the foreign policy of this country are perfectly well aware of the various currents to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was referring. They know perfectly well to what extent or to what. little extent there is a rapprochement between France and Russia at the present moment and how that is regarded in Berlin. I think that we are prepared to face that particular danger at the present moment, and that our attitude towards the present. Government of Russia will not be seriously influenced by it.
5.0 P.M.
I agree, of course, with what both hon. Gentlemen said in regard to the Russian people. They are one of the greatest peoples in the world, a people with whom the English nation have a most profound sympathy. I believe, though I have not the hon. and gallant Gentleman's acquaintance with them that they are a most delightful race. They have gone through recent privations in which they have our most profound sympathy, but the question is, What is our policy towards them to be? I do not quite understand what was the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because I took down his words with great satisfaction, and he tells us he does not press the Government to recognise the Russian Government, though a great deal of what he said seemed to me to point to recognition or nothing else. But he said what he did press for was to resume the conversations which have been carried on. The hon. Member for Dundee left us in no doubt as to his policy which is a de jure recognition of the present Soviet Government, and he asked me various questions as to the conditions which have been laid clown for recognition. I notice that he omitted one of the essential conditions, not the least important, in describing the conditions which have been laid down at vari 844 ous conferences as recognition of debt, cessation of propaganda, and restitution of property or recognition of claims.
§ Mr. McNEILLThose were the three conditions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In his answer in the House, where summaries generally take the place of detail, possibly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may have made an omission, because one of the most essential necessities of any Government is that in a country there should be some definite civilised legal system, especially one to which traders can look for the enforcement of contracts, since trade rests upon contracts, and for a definite civilised administration of justice. These four conditions remain at the present time unfulfilled. I want particularly to emphasise, lest there should be any sort of misunderstanding, that even those conditions are a minimum. I do not think the late Government ever, and I am sure the present Government never definitely pledged itself to give recognition, even if it could be shown that the letter of those four conditions had been fulfilled but they are certainly a minimum condition precedent to recognition. When the hon. Member for Dundee says—I was surprised to hear him say—that Russia had never refused to comply with the conditions about restitution of property or recognising claims, I would refer him to the Resolution which was passed, not only by us, but by the representatives of all the European Powers gathered at The Hague, following the Genoa Conference. Hon. Members will recollect that that Conference at The Hague was one merely of experts, to go into the economic question. This, as regards property, is what the Commission recorded:
They were met throughout with A categorical refusal not merely to acknowledge any right to restitution or even to define any conditions Which would provide for restitution of possessions in any shape or form. Nor were the Russians prepared to give any practical assurance in the matter of compensation. It was evident that the effective compensation which they could give, other than the restitution of the possession of property in one form or other, was very limited. Not only did they refuse to give any assurance that this effective form of compensation would be granted generally, or indeed in any case, but the Russian Government declined, on the Property Commission, to accept any 845 liability whatsoever to make compensation in any form until they:first received credits.It went on to state that the Russian delegation stood out for a credit of £322,000,000, which, of course, was a demand which neither we nor any of the other nations represented there were willing to consider for one moment.The hon. Member for Dundee, and, I think, the hon. Member for Central Newcastle took up the attitude that valuable trade between this country and Russia was being last which would be established at once if this political recognition were allowed. I think the hon. Member for Central Newcastle said that one had only got to ask any business man to obtain confirmation of that. I have been in communication with a good many business men, and I totally deny that. As the hon Member for Dundee referred to a correspondence with which he honoured me a short time ago, I think I can convict him out of his.own mouth. He wrote to me, on 6th December:
Credit facilities are essential to international trade.That, I think, will be agreed on. He goes on to say:The Russian Official Trading Agency in London can only meet a small fraction of the demand for credits from Russian State trusts and institutions which are in a position to offer export goods. It would appear that, certain British banks, while now disposed to make advances on goods which have arrived at foreign ports, are still unwilling to make advances on goods in Russia, on the ground of insecurity "—I pause there to say, as far as the sentence goes that I have read, that I heartily agree with the hon. Member. Of course, British banks are indisposed to finance trade with Russia, on the ground of insecurity. That is a question of fact. But then the hon. Member goes on to give an opinion which, I am bound in fairness to read, although I do not agree with the opinion. He says:owing once again to the fact that Russia's Government is not recognised by the Government of His Majesty.That does not cause the insecurity. What causes the insecurity is that they know quite. well, if you finance goods to be sent out to Russia, they will go to a country which has not recognised its past debts, and, therefore, may perfectly well repudiate its future debts; that it will go to a country where there is no jurisprudence, 846 no legal system which can enforce contracts. Delivery of these goods may be made, and there is no system of courts under which payment for the goods could be enforced, or, at all events, no system which is recognised in this country as a system which will give security.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe hon. Gentleman has made that statement twice. Of course there are courts functioning. British subjects in two cases have sued in the courts against the Russian Government and have won their cases. There is a judicial system.
§ Mr. McNEILLI dare say that there are all sorts of strange parts of the earth where they have what are called law courts. I say that the Russians have no legal system which commands the confidence of the trading community here, and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me that I have only to speak to a business man to get confirmation of his view, I may say that not very long ago I had a conversation with one of the best business men in this House, a gentleman who in the past had large interests in Russia, and, I believe, has still considerable interests there, and he refuted the idea that trade with Russia, which is at present practically at a standstill, was at a standstill because of the question of recognition. He said, "Once you get economic conditions in Russia there will very soon be trade there, without waiting for recognition." It is not recognition that is keeping him back. Although I admit that the hon. Gentleman can quote opinion, in the contrary sense, of men engaged in trade, I do not find that his is at all the general view, and my belief is that the trading community support the Government, and will be very much vexed if the Government alter their present determination that until matters have been pat on a very different footing they will not give the de jure recognition which is demanded.
Let me turn now to a more personal subject. I resent very much the tone of both the hon. Gentlemen with regard to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State. As I have taken personal pains to find out by questioning those who are in a position to know what they are talking about, I say there is not a shadow of foundation for the idea that Lord Curzon treated with any want of courtesy the 847 representative of Russia at Lausanne. Quite the contrary. I have been informed, with details in support of the statement, that on these occasions there are certain forms of etiquette, well established and well known, to be observed between delegates of different nations, and that Lord Curzon, so far from being content with only observing the etiquette which is prescribed for such occasions, went out of his way unnecessarily to show courtesy towards the representatives of Russia. Apart from the political effects of what may have been done or left undone at Lausanne, I wish to enter my protest against the idea, which is entirely false, that any evil effects were brought about by any want of courtesy on the part of our representative.
§ Mr. MORELMy observations on that point were simply and solely founded upon a reasoned and careful perusal of the Blue Book, and the tone in which the Noble Marquess spoke to the representative of Russia. Apart from that, I know nothing and would not dream, of accusing the Noble Lord. It is merely the tone of those speeches. I cannot imagine that tone being used to the representatives of any other Power as it was to the representatives of the Soviet Government.
§ Mr. McNEILLI am very glad to have the admission from the hon. Member that he had no better evidence than that to go upon. I have also read the Blue Book, but I certainly came to no such conclusions from the same premises. I can only think that the hon. Member probably read into what he saw on the pages of the Blue Book a good deal of the prejudice which he himself felt about the matter. I do not wish to leave the House under any misapprehension. I hope I have made it clear so far as recognition of the 848 Russian Government is concerned the conditions which have been laid down as the minimum, as the conditions precedent, remain as they were entirely unfulfilled. I am not going to pursue further the question of propaganda except to say that the hon. Members who referred to that matter, are under the greatest possible delusion if they think that propaganda has been stopped, or that any promises which may have been given by the Russian Government have stopped it. There have been many such promises and many declarations that propaganda would cease but not one of these has borne fruit. We know perfectly well it is going on in many parts of the world and that is only one of several efforts. I want to assure the House that so long as the Russian Government pursues the policy it has up to the present adopted in this respect, it cannot look for any recognition from His Majesty's Government more than the de facto recognition already obtained. I may say in conclusion, that although recent events would not, as the hon. Member said, deflect the judgment of the House of Commons if, upon other grounds, it could come to a different conclusion upon this matter, I certainly do think that those recent events will not incline either the House of Commons or this country to stretch a point in order to take by the hand of fellowship the Russian Government which is at present responsible for the barbarities with which the whole civilised world is at present disgusted and dismayed.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
§ The House was adjourned at Twenty-one Minutos after Five o'Clock till Monday 9th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this Day.