CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of periods during which guarantees may be given and remain in force under Overseas Trade Act, 1920 to 1924.)

HC Deb 10 March 1926 vol 192 cc2497-550

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

We have been sitting through this Debate some considerable time now, and those who have not been joining in it but listening carefully to it are beginning to get the opinion that it would be very unwise to continue our sitting at the pre sent time. We have had, it is true, one or two bright periods from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but, although we have had occasional visits from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has not yet intervened in the Debate on this very important stage of this Bill. Apparently he does not intend to favour us at all during the rest of this discussion with his authoritative views upon the matters that we are discussing to-night. Then I think, having regard to the importance of the subject we have been discussing, it is very unwise that we should go on after this time in the morning if we are not to get proper treatment from the Government Bench. The minority in this House has always been protected, as far as possible, not merely by the Chair, but by the attitude of the Government Bench towards the rights of the minority, and we feel to-night that, at any rate, the Government has not fulfilled that great tradition that Governments should not abuse the power which is theirs for the time being and submerge altogether the rights of minorities, which have been one of the best traditions of this House. We feel that the attitude that has been adopted by the Government Bench in regard to the business which has already been disposed of is such that we ought not to go on to deal with the rest of the business now. If there were not an actual pledge, at least it was what the Chairman described as a hint that there would be ample room for discussion on some of the things which have now been disposed of by the closure. But we remember the action of the Government Bench on the Amendments which have been ruled out— ruled out not by the Chair but by the action of the Front Government Bench. We regard that as a gross betrayal of what was to us at least an implied promise, and a betrayal of the rights of the Opposition. My hon. Friends behind me feel very strongly indeed about the action of the Government in the matter, and therefore I beg to move.

Mr. McNEILL

I must say I am extremely surprised both by the action and still more by the language of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I think he practically accused me of some breach of faith. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members actually endorse that. All I can say is that I entirely repudiate it; so much so, that I do not really and honestly know exactly to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. He speaks of some arrangement which I know nothing about. I knew of no arrangement, and I know of no arrangement to this moment.

Mr. BECKETT

What we allude to are the remarks from the Chair, which were made to myself, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones), and others, that the speeches we wished to deliver could well be delivered on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan). We then wrote our Amendment out in manuscript in case the hon. Member for Stockton was not going to move it. We took it to the Chair, and we were told it would be quite all right for us to move it.

Mr. McNEILL

I know nothing whatever about that. I have not even heard it until this moment. At all events, it does not justify the hon. Gentleman in making an accusation against me. The complaint must have been intended for me, because I was the person who moved the Closure. I was justified in doing so. I knew of no arrangement, and the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman has nothing whatever to do with me. It is no part of my duty to defend, if it requires defence, the action of the Chair. But apart from the question of personal delinquency on my part, the hon. Gentleman complains of the treatment of the minority. He complains of my breach of the time-honoured traditions of this House. I can only tell the hon. Member that if he had been in this House as long as I have he would have a very different view. I can remember being a Member of a very much larger minority, and seeing our Amendments swept aside by the page. When the Government of the day, after ample debate, had moved exactly the same form of Closure as I moved at half-past one. I think the two points raised on this Amendment have been amply debated Nothing was further from my intention or that of my right hon. Friends than to treat the Opposition with any lack of courtesy or consideration. It is possible that in the exercise of our power and judgment in an all-night sitting we may have taken action a little sooner than commends itself to hon. Members opposite. I hope, in the circumstances, that the hon. Member will not press his Motion, because hon. Members will remember that at question time to-day, ample notice was given. The Prime Minister said he hoped to take the first five Orders and no objection was taken by the Leader of the Opposition at that time. It rests very largely with the Opposition themselves how far they distribute the time available over the various items.

Mr. MARDY JONES

I wish to support the Motion that has been moved by my hon. Friend. We have certainly been very surprised at the action of the Government in Moving the Closure on this debate, especially in view of the understanding that was come to when Captain FitzRoy was in the Chair, and also in view of the fact that we understood time was to be given to the Amendment which is supported by Members in every part of the House. That Amendment is substantially different from that in the name of Mr. Lawson and myself. I submit that the Government have ruled out a most important suggestion that would have improved the administration of the Trade Facilities Act, and that it is not really playing the game to Closure the Debate at that point in the discussion.

Mr. MAXTON

On the Motion to report Progress, I want to say that I cannot accept the Financial Secretary's statement as being adequate to the situation. I do not want to cast the same reflection on his moving the Closure deliberately as I do on the Chairman's acceptance of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member takes that view, he will have to take the usual course of putting down a special Motion. The Closure having been accepted, he cannot discuss it.

Mr. MAXTON

I propose to take the necessary steps, Sir. When the Financial Secretary cut out the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and myself, he stated that the matter had been fully discussed, but I put it to him that the Amendment has never been discussed at all.

The CHAIRMAN

I would point out that that Amendment was not in order.

Mr. MAXTON

I heard rumours to that effect, but an Amendment to substantially the same effect was in order last year. I took good care to put in a manuscript Amendment, although it only involved the changing of a word or two. This very Amendment, when it was put down last year, was considered worthy of two or three hours' discussion. When I put the Amendment down last year and repeated it this year after having spoken on the subject during an earlier stage of the Bill, I believed it was a genuine serious attempt on my part to make the operations of this Bill do something both for the unemployed here and for our Empire abroad. I did not treat the matter at any stage with any levity. Having achieved a certain measure of support last year, not only from hon. Members on this side of the House, but also from hon. Members on the opposite side, I was entitled to think that it might receive still more support this year. The right hon. Gentlemen evidently thinks that any proposal coming from this side of the House is to be handled in this particular way. I cannot believe, knowing him as I do, that he took this step fully conscious of the seriousness with which some of us regarded the object of this Amendment. I know very well that very often these all-night sittings are of the nature of obstruction, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no such intention in my mind in putting down my Amendment on the Paper. Neither is any feeling of that sort in my mind at this hour of the morning. I think that, having regard to all these considerations, and that many of us here believe that this is an important Measure that is fraught with either good or evil for the immediate welfare of the unemployed in this country and the Empire among the nations of the world, it ought to be treated with the decencies of public discussion, and that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Motion to report Progress so that we can get a discussion in the proper state of body and mind and give to it the serious consideration it deserves. I have a great feeling of personal huff about the whole business, and never was I more tempted to disregard all Rules of Procedure, because, in circumstances such as these, where the Government of the day are playing fast and loose with the convictions of the minority and the established practices of this House, Members in opposition and in a minority are tempted to take that step now. It would be the easiest thing in the world to make public discussion now and for the rest of the life of this Government impossible in this House. I am constrained from doing that, because I believe that one or two things that will come as business before this House in the next few weeks are so important and so vital to the interests of the country that I would not like to incur the possibility of not being able to take part in their discussion here. It is out of consideration for the unemployed and for the miners awaiting the Report of the Coal Commission, and not out of respect either for the Government or for the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT

With regard to the first Amendment, I should like to give the Committee what I understand took place. What was then stated was that the matter was ruled out on the first Amendment, but might possibly be discussed on a later Amendment, which was down in the name of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and that was the Amendment that was discussed for some two or three hours.

Mr. BARR

I just wish to recall what really happened, namely, that there was an understanding between the Chairman and one or two others that these two Amendments might be taken together. We definitely refused to accept that, and it was quite explicitly agreed and understood most clearly that no such arrangement was made, and that these two Amendments were to be taken separately.

Mr. BECKETT

I am one who felt that the moving of the Closure was particu- larly unjust. I have no desire to make an obstructive speech, but I was assured that there would be an opportunity on the Amendment, and it was preposterous for an hon. Member to get up and tell us the Amendment that was ruled out of order was discussed for two or three hours.

Mr. HERBERT

I was speaking about the Amendment on which the Closure was lately moved.

Mr. BECKETT

We are not discussing that. We are discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. There was a reply by the President of the Board of Trade. Whether the hon. Gentleman has been reading the Press of his own party and preparing for another place, I do not know, but it was impossible for us on this side of the Committee to hear what he said. The Deputy-Chairman told us quite distinctly on that matter in open Committee that we should have the opportunity of raising this matter on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan). In view of past experience we took the precaution of going to the Chair with a manuscript Amendment, and we were told that that would not matter because we would be given the opportunity to raise it. I am quite sure the miners will not get justice from hon. Members opposite.

The CHAIRMAN

That is not relevant to the Question. The relevant Question is whether I am to report Progress or not?

Mr. BECKETT

I want the Committee to report Progress. The Committee ought to consider whether it is really worth while to sit any longer. There was a grave miscarriage of justice on the discussion, and I do very strongly suggest that we should endeavour to adjourn the House and allow Members to come back refreshed to-morrow.

Mr. LAWSON

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that during the last few days there has been reason to hope that this Bill would be discussed as one of the first Orders of the Day. The Committee will remember it was originally expected that this Bill would be Debated early yesterday afternoon.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE

rose in his place, and claimed to Move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. LAWSON

As I understood and I think that it was a clear understanding on both sides of the Committee that the Member for Stockton was to speak upon my Amendment. His Amendment was to be withdrawn, and a full discussion was to be allowed on the particular Amendment which I moved. I left the Chamber for a moment, and to my surprise when I came back the Closure had been moved. While it may not have been a conscious breach of any arrangement, we on these benches thought that there was going to be a full Debate upon that particular aspect of the proceedings. We have been discussing during this week very many important things, but none which more affect the well being of our people, and particularly the unemployed in this country. I suggest that if there is a Bill upon which we ought to debate when the House is fresh certainly it is this particular Bill. The Government might at least agree to our Motion to report Progress in order that we might get a proper opportunity in Committee to discuss this very important Bill. This Bill has assumed the aspect of a nonparty Bill. It is not a question of opposition. On all sides of the House there are various grounds for dissatisfaction upon various aspects of this Bill. I do suggest that it is not any use for the Government to try to push through this Bill in the early hours of the morning. From the point of view of getting a discussion of this matter when we are fresh, from the point of view of getting something more satisfactory and giving the Government time to consider the matter generally the Motion should be assented to.

Mr. PALING

I wish to add my protest against the action of the Financial Secretary. I was amazed that, having moved the Closure on the first Amendment he should move the Closure on the Clause without giving further opportunity for discussion. He would be the first to admit that in the discussion we have had there has been little or no repetition. He cannot say the Debate was trivial up to the time. We who are miners' representatives are here because the matter is of tremendous importance to us. I hate these all-night sittings, but I am here expressly because of this question coming up. When I have risen there have been five or six up every time because it affects our own industry. That, after such a short Debate, such a terribly important question should be ruled out entirely—in face of an agreement with the Chairman on the first Amendment—seems almost preposterous.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, representing as he does a constituency in Kent, does not quite realise the questions that arise in some of our constituencies. With regard to this coal and steel question in Kent, I have thousands of men unemployed in my constituency, both in the iron and steel trade, and they view with alarm the process that is going on. The average man s now not quite so ignorant about economics as he was some years ago, and when proposals are made to use Government guarantees for expanding the facilities for producing certain materials they like to know whether their interests are being looked after and what will be the effect upon them. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) raises a very important question. Some of us are mindful of the claims of our Colonies. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite assume that we are in favour of some destructive method of dealing with the Empire? We may not approach the question from the same point of view as they do, but our regard for our citizens overseas cannot be disputed for one moment. The Motion to report Progress is surely justified.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Members who have heard the speech of the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will recognise that the Amendment he has put down is the logical outcome to the speech he made on the Second Reading in which he criticised trade facilities and then stated he would make some attempt in the Committee stage to alter the Bill. He spent, to my own knowledge, a considerable amount of time in research in order to make some serious contribution to the Debate. It is quite a common thing to ask us what is our proposal for dealing with the Empire, but the moment we put for- ward a constructive suggestion we are absolutely refused any discussion on it at all. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite regard the Empire as their special privilege? When it is argued that in the Home Hule Debates whole batches of Amendments were swept aside, I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman was the ringleader of the protest against that procedure. After protesting against that conduct, is it reasonable or logical that he should do the same thing the moment a Government position is conferred upon him? The Home Rule Bill also raised bitter controversy, but in this case the hon. Member for Bridgeton was seriously and anxiously trying to make a contribution to the Debate and no one on this side had any idea of seriously obstructing in any way at all.

In regard to this Bill, I am sure every colleague of mine on these Labour Benches had no intention at all of obstructing. The miners had the interests of their Members to think of—interests which cannot be neglected. Others, again, thought of developing the Empire in a particular method. We wanted to do that in a constructive and sensible fashion, and we wanted to make our contribution as a minority to this particular Bill. That is the solid difference between the Home Rule Bill and this Bill. The Home Rule Bill was a strenuous party measure, where obstruction was legitimately used by the opposing parties, but on this occasion—speaking, I think, for all my colleagues—we had no intention of obstructing. I personally never intended to intervene in the Debate, but I stayed here out of loyalty to my two other colleagues, and because I knew they had applied considerable time and research to this problem. I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton in his speech laid out a line that would have helped the country and the unemployed, and it is because I think he would have inaugurated a discussion on this subject from an entirely new angle that I am disappointed with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who, in the past, I have always found fair in his dealings. I regret his action, which I think is not creditable to him, and not one that he will look back upon with the same delight as he will look back upon some other incidents that he has been involved in.

Mr. McNEILL

I am extremely sorry that any action of mine should have given rise to a sense of grievance, whether justified or not, on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would infinitely rather sit here to 8 or 9 in the morning than let hon. Members in any part of the House think they had a grievance against me personally. In answer to which the hon. Member has just said, I do not suggest for a moment that there was anything in the nature of obstruction. But the hon. Member is quite mistaken if he thinks that what I said about precedents in the past was confined to the Home Rule Bill. If hon. Members are sitting in this House for the next five or six years—I do not care what Government is in power—they will find, not merely in great party questions like the Home Rule Bill but in the ordinary Government business that the use, and sometimes the very stringent use, of the Closure and a much more drastic form of Closure than some of them have yet seen, is absolutely essential if the business of the House is to be got through. I think I may lay that down as a general proposition. But the hon. Member has told me facts which I did not know about the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He has told me that the hon. Member made special research in order to bring forward an Amendment in which he was very strongly personally interested. If I had known that, I am quite free to say I would certainly on that account have delayed asking the Chairman to put the Question, because I should have been very sorry indeed to cut out so earnest minded a man as my hon. Friend—if he will allow me to call him so—the hon. Member for Bridgeton, for whon I have the greatest possible respect. I should have been very sorry to do anything which deprived the Committee of the opportunity of hearing what he had carefully prepared to say. But, apart from that, I do really suggest to hon. Members—some of whom have made it a great ground of complaint that some particular Amendment was cut out, that it covered some new point and that they were interested in it—that that always is so. It is the commonest thing in this House for a number of Amendments to be swept out by the Closure, and of course, hon. Members who have put their names to those Amendments are partic- ularly interested. They think the Amendments that they themselves had put down are the most important Amendments that are likely to be Moved. We all think that, but we all, in our turn, have to submit to seeing ourselves deprived of the opportunity of making those propositions to the House. I want to repeat that I can assure hon. Members that I had not the slightest knowledge of any sort of undertaking. I still think that the matter contained in the two Amendments was, if not very amply discussed, sufficiently discussed in the time they were before the Committee, and I would like to urge that, instead of discussing that the Chairman should report Progress, we might have spent this time in getting through the business. I think it is really rather unreasonable, simply because hon. Members had spent a considerable time in urging that we should report Progress, that the Government should on that account lose the business which we came here to transact. I therefore hope Members opposite will not think I have taken an unreasonable or unfriendly course in asking them to make the necessary sacrifice to get through the not very large amount of remaining business.

Mr. TAYLOR

I should like to support the Motion to report Progress, because there are some matters affecting the administration of Export Credits that we desire to see discussed. Members on this side have no objection to sitting as long as may be necessary so long as we can have rather more courteous treatment than we have received from the right hon. Gentleman who graces the office of President of the Board of Trade. But if the observations that we have to make and the suggestions that we have to put forward are not going to be given fair and reasonable consideration, then, obviously, the House ought to adjourn until such time as these proposals can be fairly considered. At this early hour of the morning we are apt, perhaps, to lose our tempers and use expressions that we ought not to do. I believe there was one historic occasion when the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not get on very well with his present chief. I believe that on that occasion a book travelled through the air, and that his chief was very hurt about it because the book happened to hit him. I believe that he was considerably hurt by that incident. I do not want to proceed to that length to-night, but I am going to say that the suggestions which we have to make, and which vitally affect the interests of our constituents, should receive careful consideration on their merits. It is all very well to laugh at suggestions made from these benches relative to the administration of the Trade Facilities Act, but I can assure hon. Members that if they saw some of the victims that are being ruined and compelled to endure a great deal of mental anxiety through the action of the Ministry of Labour in knocking them off the labour exchanges they would not do so. We believe that a great number of these men could be got back to work by a proper administration of this Act, and the Government should realise that we are moved by anxiety to get the matter remedied by this Act. On an important matter like this we ought to have the full consideration of the points we desire to put forward.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my motion. I am afraid that we should have had to press this Motion to a Division but for the ready courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman. We are anxious to facilitate business as much as possible and the right hon. Gentleman recognised that there had been no desire to obstruct business from this side of the Committee. I do want to emphasise that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) was only spoken to by the hon. Member himself. Hon. Members on this side had raised the point and stated that they wanted a separate discussion on it. The Chairman did not indicate that it would be out of order; indeed, he gave the impression to the Committee, on this side of the House at least, that such a discussion would be in order.

Mr. DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I explained my position. It was suggested to me by one hon. Member on the Opposition side of the Committee that a discussion should take place on the two amendments combined. I thought that if that was to the convenience of the Committee, naturally I should fall in with it. But I was subsequently told by other Members of the same party that they would not agree to that idea. That was during the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan). The agreement having broken down, the position was thus materially altered, and the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees having agreed to withdraw his Amendment the whole complexion of the Debate was entirely changed from the moment the agreement had broken down. That was the position.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I quite accept that statement up to a point that the Chairman will remember, when a manuscript Amendment was submitted in place of that of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees so as the discussion should be raised. As far as I am concerned, I have never attempted to misrepresent the Amendment nor to challenge the authority of the Chair. I appreciate the spirit of the reply of the Financial Secretary and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. THURTLE

rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member wishes to continue the Debate, I cannot put the Question.

Mr. THURTLE

I do wish to continue. My main objection to discussing the Bill at this time is not that there has been any breach of faith. I let that go by the Board. What I object to is that it is three o'clock in the morning when we are to discuss trade with Russia, a most vital issue. That issue is fraught with great consequences to the people of this country. It was discussed about a week ago and it then revealed the fact that there was a very strong feeling amongst hon. Members opposite that there should be some change of policy on the part of the Government on this issue. On such a big issue we ought to select a time to discuss it when we can bring all our faculties to bear on it and when the House is represented much more fully than it is at the present time. Large numbers of Members opposite who are not now present might be very glad of an opportunity to express their conviction that the Government ought to provide further facilities for trade with Russia. Therefore I think that we ought not to discuss such an issue at this time of the morning. I support the Motion to report Progress and I hope it will be pressed to a Division.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Division No. 84.]	AYES.	[3.0 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fits, West)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hirst, G. H.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barr, J.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Stephen, Campbell
Broad, F. A.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Taylor, R. A.
Buchanan, G.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Thurtle, E.
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Tinker, John Joseph
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kennedy, T.	Varley, Frank B.
Dalton, Hugh	Lawson, John James	Wallhead, Richard C.
Day, Colonel Harry	MacLaren, Andrew	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Fenby, T. D.	Maxton, James	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Paling, W.	Windsor, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Potts, John S.
Grundy, T. W.	Purcell, A. A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.
Hardie, George D.	Riley, Ben
Hayday, Arthur	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Harrison, G. J. C.	Ramsden, E.
Albery, Irving James	Hartington, Marquess of	Remer, J. R.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Haslam, Henry C.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry.	Henn, Sir Sydney H.	Salmon, Major I.
Bennett, A. J.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Herbert, S. (York, N. R.,Scar.& Wh'by)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Blundell, F. N.	Hills, Major John Waller	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Hilton, Cecil	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)	Sandon, Lord
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Holland, Sir Arthur	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Briscoe, Richard George	Homan, C. W. J.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Burman, J. B.	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Campbell, E. T.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Smithers, Waldron
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chapman, Sir S.	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Christie, J. A.	Lamb, J. Q.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cooper, A. Duff	Locker Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Couper, J. B.	Looer, J. de V.	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Courthope, Lieut.-Cot. Sir George L.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Lumley, L. R.	Templeton, W. P.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	MacIntyre, Ian	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Tinne, J. A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Margesson, Captain D.	Wells, S. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Ford, Sir P. J.	Neville, R. J.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Fraser, Captain Ian	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Oakley, T.	Womersley, W. J.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Wragg, Herbert
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Pielou, D. P.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Preston, William
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Price, Major C. W. M.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Radford, E. A.	Major Cope and Major Hennessy.
Harland, A.	Raine, W.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at the end, to add the words Provided that no application for a new guarantee shall be rejected by the Board of

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 139.

Trade on the ground that the trade or branch of trade proposed to be re-established is between the United Kingdom and Russia"

I want to assure the Members of the Committee that although this is a matter that may arouse controversy as between one side or another, I have no intention of raising this matter in any spirit of obstruction. I can assure hon. Members that I am doing it because I believe it is very important, and the fact that it is being moved at this hour of the morning is not my fault. If the Government had taken this in the order it was left yesterday, minor matters like the Northern Ireland Insurance Bill might have been left, and this more important matter dealt with at the proper time. Were any justification needed for this Amendment, it is to be found in the recent discussions which have taken place in this House. For a long time many people have assumed that the Committees appointed under the Trade Facilities Act and the various Acts granting Government credits were competent Committees, upon whose advice the Government act. We have been led to believe—and the recent speeches in this House have revealed the fact—that whatever the Committees make out the Government decides, not upon the questions that have been put before the Committees, but upon the question of high policy. I want to point out that the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department said any recommendations made in his Department would be turned down immediately. It is very probable that the attack made upon the hon. Member may have been undeserved, that he is merely carrying out a policy decided upon. But he happens to be the figure-head for the time being, and he must draw the fire of the enemy, and must bear the brunt of the attacks made upon him. He must suffer for the sins of the Government he represents, and, although we may excuse him of any malicious share in this business, still he is the representative of the Government policy he is carrying out.

It is curious to note that the objections urged against trading with Russia have somewhat changed their character. A little while ago the objection was that the credit of Russia was not good, that she had no credit; that she would never meet her liabilities, and that it was not safe to trade with her. Now we hear that Russia has got so much credit that she has no need for more; that she has, lying in this country, a large volume of credit. We are told that she has got £15,000,000 here to trade upon, and needs no backing. On the question of the fear of British firms that there may be an inability to pay, I would like to point out that during the past month the British Company of Messrs. Arcos sent out a circular letter to 115 British firms with whom they have been dealing asking if the firms were satisfied with the method of business. I understand they received, up to the first week in March, replies from 90 different firms who have expressed their entire satisfaction, with the exception of one with which there had been a dispute with the Russian trading organisations which had since been settled to the firm's entire satisfaction. On 11th January of this year Mr. Arthur Marshall, managing director of Becos Traders, representing firms with about £150,000,000 of capital, and including a firm that bears the name of the Prime Minister of this country, and various other firms of standing, when interviewed by the "Westminster Gazette" said: Personally, I do not think for one moment that Russia will default, and I have found, acting for the Becos Traders, that Russia has made payments when due. and I know of no single case in which the present Russian Government has defaulted on any of the obligations it has contracted in this country. The best security any country with increasing requirements for outside finance can offer is that it would be against her own interests to default, and this is particularly the case with Russia owing to the fact that her foreign trade and commerce is a Government monopoly, and default would immediately involve the collapse of all credit possibilities of every kind. I challenge the President of the Board of Trade to quote any British firm in this country trading with Russia for the last five or six years which can make any complaint whatever of the default of the Russian Government so far as payment for goods received is concerned.

We have asked the Government to produce evidence of default. None has been forthcoming. The Government are quite prepared to grant credits to nations whose credit is no more secure than Russia, such as Czechoslovakia and Hungary, where you may have a revolution inside the next few months. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, speaking on 22nd February, said that the export of Russian goods to the United Kingdom in 1924 was £20,000,000 sterling, and Russia took from us £11,000,000 sterling. She as had, therefore, £9,000,000 credit with us. In 1925 Russia sent £25,000,000 odd sterling and took from us £19,000,000 sterling, leaving itself in credit that year £6,000,000 sterling, and in the two years had, therefore, £15,000,000 sterling at its disposal. I am sure the hon. Gentleman who made that statement knows that international trade is not carried along parallel lines, but is carried all round a triangle. Russia may have a favourable balance here and an unfavourable balance in Canada because of purchases made there and her non-sending of commodities to Canada. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman took the figures for two years only. I propose to put a few figures before the Committee in order to correct a wrong impression. In 1920 the purchases by Russia in Great Britain amounted to £2,819,641. In 1921 the purchases amounted to £7,281,258 and the sales to £1,866,375, a turnover of a little over £9,000,000. In 1922 the purchases by Russia here amounted to almost £9,500,000, whilst sales here amounted to almost £6,000,000, a turnover of £15,366,000. In 1923 Russia's purchases here were £4,658,000 and sales £10,458,000 In 1924 the purchases by Russia were £14,800,000 and the sales £19,443,000. In 1925 the purchases by Russia were £27,800,000, against sales to her of £26,241,000. From 1920 to the end of 1925 Russia purchased in this country £66,785,000 worth and sold to us £63,943,000 worth, leaving a balance in favour of Great Britain of £2,842,000 odd. But take the years 1924 and 1925, specifically mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. In these years, as I have already pointed out, Russia's purchases amounted to £42,602,000 and her sales in Great Britain were £45,685,000, leaving at first sight a balance in favour of Russia of £3,082,000. But there is something more that can be said about that balance. There is a great difference between £3,000,000 and £15,000,000 anyhow. But something more may be said. First of all I would like to point out that practically the whole of Russia's foreign trade for last year, amounting to roughly £114,000,000, was insured in the City of London. That is an invisible import that ought to tell as something in our favour. Then there was the banking charges on a trade turnover of £88,000,000 odd, all of which tells in favour of us in this country. Then there was the question of shipping charges. In the latter months of 1923, and the early months of 1924, Russia in all chartered 169 British steamers to convey grain from her ports to Western Europe.

Mr. HANNON

Did all those vessels fulfil their contract?

Mr. WALLHEAD

So far as I know. It is for the hon. Member opposite to point out that these vessels did not carry out their charter. Between September, 1925, and February, 1926, Russia chartered about 100 British steamers to transport grain to Western Europe from her ports, and between these dates these ships actually carried 1,500,000 tons of grain of all kinds. That is a very considerable amount of value so far as we in this country are concerned, and it passes my comprehension why hon. Members appear to take a delight in sneering at customers that can put that amount of trade in their way.

Mr. HANNON

There is no sneering at that.

Mr. WALLHEAD

So much for the alleged balance of £15,000,000 in Russia's favour. As a matter of fact, the balance is in our favour and it is proved conclusively by the figures I have given, all of which are authoritative. What are the chances of continued trade with Russia? We have been discussing grants-in-aid of developing coalfields in Kent or putting down iron works for another company, but I suggest that it is not much use developing one coalfield at the expense of another here in our own country. It appears to me that what British trade wants is extended markets, markets that can take the commodities that we have to sell.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR

And pay for them.

Mr. WALLHEAD

As they have done.

Captain O'CONNOR

Then they do not want credits.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Hon. Members change their ground. It has been pointed out that there is a large market in Russia for considerable goods of all kinds that are of value to the individual, but I want to suggest that there is another development that might easily be taken note of by British traders. There is the development of the civic life of Russia, and of the amenities of the town life of Russia. The Government of Russia wants to develop the civic life of its people, and when I and some of my colleagues were in Russia last year we discovered that they were extremely anxious to purchase from this country as many motor omnibuses as they could possibly get hold of.

In the City of Moscow the Leyland omnibus was running—some scores, a hundred omnibuses or more. We were told in Moscow that the Leyland omnibus was the best omnibus in Europe so far as they were concerned; it gave them the greatest satisfaction. We found the Leyland omnibus in use in the City of Kharkov, where they wanted more of them, and we were told by the highest authorities in Russia that if they had the chance they would place orders for hundreds and thousands of these Leyland omnibuses with the Leyland firm. [Interruption.] Really, it is astonishing that a man who is trying to put before the Committee a reasoned case cannot be listened to with a little bit of patience by gentlemen who are supposed to interest themselves in the welfare of our unemployed workmen and the parlous state of our trade. Here is a people, anxious to develop the civic life of their towns, admitting that a omnibus of British manufacture is the best they could buy in Europe, wanting to buy more if only this House will act sensibly towards them and put them on the same standard that we allow to other countries and other traders. I suggest that here in this development of the town life in Russia is a very big field indeed, and I propose, in order to prove my case, to quote some figures from a source which I am quite sure hon. Members opposite will not sneer at. I will quote, not from a Bolshevist source, not from publications of the present Russian Government, but from the Russian State Year Book of 1914, the last Year Book, I believe, issued by the late Tsarist Government. The Russian Year Book for 1914 gives certain facts regarding towns of 10,000 population and upwards, and it says that the number of such towns is 1,084. Of these towns 892 had no organised water supply, 38 only were drained, 55 only had trams, only 105 had gas or electric light, and 320 of these towns of 10,000 population and upwards had no paved roads or footpaths.

Obviously, from the time that war broke out in 1914 the internal condition of Russia began to get very bad indeed. As a matter of fact, it got so abominably bad that the revolution broke out in March of 1917, caused by the breakdown of civic life and the loss of governmental control in Russia. The towns have not got better since then. They must have got worse. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Yours have not got any better either.

For hon. Members to sneer at that with the abominable conditions existing in Glasgow where you are proposing to house your people in iron sheds is a little too much. As showing a bearing on this, the Russian State Year Book of 1914 declares that in the year 1910 there were in Russia 22,283,000 cases of contagious and infectious diseases. There is a tremendous area and population desirous of developing their civic life, and I suggest that here is a chance we might take hold of if only we act reasonably. Other nations, although they have neither diplomatic relations nor a trading agreement with Russia, are taking advantage of this opportunity. A statement was made to my colleagues and myself who visited Russia by a man of importance in Russia, whatever you may think of him here. I refer to M. Trotsky, a man of considerable brain power who understands at least what he is talking about and has sufficient knowledge to hold his own and has proved it against all comers. He said: We here would gladly continue our industrial developments by the machinery bought in your country. Our textile machinery has been manufactured in your country, and whatever workers we have got have been trained on your machines. We are anxious to develop our textile trade with your machinery, but if you will not give us the terms that other firms in other countries give us we shall not be able to do so. The capitalists of America are less backward than your people are, and less actuated by political prejudice. Although we do not want to use American machinery, if we are compelled to make a start with American machinery because of any inability to get your machinery, we shall then be compelled to have all American machinery, because we cannot work and train our workers on two different types of machinery.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

Has America granted any export credits?

Mr. WALLHEAD

The Russian Government are now able to obtain long-term credits. From our own manufacturers she cannot get short-term credits. I am told by responsible men in Russia that they can get as many short-term credits in England as they want. They do not complain of that at all. But what they want is a credit that will cover two or, perhaps, three harvests.

Mr. REMER

Is the hon. Member aware that British firms are giving credits?

Mr. WALLHEAD

I am quite well aware that they are not.

Mr. REMER

I can say from my own knowledge that a very considerable order has been taken in Lincolnshire.

Mr. WALLHEAD

That is an exceptional case there; but, even so, I will not say that firms in Lincoln are granting credits of three years to any considerable volume. I make no complaint about short-term credits, but what they want is long-term credits. Krupps and other German firms can give them three years' credits. That is the point I want to make, and I think it is a fair point to make.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

The hon. Member has rather forgotten about America.

Mr. J. JONES

Who can forget America?

Mr. WALLHEAD

For whatever reason it may be, it is a fact that American firms who are trading with Russia are giving longer-dated credits than English firms can give. Although as far as Belgium and Russia are concerned there are neither diplomatic relations nor a trade agreement, yet there has been negotiated only two weeks ago an agreement by which the Belgian Government has agreed to guarantee up to 50 per cent. of the value of export trade to Russia. In Germany there is a credit of £15,000,000 to assist trade with Russia now being passed by the Budget Committee of the Lower House, and which will be ratified by the Upper House. Its passage, I understand, is assured. Under this, 60 per cent. will be guaranteed by the State and 40 per cent by the bankers and manufacturers, and credits will be from two to four years. If my information is correct Very much of this £15,000,000 which Germany is guaranteeing to Russia is to be lent to Germany by us here in this country. We are actually lending money to Germany so that Germany can guarantee trade with Russia and her manufacturers thus make profits at our expense here in this country. It does not seem to me to be a very common-sense arrangement.

Sir FREDRIC WISE

That money has been used in paying reparations to us and to others.

Mr. J. JONES

What a "wise" saying!

Mr. WALLHEAD

I am very well aware that we lent money to Germany for the purpose of paying us reparations. I do not think that it has done us very much good. In this case I am told that the £15,000,000 guarantee Germany has placed behind trade into Russia has been advanced by the bankers here in England—in London—and also in America. Two weeks ago an order was placed in this country for boring machinery for the oil field at Baku. My colleagues and myself saw the representatives of the oil interests in Russia. They said they wanted machinery. We urged the claims of our own people. We begged them to place as large an order as they possibly could in this country. They told us they would if they could get the terms that were necessary for them to place their orders. That seems a creditable thing. We can say that we are not interested in any business. We have no direct interests of any kind; we are not shareholders in any business, through which these people could possibly place orders. We were doing it because we desired to help our own people. The oil interests of Russia have sent representatives to London, and a fortnight ago they placed an order for oil-boring machinery to the extent of a quarter of a million. What are the terms of payment. The terms of payment are (a) first payment of 5 per cent. eight months after placing the contract and (b) December 15 per cent. The remaining 80 per cent. to be spread over 2½ years after the placing of the order. This is the first contract signed of that character. The security in this case is probably the promise of the Russian Government to pay. On the same day when that order was placed here an order was placed in Germany for similar machinery to the value of 1½ million pounds on the following terms: first payment of 10 per cent. two years after the delivery of the machinery, and the remaining 90 per cent. to be spread over an additional 2½ years. There is work going to the shops of Germany. At the same time that this order was placed an order for £600,000 of machine tools was placed with a German firm. That was offered to British firms first, but they could not give the terms equal to those that Germany gave.

These are but a few instances of orders in the last two or three weeks that might have been secured for our people. It seems to me that if these orders can be obtained it is desirable that they should be. May I point out still further that if it is going to be urged, as probably it will be urged by the Government Front Bench, that we are not going to trade with a country that repudiates its debts, you are trading with Czechoslovakia, and she has not met all her liabilities. You are trading with Italy who has repudiated her debt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] My Friends may say it is not repudiation. But, if I understand it, it comes to this, that for the next 60 years we are going to pay in interest about £1,800,000, and we are going to get from Italy about £240,000,000. That is a profitable bargain! May I point out the stupidity that is being exhibited by our responsible persons here. It is not being exhibited by the French Government. The French Government at this moment are negotiating with Russia a settlement of her pre-War debts and the pre-War debts of Russia to France are infinitely greater than they are here. If Russia can meet France satisfactorily there is no reason to suppose that she cannot meet us in the same way. The Foreign Secretary of Russia M. Chicherin has asked on more than one occasion what are the terms upon which Russia can enter into negotiations with the British Government. The Treaty of 1924 was turned down and it is the task of statesmen to enter into negotiations of a difficult character. That is their job and to bring them if possible to a successful conclusion. I say the Russian Government has expressed its desire many times to negotiate and get a statement if they possibly can. They have declared their willingness to the British Government to get a settlement if it possibly can be done, and I suggest as an indication of the willingness of the British Government to enter into such negotiations that they extend the Trade Facilities Act to Russian, trade. There was work for thousands of our unemployed workmen to supply the Russian people with the things they need.

Major KINDERSLEY

The questions which have been raised by my hon. Friends opposite are of very great importance. A curious thing is that whenever hon. Members opposite get up and talk about Russia, they answer their own questions. They say there is an enormous demand for goods in Russia. We say we are quite prepared to meet it. What is there to prevent business being done? The answer is that Russia has lost her credit, otherwise there would be no difficulty whatever. The banks would be perfectly prepared to finance it. Why has she lost her credit? It is because she is still repudiating her international obligations. Hon. Members opposite will remember that when the abortive Treaty of 1924 was being negotiated, that by way of exception to maintaining her doctrine of repudiation she was, to consider making an arrangement with this country, if we would first give her something in return. Hon. Members know that two people cannot do business together unless they are agreed upon the fundamental principles of financial honesty and of the sanctity of contractual obligations. When this agreement does not exist, no business is possible. If private firms in this country like to run the risk of doing business with the Russian Government, they are perfectly entitled to do it. I expect they make large profits on account of the risks. But when you come to ask the British Government and the British taxpayer to run these risks, then it is a totally different thing. There is a great principle involved in this. We, in the City of London, are the financial centre of the world. If we once admit the right of a nation to repudiate its debts—overlook it, say to them, "You repudiate your debts, yet we will lend you money"—then the whole structure of international finance falls to the ground.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Will you deal with my argument that the Russian Government has expressed its desire to meet you upon these very terms you are discussing now?

Major KINDERSLEY

The hon. Member knows more about the intentions of the Russian Government than I do.

Mr. BECKETT

The present Foreign Secretary stated last Session that it had been brought to his notice over the discussion of the German debts.

Major KINDERSLEY

What is the position? Germany under the Dawes Scheme said she wished to recognise and pay her debts to us. She at once got a loan. The only case known to me in which Russia attempted any negotiations she put those words in the draft Treaty "by way of exception." So long as she maintains the Repudiation Decree on her Statute Book she ought not to be lent any money by this Government. Is there not a great deal of difference between a man who owes money and says, "I have had losses, I am sorry, but I intend to pay if you give me something to set me on my legs," and the man who says, "It is against my political principles to pay anything." The last is the attitude of Russia, and in that way she declares herself an international thief, which is what she really is. I do ask hon. Members opposite to believe that another of the chief obstacles to developing trade with Russia is the extraordinary system under which their Government has destroyed private trade and runs things itself. Let us take herrings. Supposing a merchant in Russia wants to buy 100 barrels of herrings. He has to go to an official. This official communicates with Moscow, and Moscow communicates with Arcos. Say the herrings cost £3 per barrel. When these herrings get to the other side the Russian Government puts on another £3 for Government expenses, and then the herrings are so expensive that the poor people cannot afford to buy them. That is another reason why we cannot do business with Russia. Finally, I wish to make this suggestion to hon. Members opposite if they want to help British trade. They seem to be intimate in certain circles in Russia, and they should make representations that the Russians should cease to encourage the boycott of British goods in China.

Mr. T. SHAW

I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is aware that in 1919 the Russian Government expressed its willingness, quite openly and plainly, to enter into negotiations for an arrangement of her debts on the understanding that the damage done to Russia by the unprovoked attack through this country should also be taken into consideration. Over and over again since then Russia has continually expressed her willingness to enter into negotiations for a settlement of the debt question. It is not treating the Committee quite fairly to say that Russia has repudiated her debts and made no advances at all on the matter. I happened to bring a message back myself from that country, and I know perfectly well that the statement I am now making was known to Mr. Bonar Law and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and everybody in Government circles at the time. It is not quite fair to say that Rusisa is a defaulter who has no intention of paying. Russia has put down a perfectly reasonable case for discussion.

4.0 P.M

She says, "You attacked us and forced a War on us." That is a perfectly fair statement of the condition of affairs. But I intervene on another aspect of the matter. Surely in this country at the present moment there is the necessity for all the trade we can get, and no amount of prejudice against a form of government ought to blind us to the necessities of our own people. The question is: Can we do business with this country to a greater degree than we have done, and, by so doing, employ our people? Nobody would doubt the statement that Russia is and will be a huge potential market, and the country that first secures the market of Russia for manufactured goods is the country that is likely to employ its workmen to a much greater degree than it is likely to employ them if trade with Russia is not entered upon. If we take the trouble to examine the matter calmly and without prejudice against forms of government, but simply from the point of view of the interest of our own people, then I am positively certain that it will prove to be quite evident that we ought to do all we can to encourage business with Russia on the best terms possible. This Motion does not ask the Government to finance wild-cat schemes. It is quite wrong to assume that money is lent at all by the Government. The hon. Member who has just spoken is a great authority on finance, and surely he knows that this is not a loan at all. That is a mistaken term. This is a guarantee to British traders that, if the Government or the Committee thinks that the conditions are such as to give a reasonable prospect of payment, the guarantee can help the credit of the firm that is doing the business with Russia, and the business can be done. There are many firms which cannot, on their own resources, give a long credit, but there are many firms who would be able to deal in that fashion if they had the credit scheme extended to them. There is another argument that has not been touched on yet, and that is the great influence of commercial intercourse between nations in the making certain of peace.

As long as Russia is kept, as it were, as a pariah among the nations, you have a huge population at the East of Europe that will always be a festering sore and a danger of infection. It is much better to make friends with this people. Whatever the Government of Russia is, nobody has ever assumed that the Russian people is a bad one, and a demonstration of friendliness from this country would do more, I think, to promote the future peace of the East of Europe than almost anything else that I know of.

It is extremely doubtful whether a lot of the excesses that happened in Russia were not due to the fact that the other peoples of Europe had not made that friendly demonstration and let the Russion people, as a people, see that the other nations were disposed in a friendly way towards them. I do not think there is any danger of the Government being called on to pay huge sums of money in this matter. The Government have always the power, if it is not satisfied, to turn down the schemes. All the Amendment asks is that a scheme shall not be turned down simply because it comes from Russia. Surely that is a reasonable thing. Take my own constituency, which has felt the brunt of bad trade ever since 1920. There is no trade in the country that has suffered longer and more severely than the cotton trade. It could not work to its full capacity during the War because it could not get its raw material. It had a spurt of extremely good trade after the Armistice, which collapsed more quickly than in any other trade, and since then the trade has been very bad indeed. As a matter of fact, I think the hours now worked in the spinning mills are 32½ a week. In one of the biggest firms in my own constituency a Russian order was a positive Godsend to the people working there. What I am anxious to see is that as many firms as possible shall be placed in that position. By a friendly gesture and by helping our manufacturers to develop this huge potential market, we should not only do infinite good to our own unemployed people but we should do a great deal of good in promoting peace, in Eastern Europe in particular, and through Eastern Europe the Far East as well and the world in general. I beg to support the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. Member who moved this Amendment did not quite distinguish between cash and credit. It is quite true that Russia possesses in this country, if not large credit, a large amount of cash, and it may well be that any man, including the Mover of the Amendment, would be perfectly ready to accept cash from either a country or am individual where he would not be willing to give credit. As regards figures, the figure which was quoted in the course of debate the other day, of the balance for the past two years being £15,000,000 sterling, is correct within £500,000. That takes account, not only of purchases of British goods but the purchase of the whole of the re-exports which Russia has bought in this country. My hon. Friends were perfectly right on previous occasions when they said that over the last two years there had been a balance of approximately £15,000,000.

Mr. TAYLOR

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that figure includes the purchase of Empire goods?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

That is what I said. An export is an article manufactured or produced in this country and sold outside. A re-export is any article imported into this country, whether from the Empire or a foreign country and then re-exported. And this includes both.

Mr. TAYLOR

It includes purchases sent direct from Canada to Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Certainly not; that would not be recorded in our trade account at all. In deciding whether Russia had a trade balance in her favour or not in Canada, you would have to take into account the sales by Russia to Canada and purchases by Russia from Canada. It does, as a matter of fact, include large amounts of Canadian produce bought by Russia in this country. My hon. Friends are right in saying that largely increased purchases could have been made, had Russia desired to do so. Nor is it right to represent the action of not only this Government, but all its predecessors, as impeding trade with Russia. There is absolutely nothing to stop any individual or corporation or trade union or cooperative society from trading with Russia as much as ever they like and giving to Russia as much credit as ever they wish to do. Anybody is absolutely free to trade in any way he likes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea gave to the House, I think on a previous occasion, a very curious account of what the banks were doing. I would challenge anybody connected with the banking business in this House to dispute these two propositions.

As far as I know, to-day no bank is giving any long-term credit to Russia at all. The whole of the credit given by the banks is short-term credit. [An HON. MEMBER: "British banks?"] Certainly, British banks. I am not concerned in the action or financial stability of any other banks. It is not short-term credit that is in question here. I am told, further, that no bank in this country is giving even short-term credit to Russia without either complete and full recourse against the drawer or, in the alternative, without easily realisable collateral security in their possession. The banks, who know their business, are trustees for their depositors just as we in this House are trustees for the taxpayers' money. That shows, I think, the extent to which those whose business is credit and who are anxious to give credit, see how far they dare give credit.

The suggestion was made to-night, and has been made before, that there has been some sort of change in the policy of the Government and that we were acting capriciously. Nothing is further from the truth than that. There has been no change in the policy of successive Govern- ments in regard to export credits. When the first Bill was introduced in this House the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), who was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, specifically stated that it was not the intention to give credits to Russia. He was challenged by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in October, 1921. The hon. and gallant Member then said: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the second part of the Bill, may I ask a question? It says in the Bill that the export credits are to be extended to all countries. Does that include Russia?

Mr. YOUNG

The words are permissive. Any country may be included.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Is it intended to include Russia?

Mr. YOUNG

No.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY

Why not?

Mr. YOUNG

I shall now proceed to what I feel the House considers to be the more interesting part of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1921; col. 763, Vol. 147.]

In the Committee Debate the question was again raised, and in reply I said: Under the original export credits scheme, which applied to the countries whose financial position had suffered owing to circumstances arising out of the War, it would have been competent for the Government to extend the system of export credits to Russia. The Government have not done so. They have stated repeatedly the terms on which they would consider the question of export credits to Russia…. and there is no proposal to alter the policy of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1921; col. 1180, Vol. 147.] At that time the Regulations were issued and were open to anybody going to do business under this scheme. In the first Regulations it was positively laid down that it was not intended to apply the scheme to Russia. That has been carried out since 1921 by successive Governments. It was not only carried on by the Coalition and the Conservative Government that succeeded the Coalition, but also by the Socialist Government in exactly the same form. The late Attorney-General challenged the legality of the Government in refusing credits to Russia. Why, if it was illegal, did he allow his Government to continue doing so? What was the position adopted by the Socialist Government in common with all Governments before them? It was not that they would extend unqualified credits to Russia, but that credit would only be given if the Russian Government fulfilled certain conditions. There had been conferences at various places before then at which, quite contrary to what was said by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), so far from the Russians being willing to acknowledge their debts they absolutely refused to do so. When the Socialist Government came to enter into negotiations with Russia they never even offered the export credits to Russia until they were satisfied that they had got from Russia an adequate quid pro quo in the shape of their Russian Treaty. We did not agree that treaty was an adequate quid pro quo and the country itself pronounced in the most positive way at the last General Election against that treaty. We stated our policy quite clearly when we came into office. The Foreign Secretary stated it in the Debate on the Address, The Minister of Agriculture, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, stated in absolutely positive terms: It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to refuse credit facilities to the Soviet Government or its agencies until the Soviet Government itself establishes such conditions in the treatment of debts or compensation for confiscated property as will restore confidence and command credit. That is the position we take up to-day. We must accordingly ask the House to reject this Amendment. We have not based our policy in this question on political prejudice, but entirely on the interests of British trade. The reason is that it would be a danger to British trade were we to do what is proposed. The whole of our British export trade rests on a great structure of credit all the world over. It has been built up, and can be only maintained by perfect faith kept in every transaction. It is absolutely impossible for individuals to give credit unless they know that faith is going to be kept and so this Government, the custodian in a peculiar sense of the country's trade, could not give credit, where obligations had been repudiated; and yet this is the sort of obligation which we are asked to incur. You may get an order here and there, a few, but what would happen. You would be encouraging a million and one traders in every country who have obtained credit to break faith and thereby you would prejudice and restrict trade all over the world. It is for that reason—not reasons of political prejudice—that I appeal to the House to support the Government.

Mr. TAYLOR

I listened with very great interest to the statement just made by the President of the Board of Trade. He says very truly we may be inclined to accept the cash of Russia but that we are not inclined to give credit. It is the difference between cash and credit that is at the root of the problem of Anglo-Russian trade relations. I do not propose to insult the intelligence of the House by reiterating the arguments about the so called favourable balance of trade. Everybody knows that it is no criterion whatever to take the trade balance over between any two countries and to say that the balance in the case of those two countries is available for purchase in the country which happens to have the favourable balance. Take Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia who have transactions between a British exporter and any of those countries. An obligation is made under the Export Credit scheme or under the Trade Facilities Act. The point is that in these cases the facilities of those Acts are available for such an exporter, but they are not available for an exporter who wants to transact business with Russia. It is because we desire that the transactions between exporters in this country and Russia should be placed on a purely business basis without any regard to political interests, that we want the Government to change their policy. The Government no longer attempts to define its policy on any other than political grounds. We witnessed the spectacle during last week's Debate of a member of the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act getting up in this House and stating if any applications were made by exporters for Anglo-Russian business they would receive full, fair, careful and impartial consideration, and then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade promptly gets up and states that he would veto any proposal of that kind that came forward.

So the real position is, that this Government are not, and never have been willing to consider applications dealing with Anglo-Russian trade purely on the basis of their business merits. I asked the President of the Board of Trade to receive a deputation of manu- facturers to go into the details of a transaction involving a very large sum of money which would have made a very large contribution towards abolishing unemployment, at any rate for six months in the city I represent. He flatly refused to receive any such deputation. They have made application from time to time for the extension of these Acts to Anglo-Russian trade. It is true to say, there is nothing to prevent the development of Anglo-Russian trade except the political uncertainty that is involved in the relations of the two countries. It prevents that confidence which is the basis of credit between Russia and this country, or any other, without which long term credit will not, and cannot, reach full fruition. I do not want to hear about the Third International. I want to hear about the people who are walking the streets of Lincoln, whose lives have been ruined very largely by the Government's handling of this problem. What I want to put now to the representatives of the Government is this. We now see a situation in which the trade of America with Russia has grown to more than its pre-War volume. Even Mr. Henry Ford, who never trades on credit, has recently broken his rule and sold ten thousand tractors to Russia on a part-payment system. American agricultural machinery—the International Harvesting Company—can see their new machinery in various parts of Russia to-day and they are getting virtually a monopoly. [An HON. MEMBER: "They always have."] No, they have not.

Captain O'CONNOR

I know the agricultural districts of Russia intimately and I have examined them. For one English machine there were 10 American or German. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. and gallant Member has not seen very much of Russia!"]

Mr. TAYLOR

We used to export tremendous quantities in the years before the War.

Captain O'CONNOR

If the hon. Member will allow me I believe I succeeded in getting an order for the first threshing machine that had ever been sold by Messrs. Ruston and Hornby and that was in 1911, I think.

Mr. TAYLOR

I have seen machines out there for many years. The situation we are placed in to-day is that America is rapidly developing her exports to Russia. Already they are larger than the pre-War volume. Orders are being placed in Germany with German firms in which British money is directly interested on terms refused by English manufacturers, because they cannot get accommodation from British banks. British finance invested in German banks and in German industry is giving in the agricultural machinery industry three harvests' credit to the Russians, whilst we in England are compelled to refuse these orders because British exporters going to British banks for accommodation on that business are simply told that there is not a penny of accommodation for Russian business.

Mr. REMER

Messrs. Ruston and Hornby and Messrs. Marshall, Sons and Company have taken orders on the terms the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. TAYLOR

The proposition of payment and the period over which payment extends are essential points. Instead of being able to take what they were offered they were only able to take somewhere about one-tenth of the quantity. They could have had it if they had been able to give the volume of credit the German firms, financed by a group of German banks, give.

Mr. REMER

Both firms are very reluctant to take any orders at all and give credit to Russia.

Mr. TAYLOR

The hon. Member represents Macclesfield and I represent Lincoln and his information does not carry us very far. I happen to know the circumstances which British manufacturers have to face in connection with this problem. The real trouble is the political insecurity existing in the relationships between the two countries. Until that is settled there can be no great extension of Anglo-Russian trade. The Government have taken no steps since the treaty negotiations by the Labour Government to state what would be an acceptable basis for new negotiations with Russia. Sooner or later the problem of political relationships between the two countries will have to be settled by discussion. They certainly cannot be settled by obstinacy on both sides or one side or the other.

I have never believed that all the faults lay with the present or past British Governments. The Englishman can recognise that there is a Russian side as well as an English side. The Government is not doing its duty in keeping the relationships between the two countries in the present position. If the Russian Government were to agree to recognise their pre-War indebtedness to British nationals and were at the same time to suggest that the money lent by Great Britain to Russia for the prosecution of the War might be written off against the claims of Russia against Great Britain for the damage caused to Russia, would that be an acceptable basis for new negotiations? The advantage to Russia of better trade relationships with Western Europe would induce her to settle her pre-War indebtedness on terms not less favourable than those involved in the Italian settlement. If the British Government will not make any move, can we get to know what kind of move would be acceptable if made by Russia?

Sir GERALD TRICKLAND

An honest general election in Russia.

Mr. TAYLOR

The hon. Gentleman does not want a settlement; he wants an argument. I appeal to the Government to take this question out of the realm of party controversy and deal with it purely from the point of view of the economic interests of the country.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I must own to some surprise at the attitude of the party opposite towards Russia. I should say, from what I know of Russia, that it should have been the last country to which they would have alluded, since in my opinion it is probably the greatest failure that their policy has ever had. I have not had the privilege, like the hon. Member for Preston and the hon. Member for Merthy Tydvil, of being on a personally conducted tour of Russia. I have not been there to see just what I was intended to see.

Mr. MARDY JONES

On a point of Order. Can the hon. Member prove his statement that it was a personally conducted tour?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of order.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

Nor have I been told exactly what I was intended to know and to bring home and tell the people at home.

Mr. BECKETT

Is the hon. Member entitled to make expressions of that sort, that Members came back here to say what they were told by a foreign Government?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I noticed it was mentioned that they visited the towns of Russia and saw what was in the towns. Did they visit the country and see the position of the peasants whom the Government had ground down and to whom they denied all hope, all ambition and all prosperity? Did they see that? They were not shown it. I have had the good, or bad fortune to spend a good many years in Russia. I had the honour of assisting our Government, in conjunction with several other Chrisian Governments, in trying to wipe out the cancer that was eating into the country at the time. We failed owing to the conditions for which several followers of the party opposite were responsible.

Mr. T. SHAW

You failed because—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to express an opinion.

Mr. T. SHAW

I express my personal regret to you, but may I call attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member made certain aspersions on the methods of hon. Members of this House, aspersions that were quite unjustified, quite untrue and had no basis or semblance of basis on fact?

Mr. JOHN

I wish the Chair would be equally as fair to the hon. Member.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not reflect on the integrity of the Chair.

Mr. BECKETT

You only help Tory Members; you never help Members on this side of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I am telling of what I have seen and know. I have seen the large timber forests of Russia ready to be cut down and taken away to the sea. I have seen the vast fields that would provide the granaries for all Europe and more. I have seen hundreds of miles of railways lying derelict and hundreds of rolling stock also lying derelict. It was because there was no enterprise on the part of the Government and because they had no skilled labour. They had killed the skilled labour that was in Russia before.

I am as keen as anyone on trade with Russia or with any other country that would bring happiness to our people, but Russia must recognise her pre-War obligations and debts. She must also alter her attitude towards the peasants and workers of the country and must see that their wages are fair, that their standard of living is fair and that their hours of work are fair. Also I would be strongly desirous of trade with Russia if it could be quite certain that all the money that we guaranteed would be spent in this country so as to promote work for our own people. Members have frequently talked to-night about the desire to trade with Russia. If I may say so, that is not entirely the point which we as a nation should consider. The Russians are an odd people. They are very good at planning and talking, but many of them are not particularly good at doing. The reason that Russia became, and was becoming, prosperous before the War was due to the fact that vast numbers of Britishers developed the country and established vast enterprises there and caused the country to prosper.

What we want is to give facilities for those traders and merchants to go back to Russia and to ensure that they will have stability and security in carrying out their job in Russia. I would conclude by saying it is very difficult to forget the iniquities of the Russian Government, and the sorrow and the anguish that that Government has caused to her people, but if, by affording these facilities to trade with Russia on the terms I have mentioned, we could further the prosperity of our country and bring more work and happiness to our people, then I would be perfectly prepared to support this proposal.

Mr. PURCELL

rose—

Mr. WALLHEAD

On a point of Order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have called on the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell).

Mr. WALLHEAD

But this is a point of Order. I understand that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has made a statement to the effect that I have come here with a tale that I was told to tell. If he does say that, then I tell him that he lies.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not accuse other hon. Members of speaking what is not true intentionally. I hope he will withdraw that.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Unless the hon. and gallant Member withdraws the statement he has made in reference to myself I shall not withdraw.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member may not believe what another hon. Member says, but he is not entitled to say he deliberately tells an untruth. He must withdraw his statement.

Mr. PURCELL

Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to make pointed references of such a nature unless he is prepared to substantiate them when challenged?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is entitled to say what he thinks to be true. If he thinks a statement is true he is entitled to say so. It is for other Members in subsequent speeches to prove the opposite.

Mr. BARR

Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) to throw across the Floor of the House statements that are most offensive and unworthy of the dignity of the House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) withdraw the statement he made?

Mr. WALLHEAD

I will withdraw and say that the hon. Member is absolutely unjustified in making the statement he has made, and that he has no grounds whatever for the statement.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Ofcourse, I will accept that withdrawal.

Mr. T. SHAW

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member who has cast an aspersion on another hon. Member without attempting to justify that aspersion is to be asked to withdraw the aspersion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Naturally an hon. Member drawing an aspersion against another hon. Member of this House must justify what he says.

Mr. PURCELL

I want to congratulate you, Captain FitzRoy, on having had the very high honour of permitting me to speak. In two days I have tried for 8½ hours. I want to approach this question in a rather different way from that in which so far most Members have approached it. I think it is important that we should face the position. It is not a question, to my mind, of political considerations at all. You have a new country in which a terrific change has taken place.

I think that even if you recognised, for example, the Czarist debt and what is known as the War debt for materials and munitions supplied during the War, it does not seem to me that you would find work for the people unemployed at present in this country. So that brings us to the third and most important bar in the way, that is, the payment for things supplied. It has been put to me in this way—that if you purchase a pair of boots and you do not pay for them it is very difficult to get your boot supplier to let you have another pair of boots until you have paid for the first pair. I want to face the case of hon. Members opposite. If material for railways and material for factories and for the equipment of factories had been supplied and so many traders had been at the present time nationalised by you, the very least you ought to do is to settle the account due for former supplies. That is what is said. There is another point almost as important as that one. I understand it to be that there are no Courts in Russia comparable to the Courts that exist in this country in which a Russian or a Britisher can recover a debt. Apart altogether from political considerations, we have to see if these difficulties can be met. To ask us to get over these two hurdles by merely seeing that education is developed, that industry is developed, that the organisation of the country is developed, and all this kind of thing, does not appear to me to be sufficient to enable us to get over these great difficulties.

If those two difficulties could be surmounted the path could be very easy. We have to keep in mind that as Russia develops, as it will certainly develop, and as it will rebuild and reorganise, it is a totally different Russia from the pre-War thing. The development of electricity with their present great scheme means the throwing of huge orders in all parts of the world for all kinds of electrical machinery. We have to recog- nise that, and we must not for one moment think that comparisons can be made such as between orders placed here and in Germany or in America. We have rather to look at it from the point of view of a desperate piece of bargaining. With regard to America, it is in many respects practically a cash transaction. I have seen the agricultural machinery which is that of the International Harvester Company and is mainly, and always was, equipped by America. Similarly, other things were always equipped from Germany, and others from Sweden or other parts of the world. If you can by some means or another drive a wedge through this present difficult position and enable trading to take place, to help to lift confidence higher so that an increasing amount of trading may take place, then I think it would be a good thing.

5.0 A.M.

I think we have to face it rather more openly than that. It does not seem tome that that is sufficient if we are agreed, and I have never heard anyone object or say one word against the amount of work that could be got from Russia because of the great schemes they have and the amount of machinery needed. If, therefore, it is true, as I believe it is true that they require these great masses of goods, and having regard to the fact that we have such a vast army of people unemployed we ought to consider first whether it is possible by some means or other to get these parties together for the purpose of finding out how far assistance can be given for the purpose of meeting their views and requirements and then putting large numbers of our people into work. We ought to see whether something could not be done to show them from the industrial point of view a kinder feeling whether by way of treaty, agreement or any other sort of negotiation so long as you get there. That seems to me he thing to do. We want this mass of work. I want to see Russia develop. We ought never to talk about other people's mistakes. We have a few to our record and what I desire to urge is this. So important is this question that I believe it is the duty of both Liberals and Conservatives together with the Labour party—if they could do that—to sit down and find out just how this question of supplying the requirements of Russia and upon what basis and conditions and how the difficulties can be surmounted, can be met. It would be helpful to us. I am an Internationalist, but I am also a Nationalist. Many of our highly skilled men in this country are already unemployed, and some of us fear that unless they get work soon much of their skill will be lost: those fine shipbuilders on the great rivers of this country, men who have given great service to the State, many of them are unemployed and, in my opinion, for want of a better word, are rotting away. While we are hanging fire in this way, other countries are getting in; they saw what Germany was doing. It seems to me the duty of this House to see that certain people are appointed as speedily as possible to find out the ways and means of doing this. It is no good shouting at Russia, and trying to get over the difficulty that way. If Germany can do business, if America can do business, if Belgium can do business, and grant them credits, it seems to me that that calls for us to get ahead if we want to restore and get back to the old position of something approaching the workshop of the world. Trust Russia, not because they are Russians or Bolsheviks, but because they have trade to give, and our business is to get business for this country.

Captain O'CONNOR

On a point of Order. Is this Amendment in order? I want to put the point in this way. I assume it is open to the Board of Trade to refuse to trade with any other country on economic grounds and to refuse guarantees to a country without any other grounds. Supposing that this Amendment is passed, it would in fact put Russia in a privileged position which no other country would possess, because the Board of Trade would not be entitled to exclude trade with Russia on that ground alone. Would not that be a breach of the most-favoured nation Clause?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is rather late in the day to raise this. I think, as a matter of fact, the Amendment is in Order.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and I congratulate him on an admirable speech.

I think the time has come when we should stop using strong language against each other on the subject of Russia, and see if we cannot come to terms with that great place. There must be at least 220,000,000 people living in Russia to-day. It is, I suppose, potentially the richest place in the world. The Caucasus alone are richer than any other district of the same size. It has been said that we ought not to talk about Russia repudiating her debts; that other nations have done the same. But I do not think that you will easily find the case of a country which had been one of several allies repudiating its debts to a former ally after a great war.

Mr. J. JONES

What about France?

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON

No, she has not.

Mr. J. JONES

Is there not a party working in France saying that they will not pay their debts?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order.

Mr. JONES

It is a fact, Sir.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member should address me.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON

All the interruption means is this, that the hon. Gentleman says France may repudiate her debts if she goes bankrupt. That of course she may do. It will be force of circumstances. But, unlike Russia, France has not wantonly refused to pay on principle. Nor has France passed a Bill expropriating land, and she does not take money belonging to us in her country, or murder our representatives in our own Legations. She does not take people who fought for her, and lock them up in prison, and I challange the hon. Gentleman to point to a single English or British person who has lost property by expropriation in France. We have been robbed by Russia. You may say that Russia is entitled to any Government she likes, and can pass any Bills she likes, and can expropriate her own nationals. But she has no right to rob us, and, having robbed us, to expect us to advance more money. We are told now that huge sums have been spent by the Soviet for purchasing large masses of machinery for Baku. But remember that many of these oil wells were created and fostered by British capital. They have since been seized, virtually stolen, and the stocks and appliances belonging to us have been taken for nothing. Indeed the Soviet has been selling Russian oil in this country below cost price because no capital charges had to he paid.

Why should we not get something back on these losses before we advance anything more. I do not agree with the speech of the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), who takes the view that we shall never get anything out of the Russians until we pay them for our "alleged invasion" as he calls it. We shall never get anything at all if we take that view. It is a point of view wholly false, and if examined impartially will not be found to hold water. What are the facts? During the early years of the War, Russia was our ally. Quite suddenly revolution broke out. The Czar was deposed, and a Republic was set up. I fought under the Czar; I also fought under the Republic, and was very proud to fight for the cause under both in Russia. Next the Bolsheviks came along, and destroyed the Republic. They would not let me fight on. Instead they took money on all hands from the Germans, and behind our backs they made a shameful peace which sold our allies and ourselves to the agony of two more years of carnage. But some Russians stuck to the cause, and we supported them. All over Russia bands of them remained loyal. Were we wrong in supporting them? The hon. Member for Preston's case is a hopeless one.

The hon. Member who spoke last made a very good speech in which he appealed to all of us to sink our differences. I really would like to see understanding in a matter of this sort. He asked the Government whether they would not again approach the Soviet? He and others have been to Russia, and if that is their view, why should they not do their bit in approaching the Russian Government indicating that we cannot continue to recognise them so long as they refuse to recognise us and their debts. It may not be that we are going to get back all we have lost, but let them only show a change of heart, and I am certain there is no Government in this country or any other which will not welcome that day as fruitful of great beginnings.

Mr. MARDY JONES

The last speaker has, I believe, had years of experience in Russia during the most trying period in the history of modern Russia, and if we can only instil a little more good will between the two countries we will have done some good service. Although our visit covered a very short period of time we tried to put into that period as much travelling and sightseeing and seeking to understand the place as possible, and I want to repudiate the suggestion that we were taken round like so many children to see what we were intended to see and come back and speak as we were told to speak. Those of us who went there in September last went for the sole purpose of trying to find out at first hand what were the net results to date of the great revolution. We satisfied ourselves that the revolution has led to the first period of getting settled Government, and that they are now rapidly developing into a more democratic and efficient State. We had access to the heads of the Government in Moscow, Leningrad and elsewhere, and we found that many of the men who are at the head of affairs in Russia to-day are men of keen business experience who have lived for many years in various other parts of Europe and in America.

Many of them spoke English as well as ourselves, and we put to them the point that the last speaker has put: Are they really prepared to consider the question of their indebtedness to us? And we came away with a written statement from M. Rykoff, head of the Soviet Government of All the Russians, which is a very distinct opening in that direction. I believe there are still two opinions in Russia. One is against bothering to get into contact with the rest of Western civilisation. That was the dominant position during the revolutionary period, but it is being replaced by a more up-to-date attitude and a desire for contact with the rest of Europe on proper fines. We believe that something substantial could be done if the British Government gave some indication that they are prepared to negotiate a treaty more or less on the lines of the treaty of the first. Labour Government in this country; modified as much as you like, but recognising that there are debts on both sides to be considered and weighed by a Committee representative of both countries.

Then I am quite satisfied that Russia will get away from the Declaration of 1918 and will in principle and in fact recognise that, within certain reasonable limits, she has got to make a reasonable repayment of those debts. But even if that is agreed to, it is quite obvious that Russia cannot be in a position to make repayments of War or pre-War debts until she has been put upon her feet industrially. Her machinery is worn out and needs to be renewed, and I say that the Rusisan market is the biggest potential market that we could have in this country for the next 30 years. A great deal of the trade that would come to us in the ordinary course will otherwise go to Germany and America and other countries, and I hope the Government will give some indication that they are prepared to negotiate with Russia along the lines indicated to-night by several speakers.

Mr. BECKETT

I would like to point out that in the Motion now before the Committee there is no stipulation that Russia should have any favoured treatment of any kind. All we ask is that the Committee of experts who are to consider proposals for credit facilities shall not be refused the right to examine a proposal to trade with Russia in the same business like way that they would examine any other. The point that we are alarmed about was the statement made the other night by the Parliamentary Secretary for Overseas Trade, that he would not allow the Committee to consider the proposal. Surely if these Committees give anything like the scrutiny that we are assured by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that they do give, this House might well leave the business side of the transaction with Russia in the hands of those Committees.

The only other point I wish to deal with is the reason why we should have to extend credit facilities to Russia. I know that on Tyneside several of our firms, if times were better, would be able to compete with the big American firms in offering long-term credits, but we have to face the fact that, in the very industries which could be helped most by this Russian trade, the ability to give the necessary credit to a country which is expanding is not there, and unless these firms can submit their goods for credit facilities to enable them to compete with Germany and America in long-term credits we are going to let all this trade go from us. There are two versions of the history which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway gave; two versions of the action between the Whites and the Reds after the War. I think the version which all Members of the House would agree to is this: that up to the time of the Russian Revolution Russia was a very backward country, kept back by its large size, the low standard of education among its people, and the very autocratic and corrupt system of government which it had.

The old system of government has gone. The businesses and the workers for whom sympathy has been expressed from the other side of the House were impoverished. If they had fallen, and a Government has risen which does not meet all the requirements of hon. Gentlemen opposite, let us say that that was because the late Government kept them under such an autocratic condition. We realise the difficulties in the way of doing trade with Russia. But why not meet Russia? An agreement which the late Government of this country made was rejected both by this House and the country. Let us leave that and treat it as past history. It is no reason why the present Government should not meet the Russians. I think we should ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will enter into negotiations with the Russians on this point. I do suggest that hon. Members should put aside prejudice and remember that if we are not going to find new markets it is very doubtful if we can maintain any decent standard of living for our population. It is all very well to say that hon. Members on this side of the House should go to Russia and try to persuade them. When we do go to Russia and come back you do not believe us. I should like to see Conservative Members go to Russia. I would read their reports with interest. I do not read only Labour reports. I have read Mr. Keynes' report, and I think it is the best that has been written on Russia from any source. I do suggest that you should try and get in touch with Russia and that there can be no insuperable barrier to 45,000,000 people in this country trading with 200,000,000 people in Russia. I want the Government of this country to see whether it cannot approach Russia and come to some understanding. There is nothing whatever in this Motion to commit you to trading with Russia, but it does give an opportunity for a keen scrutiny of any proposals.

Mr. J. JONES

A great deal has been said in this Debate about Russia and a great deal of slop has been talked by some of my hon. Friends. I am just as much in favour of having friendly relationships with every country as any of those who have spoken in favour of this proposition. We all want to see international trade and international friendship, but some of my hon. Friends have gone out of their way to talk about a revolution in Russia that has not been a revolution. Some of the best men who ever fought against Tsarism in Russia are now in prison under the Bolshevists. You have no right to talk about revolution where men are not allowed to express their views and newspapers are not allowed to oppose the Government. This holding up of a holy Russia gets on my nerves. I am a democratic Socialist and I believe in democracy and accept the rule of the majority. In our own party there are a number of people who always want to hold a candle to the Devil provided that the Devil wears a red hat. It does not matter what his tail is so long as he has got it up.

I would like to support this proposition so far as it means bringing people

Division No. 85.]	AYES.	5.40 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Riley, Ben
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hirst, G. H.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Barr, J.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Batey, Joseph	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Broad, F. A.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Stephen, Campbell
Buchanan, G.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Taylor, R. A.
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Thurtle, E.
Dalton, Hugh	Kennedy, T.	Varley, Frank B.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lawson, John James	Wallhead, Richard C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	MacLaren, Andrew	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Maxton, James	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Grundy, T. W.	Paling, W.	Windsor, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Potts, John S.
Hardie, George D.	Purcell, A. A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hayday, Arthur	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Albery, Irving James	Cooper, A. Duff	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Cope, Major William	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Couper, J. B.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Betterton, Henry B.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Harland, A.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Harrison, G. J. C.
Blundell, F. N.	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hartington, Marquess of
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Briscoe, Richard George	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Haslam, Henry C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Eden, Captain Anthony	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Burman, J. B.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Campbell, E. T.	Elliot, Captain Walter E	Herbert,S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Hills, Major John Waller
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Ford, Sir P. J.	Hilton, Cecil
Chapman, Sir S.	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Christie, J. A.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Holland, Sir Arthur
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Gee, Captain R.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

together. The best friends of Bolshevism are the people who are trying to boycott Russia. It leads the workers in Russia to think that Western European nations are all against them. If we extend the hand of friendship to Russia it might mean the breakdown of tyranny there. We would, as far as we are concerned, break down all barriers that divide people. I never hope to get to Russia, and if I did I do not expect I would get back.

The CHAIRMAN

There is no question of a credit to export the hon. Member.

Mr. THURTLE

Before the Question is put, I would like to ask if we are not going to have some kind of reply from the Treasury Bench to the very formidable case that has been made out.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

A reply was given half an hour ago.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 48;Noes, 133.

Hopkins, J. W. W.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Pielou, D. P.	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Preston, William	Templeton, W. P.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Price, Major C. W. M.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Radford, E. A.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Lamb, J. Q.	Raine, W.	Tinne, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Ramsden, E.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Remer, J. R.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Wells, S. R.
Loder, J. de V.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Salmon, Major I.	White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Lumley, L. R.	Samuel, A. M.(Surrey, Farnham)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
MacIntyre, Ian	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Macmillan, Captain H.	Sandon, Lord	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Sessoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
MacRobert, Alexander M.	Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Womersley, W. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Wragg, Herbert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Smithers, Waldron	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Neville, R. J.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Stanley, Col. Hon.G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	Captain Bowyer and Captain Margesson.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Oakley, T.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. TAYLOR

Before this Clause is passed I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade what has become of the scheme of credit insurance which was announced to be under consideration by the Government some 12 months ago. There is a widespread feeling amongst exporters that such a scheme would be a very real help to bring about an expansion of our export trade, and I would like to ask whether the Department contemplates any alteration in the present administrative conditions regarding the granting of export credits and whether we may look forward to any changes of procedure in the not very distant future. The amount of business done under the export credit scheme is lamentably small when you bear in mind the real purpose of the Acts. Is it due to the fact that the conditions governing the credits are too complicated?

The machinery of the Department in deciding whether or not credit should be given in a particular case takes so long that the order has been completely lost before the Departmental machinery begins to operate. The criticism as to the amount of time that is taken up in deciding the granting of credits in a particular case is not the most important criticism that can be levelled at the present administration. The ordinary credit facilities that are available through the ordinary banking channels can, speaking generally, be used much more expeditiously and economically than the export credit scheme.

I have heard authoritative criticism against the administration of the Acts on the ground that the opinion of the Department after investigation as to the standing of particular exporters and importers to foreign countries has been totally at variance with the facts. Twelve months ago this Department issued a questionnaire to trades engaged in the export trade seeking information as to the possibilities of a credit insurance scheme helping to rebuild our export trade. Has there been any substantial number of replies in which complaint has been made of the difficulties experienced by British exporters to certain countries where there are no British banking facilities?

The problem as I understand it is that in markets like the Balkans, more particularly Bulgaria, and in the Balkan States, there are no British banking facilities, and that a client to a British exporter, although the client may have good local credit, has in order to raise credit to go to a bank controlled by nationals other than British nationals, and that they put up every barrier against British trade by the device of charging exorbitant discount rates, and not only that, but that some of these banks are not above the suspicion of having used inside information respecting trade operations by conveying that information to the competitors of the British exporter who are amongst their own nationals.

Mr. REMER

Did the hon. Member mention Latavia? I am afraid it is not accurate with regard to that country.

Mr. TAYLOR

I have substantial grounds for the statement I am making. A reply which a large engineering firm sent to the questionaire stated that there is "no scarcity of business being given out in machinery the world over. Evidence from the various markets indicates that there is work in abundance being given out but the British manufacturers are not getting their share, the determining factor in the majority of cases not being primarily prices but ability to give the necessary credit." If that statement is true, I want to ask what the Department is doing in allowing this blockade of British trade by British banks to continue. The scheme of credit insurance we were told was being considered long ago?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department)

I gladly give the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks. We did think that system of insurance ought to be investigated. I am glad to tell him that Colonel Peel's Committee made full enquiries. Colonel Peel, unfortunately, had to go to China on His Majesty's business, but I have persuaded the hon. Member for Ripon (Major Hills) to take the Chairmanship, and we have a strong Committee, consisting of:

• Major J. W. Hills, J.P., M.P. (Chairman).
• Colonel O. C. Armstrong, D.S.O., Chairman of Messrs. Greenwood and Batley, Ltd., ex-President of the Federation of British Industries.
• J. Caulcutt, Esq., a general manager of Barclays Bank, Limited.
• Sir William H. Clark, K.C.S.I., C.M.G., Comptroller-General of the Department of Overseas Trade.
• A. C. Gladstone, Esq., Director of the Bank of England, partner in Messrs. Ogilvy, Gillanders and Company.
• The Hon. Sir William Goschen, K.B.E., of Messrs. Goschens and Cunliffe. Chairman of the Sun Fire and Life Insurance Offices.
• Joseph Powell, Esq., general manager of the Commercial Union Assurance Company.
2550
• Eustace R. Pulbrook, Esq., Chairman of Lloyd's.
• Gilbert C. Vyle, Esq., Deputy-President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
• Colonel the Hon. F. V. Willey, C.M.G., C.B.E., M.V.O., President of the Federation of British Industries.
• F. H. Nixon, Esq. {Secretary).
• Arthur Mullins, Esq., C.B.E. (Assistant Secretary).

6.0 A.M

They have been examining this question exactly from the point of view set forth by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), and have done a good deal of work. I do not want to commit them to a date, but I expect I shall have a Report from them within a week or two. We shall, of course, carefully consider action upon the Report they make to us, and we hope it may meet the difficulties which he has explained. There is no doubt, as the hon. Member has said, that the great engineering firms in this country would be better equipped if they could insure themselves against bad debts in the export trade over a long period. I do not think the short-period trade is worth counting on, but the long period, or, as I ventured to call it at Leeds some time ago, a new train line on which to run a train for a long period of three years, is being carefully thought out, and in due course I shall consider what action can be taken upon the Report.

I cannot anticipate what the Report will contain, but hon. Members may rest assured that they have hammered out this thing thoroughly. They have had a large amount of evidence and have given a great deal of thought to it, and we hope that something satisfactory will emerge-from those investigations.

Sir F. WISE

Is that another Government credit scheme?

Mr. SAMUEL

No; but it may be possible to adapt an existing scheme.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow (Thursday).