HC Deb 26 May 1927 vol 206 cc2195-326
Mr. CLYNES

I beg to move, That, having heard the statement of the Prime Minister, this House is of opinion that the termination of the Trade Agreement with Russia and the severance of diplomatic relations would have serious international consequences and close a promising avenue to the restoration of trade and industry, and is, therefore, a policy to which the country ought not to be committed until a Report of a Select Committee, based upon an examination of all relevant documents and a full inquiry into the facts, has been submitted to this House. The first part of the Motion contains language which is but a repetition of utterances in this House and in another place of Ministers who have had to approach this question in the course of former Debates. We declare in the Motion that the termination of the Trade Agreement with Russia and the severance of diplomatic relations will have serious international consequences, and close a promising avenue to the restoration of trade and industry. It is unnecessary that I should remind the House by a quotation of the last occasion on which the Foreign Secretary spoke on the subject of Russian relations, but I can recall clearly the eloquence, the feeling, and the persuasiveness, with which he presented the view that the severance of our relations with Russia would be harmful in the extreme, not only from the standpoint of our internal interests, but particularly in relation to the future peace of Europe. In, perhaps, even stronger language, Lord Balfour in another place has committed himself and the Government to the same point of view. We are entitled to ask, in what way will our internal trade and the peace of Europe remain unaffected by a reversal of the policy to which the Government is now committed? Reversals in the case of this Government have ceased to be a surprise to us.

I understand the view of the Government to be that in this matter Russia is in the dock. We accept that position, but we demand that Russia must not be condemned without trial. We refuse to assume either the guilt or the innocence of Russia, and our Motion declares that, as far as there may be evidence suitable to submit to the test and examination of an appropriate committee, that evidence should be examined, and a verdict given after adequate inquiry. It is the common practice in Britain not to asume guilt until adequate proof has been offered and accepted, and our view is that a decision so grave as this, affecting internal and external affairs, should not take effect until there has been an impartial and sufficient inquiry into the charges alleged against the Soviet Government. [Laughter.] Even hon. Members opposite should for the moment restrain themselves, and not mock at the idea of trying to find the truth. It was not found in Arcos. It was sought for, and every weapon and implement available for wall-breaking and safe-smashing purposes was used to a futile end.

There can be no doubt that there is some Communistic propaganda, not only in this country, but in other parts of the Empire. The party which suffers most from that Communistic propaganda is the Labour party. By every line and course open to us, by word and action, we have repudiated Communistic purposes, Communistic policy and Communistic methods. They are not eligible for association with us, and we decline to act with them in regard to our public and political affairs. We resent and would denounce any proven breach on the part of the Russian Government of any agreement or understanding reached between the two coutries. We will not excuse wrong-doing, and we demand on the part of the Government that their pledge should be binding and honourably observed. In the course we are taking this afternoon we have no partisan motive; the Labour party can reap no political advantage from the course we are taking. [Laughter.] I interpret that laughter to mean that hon. Gentlemen opposite are conscious that they can reap some advantage, and that reinforces the suspicion we have that their motive in this matter is wholly political, and in no sense dictated by consideration of national or international well-being. I repeat that our actions are not determined by consideration of expediency.

We move this Motion because we are honestly convinced that the allegations made by the Government should be probed, and that the truth should be revealed by a proper and effective inquiry. It would appear, as the raid itself was so obviously a failure in serving its purpose, that it has to be justified in the eyes of the country. We understood that the Home Secretary had positive reason to believe a certain document had been stolen, and had been, or was, in the possession of a certain person. We ask, how is it that neither the thief nor the spy was arrested? Why was no one arraigned? If it was known so positively that this document had been stolen and was in the possession of certain persons or person, why was not the step taken of bringing that person to trial? The theft of a Government document is in itself an offence, and if the Government came so near being able absolutely to identify the thief, one would have thought that the person would have been arrested at least on suspicion, and the necessary steps taken to prove the charge against him. But that would not fit in with the Tory mind. Something more dramatic had to be done, and, accordingly, we have had the lurid statement from the Prime Minister. In one part of it he emphasised the offences of a man named Koling. I should like, therefore, to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to what, I think, is a temperate and reasonable reply which appears in the Press this morning, issued by the representative of Arcos. In that reply the Russian representative says: It is possible that Koling has acted against the strict rules issued to the members of the Soviet organisations in this country by the Embassy and the Trade Delegation not to engage in political activities. It stands to reason that it is not always possible to know beforehand whether or not an employé will obey the instructions issued, but any case of disobedience is dealt with immediately, and had the attention of the Trade Delegation been drawn to the allegations made in this case it would have been similarly dealt with. The Trade Agreement, in any ease, contained no clause which makes the Trade Delegation responsible for the contents of the pockets of its employés, any more than the Trade Delegation can be made responsible for the personal views and activities of such members of its staff as happen to be admirers of the Morning Post' or the Daily Mail.' 4.0 p.m.

I suggest that that is an answer reinforcing the appeal we make for an inquiry and our reply to the laughter of hon. Members opposite is that if it is so easy to prove the guilt of these alleged offenders, why not arraign them in the proper way? Why should the Government limit itself to suspicion, or opinions, or beliefs, when it has this offered opportunity of absolutely proving the guilt of those said to be in the wrong? I asked the Prime Minister in the course of Question Time on Tuesday whether, before the Cabinet decision was reached, any representations had been made to the Trade Delegation or any steps taken to arrange some conference or discussion on the alleged offences. The answer was in the negative. While the Trade Agreement provides that in the event of infringement either party is free from the obligations of that agreement, it contains also this provision: It, is agreed that before taking any action inconsistent with the agreement, the aggrieved party shall give the other party a reasonable opportunity of furnishing an explanation or remedying the default. That course was not taken. In secret the Government reached its decision first, without reference to this provision in the Agreement, without making any representations to the Trade Delegation. The Government announced that unless that decision was reversed by the House, effect would be given it. Evidently from the Prime Minister's answer to a question earlier to-day, what he meant by reference to the House was a reference to the tied Tory party which is not to be allowed any freedom and will have to respond to the party whip when it is cracked. I say that in a matter so serious and of such international importance as this the Prime Minister ought not to rely on suspicion, nor on conclusions—he ought not merely to have reasons to believe. Those are the phrases found in the statement which he read on Tuesday. He ought to have proof that will carry conviction not only in this House, regardless of party, but also in the country itself. The methods being followed by the Government are in themselves the closest possible imitation of the Communist method. They are giving to the Communists again one of the finest world advertisements free that they could desire. They are taking a course which cannot defeat propaganda. The policy of the Government will strengthen the propaganda. It will leave astute propagandists even more free, and they will be able to carry on their work with less of a sense of responsibility and with perhaps even greater effect in this or any other country. I present those arguments, believing that there is a case for investigation, and that so solemn a step as this ought not to be taken without the proof we demand.

We are immensely concerned in this matter from the standpoint of work, trade relations, and the improvement of business. We say that the class which in a special degree we may justly claim to represent—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—being the class which fights for its country in time of war and being the class which works for its country in time of peace—we feel deeply concerned at the evil industrial consequences that will follow from this step. I remember a few days after the Great War broke out there was a most egregious and pathetic plea made by representative business men here in the City of London to go on with business as usual—never mind the War—and in a similar way that plea was repeated by the Prime Minister on Thursday when he indicated that in spite of this political severance steps would be taken whereby legitimate trade could be conducted in the usual manner. I can assure the Prime Minister that business men have been intensely busy in the last day or two in endeavours to find out how the Prime Minister can make that assurance good. I should like to have some statement made in the interest of trade which might be, at least, some consolation for men in business, as to how they may hope that trade may be in a normal condition when these extreme measures take effect. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about America?"] What about America? The answer is simple enough; it is this, that unlike ourselves, though America has not officially recognised Russia, she helped to feed her instead of fighting her. Immense sums of money were conveyed from America to Russia.

Viscountess ASTOR

And some from England.

Mr. CLYNES

Russian agents have had far freer access to American territory for business purposes than they have had here, and by an interchange of friendliness and the exercise of greater common sense, America stands very much higher than Britain in the regard of the Russian people.

We have regarded the Prime Minister as having, among many attributes and qualities, some qualifications as a business man. He will therefore know that business is in a very large degree a matter of credit and that credit is a matter of confidence. That confidence is valueless unless you have freedom of movement among the agents and representatives—

Sir COOPER RAWSON

And unless they pay their debts.

Mr. CLYNES

—and therefore we regard as an impossibility that if these diplomatic measures are taken trade should proceed as if nothing had happened between the two countries. You cannot treat a nation as an outcast and freely denounce it from party platforms as dishonest, and then expect that trade will thrive between the two countries. Some questions have been answered in the earlier part of the week regarding a sum of credit amounting to £10,000,000, and in view of the statement of the Foreign Secretary I would like to say that I know, as a matter of fact, that arrangements for the advance of £10,000,000 worth of credit were nearing a stage of completion when the raid took place. There are those in this House who are not ignorant on that point.

Sir EDMUND TURTON

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has knowledge of the so-called arrangements to which he has just referred?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

Will the right hon. Gentleman say from where he got that information?

Mr. CLYNES

I, of course, have no knowledge of the details leading up to the transaction, but I have knowledge of the fact that such a transaction was nearing the stage of completion when the raid began.

Sir E. TURTON

Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to allow me to state for the benefit of the House exactly the position to which he refers?

Mr. CLYNES

I am quite willing to permit the hon. Member to make a statement now or in the course of debate.

Sir E. TURTON

I am much obliged to the right hon. Member. [Interruption.]

Mr. WALLHEAD

We are not having it.

Mr. CLYNES

Evidently the House prefers that I should proceed. [An HON. MEMBERS: "You cannot face the facts!"] Well, then, I say that on the eve of the raid an agreement was in process by which the Midland Bank was to finance orders through the Soviet Trade Organisations; whose orders, of course, to be placed in Great Britain, to the extent of some £10,000,000. This, I am informed, was repudiated officially by the Midland Bank immediately on receipt of news of the raid.

Sir E. TURTON

On a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER

It cannot be a point of Order. The hon. Member had better give the information in debate.

Mr. CLYNES

So far had that agreement gone, and so ripe was the understanding in relation to it, that I have here a, list showing the different classes of work in which that £10,000,000 would have been spent. It is as follows: Machine tools, £800,000; textile equipment, £2,100,000; electrical equipment, £2,500,000; instruments, £500,000—[Interruption and an HON. MEMBER: "Do not you want the trade!"]—equipment for the oil industry, £2,000,000; mining industry equipment, £750,000; tools, £500,000; wire, £200,000; railway equipment, £1,000,000 agricultural machinery, £200,000. These figures make up a total slightly in excess of £10,000,000, but they are estimates. They have been submitted as round figures by those who were parties to the arrangement. All these orders have necessarily been stopped because of the raid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Orders?"] It is not necessary, I think, that I should try to explain the meaning of every word to hon. Members; I can assume a certain degree of intelligence on their part. I say that this prospect of employment in terms of £10,000,000 has been utterly destroyed by the Government policy.

I do not know if hon. Gentlemen opposite have seen a statement this morning, in terms of the very greatest fear, by the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. He does not speak as a partisan. He is not concerned with political quarrels, but he is conscious of the ruinous nature of the course which the Government propose to take, and he so expresses himself. Similarly it will be found, from a report which appears in the "Manchester Guardian," that the great firm of Platt Brothers, of Oldham, a firm which I happen to know well, and which employs some 10,000 workpeople, has communicated its fears in this respect. Indeed, I saw a representative of that firm in this House only to-day, and he has come to London feeling certain that the consequences of this policy and, he has said in a message, that it will be the cause of most serious unemployment in the town of Oldham. Mr. Gilbert Vyle, President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce in his presidential address on 28th April this year, stated that a contract placed in this country for £100,000 would, on the average, provide work for a whole year for 560 men at an average wage of about £3 per week. The orders that would have followed upon the use of the credits to which I have referred would have provided work for 56,000 men, mainly in the engineering and metal trades for a whole year and, as the House knows, those are trades which are more in need of orders than any others.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be interested in a statement from a constituent of his, Mr. Golightly, who is not a man of Labour politics, but is a director of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. He has recently expressed himself in a public speech deploring the raid and dreading its consequences upon the very extensive business which the co-operative societies do with Russia in respect of many and different articles. He says, referring to the operations of the Russo-British Grain Export Company, of which he is a director representing the Cooperative Wholesale Society, that the business had many credits, that it was initiated by a clear credit of £850,000, and that in some cases debts have been cleared off a month before the specified time. I think that is weighty evidence from business and manufacturing quarters as to what are certain to be the consequences of this policy. Our industrial position is not such that we can airily afford to thrust back any potential customer, or to take any line of policy that will remove still further from us this immense market of 140,000,000 people. On Tuesday I asked the Prime Minister, in view of the seriousness of the Government policy, to afford the House such documentary evidence as they could provide in due time for this Debate and a few hours ago I was able to secure what is called a White Paper. I think it might be more aptly described as a bright, diverting, comic publication, for which I did not think any Government in the world would have become responsible. When I pressed for documentary evidence, the Prime Minister replied in these words: We will do the best we can to produce something."£[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1927; col. 1859, Vol. 206.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on!"] The right hon. Gentleman's words appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT and any hon. Member may read them for himself. If the Prime Minister requires any defence in respect of that quotation, he himself is able to give it. I find in this publication some fuller details about these propagandist missionary Communist sailors, and one must be moved by these details when they learn the type of man with which this country has to deal in this matter. Segal, steward … appointed by Burns, some sort of fellow as Quass, dismissed at the request of the crew. Drank heavily, and did not work on the next day. Then there is Adams—not Bill Adams, but "the" Adams. Adams, stoker. A good orator but a bad stoker and a slacker. The other stokers had to do his work for him. Well, we knew that the Government have been in a state of fear, but we did not think they would become so frightened of a few tipsy sailors as this precious White Paper reveals them to be. The real truth is, as claimed boldly and prominently in that section of the Press which supports the Government, that the announcement of this policy is the first fruits of a long campaign. Strained relations between the two countries did not begin in 1927; they began in 1917 and our hostility—the hostility of the Tory party particularly—towards Russia has been undisguised. Those who complain of Russian interference in our affairs were the first to interfere in Russian affairs, and they interfered not through the medium of propaganda or pamphlet or meeting, but through the instrument of invading armies, and by means of every material war agency that could be provided.

Wars, as history shows throughout the ages, produce revolutions as their offspring, and the Russian revolution has become the most eventful, far-reaching and most controversial outcome of the Great War. We ought not to forget that in the course of that war Russia was not our enemy but our ally, and while this is not the moment to think of discussing the phases of the revolution, it is a moment for saying that the present Russian Government is the Government which the people of Russia accept. [How. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is shown by the fact that it exists, and the fact that the Tory party fears it is ample proof of its existence. It has outlasted every other Government in Europe since the end of the War, and it will outlast this Government. I am entitled to put this pertinent question. If the Government of Russia had continued to be aristocratic and plutocratic instead of representing Communist doctrines, would the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards it have been the same as the attitude which they are now adopting? We move this Motion with as great concern for the composure and welfare of our country as anybody can entertain in any part of the House, but we will not take sides for a policy, whether that policy be right or wrong—[Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen cannot argue, they can laugh, and their laughter is an indication that they do side with a policy whether it be right or wrong. We press for this inquiry, convinced that no good results could accrue to our interests from the application of the Government's decision, and believing that in respect of propaganda and internal national interests, the effort to thwart Communist doctrine by this process would be utterly futile, and extremely harmful to British interests.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain)

I must be permitted to express my regret that the Leader of the Opposition is unavoidably prevented from being present in his place to-day. Every Member on this side of the House will regret, as much as those who are more immediately associated with him politically, that ill-health should keep him away, and I am particularly sorry, as I should have liked him, as one who has held the high office that I now hold, to have listened to the discussion to-day, and because, even in his absence, I cannot avoid all reference to what he has said and written. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) has moved a Motion which may be said to Hint a fault, and hesitate dislike, but which shows that he felt it necessary to walk delicately on the path which he has to tread. I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, in the middle passages of his discourse, a little forgot the caution of his opening and made himself the apologist for a Government which cannot be excused. I also regret that the Leader of the Opposition, without waiting for the presentation of any evidence, should, if the ordinary sources of information are correct, have committed himself to a condemnation of the policy of His Majesty's Government from overseas, or from the sea, without having any idea of the grounds upon which that action was taken. I observe, from these same organs of the Press, that the Government of the Dominion of Canada, having taken into consideration the statement made and the evidence produced by my right hon. Friend the other day, have decided, like His Majesty's Government, to terminate the Trade Agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed great concern as to the effects of our action upon trade. The foreign trade of Russia is not the expression of ordinary commercial activities and economic forces. It is, in part, the result of necessity.

Mr. TAYLOR

So is ours.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

Then there is no reason to interrupt. It is partly the result of necessity, and largely an instrument of policy. The right hon. Gentleman has produced to the House information as to the £10,000,000 of trade—or was it of credit?—which was or was not agreed to be given shortly to facilitate trade with this country. I think it is more than a year ago that M. Rakovski came to talk to me, not of £10,000,000, but of many more millions of trade.

Mr. TAYLOR

Was it not Sir Allan Smith?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

No, it was M. Rakovski, who announced to me that he was then in the position, and had the resources, to place these large orders. I begged him not to tell me where or how he intended to place them, as the Soviet Government were apt to attribute to my malign influence any difficulties that they met in their operations. What became of all those millions? When they were no longer required as an instrument of policy, they vanished into space, and no orders were ever placed. But trade is not dependent upon the Trade Agreement; trade is not dependent upon diplomatic representation. The United States of America have done about as much trade with Soviet Russia as we have. [An HON. MEMBER: "More!"] About as much as we have. Never, from first to last, have they been willing to accord recognition to the Soviet Government. Never, from first to last, have they admitted a trade delegation of the kind which we have had here.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

There is a trade delegation in New York.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

There is not a trade delegation of the kind which we have had here. If the hon. and gallant Member will wait to contradict me until he finds me in the wrong, he will interrupt me less often. And yet the right hon. Gentleman says that the result of this refusal of the Americans to recognise the Soviet Government or to give a privileged position to a trade delegation is that America stands higher than we do in the estimation of the Russian people. For trade, for legitimate trade, His Majesty's Government are prepared to give all necessary facilities. Arcos may go on, Russian representatives may work in Arcos, but henceforth they enjoy no special privileges; they are subject to the law of the land in which they live; they are not to be permitted to continue the illicit activities which have been pursued alike by the delegation and by the Soviet Mission in this country. The right hon. Gentleman affected to make light of the papers which we have published. He quoted, I think, from this morning's Press, the statement by M. Rosengolz that Koling might have acted against the strict rules of the Trade Delegation, but that if their attention had been called by us to his improper activities, he would at once have been discharged or called to order; and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to accept that statement as a satisfactory answer to the facts disclosed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the other day. Why, from whom does this answer come? From the man who, as is shown by the telegram of 1st April, was himself infringing, not merely the strict rules which the Soviet Government impose upon their trade agents, but the ordinary courtesies and decencies of international relations.

The right hon. Gentleman and his party ask that the House should demand a Select Committee, and that to that Select Committee the Government should bring all the information in their possession. The Government are not prepared to accept that proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition taught us how such a proposal for an inquiry should be treated. He described it as a Vote of Censure, and he said that if such a Motion were carried he would take the steps which it was his duty to take. We will not accept that Vote of Censure from the benches opposite. We ask from the House a clear expression of their confidence and approval, and if we do not obtain it we, too, shall know what steps it is our duty to take. There is, of course, a great mass of information in the possession of His Majesty's Government, derived from many sources, extending over a long period, out of which we have produced only one or two documents in the Paper which we have laid before the House. We are content to rest upon the information which we have disclosed. We think it unnecessary to produce any more of this information now, and, since it is unnecessary, we think it is undesirable to do it.

But I will give the House some indication of the kind of material that there is. The House may have observed that the other day there was an attempted demonstration, which assumed only insignificant proportions, in front of the British Embassy in Washington. That may not be unconnected with a message from the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs at Moscow to agents abroad, of 9th April, in which he said: It is absolutely imperative to organise in the shortest possible space of time meetings against England and to demonstrate where possible in front of British Embassies and Legations. The information in our possession shows that continuously, without ceasing, in every quarter of the world where the elements of trouble exist, the Soviet Government have sought to take advantage of those elements, to increase the unrest, and to create trouble, above all in those places where British interests could be affected, and so obstruct British trade. It shows that those activities were caried on, not merely abroad, not merely in Asia, but in this country. It shows us that the Zinoviev letter was not the only or the last document. It shows us the baleful part which, throughout the troubles in China, Soviet diplomacy and Soviet agents have played in that country.

I take China as an illustration. Bolshevist activity in China dates back at least as far as 1923. In January of that year, we know that the Executive Committee of the Third International sent instructions to the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist party to exercise their forces for the purpose of striking a heavy and well-aimed blow against the Imperialism of the foreign Powers. We know that they complained that the Communist party in China was devoting insufficient attention to sabotage in foreign enterprises, factories, and works, and that they complained that such a position could hardly be considered normal. In 1924, the Soviet Government established diplomatic relations with China, and M. Karakhan was appointed as Soviet Ambassador at Peking. Instructions from Moscow authorised him to assist in the organisation of methodical agitation and public demonstrations of protest against foreign intervention. On 7th November, at an official banquet, the Soviet Ambassador exhorted the Chinese Government to tear up the treaties between China and foreign Powers. If we come to Shanghai, we know that Rusian money was not alien to the disturbances there. The riot at Shanghai, which originated in an incident in a Japanese mill, took place on 30th May, 1925. On the 11th of that month Karakhan had sent orders to the local committee in Shanghai to enter immediately into close contact with the workmen and their organisation, causing strikes in the Japanese factories and playing an active part among the workmen so that they should not return to work until they received from the manufacturers the satisfaction they demanded. They were instructed to incite the working masses and to report to Karakhan the results of their efforts.

This intervention, these incitements, were not confined to Shanghai. Encouraged by the result of their work there, they took up the work in Canton. On 6th June of the same year the Communist International notified the Kuo Min-tang of large sums of money which they were sending to conduct a militant campaign against Anglo-Japanese Imperialism. This was accompanied by an order to the effect that it was important, in conducting the struggle against Anglo-Japanese relations, to avoid as far as possible encounters with the American, Italian and French residents; it was desirable that the national indignation against the missionary schools should he made use of for dismissing all missionaries as being the real servants and guardians of Imperialism. The result of this agitation was the firing on the English and French Concessions by a procession of demonstrators, which included cadets from the Russian Training Military Academy; the incitement to fire, the order to fire, were almost certainly given by Russians.

Mr. TAYLOR

On a point of Order. Several Members sitting around me are not certain whether the Secretary for Foreign Affairs is quoting from a document or whether he is making a speech, and we would like to know before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds further.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

Every document from which I quote I shall lay upon the Table. I am not now quoting from a. document. I am consulting a memomorandum which refreshes my memory as to the nature of the information that we have had in our possession. The connection of the Soviet Government with these intrigues was well known to everyone in China. It was definitely proved at the time of the arrest at Hong Kong, in June, 1925, of a Soviet citizen officially described in his passport as being at the disposal of the Soviet Embassy. He was carrying a certificate issued on 16th June by the Soviet Agitation Department in Shanghai, ordering him to proceed to Canton for the purpose of organising strikes. When he came up for trial the physician of the Soviet Consul-General at Shanghai attempted to bribe the Russian constable of the municipal police to declare that he had forged the certificate. The physician was arrested in the act of trying to hand over 10,000 dollars to the constable. He was remanded on bail, but preferred to forfeit his bail, and absconded.

I do not propose to carry the story further. This is the class of information, well established, which has been in the possession of His Majesty's Government, much of it for a long time and some of it for only a short time. What does it all show? It shows that the conditions on which alone the Trade Agreement was signed, upon which every succeeding Government without exception has insisted, have been systematically and continuously broken by the other party to the Agreement. The information we have laid shows that privileges accorded to the Trade Delegation were abused, that Soviet House was the seat, not only—I think I might almost say not chiefly—of trading activities, but of political propaganda and anti-British agitation. It shows that the Soviet Mission at Chesham House was engaged in similar activities, a breach of the comity of nations and an abuse of the diplomatic privileges accorded to them; and it shows that both these organs were acting under the instructions and in the spirit of a Government which was pursuing the same hostile policy to the Government with which it professed to be in friendly relations, in every part of the world.

I must, in order to bring home to the House the gravity of this action, recall what has passed between the two Governments. I begin with the Trade Agreement itself. It set forth that the Agreement was subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions: That each party refrains from hostile action or undertakings against the other and from conducting outside of its own borders any official propaganda direct or indirect against the institutions of the British Empire or the Russian Soviet Republic, respectively; and it went on to declare that it was understood that the term "conducting any official propaganda," included the giving by either party of assistance or encouragement to any propaganda conducted outside its own borders. That document was signed on 16th March, 1921. Within six months the Government, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who had signed the Agreement, found it necessary to address a Note to the Soviet Government, of which this is an extract. The Note is dated 7th September: On the above review of the history of the last five months, it is abundantly clear that the conditions on which His Majesty's Government undertook to renew relations with Soviet Russia by the conclusion of the Trade Agreement remain unfulfilled. In spite of all the professions of good faith on the part of the Soviet Government, there have been unabated indications of bitter hostility towards this country and its Dominions and Dependencies. Even apart from the specific considerations to which it is pledged, it seems utterly to have failed to grasp the elementary principles which ordinarily underlie the relations between Governments professedly at amity with one another and naturally jealous of any attack on their own particular institutions. It still appears quite incapable of realising that a constant flow of inflammatory invective delivered by its leading representatives against the existing institutions of this country is an absolute barrier to the renewal of correct relations, and that actual hostile activities by its agents must necessarily prompt the belief that its desire for such relations is insincere. His Majesty's Government have long been loth to believe that the Soviet Government was not as anxious as they themselves to create a more favourable atmosphere than previously existed, in which Anglo-Russian relations could be gradually cultivated till they finally became entirely normal. It has been their sincere desire that the Trade Agreement should not only be carried out, but should be the prelude to better relations between the Governments and peoples of the two countries. Such a future is, however, incapable of realisation if the conditions which have been described in this Note are to continue; and His Majesty's Government must ask for a definite assurance that the Soviet Government will cause these activities, which constitute breaches of the Trade Agreement, to cease. What was the reply? The reply was that a cursory glance over the document was sufficient to enable the People's Commissary for Foreign Affairs to state to Mr. Hodgson that the charges contained in the Note were either unfounded or based on false information and forgeries. So early did the Soviet Government decide on the line of its defence! The Government of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon replied: His Majesty's Government have not made these charges without a prolonged and careful investigation in each case into the sources of their information—sources which it is necessarily impossible in many cases to disclose. They see no reason to recede from or even to qualify a single one of these charges now. That was dated 2nd November, 1921, being the first formal complaint made, and made within six months of the signature of the Agreement.

I pass to 1923, when the Government of that day were obliged to take up the matter again. They said on 29th May, 1923: There remains the all-important question of hostile propaganda carried on by the Soviet Government against the British Empire and British institutions in general. His Majesty's Government cannot conceal their surprise and disappointment that on this point the Russian Note gives no satisfaction whatever. Yet it is on the continuation or the cessation of these activities that the fate of the Trade Agreement depends. It cannot be too emphatically impressed on the Soviet Government that it was the pledge given by it that propaganda would cease—a pledge which is embodied in the text of the Trade Agreement—that rendered the conclusion of that agreement possible, and that the observance of this pledge was and remains an essential condition of it. They accordingly proposed a new formula to cover the case. It was in these terms: 5.0 p.m.

The Soviet Government, acting on behalf of itself and of all associated and federated Governments, reiterates the pledges contained in the Russian Trade Agreement of 16th March, 1921, which were as follows: To refrain from hostile action or undertakings against Great Britain, and from conducting outside of its borders any official propaganda direct or indirect against the institutions of the British Empire, and more particularly to refrain from any attempt by military or diplomatic or any other form of action or propaganda to encourage any of the peoples of Asia in any form of hostile action against British interests or the British Empire, especially in India and in the Independent State of Afghanistan. It then, proceeds: In view of complaints which have been made, the Soviet Government undertakes not to support with funds or in any other form persons or bodies or agencies or institutions whose aim is to spread discontent or to foment rebellion in any part of the British Empire, including therein all British protectorates, British protected states and territories subject to a British mandate, and to impress upon its officers and officials the full and continuous observance of these conditions. The Soviet Government said that that was an extension of their previous pledge; but they undertook it solemnly and promised its observance. I come now to the Note which was addressed to M. Rakovski by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State and Prime Minister. I quote it not for the purpose of entering into any argument about the Zinoviev letter. The information in the possession of His Majesty's Government as to the authenticity of that letter was, as the House knows examined carefully by a Cabinet Committee, including, besides the late Lord Curzon and myself, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead and Lord Cecil, who is also a trained lawyer, and it was the opinion of every member of that Committee that the information in possession of His Majesty's Government proved up to the hilt the authenticity of the document, from its inception in Russia to its delivery in London.

Mr. CLYNES

May I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on that point? I understand the right hon. Gentleman was referring to a document. Has he ever seen the original document, or did the Cabinet Committee in question only have before it copies of the document?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

It has been already stated that we did not see the original document. I refer to this matter because it proves the view which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition took at that time, when he had less information in his possession in proof of its authenticity than subsequently came into our possession. I refer to it for the statement of principle which he lays down as to what the British Government will or will not tolerate, and what are the conditions of diplomatic relations. Let me add that, whether the right hon. Gentleman intended this Note to be published at the time at which it was published, or whether he did not, is also irrelevant. The words which I am going to quote are words which were written in his own hands and which therefore, express his own view. They are as follow: No one who understands the constitution and the relationships of the Communist International will doubt its intimate connection and contact with the Soviet Government. No Government will ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government by which the latter is in formal diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it, whilst at the same time a propagandist body organically connected with that foreign Government encourages and even orders subjects of the former to plot and plan revolution for its overthrow. The Note goes on to recall the previous undertakings which had been given and the fact that the Soviet Government had just signed with the British Government of that day a new undertaking, and it says: His Majesty's Government mean that these undertakings shall be carried out both in the letter and in the spirit, and it cannot accept the contention that whilst the Soviet Government undertakes obligations, a political body, as powerful as itself, is to be allowed to conduct a propaganda and support it with money, which is in direct violation of the official agreement. The Soviet Government either has or has not the power to make such agreements. If it has the power, it is its duty to carry them out and see that the other parties are not deceived. If it has not this power, and if responsibilities which belong to the State ill other countries are in Russia in the keeping of private and irresponsible bodies, the Soviet Government ought not to make agreements which it knows it cannot carry out. I have quoted from this document a statement of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. I will only add that that which in his letter he was charging against the body for which the Soviet Government then and since has continued to disclaim responsibility—I charge it not only against that body and through that body against the Soviet Government, but directly against the Soviet Government and its representatives. The reply of the Soviet Government was of the usual kind. They replied that the letter was a forgery in terms which my predecessor very properly refused to accept.

Mr. WALLHEAD

We still believe it was a forgery.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member, I think, is mistaken. They do not believe it to be a forgery, but they wish him to believe it.

At that point I became responsible for the conduct of foreign relations. I have had a series of interviews with the different Soviet Chargés d'Affaires, and I am prepared to present to the House the despatches in which these interviews are recorded. I think in every one I have warned the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires of our knowledge of these breaches of the Trade Agreement, and I have warned him of the consequences. I do not propose to read them all now, but I will read one or two. On the 1st April, 1925, in reply to a suggestion which he made for a general discussion of our relations, I replied that I saw little use in entering into such general discussions as long as I was under the impression, from which I could not at present escape, that the political obligations embodied in the Trade Agreement were not being fulfilled, and that the influence of the Soviet Government or of the Communist International, whose activities I could not dissociate from those of that Government, was continuously being employed in an unfriendly spirit to British interests. M. Rakovski replied that I could not expect the Soviet Government to renounce its principles. He said that it had its own principles as we had ours, and neither of us could be expected to change them to oblige the other Power. I observed that that was all very well, but that it did not meet my point. Nothing in the principles of the British Government obliged them to adopt an unfriendly attitude to Russia in other parts of the world. If he was under the impression that I had been engaged at Rome or at Geneva in an effort to form an anti-Soviet union, as I had seen suggested in the Russian Press, I might tell him at once that there was not a word of truth in that suggestion. We were sufficiently strong in our own strength to protect our interests, and we had no idea of embarking on any such international campaign but the Soviet Government appeared to act differently. Did he mean that their principles rendered it necessary for them to encourage anti-British feeling in eastern States, or even within the British Empire? If so, it was quite useless for us to enter upon such an examination as he had suggested. I instanced the conduct of the Soviet Ambassador in Peking, and he said that M. Karakhan had perhaps been indiscreet and would amend his ways in future. On 5th November, 1925, I repeated to M. Rakovski what I had said to him before, that I could not enter into any discussion for new engagements while old engagements were not observed. I said that what was needed to improve our relations was a cessation of these hostile activities on the part not only of the Soviet Government but of the Third International. I once more repeated my warning on 13th July of last year in a conversation with M. Rosengolz. I quoted the earlier warning which I had given to M. Rakovski and I said that those remarks were equally true on that day. I was unable to absolve the Soviet Government from responsibility for the action of the Communist International, and said that upon this point His Majesty's Government took exactly the same view as that expressed by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in his Note on the Zinoviev letter. M. Rosengolz spoke of the difficulties that existed between us in the Far and Near East having become less. In that connection I would recall to the House the sketch of Soviet activities in China which I gave earlier, covering the very period with which these words were concerned. He said that, as to what I had said about the Communist International, it was impossible for the Soviet Government to control its activities or interfere with its liberty. It would be contrary to freedom as understood in Soviet Russia. Finally, the House remembers the Note which I addressed to the Soviet Government on 23rd February last. I said in the course of that Note: His Majesty's Government are not concerned with the domestic affairs of Russia, nor with its form of government. All they require is that that Government should refrain from interference with purely British concerns and abstain from hostile action or propaganda against British subjects. But they consider it necessary to warn the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the gravest terms that there are limits beyond which it is dangerous to drive public opinion in the country, and that a continuance of such acts as are here complained of must sooner or later render inevitable the abrogation of the Trade Agreement the stipulations of which have been so flagrantly violated, and even the severance of ordinary diplomatic relations. In the face of all those grave and serious warnings the Soviet Government and their agents continued the activities of which we complain. They have had fair notice. It was given to them many times over, and formally in my Note of 23rd February. Within five weeks of the dispatch of that note M. Rosengolz, to whom it was addressed, was telegraphing to his Government for material with which to conduct a political agitation in this country against His Majesty's Government's policy in China.

Mr. TAYLOR

He denied that. I want to know what evidence the right hon. Gentleman has.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

M. Rosengolz may deny it. I think his denial was confined to the statement that no such telegram had been sent "en clair." The right hon. Gentleman has recalled the words I used earlier this year, or in a previous Debate, when I was seeking, in spite of all that had happened, to preserve diplomatic relations in the hope that by the exercise of patience and forbearance, as the Prime Minister said, probably unparalleled in the relations of two countries. He quoted the words which I used when I urged that we should not break away, and he asks "Why break now?" I think the real question would be "Why not before?" With all this information before us, with these constant and flagrant breaches of the understanding and of diplomatic courtesy and friendly relationships, why not have severed these relations long ago? If we had thought only of British interests, if we had thought only of our own protection, we should have done so. If I pleaded with earnestness, with passion, to the House not to force a decision upon us, but to give the Soviet Government yet another and another chance to mend their ways and to realise the hopes that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs entertained when the Agreement was first signed, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting entertained when they recognised the Soviet Government—if I did all that, if in pleading so I used exaggerated language, do not blame me for it. At least it shows how honest was my endeavour and how long and how patiently I pursued it. His Majesty's Government have in the two and a half years for which they have been responsible pursued their policy of peace in every part of the world. They have co-operated with all who would co-operate with them. They have loyally supported the League of Nations; have helped to add to its authority and to lend it strength. We submitted our own quarrel to the arbitration of the League, and concurred in that decision in the interests of peace. We made in fact a further concession than that which had been required of us.

So, too, at Locarno we set ourselves to work, in collaboration with the Powers who met there, to turn over a new page of history, to try to lay the basis for a reconciliation between those who shortly before had been enemies in arms and even up to that moment were still enemies, though no longer in arms. In all these matters, in our pursuit of peace in every sphere, in our co-operation with the League, and in our partnership at Locarno, there has been but one Government which has refused to co-operate, there has been but one Government which has not merely looked askance at this work of pacification and reconciliation but has sought to hinder it, a Government which is as hostile to the League of Nations and all the League stands for as it is hostile to the other great league of peace, the British Empire. Still we strove, still we continued relations which had become a hollow sham. At last we felt it necessary not to confine ourselves to the spoken warnings which I had uttered again and again, but once more to repeat in solemn form our words of protest and of warning. The Soviet Government have paid no attention to those words of warning. They have shown that they are incorrigible. We have practised forbearance till forbearance was out-worn. We have pushed patience to the point at which further persistence in it would be weakness or acquiescence in dupery. We have even now not sought to engage the action of any other Powers or to embarrass them with what are our problems and our difficulties. But His Majesty's Government can no longer take the responsibility of maintaining diplomatic relations which, so conducted and so abused, are not an instrument of peace but a fresh and continual source of irritation and danger, and in asking from the House a clear and unmistakeable, expression of its approval we have no doubt that the House will give it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I would like to associate myself with what fell from my right hon. Friend about his expression of regret at the fact that the dangerous illness which the Leader of the Opposition has passed through has not enabled him to take part in this discussion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) and I were responsible for negotiating the Trade Agreement which is now coming to an end, and, therefore, I trust the House will permit me to state my views with regard to the wisdom or otherwise of the termination of that Agreement. There are three questions which the House of Commons and the country have to consider. I am afraid the Cabinet did not consider them altogether before they committed themselves to this policy. The first is, whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a break if it is desirable; the second is, whether it is desirable at this stage that strong action should be taken; and the third is, whether the Government have not gone too far, even if that were conceded. With regard to the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a break, if it were desirable to have a rupture between two of the greatest nations in the world, I say at once I think the evidence is sufficient. Quite frankly, looking over the last five or six years, and having regard to the conditions of the Trade Agreement negotiated by my right hon. Friend and myself, I must frankly admit that the Soviet Government have not kept faith. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has quoted our dispatch of 1921. That demonstrated clearly that within six months after this solmen engagement had been entered into it was being infringed. I have no doubt about the evidence, none.

It is no use talking about forgeries. Those of us who know how the evidence comes in, and I quite understand it is impossible for the Government altogether to give away all the methods by which information is obtained. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I know perfectly well that a similar answer was given to me by M. Kameneff when I had the actual documents signed by themselves in my possession. I have it in my possession at the present moment, and I have refreshed my memory by looking at it within the last couple of days. My right hon. Friend saw it just as well as I did. M. Kameneff denied it, and I had to request him to leave the country, which he promptly did. I have no doubt at all about the evidence. The evidence was in the possession of the late Prime Minister, the head of the Labour Government. He knows just as well as we do what that evidence is. I have no doubt there was evidence in 1923, and I could guess what the evidence is. It is evidence which every Government must consider for its security and effectiveness. I want to state my view quite frankly. With regard to the evidence, I am not as troubled as some of my hon. Friends. The Soviet Government have not acted honourably in regard to the Trade Agreement. Personally, I am in favour, and so is the Foreign Secretary, of making considerable allowances for the difficulties of a revolutionary Government. They are very considerable, and a revolutionary Government does not govern under the same conditions as old-established Governments. They are not established, and they do not acquire the same habits of order, and they have very great difficulties, undoubtedly, with the people behind them. In making allowances for all that, and still I say the Russians have not kept faith with us.

I want to come to the question of the wisdom of the action of the Government, but I must state frankly my view with regard to the proceedings of the Soviet Government, and that is only fair. In regard to the Trade Agreement, the conduct of the Soviet Government has too often looked like a clumsy attempt to reconcile a genuine desire to have every advantage of peace with the greatest Empire in the world, with an equally genuine desire to have the satisfaction of witnessing its overthrow. It would not be fair, and it would not be honest, with all I know about the evidence, and the knowledge that assists me to examine the evidence in the possession of the Government now, to the hon. Members whom I represent if I did not state quite frankly that I certainly could not vote for any resolution which does not express unmistakeable reprobation of the continuous breaches of an honourable agreement entered into between the Soviet Government and this country. That would have to be an essential part of any resolution to which I could give my support.

I agree that there has been a great deal of patience—I think wise patience. I think, quite honestly, that the case for this particular note is the weakest of all cases that have been made up to the present. There is evidence of interference, but I agree with the opinion of a Conservative newspaper in Germany which stated that they were rather surprised the Government should have thought it necessary to take such very strong action upon these particular infringements. I asked the Prime Minister the other day to print in full one of the documents upon which he seems to rely, and the effect of that document seems to me to be that it gives too much the impression of straining to make out a case. It is really rather a ridiculous document. It is an extravanganza of incredible nonsense, and I am amazed at some of the statements which have been put into a brief of that kind. My right hon. Friend has already quoted one or two passages from it, and I will quote one or two more, because they are very interesting. It is the general complaint that the Communist party have planted upon the Soviet ships all the rotten and drunken sailors on whom they can lay their hands. Here are a few quotations: Adams, stoker. A good orator but a bad stoker and a slacker. Ramsay, not a sailor. Comrade Glushchenko called us damned lazy swine. Hon. Members will not be surprised to find that afterwards The relations of Glushchenko with the other members of the R.K.P. were exceedingly strained from this time on. I do not think we have ever got so far as that in our public conduct, at any rate. I think, on the whole, the only really valuable part of this document is where the right hon. Gentleman points out the difficulty he has in diplomatic relations between England and the Soviet Government. I think there was a certain air of restriction in that respect, but when you come to the method of propaganda, when you hear talk about training negroes to convert British sailors, I believe the physical evidence of the argument would not be as clear in a case of that kind as it should be. I think that kind of evidence rather weakens the whole case.

I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary something about another document which I, also, have in mind which I thought was a very important document, and that was in regard to the communications about Borodin. I must say that that impressed me because I had heard assurances that Borodin was really a private citizen and was not a representative of the Government, and that he was no more than Mr. Tom Mann who has gone there of his own accord and General Sutton. I attached very great importance to the statement made by the Prime Minister that this was not true. I should like to know now, because it is not apparent on the face of this White Paper who signed the letter on page 29 of the White Paper. In all the documents with which I dealt the telegrams were signed either by Tchitcherin or Kameneff or whoever it might be who sent the despatch from Moscow. What I want to make clear is that this is not something which comes from a political organisation in Moscow, because undoubtedly Borodin was associated with some Communist organisation in Moscow, and he went there on their behalf. Does it mean that the document emanated from the Soviet Foreign Office?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

From the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, and that is the Foreign Office.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Was there any signature attached? In other telegrams the name is given when it comes from the Commissariat.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

That may be so in particular cases.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Now I come to the question of the action taken by the Government after the raid. Whether that was desirable or not is another thing, but I think the raid forced the hands of the Government, and it, was essential, probably, that they should take some action. The question which I am going to put to the House is as to whether the particular action the Government have taken is a wise one. The Government have not considered the action which they have taken under those conditions of calm which are necessary before committing themselves to a policy of such far-reaching importance as the present one. I think the Foreign Secretary has had his hands forced in regard to this breach of relations. I think that is quite evident. If I may say so, I do not think the Foreign Secretary spoke with the same fervour to-day as he did when he was defending the policy of Locarno. In my judgment, I do not think the Foreign Secretary came to the conclusion before the Home Secretary acted that the time had arrived to have a rupture with Soviet Russia. I think that is rather important, and, if I may say so, I think he was right, and I do not think the time was well chosen.

As a matter of fact, the Communist efforts in China have been defeated, and the Government in Russia is undoubtedly the most moderate that we have had up to the present time. I do not know how many Members of this House have read an article in the "Statist" of last week or the preceding week, giving an account of proceedings in Moscow. It stated that Zinovieff had been dismissed by the Stalin Government, and there was a fight going on between the Stalin and the Rykoff Governments and the Zinovieff and Trotsky combination. They have been beaten, the Zinovieff deputy has been driven out and a great conflict is going on. On the whole, the moderate element are getting stronger and stronger in Russia. Now and again the others are strong enough to force that Government into indiscretions, but, after all, the Soviet Government is not the only Government where hot-headed and indiscreet members force the hands of wiser ones.

The only difference is that in Moscow, undoubtedly, the saner elements are getting stronger and stronger, and they are getting a firmer hand on the situation. Here it is exactly the opposite. You had in China the fact that the leader of the Cantonese forces had thrown over the Russian Communists. He had given the clearest proof of good faith by decapitating 100 Communists. It was recognised in Moscow as a complete defeat. The passages quoted in the "Times" and other newspapers from the "Pravda" and the "Izvestia," which appeared in this country were just explanations of that defeat and condemnations of those who brought it upon the Russian policy. There is a defeat for Communism at the present moment in China. I am perfectly certain, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not have chosen this particular moment if his hand had not been forced by his more hot-headed colleague, the Home Secretary, It is very unfortunate that the foreign policy of this country should have been dictated by the Home Office, and not by the Foreign Office, in the most important diplomatic act since the War. Let us examine a little more closely what has been done. I may be asked, "What would you have done?" I am going to answer that. I agree that, once the hands of the Foreign Office and of the Prime Minister were forced by the action of the Home Office, once you had called the attention, not merely of this country, but of the whole of Europe, by a most dramatic act, to what you were doing, you were bound to do something if you discovered anything. [Interruption.] If you discovered anything, you were bound to do it. You did not discover what you sought, but you were bound to take some action. The Government would have looked very foolish if they had not. They would have been taunted with feebleness, and there is no Government that can stand that charge less than the Government that merits it. They were bound to take some action, but they need not have gone to the extreme limit to which they have gone now.

What could they have done short of that? I would point out two or three things that could have been done to emphasise the displeasure of this country with the constant breaches of agreement by the Soviet Government, and I say emphatically that, before you ruptured diplomatic relations altogether, those steps ought to have been taken first. What are they? First of all, we ought to have kept the Trade Agreement ourselves before we broke off relations with Russia on the ground of their infringement of it. For instance, one of the Clauses of the Trade Agreement is that, if there is any complaint, you must communicate with the other party and give them an opportunity of explaining. [Interruption.] That was not done in this particular instance. When you are bringing a fresh charge, it is not enough to say that you gave an opportunity to answer other charges beforehand. Every other charge that was brought forward, in 1921, in 1923, in 1924, in 1927—in every case where specific charges were made, we kept the Trade Agreement ourselves by giving an opportunity to the others to afford an explanation. We made the mistake of not doing so on this occasion. If I am asked, "What would you have done?" I should first of all suggest that there was one step that this Government could have taken, which they have taken, but they have gone beyond it. If they had said, "We will withdraw the special privileges of the Trade Agreement in Clauses 4, 5 and 6; we will place the trading of Russia on exactly the same footing as the trading of any other foreign community, with no special privileges, no special immunity, no 3 kilograms of secret and sealed documents, no particular protection for the man who is at the head of Arcos"—that is one step that they could have taken. There is another step—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

That is exactly what we did do.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is right. I am coming now to the second. They might have said that the men who had been guilty of these breaches of the agreement, who had been found with documents in their possession that were a gross infringement of the Trade Agreement, must be instantly deported. If there was any case where there was espionage such as that which has been suggested by the Prime Minister, then, if the evidence was complete, there ought to have been prosecutions. I should have gone beyond that. I should have said to the head of the Trading Delegation, who was responsible for the discipline of his office, who was responsible for seeing that the conditions under which the office was conducted were in conformity with the Agreement entered into with a Power in whose capital the Delegation was conducting its affairs—I should have said to him. "You have failed in controlling your office, and you also must go." I should certainly have taken those three steps if it were necessary, but I think it is one of the gravest things that have been done in this country, short of embarking upon war, to rupture diplomatic relations with a Power with a population of 100,000,000, occupying an enormous tract of territory in Europe and in Asia, and coming in contact with us at so many points. I think it was one of the riskiest and most hazardous decisions ever taken by a Government, and before they took that—[Interruption.] Hon. Members must really listen to the case I am putting, because I can assure them that I am putting it after a good deal of experience of these matters, and after very grave thought as to the line which ought to be taken. I have not shirked in the least the question of evidence; I have not shirked in the least the question of taking strong action: but I say that, before you took that final step, you ought to have taken two or three other steps which you could have taken without a complete rupture of relations.

I am going to give my reasons. A good deal has been said about a quotation from the Foreign Secretary of what he said. Sir George Cornwall Lewis, whenever he had a brilliant or daring plan put before him, always asked one question—"What is your object?" I ask the same question here—"What is your object in rupturing relations?" I can understand your object in saying, "We cannot give special immunity to Arcos; we have discovered these documents there; we will give them no more immunity." I can understand your deporting everybody who has been engaged in infringing the Agreement. I can understand your deporting the man who, although you could not bring it home to him personally, was responsible for controlling that office. But what is your object in complete rupture? Is the object to diminish propaganda? You have doubled and intensified it. [Interruption.] Does anyone doubt that? [HON. MEMERS: "Yes!"] All I can say is that it is only those who know absolutely nothing as to what was taking place before the Trade Agreement was entered into; and I am going to give some particulars to the House of what was happening before 1921, when the Agreement was entered into. If hon. Members imagine that the propaganda cannot be intensified and doubled and redoubled, they do not know what was taking place before. Is your object to prevent action by Soviet agents which embarrasses us in Asia? Does that stop it? It will make it worse than ever. It was worse before the Trade Agreement. Is your object to promote trade in a country that has a million unemployed? I do not know how much trade will be done after this, but I am certain it will be less. What is the object? My right hon. Friend quoted from the Foreign Secretary. There is an even more remarkable quotation from a speech of the most experienced member of the present Government, and, in my personal opinion, without any reflection upon any of them, and I think they will probably admit it, on the whole the wisest—Lord Balfour. When it was proposed in 1926 to take exactly the same step as the Government have been rushed into to-day, upon evidence just as convincing, just as overwhelming, and I think just as unchallengeable—because I have not challenged the evidence at all—what did he say? I make no apology for reading it to the House, because it is so utterly apt. In June, 1926, he said: I am not at all sure that we ought ever to have gone into relations with Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Very well; let us see whether hon. Members will cheer the next: But there is a great difference between breaking off relations and not entering into them, because the first of these two operations produces disturbances which may go far beyond the confines either of Russia or of this country. The whole of the industrial, financial and economic world, on this side of the Atlantic at all events, is in a most sensitive and embarrassed condition. Nobody doubts that it is in a condition under which it would be the height of rashness, except for a really serious gain to introduce a new disturbing element. I do not see what would be gained at the present time by breaking off relations with Russia. That carries with it obvious dangers. Does it carry with it any obvious advantages? If it does, I fail to see them. Then he goes on to say: It may give you the excitement at the moment of some effective proceeding; it is utterly inefficient. He goes on to point out—I do not want to weary the House with the whole quotation—that in his judgment, as he repeats, there is no advantage to be gained by rupture, but there are many disadvantages, in the condition of Europe.

Mr. ERSKINE

That was a year ago.

6.0p.m.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That was in June, 1926. There was the same evidence, and stronger evidence, at that time—[Interruption]. We knew exactly what was going on in China. Borodin was there. The English papers were full of his activities in stirring up anti-foreign and anti-British attacks the whole time. It was the same case. I ask, what will be gained by rupture? Have we gained nothing by diplomatic relations? I say emphatically "Yes!" Can we derive any advantage from a rupture. I say emphatically "No!" I listened to the Foreign Secretary with great care. He did not point out a single advantage which would be gained to this country by rupture. The question of trade has been rather scoffed at. The Anglo-Russian Chamber of Commerce, in which you have about 300 British firms enrolled, gave the trade we have done with Russia during the last five or six years. It came altogether to about £180,000,000. There were about £20,000,000 worth of textiles and £11,000,000 worth of machinery ordered in this country. I do not know the details of the £10,000,000 transaction. I have heard that it is not a guarantee to Russia but to the traders here who are supplying goods to Russia. I understand that is upon actual orders which have been given and for the purpose of furnishing long credits to enable these goods to be supplied to Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!'] There is an hon. Member over there who knows, and can correct me if I am wrong.

Sir E. TURTON

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I should also like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his courtesy in attempting to allow me to give an explanation, which was frustrated by the hon. Members who sit behind him. I propose to read exactly what the terms of the loan are. The arrangement between the Midland Bank and the Russian Trade Delegation contemplated orders being given in this country for machinery and plant by the Soviet trading organisations up to an amount of £10,000,000. Any proposed contract that was to come under the arrangement was to be submitted for approval by the bank. The terms of any such contract were to include payment of a substantial percentage of the cost before delivery, and bills being given extending over a period of three years and six months for the balance. A deposit was to be lodged with the Midland Bank by the Soviet organisations of a substantial percentage of the amount due on the bills, and a lien on the deposit was to be held by the bank as long as the bills were outstanding. The bank undertook to discount these bills at the ordinary trade rate, retaining a right of recourse against the British contractor in the event of default on the part of the Soviet organisations. No contract has, in fact, been submitted for the approval of the Midland Bank, and, consequently, no agreement has yet come into being. It should be noted that no agreement could come into being until after the approval by the Midland Bank, and the bank is entitled to take all circumstances into account before giving its approval. The statement that a credit of £10,000,000 was given by the Midland Bank to the Soviet trading organisations was wholly unwarranted. In any circumstances, the trade organisations were obliged to find, before delivery of the goods, a considerable part of the purchase price either in direct payment to the contractor, or by the placing of a deposit with the Midland Bank.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving us that very full information. It is substantially what I had heard from traders. It was rather on their guarantee than on the guarantee of the Soviet Government. A number of traders came together. I know of some orders. I know of an order for £750,000. I know perfectly well that that could not have been submitted to the bank, because it was only on the Wednesday before the raid that the negotiations came to an end, and it would be impossible to submit it to the bank, but the traders had discussed it with the Soviet bodies. The orders had been discussed and arranged, and the next step would have been to submit these documents to the bank. The bank was not implicated in the least up to the present moment. But there is the fact that there was an arrangement for giving orders for £10,000,000 of British goods, which would mean about £5,000,000 of wages in an industry which is suffering probably worse than almost any other industry, and that is a most valuable interruption.

But that is not all. There is no doubt at all that it would be an increasing trade. Russia is the greatest undeveloped country in the world and, whatever may be said about the Soviet Government, they are undoubtedly concentrating upon economic development. They are giving orders for machinery for production and for textiles. That would have increased. They have increased year by year their production until they have very nearly come to the level of pre-War, and we have quarrelled with that Government at a moment when we were negotiating an order of £10,000,000 and an arrangement had been made for credit. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Why should you lose that trade?" Does he imagine that the Midland Bank, or these traders, will carry out this arrangement for £10,000,000 with a country where there is a diplomatic rupture? What bank can he find which will even look at it? That transaction has gone. How many traders will carry on when there is a quarrel? It is no use citing the case of America. The answer is the one given by Lord Balfour. There is a great difference between breaking relations after you have begun them and never having started them. You have turned out the Soviet representative, charging him with falsehood. You charge the Foreign Secretary with falsehood. There is a quarrel. There is a rupture. Does anyone imagine that trade with Great Britain will be considered in the same light as trade with America after that? Anyone who does that knows nothing of human nature, and there is just about as much human nature in Russia as there is in this country. With regard to America, we were bound here to enter into some sort of diplomatic relations, because America had never been engaged in war with Soviet Russia. We were bound to make it up formally in some shape or other. But having done so, we brought it to an end, and I am wondering whether it was worth while.

The right hon. Gentleman has presented a case to the House and the Prime Minister has presented a case to the House. They are very deplorable. I am not defending them. On the contrary, I am condemning them. But they must not imagine that the Soviet Republic is the only country that is guilty of these offences. What is the first charge brought by the Prime Minister in his document? It is espionage for the purpose of obtaining information about our Army and Navy. Are we not doing that? If the War Office and the Admiralty and the Air Force are not obtaining by every means every information about what is being done in other countries, they are neglecting the security of this country. Foreign Secretaries know nothing about it. It is not their business, but it is our business to get information. Foreign Governments are getting information about whatever is happening here. As a matter of fact, when the Great War broke out there were no secrets with regard to the machinery of the enemies we fought that we did not know. We knew the number of ships, we knew their guns, we knew their calibre. We knew even their spies and could have laid our hands on them at any moment, and we did so at the right moment when it suited us. These things cannot be done in one country without the Government knowing it. All the same, it is the business of Governments to find out exactly what is being done about armaments in every part of the world. It is their business to do it. If the Soviet Government are doing it they are offending in common with every other Government in friendly relations with us in the world. As a matter of fact even when you come to lying diplomacy, it did not begin with Litvinov. Queen Victoria called attention to the same thing in her letters with regard to Russia in 1878, when she said, "You never can believe the Russians". What about the famous speech of the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished father, when the Foreign Minister of the Czarist regimé lied about Port Arthur and said the Russians did not intend to go there, and went there? He made a speech in which he said, "If you sup with the devil you must have a long spoon."

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

I should prefer not to sup.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I agree! He was wise enough never to have proposed a rupture of diplomatic relations with that country.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

It was about the Kaiser.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It was about Russia, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it very well. There have been charges about propaganda. The Russian Government conducted a propaganda here between 1876 and 1878, and everyone knows now how their agents went about. They were even in high society at that time. There are extraordinary stories which are quite well known about their activities on that occasion. It is the old story. As for employing agents to stir up trouble, that is not a new experience of Governments to bring pressure upon others. One of the great speeches delivered by Disraeli in this House was the attack upon the Whig Foreign Secretary because they had sent agents to the Black Sea intriguing against Russia, with the result that Russia retaliated by sending agents against us. One of the reasons for the Entente was to put an end to proceedings of that kind. Fashoda was not an official incident, but was repudiated at the time, and the Entente undoubtedly removed things of that kind. These are things which have undoubtedly happened in the past. It has been taken as a reason for remonstrance, for taking strong action, but never for diplomatic rupture in the past. The right hon. Gentleman has, in my judgment, taken a very ill-considered and a very rash action. He has done it at a time when, undoubtedly, it was slowing down. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the documents which appeared in the "Daily News" this morning—I do not know from where the documents came—implicating Soviet Russia in activities in China. I have no doubt at all it shows that the Russians were fairly active. What is the complaint that is made there by the Chinese Communists? That they can never get an answer from Moscow. They can get nothing from them. They only sent 700 rifles. They only spent 20,000 dollars. That is not what a country with which you have a diplomatic rupture can do. It is a complaint that they are stingy and slow, which means that the Stalin Government and the moderate elements in that Government were gradually restraining the activities of those people who were provocative and making mischief for us.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Government—they have broken with Russia—have they considered how they are going to resume? They can only resume upon the word of the Russian Government. For what are they waiting? Are they waiting for the Romanoffs? We waited for 25 years for the Bourbons, and, meanwhile, there was a devastated Europe. For whom are you waiting to give you a word? Mr. Tchitcherin? You cannot take him; he has signed these documents, and is broken and has failed. Mr. Litvinoff's signature you cannot take. Stalin's signature you cannot take. Trotsky you certainly cannot. You cannot be looking to Zinovieff. Whose word in Russia are you going to take in order to resume negotiations? [An HON. MEMBER: "Kenworthy!"] It is no laughing matter. The hon. Gentleman knows very little about these matters. He seems to think it is a matter for merriment. If he reads the speech of Lord Balfour and the speech of the Foreign Secretary at the same time, when he points out that a rupture of negotiations will embarrass Europe, he will realise that it is a case, at any rate, to be considered with the gravity becoming this great House of Commons. I ask him again, whose word will they take? The fact of the matter is, it is not a miscalculation. There was no calculation at all. I think they slipped into it without consideration. It is a mess into which they have got, and a serious one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not as bad as you got into!"] That is an unworthy observation, which I do not think I merit from the part I have played in this country. I am honestly concerned for the interests of this country, and I say it is a serious mess.

I remember diplomatic relations being broken with a small State. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member of that Government. We broke diplomatic relations with a very small country, Serbia. There appeared to be complete justification. Everybody in the House and in the country were rather pleased with it. We found that it was impossible to keep it up, and with the same Government, the same people, the same assassins, as we called them then, we had to make terms and to send our ambassadors, and the same people were our allies afterwards in 1914. Breaking diplomatic relations, cutting off the wires of a great country, is a serious business. You cannot treat is as if everything were going on exactly as it did before. It will not. In my judgment, the thing you are thinking about would be infinitely worse. There were 24 Powers that had recognised Russia, following, undoubtedly, our lead—24 Powers, friends of ours, allies of our. France to-day has proclaimed openly, officially that it makes no difference to her. We shall be completely isolated in this respect in a Europe which is full of trouble. Nobody knows that better than the Foreign Secretary, and he has been doing his very best to try to secure a pacific Europe.

What is the trouble in Europe to-day? Immediately after the War the danger was Communism. The danger to-day is an aggressive nationalism. It is the trouble which you get in Italy and South-Eastern Europe. It is the trouble which you get in the Balkans. It is the trouble which you have got on the Eastern Frontier of Germany, where there is a much more powerful party than the Communist party in favour of aggressive action. That is the trouble to-day, and into this troubled Europe—I am quoting the language of the Foreign Secretary, and the language of Lord Balfour—you throw this stone, this bone of contention. It is a leap in the dark and a leap into a whirlpool

Mr. RENTOUL

I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words this House, while appreciating the long forbearance of His Majesty's Government and their many efforts to maintain friendly diplomatic relations with the Soviet Republics in the face of acute provocation, applauds their decision to withdraw the diplomatic privileges which have been so gravely abused, whilst at the same time putting no obstacle in the way of legitimate trading relations with Russia. No one would be inclined to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in emphasising the gravity of the situation. There will be only one opinion on this side of the House, at any rate, and, I believe, in circles outside this House, as to the extraordinarily unhelpful character of the speech we have just heard.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Why should he help you?

Mr. RENTOUL

I was not using the word "unhelpful" from the party point of view, but from the point of view of the country. In a, Debate of this kind it is, of course, highly desirable that as many different points of view should be expressed as possible, and, therefore, I for one certainly do not intend to trespass on the time of the House for very long. In view of the terms of the Motion that has been moved by the Opposition, some hon. Friends of mine and I felt that it was not only desirable but essential that an Amendment should be tabled which would more accurately and truly express our opinions and, what we believe to be, the view, not only of the majority of this House, but of the overwhelming majority of our fellow-countrymen. I must confess that the attitude of some hon. Members opposite in regard to these questions of foreign policy, and particularly in regard to Russia, is a matter of genuine and unfailing surprise and regret to many of us on this side of the House. Whenever any dispute arises between this and another country it is indeed difficult to understand why hon. Members are always so ready to accept without question the assurances and statements of foreign spokesmen, and are so suspicious of the good faith of our own, are so ready to suggest that their own fellow-countrymen have been guilty of every kind of disgraceful and even criminal conduct, and should be so unwilling to do anything to enable us, no matter how acute our domestic troubles may be, at any rate, to present a united front in the face of the world.

Let me give one illustration in passing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) suggested that the Government were willing to condemn without trial and without affording an opportunity for the prisoner to bring forward his defence. I wonder if he himself always acts up to that admirable maxim, because I notice that only last Saturday, when speaking at Manchester, the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have used these words: The Government have done good work in the matter of forgery. Evidently the Tory party can reap greater profits from forged documents, etc. Either that means what it says, or it does not. If it is intended to be taken literally, then, I say, it is an utterly indefensible suggestion to be made by any responsible statesman. If, on the other hand, it is not intended to be taken literally, I think the country, at any rate, has a right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman will speak with a greater sense of responsibility and not indulge in oratorical hyperbole of that kind.

There was a statement in his speech with which every one of us, I think, would be in entire agreement when he announced that the truth was not found in Arcos. One has heard of Truth being found at the bottom of a well, but certainly the last place I should look for the truth would be in the subterranean chambers of Arcos. So far from recording or suggesting that the action of the Government is precipitate, this Amendment seeks to emphasise three main points. The first point is the unexampled patience of the Government in the face of acute, long-continued and persistent provocation. The second is, the unprecedented abuse by official Soviet representatives of their diplomatic privileges. Thirdly, it intends to emphasise the entire readiness of His Majesty's Government, both in the past and in the future, to carry on legitimate and bona fide commercial and trading relations with Russia, provided, of course, that the necessary basis of good faith and fair dealing can be established.

The Amendment also upholds the decision of the Government as being the only course consistent with the prestige and self-respect of this country, in the face of a bitter and relentless foe. Does anyone deny that the provocation that we have received has been acute, or that the patience manifested by the Government has been altogether exceptional? The only justification for the Trade Agreement of 1921 was a sincere desire to create a better understanding and closer relationship between this country and Russia; but so unsatisfactory were matters, even from the start, and even within a few months of the signing of that Agreement, that a further solemn undertaking had been entered into—it has already been referred to, and I need not trouble the House with it—in which each party to the Agreement pledged themselves to refrain from indulging in hostile acts of propaganda. There have been warnings and protests innumerable as to the breach of those undertakings addressed to the Soviet Government by every Government since the Agreement of 1921, including the Socialist Government. Innumerable instances could be given. One might remind the House of the money that was proposed to be sent from Russia to this country during the general strike, and for which a special authorisation for transfer was obtained from the Soviet Commissariat of Finance, in spite of the fact that his attention had been called to the illegal nature of what was taking place in this country at that time.

Then there were the large sums of money which were sent here during the coal strike. The suggestion is made that that did not come from the Soviet Government, but was simply animated by the desire to alleviate the sufferings of the men out on strike. Do hon. Members really believe that that money which was sent during the coal dispute of last year was sent from purely disinterested motives, and not with a desire to create political difficulties in this country? In addition to that, there was the bitter anti-British campaign in China, which was instigated and fomented by the Bolshevik Government through the notorious Borodin and others? No one has condemned in more emphatic terms the action that was taken there than the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). His speeches and writings have been frequently quoted, and I only desire to give the House one short extract, taken from an article in the "Daily News" on the 29th January of this year. The right hon. Gentleman said in that article: The violently anti-British character of the rising in China is largely due to Bolshevist inspiration. The Soviet Press claims credit for having provoked the trouble there. A resolution recently passed by the Executive of the Communist Internationale called upon the Communists in the country to concentrate upon support of a world revolution in Britain and China. Wherever there is a prospect of stirring up trouble, they, the Bolshevists, are there.

Mr. MAXTON

What is the source of that quotation?

Mr. RENTOUL

It is a quotation from an article written by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley. Those being the right hon. Gentleman's views, the only suggestion that he is able to put forward at this juncture is that this matter should be submitted to a Select Committee. All the protests that have been made have been treated with absolute contempt. The Prime Minister's statement to the House the other day called attention to their direct complicity in the disappearance of secret documents. There is a very real distinction to be drawn between the activities of a secret service, which is a recognised and necessary part of the organisation of any country and of every country, and the breach of a solemn undertaking and of diplomatic privileges by the use of what is ostensibly an ordinary peaceful trade organisation, for the purpose of collecting military information. A further serious point in The Prime Minister's statement called attention to the action of the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires in soliciting information about affairs in China in order to use it for political purposes here.

A certain amount of scorn has, apparently, been directed by hon. Members opposite against the White Paper that has been issued. I doubt whether the people outside this House will quite share the view of hon. Members opposite in regard to it. They will, no doubt, have an opportunity of reading it, through the medium of the Press. I only refer to it for the purpose of reminding the House of the very last document which is included in the White Paper, which is a telegram from the Soviet Chargé d' Affaires in London, to the Commissariat of Foreign Affaires in Moscow, dated the 18th of the present month. That telegram says: Among a number of rumours as to the nature of the missing document, there is also a supposition that it relates to the aerial bombardment of—. The name of the place is left out. I consider it expedient for you to publish as a rumour a statement that it refers to the aerial bombardment of a certain European capital. What is the meaning of that? It is a direct and deliberate attempt on the part of the official representative of the Soviet Government in this country to encourage his own Minister of Foreign Affairs to try to embroil this country in possible hostility or, at any rate, unfriendly relations, with some other country, by suggesting that we were preparing in advance for the aerial bombardment of one of their cities. If that document stood alone, whether it is taken in conjunction with what happened previously or not, it would be sufficient to justify the action of the Government. In view of all these facts, is it really suggested that we should now refer this matter to a Select Committee, in order to ascertain whether the Government are telling the truth or are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to present to this House and the world documents which are, in point of fact, forgeries?

Mr. JAMES HUDSON

You have done it once, and you will do it again.

Mr. RENTOUL

That being the suggestion, all I would say in regard to the proposal to submit this matter to a Select Committee, that a more inappropriate, inadequate, unjustifiable and insulting proposal it would be difficult to conceive. The main argument, and the only substantial argument, that has been advanced against the decision of the Government with regard to the breach of relations with Russia, is the alleged injury that it is likely to do to our trade. If it were true that it will do great injury to our trade, it would be a serious but by no means a conclusive argument, because trading between countries is very similar to trading between individuals. You may have satisfactory commercial relations with a particular individual, provided he meets his obligations promptly, although you do not possess a very high opinion of his moral character. But no matter how promptly he meets his obligations, you cannot have satisfactory trading or any other relations with him if you are convinced that he is endeavouring to set fire to your house or to do you some grievous bodily harm.

What are the facts with regard to our trade with Russia? I should be very reluctant to quote figures to the House, and I do not propose to do so except for the purpose of showing what is the general situation in regard to this matter. In 1920, before the Trade Agreement was entered into, our imports from Russia were, in round figures, £33,000,000, and our exports to Russia £16,000,000. In 1925, several years after the signing of the Trade Agreement, the imports from Russia were £25,000,000 and the exports £7,000,000. During the years 1920 to 1925 our imports from Russia exceeded our exports and re-exports to Russia by about £39,000,000. What do these figures show? Surely, they show that the Trade Agreement, as such, has a very little effect on the trade carried on between this country and Russia. Consequently, from the trading point of view we are infinitely more important to Russia than she is to us and except in so far as the Bolshevik Government are willing, for political reasons, to cut off their nose to spite their face, I do not believe the suggestion that they will find it economically possible, from their own point of view, to refuse to obtain from us the goods which in many instances we alone are in a position to supply.

Mr. TAYLOR

Do the figures quoted by the hon. Member include shipping, insurance and freight?

Mr. RENTOUL

I do not think they do. They are the figures which have been quoted previously in this House, which have been given in reply to questions as to imports and exports.

Colonel GRETTON

Do the figures of exports from this country to Russia include merely manufactures or raw materials and re-exports?

Mr. RENTOUL

They include re-exports as well. I am only quoting these figures to show the general proportions, for comparison, of the trade coming into this country from Russia and the benefit that our trade is to Russia. No one on this side of the House nor anywhere else, I suppose, would be foolish enough to deny the enormous potential importance of the Russian market, or its vast resources. I have a very special reason, as representing a fishing constituency, to appreciate the importance of the Russian market, and certainly I would welcome the suggestion that no obstacle will be placed in the way of legitimate trade between this country and Russia. I believe that the political outlook in Russia as it exists at the present time is bound to be a passing phase. Whether it lasts a short time or a long time, so long as and as soon as Russia is willing to accept the ordinary principles of fair dealing between nations, it is made perfectly clear that there can be and will be no obstacle placed in the way of any legitimate trading connection between the two countries. But until that happens, there cannot be such satisfactory relations. For all these reasons, and having regard to the history of the past few years, I believe the action of the Government in definitely and firmly refusing any longer to accord diplomatic privileges where they have been so grossly abused, and in refusing any longer to tolerate a secret and open campaign of treachery and deceit being carried on in our midst, and with the connivance of the accredited representative of a nominally friendly Power, is one that will commend itself to the overwhelming majority of our people, as well as to the judgment of this House.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE

I beg to second the Amendment.

Every hon. Member, I think, realises the seriousness of the step which the Government have taken. I do not wish to rake over the ashes of the past, and I am not one of those who disapproved of the original agreement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) in 1921. When the trade agreement was first signed it was perfectly right for us to try to get on better terms with Russia, and in order to do so we gave a slightly preferential treatment to a completely new form of government which up to that time was unknown in the history of the world. There were many objections to treating Russia as you would treat any other country. At the time this experiment was made the Coalition Government were certainly right. But we have to think, not of what was right in 1921, but what is right in 1927. We entered into the trade agreement with a genuine desire to improve the relations between Russia and this country. We also desired to benefit our own traders, and we placed no obstacle whatever in the way of Russia trying to benefit her own people.

What has the Trade Delegation been doing all this time? I admit there has been a certain amount of legitimate trade, but it has not been proved that the trade between the two countries has been more or less because of the existence of the Trade Delegation in this country. This Trade Delegation, however, has been suspected for a long time, and rightly suspected, of using its privileges for purposes other than those of trade. It may be said perfectly logically and candidly, that if the Government have known this for some time why have they not acted before; if it has been known that the Soviet Embassy at Chesham House has been the centre of intrigues not only in this country but in the British Empire, why did not the Government act before? I think the reason why they did not is a perfectly justifiable one. They wanted to make this experiment, started in 1921, a success and to give what is, perhaps, an unreasonable latitude to the Soviet Government in an endeavour to bring them to their senses.

What has been the result of all appeals for a better sense of decency on the part of the Soviet Government? What has been the result of all our exhortations and remonstrances? What has been the answer to the very serious letter written by the Foreign Secretary only last February? They have all had the same effect. Every time we have been smitten on the one cheek and have turned the other cheek they have smacked us on that cheek even harder. The Foreign Secretary's cheeks must be absolutely raw by this time by the smacks he has had from the Soviet Government. What is going to be the effect of a rupture with Russia? We are told that is going to drive the propaganda, which admittedly exists in Soviet House and Chesham House, underground. That may be so, but if it be so, and even if the propaganda be worse than it has been, we shall have the knowledge that we are acting in a perfectly logical and honourable way and are not deliberately encouraging people to come to this country and after they get here intrigue against our interests. In future, Russians will be allowed to come here and trade on exactly the same terms as any French or German trading company. There is nothing which destroys the liberty of an individual Russian to trade with an individual Englishman. Every Russian will be put on an equality with, other nationals.

Surely there has been a great deal of false sentiment about Russia in the mind of the Labour party. Suppose an Italian company had been proved to be carrying on these intrigues in this country in favour of the Fascists. Suppose an Italian company had been raided and Fascist intrigues had been discovered. I do not say that the Italian Chargé d'Affaires would have come to the Rouse of Commons and asked the Deputy Leader what he was going to do; I do not think the whole of the Labour party would have risen in wrath and demanded why the Government took this unprecedented step. I think such action would have been welcomed by hon. Members opposite. When I first came into this House the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) made a speech in which he said, "Why all this talk about Holy Russia? I am tired of Russia". We are quite willing to recognise Russia as a country different from our own, but we want them to carry on in their own country and not interfere with Great Britain.

I welcome the decision of the Government to put the Russian Trade Delegation out of the country, to close the Russian Embassy and treat Russians in the same way as we treat all other foreigners. We must destroy this image of Holy Russia. They are no better and no worse than other people, and certainly they are no better than our own people. I am convinced that when the Trade Delegation has been removed and the Russian Embassy closed there will be no one in this country who will be one penny the worse off on account of lack of trade, and it will give enormous satisfaction to every decent-minded man and woman in this country to know that we are treating Russia as she deserves, in not continuing a preferential treatment which she has so grossly abused.

Mr. MAXTON

I am always interested by the way in which junior Members on the Government Benches usually interlard their speeches on every subject before the House with little homilies to hon. Members sitting on these benches as to how they should conduct themselves. It entered partly into the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, but not to the same extent as in that of the Mover of the Amendment. He suggests to us that hon. Members on these benches are always prepared to believe every other country rather than their own. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Apparently, there is a widespread approval for that point of view. I know it is a popular platform point, but whether it has any truth in it or not is another matter. After all, a country has no voice, it does not speak, and when I get a report from an avowed enemy of the Labour movement, whether it is in Russia or China or India, I do not believe that statement because it is made by an Englishman. I want to hear the views of accredited representatives of working-class opinion in these various countries, and hon. Members can take it from me—I do not speak for anyone but myself—that I would rather believe a man holding my own political opinions on political questions, whether he is a Russian, an Italian or a South African, than believe the word of a political opponent, even supposing he is of British nationality.

I am prepared to take the word of hon. Members opposite about dogs or motor cars, about food and wines—I do not say that I should follow their example—but on a matter of political importance and certainly on a matter as between the capitalist classes and the working classes, I would go to Members of my own faith and not to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that is not being heretical and unpatriotic. My local patriotism and that of my hon. Friends around me has been so obtrusive in this House that hon. Members opposite are now objecting to it. I love my country and the particular bit of it which I represent. I love the people round about me. I know them. I know whether they are worthy of my affection, and they know whether I am worthy of theirs. That is more than hon. Members opposite can say. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Do hon. Members opposite suggest that their social relations with their constituents are the same as my social relations with my constituents?

Viscountess ASTOR

Yes.

Mr. MAXTON

You do not live in the same kind of house. I know you sometimes take your constituents to your house and walk them through the premises, but your relationship with your constituents is not the same as the relationship which exists between a working-class representative and the working classes.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

You are a professional gentleman, not a working-class man.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON

The hon. and learned Member is trying to be polite, but, candidly, he is merely being offensive. I have thought it necessary to say this in response to the views put forward by hon. Members opposite; but it is not my main purpose in rising. We are putting forward a Motion for an inquiry into the whole matter which has led to the present rupture. The noticeable thing of the Debate is that never once during the Foreign Secretary's statement did the right hon. Gentleman make any single reference to the document that was the excuse for the raid upon Arcos and the Russian Trade Delegation, and which in turn is the excuse for breaking the Trade Agreement with Russia. I hope there is going to be an opportunity for the House of Commons to find out something about this precious War Office document that was the beginning of all the trouble. If we are not going to have an inquiry we should have some explanation as to how it was possible to take this document, which the right hon. Gentleman told us had been attempted twice before, certainly more than once—a document vital to the nation's safety—from the archives of the War Office, which, presumably, has the right to call upon the whole British Army for its defence, which has locks and bolts, a responsible Minister at its head and responsible officials in charge of its various departments. Yet at the third time, some unknown person, whose name is not disclosed, is able to take this document away and the Home Secretary and the Government who could not prevent its disappearance, come to this House and tell us that they have got first-class, reliable and unchallengeable evidence that it was in the Arcos premises. Who is going to believe that but a fool or a blithering idiot? I hope that that fact alone will justify the Government in acceding to the request from these benches for the full inquiry into the whole circumstances of the case.

Then they proceed from the abortive raid for the lost War Office document, and they produce a White Paper, which, the suggestion is made, was built up on the evidence secured in the raid on the Arcos premises. That was the suggestion, but an examination of the documents shows that the big proportion of the material has nothing whatever to do with the Arcos raid, and is absolutely unsubstantiated, except in the way that the Foreign Secretary accepts and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) accepts—that there are in this country, and in foreign countries acting for this country, a number of agents whose names cannot be revealed, who are pursuing one of the most dishonest and dirty trades in which a man could engage, and that their word is to be taken, the word of professional paid liars, to justify this House and this Government in making a, complete rupture with a country with whom relations during the last few years have been reasonably good, as far as trade and commerce are concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As far as I know, the relations between the commercialists of Russia and of this country have been perfectly good. The politicians of Russia and those of Britain have had a whole lot of disputes. Even Labour politicians have had disputes and quarrels with the Labour Socialist politicians of Russia, but, as far as I know, there have been no quarrels between the people who were carrying on business in this country and the representatives of the Russian business community.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL

There is no Russian business community.

Mr. MAXTON

I sometimes get angry, and when the hon. Member starts to stand up for the best things in British commercial life, I begin to get seriously annoyed.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL

My only point is that the foreign trade of Russia has been with the Russian Government, and there are no Russian commercialists at all.

Mr. MAXTON

The hon. Member does not merely disclose his lack of knowledge of Parliamentary affairs which is always obvious, but he also discloses his complete lack of knowledge of commercial affairs in Russia. I thought he knew something of business matters, but this proves he does not. I have in my hand a statement by the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Does it not exist? It is presumably not acceptable to hon. Members opposite. It is acceptable to those who have established post-revolution relations, but very inacceptable to those who are merely worrying about debts incurred by the Czarist Government. That is really why this dispute is still in existence. Those are the people who want to let debts dominate the future, but others want to start with a clean sheet. Not a single Russian peasant or a single member of the Russian working classes incurred those debts. If there are debts in Russia, it was not the Russian working class who incurred them. I only raise the question of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce to indicate to my hon. Friends below the Gangway that while I know that a huge proportion of Russian trade, productive and distributive, is under the control of the State, yet everyone knows that they have in the Soviet Government developed a whole lot of private enterprises and encouraged British business men to engage in enterprises of one kind or another. Is that questioned?

Mr. SPEAKER

If the hon Member's remarks are addressed to the Chair, it will tend to the better conduct of the Debate.

Mr. MAXTON

The point is that this trade, which has been carried on in a perfectly friendly way between the persons who have actually engaged in it, is to be put a stop to because, presumably, certain Russians have carried on Communist propaganda, and because they have broken an honourable agreement that was entered into not to engage in any espionage or other work of that sort. I am at a loss to understand the nature of this Trade Agreement. It was not, if I understand it aright, a unilateral agreement. If I read the position correctly, at the same time as the Russians gave us certain undertakings as to their conduct and the conduct of their representatives, by the very same Agreement we gave exactly the same guarantees to the Russians. The Foreign Secretary to-day told us he had the most complete and convincing evidence that the Zinovieff letter was not a forgery, and that he had that evidence right from its production at Moscow to this end. What does that mean? I was on a small committee representing this party which investigated, with much less power at our command than the Government has, the whole of the processes of the Zinovieff letter. I came to a different conclusion from that of the right hon. Gentleman, but I came to this very definite conclusion—and it stuck out all over the place—that you could get to a certain point in your investigations, and then you came up against the spy whose life, identity and everything else must be protected at all costs.

The evidence on which the right hon. Gentleman founds himself, in declaring the Zinovieff letter is a genuine document produced in Moscow, is evidence supplied to him by a paid spy of the British Government, acting in Russia during the period when we were under an honourable understanding to take no action of that sort. I know there will be some fine shades of distinction drawn. I know in this House it is not correct for me to call the Home Secretary a liar, but I may perfectly legitimately find any beautiful periphrase to carry out the same idea. That is order in the House of Commons, and that is exactly the position as I see it in the world of foreign diplomacy—that you must use the proper language. I notice the Foreign Secretary, in describing his interview with M. Rosengolz, said that, in reply to a certain question that he put to him, he shrugged his shoulders. That is a most useful diplomatic weapon. If the Russians had only learned to shrug their shoulders, and had learned the correct phraseology, and if they had only learned to speak with two tongues and leave no evidence in writing behind, then Russia would have committed no fault.

When an hon. Member on these benches the other week, with the purpose, I have no doubt, of casting discredit on the Soviet Government, asked the Minister of War about the production of poison gas in Soviet factories, hon. Members will remember that the Minister of War in reply gave very great particulars, and told us that probably Russia was the biggest producer of poison gas in the whole world. I emerged from my obscurity for the moment, and asked if he would disclose the source of his information. He said, "No, decidedly not," and I fell back with a thud into the obscurity from which I had emerged. Where was that information got? It applied to the current period. Where was it got? Why should we start now in these days, when the whole of our past history can be read, and say, "Stand off; we are better than that." If hon. Members read through the whole history if this country, at any given moment we never did these things, but 20 years afterwards the persons who did them have in a book told the whole of the country how it was done. We are doing it now. When I came to this House I believe I was as innocent as the Russians, and as simple and as honest, and with the same absolute religious fervour in my heart to help to set the working classes free. I believe it had stopped, and that it only existed in the pages of fiction, such as Edgar Wallace, Phillips Oppenheim and William Le Queux. But here we find it to-day all round about us, and each Foreign. Secretary and each head of a Department in succession is prepared to live on these lines.

Let me leave the House under no delusions. My sympathies are absolutely with the ultimate aims and objects of the Russian Soviet Government. Make no doubt about it, that if their powers of propaganda in this country have been injured in any way by this attack on the part of the British Government, I will do my personal best to make up for it. I believe that the capitalist system of society makes for nothing but poverty and degradation. I believe that before there is a possibility of world peace, of world comfort, of world security, capitalism has to be overthrown in every country in the world. I believe that most profoundly and most sincerely, and I will work for it with all the power I possess. But the fact that these men stand for a different social order, the fact that they push their propaganda for that new social order in every corner of the globe, just as Great Britain preaches British Imperialism in every corner of the world, does not justify this action. You talk about Borodin here to-day. It reminds one of the way in which we were supposed to tremble when we heard the names "Kruger" or "Napoleon." Right throughout history there was always a bogey. You talk about Borodin and his pro-Russian propaganda in China. Every week since the trouble began in China I have had sent to me a publication in English which contains nothing but English capitalist propaganda. The idea in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that a capitalist Government, an established Government, may do all these things because capitalism is the dominant economic system throughout the world, but that a working-class Government, a Socialist Government, is not to be permitted to propagate its doctrines in every part of the world. I hope one of the results of this break will be that the Russian people, having been rebuffed by one of the most responsible Governments throughout the world—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Not a responsible Government.

Mr. MAXTON

No one but the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have noticed my slip of the tongue. I should have said one of the Governments of one of the most responsible countries in the world has rebuffed them and insulted them as that Government would not dare to do in the case of any capitalist country. Every detail of diplomatic etiquette would have been met if it had been Germany or if it had been Italy, but here it is a matter of dealing with a body of working people. Yes, and this is the etiquette in their case. Any treatment is good enough for them. They can be treated like dirt. After all, the one serious charge which you can bring against the Russian Government, and I am prepared to bring it against them, is that as the first working-class Government to achieve effective power in the world they ought to have said, "We have finished with all the dirty, lying diplomacy that has marked capitalist government; we are going to lead a life that is open and clear."[Laughter.] Yes, hon. Members opposite think that is impossible. A right hon. Gentleman opposite and the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary both said it was impossible. I do not believe it is. I believe straight, open honesty is sufficient to manage the affairs either of an individual or of a nation. The straighter, the more open, the more honest, and the more downright the man or the nation is the better for that man or that nation. Again I say that the big fault of the Soviet Government of Russia was their attempt to copy the diplomatic methods that had been set up as the established custom by the Csarist Government which they succeeded and the British and other Governments with which they came into contact.

One other thing I will say to them here and now. I do not place the same reliance as they do, and as the Csarist Government did, and as the British Government do, upon force and violence as a medium of achieving great ends. Some of my hon. Friends on these benches can applaud that statement, but none of the hon. Members opposite can do so. They believe that if a, nation has objects which it believes to be right and worthy—it to be the judge—it has then a perfect right to pursue the achievement of those objects by armed violence and by murder and death. [An HON, MEMBER: "That is what the Soviet does."] That is what the Soviet does. They took it from you. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have risen time and again to prove that, much as they would like to abolish war, it is impossible to do so. I hope that is not true and I believe that the Soviet Government of Russia might have played a big part in teaching the world that violence and force are unnecessary.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Why the Red Army then?

Mr. MAXTON

Because they found themselves ringed round by force, and they said that the only reply to force was force. I question that. I hope, as I say, that one of the effects of this rebuff by a capitalist Government will be that the Communists of Russia will turn to the international working class and say to the Labour and Socialist International, "We are going to place our force, our power, our zeal, our knowledge, our skill into the common pool of Labour and Socialist international thought." I hope my right hon. Friends here on this side, who have resisted any suggestion that Russia should be admitted to full standing in the Labour and Socialist international, will seize this opportunity of making the way easy, so that we will have represented in our Labour and Socialist movement every angle of working-class thought, so that every theory of Socialist and working-class tactics will be put into the common pool, not in order that the Russian Communist theory may dominate, or that my particular views may dominate, but in order that there may be throughout the world a working class absolutely united to face a developing world capitalism, which knows nothing about patriotism at all, which cares little about country and a tremendous lot about profits. In that way we can have a working class united throughout the whole world to resist the determined and vicious attacks that are made by capitalism upon the miserable standard of life which the workers have been able to secure up to now.

I hope I am not doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice—I do not believe I can do so—when I say that I believe the deciding factor in making this break was the fact that the Russian people sent money to help the miners who were out last year. Nothing else has happened since Earl Balfour made his speech. Nothing else has happened since the Marquis of Salisbury made his speech. Nothing has happened since the right hon. Gentleman himself made his speech except that the Russian people showed their desire to help the miners against the Government of this country. I hope that the Government will depart from this position. I do not see the Foreign Secretary being urged against his will into a line of conduct of which he personally does not approve. I believe that in this matter the Government are expressing Conservative opinion in this country. It is of a piece with their anti-trade union legislation. It is of a piece with everything they have been doing in recent months. It is of a piece with their projected legislation against the unemployed. Having come into effective power in this country, having found industrial unrest widespread throughout the land, they said, "We will not attempt to get down to the causes of industrial unrest; we will not attempt to cure unemployment." That actually has been said from the benches opposite. We have been told that that is not the work of a Government. Hon. Members have said they will not attempt to improve wages because that is not the work of a Government; that they will not attempt to give people a decent education. In short, they say, "We will not attempt to remedy any of the causes of industrial unrest but we will try to smash every bit of machinery, here or abroad, through which industrial unrest presently finds expression."

I do not claim to be a statesman. I am an agitator. That is the role I try to fill and the role I want to fill, but I ask the statesmen if it is statesmanship to ignore the festering sores of our nation and wherever they find a man, or a body of men, or an organisation, giving expression to discontent or pointing out the evils of our social system, to bring forward some device, some legal machinery, some judicial machinery, or use some diplomatic weapon, to stifle the expression of that discontent for which there is only too just reason. I say that is not facing the responsibilities of a responsible Government. It is putting one's head into the sand and refusing to see the things that are there. I have absolutely no doubt that this is only staving off the day of reckoning because the working class of this country, with or without Russian stimulation and inspiration, will not submit to the poverty and degradation which the Tory Government seem determined to impose on them to-day.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON

After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I feel myself a wholly unrepentant advocate of the raid upon Arcos. I approve of that raid and I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary upon his courageous and forceful visitation of the pirates' premises last week. We have all heard of the anonymous gentleman with a duster I thought perhaps the Home Secretary was the gentleman with a duster, but if he is not that then at least he is the gentleman with the dust pan, and he has succeeded in making a most effective spring cleaning and in getting rid of much rubbish. He has in effect stamped out the red rot which promised to spread everywhere and to ruin us. Indeed, there is only one element about the raid on Arcos which can be considered as in any degree mistaken, and that is, that the raid did not come sooner. If only it had come a little sooner it might have been in time to reveal vital documents which were burned; it might have been in time to disclose damning papers which have since been destroyed.

Mr. WALLHEAD

In short, they have not got enough to justify the raid now.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON

If they have not got enough, what becomes of the argument that they are forgeries? On the face of it those documents are honest and justify the exclusion from this country of those who have been the agents of the Soviet. We have long suspected that the mystery house of Arcos was a nest of pestilential propaganda and a centre of septic intrigue but even those of us who suspected Arcos most never anticipated a conspiracy so calculated as that which is now revealed, we never dreamed that beneath the blessing of British recognition a friendly State would have dug itself in and would have mined and countermined to our destruction. We would never have thought that they would succeed in installing themselves in our peaceful city ready to do us irreparable damage. The discovery of this warren in the heart of peaceful London explodes for ever the fetish of Soviet affection for England, and it justifies straight away the exclusion from England of the false friends who betrayed us. We ought never to have recognised the Soviet at all. We did it under a Labour Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The Labour Government gave diplomatic, recognition to Russia on the top of other recognitions which had been given by the Coalition. In my opinion, we should never have given Soviet Russia diplomatic recognition unconditionally. We should not have granted a fraudulent Caucus of Commissars in Russia that great privilege free. We should never have parted with this priceless boon until the Soviet had first of all owned up for all the wrongs it had done and paid up for all its thefts of the poor people as well as of the rich. Now, thank God, we have at last got back in our grip the weapon of recognition, and with it we must insist on reparations first and reparations in full before any Reds return to England. How foolishly, how madly generous we have been to the Soviet in the past. Twice over we have admitted their emissaries to share with honoured guests the amenities of British diplomacy. We have seen our Trade Agreement riddled through and through until it was just a leaking sieve of breaches, and we have found ourselves made the target of a vendetta incomparably vile because it sought to embroil us with all those subject races which it has been our ambition to exalt and not to abase. What has been the answer of His Majesty's Government to these assaults in the past In the name of peace we have allowed a perfidious associate persistently to wage war. We have pleaded moderation and have fed the Bolshevist bear, when he growled, with buns. We had far better have given him the knout or the boot. He would have understood them a great deal better For no kind words or generosity have ever melted that heart of hate. Courtesy and chivalry are springs of emotion which cannot be found in the catalogue of Marxian emotions.

Never for one moment has our policy made the Soviet relent or repent. Never have our actions and our moderation induced the Soviet for a single second to show the slightest tremor of pity, sorrow, or contrition. So that we may honestly say to-day that our policy of moderation has been a failure and a dangerous failure, because we have been left entirely defenceless in face of a foe fully armed. The only answer of the Soviet to all our forbearance has been to single out the British Empire for attack. Our diplomacy, fresh from the triumphs of Locarno, begged that we should not break with Moscow, and urged the instability of the European equilibrium. But it seems to be forgotten that after all, this is not a European question only. In the main it is an Imperial issue. For these islands are barely a part of the Continent at all, and although our heritage consist of one-quarter of the globe, hardly one single acre lies in Europe. Our heritage which covers this vast territory consists of spaces peopled by subject races. And this Empire in its ordered tranquillity is the greatest bulwark against Bolshevism left in the world. But also in the semi-civilisation of some of its communities it presents a field of operation ready and ripe at any moment for the manure of Moscow. When we look at the documents which have been found at Arcos we find revealed the value to these propagandists of incompletely educated and backward peoples. "The choice of men"—for the Communist agitation—"should be carefully made, preference being given to negroes and Hindoos," and so on. I think that is a clearer revelation of the purposes of the Soviet than is to be found in any other document. The general strike, which people omit to mention now, was after all a recognised preliminary to revolution, and it was followed by the longest lock-out in the annals of our country, which was subsidised, not by private individuals in Russia, but by the State. Indeed, I would ask: Where and when have we ever been free from molestation? There is not an outpost of the Empire so remote that it cannot be reached by the long arm of alien anarchy. There is not a centre of unrest in England too insignificant for Moscow's malevolent benevolence. During the past year, quite apart from major commitments, Moscow has spent over £50,000 on organisation in England for subversive purposes. The Communist party in England to-day would not exist for one month if you turned off the tap in Moscow, and in return, let it be remembered that the Communist State in Russia, enthroned and strong though it be there now, could not continue and will not continue if we do our duty to-night and throw out Russian recognition. Indeed, it can be said that British recognition alone has kept that monstrous idol upon its legs. This Debate therefore is historic. For if we do our duty to-night Bolshevism as a world force is doomed. The Government's patience in the past years has been not only magnanimous but magnificent. And their resolution and courage in cutting the cable to-day justify and explain their forbearance in the past. They recognise that no longer can a proud people tolerate the shame of bondage to a State of slaves. They have cut us free. Long may we remain masters of our liberty.

Mr. PONSONBY

If there is any hon. Member in this House who is justified in being cheerful and congratulating himself to-day it certainly is the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson). That, I think, accounts for what I might call a little bit of the Albert Hall tone which came into many of his remarks. The hon. and gallant Member's views on this question are well known, for he has circularised people with great diligence.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON

And with great success.

Mr. PONSONBY

I congratulate him on the successful way in which he has managed to drive the Government before him. I am rather afraid that we do not realise here the gravity of the step that has been taken. It is a precipitate step and I cannot help feeling that if there is a man in this House who regrets it, he is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman rejoices, as do hon. Members behind him, over a step of this sort, because his arguments when this question was last before the House were some of the strongest against a breach. There are so many great issues involved that it is difficult in the course of a short speech to cover them all. I want to say a few words about the trade effects, because hon. Members opposite are saying that this will make no sort of difference to trade, that Arcos can continue with its activities, and that we need have no fear as to the results. When the Labour party was in office in 1924, I had occasion to come in contact with a great many people who wanted to trade with Russia, a great many gentlemen who were talking in millions and were ready to open out commercial relations. The one thing that made them hesitate every time was the political relations between the two countries If they could be assured that recognition, that normal relations and commercial treaties existed between the two countries, they were ready to go on. Now that you have made a deliberate breach and have tension between the two countries, it is absurd to suppose that trade can be conducted in the same way.

I am not going for one moment to defend the existence of propaganda in this country. I have had occasion to say so more than once. My object now is to examine what this propaganda amounts to. These charges that are brought against the Soviet Government, in the Prime Minister's statement and in the White Paper, are three. The first is that propaganda has been carried on in this country against us. The other charges are that spies have been used in order to remove documents from Government offices and that M. Rosengolz, the Soviet Chargeé d'Affaires, has lied. With regard to the spies and the lying, I do not think it is a charge that we can bring against the Russian representative any more than against any other diplomatic representative in Europe or the world. The Secret Service is supposed to be something that we ought not to talk about in this House. It is not out of order to talk about the Secret Service, and I do not see why I should not talk about it. It is about time we did say something about the Secret Service. I have no respect for dirt, even in high places. What I object to more than dirt is the hypocrisy which pretends that we are so pure, that we do not indulge in any of these methods. During war time, all this is recognised as something that is part and parcel of the war machine. You then have lies and you have propaganda, and you have atrocity factories; you have letter opening and you have forgery—a Department for forgery and a Department for faking photographs, and all that sort of thing, and each country has them.

In war-time in the Secret Service you get a type of man who, because it is said he is doing a patriotic duty, is certainly a better type. The question is how much of this exists in peace time? The work is not all shut down. A great deal of it still exists, but it is a very different type of man who serves, a man who is quite capable of serving two masters, a man whose sense of honour is wholly different from what we understand by honour. This goes on, as we see by this document which has been produced. The right official phrase to use is that, "A document has come into our possession." We are complaining of Mr. Rosengolz lying, and of this getting of documents out of the official archives of this country. We do the same thing, though we are not supposed to mention it. There is always a look of pained piety on the faces of right hon. Gentlemen opposite if one mentions the subject, but I really think it ought to be dealt with.

I may be asked, why it was not dealt with in 1924 when Labour was in office? I was in a subordinate position in 1924, and it is part of the etiquette of the Secret Service that Under-Secretaries are never told about it. It reminds me of undesirable conversations in a private school, which are kept to the elder boys and the younger boys are not supposed to know anything about them. When I mentioned the Secret Service, the officials, the most genial of them, used to become rigid. I was not allowed to know, and even when we got to the verge of that awful mud-bath which surrounded the Zinoviev letter, I was never allowed to come in, and I am glad it was so. But we must really face the fact, when we are getting on our high moral horse, that forgery, theft, lying, bribery and corruption exist in every Foreign Office and every Chancellory throughout the world. The recognised official attitude is to put on a mask of impassable piety, which means that you ignore the whole thing. Of course you must. This weapon is used during war because it is valuable. It is used during so-called peace because peace is used for making preparations for the next war. You have to do it; you cannot get away from it.

Mr. ROY WILSON

Do I understand the hon. Member to mean that His Majesty's accredited representatives abroad have engaged or would engage in the same sort of propaganda as the Soviet Chargeé d'Affaires has been charged with here?

Mr. PONSONBY

I say that according to the recognised moral code our representatives abroad would be neglectful in their duty if they were not finding out secrets from the archives of those countries.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the statement which he makes. It is no part of the duty—nor would it be permitted—of any of our representatives abroad to act in that manner.

Mr. PONSONBY

As the right hon. Gentleman challenges me, I say that I have during my career seen a document which was taken from the archives of a foreign country. I have also travelled with a spy and heard what he had to say. He travelled with me because he wanted to get information from me, and he also wanted to get from me the despatches that I carried. The more friendly he became, the more tightly I had to cling to the despatches. He was on a mission to this country in order to get a newspaper to take up the cause of a particular foreign Government that he was supporting. Let us look at this White Paper. On page 29 there is an extract from a telegram sent from Moscow to the Soviet representative at Peking. It is dated 12th November, 1926, and is without a signature. It was sent by the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs in Moscow; therefore it was in Russian. It was received in Peking. It was in Russian figures when received in Peking. There is a department to check anything that is received in Peking. So the Russian figures were translated into Chinese. It really does make one hesitate, as we are facing what may be great trouble in future, when we have presented to us a White Paper with the flimsiest possible evidence and with nothing on which you would condemn a British citizen in an ordinary Court of Justice.

8.0 p.m.

I know it is supposed to be the recognised way of doing business, but it is not one that appeals to the British sense of honour. The practice has, of course, gone on for many years. We have only to remember the Zinoviev letter. When you are dealing with spies you cannot tell that they are not playing a double game; you do not know whether they are lying or not. I have heard it said by people of far longer experience of official life than I have had, that they consider the Secret Service in time of peace is a nuisance, is unreliable, and ought to be abolished. The lying and spying is not done away with by a denial; we ought not to bring this charge against a foreign representative here when we know that a similar charge can be brought against us in many directions.

Now I come to a question of propaganda. I listened to the Prime Minister's speech very intently, and I was very interested in it. When he came to that moment when the police entered the locked room and went down in the cellar and there was a struggle and then a paper was dropped, we all held our breath wondering what this paper contained; wondering whether it was a bomb which was to be placed in 10, Downing Street, or Buckingham Palace, or whether it was some fearful revelation, but at last it turned out to be a set of bogus addresses. Sufficient ridicule has been poured upon the agitation and the training of agitators on board ship. Then there were some documents about directions to Communists. It is all very well to start a raid. The Home Secretary took the matter into his own hands. The Criminal Investigation Department have a special department, and they wanted to justify their existence. As for plots, I met a man about a fortnight ago who was an accredited representative of Signor Mussolini and he was the secretary of a Fascist organisation. He is pursuing his propaganda here, and has great hopes of the British middle-classes. I say that he is as great a fool as those Bolshevists who think that they are going to convert us to Communism. But I would not for a moment show up this man and make him an excuse for breaking off diplomatic relations. But the Criminal Investigation Department find the sort of plots that the Government want, and they find in the present Home Secretary a man who delights in plots and who wants to go off with his machinery and raid offices.

The Criminal Investigation Department is not quite reliable. I wish the Home Secretary were here, because this really would interest him more than it interests the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is an incident which happened in March, 1921, and it shows that the Secret Service, the Criminal Investigation Department, the Head of the Intelligence Department, and all the rest of it, do not always act in conformity with the high moral tone which is adopted when they are quoted. The whole story is really contained in an answer which the Home Secretary of that day gave on 3rd March, 1921. I think it was referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in a question today. Some copies of the "Pravda" were forged in this country. Unfortunately, the British printer left his mark along the bottom. The head of the Criminal Investigation Department, then Sir Basil Thomson, got hold of those copies and got a machine which out off the margin and cut off the name of the British printer. He then had those copies sent abroad, knowing of course that they were forgeries, and then the Home Secretary of the day in reply to a question said: The matter is one of which I had no knowledge until a day or two ago. I find on inquiry that the facts are these. In Russia no newspapers are allowed except the official organs of the Soviet Government, which give a wholly false and misleading account of affairs and opinion in this and other foreign countries. Some Russians in this country were anxious to supply their fellow-countrymen with a true statement of the facts, and the only way they could do this was by printing in this country and circulating in Russia an imitation of the official 'Pravda', the only paper allowed by the Soviet Government to circulate to the public. They communicated in this matter with the Director of Intelligence"— that was Sir Basil Thomson— and he assisted them to the extent of arranging for the removal of the English printer's name from the news-sheets and for their being forwarded to an address in one of the countries bordering on Russia. This was all that he did. I think his action was indiscreet, and had he referred to me I would not have sanctioned it; but it should be clearly understood that the paper was not propagandist except in so far as a statement of the true facts in propaganda, that there was no collaboration by the police in its production and that no public money was expended."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1921; cols. 2043–4, Vol. 138.) That shows the so-called reliability of this Department which goes and finds out these things and produces documents which can be used as a basis for a rupture of international relations. I am perfectly certain that the Foreign Secretary regrets this escapade of the Home Secretary more than anybody in the House.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

He was good enough to consult me before the warrant was applied for.

Mr. PONSONBY

I am sorry to hear that. I had hoped that the Foreign Secretary had not lent himself to any such proceeding, because we all admit that he has a most difficult task, and there was some slight prospect of things getting better even in regard to Soviet Russia. They have joined in the Economic Conference recently, and there was a prospect of their joining in the Disarmament Conference in the autumn, and that in itself would have been hopeful. I remember that it was about 18 months or two years ago when we had a Debate on this subject of trying to pick up the threads and of coming to terms with the Soviet Government. The right hon. Gentleman turned it down very firmly then as he has ever since. I said at the time that it was forcing Russia into Asia, where she would make trouble. I remember very well the right hon. Gentleman, with a dramatic gesture, his arms over head, telling me that I was talking nonsense. I do not think he thinks that to-day.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

I remain of the same opinion, after listening to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. PONSONBY

The right hon. Gentleman always talks to anybody in this House in any subordinate position in that manner. The right hon. Gentleman accused me of talking nonsense, and he has formed the greater part of his indictment on the conduct of the Bolshevist in China, so that he cannot be of the same opinion in regard to that expression that he is now. I do say once again, as I have said often before, that the hostility of the Soviet Government towards us results from the policy of His Majesty's Government ever since 1917—of successive Conservative Governments. I do not think that those who so madly attacked the Soviet Government and the Russians could realise how deeply they resented the intervention, policy of 1917 to 1920. I do not think they realise how after that the Russians have been anxious to renew relations, and when in 1924 treaties were signed and the Labour Government fell, they were ready to take up again with the Conservative Government who succeeded us the threads and try to come to some form of an agreement. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman in those days saying, "We cannot subscribe to this and that clause in the treaties that you have signed; we disagree with this and that method; but we shall be prepared to explain our attitude in this respect and to try to come to an understanding," he adopted another method. If he had adopted the method I have suggested, by this time, there is no question about it, relations would have been renewed, and you would have prevented this hostile attitude and the propaganda which has gone on. Instead of that, time after time the right hon. Gentleman turned them down, while his supporters in the country were abusing them in unmeasured language. It really is not surprising that they have taken up a hostile attitude.

But we come now to this very grave step, and I do want to ask that we should be told, before the Debate is over, what is to be gained from it. I think the best thing that was said about it was said by the Foreign Secretary about a year ago, when he said that a breach would give us no weapon for fighting disorder or disloyalty or revolution within our borders; that it would create division where we sought union, that it would increase uncertainty, increase fears, increase instability in European conditions, which was and ought to be our chief object to remove. I do not think that there are any grounds which exist to-day which make those words less true than they were when they were uttered a year ago. I know the grounds on which this very grave step is taken, and I think the Government will regret it. I do not understand how they will ever bring themselves to renew relations with this Government of Russia; this Government that has withstood civil war, intervention from outside, famine and debt, and is still there in the saddle. However much we may say we dislike it, it is ridiculous to suppose that we can ignore this vast nation; that we can set it aside and say it does not matter; that we can repeatedly insult it and then think that the world will get on better without it. All our history, as our statesmen know, shows that we cannot get on without Russia. I believe future generations will look back on this day and point to it as the beginning of fresh confusion, renewed animosities, and, perhaps, eventual war. The Government have been ill-advised to put back the hands of the clock. The action, taken in anger and without forethought, will be regretted them, and it may have consequences in future that will be more disastrous than we can appreciate at the present time.

Mr. ROY WILSON

I had not intended to take any part in this Debate, but as a Member of this House who has had the privilege of meeting our diplomatic representatives abroad I want to take the very earliest opportunity of saying how amazed I am at the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the libellous remarks he has made upon our representatives in various parts of the world. In reply to a question I put to him in the course of his speech, he clearly stated that it was his opinion, and it was within his own knowledge, that our accredited representatives abroad, our ambassadors or our chargés d'affaires, indulged in the same sort of lying propaganda which has been disclosed in this White Paper, and which, quite clearly, has been proved against the chargé d'affaires of the Soviet Republic in this country.

HON. MEMBERS

He did not say so.

Mr. PONSONBY

I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I never said that our representatives abroad were carrying on propaganda. I said that in the course of their duties they used the methods I described, and everybody knows it.

Mr. WILSON

I am afraid the hon. Member has made the position even worse still, because the methods which he told us were adopted by our representatives abroad were methods of the forger and liar, and exactly the same sort of methods as have been adopted by the chargé d'affaires of the Soviet Republic in this country; and I want to say deliberately that I, for one, most deeply resent that insinuation, and that I am surprised that it should come from a gentleman who has occupied, as the hon. Member has, the responsible position of Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Labour Government. I am quite certain that his speech, if it is reported in the country, and I hope sincerely it will not be reported, will be as bitterly resented—

Dr. SALTER

We shall repeat it, you need not worry.

Mr. WILSON

—as it is in this House.

Mr. PONSONBY

May I ask the hon. Member if he heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who said exactly the same thing?

Mr. WILSON

I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and I heard the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and it is his speech to which I am objecting. It is a speech which I am certain every decent-minded man in this country will resent.

Mr. STEPHEN

Because it is the truth.

Mr. WILSON

Because it is a gross reflection upon men who are serving the British Empire in important positions abroad.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Before the hon. Member gives us any more adjectives, I would like to ask him if he will tell us where that £446,000 goes which is spent each year on the Secret Service? We can never get to know from Ministers how this money is spent.

Mr. WILSON

Wherever the money may be spent I am certain it is not spent—

HON. MEMBERS

"How do you know?"

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)

This Debate cannot possibly be carried on if one hon. Member is not to be allowed to answer another.

Mr. WILSON

However that money may be spent, I am certain it is not spent in paying His Majesty's representatives abroad to indulge in lying propaganda.

Mr. WALLHEAD

We never said it was.

Mr. WILSON

I should like to say a word upon some remarks made in the course of this afternoon, and indeed on other occasions, about trade with Russia and the seriousness, as some hon. Members seem to regard it, of this break in our relations with Russia from the commercial point of view. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) said, what is after all nothing more than a platitude, that business is a matter of credit and credit is a matter of confidence. That is perfectly true. I am afraid a large number of hon. Members do not realise that the business community in this country who have been doing business with Russia during the last few years have been under no illusions whatsoever as to the risks they ran in the business transactions they had with that country.

Mr. W. THORNE

Have they all been paid?

Mr. WILSON

The position in regard to business transactions with Russia during the last few years has been this. No bank in this country would be foolish enough to advance one single pound on the security of the promise of any Russian trading organisation in Russia. Any money advanced in this country—this should be clearly understood by the House—any money advanced in connection with shipments to Russia has been advanced on the standing and credit of the customer in England. It was made perfectly clear by the hon. Member who was evidently speaking on behalf of the Midland Bank this afternoon that in all these transactions involving so-called credit with Russia the paramount and first condition has been that a substantial deposit has been put down in cash in England before the business transaction has been, entered into, and the risk thereafter is the risk of the shipper or the merchant at this end who is sending his goods to Russia. [Interruption.] I do not intend to give way. I have given way on several occasions. If a business firm at this end is willing to take certain risks in these transactions, the position of the banks is simply this—it cannot be repeated too often—that if the, standing of the customer here warrants an advance in connection with that transaction, that advance is made by the bank with a total disregard of the party on the other side who is receiving the goods.

Mr A. V. ALEXANDER

Does that apply to all?

Mr. WILSON

I am speaking on this subject with a certain amount of knowledge—

Mr. ALEXANDER

Some of us have knowledge, too.

Mr. WILSON

—and if that is the position—and broadly it is the position— there is no reason to apprehend that because of this rupture in our relations business transactions with Russia must necessarily come to an end. There are people in this country willing to take the risk of sending goods out to Russia, and the same procedure will be followed as has been followed in the last few years. I myself see no reason to apprehend any serious interference with any legitimate business transaction which business firms in this country may desire to undertake with Russia on the same terms and conditions as they have undertaken them in the past.

Miss LAWRENCE

I would like to ask how the hon. Member who has just sat down imagines that we got hold of the documents referred to on page 31 of the White Paper. Those are private communications from the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires in London to the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs in Moscow. Did they come from the Foreign Office, and, if not, how did we get hold of them?

Mr. ROY WILSON

That question does not really arise, but wherever those documents came from they did not come from our Ambassador.

HON. MEMBERS

How do you know?

Miss LAWRENCE

I suppose our own Secret Service is just as bad as any other Secret Service. I would like the representative of the Government who is going to reply to tell the House how the Foreign Office got possession of this private correspondence between London and Moscow. Did M. Rosengolz hand it over or did we pay somebody for it? Or did we tap the telegraph wire? It must have been by one or other of those methods. It is idle to pretend that all Governments do not employ a Secret Service. I want to say a few words on the general question. I think the step we have taken this week is a very serious one. No one can deny that it will be bad for our trade. No one can deny—indeed, the Foreign Secretary has stated—that the consequences of this step in Europe will be very disastrous. The two criteria by which our diplomacy must be judged is our success in promoting the cause of peace and our success in forwarding the interests of our manufacturers. I think on this occasion we have a right to examine what is the case for the Government. We have been told by the supporters of the Government that it was impossible to do otherwise than what the Government have done, because "patience had been pushed to the breaking point," and the Government, for the sake of the honour and safety of the country, could not have adopted any other policy. I hold no particular brief for the Russian Government, but I believe that the main motive of the foreign policy of Russia is based on fear, that it is fear which makes Russia so bad a neighbour; and that if Russia were given a sense of security, her need for peace is so great and her need for material things and trade is so great, that with a little good will it would be quite easy to establish amicable relations with Russia.

When one looks back over the history of Russia, it is clear that the present state of things has not happened all at once. I said in the Press three years ago that two currents of opinion were even then clearly perceptible. On the one side were those who pinned their faith to the world revolution; on the other were those who put first the development of their own country. The one repeated continually what Lenin had said in 1917, that the very existence of the Soviet State depended on convulsions in other countries; and that was more than a plausible opinion at that time; for everyone can see that if the Kaiser had had a free hand at the time of the peace of Brest Litovsk, there would have been no Bolshevik Government now in Russia. The other perceived that the world was settling—for that is what the Russians mean when they speak of the "partial stabilisation of capitalism"—and asserted that, given freedom from intervention they had all that was necessary to establish a Socialist State in Russia. And this year these two schools of thought came to an open clash. For those resounding quarrels between the Government and the Opposition were about this very thing—the doctrine of the world revolution. Trotsky, Kameneff and Zinovieff, in repeated and lengthy speeches, put forward their point of view of the necessity of the world revolution against the policy of Stalin and Bukharin. Trotsky, Kameneff and Zinovieff lost. They were hopelessly beaten; they were disgraced, and removed from high office to subordinate positions; and so little was this understood or noticed in England, that actually in our Note, a speech of Kameneff, the last despairing effort of a member of the Opposition, was quoted against the Soviet Government. Bukharin and Stalin won; and the Communist party of Russia adopted the new formula—that Russia possessed all that was sufficient to construct a Socialist State.

That was a new orientation of Russian politics that the Communist party adopted, and it was an entirely new formula. But how was this new departure not in our scale? The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an extraordinary example of patience and forbearance. So did Lord Birkenhead, and so did other members of the Cabinet. I will not read their speeches; but I will quote a line or two from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Alexandra Palace on the 19th June, when, speaking of the Bolshevists, he called them "these miscreants who had ruined their country". He spoke of Russia as an "ignorant slave State." He said that "they thought the same sort of stuff with which they bamboozled their moujiks would suit us". And Lord Birkenhead gave a similar exhibition of patience and forbearance in his notorious "swollen frogs" speech. I know that the Foreign Secretary during the whole of the time was preaching peace and forbearance, and so forth. But the whole of Europe saw that the Cabinet was not behind him, because the stronger members of the Cabinet were using this kind of talk, and the Cabinet were so far disunited that they were unable to prevent the amateur diplomacy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the drums of the Chancellor of the Exchequer drowned the voice of the Foreign Secretary. The effect upon Russia was very clear. I do not want to quote many Russian speeches, but I draw the attention of the House to the speeches made by Bukharin and Voroshiloff last January. Voroshiloff devoted a big speech to showing that intervention was certain—that it would be unexpected. And he said that if Russia has peace now the whole business comes to this, that up to this moment the circumstances are not sufficiently favourable for them to fall upon us. The consciousness of the absolute necessity of a conflict with us is demonstrated not only by certain happenings in England but in her official utterances. They are only waiting for favourable circumstances". Bukharin developed the same train of argument in his speech, and so did other Russian statesmen. I know that our Foreign Office said, and I believe they said perfectly sincerely, that no encirclement and no intervention was intended. But the Foreign Secretary knows that it is not only reasonable fears that are dangerous to the peace of the world, but that suspicion and fear of that kind, whether well founded or not, is one of the most dangerous factors in European politics. The business of diplomacy is to dissipate those nightmares, and the more groundless they are the more easily they can be dissipated. It is a desperately dangerous thing for the world, for Europe and for Asia, that responsible Russian statesmen should think and declare that every misfortune which happened to our country was something which would at any rate secure so many more months of peace for Soviet Russia.

What I complain about is that nothing was done to dissipate that feeling. There followed no ordinary diplomatic conversations. There followed the Note, and I do not think that the Press has ever done justice, or that this House has ever done justice, to the Note. I pass over what I have just mentioned, that the speech of a beaten Member of the Opposition was used as an argument, but never before has a collection of newspaper articles appeared in a serious document. It would be an odd precedent to follow if every Government in Europe could complain to the Foreign Secretary of anything that appeared in our Press. I cannot, however, resist mentioning the caricature, because to put a caricature into a Note is so absurd as to be obvious evidence of trying to make a quarrel. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) speak to-night. I wonder how busy the Foreign Office would have been if they had had to write letters every time he was caricatured. I am no admirer of the foreign policy of the right hon. Gentleman, but at any rate he never did that; he never called in the dignity of England as a sort of cover for his own personal feelings.

But bad as the Note was, and it stood unparalleled in the annals of diplomacy, what was worse than the Note was the silence that followed. There were no conversations about any of the complaints in the Note; in fact, the Note itself stated that the Government did not propose to enter into controversy with the Soviet Government; and from that time to this silence reigned. There was no intercourse; there was not the fulfilment of that Clause of the Trade Agreement which has already been alluded to, that there should be conversations on every subject. Instead of that, we had a hostile, menacing silence until the raid came. I am aware that on this occasion I ought not to speak for long, and I do not want to go through again what has been said about the raid, but I do say that I deprecate as much as anybody can the fact that the officials of Arcos should have used the safety of their position for the purposes of propaganda. I think that that is a very serious thing, a very wrong thing, and a thing well worthy of complaint. As to the rest of the White Paper, what is there in it? There is a telegram from Peking, which I suppose rests on the authority of Chang Tso-lin's policeman, and I cannot attach any importance to that. For the rest, there is not enough to whip a cat with. I am pleased to see how innocent were the intercepted telegrams. I am not going to dilate upon that, because better speakers than I have done so, but I do ask the House to look at the consequences in Russia; the consequences to trade, and the consequences in Europe. The Foreign Secretary knows and has spoken of the repercussions in Europe. I am quite sure that, as far as Russia is concerned, we have strengthened every bad and dangerous element, and have weakened the influence of every moderate statesman, in Russia.

With regard to our own country, which, after all, comes first, the effect of this week's work will be felt outside every relieving office and every Employment Exchange in England. The Government have done more harm to our trade and industry than one could have believed possible. I was looking at the Chinese figures, and saw how their policy there had, brought our trade down, and how every country in the world, from Norway to Japan, was joyfully profiting by our efforts. As it was in China, so will it be in Russia. Those are the only two great undeveloped markets of the world that are left. In Russia, as in China, the nations of the world will be profiting at our expense. Their Governments will be looking on benevolently and with disguised pleasure at our loss of trade, and the increased trade of their own nationals. That is what our Government has done, and I think that, when history comes to be written, people will look at the utterances of the Foreign Secretary, and his obvious sincerity, they will look at his actions, and they will write him down as a statesman who, by his weakness, did more harm to his country than the wickedness of a strong man could have done.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

It requires some little courage to intervene in this Debate, but it seems to me that those who have spoken have spoken either from too much or from too little knowledge, and that that fact rather tends to exaggerate the language. Therefore, I think that perhaps, as I occupy a position somewhat midway between complete ignorance and complete knowledge I might perhaps find a few remarks that would justify my speaking in the House to-night. My knowledge was considerably added to by the statement of the Prime Minister last Tuesday, and I think the whole House, including hon. Gentlemen opposite, will agree with me that, after the Arcos raid, and in view of the statements which the Prime Minister made, and the statements which the Foreign Secretary made this afternoon, there was no option for the Government but to break off diplomatic relations, and to teach the Russian Soviet leaders a well-earned lesson. I say "the whole House" advisedly, because, even in spite of this Motion which has been framed by the Opposition party the opposition which they have developed is exactly the same opposition as they developed to the Trade Union Bill, which was an opposition developed before they knew what they were opposing. Therefore, it was obviously a manufactured, spurious and ungenuine opposition. That, I am sorry to say, is the average type of opposition offered by His Majesty's Opposition, and is somewhat symbolic of their crudity of thought.

Judging by the attitude of some of the speakers who have preceded me, there seems to be a certain confusion of thought. Some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House appear to think that the Russian form of Government, Russian industrial conditions, and Russian social life, are the best in the world. Some of us on this side of the House can see no good whatsoever in the Russia of to-day; in fact, wherever we look, we see the red hand of Moscow threatening us on every side of the world. Wherever our policy is not popular, wherever our national characteristics are not particularly popular, we comfort ourselves by the thought that it is the Communist menace in a new guise. If I might say so, I think that both of those ideas and both of those conceptions of the situation are somewhat exaggerated, and it is with that in view that I would like to put my idea of the situation before the House to-night. To start with, Russia is not perfect, as some of our Friends opposite would have us believe. She is far from perfect. She is suffering from a Government whose prestige is still staggering under the weight of its crimes against humanity. She has a people who still view those crimes with horror and loathing, and are slow and unwilling to give loyalty or honour to the rulers who are responsible for them. But revolutions are bloody things, especially when they follow as an avalanche on an unsuccessful war. The people of Russia are not happy in spite of their free seats at the theatre and in spite of the consistent and insidious propaganda of the Government to convince them that they are. They are not happy because they are not free. The country is not prosperous but undoubtedly it is potentially so, and what is still more important to know, the standard of life, which has been so often mentioned in the Socialist papers, is not anything like comparable with the standard of life of the same section of the community in this country.

That is a word on the Opposition views of Russia. Now I come to the views expressed by some Members on my own side of the House. Consider that vast country, extending from Minsk to Vladivostok, from Murmansk to Baku, with a population of 150,000,000 people covering 12,000,000 square miles embracing countries and peoples who are ignorant of other countries and peoples acknowledging the same central authority, consider the vast machinery necessary to administer that country. Consider the intricacy of the machine, consider the volume of labour employed in the government of such a country, then consider as to the improbability of those engaged in the administration of that country finding time also to engage in meticulous and world-wide activities against all capitalist countries. To my mind it is assuming an omniscience and an omnipotence which no human organisation is capable of, and certainly not the Soviet Government. That they do intrigue and are intriguing is admitted. It is obvious from the statement of the Prime Minister and from the White Paper. But when has Russia not intrigued? I daresay if the archives of the Foreign Office were searched, we should find as destructive conspiracies as appeared the other day. It is an inherent characteristic of the Russian people to conspire and intrigue, and it is only by understanding that inherent characteristic that we can ever understand the Russian problem. Because we break off relations with Russia—and I fully support the Government in their action in that point—it does not mean that the Russian problem is solved. It does not mean that the Russian question is finished with. It merely means that the job has got more difficult and the Foreign Secretary's job is rendered more difficult. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why support it?"] Because there is every justification to support it on the information given us by the Foreign Secretary and by the Prime Minister. It is obviously time to teach the Russian leaders a lesson and to teach them that the time has come when they have to disown and disavow Communism.

I should like to draw attention to another question which must be considered when dealing with a problem of Russia and that is the question underlying all Russian difficulties, the question of Communism. Communism is stated, by its misguided theoretical, doctrinaire adherents to be based on the teaching of the Scriptures. No doubt the communal theory of service was originally a very fine one, and no doubt it could be applied to a State which had reached the period of the millennium, but we have not reached the period of the millennium, and therefore, Communism, even as a, theory, is not yet ready for fruition. But, in addition to that, the adherents of Communism have so lost the sense of Christianity that we have now got Communism not a theory of service but a disease that threatens to wreck the very life of this country and other countries in which it takes root. That disease, as we know, has been fostered in Russia by a group of unqualified practitioners which would have us believe that you must first destroy the body and, having accomplished its destruction, breathe fresh life into it and produce a being of your own design. What an utter fallacy! But that is the theory of the followers and adherents and exponents of modern day Communism. Although a disease may attack a healthy body, it is generally assumed that the body must provide a fertile soil and must be physically debilitated if the disease is going to have any fair show of success or afford any danger. Following that theory, let us examine the Russia of 1917. Where was a body more diseased? Where was a soil more fertile? An unsuccessful war had worn out the moral of the people. The spirit of the people by constant and insidious propaganda, by German propaganda, has been turned against its own Government. The people were beginning to lose their faith in authority. They had heard so much, and probably justifiably, about its lack of patriotism that they have come to believe that the Government was not fit to be trusted.

That was the attitude of mind on which this disease, which had been fostered in the back streets of Leningrad, New York, London and Geneva by Lenin and his various comrades, seized. For four years it flourished and grew, and in 1921 it was given its real death blow by its chief author, Lenin, for there is no doubt in my mind that by the introduction of this new economic policy, Lenin showed that he recognised that the half-way house towards capitalism, towards private enterprise, towards individual effort must be reached, and he also recognised that Communism was a failure and offered no possible foundation for the construction of a new heaven and a new earth, and though in theory it might still be preached, as a practical policy it was dead, and its moribund condition was recognised even by its own initiators. Unfortunately, however, the slogans by which these leaders of Russian Communism had built their little phalanx around them, and by which they had obtained power, still existed, and until they get the courage to openly disavow Communism, until they have the courage to come into the open and say, "We were wrong, and these cries of down with bourgeoisie, down with capitalism, were leading the people into the wrong path", Communism will and must remain part of the Russian national programme. It is up to us to kill it. There are two ways of killing even the theory of Russian Communism. One is by a policy of isolation from Western thought, Western society and Western capital, and the other is by a policy of infiltration and permeation by Western ideas of morality and commercial good will. I think the Government are right in the attitude they have taken up. We have by our action to-night declared for the former. We have adopted the policy of isolation. The fault for our adoption of that policy lies with the Soviet Government themselves. The other method of infiltration we have left to our foreign competitors on the Continent, who will no doubt take every means they can to secure the trade which I think we, for the time being, will undoubtedly lose.

9.0 p.m.

I regard Communism as a disease If you will just follow my theory as regards Europe, you will find that my statements are borne out. That disease, while it was living, active and developing—for it is a contagious, even an infectious disease—shed its bacillus which attacked everybody whenever the soil was fertile. It attacked Italy, Prance and Germany, and in each case the various attributes and qualifications of the country killed Communism in its midst. In Italy, the very violence of the disease created its own reaction. The virus has provided its own serum, and so we see the whole country seduced for the moment by the very antithesis of Communism—Faseism. In France it was up against forces stronger than itself, and in this case the forces were thrift and patriotism, and Communism died. In Germany—where was there more fit and proper soil for the disease? Its people were disgruntled, it had been crushed militarily, it had been destroyed, temporarily at any rate, economically, it had been overturned socially. But the disease did not reckon with the inherent sanity of the German people, and it was that sanity which in 1921, when the great "putsch" was tried, killed it. The German people eliminated Communism from Germany for all time. Then we come to our own country. Again the body was diseased, the soil was ripe. Millions of men workless, houses unobtainable, trade at a standstill, soldiers back from the War who had been promised Elysium and had found only the "dole", a Government—I am talking of the period 1921–more concerned with its future majority than for its existing minority. This was a very fertile soil for the disease, but unfortunately the soil was not reckoned with. The soil was the character of the British people. It was the inherent loyalty, self-reliance and self-dependence of the British people that killed Communism in this country. If we have any chance even of a tithe of the prosperity we are entitled to, Communism as an active force will be dead for ever in Great Britain. Have any of the hon. Members opposite any doubts on the subject as to whether Communism, is a danger or not. We have our Mr. Cooks, and I feel confident that with a strong Conservative Government and a courageous Home Seeretary—[Interruption]—and with a loyal police force, hon. Gentlemen opposite may sleep comfortably in their beds, and need not fear that the machinations of some of their friends to which I refer will ever disturb their night's rest. We have to recognise that there are still in the Soviet Government exponents, and very active exponents, of the Communist theories. We have to remember that these exponents are Working hard, day and night, to try to seduce the moderate element of Russian official opinion. We, as supporters of the Conservative Government, have got to ensure that these extremists, these extreme theorists and revolutionaries, are taught a definite lesson, such as we are teaching them to-night and which will drive it into rather obtuse heads that Britain is not going to stand any interference with her domestic or Imperial concerns. I would like to plead with the Government to consider, if possible, their action in regard to the Trade Agreement. The point to remember is, what do we gain by breaking the Trade Agreement, and what do we lose by it? What we gain is problematical. No one can tell, only time will show. What do we lose? I cannot, at the present time, tell what we lose. I have an unhappy suspicion of what we may lose. We may lose a growing trade and hand it over to others. I saw in the papers the other day that the American had cabled to Arcos or the Russian Trade Delegation within two hours of the Arcos raid, endeavouring to secure the trade which is going to be given, or was promised—which is a very different thing—under the Midland Bank scheme. [An HON. MEMBERS: "We would never have got it."] My hon. Friend says we would never have got it, and judging from what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, it is more than probable we would never have got it. I understand the Americans were on the job in an endeavour to secure that trade within a few hours of the Arcos raid, and that shows we have to watch the very serious competition from abroad.

What is that trade? From 1920 to 1926 the purchases by Russia in Great Britain were £82,000,000 with another £13,000,000 in insurance, freights, warehousing, etc. The purchases from Russia by us were £86,000,000—a total trade of £170,000,000. That is not a sum which in our present economic position we can lightly disregard. Another point is, we may lose, I think, an increasing economic stability in Europe. Without commercial co-operation from European countries and from us there is no doubt that Russia will recover but it will be a very slow recovery, and for the moment I think it is probable that it is we who will feel the draught, we who will lose the markets, and the trade, and our Chancellor of the Exchequer will lose Income Tax receipts. The trade that we can do with Russia is a complementary trade. They want from us machinery, rolling stock, and textiles—just the things to set our depressed industries on their feet. We want from them wheat, timber, and the various raw materials. I feel that the Government have studied the position so carefully and so considerately that they would not take their present action unless it is an absolute necessity. If we remove the Trade Agreement, it seems to me that we remove the one link that enables our merchants to deal with Russia. It removes a bridge, however slender, by which trade can be induced to flow into this country and flow out of it to Russia, and I do ask the Government to give their serious consideration to that one point. By all means recast the Trade Agreement, remove from it those silly, stupid and unnecessary diplomatic privileges that should never have been put into it. Purge it, as we are purging the trade union movement from its political implications and obligations, and, as we are handing the trade unionism back to the trade unionists of this country as a charter of liberty, let us so purge and clarify the Trade Agreement with Russia and hand it back to our traders as a free and unrestricted charter of trade.

The Government have absolutely done the right thing in breaking off diplomatic relations, and they have done the right thing in teaching the revolutionaries of Russia that we will not allow or tolerate interference with our domestic concerns or with our Empire; but when they have learnt that lesson, or when their people have forced them to learn it, I ask the Government to show that same breadth of view and that same patriotism that they have shown in the past, and to receive back that vast country into the comity of nations and so take an action which I am sure will react very greatly on the peace and security of the world.

Mr. TAYLOR

The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down devoted the latter part of his speech to a, recital of facts and a statement of arguments that ought to lead him into the Lobby against the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

No.

Mr. TAYLOR

It is refreshing to bear that some of the economic realities of the situation are realised on the opposite side of the House. The question that I want to put to the Government is this: What has happened since the Debate on the 3rd March to make the Government take the drastic step of ending both the Trade Agreement and diplomatic relations? Certainly, nothing that has been published in the ludicrous White Paper which has been issued to-day can be urged as a sufficiently substantial reason for proceeding to the extremity on which the Government have decided. It is usual when this stage is reached that it should be considered the preliminary to an outbreak of war, and probably with any other Government in the world such a step would naturally result from the course which the Government have taken. In any case, their action has produced a situation which cannot be left very long where it is. I would urge that the Government, determined no doubt to break off relations, will proceed from that to face the problem with a view not to allowing the two countries to drift into war but with a view to negotiating a new Treaty, which will provide for clearing up of the misunderstandings between the two countries and creating those stable conditions of political certainty and political goodwill which are the essential conditions for trade with Russia or with any other country.

I took the opportunity last week-end when I was visiting my constituency to intimate to the responsible heads of our local engineering industries, which employ several thousands of men, my fears that the Government might decide to take the course which they are now taking, and I asked those gentlemen whether I might state with authority their views in relation to any such proposals. At this point, I would like to explain that before the War, for three or four months every year our working population were maintained by the manufacture of goods, mainly agricultural machinery, oil engines and engineering products of various kinds, which found their market in Russia. Unfortunately, owing to the dislocation created by the War and owing to political uncertainty, monetary instability and a number of other conditions, the trade almost disappeared, until the Trade Agreement was signed. Since the signing of the Trade Agreement, we have had a very considerable volume of business with Russia, to the mutual benefit of Russia and the local community which depends upon those engineering works. The payment for those orders has been prompt. It is a business that has been growing and expanding, and at the present time not only have we substantial contracts in hand but we are in negotiation for the biggest orders that we have negotiated about since the days before the War.

I asked these gentlemen, who were not members of the Labour party but business men responsible for the control of great industries: "What would your view be on the proposal to break off relations with Russia"? They said, "We should regard it as a very grave disaster". One of them told me that I could state on his authority to the House of Commons that in his firm alone this will mean scores of thousands of pounds a year less in wages. It will mean an addition of hundreds of men to the unemployment list, more doles and more burdens on local industries, thus penalising them from competing successfully with their competitors. This break, they tell me, has come just at the moment when the conditions for developing the Russian market, which appears to be the only market favourable for the extension of our trade so far as that community is concerned, had a much more hopeful outlook than at any time since the signing of the Trade Agreement. We, in Lincoln, have for a long time been trying to overcome the difficulty with regard to financing Anglo-Russian trade.

We were delighted when we heard that negotiations were going on, under the guidance of responsible men like Sir Allan Smith, to provide for long-term credit operations, because you cannot sell heavy machinery involving a great capital outlay unless you have some system of long-term credit by which to enable an undeveloped country to pay. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) expressed some opinions about the methods of financing Anglo-Russian trade and spoke of the proportion that had been demanded as a deposit for long-term business. If the statements he made mean anything at all, they are a substantial argument for the kind of proposal that was embodied in the credit arrangements which Sir Allan Smith and others negotiated with financiers belonging to the London City and Midland Bank. Under the terms of this arrangement, instead of there being an unreasonably high proportion of deposit demanded, only 10 per cent. was to be demanded with the order, and the rest was spread over a sufficient number of years to allow of the possibility of substantially developing the trade.

The Foreign Secretary this afternoon made a statement with regard to some conversations he has had with Mr. Rosengolz and Mr. Rakovsky. Mr. Rakovsky, he said, had talked to him about millions of pounds' worth of trade, and the Foreign Secretary asked: Where are those millions of pounds' worth of trade? Many of them have gone to Germany under the credit scheme which the German Government, in association with the German manufacturers, have arranged. Here are some of the orders that have actually been placed in Germany during the last year. The Soviet metal industry has placed orders for equipment and machinery to the value, approximately, of £5,000,000. The oil industry has placed orders in Germany to the value of about £2,000,000; the coal industry orders to approximately the value of £2,000,000; the electrical industry £2,000,000; the paper industry £2,000,000; the textile industry £600,000; the chemical industry £600,000; the timber industry £100,000; railways £1,000,000 and shipping £600,000. Those orders could and would have been attracted to Great Britain had it not been for the general attitude of the Government towards the Russian problem.

Time after time since the signing of the Trade Agreement, and since the assembly of this Parliament, the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary, the Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet, have been pressed to state definitely the terms on which they would be prepared to enter into negotiations with Russia for the purpose of clearing up all outstanding difficulties. We have had nothing but vague generalities, and a flat refusal to state any conditions which were acceptable to the British Government as a basis for re-opening negotiations. One would naturally assume that after a Treaty has been negotiated by a previous Government that they way to start your negotiations would be for the British Government to lay down its views as to which portions of the Treaty were unacceptable from their point of view. We know the Government took exception to the loan and to the portion of the Treaty which defines the rights of nationals in each other's courts, as well as those portions that deal with questions purely of trade and commerce, and the conditions without which you cannot have successful business operations between two countries. The Government have consistently and persistently refused to define their position or make any contribution whatever towards a final solution of this problem, and we cannot but believe that the crisis which has now come has not been the result of any discovery arising out of this raid, but that the raid is merely an excuse by which the Government seek to cover up the step it has taken as a result of the pressure of those influences in the Cabinet which are incapable of thinking intelligently or reasonably about the question of Anglo-Russian relations.

The Prime Minister said that he was prepared to give all reasonable facilities for the development of trade, and suggested that Arcos could remain here and carry on its business. That is merely political deception in order to deceive the country. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well, and the Cabinet knows perfectly well, that it is impossible to conduct Anglo-Russian trade successfully when you have broken off negotiations and destroyed the principles of the Trade Agreement. Russia is the one country in the world where you have a State monopoly of imports and exports, and, therefore, the Russian representatives represent not individual profit seekers but the State, and must be given, if you want to do business with them, suitable conditions to allow that business to be developed. Before the signing of the Trade Agreement a cargo of Soviet timber, or timber from Russia, came over to Great Britain, and the original owners, the pre-War owners of the particular firm from which that timber was shipped, took action in the British Courts claiming that the timber belonged to them. Mr. Justice Roche, who dealt with the case, held that as the British Government had not recognised the Russian Government, that the Russian decree of nationalisation had no legal effect in British Courts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am speaking of Mr. Justice Roche's verdict, and if hon. Members will allow me to proceed I was going to say that the case was taken to the Court of Appeal, but before a final judgment was given the Trade Agreement, if it had not been actually signed, was being proceeded with.

Sir W. MITCHELL

No, no.

Mr. TAYLOR

Perhaps the hon. Member will state the facts.

Sir W. MITCHELL

The facts are that this cargo arrived at Newcastle, and the buyer there found that it was his own timber, bearing his own stamp on it, and he raised an action in the Courts. Mr. Justice Roche held that the Soviet Government was a Sovereign Power within its own jurisdiction and had passed a law commandeering everything in the country, and that that law held good even here.

Mr. TAYLOR

I know that was the final decision, but the point is that without diplomatic relations it is impossible for business to take its ordinary course. You cannot have long term credit business unless you have stable political relations, and anybody who has anything to do with commerce knows that if the political conditions between two countries are strained, or there is any great uncertainty, that it at once operates against the development of trade between the two countries. If it is not too late I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, or, if they cannot reconsider it, that they will not admit this nonpossumus attitude and will at once take the Russian problem as it stands and try to negotiate a full and a complete agreement between the two countries. Russia has never repudiated the principle of meeting her trade debts and there is no earthly reason why, if the British Government were willing to make their contribution, the relationships between the two countries should not be straightened out and we could then get down to economic collaboration and the development of good will between the two countries.

Sir ROBERT HORNE

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has shown a certain amount of acquired information on the subject of trade with Russia. I am in a position to speak at first hand, because I have not only been one of those who assiduously during the last few years have been endeavouring to assist trade with Russia on the part of British companies with which I have a connection, but I was also intimately connected with a company in which I induced several people to put large sums of money and whose whole business was trade with Russia. If my hon. Friend thinks trade with Russia is as easy a proposition as he has told the House to-night, then from my personal experience I venture to tell him he is entirely mistaken.

Mr. TAYLOR

You do not know all. You only know your own experience.

Sir R. HORNE

It is a company that represented a great variety of trades in order to push their business in Russia. I ask the House to believe that trading with Russia is not so easy a proposition as the hon. Member professes for the very reason he gives. The Government is the bottle-neck of all the trade. It is the exporter as well as the importer. It is impossible, and they will find that increasingly difficult as time goes on, to conduct a business of a great nation through a Government Department. I pass from that, on which I can speak with personal knowledge and which is unchallengeable, to the more important aspects raised in the course of the Debate to-day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and I were associated in signing the Trade Agreement in 1921. The great difference between my right hon. Friend and myself to-day is that his illusions have survived longer than mine. He made a very weighty and a very grave speech, which deserves the serious consideration of the House, because of the long experience which the right hon. Gentleman has had, experience which is unsurpassed—if indeed it is equaled—by that of any Member of this House. He warned the Government that they were embarking upon a very serious act in this breaking-off relations with Russia. I have no desire for a moment to minimise the gravity of the action which the Government have decided to take I am perfectly certain His Majesty's Ministers have not entered upon this course of conduct without the gravest deliberation and the greatest possible reluctance.

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was impressive in many respects, but there was on part of it which, I confess, somewhat surprised me and which I greatly regretted. He indicated that while he agreed on the evidence, which he accepted without question, that the action of the Government was justified, yet at the same time he gravely questioned whether the action taken was desirable. In connection with the first part of that position, he stated from his own experience that Russia had perpetually broken faith with this country upon the Trade Agreement, to which he had been a party. At a latter part of his speech he, as I think unfortunately, began to condone and excuse many acts upon the part of the Russian Government as being comparable with other things which have taken place in other countries at different points of time. I regretted that he should have done that because one knows what will happen. That part of his speech will be taken from its setting and published all over Russia as a justification of the course of conduct in which the Russian Government has been engaged. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to disavow that interpretation, but when you are using language, which is going to be quoted among people such as we know the Russian propagandists to be, it is perfectly certain it will have an importance which was never intended in this House.

The main assumption upon which my right hon. Friend's speech proceeded was that the Foreign Secretary had been coerced by more impulsive and obstreperous colleagues into the action that had been taken. He said he was going to give some evidence to that effect, but, although I listened very carefully, I could find nothing at all in his speech which justified the assumption upon which his whole speech was based. If I might recall for a moment the last Debate we had on this subject, it may be remembered that I pointed out at the time that the Note which the Foreign Secretary had addressed to Russia was one of the sternest and gravest character, that it was intended as an ultimatum, and my right hon. Friend assented to that proposition at the time. It was inevitable that if this course of conduct was continued the Foreign Secretary would be compelled by the force of circumstances to take the action which he has now taken. My right hon. Friend was mainly concerned with proving that this was a very inexpedient action to take. He said that conditions of things in China were involving at the present time a defeat of the Bolsheviks, that we were seeing the ruin of the Bolshevist cause, and that this was the last moment of time we should have selected for taking such action in this country. But if my right hon. Friend was right in his contention there never would come any time at which action should be taken. If the circumstances are not now, after six years, enough to justify what has been done, how long are we to wait and submit to the contumely with which we are attacked by the Russian Government?

It is perfectly clear that his speech could only have the result, if it proved successful, that Russia would be assured she could take any action she liked in connection with her relations to us, that she could act as she chose in any part of the world, that she could be as hostile as she chose and that the British people would never take any action. I regard that as an impossible position to take up. Not only so, but the very fact that Bolshevism is now receiving its first reverse seems to me a very good reason for our taking action here at the same time. The combined results of their failure in China and the action which we now take after a long period of tolerance and patience may, as I anticipate, be enough to convince the Russian people at last that this perpetual attack upon the civilised nations of the world is going to be a permanent failure and that so long as she indulges in it she is not going to succeed in the comity of nations.

The right hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, addressed himself in particular to the losses we would suffer in our trade in taking this action. My right hon. Friend and I are, I think, convicted of being very bad prophets in connection with trade with Russia. We both prophesied a very great development of trade with Russia as a result of the agreement of 1921 and we have both been proved entirely wrong. The only thing is that because I am less important and cannot use such picturesque language as my right hon Friend, my predictions have not been remembered as his have been. I think so long as this question is discussed, somebody will refer to "the bursting corn bins" and that expression will remain a permanent sympton of his failure to prophesy correctly. There is then the matter of this £10,000,000 credit. I have so often been confronted with cases in which Russia was going to place large orders in this country, if only sufficient credits were given, that I feel very doubtful indeed as to what the ultimate result of this credit would have been. It had to escape many difficulties before any actual contract was made. It has been revealed to us that there has been no contract at all yet made under this supposed credit and that there would have to be scrutiny by the bank of each individual credit and a deposit made by the Russian Government before anything could be done. It is asking too much to ask us to believe that the country has lost £10,000,000 worth of orders this year because we have taken this particular action.

What did all our manufactures shipped to Russia amount to last year? To less than £6,000,000, and I ask the House to address its attention to the character of our trade with Russia. Speeches are constantly being made as to the amount of employment which our people are to obtain by keeping in touch with Russia in the way we have been doing and figures are used of composite trade as if they all represented the employment of people in the factories of this country. It is a complete fallacy. Last year we shipped to Russia of our own manufactures something like £5,800,000 worth. We shipped of other people's manufactures, we being mere entrepreneurs in the matter, £14,000,000 worth, but all the employment that was given to this country is represented by something less than £6,000,000 sterling. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the docks?"] I stand upon the figures which I give. I am talking about employment in factories. I agree that the merchanting of the other £14,000,000 worth meant a certain amount of employment but not employment in the factories. These other goods were manufactured in other countries and this country was the conduit by which they proceeded to Russia. So far as our own employment is concerned, less than £6,000,000 represents the total. On the other hand, what did we do for Russia? We bought from Russia £23,900,000 worth of their goods. Who benefits on that balance of trade? The fact is that we were buying from Russia a sufficient amount of goods to supply them with money to buy goods from other countries. The difference between the £6,000,000 and the £24,000,000 is represented by goods which they purchased in other countries, including at least one country which never has entered into any terms of friendship with them at all. I mean the United States.

The United States sent Russia last year, as a contrast to our £6,000,000 worth, £11,000,000 worth of their manufactures, in spite of the fact that not only have they refused to recognise Russia but have treated Russia with contumely. There is at least one Member on the Opposition benches who will recall the language used in America with regard to Russia. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) was in America when I was there, about 18 months ago, asking the trade unions of America to make contact with the trade unions of Russia. I do not suppose in the history of this country there ever has been an envoy from Britain treated with so much contumely as he was by his fellow trade unionists of America and none has ever been sent away with so much contempt ringing in his ears. The fact is that while America despises Russian methods and contemns every single element of Russia's creed, at the same time the Russians recognise a strong Power which cares nothing for what they say and they go hat in hand to America obsequiously to get the benefits that America can afford.

So far from thinking that this action of the Government is going to decrease our trade with Russia, I think Russia will find it inevitable that she shall trade with us. Where is she going to find the market for the £24,000,000 worth which we took last year? It represents the raw materials of her country; it is her timber, her cereals, her bristles, her oil; where is she going to find so ready a market as Great Britain? My contention to this House, having some little knowledge of trade, is that Russia cannot fail to trade with this country. She may, in order to show some sort of resentment in the immediate future, make some kind of ostentatious display of either withdrawing her orders or refusing to give us others, but it is inevitable from the position in which she lies geographically, that her trade with Britain must increase as she develops and that we shall not suffer from any action of this kind.

Mr. OLIVER

Your last prediction was wrong.

Sir R. HORNE

After all, it is my prophecy, and everyone should have the courage of his predictions and I venture to give the House that one. I wish to advert for a moment to the Motion which has been moved from the Labour Benches. It is proposed that we should have a further inquiry into these matters. What is any further inquiry going to produce? We have had a speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs who showed no favour to the Government in the action they have taken but at the same time he told the House with the full authority of his experience, that there was no doubt about the evidence and that he himself in his own time had had evidence in his hand, even more remarkable than that which the Government put before the House two days ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in terms as severe as any that have come from the mouths of Ministers, has expressed his view of the Russian propaganda against Britain. He has no doubt in his own mind that they are perpetually working against us and perpetually violating the stipulations of the Trade Agreement. My right hon. Friend nods his head. Therefore, we require no further inquiry.

What, then, are we to do? Are we to go on suffering these insults? I know what the right hon. Gentleman's proposition is. He says we ought to sit down round a table. There have been many discussions with the Russians. There was a discussion which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs entered upon very hopefully in the year 1922 at Genoa, which lasted for many weeks and arrived at nothing. If I were asked to point to the time at which my might hon. Friend began to lose his prestige in Europe, it was when the Russians defeated him in those negotiations. The Labour Government spent a long and weary time trying to arrive at some result with Russia, which they put in the form of a Treaty. What did it involve? It was that this great country of Russia, which regards capitalism as a crime and a capitalist as a man to be assassinated, came here to ask for the loan of some of our capital, and they were not going to do anything for us in any shape or form unless they got that guarantee of a loan. It was the prime stipulation upon which everything depended. As I say, how long can we be expected to suffer these insults and injuries throughout the world? Russia to-day is working everywhere for the upsetting of all recognised institutions.

There was here only the other day one of the most distinguished American journalists who gave a lecture on his experiences in Mexico, from which he had just returned, and he revealed to us the fact that in Mexico the conditions of discord which at present exist are exactly similar to those which exist in China, and that they are operated by exactly the same machine from Moscow as is already trying to do devastation in China. They are at work, as we know, in Afghanistan, and they are everywhere trying to create this world revolution, as they call it. In my view, so long as we allow them to continue in this country carrying out their schemes here, and so long as we fail to put a stop to their perfidies, we shall have the degradation of the relations between the nations. The Russians to-day are poisoning international life. They are like noxious germs, which settle upon the scars of the world and turn them all into festering sores. We may be a healthy people, we may be a strong people—although in some respects to-day our vitality is not too high—but I think it is incumbent upon us, for the sake of the health of the body politic, that we shall clear out these danger spots from our system.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON

The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who has just resumed his seat, began his speech by reminding the House that some years ago he had made a prediction that had never been fulfilled, yet he was bold enough to close his speech by making another. I hope the second is not as unfortunate as the first. With regard to the suggestion that the Russians will continue to send their exports here, I think there is no one in this House who would not welcome them. We are not going to lose, are we, if they send their exports here? What we shall deplore is that we have not any exports to send to them in return, for the simple reason that we shall not have their orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Free Trade?"] They will pay for them as they pay now, because the right hon. Gentleman told us that the balance of trade was very much against them, inasmuch as their exports from Russia were very much greater than their imports from here.

Before I say anything in regard either to the Motion or to the Amendment before the House, I would like to make a brief reference to another Amendment that I see on the Order Paper, and I think I should be allowing the position to continue to be misrepresented if I were silent in this Debate with such an Amendment on the Paper. I find in this Amendment, that has not been moved, these words: and further expresses its strong condemnation of the unconstitutional conduct of … the right hon. the Member for Burnley in receiving diplomatic representations from a foreign Government. I should have thought that, before horn Members ventured to place upon the Order Paper, in their names, such a condemnation of a colleague in this House, they would, at any rate, have made an effort to ascertain the facts of the position.

Sir BASIL PETO

We asked for them at Question Time, and got no answer.

Mr. HENDERSON

Question time is not the time to try to settle accounts of this description, but I am not afraid to state the entire position, and I hope the House will bear with me if I attempt to do so. On the night of the raid, I think it was two or three minutes after eight o'clock, I walked from the House across the Lobby to my room and was met there by a couple of gentlemen, one being the Chargé d'Affaires of the Soviet Government. It was at once said that he desired to speak. I then asked him to come into the room, and we sat down together. I had not been two minutes in the room before the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) came in on other business, and I asked him if he would remain and hear the statement that was just beginning. The statement was that a raid had been begun in connection with the premises of Arcos, Limited, and that he was afraid it would extend to the Trade Delegation. He said he had done everything in his power to get into touch with the Foreign Secretary—and I think the Foreign Secretary yesterday admitted that he left the office at about seven o'clock, and this was about eight o'clock, as I have already said—or with any official at the Foreign Office, and he had failed to do so. He then said that, as they had had no warning about this raid—[Laughter]—I think I shall be able to show that, as the raid was covering the Trade Delegation, they were certainly entitled to be treated differently from the way in which they were treated—and as they could get no information from and no contact with the Foreign Office, he merely came down, not to make diplomatic representations, but to make a statement about the conduct of the Home Secretary, who had initiated the raid. As a result, we put the question that was answered on the following day.

If that is carrying on, as the Amendment referred to says, "unconstitutional conduct," may I say that I always thought it was the duty of a politician and a gentleman, if someone wished to make a, statement to him, to treat that person as a gentleman until he was found out to be a rogue? Having made that personal statement, I would like to refer to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs this afternoon. I was very much impressed by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, though he was delivering the speech, had his heart behind an entirely different policy. That was not to be wondered at, having regard to the repeated statements that he has made in this House in support of a policy entirely contrary to that to which we listened to-day. The first observation I wish to make with regard to the speech is this. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was a Vote of Censure, that the Government would not accept that Vote of Censure, and he gave as his reason that the Opposition had told them what attitude they ought to take up towards any request for an inquiry. This, as the House well knows, referred to the Campbell case. I should have thought that that was not an illustration that should be brought up with the intention of following it; I should have thought, having regard to all that took place afterwards, that it was a case of being warned against it as showing how not to do it.

But I would like to make another remark with regard to this question of inquiry. I remember a Motion being moved last Session—I think I moved it myself—with regard to the question of Ministers and contracts. The Prime Minister, when replying on the Motion, said that the idea of an inquiry nobody could very well take exception to, but in the opening lines of the Motion moved from these benches there was a reference to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, and because of that reference being there, he could not in any way support the proposed inquiry. It cannot be said in this case that the Motion that has been moved by the right hon. Member for Platting refers to any particular Minister. I cannot see any such word of condemnation, and, having regard to the very important issues that are raised by the Motion, one would have thought that an inquiry was the most reasonable course to adopt. As for making this an exact parallel with the Campbell case, may I say that the Campbell case was merely a domestic issue? This is not a domestic issue; this is an international issue. Moreover, I ought to remind the House that in that particular case, it was perfectly clear, owing to our minority position, that we would have had a majority of the members of the Committee of Inquiry against us from the beginning. In the present instance, with such a proportion of supporters as the Prime Minister has behind him, the Government would have been able to place on the Committee of Inquiry a very considerable majority of their own Members.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

Hear, hear!

Mr. HENDERSON

I am putting the position quite clearly. The Government would have had on the Committee a majority of members.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept implicitly the decision of that tribunal?

Mr. HENDERSON

You would have to wait and see about that. The right, hon. Gentleman has been too long in this House to expect me to accept in advance the decision of a majority of a Committee who are against us from the start. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why ask for it?"] No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the issue. The issue is, would the inquiry have illustrated questions and points and issues that have not been made clear, not even in this Debate, with the assistance of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman himself delivered? It is not a Campbell case, in my opinion. The fact is that the Government are afraid to bring some of the questions into the light. The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying so, but I think the real issue is that something had to be done; a raid had been entered upon and carried out in a way that could be very severely criticised, and the Government, having failed to find what they were looking for, had to divert public attention from the failure of the raid, and they now propose to do it in this way. But this policy, for which the Government has made itself responsible, is the more remarkable—I might go so far as to say is the more incredible—in view of the fact that this was not the only course left open to them.

10.0 p.m.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that only the Charge d'Affaires, of all the people employed at Chesham. House, by the Trade Delegation, or Arcos, has any really serious diplomatic privileges. Therefore I am right in saying that the Government could have prosecuted any single member of the staff who was suspected of doing a thing that was wrong. They could have proceeded against them in the Courts, the visas of every individual on the staff could have been withdrawn, and all of them would have been compelled to return to Russia. If the Government did not wish to proceed against the Charge d'Affaires, if they had no complaint against him as an official, they could have appealed to the Russian Government to say that all these men had to be brought back to Russia because they were violating the conditions upon which they were allowed to be in this country. It seems to me that the Foreign Office on the one hand and the police authorities on the other had an alternative policy that they could have put into operation without running all the risk that they are running. Notwithstanding the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead on the trade issue, I am quite satisfied that the Government are taking a considerable risk in regard to the trade of our country. The Foreign Secretary told us that they had a great mass of information, gathered over a considerable period, but he would only select two documents. Why two documents? Surely the issue that is being debated is of such importance that, if he has more documents, they ought to have been produced. Are we to understand that the two documents were the cream of the whole? If they were, the cream was not very far from sour milk. I am not to be persuaded that it was a printing impossibility to have placed a number of these documents in the White Paper. I think the Home Secretary, who is to follow me, might give the House a little information as to why, if they have all these important documents, they were not produced in the Debate, and why, if they were not produced in the Debate, they were not included in the White Paper? I have a theory, although I may be wrong—but once bitten, twice shy—that they may see the light of day at the next General Election. The Foreign Secretary seems to be rather angry with some of us for daring to suggest that some of the methods of which he complains are occasionally followed by our awn Government. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) exaggerated the position. He is dealing with what those of us who have been associated with Governments in the past all know. I have been associated with the right hon. Gentleman in Governments under various names, and I am prepared to say that a certain number of things go on.

What is so unfortunate in our own country is that we are such hypocrits. We Britishers are the Simon Pures of international life. Everybody can do the thing that is wrong, but we can do no wrong. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. I remember, some years after the War, some of us who had done our little best in the great crisis—[Laughter]—I repeat some of us who had done our best, and I think no one will be prepared to admit that sooner than the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary—I remember that in 1919 we had a little experience of what could be done under a British Government. Some Members of this House were participating in a conference in Switzerland. I had been responsible for organising that conference, and one Saturday morning one of the Bernese police came into the office and said, "Here are some papers; they all pertain to your conference". I looked at them and I saw at once they were very full of interest. He said, "We have got some more at the police office; would you like to see them"? I said, "Certainly," and he brought them. Would you believe it that they were reports by a spy representing our own Government, who was sent to spy on the delegates at that conference, including some Members of this House? I read those reports, and I think the best way in which I could describe them would be to say that they were a lot of tosh. But they were very expensive tosh. The spy was writing to Scotland Yard and to the head detective in the Hotel Majestic. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) will remember that hotel where the work of the Peace Conference was carried on, and in all his letters this spy was pleading for more money. The point is obvious to those who want to see it. It was a case of our doing, as a Government, through one of our Departments, the very thing about which we complain so much against the Russian Government.

What is the burden of the complaint to which we have had to listen not only in the speeches against the Motion but also in the speeches in favour of the Amendment? It is that there is a certain amount of propaganda being carried on in this country, in Europe and in Asia, anywhere, I suppose, where it can be carried on, as we are told, against this country and against the present Government. I do not hink that any of us on these benches is prepared to question that that propaganda is carried on. I hope it is not supposed that we on these benches are prepared to justify that propaganda. We know, probably better than almost anybody on the other side, what active propagandists the Communists can be. We have had to deal with them in connection with our own movement, so that the question of propaganda, as far as the Soviet Government is concerned and Communists in this country are concerned, is no new matter to us. But are we to be told that this in itself, however provocative it may be—and the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has spoken of the great irritation to which he and his Department have been subjected—is sufficient to justify the very serious step that we are being asked to take? If this was really a matter of propaganda in this country, it would not matter.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL

It is against the Agreement.

Mr. HENDERSON

Yes, I am prepared to admit that, and I do not justify it, but that is not the point. I am trying to show the difference between propaganda in our own country and propaganda in other countries. That is the most serious aspect of it. Do the Government believe that the propaganda either at home or abroad is going to be lessened as a result of this step to be taken to-night? In my opinion, that propaganda will become more intensified, and I believe I will not be exaggerating in the slightest degree if I say that it will become more dangerous. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary more than once has pointed out the very serious effect that a break with Russia would have, not only upon diplomatic relations in other parts of the world, but which it might possibly have upon the peace of the world itself. That is one of the things about which many of us are most apprehensive, and I venture to say the Government will find that the statement which has been made by the Foreign Secretary is true: If we break off diplomatic relations with Russia, we should not only introduce a new and disturbing element into British domestic policy but we should introduce a new and disturbing issue in Europe itself. My final word is this. I believe we are making a profound mistake. With nearly 1,000,000 unemployed, how can any Member of this House face the new situation with equanimity? I believe, as I have already said, that the inevitable result of the change which the Government are making, of the break to which the carrying of this Resolution will lead, must inevitably bring about an increase of propaganda and a lessening of our trade, and a reduction of our trade means that the position of our unemployed difficult as it is already even still more difficult. I have no hesitation in saying that in years to come it will be demonstrated that this was one of the most unfortunate acts for which any Government have made themselves responsible in recent times.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)

At last we are getting near, in fact we have reached the end of the challenges which have been made against the action of the Government in regard to what is called the raid on Arcos. It seems to have been thought, even by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), that it was a temporary aberration on the part of one Member of the Government, a mere sudden idea that came into his head, on which one forthwith launched proceedings and searched the building of Arcos in which was situated the Russian Trade Delegation, done without any consultation with his colleagues and without his having had in his possession for months and months past information which caused him, and indeed the whole Government, to realise that the position vis-a-vis the Russian Trade Delegation and the Soviet representative in this country was as unsatisfactory as it was at the time when the present Leader of the Opposition was Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. I want the House to realise that this was no mere sudden effort on the part of the Home Secretary. From time to time information had come into the possession of the Government. For instance, owing to the courtesy of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I had seen the telegrams which have been read in the House and were included in the Prime Minister's statement a few days ago and some of which are printed in the White Paper. They were known to the Government, and they were known, also, to myself; but more than that was known by the Government.

I want to say a word about it, because the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has made certain accusations with regard to the conduct of our own country in spying. He has made a speech here which certainly can do very little good to the country as a whole. I want to tell the House that there were spy organisations in this country on behalf of Russia, organisations which it was the duty of the Home Secretary to be aware of, and which he was aware of, for many months before this raid took place. It may be that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is entitled to say, certainly when he was Prime Minister, that England had spies abroad. May I differentiate between the spy and the spy? It is one thing for a Government to send spies to a country, but it is quite another thing for a trade delegation, visiting and working in a country friendly to itself with a trade mission and a diplomatic mission, under a Chargé d'Affaires, to themselves become an elaborate centre of an elaborate spy organisation. That is exactly what took place here. I see no reason why I should not tell the House something, at all events, of its activities, which were not merely the activities of foreign spies imported from a foreign country, but they were spies in the closest touch with our Empire, and they had a Trade Delegation far more elaborate in its organisation and more numerous than I have been able to discover was the case in any other country in the world.

Nothing of the kind has existed before in England since I have been Home Secretary. I do not deny that from time to time some country may send an agent over here to find out some particular things with regard to a particular munition of war which is kept secret in this country. That is the kind of thing all countries have to take the risk of, but it is quite different when a trade delegation comes over here for a different purpose, and has a complete organisation in touch with itself endeavouring to find out every single question of importance with regard to the Navy, Army and the Air Force of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is your proof?"] There was a distinct, spying organisation. I want to be perfectly frank about this matter, because after to-night, after the effect which will be given to the decision of the House to-night, I have every reason to hope that the spy system of the Russian Government and the Russian Trade Delegation will be broken up once and for all. Certain members of this organisation have been traced in all our military and naval centres, and at Aldershot and Portsmouth, in particular.

Some people may think that the organisation of Great Britain is faulty as regards the Secret Service, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to this point and said that Russia had the best in the world. At any rate, the Secret Service of Great Britain is not so bad, after all. I happen to have in my possession not merely the names but the addresses of most of those spies. They have been traced in their nefarious plans. I have also in my possession a considerable number of the questionnaires which they have used, and which they have given to various people connected with the armed forces of this country to try to find out particular Information in regard to the particular objects which are very rightly kept secret by our different Services.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Why did you not prosecute them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs gave one answer to that question. He told us that he knew, when the Great War broke out, who the spies were, and what they were doing, and he could put his hand upon them at any moment; and I know—I have been waiting very patiently—who they are, where they are, what they have been doing: and now they have been traced completely and directly to this friendly delegation. I am in a position to give the House one or two points on which they have been endeavouring to get information.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Have any arrests been made?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

No arrests have been made—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Why not?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs explained why no arrests have been made up to the present moment. One of their principal points was to find out our listening arrangements with regard to aeroplanes, and the air cooling of our engines in our aeroplanes; the plans of our new destroyers are being sought for, and also the plans of the directional wireless in our ships of war, the method of installing the same, and the plans of our internal combustion engines. They wanted to get—they have not got them yet, and I do not think they will—the plans of our two latest warships. I have had made out for me a list of all these things which this friendly Government, working through this friendly Trade Delegation, has been endeavouring to get by what I do not hesitate to describe as one of the most complete and one of the most nefarious spy systems that it has ever been my lot to meet.

Mr. MACKINDER

Are there any others?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

There is no other trade delegation in this country, and, so far as I know, there is no foreign Embassy in this country which has degraded itself in the manner in which that of Russia has.

Mr. THURTLE

Are there any other agents?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The hon. Member is entitled to ask me that question, and I am entitled to answer it in this way: There is no other country which has anything like a similar spy system in this country to that which Russia had. These telegrams to which I have referred, and this information, were known to His Majesty's Government. Then another thing occurred. This particular document, of which we have heard so much, and with regard to which I have been challenged this afternoon, was found to be missing from the Government service. It was an important document; it was a document of a secret character; it was a document the information contained in which would undoubtedly have been useful to any foreign Power that got hold of it. I have been asked why I authorised the raid to take place on Arcos. I will tell the House. Information was brought to me, by direction of the Secretary of State for War, in my room here, late on the afternoon of the 11th May. The information was that the document had been missing. But there was more than that. I had then, and I have now, in my possession, a photographic copy of that document produced in the Arcos building. What was I to do in the face of that information? Supposing I had taken no notice of it at all. What would the House have said to me if I had not taken the powers that are vested in me to protect the interests of the country? It has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that I dashed into this matter without consultation with my colleagues. I did nothing of the kind. I saw the Prime Minister and consulted with him, and at his request, having received his assent to the course I proposed to adopt, I went and saw the Foreign Secretary. He stated that fact to-day. He said: "Supposing you had this document brought to you as Home Secretary with the information that it had been produced in any business house in London entirely unconnected with Russia, would you have caused a search to be made?" I said emphatically, "Certainly I should". The question of the nationality of the company or the shareholders in the company where this document was created had nothing whatever to do with it. My right hon. Friend said, laconically: "Very well then, raid it." We have got into the habit of using the word "raid" largely because hon. Members opposite have used it from time to time. The correct word is "search."

Mr. WALLHEAD

The right hon. Gentleman did not effectively search. He made no provision for effective search, because he did not take women searchers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

That is a new ground of complaint against me, that the search was not sufficiently effective. I authorised an application to be made to the magistrate and, upon sworn testimony, he was convinced that this was a case for a search and he granted the warrant under which the search was made. I thought perhaps I should have been challenged as to the method in which that search was conducted. Certainly complaints have been made outside the House as to the conduct of the police. I am very glad that no Member of the House has repeated the statements which have been published in a certain document in regard to the police in the form of an affidavit, or sworn declaration, in particular by two of the men who were found in the building. In case any one should have any idea that there is any truth in the allegation of cruelty such as would be unworthy of the police in any country, and certainly unworthy of the police in this country, I should like to say that immediately I saw that document I sent for the actual police who were concerned in the raid in this room No. 5 where these two men who made the sworn statement were. I personally examined and cross-examined the police and I am perfectly satisfied that no more violence was used than had to be used when these two ruffians deliberately resisted the police in the execution of their duty and fought and kicked until they were overcome. The police, in executing a search by order of the Court, cannot be resisted. In fact, the warrant orders them to use such force as is necessary to complete their search. They gave no insults and they searched no women throughout the whole proceedings.

Viscountess ASTOR

They ought to have done.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

No, I am quite satisfied it is wise that they should not do it. Even if the documents I referred to had been taken out of the building by a woman, personally I would almost as soon that that should have been done as that a large number of women, some of them English women carrying on their work legitimately, should have been searched. I do not think for a moment that was the case. I think the document had left Arcos some days at all events before the search took place. Remember that curious telegram from the Chargé d'Affaires a month before the search took place. He was a shrewd man. There was no idea in the mind of the Government at that time that any search would be made. We had not in our possession anything like the evidence which would have authorised it, and yet the Chargé d'Affaires, from Chesham House, sent that remarkable telegram to his own Government in Moscow suggesting that there might be a raid—he did not think there would be—and, in particular, advising the Russian Government to suspend for a time forwarding by post documents to friends, neighbours and so forth from London to Moscow, and vice versa. Why was that telegram sent? We have had no explanation. I do not know whether M. Rosengolz, when he did the leaders of the party opposite the honour to call upon them at the House of Commons, told them why he had sent that remarkable telegram. There could have been only one reason for it. M. Rosengolz knew perfectly well that there were incriminating documents passing to and fro between Moscow and London—some of them in the Soviet bag—and that these documents had better be suspended in the near future, probably because he knew of the existence of this particular document. He knew, as he foreshadowed in the telegram, that a search might be made, and so he said, "Stop for the time being sending any documents of this character between London and Moscow."

No wonder our search was not wholly successful. No wonder we did not find as many documents as we thought would be possible. But we found one document of even greater importance than the one for which we were searching; it was a human document. It was Anton Miller, one of the men whom we had known for a couple of years as one of the leaders of the Russian spy organisation, in the very closest touch with the actual leader of it, staying with him at his house for weeks at a time. Anton Miller was found as the cipher clerk right in the heart of Arcos. I am going to ask hon. Members opposite what they have got to say concerning that particular "document". What would they do? What would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) have done if he had been Prime Minister at this time, if he had known as fully as His Majesty's Government know what had been going on in this matter. Can we not realise from the dispatch which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon sent the Soviet Government in 1924 what course he would have taken? The right hon. Gentleman was not mealy-mouthed in dealing with the Soviet Government. He knew the terms of the Trade Agreement. It was he and his Government who had entered into diplomatic relationship with the Russian Government. I expect he was hurt in his feelings when he found out that they were carrying on this propaganda in our country directly in the face of the terms of the Trade Agreement.

I have been dealing up to this moment with espionage, but propaganda is directly contrary to the Trade Agreement. Propaganda was carried on. It is admitted that propaganda was carried on, and admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that the evidence justified up to the hilt the action of the Government in this matter. I am very largely relieved in having to make a case by these admissions, particularly of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He queried the consequences of our action but as to the evidence upon which our action was based he told the House—a less crowded House than it is at the present moment—that he was satisfied that the evidence was complete and conclusive.

What did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon do when he found this thing being done? The Foreign Secretary quoted him this afternoon, and I would like to quote him again, because these are words—the Cabinet has seen the actual document—which were inserted by the right hon. Gentleman in the Foreign Office draft, in his own handwriting: No Government"— this was in 1924— will ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government by which the latter is in formal diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it, whilst at the same time a propagandist body, organically connected with that foreign Government encourages and even orders the subjects of the former to plot and plan revolution for its overthrow. That is from the Leader of the Opposition. The only difference between the position in 1924 and the position to-day is that we know now that the propaganda comes directly from the emissaries of the Government itself, and not merely from the Third International. Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon been Foreign Secretary to-day, he would have concurred in the dispatches we sent a few months ago to Russia, and I am not at all sure that he would not have concurred, knowing what we know, in the decision and action which we have decided to take.

Mr. R. MORRISON

I am sure the House has been waiting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do with the human document.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Will the hon. Member leave the human document to me? I do not think it is desirable that I should announce what will be done. The conduct of the Government has not yet been approved by the House of Commons. The despatch has not yet been sent to the Chargé d'Affaires which will be sent to him to-morrow if the House passes the Amendment, as I hope it will. After that, the Home Secretary will be in a position to decide what course he intends to take in the other matter. I want to ask the acting Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) a question which I think is a fair one. There was not much that I have to complain of in his speech to-day. Never did a man carry a bomb more gingerly than he did. I expected to be blown up at any moment, but he carried the bomb so gently that there was no chance of its exploding. But he is a little more explosive when he gets on to a public platform, and when he goes to his own town of Manchester. I want to call attention to a statement which he made there, referring to the raid on Arcos. I am quoting from the "Times" of the 23rd May. He said: The Government have done good work in the matter of forgery. That might do for the Back Benches, but it is hardly the kind of speech for a Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. MAXTON

These are surely new standards of conduct for Front Benchers.

Mr. GREENALL

He ought to have said, "Fire, and be damned!"

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I pass over the next sentence, which is a reference to myself, and take the following. It is: The evidence is that the Tory party would reap greater benefit from forged documents than from trying to find them. I ask him, quite frankly, what does he mean? [Interruption.]

Mr. CLYNES

I mean precisely what I say, and what I said has been further confirmed by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, the Foreign Secretary, in his speech to-day, in which he said that the Cabinet Committee which dealt with the matter of the Red Letter had never seen the original, and had only had copies to deal with. I am further convinced that that letter was a forgery; but great electoral profit was reaped by the Tory party from it. [Interruption.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I can only say that I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having the courage to say in this House what he said at Manchester. [Interruption.]

Mr. CLYNES

If the right hon. Gentleman has any further congratulations to extend, let him extend them to the Prime Minister on the mendacity of the language he has used in the letter he has sent to the Conservative candidate at Bosworth. [Interruption.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

If the right hon. Gentleman would like to make any more remarks of that character I will gladly give way to him. [Interruption.] Perhaps the House will now allow me to return to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. [Interruption.] I have already said that the right hon. Gentleman considers the evidence sufficient but objects to the course which the Government have taken. I have dealt with his accusation that the hands of the Government were forced by the Home Secretary. This is what the right hon. Gentleman suggests we should have done; that we should have complained of a breach of the Trade Agreement. He complained in 1921, again in 1922. The Opposition Government complained in 1924. We complained in 1925, in 1926, in 1927. How long and how often is the Government of Great Britain to complain of breaches of an agreement? Over and over again we have complained. How many times does the right hon. Gentleman say that we should go on complaining, while the offence is being committed again and doubly committed as the years go on? If the offence had stopped, if the propaganda had stopped—

Mr. MACKINDER

On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member entitled to suggest that the pay of the Opposition from another Government would stop in such an event?

Mr. SPEAKER

Certainly not. Hon. Members are making such a noise on my left that they are quite preventing me from hearing anything. If they would keep quiet I think they can trust me to see the proceedings are properly conducted.

Mr. B. SMITH

Further, to that point of Order. There was an offence offered to the hon. and gallant Member for Brentford (Colonel Grant Morden) and he definitely stated in my hearing that the pay of the Opposition from a, foreign Government would stop.

Mr. SPEAKER

The noise on my left has debarred me from dealing with interruptions of that kind. I must ask hon. Members to be silent to enable me to continue the proper conduct of the House.

Mr. THURTLE

On a point of Order. Is a director of the Cellulose Company a good judge of these matters?

Mr. SPEAKER

Order, Order.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I was saying we had made six different complaints.

Mr. B. SMITH

Since you resumed your seat, Mr. Speaker, the same hon. Member say, "Yes, and I can give the names."

Mr. SPEAKER

As long as this disorder goes on I am debarred from dealing with things of that kind. Hon. Members must, first of all, keep silent.

HON. MEMBERS

Withdraw!

Mr. SPEAKER

Order, order. The Home Secretary.

Colonel GRANT MORDEN

It is alleged that I made an allegation against the party as a whole. I do withdraw if it is understood in that way, but I did not mean it as against the Opposition as a whole.

HON. MEMBERS

That is worse.

Mr. B. SMITH

On a point of Order. The hon. Member said he could give the names of individuals in this party, and he implies that he can still name them.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am not going to pit my voice against the voices of hon. Members. I have said that I shall not call upon any hon. Member to withdraw, because owing to the noise which was going on it was impossible to hear what was said. Hon. Members must learn to keep silence if they expect to have the protection of the Chair.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I have only a few words to say in conclusion. We have been challenged to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into this matter. This is a matter for which the Government are responsible. It is a matter of direct Government control. If the Government have done wrong it is open to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to censure us. It is open to the country to censure us. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!") We are responsible for our actions, and we stand by those actions. We make no apology for the course we have adopted. We intend to see that course carried out to its conclusion. I have just one sentence to say in reply to the Opposition, and to the speeches which have been made by the Leaders of the Opposition in this House to-day. On our side of the House, and I believe outside the House, there is a real patriotic endeavour to support Great Britain in these very difficult and troublesome circumstances. I say to the party opposite that until they realise that Great Britain is not always wrong, and that her enemies are not always right, they never will be able to represent this country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 367.

Division No.152.] AYES. [11.0 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Murnin, H.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hardle, George D. Oliver, George Harold
Ammon, Charles George Hayes, John Henry Palln, John Henry
Attlee, Clement Richard Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Ponsonby, Arthur
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hirst, G. H. Potts, John S.
Batey, Joseph Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Purcell, A. A.
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bromfield, William Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Riley, Ben
Bromley, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Buchanan, G. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Saklatvala, Shapuril
Cape, Thomas Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Salter. Dr. Alfred
Clowes, S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Scrymgeour, E.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Scurr, John
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kelly, W. T. Sexton, James
Cove, W. G. Kennedy, T. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Dalton, Hugh Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Kirkwood, D Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Davies, Rhys John(Westhoughton) Lansbury, George Sitch, Charles H.
Day, Colonel Harry Lawrence, Susan Smlille, Robert
Dennison, R. Lawson, John James Smith, Ben (Barmondsey, Rotherhithe)
Duncan, C. Lee, F. Smith, H. B. Lees. (Kelghley)
Dunnlco, H. Lindley, F. W. Snell, Harry
Gardner, J. P. Lowth, T. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gibbins, Joseph Lunn, William Stamford, T. W.
Gosling, Harry Mackinder, W. Stephen, Campbell
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) MacLaren, Andrew Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Greenall, T. Mac Neill-Weir, L. Sullivan, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) March, S. Sutton, J. E.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Maxton, James Taylor, R. A.
Groves, T. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Grundy, T. W. Mosley, Oswald Thurtle, Ernest
Tinker, John Joseph Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Townend, A. E. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Wellock, Wilfred Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Varley, Frank B. Welsh, J. C. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Viant, S. P. Westwood, J.
Wallhead, Richard C. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen Whiteley, W. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Wilkinson, Ellen C. Edwards.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. -Col. D. (Rhondda) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. J.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Grotrian, H. Brent
Ainsworth, Major Charles Clarry, Reginald George Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Albery, Irving James Clayton, G. C. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Cobb, Sir Cyril Gunston, Captain D. W.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W.Derby) Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Applln, Colonel R. V. K. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Apsley, Lord Conway, Sir W. Martin Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Cope, Major William Hammersley, S. S.
Astor, Mal. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover) Couper, J. B. Hanbury, C.
Astor, Viscountess Courtauld, Major J. S. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Atholl, Duchess of Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Harland, A.
Atkinson, C. Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities) Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Harrison, G. J. C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hartington, Marquess of
Balniel, Lord Crawfurd, H. E. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Haslam, Henry C.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hawke, John Anthony
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Crookshank,Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Curzon, Captain Viscount Henderson, Lieut. -Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Bennett, A. J. Dalkeith, Earl of Heneage. Lleut.-Col. Arthur P.
Berry, Sir George Daizlel, Sir Davison Hennessy, Major sir G. R. J.
Bethel, A. Davidson, J.(Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Betterton, Henry B. Davidson, Major-General Sir John H Herbert, S.(York, N. R.,Scar, & wh'by)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hilton, Cecil
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Davies, Dr. Vernon Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Boothby, R. J. G. Dixey, A. C. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Drewe, C. Holt, Captain H. P.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Duckworth, John Homan, C. W. J.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Eden, Captain Anthony Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Edmondson, Major A. J. Hopkins, J. W. W.
Brass, Captain W. Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Brassey, Sir Leonard Ellis, R. G. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cll-s Elvedon. Viscount Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Briggs, J. Harold England, Colonel A. Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Briscoe, Richard George Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Brittain, Sir Harry Everard, W. Lindsay Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Hume, Sir G. H.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Faile, Sir Bertram G. Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Fanshawe, Captain, G. D. Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Fermoy, Lord Huntingfield, Lord
Buchan, John Fielden, E. B. Hurd, Percy A.
Buckingham, Sir H. Finburgh, S. Hurst, Gerald B.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Ford, Sir P. J. Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Bullock, Captain M. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Burman, J. B. Forrest, W. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Burney, Lieut. -Com. Charles D. Foster, Sir Harry S. Jacob, A. E.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Foxcroft, Captain C. T. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Fraser, Captain Ian Jephcott, A. R.
Butt, Sir Alfred Frece, Sir Walter de Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Caine, Gordon Hall Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Campbell, E. T. Galbraith, J. F. W. Kindersley, Major G. M.
Carver, Major W. H. Ganzonl, Sir John King, Captain Henry Douglas
Cassels, J. D. Gates, Percy Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Gault, Lleut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Knox, Sir Alfred
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lamb, J. Q.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) Glyn, Major R. G. C. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Goff, Sir Park Leigh, Sir John(Clapham)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Gower, Sir Robert Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Grace, John Little, Dr. E. Graham
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Livingstone, A. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Grant, Sir J. A. Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley)
Chapman, Sir S. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Chilcott, Sir Warden Greene, W. P. Crawford Looker, Herbert William
Christie, J. A. Greenwood. Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E) Lougher, Lewis
Lucas-Tooth. S'r Hugh Vere Power, Sir John Cecil Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Pownall, Sir Assheton Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Lumley, L. R. Price, Major C. W. M. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Lynn, Sir R. J. Radford, E. A. Tasker, R. Inigo.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Ramsden, E. Templeton, W. P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Rawson, Sir Cooper Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Rees, Sir Beddoe Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Maclntyre, Ian Reid, D. D. (County Down) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
McLean, Major A. Remer, J. R. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Macmillan, Captain H. Remnant, Sir James Tinne, J. A.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Rentoul, G. S. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Macquisten, F. A. Rice, Sir Frederick Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Waddington, R.
Malone. Major P. B. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Margesson, Captain D. Ropner, Major L. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W
Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Warrender, Sir Victor
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Meller, R. J. Rye, F. G. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Merriman, F. B. Salmon, Major I. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Watts, Dr. T.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Sandeman, N. Stewart Wells, S. R.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Sanders, Sir Robert A. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Sanderson, Sir Frank White, Lieut. -Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Sandon, Lord Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Moore, Sir Newton J. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Morden, Col. W. Grant Savery, S. S. Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexham)
Moreing, Captain A. H. Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie Williams, Herbert G.(Reading)
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Shepperson, E. W. Winby, Colonel. L. P.
Nelson, Sir Frank Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel George
Neville, R. J. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Wise, Sir Fredric
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Withers, John James
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wolmer Viscount
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) Smithers, Waldron Womersley, W. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Nuttail, Ellis Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Wood, E. (Chester, staiy'b'ge & Hyde)
Oakley, T. Sprot, Sir Alexander Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Pennefather, Sir John Steel, Major Samuel Strang Wragg, Herbert
Penny, Frederick George Storry-Deans, R. Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Strauss, E. A.
Perring, Sir William George Streatfeild, Captain S. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Commander B. Eyres Monsell and
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Colonel Gibbs.
Pilcher, G. Styles, Captain H. W.

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

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection, being taken to further Proceeding, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 359; Noes, 112.

Division No. 153.] AYES. [11. 12 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Barnett, Major Sir Richard Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Barnston, Major Sir Harry Briggs, J. Harold
Ainsworth, Major Charles Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Briscoe, Richard George
Albery, Irving James Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Brittain, Sir Harry
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Bennett, A. J. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Berry, Sir George Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Bethel, A. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Apsley, Lord Betterton, Henry B. Buchan, John
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Birchall, Major J. Dearman Buckingham, Sir H.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Astor, viscountess Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Bullock, Captain M.
Atholl, Duchess of Boothby, R. J. G. Burman, J. B.
Atkinson, C. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Burton, Colonel H. W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Balniel, Lord Braithwaite, Major A. N. Butt, Sir Alfred
Barclay-Harvey, C. M Brassey, Sir Leonard Caine, Gordon Hall
Campbell, E. T. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Carver, Major W. H. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Cassels, J. D. Greene, W. P. Crawford Macquisten, F. A.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Greenwood, Rt.Hn.Sir H. (Wth's'w, E) Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Malone, Major P. B.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.) Grotrian, H. Brent Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Mason, Lieut. -Col. Glyn K.
Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Gunston, Captain D. W. Meller, R. J.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Merriman, F. B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Chapman, Sir S. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hammersley. S. S. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Chilcott, Sir Warden Hanbury, C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Christie. J. A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Harland, A. Moore, Sir Newton J.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Harmsworth, Hon, E. C. (Kent) Morden, Col. W. Grant
Clarry, Reginald George Harrison, G. J. C. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Clayton, G. C. Hartington, Marquess of Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive
Cobb Sir Cyril Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Haslam, Henry C. Nelson, Sir Frank
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hawke. John Anthony Neville, R. J.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Cope, Major William Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Couper, J. B. Henderson, Lieut. -Col. V. L. (Bootle) Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Nuttall, Ellis
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Oakley, T.
Craig, Ernest(Chester, Crewe) Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Crawfurd, H. E. Hilton, Cecil O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Crooke, J. Smedley(Derltend) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Pennefather, Sir John
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Penny, Frederick George
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Holt, Capt. H. P. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Homan. C. W. J. Perring, Sir William George
Dalkeith, Earl of Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Dalziel, Sir Davison Hopkins. J. W. W. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Pilcher, G.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hopkinson. A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Power, Sir John Cecil
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hore-Belisha, Leslie Pownall, Sir Assheton
Davies, Dr Vernon Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Price, Major C. W. M.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Radford, E. A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Ramsden, E.
Dixey, A. C. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rawson, Sir Cooper
Drewe, C. Hume, Sir G. H. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Duckworth, John Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Eden, Captain Anthony Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Remer, J. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Huntingfleid, Lord Remnant, Sir James
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Hurd, Percy A. Rentoul, G. S.
Ellis, R. G. Hurst, Gerald B. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Elveden, Viscount Itlffe, Sir Edward M. Rice, Sir Frederick
England, Colonel A. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'yr
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.,M.) Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Roberts. E. H. G. (Flint)
Everard W. Lindsay Jacob, A. E. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Jephcott, A. R. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Rye, F. G.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Salmon, Major I.
Fermoy, Lord Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Fielden, E. B. Kindersley, Major G. M. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Finburgh, S. King, Captain Henry Douglas Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ford, Sir P. J. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sanderson, Sir Frank
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Knox, Sir Alfred Sandon, Lord
Forrest, W. Lamb, J. Q. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Savery, S. S.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Leigh, Sir John(Clapham) Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Fraser, Captain Ian Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Frece, Sir Walter de Little, Dr. E. Graham Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Shepperson, E. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Looker, Herbert William Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Ganzoni, Sir John. Lougher, Lewis Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Gates, Percy Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Lumley, L. R. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lynn, Sir R. J. Smithers, Waldron
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Spender-Clay, Colonel H
Goff, Sir Park Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sprot, Sir Alexander
Gower, Sir Robert Mc Donnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Grace, John Macintyre, Ian Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Graham, Fergus(Cumberland, N.) McLean, Major A. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Grant, Sir J. A. Macmillan, Captain H. Storry-Deans, R.
Strauss, E. A. Wallace, Captain D. E. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Wise, Sir Fredric
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Warrender, Sir Victor Withers, John James
Styles, Captain H. W. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wolmer, Viscount
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Womersley, W. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Watson, Rt. Hon W. (Carlisle) Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Watts, Dr. T. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde
Tasker, R. Inigo. Wells, S. R. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Templeton, W. P. Wholer, Major Sir Granville C. H. Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Williams, A. M. (Corewall, Northern) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) Wragg, Herbert
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Tinne, J. A. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) Captain lord Stanley and Captain
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) Margesson.
Waddington, R. Winby, Colonel L. P.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Short, Alfred(Wednesbury)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') John, William (Rhondda, West) Sitch, Charles H.
Ammon, Charles George Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Smille, Robert
Attlee, Clement Richard Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Barker, G. (Monmouth. Abertillery) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snell, Harry
Batey, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Kennedy, T. Stamford, T. W.
Bromfield, William Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Stephen, Campbell
Bromley, J. Kirkwood, D. Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)
Buchanan, G. Lansbury, George Sullivan, Joseph
Cape, Thomas Lawrence, Susan Sutton J. E.
Clowes, S. Lawson, John James Taylor, R. A.
Cluse, W. S. Lee, F. Thurtle, Ernest
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lindley, F. W. Tinker, John Joseph
Cove, W. G. Lunn, William Townend, A. E.
Dalton, Hugh Mackinder, W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacLaren, Andrew Varley Frank B.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Mac Neill-Weir, L. Viant, S. P.
Day, Colonel Harry March, S. Wallhead, Richard C.
Dennison, R. Maxton, James Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Duncan, C. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dunnico, H. Mosley, Oswald Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gardner, J. P. Murnin, H. Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney
Gibbins, Joseph Oliver, George Harold WellocK, Wilfred
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Palln, John Henry Welsh J. C.
Greenall. T. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Westwood, J
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Ponsonby, Arthur Wheatley Rt. Hon. J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Potts, John S. Whiteley, W.
Groves, T. Purcell, A. A. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Grundy, T. W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-Le-Spring) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hardie, George D. Saklatvala, Shapurji Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclife)
Hayes, John Henry Salter, Dr. Alfred Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Scrymgeour, E.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Scurr, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hirst, G. H. Sexton, James Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Edwards.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

The House divided: Ayes, 357; Noes, 111.

Division No. 154.] AYES. [11.24 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Balfour, George(Hampstead) Boothby, R. J. G.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Balniel, Lord Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ainsworth, Major Charles Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Albery, Irving James Barnett, Major Sir Richard Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Barnston, Major Sir Harry Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Brassey, Sir Leonard
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Briggs, J. Harold
Apsley, Lord Bennett, A. J. Briscoe, Richard George
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Berry, Sir George Brittain, Sir Harry
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dove) Bethel, A. Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Astor, Viscountess Betterton, Henry B. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Atholl, Duchess of Blrchall, Major J. Dearman Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Atkinson, C. Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Buchan, John
Buckingham, Sir H. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Lumley, L. R.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Lynn, Sir R. J.
Bullock, Captain M. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Burman, J. B. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. Goff, Sir Park McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Burton, Colonel H. W. Gower, Sir Robert MacIntyre, Ian
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Grace, John McLean, Major A.
Butt, Sir Alfred Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Macmillan, Captain H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Grant, Sir J. A. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Calne, Gordon Hall Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Campbell, E. T. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Macquisten, F. A.
Carver, Major W. H. Greene, W. P. Crawford Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Cassels, J. D. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E) Malone, Major P. B.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Grotrian, H. Brent Margesson, Captain D.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth. S.) Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Gunston, Captain D. W. Meller, R. J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Merriman, F. B.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm.,W.) Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Chapman, Sir S. Hammersley, S. S. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hanbury, C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Chilcott, Sir Warden Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Christie, J. A. Harland, A. Moore, Sir Newton J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Morden, Col. W. Grant
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Harrison, G. J. C. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Clarry, Reginald George Hartington, Marquess of Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Clayton, G. C. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Cobb, Sir Cyril Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Haslam, Henry C. Nelson, Sir Frank
Cohen, Major J. Brunei Hawke, John Anthony Neville. R. J.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Conway, Sir W, Martin Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Cope, Major William Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Couper, J. B. Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Courtauid, Major J. S. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Nuttall, Ellis
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Herbert, Dennis(Hertford, Watford) Oakley, T.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Herbert,S.(York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Craig, Ernest(Chester, Crewe) Hilton, Cecil O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Pennefather, Sir John
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Penny, Frederick George
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Holt, Captain H. P. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Curzon, Captain viscount Homan, C. W. J. Perring, Sir William George
Dalkeith, Earl of Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Dalziel, Sir Davison Hopkins, J. W. W. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Plicher, G.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Power, Sir John Cecil
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Horlick, Lieut. -Colonel J. N. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Davies, Dr. Vernon Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Price, Major C. W. M.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Howard-Bury, Lieut. -Colonel C. K. Radford, E. A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N). Ramsden, E.
Dixey, A. C. Hume, Sir G. H. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Drewe, C. Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Rees, Sir Beddoe
Duckworth John Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Eden, Captain Anthony Huntingfield, Lord Remer, J. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Hurd, Percy A. Remnant, Sir James
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Hurst, Gerald B. Rentoul, G. S.
Ellis, R. G. Ilifte Sir Edward M. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Elveden, Viscount Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Rice, Sir Frederick
England, Colonel A. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Jacob, A. E. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Everard, W. Lindsay Jephcott, A. R. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Rye, F. G.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). Salmon, Major I.
Fermoy, Lord Kindersley, Major Guy M. Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Fielden, E. B. King, Captain Henry Douglas Sandeman, N. Stewart
Finburgh, S. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ford Sir P. J. Knox, Sir Alfred Sanderson, Sir Frank
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Lamb, J. Q. Sandon, Lord
Forrest, W. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Savery, S. S.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Fraser, Captain Ian Little, Dr. E. Graham Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Frece, Sir Walter de Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Shaw. Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'tn) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Looker, Herbert William Shepperson, E. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Lougher, Lewis Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Ganzonl, Sir John Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belf'st.)
Gates Percy Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Slaney, Major P. Kenyan
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) William, Herbert G. (Reading)
Smith-Carington, Neville W. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Smithers, Waldron Tlnne, J. A. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Winby, Colonel L. P.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Sprot, Sir Alexander Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) Waddington, R. Wise, Sir Fredric
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Wallace, Captain D. E. Withers, John James
Steel, Major Samuel Strang Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) Wolmer, Viscount
Storry-Deans, R. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Womersley, W. J.
Strauss, E, A. Warrender, Sir Victor Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Wood, Sir Kingeley (Woolwich, W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Styles, Captain H. Walter Watts, Dr. T. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Wells, S. R. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. Wragg, Herbert
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Tasker, R. Inigo. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Templeton, W. P. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Lord Stanley.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock) Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') John, William (Rhondda, West) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Ammon, Charles George Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Attlee, Clement Richard Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Sitch, Charles H.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smillie, Robert
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Kennedy, T. Snell, Harry
Bromfield, William Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bromley, J. Kirkwood, D. Stamford, T. W.
Cape, Thomas Lansbury, George Stephen, Campbell
Clowes, S. Lawrence, Susan Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cluse, W. S. Lawson, John James Sullivan, Joseph
Clynes, Ht. Hon. John R. Lee, F. Sutton, J. E.
Cove, W. G. Lindley, F. W. Taylor, R. A.
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Mackinder, W. Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacLaren, Andrew Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry MacNeill-Weir, L. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Dennison, R. March, S. Varley, Frank B.
Duncan, C. Maxton, James Viant, S. P.
Dunnico, H. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wallhead, Richard C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Mosley, Oswald Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Gardner, J. P. Murnin, H. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gibbins, Joseph Oliver, George Harold Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Palin, John Henry Webb, Ht. Hon. Sidney
Greenall, T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wellock, Wilfred
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W Welsh, J. C.
Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ponsonby, Arthur Westwood, J.
Groves, T. Potts, John S. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Grundy, T. W. Purcell, A. A. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Hardie, George D. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R., Elland) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Saklatvala, Shapurji Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Salter, Dr. Alfred Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hirst, G. H. Scrymgeour, E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Scurr, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Sexton, James Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

Question put, That this House, while appreciating the long forbearance of His Majesty's Government and their many efforts to maintain friendly diplomatic relations with the Soviet Republics in the face of acute provocation, applauds their decision to withdraw the

diplomatic privileges which have been so gravely abused, whilst at the same time putting no obstacle in the way of legitimate trading relations with Russia."

The House divided: Ayes, 346; Noes, 98.

Division No. 155.] AYES. [11.36 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Atholl, Duchess of
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Atkinson, C.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Apsley, Lord Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Albery, Irving James Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover) Balniel, Lord
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool.W. Derby) Astor, Viscountess Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Barnett Major Sir Richard Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Ellis, R. G. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Elveden, Viscount. Jacob, A. E.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) England, Colonel A. Jephcott, A. R.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newlngton)
Bennett, A. J. Everard, W. Lindsay Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Bethel, A. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Betterton, Henry B. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Fanshawe, Captain G. D. King, Captain Henry Douglas
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Fermoy, Lord Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Fielden, E. B. Knox, Sir Alfred
Boothby, R. J. G. Finburgh, S. Lamb, J. Q.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Ford, Sir P. J. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W. Forrest, W. Lister, Cunllffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Foster, Sir Harry S. Little, Dr. E. Graham
Brassey, Sir Leonard Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Lioyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Fraser, Captain Ian Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Briggs, J. Harold Frece, Sir Walter de Looker, Herbert William
Briscoe, Richard George Fremantle, Lieut.-Col. Francis E. Lougher, Lewis
Brittain, Sir Harry Gadie, Lieut. -Col. Anthony Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Brockiebank, D. E. R. Galbraith, J. F. W. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Ganzoni, Sir John Lumley, L. R.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Gates, Percy Lynn, Sir R. J.
Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) Gault. Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Buchan, John Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Buckingham, Sir H. Glyn, Major R. G. C. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Goff, Sir Park MacIntyre, Ian
Bullock, Captain M. Gower, Sir Robert McLean, Major A
Burman, J. B. Grace, John Macmillan, Captain H.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mc Neill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Burton, Colonel H. W. Grant, Sir J. A. Macpherson Rt. Hon. James I.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Macquitsten, F. A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Campbell, E. T. Greene, W. P. Crawford Malone, Major P. B.
Carver, Major W. H. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Cassels, J. D. Grotrian, H. Brent Margesson, Captain D.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Guest. Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Mason, Lieut.,Col. Glyn K.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Gunston, Captain D. W. Merriman, F. B.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Cecll, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hall Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Mond. Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton Hall Capt. W. D' A (Brecon & Rad.) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.) Hammersley, S. S. Moore. Sir Newton J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hanbury, C. Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Chapman, Sir S. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Charterls, Brigadier-General J. Harland, A. Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive
Chilcott, Sir Warden Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Christie. J. A. Harrison, G. J. C. Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hartington, Marquess of Neville, R. J.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Clarry, Reginald George Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Clayton, G. C. Haslam, Henry C. Nicholson, Col.Rt.Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hawke. John Anthony Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Headlam. Lieut. -Colonel C. M. Nuttall, Ellis
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Oakley, T.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Henderson, Lieut. -Col. V. L. (Bootle) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Conway. Sir W. Martin Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Cope, Major William Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Couper, J. B. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford) Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William
Courtauld, Major J. S. Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) Pennefather, Sir John
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hilton, Cecil Penny, Frederick George
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Hoare, Lt-Col Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Perring, Sir William George
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Holt, Captain H. P. Pllcher, G.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Homan, C. W.J. Power, Sir John Cecil
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Pownall, Sir Assheton
Curzon, Captain Viscount Hopkins. J. W. W. Price, Major C. W. M.
Dalkeith, Earl of Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Radford, E. A.
Dalziel, Sir Davison Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Ramsden, E.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Horlick, Lieut. -Colonel J. N. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Remer, J. R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hume, Sir G. H. Rentoul, G. S.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Dixey, A. C. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Rice, Sir Frederick
Drewe, C. Huntingfield, Lord Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Duckworth, John Hurd, Percy A. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Eden, Captain Anthony Hurst, Gerald B. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Rye, F. G. Storry-Deans, R. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Salmon, Major I. Strauss, E. A. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Sandeman, N. Stewart Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Sanders, Sir Robert A. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Styles, Captain H. Walter Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Sandon, Lord Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Winby, Colonel L. P.
Savery, S. S. Sykes. Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie Tasker. R. Inigo Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) Templeton, W. P. Wise, Sir Fredric
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Withers, John James
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Wolmer, Viscount
Shepperson, E. W. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) Womersley, W, J.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wallace, Captain D. E. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Smithers, Waldron Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Wragg, Herbert
Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Warrender, Sir Victor Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Sprot, Sir Alexander Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Commander B. Eyres Monsell and
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Watts, Dr. T. Colonel Gibbs.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang Wells, S. R.
NOES.
Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock) John, William (Rhondda. West) Scrymgeour, E.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Scurr, John
Ammon, Charles George Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sitch, Charles H.
Batey, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Kennedy, T. Snell, Harry
Bromfield, William Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bromley, J. Kirkwood, D. Stamford, T. W.
Cape, Thomas Lansbury, George Stephen, Campbell
Clowes, S. Lawrence, Susan Sullivan, J.
Dalton, Hugh Lawson, John James Sutton, J. E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lee, F. Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lindley, F. W. Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry Lunn, William Varley, Frank B.
Dennison, R. Mackinder, W. Viant, S. P.
Duncan, C. MacLaren, Andrew Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dunnico, H. MacNeill-Weir, L. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) March, S. Watts-Morgan Lt Col. D. (Rhondos)
Gardner, J. P. Maxton, James Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Gibbins, Joseph Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wellock, Wilfred
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Mosley, Oswald Welsh, J. C.
Greenall, T. Murnin, H. Westwood, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Oliver, George Harold Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Groves, T. Palln, John Henry Whiteley, W.
Grundy, T. W. Parkinson, John Allen (wigan) Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Hardie George D. Ponsonby, Arthur Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Potts, John S. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Purcell. A. A. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hirst, G. H. Richardson, R. (Ho'ghton-le-Spring)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R., Elland) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Saklatvala. Shapurji Mr. B Smith and Mr. Hayes
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Salter. Dr. Alfred

Resolved, That this House, while appreciating the long forbearance of His Majesty's Government and their many efforts to maintain friendly diplomatic relations with the Soviet Republics in the face of acute provocation, applauds their decision to withdraw the diplomatic privileges which have been so gravely abused, whilst at the same time putting no obstacle in the way of legitimate trading relations with Russia.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.