HC Deb 18 December 1929 vol 233 cc1447-501
Captain PETER MACDONALD

I beg to move, That this House expresses its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and condemns its careless drafting of the protocol of agreement. I put this question down for discussion to-day because of the unsatisfactory nature of the answers which I have received to numerous questions which I addressed to the Foreign Secretary on the negotiations with the Soviet Government, and the attitude taken up by that Government in regard to propaganda methods organised in this country and throughout the Empire. This question has been considered by the representative of the Soviet Government and the Foreign Secretary. Hon. Members are aware that I have been a somewhat persistent questioner on this subject. I think I may also claim that I have not only been persistent, but I have been thoroughly consistent in my attitude on this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) occupied the position which is now occupied by the present Foreign Secretary I did not spare him, because I thought it was my duty to raise this question, but I found the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham more open to reason than the present Foreign Secretary.

Let me, first of all, say that I believe it is a fundamental misconception, and it is wrong, to suppose that in dealing with the Soviet Government we can be guided by any precedent in the conduct of negotiations with any other nation. It will be recalled that the famous lady in the past was no ordinary woman; in fact, she was no lady at all. The Soviet Government is no ordinary Government; it is, in fact, no Government at all. The real governing body in Russia to-day is the Third International, otherwise known as the Comintern. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] A Government is that body within a nation in which authority resides, and no authority resides to-day in the Soviet Government as such; as I have said, the chief governing authority to-day in Russia is the Comintern or the Third International. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"] Even if we credit the Soviet Government with the best and most honourable intentions in the world, it does not follow that they are in a position to carry out or fulfil those intentions; but I maintain that the Soviet Government have not honourable intentions. Even while—

Mr. THURTLE

rose—

Mr. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the terms of this Motion are extremely narrow, and that the only question which it proposes to raise is that of disapproval of the methods adopted in the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. That is a very narrow issue, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not go beyond the actual terms of the Motion.

Captain MACDONALD

Of course, Sir, I accept your ruling, but I thought that I was only dealing with relevant matters, and, in dealing with the activities of the Third International, or the I.K.K.I., which is the Executive of the Third International, after the negotiations took place, I thought that I was perfectly in order. I would like—

Mr. SPEAKER

For that purpose the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to put down another Motion altogether. I cannot allow him, on this Motion, to discuss something else.

Captain MACDONALD

It is because of the activities of the Third International that I have put down this Motion to-day—

Mr. SPEAKER

There is nothing about the Third International in this Motion.

Captain MACDONALD

I am trying to point out to the House that they are one and the same thing, and it has been admitted on more than one occasion in this House, and outside this House, that they were.

Mr. SPEAKER

Even if they were one and the same thing, the Motion is confined to dealing with the methods of the present Government.

Captain MACDONALD

Is it not a fact that the representatives of the present Government have admitted that these two bodies are one and the same thing—that the present Prime Minister of this country has admitted that; and, in view of that fact, is it not impossible to deal with this question without referring to it?

Mr. SPEAKER

I really do not think that the hon. and gallant Member realises what this Motion means. It states very definitely that it asks the House to express disapproval of the methods adopted in the negotiations by the present Government. It does not say anything else at all, and we must confine ourselves to that point.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is not a fact that the proceedings in regard to the recognition of Russia were all on the basis of the question of propaganda, and that these two bodies are one and the same is admitted by the Prime Minister?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

On a further point of Order. May I point out that the Motion also asks the House to express disapproval of the careless drafting of the Protocol of Agreement; and, surely, my hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to show how the Protocol is carelessly drafted by referring to the Third International and the Comintern?

Mr. SPEAKER

When the hon. and gallant Member comes to that part of his Motion which deals with the drafting of the Protocol, I shall allow him to proceed, but I cannot see what this has to do with the Third International.

Major COLFOX

Might I submit a further point to you, Sir, namely, that if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) is arguing, as perhaps he is, that his reason, or one of his reasons, for objecting to the course followed by the Foreign Secretary, is that the Foreign Secretary was dealing with an undesirable and untrustworthy type of negotiator, and if that is the reason why he is calling in question the character of the negotiators in the other side, would not that be within the Rules of Order?

Mr. SPEAKER

I really cannot see that this has anything to do with the matter. It must also be recollected that this House, as recently as the 5th November, passed a Resolution saying that it was in favour of the resumption of diplomatic relations with Russia, and we must not stultify ourselves by saying that we do not want them now.

Commander BELLAIRS

On a point of Order. The Government contend that they have a guarantee against the activities of the Third International, and surely it is possible for hon. Members on this side to say that, because of the conduct of the Third International, and also because exactly the same words have failed in the past, the conduct of the negotiations has not been satisfactory?

Mr. SPEAKER

That might be a consideration in connection with the question of resuming diplomatic relations, but the House has already passed a Resolution saying that it was in favour of resuming diplomatic relations, and I really do not see that it has anything to do with the present Motion.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Is it not clear that, under the guise of discussing the method of negotiation of the present Foreign Secretary, bon. Members opposite are attempting to insult a nation with whom this Government is in friendly relations?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is a different point altogether.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE

Will it not be in order to deal with the Protocol which was signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and, when the Protocol is dealt with, will it not be in order to try to point out how ambiguous it is, and also that the reason for the ambiguity is that it does not make clear the organic connection between the Soviet Government and the Third International?

Mr. SPEAKER

I have said that, when the hon. and gallant Member came to that part of his Motion which dealt with the careless drafting of the Protocol, I should think that he would be in order in what he was saying.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Could we not adjourn for half an hour, so that hon. Members opposite may make up their minds what they want to do?

Captain MACDONALD

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, although it certainly narrows the scope of this Debate. I will confine myself to the issues which certainly are contained in this Motion, namely, those of the conduct of negotiations and the drafting of the Protocol. Surely, it is a very serious departure from precedent that negotiations of so serious a character should have been conducted in such a very slipshod manner. When the House adjourned for the Recess, we had a very clear and definite statement from the Prime Minister to the effect that in no circumstances would there be an exchange of Ambassadors until and unless certain undertakings were given by the Soviet Government. One of those undertakings was to be to the effect that they were to recognise their debts to us, and the other to the effect that propaganda should cease. It was also very clearly stated that, before any definite agreement was made, the matter should be discussed in this House. If that procedure had been followed, we should probably have had no grievance at all, but, instead of the matter being brought to this House to be discussed, it was brought to a public house in some other part of the country, and that is one aspect of the matter, at any rate, which I think I am within the scope of my Motion in discussing.

Let us consider this Protocol. I venture to say that never has a State document been drafted in so slipshod and careless a manner in the history of British diplomacy. It clearly and definitely states in Article 9 that, before Ambassadors are exchanged, the agreement must come before Parliament. We were later informed that "Parliament" does not mean both Houses of Parliament, but only this House. Surely that is a very grave and serious departure from what has always been considered to be the constitutional practice in this country. This is the first time, I think, in history—

Mr. SULLIVAN

On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. Member is in order in insulting the other House?

Captain MACDONALD

That, I am afraid, would be outside the scope of this Motion, but, nevertheless, I maintain that, in this departure from Parliamentary and constitutional practice, the right hon. Gentleman has established a precedent which is very serious and a very grave danger to the Constitution of this country. Article 9 of the Protocol also states clearly and definitely that the matter will be brought before Parliament this Session. As the Protocol was drafted and dated in October last, it would be necessary, if it were to be carried out in its entirety, that it should be brought before Parliament, not this Session, but early next Session; that would be early in the coming year. There are two very serious errors in the Protocol of Agreement, and I venture to say that, when the local football team meets in that same alehouse to discuss its annual affairs, its proceedings will be conducted in a far more orderly manner than was the business discussed by Mr. Dovgalevski and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We are informed that he did not mean what he said. Imagine what this means to people who can only understand words to mean what they say. Far be it from me to say that those of us who are unable to probe the sphinxlike brain of the right hon. Gentleman opposite understand what he means when he says that Parliament must ratify the Protocol this Session or early next Session. Therefore, I contend that, on this and many other grounds, I could very strongly criticise the attitude of the Government in recognising the Soviet at the present time, the manner in which they have conducted the negotiations, and the careless way in which they have drafted the Protocol of Agreement. I ask the House to agree with me in my view and to support this Motion.

Captain EDEN

I beg to second the Motion.

I believe all sections of the House should be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the use he has made of the fortunes of the ballot. We on this aide are certainly grateful to shim for the opportunity which it gives us of reviewing the methods adopted by the Foreign Secretary in the course of these negotiations and, I trust, of effectually criticising them. Hon. Members opposite will have a valuable opportunity of trying to unravel the tangled mesh into which' the right hon. Gentleman's method of negotiation has involved himself and his Government, whereas hon. Members below the Gangway do not seem conspicuous for their interest in the Debate at the moment. No doubt, when they come to speak they will give us another example of the tolerant broadmindedness which is so useful a cloak for the differences in the party.

There is in the Motion no reference whatever to the fact that the Government have seen fit to renew diplomatic relations. I would not wish to criticise them for that for, after all, they made so many pledges at the Election that we can hardly blame them for trying to redeem the only one which lies within the immediate sphere of their practical politics. Therefore, we certainly have no complaint, but I would try to review the methods which the right hon. Gentleman pursued from the beginning of these negotiations. In July he was very firm. The strong rays of the summer sun strengthened him. September came and he was less firm in his methods, with the result that the Soviet Government claimed a victory, which surprised the Foreign Secretary very much, although I do not think it can really have surprised anyone else.

The Under-Secretary in our last debate produced a very ingenious explanation. He told us that the representative of the Soviet Government had not perhaps quite understood all that was going on, because he was not very familiar with the language. That explanation is not likely to carry much conviction. I think the real reason for the method followed by the right hon. Gentleman is far simpler than that. With September came the Socialist party conference, and the right hon. Gentleman's concern was to make a good splash from the pier at Brighton. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do that, for all his more slender proportions, because he was fresh from his triumph at the Hague, and he knew the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) would make a good splash not only for his names' sake but because he told them he came back from Canada with something up his sleeve, though he did not tell us then that that something was a vacuum. What was the right hon. Gentleman to do in the face of his two triumphant colleagues? He reviewed the sphere of foreign politics and he found everywhere that, so successful had been the endeavours of the late Government, that there was no scope except in the resumption of relations with Russia, and upon that he concentrated. We can guess the methods that followed, the unofficial diplomacy so characteristic of the negotiations of the party opposite with the Soviet Govern- ment. We can quite easily picture the coming to and fro until at last this agreement was arrived at, and the kettle of an uneasy friendship was put on the hob at Lewes.

So much for the right hon. Gentleman's method of negotiation up to that time, but what has been happening since the date of the last debate in the House? He has not been watching that kettle. It has boiled over but he has paid no attention to it. He would not look at it. He would not even hear it, although it has been making noise enough. The Soviet Government, through its representative organ, has not attempted to conceal its view of this Protocol and of its terms, or its view of the right hon. Gentleman's methods of negotiation. "Isvestia" is not in the same position as a newspaper in this country. It is not an organ of public, or even of national opinion. It is an organ of Government policy, which is not always the same thing even in this country. Therefore, when that paper makes a, definite declaration as to the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's policy you may be sure that that interpretation represents the views of the Soviet Government. I do not think that will be denied for a moment. In the terms of this Protocol is the right hon. Gentleman's very definite assertion, with which he is familiar, as to his interpretation of its terms. May I quote one sentence from his speech when we last debated this subject. He made it perfectly evident: After 1924 it has been plainly stated to the Soviet representatives, and stated again twice by myself, that the Communist International will be regarded by His Majesty's Government as an organ of the Soviet Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1929; col. 901, Vol. 231.] That is a sufficiently clear declaration. In response to that "Isvestia" makes a perfectly plain declaration. It says: The Soviet did not and cannot promise to curb the activities of the Communist International, which is an independent organisation outside Soviet control.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman, like the previous speaker, is going quite outside the scope of the Motion.

Captain EDEN

I am dealing with something that is in the Protocol and with the right hon. Gentleman's method of commenting and negotiating about it.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that this House so recently as 5th November definitely passed a Resolution approving the resumption of diplomatic relations. It is quite out of order at one moment to pass such a Resolution and the next to say you do not approve of it. It cannot be done in this House.

Captain EDEN

I was not suggesting that we should ask the House to reverse its decision on the last occasion. However, if that is ruled out of order, I will pass to the next point. I maintain that there is under existing conditions and under existing negotiations a flat contradiction in terms. The right hon. Gentleman has seen the Soviet representative himself in the last few days and I think I am entitled to ask whether he sought from him any explanation of the comment of his own official organ upon the methods of negotiation which have been going on between the right hon. Gentleman and himself.

Mr. SULLIVAN

On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to put a question like that under this Motion?

Captain EDEN

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us that information, which I feel sure will be both of use and of interest to the House. I could not help, as I watched this method of negotiation, recalling the words of the Prime Minister in April last when he told us that by hook or by crook it was his intention to see recognition finally carried out. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us what at the present moment is the position as to the negotiations with the Dominions and what their view has been, whether he has received it personally and, if not, what is the present state of those negotiations.

I would pass to the domestic side of this question. In the terms of the Protocol is the statement, with which the Foreign Secretary is very familiar, that he will attempt to secure the approval of Parliament for the Protocol. We know, from replies to questions, that by Parliament he meant the House of Commons, a rather curious and somewhat unfortunate lapse, because as the outcome of it we have this extraordinary position. Parliament has, in fact, ex- pressed itself quite as emphatically against these terms as it has expressed itself in favour of them, and we are now proceeding to the actual ratification after these prolonged negotiations and we are in this position, that one party to the negotiations has already expressed its determination not to adhere to its terms, while the other party has already expressed an equally indeterminate point of view as to whether it intends to adhere to the terms or not.

Mr. THURTLE

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this House is the operative part of Parliament, whereas the other House is merely the decorative part?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member really must not make that kind of remark.

Captain EDEN

Those of us on this side of the House who have reviewed the course of these negotiations have often wondered to ourselves what was the fatal fascination which hon. Members opposite found themselves incapable of resisting in all negotiations with the Soviet Government, because it is a fatal fascination. The caresses of the bear have already exterminated the life of one Socialist Government and, unless I am very much mistaken, unless the right hon. Gentleman is more careful in the future than he has been in the past, they may exterminate the life of another. I cannot believe the right hon. Gentleman is under any illusion that the feelings of that Government's representatives are so extraordinarily friendly to himself.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now condemning the action of the House itself by condemning the resumption of diplomatic relations.

Captain EDEN

I will turn, then, to the concluding stages of what I have to say. I regret the method of these negotiations, because I fear that their whole course, not only here but towards the Dominions, cannot but create the very unfortunate impression that this country is uncertain in its views and that in right hon. Gentleman is in some doubt why he is actually negotiating himself, and I fear, in the future that cannot but have very unfortunate consequences. I still hope the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, will try to obtain a final explanation of these matters in negotiations where there is still a difference of opinion. If he cannot do that, I hope he will have the courage to say so, for it is far better from the national point of view that we should come to a conclusion which we dislike than that there should continue to be over these negotiations, as most undoubtedly there is to-day, a maze of uncertainty which has most unfortunate results both here and abroad and which is doing the Government no good, and certainly will not facilitate their further progress.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. SANDERS

I rise to oppose this Motion, and I do so in a very happy position. I represent a constituency which is unanimously in favour of the proceedings of this Government with regard to the resumption of relations with Russia. Naturally, my own party in my constituency supports the action of the Government and their methods. My Liberal opponents are also with me in my support. The local Conservative party is so enthusiastic and so passionately fervent in its support of the Government in this matter that sometimes I feel a little shocked at the degeneracy which is coming over my local Conservative friends, or opponents, as the case may be. Finally, my local Communist party, which is the ally and sometimes the household pet of the local Conservative party, naturally also supports the Government in this matter most enthusiastically. I ought, if I may be allowed, to commiserate with the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion that they have been debarred from carrying out its real intention. We on this side of the House knew very well when this Motion was put down that the object was, not as was stated in the Motion, but to give an opportunity to the other side to bait the Government of a country with whom we are in friendly relations.

Mr. SMITHERS

Not yet.

Mr. SANDERS

Less than anybody in this House have I any love for Bolsheviks or Communists, and less than any man—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member seems to be trying to run on the same lines as the previous speakers. He must confine himself to the terms of the Motion.

Mr. SANDERS

I agree, and I apologise for being out of order. The criticism of the Mover and the Seconder limits itself to two points only in connection with these negotiations. The first point is that the Foreign Secretary had the audacity to carry on a part of these negotiations with a duly accredited representative of the Russian Government at a perfectly respectable hotel. I have a fairly long political memory, and I recollect that on one occasion, when certain critical matters were being discussed by Parliament and by the country, the late Lord Rosebery threw out the suggestion that the best way to deal with critical matters was for a couple of representative men to meet at a wayside inn. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary, who as everybody knows, by what we have seen of his work during the last two months, must have carefully studied the best means of carrying on negotiations based on the practice and precepts of the past, decided to take the advice of the late Lord Rosebery and to carry on the negotiations in the manner that that lamented nobleman put before the country at that time. I think that in dealing with what I may call an unconventional Government such as the Russian Government, slightly unconventional methods are very likely to lead to the best results, and I am certain that, as far as the country is concerned, no matter whether these arrangements and negotiations were unconventional or not, the vast majority of our people are gratified that we are on the point, if we are not already there, of resuming full and friendly relations with this great country.

The other point is the question of the interpretation of the word "Parliament." In this matter, it is a question of interpretation, and the Prime Minister has stated that, when he made the promise that the matter would be brought before Parliament, he had in his mind this House. It is true—I am quite willing to admit it—that the other House is a part of Parliament, but I would suggest, without any disrespect to the other House, that if this House agrees to the line that was taken and the Protocol that was drawn up, that is all that really matters. That agreement has been made. The methods may be questioned, as no doubt any method would have been questioned, but we have come, by what I consider to be the skilled and the proper action of the Foreign Secretary, to the end, I hope, of a very difficult situation. I trust, too, that not only will it end the difficult situation which has lasted for three or four years between us And Russia, but that it will put an end to the undignified and the vulgar attacks that are being made on another country and will lead to a better understanding between two big peoples.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX

The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Sanders) is mistaken in thinking that we on this side of the House object to the conduct of these negotiations on the ground that the treaty, if it is to be called a treaty, or the agreement was concluded in a public-house. Personally, I think that that was the best thing about it. I think that it is a good honest inn that is rather degraded by this agreement. It has troubled us a good deal because we are directly against the policy, but that is not a question which I want to touch upon in speaking here to-day.

I want to ask one or two direct questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, who, I suppose, will reply on this Motion. I want to ask whether, when he undertook these negotiations with Mr. Dovgalevski, he first of all did not put the suggestion that questions regarding propaganda and the payment of debts due to British nationals should be settled before Ambassadors were exchanged? I understand from the White Paper which was issued that these questions were put up, and that this was the cause of the first breakdown of the negotiations which took place on 1st August when the Foreign Office issued a statement to say that negotiations would not be resumed at the present. Then we had an interval until 8th September, when, I think, the right hon. Gentleman directed another letter to the Soviet Government, 'and then we had the negotiations started again on 24th September, and on the 29th, the final agreement. Is it not a fact that in this final agreement the right hon. Gentleman climbed down from the position which he had first taken up, that some agreement regarding propaganda in future and the settlement of the claims of British nationals for debts should be made before Ambassadors were exchanged? I want to ask that question.

The other question I want to ask relates to what has been going on since we had this partial agreement at the beginning of October. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) pointed out that an official newspaper in Russia had stated that they, the Soviet Government, would not be responsible for any action by the Third International. We had the statement of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that the three things were a trinity, three in one and one in three—the Soviet Government, the Comintern, and the Profitern. It has been held on all sides of this House that these three are really one. Everybody knows that the Comintern could not exist for a month unless it obtained assistance from Government funds.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON

On a point of Order. I beg to call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that Mr. Speaker ruled out all these discussions.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young)

I was following the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, as I was not sure whether he was out of order at the moment.

Sir A. KNOX

I was trying to allude to this as part of the negotiations, because I consider that all the actions of the Soviet Government and of this Government here until the ambassadors are finally exchanged are part of the negotiations. I think that this lapse is a thing that definitely ought to be referred to in the prolongation of these negotiations. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give the Rouse to-day an undertaking that this question will really be gone into and that the ambassadors will not be exchanged until the Soviet Government give a definite promise that they will be responsible for the actions of the Comintern now and in the future. If he will give that undertaking, we on this side of the House will go into this agreement with a lighter heart. I do not want to go into any further matters regarding the agreement with the Soviet Government, because I might be out of order.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR

I rise to oppose this Motion, and I do so because I have the honour to represent a constituency which very heartily approves of the policy pursued by the Government and by the Foreign Secretary, and which is already beginning to reap substantial benefit on that account. Your predecessor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, gave a Ruling which necessarily restricts this Debate. I was interested, in listening to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald), to hear that his main reason for moving this Motion was the unsatisfactory answers which had been given to questions which he had recently put to the Foreign Secretary. From what he said subsequently, I arrived at the conclusion that he had two other complaints. First, he complained very strongly that the wording was very slipshod and that the Foreign Secretary was open to criticism because, in using the word "Parliament," he had not made it clear that it included both Houses. I have searched through the Debate which took place in this House on the 5th November, and I have looked through the speeches of the late Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister with a view to discovering whether or not they raised this particular point as to the submission of these proposals to Parliament. I have looked in vain for enlightenment from that quarter. Neither the late Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister made any complaint as to the wording of the Protocol in this connection, and it seems to me that the hon. Member who moved the Motion might very well take some lessons in the accuracy of drafting a Motion which meets his own wishes. He should hesitate to rush into a chapter of charges against the Foreign Secretary of such a character that they are a grave reflection upon the efficiency of his own Front Bench.

If there was anything in the complaint as to these letters not being submitted to Parliament we might have expected that the Prime Minister and the late Foreign Secretary, who have had a great experience in these matters, would have taken the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House of Commons to the omission. I very respectfully submit that submission to Parliament as laid down in the Protocol has been fulfilled. As there has been submission to the House of Commons, there has been submission to Parliament, although another place has taken the constitutional way of expressing their opinion. I cannot escape the conclusion that the expression of opinion that has recently taken place in another place is not unrelated to this Motion. In both cases the desire seems to be to create discord, to perpetuate friction and to embarrass the Government but, fortunately, neither in this country nor abroad are the members of the other Chamber taken at the same value that they place upon themselves.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member must not make use of that expression with regard to the Members of another place.

Mr. TAYLOR

If I have made any allusion to another place which is out of order in this House, I am sorry, but I should be failing in my duty if I did not attempt to make it clear that in expressing that opinion upon this matter they really represented their own opinion and not the opinion of the elected representatives of the people. I cannot see why this Motion should have been put upon the Order Paper at the present stage. In the policy that they have pursued the Government have made the best of a very difficult situation. What could they have done to deal with this problem in a most efficient and businesslike manner than the policy outlined in the Protocol? They might have restored the position as it existed prior to the breaking off of diplomatic relations, but in that case we should have been left without the possibility of a full and complete settlement of all the outstanding questions between the two nations. If they had taken that course we should have been thrown back upon the operations of the Trade Agreement so far as our commercial relationships were concerned and, on the other hand, we should not have got a settlement on the question of debts and counter claims or on the question of propaganda.

The Trade Agreement of 1921, so far as it was workable, was an agreement to make an agreement, and was regarded as the preliminary to a full Treaty which, even at that time, was considered to be essential to a satisfactory solution of all the difficulties existing between the two countries. It seems to me that that method of restoring the situation which existed before the breaking off of relationships under the later Government would not have settled anything, but would have left us in a very indeterminate position. On the other hand, the Government might have taken the course of exchanging Ambassadors absolutely unconditionally. No hon. Member on this side of the House would have desired the Government to take unnecessarily precipitate action of that kind, because we desire to see a proper safeguard for British interests in this matter as much as hon. Members opposite. We desire to see our country and the various parts of the Empire safeguarded against propaganda, and we desire to see a settlement of the problem of debts. I suggest that the undertaking as laid dawn in the Protocol and as taken from the Treaty of 1924 provides as real a safeguard against propaganda as anything which it is in the power of the Government to lay down. Hon. Members opposite are elevating this question of propaganda to a degree of importance to which it is not properly entitled. Very often in the past we have had to complain of Russian propaganda. In the reports that were placed before the Foreign Office long before there was a Bolshevik regime in Russia, and when we were in full diplomatic relations, there were constant complaints of Russian interference in other countries, and of antagonism and propaganda against British interests. Just as diplomatic machinery was used in those days—

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

On a point of Order. I understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled out the question of propaganda. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing that subject now? If so, shall I be allowed to reply to him?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I did not think that the hon. Member was discussing propaganda.

Mr. TAYLOR

I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) was in the House when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

I was not strictly in the House, but I was watching the proceedings from another part.

Mr. TAYLOR

If the hon. Member was not in the House when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling, it is a little difficult for him to give us guidance. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was beyond the Bar!"] In former times we had our difficulties in relation to Russian propaganda in various parts of the world, but it was not suggested by responsible members of the Conservative party in those days that we should break off relations.

Mr. ALLEN

Is a discussion of the pre-War activities of the Russian Government in order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is in order for the hon. Member to say that there have been difficulties in the past.

Sir A. KNOX

Is not the present Debate concerned with the conduct of negotiations by the present Government?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The Motion relates to the methods of the present Government in its conduct of negotiations. Surely, the hon. Member can refer to what has happened under previous Governments, in support of the methods now adopted.

Mr. TAYLOR

I was going on to say, as a reason for voting against this Motion and as a reason for upholding the Government's policy, that on former occasions Great Britain had had cause of complaint and that she had wisely had recourse to the normal machinery of intercourse between nations for the settlement of the difficulties, and that no responsible Member of the Conservative party in those days suggested that we should break off relations on that account. Therefore, I think the Government are to be congratulated upon the success which has attended their efforts up to the present time, and I hope the Foreign Secretary and the Government will not be unduly disturbed by the kind of speeches that have been made in support of this Motion. British Statesmen and Russian Statesmen have a very heavy responsibility at the present time, not only to their own peoples but to the whole world. Those who can drive away through the mists of misunderstanding and can overcome prejudice in connection with this problem and lead the two nations to reconciliation will make a great contribution to the cause of international goodwill and constructive world peace.

Mr. ALLEN

It is not altogether inappropriate that an Irish Member should intervene in a Debate on Russia, because Ireland and Russia have probably caused more tense moments in this dignified Assembly than all other countries and all other questions of this unhappy universe. The trouble and heart-searching which Russia and- Ireland have caused from time to time was aptly expressed by the Secretary of the First Ambassador to the Court of Russia, in the reign of Elizabeth, when he said that: Wilde Irish are as civil as the Russes in theyre kinde, Hard choice which is the best of both ech bloudy rude and blinde. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] The first word is an adjective and not an affirmative, although it might apply as an affirmative to the present attitude of the Soviet Government towards His Majesty's Government. I understand that my Amendment to the Motion will not be called and, therefore, I seek guidance before raising a point which I am very anxious to ventilate on this or some other occasion. I should like a ruling with regard to the word "methods." The Motion asks the House to express its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. My Amendment proposed to add the words and takes notice that His Majesty's Government, in recognising the frontiers of the Soviet Union, ignores the fact of the occupation of the territory of the Socialist Democratic Republic of Georgia by troops of the Soviet Union. I have looked up the word "method" in the encyclopaedic dictionary in the House, and I find that the meaning of the word is defined as The way, mode, or cause by which an object is or may be obtained. In this case the object is the successful conclusion of a satisfactory agreement with the Government of the Soviet Union, but I submit that: "The way, mode or cause" by which this can be obtained, implies both methods of commission and omission. One of the methods of emission has been the failure to make any reference during the negotiations to the illegal occupation by the troops of the Soviet Union of the territory of the Socialist Democratic Republic of Georgia, which was recognised by the Soviet Government, the League of Nations and the Allied Governments. I should like to have your Ruling on that point before proceeding. I should like to know whether it comes within the terms of the Motion?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the terms of the Motion "the methods of the Government," mean the action of the Government in connection with the negotiations which have taken place up to now. I do not think we can have a debate on foreign policy relating to Russian policy in other places.

Mr. ALLEN

I suggest that diplomatic negotiations with the Soviet Government would have been considerably more difficult if the Foreign Secretary had adhered to the policy outlined by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1923 when he suggested that recognition of the Soviet of Russia should be conditional on the evacuation of the territory of the Georgian Republic by Soviet troops. I submit that they would have been much more difficult if reference had been made to that question and that therefore it is a "method" of omission and comes within the scope of the Motion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I am sorry I cannot accept that view. If I did, there are many other things which might be brought within the scope of the Motion.

Mr. ALLEN

In that case, I shall reserve my remarks for a more suitable occasion, and I hope to take an early opportunity of bringing before the House the statements of His Majesty's Ministers in regard to the evacuation of Georgia, not only in the questions they put in this House when in Opposition, but also in their capacity as delegates to the Labour and Socialist International.

Mr. MOND

I have been surprised during the Debate to notice the very airy way in which an extraordinary constitutional situation has been brushed aside by hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the object of the Motion is to give the House an opportunity of discussing, and the Foreign Secretary an opportunity of justifying, the amazing position which has arisen as a result of the drafting of the Protocol. Previous speakers have made allusions to this House being the effective part of Parliament, but that is beside the point. In dealing with documents of State Parliament surely means Parliament, and there are many constitutional precedents of the greatest and highest authority which can be brought forward showing precisely and exactly what Parliament means, outside of which no one, not even a Secretary of State, has any right or power to go. Not even this House has the sole power to alter the Constitution of this country. In May's Parliamentary Practice, on page 2, Parliament is defined as the Crown and the three Estates of the Realm, namely, the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons. There is a further reference in Sir Courtney's Ilbert's work on Parliament, in which, on page 15, he says: Thus Parliament became an Assembly not of three Estates but of two Houses: the House consisting of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the House representing the Commons. In other words, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In Sir William Anson's "Law and Custom of the Constitution," on page 49, there are these words: Parliament therefore consists of the Barons and the Commons summoned by the Crown. There is a most interesting ruling on this point, by the Earl of Cromer in another place. On the 23rd May, 1916, in dealing with the India Council, he pointed out that in ordinary colloquial language when we spoke of Parliament we alluded principally to the House of Commons, but that technically, of course, a Peer is quite as much a Member of Parliament, and that if the matter ever came before a Court of law it would unhesitatingly be held that Peers were debarred from being appointed to the India Council by reason of that law. It is quite clear, therefore, that Parliament means Parliament as summoned, and does not mean the House of Commons alone. We never asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to put "Parliament" in this Protocol. We should have been satisfied if we had been able to discuss it in the House of Commons, but it was on his own volition that he drafted it in conjunction with the representative of a foreign Power. It was not a document to pull about or jockey with just as he chose. It was an agreed document, and I have always been taught that agreed documents are supposed to be word perfect and that if one word is wrong the whole document may fall.

We have already asked certain questions of the Secretary of State on this point, and it is interesting to notice the replies he has given. He has said that Paragraph 9 of the Protocol was designed to comply with the Prime Minister's undertaking of 11th July. That undertaking was quite clear and I personally have no quarrel with it. It was an undertaking that there should be a discussion in this House on the question of the Protocol and that it should not become effective unless this House agreed. But Paragraph 9 as drafted is not an instrument which reflects the Prime Minister's promise. It is an entirely different and separate document, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to another question, took upon himself the responsibility of substituting "Parliament" for the "House of Commons." I deny that any Secretary of State has any right whatever to do such a thing. He cannot take the responsibility for altering the terms of a settled arrangement nor can he take upon himself the responsibility of using words which are clearly defined in constitutional precedents in another way to that in which they are commonly used. He has no power to do anything of the sort.

I go further. In another part of the Protocol he has given an undertaking to the Foreign Power and to this House that he will bring the matter up as early as possible in the next Session. All who have studied Parliamentary practice and procedure are well aware what a Session means, and we have the words of the Prime Minister as to when he intends this Session to come to an end. Speaking in this House on the 3rd July, he said: It is our intention that the Session should last until, say, July of next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; col. 83, Vol. 229.] It seems to me that the Foreign Secretary has put upon himself a curious obligation. All that he has done up to the present is out of order. If he is to bring himself in order with his own drafting he has to go through one of the following steps. He can obtain the Prorogation of Parliament and commence a new Session and having done that, and put himself in order with his own Protocol, he can arrange for a discussion in both Houses and abide by the result, or he can come forward and present a new agreement to this House. He has not done, or made any attempt to do, either of these things which would bring his own draft in order. I ask: what does he propose to do? Does he propose to carry out any of the steps I have mentioned? Does he propose to leave the draft standing as a memorial to his indifferent draftsmanship, or does he propose to go to the Russian Government and explain to them his mistake and have his draft put in order?

There must be some explanation for such a grave error on the part of a responsible Secretary of State. I have been trying to understand what the cause of that error may be. It is apparent that misfortune dogs the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and his party whenever they deal with this subject. It will be within the memory of the House that the right hon. Gentleman himself lost his waistcoat in Moscow in 1917, and it appears to me that he has been in grave difficulties again with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his followers, because it is quite clear that it was only upon the very violent representations they made that he entirely changed his mind, and in a moment of panic concluded these negotiations, under most unusual circumstances, and by doing so embarked on a 'Clause at the very tail which he never properly considered and which he has never taken the trouble to put right. It will be within the memory of the House and the country the difficulties which attended the right hon. Gentleman on his return from Russia in 1917, on his arrival in Downing Street. They say that the marks of his impatient paces can yet be traced on the carpet outside the Cabinet Room. I wonder whether he has been in similar trouble lately? I wonder whether his recent delinquency in the matter of drafting State documents has got him into similar difficulties with his present colleagues.

What are the real facts? [Interruption.] The real facts are extremely simple. [Interruption.] Either the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs does not know the difference. between this House and Parliament, and the difference between a new Session and the Recess, in which case I would suggest, with the greatest deference, that he should obtain a little elementary instruction on the point or that he was in such a great hurry to bring the glad news to his friends at Brighton that he did not take the trouble to draft properly a State document for which he was responsible. He has drafted the Protocol so carelessly that he dare not give effect to its terms; and he does not propose to do so. In other words he made what may be called a school-boy howler in a State document. The lesson of these lamentable negotiations is simple. This House should support this Motion if for no other reason than because it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not bring to his task those qualities and that equipment which are essential for the carrying out of the very delicate duties which his task imposes upon him.

Mr. SINKINSON

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman giving us a lesson on constitutional law and practice. Let me say that one of the greatest impressions ever made upon me was made at the time when I came to this House. Before I had been in the place 24 hours I was taught that this House was the supreme House, that any other place was a secondary place, and that the elected representatives in this House were the greatest men in the country from the political standpoint. From what I was taught then I would say that this House as Parliament is Parliament. I find that there is a certain amount of prejudice predominant in the moving, seconding and supporting of this Motion. I suppose it will be expected that there will be prejudice in favour of the Soviet Government on the Labour benches. Let me give my reason for opposing the Motion. I can see nothing wrong in the Soviet Government taking upon themselves the form of Government that they think fit. There was a time in the history of this House when this country took upon itself a change of Government and actually had the head of the King chopped off. The Table whereon the supposed bauble stood, now stands in the Library.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now going rather far from the subject of the Motion.

Mr. SINKINSON

The only thing that the Russians have done is to change their method of Government, and that is entirely an internal affair. The Russians were friends of ours for many years. Up to the Great War and during the War they were our Allies. They lost in the War something like 2,000,000 lives, against our loss of less than 1,000,000 lives. When they decided upon a change in their internal affairs, certain people in this country took umbrage. The Russians are trying an experiment, and that experiment was based on actual facts in other countries. The position was that a feudal State had grown up, and that that feudal State was to be changed to a capitalistic State. It was then pointed out that capitalism had already been tried, and it was said, "Look at Britain and other countries."

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON

On a point of Order. Is this subject in order on the Motion that is before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER

I would like to hear what the hon. Member is going to say.

Mr. SINKINSON

The Russians' method of government is perfectly in order, and I hold that we have no right to take offence at it.

Mr. SPEAKER

To pursue that subject would certainly not be in order on this Motion.

Mr. SINKINSON

If the experiment is a failure—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must not pursue that line of argument.

Mr. SINKINSON

The Soviet Government that is in existence is now finding expression in negotiations with this country, and in seeking trading, diplomatic and social relations with this country. I really find no reason why every encouragement should not be given to the British Foreign Secretary in conducting those negotiations.

Major GEORGE DAVIES

The very confined limits which have been imposed upon us in this Debate make it necessary for those who wish to take part in the Debate to exercise extreme caution. I hope that I shall be able to conform to the rules laid down, and if I am success-ful—

Mr. SPEAKER

The limits of debate are ordered by the terms of the Motion.

Major DAVIES

I should not wish you to think, Mr. Speaker, that I was criticising your Ruling. I was only, in a way, giving a warning to myself of the very narrow terms of the Motion, and expressing the hope that I should be more successful than my predecessors in dodging the Scylla and Charybdis laid down by the Mover of the Motion. Those of us who have sat through or taken part in Debates touching, however remotely, the question of Russia, cannot but he impressed by the extraordinary change of atmosphere that we see in the House today. Time was when a 11iotion of this sort could have resulted in the Labour benches bristling with warriors armed to the teeth, ready at any moment, whether in order or out of order, to interject, and the Liberal benches would have been as packed as they are at this moment. The Motion seeks to criticise the way in which the Foreign Secretary has handled the negotiations. It is interesting to see why the atmosphere has changed, because that has a certain bearing on the gravamen of our criticism of his mishandling of these delicate negotiations. It is not so long ago that the feelings of hon. Members were expressed rather by the presentation of jewellery than by a refusal of invitations.

The reason why the Foreign Secretary has been struggling under a. handicap in conducting these negotiations is to be found in a past attitude which gave the present pledge. We have seen one after another of the solemn undertakings of the Government failing in achievement when it came to carrying them out in the letter and the spirit, and that has laid them open to criticism, not only from this side of the House, but from the country as a whole. One hon. Member has expressed the opinion that we have brought this Motion forward purely to embarrass the Foreign Secretary and the Government Front Bench. That would indeed be to quote the unreformed Prayer Book a work of supererogation. It is not for us to embarrass him; he has done that for himself. He has embarrassed his party and he has embarrassed the country. What are the real causes which lead us to criticise his handling of the situation? He entered into his responsible position under a pledge to resume relations. When he came to the carrying out of that pledge, he was faced with difficulties which everyone who has had, to tackle such delicate negotiations knew were there. The right hon. Gentleman knew they were there, but he was compelled to endeavour to carry on the negotiations on account of a pledge that had been given. He was faced with an unreal situation.

Mr. MACLEAN

And an unreal Opposition.

Major DAVIES

I thought the hon. Member wanted to make an intelligent interjection, and so I gave way to him.

Mr. MACLEAN

I made an intelligent interjection, but you had not the intelligence to understand it.

Major DAVIES

The hon. Member knows that when the word "you" is used in this House, it is understood to refer to Mr. Speaker. Anyone who tries to go into negotiations on an unreal basis is bound to ride for a fall. It is not material to have said whether certain undertakings regarding propaganda or anything else should have been given before or after another event. The point that really is the point of criticism is this: That the Foreign Secretary has endeavoured in these negotiations to take up a certain position which he was unable to hold, and consequently in the course of the negotiations he has had to recede step by step and has allowed himself to be euchred and outmanoeuvred by the other party to the negotiations. That is the reason why, regardless of whether the achievement is desirable or not between the two countries, he has embarrassed himself and his Government and the nation, and has caused it to lose prestige as an able negotiator in delicate foreign relationships.

The right hon. Gentleman knew that the representatives with whom he was carrying on negotiations refused to accept any responsibility for actions of a certain other body. He knew that his own Prime Minister had stated that from our point of view we regarded the two as one. Never has that situation been cleared up. It is not cleared up now, as everyone knows. I think it was the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) who took the stand that in past history the question of propaganda against this country had been connected in the public mind with the activities of the Russian Empire and its successors. Consequently it is nothing new. That may possibly be admitted. What is new is that the Foreign Secretary took up originally a position which has been placed before the country categorically by the Prime Minister, that in carrying on these negotiations one thing must have been absolutely certain, and that was that we regarded the activities of these other bodies—I shall be out of order in giving names—as part and parcel of the Government with whom this country was carrying on the negotiations. We took up that attitude; the others refused. We knew that they did not mean what we meant them to mean.

It was absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to try to carry on negotiations under these unreal conditions. In order to carry out the pledge that his party had given, he was compelled to live in a fairyland of make-believe and then to recede step by step from the original position that he took up. It has made the nation as a whole, I shall not say a laughing-stock, but it certainly has reduced our prestige in international relationships. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman is going to achieve nothing. He has either to put into operation the undertakings of himself and the Prime Minister and of representatives of the Government in another place—

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson)

And approved by this House.

6.0 p. m.

Major DAVIES

—and by this House, I agree, and by everyone concerned, that if certain things are done by the other parties to this agreement, then steps to sever the negotiations are to be taken. He knows and the country knows and this House knows that these activities are going to continue, and indeed those responsible for the Russian Government say that they cannot control those activities and that it is absurd to think that they can control them. The methods followed by the Foreign Secretary were bound to result in an unreal atmosphere and in the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. Hon. Members opposite while they have lost that touch of first love with regard to their brothers and comrades overseas and overland are, at the same time, looking forward to certain commercial advantages for this country. If those commercial advantages hinge upon international relations, and if those international relations are based upon the unreal policy of the Foreign Secretary, what is going to become of this prospect of increased and more profitable commerce between the two countries?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member is now going outside the terms of the Motion.

Major DAVIES

I will finish with that point. After all, I was only putting what is called a rhetorical question to which I did not expect an answer. I have only one more comment to make and that is on the constitutional aspect of the question. We always understood hitherto that we had in this country two-Chamber Government. It is true that there are other countries—Liberia I believe is one—so simple-minded and progressive, as hon. Members opposite possibly would think, that they had single-Chamber Government. A good many Members opposite, I think, include that form of Government among their unrealised ideals. But we have always supposed that to achieve single-Chamber Government in this country would entail a long political fight and a constitutional struggle. We see that in this case it has been done by the administrative action of the Foreign Secretary who, by a stroke of the pen, has reduced us to single-Chamber government. It is a comforting thought, however, in view of the brief Debate which took place immediately after Question Time, that even the administrative action of the Government cannot bind either the Government itself, or the country, or apparently anyone else. In that thought I think we can find some consolation as against the menace of this being an indication of a desire on the part of certain occupants of the benches opposite to realise in the near future their ideal of single-chamber government as opposed to that form of government which we understand by the word "Parliament" to-day. For these reasons it seems to me that the Foreign Secretary has blundered badly in his handling of these negotiations. I do not think that for a long time he and his party are going to recover from the damage which they have done to their own prestige and to the prestige of the nation as a whole.

Mr. WISE

I think what this Debate has demonstrated has not been the careless drafting of the Protocol, but the careless drafting of the Motion which the party opposite have put on the Paper. If they are unable to draft a Resolution of five lines to express the views which they wish to enforce on the House, it is rather presumptuous on their part to criticise the drafting of this Protocol. I think the Debate has also shown the unreal nature of the criticism from hon. Members opposite. The House has listened to a number of speeches designed to criticise words and phrases in the Protocol, but everybody knows that it is not the phrasing or the wording of the Protocol which annoys the other side, but the fact that the Government has renewed relations with Russia. This Motion was not put down really for the purpose of discussing the methods of negotiation, but in order to arouse what hon. Members opposite suppose to be the existing antipathy of this country towards relations with Russia. The attendance in the House this afternoon shows how much importance the House attaches to their efforts. They have been driven to thin legal arguments as to what constitutes the approval of Parliament. It is a curious fact that this point did not occur to them when the Prime Minister made his statement in July of what he proposed to do, and nobody supposes that the point raised about the joint approval of both Houses to an administrative act of the Government would have been raised at all had it not referred to Russia.

They have raised another point. They have tried to insinuate that the Foreign Secretary, in some obscure way, changed his position between the opening of the negotiations and the conclusion of the Protocol. I watched with enormous interest the glee with which the other side welcomed what was evidently a deliberate misunderstanding on the part of some organs of their Press as to the actual proposals made at the beginning of the negotiations. What the Foreign Secretary said in his Note of 15th July—the first Note sent by the present Government to the Soviet Government—was that he invited the Soviet Government to send a responsible representative to London to discuss with him directly the most expeditious procedure for reaching as rapidly as possible a friendly and mutually satisfactory settlement of the questions outstanding between the two countries. The other side pretended that the Foreign Secretary was desirous of reaching his settlement before the renewal of diplomatic relations. What they desired that he should do was to fall into the trap of following precisely the procedure which they had tried for several years. They criticised the method adopted by the Foreign Secretary, but what other method was possible?

There was another method—the method which they desired him to follow. He might have done what the previous Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Secretaries had done for several years. He might have carried on a long-range correspondence with the Russian Government, by means of manifestoes and speeches and telegrams and declamations against the misdoings of that Government. He might have continued demonstrating to the world how every proposal made by any Russian representative at any international conference, was merely an occasion for acute and ill-tempered and generally rather rude criticism on the part of the representative of the British Government. He might have continued to try to reach a settlement by arousing and stimulating and by occasionally alternating with those methods a rather pretentious and sententious denunciation of the Russian Government's methods. That plan had been adopted for several years and had completely failed. Nobody on the other side had the smallest hope that it would succeed and it was never likely to succeed. The right hon. Gentleman took the only course which was open in the circumstances. He met face to face the representative of the other Government and, as I understand, had a talk as to what the subjects were which required settlement. He then proceeded to establish in his Protocol the only possible machinery by which these problems could be settled. They were problems of great difficulty and intricacy requiring probably weeks of negotiations. They could not be settled by the exchange of despatches or telegrams. They would never have been settled by the methods previously operative.

There was, for instance, the question of debts, involving an examination of the claims of thousands of claimants on both sides. There was the question of a commercial treaty involving the re-establishment of relations between two entirely different commercial systems and the setting up of new commercial arrangements in both countries. The settlement of such questions has clearly to be reached by friendly negotiations in a friendly atmosphere and that was the method adopted by the Foreign Secretary. The only other point which the other side raised was with regard to the question of propaganda. I am not going to run the risk of being ruled out of order by following the path which the other side have tried to follow, but I will say this, and I think in doing so I am well within the terms of the Protocol. I think the importance of this question of propaganda has been grossly exaggerated.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now dealing with the terms of the Protocol. That subject does not arise upon this Motion. It has been dealt with by the House already.

Mr. MACLEAN

On a point of Order. Does not the wording of the Motion bring the terms of the Protocol within the discussion? There is a statement about the careless drafting of the Protocol.

Mr. SPEAKER

There may be an allusion to the drafting, but it does not follow that the terms can be discussed.

Mr. MACLEAN

With all due respect, Sir, may I submit that it is only possible to show that the Protocol has been carelessly drafted, by quoting its terms?

Mr. SPEAKER

I have no objection to anybody quoting the terms of the Protocol in order to show whether they have been properly drafted or not. What I am objecting to is a discussion of the terms of the Protocol.

Mr. WISE

I am anxious to keep within the rules of order and I shall not pursue the point except in so far as I may comment on the methods adopted in the negotiations. The Foreign Secretary, as I understand, strove to create an atmosphere of friendly contact between the two countries. He brought the representatives of the two countries around a table to discuss points of common interest and to endeavour to reach a solution of—if hon. Members like to call them so—the easier and more immediate problems. He created a desire in both countries for the avoidance of difficulties in regard to propaganda and other things. I think that was the right method and the only method likely to reach success. The other side are constantly quoting, both inside and outside the House, phrases from newspaper articles, some of them unofficial, some of them no doubt mischievous, and endeavouring to use those articles to make relations between the two countries more difficult.

No one denies the difficulties. It is inevitable after the years of struggle between the two systems—between the two countries—that there should be difficulties in reversing the process of those years and bringing the two countries together. I think the House would have been better guided this afternoon if we were striving to find methods of solving the difficulties instead of striving to discover methods by which those difficulties might be made more acute. If quotations are to be made let us at any rate have authoritative quotations—quotations which are helpful as well as those which are unhelpful. Three weeks ago in a speech to the Central Executive Committee of the Russian Soviet in Moscow the Russian Foreign Secretary said he thought the liquidation of past questions which, owing to their complicated nature, required considerable time, should not hinder the adoption of methods designed to meet present needs, and he referred to the growth of trade and easier conditions for contact and trade between—

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid that would not be in order.

Mr. WISE

I will not pursue that, but he ended by saying—and I am sure you will admit that this is in order— There is a sincere desire to establish friendly relations with the British people and to remove all—

Mr. ALLEN

On a point of Order. Have not speakers on this side of the House already been ruled out of order for quoting from "Pravda" and from "Isvestia?"

Mr. WISE

I am not quoting from "Pravda"; I am reading a quotation printed by an anti-Soviet propaganda organ in this country.

Mr. SPEAKER

The Motion before the House condemns the action of His Majesty's Government. It does not go into the question of what the Russian. Government does at all.

Mr. WISE.

I will conclude by saying that the action of His Majesty's Government in striving to create an atmosphere of good will and a sense on both sides that these problems can be solved is the only likely method by which a solution of these problems can be found, and hon. Members on the other side seem to have completely failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of these methods or to put forward any other methods which are likely to lead to better relations between the two countries.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I should have liked to answer the speech which the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) could not make, but I do not find anything to answer in that part of the speech which he did make. The ground, as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, covered by this Motion is very narrow. It condemns the course followed by the Government in their negotiations, it condemns the slovenly character of the drafting of the Protocol, but the substance of the Protocol has already been discussed by the House, and whatever may be our opinions upon it, we are not entitled to re-open that question to-day. I hope I shall be able, in the very few remarks which I am going to make, to keep strictly within the limits of the issue opened by the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me.

Let me deal first and briefly with the second part of the Motion—the condemnation of the slovenly drafting of the Protocol. The actual terms of the Motion are, I think, "careless drafting," but I prefer to call it slovenly. In our colloquial language, we, as has already been pointed out, often use the word "Parliament" when we intend to indicate the House of Commons, but in documents of State and, above all, in international agreements it is desirable that language should be precise and correct and that the words chosen should express the meaning of the negotiators. The right hon. Gentleman has very frankly and handsomely taken upon his own shoulders the whole responsibility for the error which has been committed. His attitude is, in fact, one of confession and avoidance. The fault is his, but, in his view, after all it does not much matter, because what he had in mind when, in negotiating an agreement with a foreign Government, he used the term "Parliament" was a statement by the Prime Minister, and because the Prime Minister had correctly used the term House of Commons. "I venture to say that whether or not that kind of slovenly or careless drafting has any other consequences in this particular case, it is dangerous in international affairs. have known, and I could point to, cases where international agreements have been disputed long after they were signed on just such ground as would be open to the two Governments who have signed this Protocol, namely, that the Protocol provided for the approval of Parliament and that the approval of only one House of Parliament, not of Parliament, was given.

That is as much as I wish to say in respect to the international aspect of the question, but I must say one word on the domestic aspect. Parliament is Parliament and cannot be made anything but Parliament by a Secretary of State, and if the right hon. Gentleman means in future to ignore one of the two Houses least let him be careful in his language not to imply that the sanction of this House is the sanction of Parliament. That would be a constitutional innovation and indeed a constitutional revolution, which, good or bad, could not be executed in that way either with due regard to the serious nature of the questions involved or with common courtesy to the other House of Parliament. That is all that I wish to say in regard to the drafting of the Protocol.

I turn now to the methods employed in the negotiations. The charge which I make against those methods is that, in the first place, they are not consistent with the dignity of this country, and, in the second place, that they condemn this Protocol in advance to futility. They render it certain that it will not have the results which the Government expect from it or hope from it, and they make it not improbable that, instead of improving our relations, it will be a definite step in their worsening. Let me very briefly, as I hope, make good my two points. The hon. Member for East Leicester says that the Soviet Note printed as No. 3 in the White Paper was either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation, fostered in certain Russian quarters, of the attitude of His Majesty's Government. Supposing that were true, what ought to have been the course of the negotiations?

Mr. WISE

I made no such statement.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me exactly what he did say when he spoke of misunderstanding or misrepresentation fostered by certain newspapers?

Mr. WISE

I was dealing with the first Note, No. 1 in the document, signed by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench on 15th July. What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary says quite specifically that he invited a representative to London to discuss the proceedings for reaching a settlement in order to see the intention of those first negotiations, but very shortly afterwards the other side got the impression, the quite wrong impression, that the purpose was to reach a complete settlement.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

That will not do, if I may say so, as an explanation of the course of the negotiations. His Majesty's Government sent a Note which was not very clear. The Soviet Government replied by a Note which was perfectly clear, and in which they definitely asserted their refusal to negotiate at all on the questions in dispute until diplomatic relations were resumed. It was after that exchange of Notes that a Soviet representative was invited to this country and the first meeting took place. The right hon. Gentleman has himself—

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR

On a point of Order. You ruled at the commencement of this Debate, Mr. Speaker, that discussion of the acts of the Government prior to the Vote of the House was to be excluded from the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That was what I understood to be your ruling, and that we could only discuss such acts of the Government as had relation to the terms of the Motion on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER

My Ruling was that this discussion could not degenerate into a discussion complaining of the resumption of diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia. That I should still rule out of order, because the resumption of diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia was endorsed by a Resolution passed by this House on 5th November. Certainly, it will not be in order to re-open that subject, but, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he was just coming to the point of the negotiations which took place between the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and the representative of Soviet Russia, which is exactly what the Motion does say.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

That is so, and I hope I shall be successful—and I have no reason to think that any part of the argument which I wish to address to the House will prevent my being successful—in strictly conforming to your ruling and in keeping myself strictly within the terms of the Motion. What I am dealing with is the course of the negotiations, and I say that the method of those negotiations, the conduct of those negotiations, is inconsistent with the dignity of this country and is calculated to render futile or sterile the agreement, whatever it is, which has been reached. It is with the course of the negotiations, therefore, that I am dealing. The right hon. Gentleman issued his invitation, and the Soviet Government replied safeguarding the position which they have always taken up. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that their answer was ambiguous. Why did not he clear up the ambiguity before beginning the conversations He preferred to begin the conversations, and the next stage is that they break off the conversations.

The Soviet Government explained why they were broken off. Was there any misunderstanding, was there any doubt, that the Soviet representative correctly stated the reason for which the negotiations were broken off? No correction issued from the right hon. Gentleman, no Foreign Office communiqué, no com- munication, as far as we know, of any kind was made to the Soviet Government, to say, "You have misunderstood the contentions which we have put forward; you are breaking off because you think we have imposed conditions which we have never suggested." On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman replied confirming the conditions and explaining how it was his hope that the principles on which a settlement could be worked out should have been defined at that stage. It is quite clear that when they parted in July or the beginning of August the Soviet Government, adhering to their Note of acceptance, and not altering their attitude, were refusing to discuss questions which at that time the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State considered an essential preliminary to the resumption of negotiations.

What followed? Without any suggestion that the Soviet Government had altered, without any change in the situation, the right hon. Gentleman invited a resumption of the negotiations, and this time, while the Soviet Government maintained their attitude, as they had done throughout, the right hon. Gentleman made a volte face, surrendered to the ultimatum which had been issued, and, sooner than find the negotiations broken off a second time because his conditions were not accepted, yielded to the insistence of the Soviet and abandoned the conditions which he had stated as essential. I say that negotiations in which a British Government subject themselves to that kind of humiliation are not consistent with the dignity of this country, do not promote the authority or the influence of this country, and will not aid the right hon. Gentleman in any further negotiations which he has to conduct, either with the Soviet Government or with other Powers, but, above all, with the Soviet Government, because he has shown to that Government that he was so hampered by pre-Governmental pledges, that he was squeezable and as putty in their hands, and that, when they like to insist, he will sooner or later submit. I hope that I have made my first point; at any rate, I shall have made my first point clear to the right hon. Gentleman even if he does not, on reflection, share my view of the error which he committed.

The second point about the course of the negotiations is that their conduct makes it certain that, instead of healing a quarrel, they will continue a quarrel, and not improbably embitter a quarrel. I have already called attention to the consequences of the right hon. Gentleman entering into negotiations on a reply from the Soviet Government which he himself subsequently described as ambiguous. But the same ambiguity runs through the whole of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly assured this House that the Protocol which he has signed, and which the Soviet Government have signed, forbids propaganda or interference in our affairs, either in this country or in any part of His Majesty's Dominions. Every spokesman on the Soviet side from first to last has repudiated the idea that in signing the agreement, he attached the same meaning to it. My second paint, therefore, is that with his eyes open, having already been warned of the danger, by his own experience in this very matter, of accepting ambiguous language without being sure that both sides meant the same thing, he has gone on deliberately cultivating that ambiguity, and has not settled the condition which he declares to be a necessary preliminary to the resumption of diplomatic relations. Not only has he not settled it, but by leaving it open, by accepting these relations while each party puts not merely a different, but a contradictory, construction on the Protocol, he is preparing the way for infinite trouble for himself, and for an exacerbation of all the difficulties and bitterness to which Soviet propaganda within the British Empire has already given rise.

Mr. A. HENDERSON

This has been one of the most surprising Debates which I have heard in my 26 years in this House. Very serious charges have been made against the present Foreign Secretary. I think that the gravamen of the charge, according to the closing part of the Motion before the House, is, my carelessness in the drafting of the Protocol. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has changed the language to some extent, and has described it, not as careless, but as slovenly. Most Members who have sat through the Debate must have been impressed with the irony of the situation. Nearly every speaker on the other side of the House has found that he has not been able to proceed very far with his speech. before Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker has had to remind him that the Motion before the House was so 'carelessly drafted and so slovenly worded that he was entirely out of order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that there was an important Debate on this subject on 5th November. I do not wish to say anything that would be in the slightest degree discourteous, but I am not very far wrong if I say that the speech to which we have just listened, certainly the arguments to which we have just listened, were applied by my right hon. Friend in the Debate which took place on that occasion. I would be wasting the time of the House if I were to make the same speech that I made on that occasion.

The main point which the right hon. Gentleman advanced was that some serious change took place between the negotiations at the end of July or the beginning of August and the resumed negotiations that took place when I issued my statement in September. I very fully explained that in my speech, but evidently not so as to convince the right hon. Gentleman. The change was not with us at all; it was with the representative of the Soviet Government. I told the House on 5th November that we broke off the negotiations because he put in a demand to which I would not listen. What was that demand? It was that we should not even settle the question of procedure before ambassadors were exchanged. I pointed out in my speech on 5th November that even then we did not make an exchange of ambassadors, and that we were complying with the conditions laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he replied to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition at the opening of the Session. He laid it down then that we would not have an exchange of ambassadors until the matter had been reported to this House. In my speech, I said that in the Protocol we had complied with one of the two conditions, and that, in having the Debate, we were complying with the second of the conditions.

We have heard a great deal of the methods of the negotiations. The methods of these negotiations were before the House in the last Debate. The negotiations had practically ended when that Debate took place, and all the things which we have heard to-day, and all the delinquencies that have been hurled at the Foreign Secretary, were known, and were in the speeches of hon. Members on the other side. What did the House do, not in a Debate such as that of to-day, which has been reduced almost to a burlesque owing to the almost careless drafting of the Motion, but in a serious Debate lasting for the whole of the sitting? The House, by a majority of 125—probably the largest majority that has been secured on any important question during this Session—accepted the result of the negotiations, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) wished me God-speed in the rest of my work. Yet to-day hon. Members have spent the last two or three hours in bringing up all the old excuses—I cannot more properly define them—not because there was some flaw in the Agreement, but because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposed to the policy of the Government in seeking to establish proper relations with Russia.

Then there is the second part of the Motion. The hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond), who got very near the offensive in his personal references, tried to raise what I believe has more than once been described as a constitutional issue. In answer to questions, I think that I did say that if the words "House of Commons" should have been used instead of the word "Parliament," I was prepared to express my regret for what might be called a formal slip in the manner of expressing it. I am not convinced, however, in spite of all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of correct language in a document between this country and a foreign-country, that the word "Parliament" was not the correct word to use in this connection. I am prepared to admit, for the sake of argument, that it might have been a slip, and that it might have been better if I had put in the words "House of Commons." But I can well imagine—and I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to challenge me very much on the point—that if I had put in the words "House of Commons" I would have been blamed for raising a constitutional issue.

Mr. MOND

Hear, hear!

Mr. HENDERSON

Wait and see! The hon. Member has had the opportunity of expressing an opinion, and I want to have an opportunity now. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, with all his personal references.

Mr. MOND

On a point of Order. Am 1 not entitled to say "Hear, hear," without being accused of interrupting the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. HENDERSON

I again repeat that I am not fully convinced that the word "Parliament" was not the correct word to be used in this connection. I have been asked on more than one occasion if I had obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and in view of all the talk about the constitutional position—and there have been several demands to-day to know the constitutional position—I have taken the trouble to obtain that opinion. I think the gallant major who represents Yeovil (Major G. Davies) gave us a little ditty on the constitutional position. I think he said he believed that we had two-chamber government. Yes, we have, for certain purposes. In order to put the position very plainly I am going to quote an opinion that has been drafted. It is rather long, but I think, in view of the criticisms, that I am entitled, in my defence, to give this quotation from the legal opinion.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not want to cause delay by intervention, but I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to fall into a trap. If he quotes a document he is bound by the Rules of this House to lay the document. If he is prepared to do that there is no more to be said.

Mr. HENDERSON

Oh, certainly I am. It is not a document in that sense. It is an opinion which I have obtained. I will quote the document, and then it can go to the OFFICIAL REPORT in order that it can appear on the records of the House.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands. He said that he would quote the document. If he means that he will read the whole document, of course that is perfectly in order, but it is not in order to make a quotation from a document unless he is prepared to lay it.

Mr. HENDERSON

I have already said that I consider the opinion that I have obtained of such importance that I propose, even at the risk of wearying the House, to give it in full: It may be that to use the word 'Parliament' in the Russian protocol was a slip in form, but if the Opposition argue that from the constitutional point of view it was a mistake of substance, they are certainly wrong. It must be noted that the resumption of diplomatic relations with Russia is an executive action taken in virtue of the prerogative of the Crown to carry on relations with foreign countries. In strict constitutional law, His Majesty's Government need not secure specific Parliamentary approval for any such action, and until recent times such approval would never have been sought. It was sought by His Majesty's Government on this occasion because, if their Russian policy had been condemned by the House of Commons, they would not have persisted in it, and the Government might not have remained in office. Although executive action in specific matters does not require specific approval by Parliament, nevertheless His Majesty's Government is responsible for executive policy as a whole to Parliament. That, indeed, is the essence of what is called Parliamentary Government. But what is meant by Parliament' when it is said that His Majesty's Government is responsible to Parliament for its whole executive action? Not what is meant by 'Parliament' when we are speaking of legislation? This is very important. In respect of legislation the sovereign body is the King in 'Parliament' assembled, and here 'Parliament' means both Houses. But when we speak of His Majesty's Government as responsible to Parliament 'for executive action,' Parliament 'means not both Houses but the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone. The essence of Parliamentary Government is that His Majesty's Government can be turned out of office by the House of Commons, and by them alone. It has for many years been the established constitutional practice that only the House of Commons can control the executive action which the Government may take. The Government are, indeed, obliged by constitutional practice to answer questions in the House of Lords, but a defeat in that House in no way affects their constitutional right to take any executive action which may seem to them right. It follows from the above argument that from the constitutional point of view there is no substance whatever in the point made by the Opposition with regard to the use of the word Parliament' in the Russian protocol. On the contrary, there is a good case, from the constitutional point of view, for holding that the word 'Parliament' was the right word to use in an agreement with a foreign Power in which the purpose was to make plain to that foreign-Power that a certain executive action could only be taken if the approval of the relevant Parliamentary authority had been obtained. That is not my opinion.

Mr. SKELTON

Whose is it?

Mr. HENDERSON

I have already hinted that it is the Law Officers of the Crown—the Attorney-General's. I have already hinted that if there had beers a slip I was prepared to apologise for it, but I tried to strengthen my position by obtaining an opinion, an opinion from one who, I think, is an authority on a constitutional issue such as has been raised, not by me but by the other side of the House.

Commander BELLAIRS

Is the Solicitor-General associated with the Attorney-General? We want to be precise.

Mr. HENDERSON

I say that this opinion is endorsed by the Attorney-General.

HON. MEMBERS

"Endorsed!"

Commander BELLAIRS

You said it was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. HENDERSON

The Law Officer of the Crown. Can I put it that way?

Mr. MOND

Has he given any opinion on the question of the word "Session" which was raised at the same time?

Mr. HENDERSON

No. I never submitted that, because I thought anybody who has any sense at all knew what was meant. The reference to the Session could only mean one thing to the two parties who were negotiating, because if you look you will see that I told him "As soon as Parliament was opened." What else could I mean by as soon as Parliament resumes in October? I also told him that we would have the debate as speedily as ever it was possible when Parliament resumed. There could be no shadow of a doubt as to what was meant. This argument which has been put up can, in my judgment, only have force if there is any misunderstanding on the part of those with whom I was negotiating. That is the important point. There could be no misunderstanding in this House. The Prime Minister had made that unmistakably plain before any negotiations began. He distinctly said to the House, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, "We will follow the procedure adopted by our predecessors when they broke off negotiations." The surprising thing is that we are having so much made of the rights of another place. There was not so much made of the rights of another place when relations were broken off. They were never consulted. The matter was never put to them. The deed had been done, practically, before they knew anything about it. So hon. Members opposite are great constitutionalists when the other people are using the wrong word, but are not such great constitutionalists when we are severing relations with an important country like Russia.

One cannot but be left with the conviction that all this—shall I say—second edition of the Debate of 5th November, despite the fact that we then had a majority of 125 for getting on with the work, is due to the opposition which hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to exercise towards the policy of the Government with regard to Russian relations.

One or two questions have been submitted to me during the discussion. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) asked me: "Was any agreement made that debts should be dealt with and settled before relations were re-established?" The answer to that question is quite plain. No such agreement was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Now I am asked, Why not? I reported to the House why not on 5th November, and the House endorsed our policy. What we did undertake was to get a very definite commitment from them, which it had been difficult to secure in the past, that all forms of debt would be negotiated immediately there was a resumption of diplomatic relations, and that is the position at this moment.

Sir A. KNOX

Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for interrupting him I My question was this: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman in initiating these negotiations asked in the first instance that some agreement might be come to before the exchange of Ambassadors regarding debts and propaganda?

Mr. HENDERSON

No, it is the contrary that is true. I asked nothing of the kind. I laid it down perfectly plainly that what we had to do was to get them committed to four or five important questions that must be the subject of negotiations immediately relations were resumed, but not before. Otherwise I would have been asking for that which is practically an impossibility. How could you negotiate those questions before you enter into relations? How can you negotiate before you get a mission here with which to negotiate and how can you get a mission here until you have resumed negotiations? Therefore, the answer is in the negative. I have also been asked a very pertinent question as to the position with regard to propaganda and the Dominions. It is a very, very difficult question to handle, indeed. We know that the Dominions are many thousands of miles away, and that it is not an easy matter to carry on negotiations within a restricted time. We have done what we could. We have now secured, at the request of the Dominions, that on the presentation of credentials, which I hope takes place towards the end of the present week, as I said in answer to a question to-day, that there will be the exchange of a Note between the two Governments covering-propaganda as between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Government, and also, at the request of the Dominions, there will be a Supplementary Note, in which the name of each Dominion will be specially mentioned, giving exactly the same undertaking as we have secured as regards propaganda with the United Kingdom.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

Does the right hon. Gentleman for that purpose include India as a Dominion, and does "Great Britain" include those parts of the British Empire which are not Dominions?

Mr. HENDERSON

The phrase that is used, "The whole of the British Empire," is made very specific; but we are plus that by a definite supplementary agreement in which the Dominions will all be mentioned. India, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect, is not mentioned as a Dominion; it is included as part of the British Empire.

Commander BELLAIRS

What about the Comintern?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON

I do not think that there is any need for gale to answer that question. I have never given any undertaking in regard to the Comintern. When we have resumed relations, we shall watch these questions. We are as much opposed to this propaganda as anybody on the opposite side of the House. We realise to the full its subversive nature, and, when we get into relations with them, we shall do everything that we can to prevent it, and, in the event of it continuing, we shall use our diplomatic powers to have it discontinued. I think it was the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in the Debate of the 5th November, who expressed the hope that we would not pack our kit at the very first provocation. I am not quoting him, but I think that is the idea, and it is the sane line we shall endeavour to follow. I hope I have answered the points that were not dealt with in the last Debate. I have endeavoured to confine myself strictly to the two points in the Motion, and I hope the House, if there is going to be a Division, will now proceed to divide.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

I intervene in this Debate, because I consider that there is still a question to answer. Aspersions have been cast on the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) for the drafting of this Motion, but, as a matter of fact, it is extremely ingenious. The question of Russia is a very wide one and may divide opinion. It is one of the biggest problems any statesman has had to face and any Motion on the general question might have led to a very considerable division of opinion. Not two, but 10 or 20 opinions might have been expressed about what ought to be done, but on this Motion there is only one decision to which the House can possibly come. The words of the Motion are: That this House expresses its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and condemns its careless drafting of the protocol of agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has himself confessed that he was careless and made a slip and any defence he makes is a plea of mitigation and not a real legal defence.

Mr. HENDERSON

Cannot one make a slip without being careless?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

Attacks were made on the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight for being careless, but, however great his ability and however honourable his position in this House, he is not the Foreign Secretary, and he has not to draft documents affecting foreign nations. I should think no care could be too great in the case of such a, document, and, whatever the Attorney-General may say, "Parliament" in this House will still mean "Parliament." The Attorney-General has admitted that he has persuaded Judges to interpret words in quite a different sense from that intended by this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a conjuror with words, and a conjuror, however honourable he may be, would be wise to conceal his skill in sleight of hand when playing bridge with his friends. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he could not have possibly come to any agreement whatever as regards the question of settlement of debt before Ambassadors were exchanged. Of course, in matters of detail he is perfectly right. Nobody could possibly enter into exact detail on this question in a few months, but he could settle matters of principle. He said in one of his letters that, with good will on both sides, he hoped sufficient progress would be made to enable him, on the re-assembling of Parliament in October, to report what progress had been made and what questions of principle had been defined. What questions have been defined? Not one. I would refer the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain to the very distinct firmness with which the corresponding official in the United States treated this matter. Mr. Secretary Hughes said that it was an easy thing for a foreign State to admit liability for its debts and at any moment the Soviet Government could do so. I submit that this matter should be settled before we enter into relations with them.

There is one more aspect of the question with which I would like to deal. Will the right hon. Gentleman exercise the same skill in the management of State affairs as he would exercise in his own? Suppose he entered into an agreement and the other side obviously interpreted it in a different sense from himself, would he not make inquiries about it? There was very distinct evidence, and I think I am in order in talking about it, that the other side understood this agreement in a totally different sense from himself. Did he make representations? As far as we know, he made none, because when we asked questions in this House he refused any answer whatever, and we are to presume that no inquiries were made about the sense in which the Soviet Government understood this agreement. I think he has been extraordinarily negligent. It is sometimes useful to apply very simple tests in these matters, and the right hon. Gentleman must surely, in his own private way, have made some inquiries. One wonders whether, in addition to the Attorney-General, he consulted his learned son in this House, and what he said about the meaning of "Parliament" in these matters. Having regard to the facts that the right hon. Gentleman made no representations whatever to the Soviet Government, that he himself has confessed that he made a slip in the use of the word "Parliament," there can be only one verdict on this Debate. There is really no answer to what has been said about the terms of the Protocol.

Mr. MACLEAN

May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is such a stickler for clear and precise meaning, why there is such a difference between the pronunciation of his own name and the spelling of it?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

Because it is a Scottish name.

Mr. HAYCOCK

I am not sorry that in this Debate we have to confine ourselves to the constitutional issue. I want to say a few words on that issue. Our Constitution is supposed to be a democracy, and we are supposed to take our orders from the great British public.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member cannot discuss that matter on this Motion.

Mr. HAYCOCK

All I am trying to do is to suggest that there has been no sin against the Constitution; at least, in spirit in the words of this Protocol. If one question was more discussed than another at the last election, it was the Russian question, and the British public in the last few months has given a very emphatic verdict. Concerning the word 'Parliament," all I know; is that as the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, in the past when we had the Arcos raid, that there was no question of the House of Lords having any say about it at all, and, even when it was a question of war with Russia and we were subsidising Denikin, Koltchak and the others, we never went to the House of Lords. For the first time for a long time, Parliament has something to say about diplomatic relations. For the first time, the relations between nations are open and above board, and the democratic representatives of the British people will have the last word. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad that hon. Members subscribe to something that is true. Just imagine the burlesque of leaving diplomatic relationships to the other House, to that Chamber of Horrors! We know perfectly well that if Parliament were to consist as far as this question is concerned, not merely of the House of Commons, but also of the House of Lords, there would not be any peace with Russia, and they would have thrown out this Treaty.

Mr. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member continues to stray from the subject, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. HAYCOCK

I do not want to get out of order, and I think I cannot do better than to drop the constitutional question, and appeal, if I may, to the exact words, the ipsissima verba, of the right hon. Member for one of the Birmingham seats (Sir A. Chamberlain). I do not know which one it is, because he changes it so often. He told us it was inconsistent with the dignity of this country that we should resume relations with Russia, and our dignity was awfully important. I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman's dignity is awfully important; he is almost the most dignified person who comes into this Chamber. I know that peace with Russia is vastly more important than dignity. I do not know how nations can behave in a dignified way. I do not know any sort of dignity as between a nation with 45,000,000 people and one with 130,000,000 people, who occupy one-sixth of the entire earth. Dignity, in this sense, is a, word that means practically nothing, and the dignified thing to do is to wipe up the mess our predecessors made with the Arcos raid, which was not at all dignified, and introduce dynamite into foreign politics.

Commander BELLAIRS

I wish to make two comments on the statement which has been made by the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the opinion of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Attorney-General, and subsequently he promised to lay the document from which he quoted on the Table as a State document. I think we ought to know whether the Solicitor-General associates himself with the opinion given by the Attorney-General in that document.

Mr. A. HENDERSON

indicated assent.

Commander BELLAIRS

There is another question which has a distinct bearing on the conduct of these negotiations. I believe it is admitted that the Prime Minister, at the time these negotiations were proceeding, was on his way to America.

Mr. HENDERSON

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that that is not a fact.

Commander BELLAIRS

Certainly, the announcement of the result of the negotiations in which we recognised the Soviet Government arid consented to an exchange of Ambassadors was made before the Prime Minister arrived at Washington, and I believe the British Government were perfectly familiar with the opinion of the American Government that the resumption of relations with Russia would do harm.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is going back to the question whether we should resume

diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia, and I have ruled that out of order many times this afternoon.

Commander BELLAIRS

I am dealing with the negotiations, and I am simply drawing attention to the fact that those negotiations resulted in a recognition of Russia and a decision to exchange Ambassadors before the Prime Minister had reached Washington.

Mr. HENDERSON

I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is right, after a denial has been given to a statement to continue to impute the motive that I was seeking to do something in the absence of my chief?

Mr. SPEAKER

I have often said that to impute motives is, of course, quite out of order.

Commander BELLAIRS

I am not imputing motives, and if there is any imputation of motives in anything I have said I withdraw it. I say that the least that could have been done to facilitate an agreement with America was to have that question discussed in America, because the course which was pursued was likely to harm our relations with the Americans.

Question put, That this House expresses its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and condemns its careless drafting of the protocol of agreement.

The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 254.

Division No. 109.] AYES. [7.20 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Albery, Irving James Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Atholl, Duchess of Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hurd, Percy A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Kindersley, Major G. M.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Davies, Dr. Vernon Knox, Sir Alfred
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Berry, Sir George Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Eden, Captain Anthony Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'i'd., Hexham) Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Fleiden, E. B. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Butler, R. A. Ganzoni, Sir John Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Carver, Major W. H. Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) McConnell, Sir Joseph
Castle Stewart, Earl of Gower, Sir Robert Macquisten, F. A.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Margesson, Captain H. D.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Marjoribanks, E. C.
Chapman, Sir S. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Christie, J. A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Colman, N. C. p. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Mond, Hon. Henry
Colville, Major D. J. Haslam, Henry C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr).
Cranbourne, Viscount Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Oman, Sir Charles William C. Savery, S. S. Todd, Capt. A. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Skelton, A. N. Train, J.
Penny, Sir George Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hattings) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Smithers, Waldron Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Ramsbotham, H. Somerset, Thomas Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Remer, John R. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Withers, Sir John James
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A. Southby, Commander A. R. J. Womersley, W. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Thomson, Sir F. Captain Macdonald and Major
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Colfox.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Mansfield, W.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) March, S.
Alpass, J. H Gillett, George M. Marcus, M.
Ammon, Charles George Glassey, A. E. Marley, J.
Angell, Norman Gosling, Harry Mathers, George
Arnott, John Gossling, A. G. Matters, L. W.
Aske, Sir Robert Gould, F. Maxton, James
Attlee, Clement Richard Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Melville, Sir James
Ayles, Walter Gray, Milner Messer, Fred
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Middleton, G.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Milner, J.
Batey, Joseph Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Groves, Thomas E. Money, Ralph
Bellamy, Albert Grundy, Thomas W. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mort, D. L.
Benson, G. Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Moses, J. J. H.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Harbord, A. Muff, G.
Birkett, W. Norman Hardie, George D. Murnin, Hugh
Blindell, James Hastings, Dr. Somerville Nathan, Major H. L.
Bowen, J. W. Haycock, A. W. Naylor, T. E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hayday, Arthur Noel Baker, P. J.
Broad, Francis Alfred Hayes, John Henry Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Brockway, A. Fenner Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Bromfield, William Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Owen. H. F. (Hereford)
Bromley, J. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Palin, John Henry
Brooke, W. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Brothers, M. Herriotts, J. Perry, S. F.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Peters. Dr. Sidney John
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hollins, A. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Buchanan, G. Horrabin, J. F. Phillips, Dr. Marion
Burgess, F. G. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Hunter, Dr. Joseph Pole, Major D. G.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Potts, John S.
Caine, Derwent Hall- John, William (Rhondda, West) Price, M. P.
Cameron, A. G. Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Pybus, Percy John
Cape, Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Quibell, D. J. K.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Raynes, W. R.
Charleton, H. C. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Chater, Daniel Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Church, Major A. G. Kelly, W. T. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, Thomas Ritson, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kinley, J. Romerll, H. G.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Kirkwood, D. Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Compton, Joseph Knight, Holford Rowson, Guy
Cove, William G. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Salter, Dr. Alfred
Daggar, George Law, Albert (Bolton) Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Dallas, George Law, A. (Rossendale) Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Dalton, Hugh Lawrence, Susan Sanders, W. S.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Lawson, John James Sandham, E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Sawyer, G. F.
Day, Harry Leach, W. Scrymgeour, E.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Scurr, John
Devlin, Joseph Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Sexton, James
Dickson, T. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Dukes, C. Lindley, Fred W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Ede, James Chuter Logan, David Gilbert Sherwood, G. H.
Edge, Sir William Longden, F. Shield, George William
Edmunds, J. E. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lowth, Thomas Shillaker, J. F.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lunn, William Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Elmley, Viscount Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Simmons, C. J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) McElwee, A. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Foot, Isaac McKinlay, A. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Freeman, Peter Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Sinkinson, George
Cardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Sitch, Charles H.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Thorne, w, (West Ham, Plaistow) Westwood, Joseph
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) Thurtle, Ernest Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Tinker, John Joseph Whiteley. Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Tout, W. J. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Turner, B. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Sorensen, R. Viant, S. P. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Spero, Dr. G. E. Walker. J. Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Stamford, Thomas W. Wallace, H. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Stephen, Campbell Wallhead, Richard C. Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Stewart, J. (St. Follox) Watkins, F. C. Wise, E. F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Strauss, G. R. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah Wright, W. (Ruthergien)
Sullivan, J. Wellock, Wilfred
Sutton, J. E. Welsh, James (Paisley) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) West, F. R.

Question put, and agreed to.