Lords Sitting of 20 February 1919

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government what changes they will propose in the practice and procedure of this House in order that Bills for social and industrial reconstruction may be adequately considered and passed into law.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have set down this Question on the Notice Paper with the intention of enabling the House to do justice to itself as the oldest and most honourable legislative body in the world, in what is hopefully and rather grandiloquently styled the era of social regeneration which is now opening before us. There can be no question of the personal competence of this House. Its man-power is overwhelmingly strong. I do not believe that in any other Legislative Assembly you could find so much expert knowledge in every sphere of national activity and in every department of national life. At the same time I believe that the procedure under which we act makes legislative efficiency impossible.
On the first night of the session the noble Earl who leads the House made a most eloquent speech, and I will quote from it. The speeches of the noble Earl are often worth quoting from, and I wish to read to your Lordships from the concluding Paragraph of that particular speech. The Leader of the House said—
"I am sure that in the building of that greater Britain your Lordships will play a prominent part, and see that the foundations are well laid, and that upon them is reared a super-structure which will not merely be fair to the eye but will endure."
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in his maiden speech in this House, made an appeal of the same sort to your Lordships—to give your expert knowledge in aid of the cause of social reconstruction. I do not question the sincerity of those noble Lords, any more than I question the solemnity of their utterances; but a great institution cannot live on solemnities. What I want to know is whether
232
these are mere phrases, or whether, to use an ordinary expression, they mean business.
It is no doubt true that the procedure of this House has been well adapted to its past traditions; it has depended upon that spirit of conciliation and consideration as between ourselves which has never been found wanting. It is historic in its traditional dignity and distinction, but I venture to say that it is prehistoric in its cumbrousness and its inutility. I do not suppose that your Lordships often turn to the Standing Orders of this House. All of them have an archaic picturesqueness about them which has its charms, but as for making for any sort of efficiency in a legislative machine they are absurdly out of date and of no account. The very style under which they are known, "Remembrances for Order and Decency" in the conduct of affairs, rather stamps them as being not wholly suited to the necessities of our day. They provide for all sorts of things. They provide against "asperity of speech"; they forbid "personal, sharp, or taxing speeches," which last they say are to be avoided—whatever a "taxing speech" may be; I do not know whether it is taxing the patience of the House or of the public. Then it is said, "No conversation shall be carried on between the Woolsack and the Throne, and Lords wishing to converse are to go to the Royal Gallery." I do not know whether that is often observed during speeches which are made here. But there is one whole Standing Order which seems to me to open up great promise for the proposals which I shall submit to your Lordships shortly. In Standing Order XL we read this—
"To have more freedom of speech, and that arguments may be used (pro and contra), Committees are appointed, sometimes for Bills, sometimes to facilitate and agree of great businesses, either of the whole House, or of particulars;"
And it is, of course, Committees of particulars which I wish to advocate later.
I am bound to say that I think your Lordships are vitally concerned in the efficiency of this Assembly. Perhaps it is not a bad thing to ask, in the words of the Greek play, where we stand and what we are going to do. We all know we are sitting, or standing, under the shadow of doom. The "dread shears" of the sisters are cutting almost the last threads of our existence, if you judge not by casual talk but by the official declarations of the leaders of both Parties of the Coalition in

233
the other House. I heard Mr. Bonar Law pledge himself and the Party which follows him to the drastic reconstitution of this Chamber; therefore, if we do not show that any legislative efficiency resides here, it is pretty certain that your Lordships will not play a very important part in the Second. Chamber, whatever it may be, which is to be created in this country.
It is no good your Lordships deceiving yourselves with the idea that what is proposed is the reform of the House of Lords. I had a seat on the Second Chamber Conference which, under the skilled and learned guidance of Lord Bryce, sat for some six months and reported at the beginning of last year. What that Conference proposed was the constitution of a new Chamber, the formation of a Senate, with which your Lordships had little to do. It is true that an insignificant and evanescing fragment of your Lordships' House was to be kept here, but it was gradually to disappear; and sooner or later your Lordships as a political force in the country would have passed away—and rather sooner than later.
I do not say that drastic reform ought not to take place, though I point out that if it is on the lines of the Report it would entirely sweep away the noble Lords who sit on the bench below me, because they were to be elected by groups of the House of Commons, and it would be—I think we should all hold—a great misfortune if the Party to which they belong were not represented here in greater force than it is in another place. But in any case I believe that I ant not exaggerating when I say that the whole future of the hereditary Peerage as a political force in this country depends upon how far they set their House in order now and show that they are competent to discharge their duty in these great times. Even if they are not to have specifically allotted to them a part of the new House which is to be created out of their own body, they will find it difficult, when they have to be elected directly or indirectly outside, to justify their claims unless they have shown themselves efficient as law makers whilst they had a chance when sitting by right of birth or by right of creation.
This is a most important time for your Lordships to take this matter into consideration. I may be asked whether the existing procedure is not satisfactory. It would not be satisfactory in any Legislative Assembly. The whole secret of
234
efficient legislation is division of labour and devolution of duty. The House of Commons learned slowly to give their Bills to Committees upstairs, and at the present moment a great scheme of reform is being considered which will pass every Bill, automatically, to Grand Committee and do away practically with the Committee stage of the whole House, except in regard to a few small and unimportant measures. The experiment began long ago. In 1882 Grand Committees were set up in the House of Commons. There were only two at first, and they were afterwards increased to four; now they are to be increased to six.
I have often sat on these Grand Committees. There is one Bill in particular in regard to which we had a long sitting of the Grand Committee, and which I think is an example of its great value in regard to these proposals. When the Prime Minister introduced his wonderful project of National Insurance it was found impossible to deal with the second part of it in Committee of the whole House, and so Unemployment Insurance was referred to Grand Committee upstairs, It was a complicated and difficult measure, and just one of the same kind of those measures of social reform which your Lordships are to be asked to consider this session and the next. The work was so well done that it set up a system which is now being used to save the country from anarchy. There is not the least doubt that had the whole machinery for paying out unemployment benefit not been ready it would have been impossible to provide it for giving the donation benefit which three quarters of a million of people, men and women, are now receiving. The House of Commons has learned, in spite of all the will o' the wisp proposals for the creation of separate Legislatures in every three counties—restoring the Heptarchy—they have learned that they can only get efficiency in their own House by passing on legislation to Grand Committees upstairs.
The difference is immense between the consideration of a Bill in Committee of the whole House and consideration in Grand Committee. The Minister upstairs sits with his experts beside him; every amendment is not regarded as a challenge, and if it is accepted it is not a rebuff which gives cause to those who are anxious to make querulous speeches about the Government

235
having lost its hold on the country. Questions are considered on their merits, and Party prejudice does not prevail. If wanted in the House of Commons I venture to say that the Grand Committee stage, as I recommend it to your Lordships, is far more wanted here. It is true that in the case of measures of first-class importance, like the last Franchise Act, there is a good attendance in your Lordships' House, and that the Amendments are fairly considered. But what we have to expect now is a great inflow of measures of social and industrial change—not such as will excite any keen interest in themselves, but matters where expert knowledge such as is possessed by many of your Lordships is of the greatest account.
As a rule these measures here are put into the hands of the Lords-in-Waiting, or noble Lords attached to the Household of His Majesty. I yield to no one in my admiration of the Lords-in-Waiting and the manner in which they discharge their functions in this House. They have shown always the greatest courage, almost more than the courage of the trenches, when they have to defend positions which they have not had much preparation or equipment to occupy. It is impossible that they can be omniscient; yet these Bills are given, two and three to one Lord-in-Waiting, and two and three to another Lord-in-Waiting, and they are asked to show an expert knowledge in that particular department of affairs which will enable them to meet the searching criticism of those who know all about the particular subject. It is unfair to the noble Lords that they should be put in that position in Committee, as they constantly are, and it would not be so if you had any rational method of procedure.
I suggest that these Bills are particularly those measures which should go upstairs. Then you would have not only the advantage of political courage on the part of Ministers, but you would have also the expert assistance of the heads of the different. Departments, who would be able to advise them on the spot as to what they had better accept and what they should reject. It is true, that they may have experts standing outside the proper limits of the House whom they can consult from time to time in Committee of the whole House, but that is not the same thing. The atmosphere is different, and I submit, in regard to the whole of this programme of
236
social reconstruction which is to be submitted to the country, that the expert and detailed consideration in Committee is what ought to be given to them, and that it is impossible here. For example, there is to be a Bill, as we all know, to provide a vast number of building schemes, under different conditions as to the acquisition of land and construction of houses, all over the country. There is hardly a member of your Lordships' House who has not some acquaintance with the development of land for building purposes, and I know myself that the man who has covered the suburbs of London with houses has a seat in this House. I do not think I have ever heard him speak. That is the sort of experience that ought to be brought to bear on these matters.
It is sometimes asked whether noble Lords would be inclined to attend Grand Committee. I am certain they would. They would show themselves anxious to discharge their duties if they knew that work was to be done. What keeps them away from this House is the uncertainty and laxity of our procedure. They come here without the least idea whether they will have anything to do or not, hardly knowing whether the Motions on the Paper will be taken or not. If they were summoned to Committee and knew they would have to consider measures of far-reaching social value you would get them, and you would get all the service they can give to the State by reason of their great qualities of knowledge and experience. It would have a real effect on the House of Commons. I am not entering into the question of the system under which we receive at the end of the session batches of Bills altogether without any proper time to consider any one of them. How can they show any respect when they know perfectly well that Bills in Committee here will be slurred over under ludicrous conditions. If it was known that Bills were to be sent to a Grand Committee, they would be sent up here in time to pass through all the necessary stages. Now when a Bill comes here it is often necessary to suspend the whole of our Standing Orders so as to pass it through in a single night. I do not attach importance to the fact that there are more stages here for Bills than in any Assembly in Europe. That does not matter. The important stages are Second Reading, Committee, and Report.
The House of Commons is appointing six Grand Committees, and I venture to

237
suggest that your Lordships should appoint three. I suggest that they should be more or less appointed by the Committee of Selection, to the number of forty and with a quorum of fifteen. All Bills would go automatically for Committee stage to Grand Committee, and there would not be a further stage in this House. As a matter of fact, curiously enough, there used to be a form of this House by which every Bill, after passing through the Committee stage, stood re-committed to the Standing Committee, which consisted of the Lord Chairman and eight other peers, unless the House otherwise ordered. I do not quite understand what has happened in this respect. Sir Erskine May says that the Standing Order passed in 1889, 1890, and 1891 for the Sessional Appointment of the Standing Committee, to which every Bill stood re-committed, was what he calls "vacated" in 1910. Anyhow, there is no precedent for the practical purpose for which I put the question.
I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships further. I venture to suggest to you that this is the only sensible and reasonable method of putting our own affairs in order. I do not for one moment think that we want it to be said of us, what was said of an English King, that. what best became him in life was the leaving of it; but I do hope that when we have to stand the challenge of the other House as to our legislative efficiency, we shall be able to point to the fact that we have done everything, at the beginning of this new social era, to put ourselves abreast of the times. An eighteenth century writer said that it was better to wear out than to rust out, and better to break than to wear out. Anyhow, the worst thing that we can do is to rust out. The worst thing that can be said of us in the record of history by the great Registrar is that we perished of atrophy. I do not believe there is any other way than by frankly recognising that our legislative efficiency depends upon the system of passing on our measures to Committee for consideration in detail. I do not believe there is any other way of making ourselves, what we ought to be, a co-efficient factor in the Parliamentary arrangements of this Commonwealth.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, perhaps before an answer is given I may be permitted to say a word or two upon the
238
special points referred to. I do not want to go into the more general questions as regards the prospects of the life of this House in its present form. The noble Lord says that the present procedure makes efficiency impossible, and that it is prehistoric and cumbrous, and his suggestion is that our procedure would be improved by the appointment of three Grand Committees, and that in substance the Committee stage of all Bills should not be taken in this House but before those Grand Committees. First of all, the Grand Committee system has been tried in this House and found not to be a success. I think there is an obvious difference as regards the question of procedure between this House and the House of Commons. The reason why Grand Committees are required in the House of Commons is that business is congested, and the whole basis upon which Grand Committees are appointed is that the House of Commons itself has not time to deal with business which, if it were possible, ought to be brought before it in its corporate capacity. On the other hand, nobody can say that this House is overburdened or congested with business.
LORD BURNHAM: It all comes at one time, and we want to be able to deal with several Bills at one time.
LORD PARMOOR: I have not noticed that that has been the difficulty. The congestion of business to which the noble Lord refers has been owing to Bills being sent up too late in the session for proper consideration, and I do not think that this difficulty would be met by his suggestion of Grand Committees. I want to go beyond that. Surely the leading factor in the duty of this House is revision, as was pointed out by the Committee presided over by Lord Bryce. Its most important function is Committee work. We may discuss matters of general principle as regards big Bills, but practically they are decided elsewhere; but when we get into Committee it is entirely different, and certainly in my experience, during the short time that I have been in this House, the Committee stage has not been prehistoric, cumbrous or inefficient, but extremely efficient. In all the important Bills that I can recollect important Amendments have been made and sanctioned by the House itself. Surely, so long as the House is in a position to undertake work of that kind it is much

239
better that it should be done in the House than in any Grand Committee to which business might be devoluted. I regard it as one of the advantages of this House that we can deal with Bills in the House itself, and are not compelled to devolute our duties to Grand Committee, however constituted, because one knows perfectly well that during the time when Grand Committee would sit a large number of members of the House, who take an interest in business and generally do what they can to reform and revise Bills in Committee, would not be available, because they have work and duties elsewhere.
Listening to what the noble Lord said, there was only one matter which struck me as of some importance. No doubt you may have Bills of a special character. You may have Bills that require expert knowledge. The proper way to proceed with such Bills is, if necessary, to refer them to a properly chosen Select Committee. That has been done more than once, and I am not in the least objecting to proceedings of that kind, but I hope before the House commits itself to Grand Committees the whole matter may be carefully considered. I trust that the precedent that in former times Grand Committees have been tried and failed in this House will be carefully considered. I only rose for the purpose of saying that I am certainly one of those by no means convinced, at present, that the Committee stage in these important matters should be withdrawn from the House itself.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, commenced his observations by a compliment to the abilities of your Lordships' House, which is now so often repeated as to have become almost conventional, but which in a spirit of self-satisfaction I am quite prepared to endorse. He then told us that his object, with which all of us are in sympathy, is to enable the House to do justice to itself. Having made this excellent declaration of intention, he proceeded to draw a picture of the activities, or perhaps I should rather say inactivities, of this House, which I think must have struck the majority of noble Lords who have greater acquaintance with the House than my noble friend, as over-coloured and indeed lurid. I was a little surprised to hear his attack upon the prehistoric and archaic features of our system, because my recollection of the
240
career of the noble Lord is this, that advancing from somewhat dangerous Radical opinions in his early youth, he has steadily gravitated towards an admiration of that which is picturesque and archaic; and when these things are impugned I should have confidently relied upon him to rally to their support.
I need not devote more than a sentence to say that the particular features to which the noble Lord alluded—for instance, the picturesque ceremonies with which a Peer is introduced in this House—inexplicable as they may seem to the casual observer, have in most cases serious traditional foundation and positive historical value, and I am confident that your Lordships would not be at all disposed to part with them unless it can be shown that they interfere with that dispatch of public business which the noble Lord desiderates. But, apart from that, my noble friend went on to give a general description of the position and functions of your Lordships' House. He did not spare the adjectives which lie employed. They might almost have figured in a leading article in the paper with which he is so honourably connected. For instance, he told us that our procedure is irrational, cumbrous, inefficient, rusty, atrophied, and ludicrous. That is a very formidable indictment indeed, and although I shall have something to say upon the solution which the noble Lord proposes, I am bound to remark that his proof was altogether inadequate to the support of the charges which he brought.
What is my noble friend's proposal? He sees that changes have been introduced over the way. He has his own experience of Grand Committees in another place, where I have no doubt he behaved with complete detachment from that Party spirit which, according to him, is so rarely visible in the upper rooms in another place. He has his own personal experience of the system of Grand Committees there, and he proposes that three Grand Committees—he did not say what, or for what purposes, or how discriminated from each other—should be set up in your Lordships' House, and that all Bills should go automatically to one or other of those Grand Committees. The noble Lord was quite unconscious, or nearly unconscious, of the fact that he was galloping about a very stricken field. My noble friend Lord Parmoor pointed out that this was no

241
novel suggestion. Not merely is it not a new suggestion, but it has been tried, and tried more than once in different forms in your Lordships' House; and in the expectation that my noble friend might perhaps be insufficiently acquainted with the history of the past, I took the trouble, before coming down here, to refresh my memory as to what actually is the history of this case; because, as my noble friend Lord Parmoor remarked, there is no good in making an experiment here if it has already been tried and failed. We ought to be guided by the light of our previous experience.
What is the history of Standing Committees or Grand Committees in your Lordships' House? It is as follows. In the year 1888 it was brought before your Lordships' House at the instance of the late Lord Cadogan, who took a great interest in these matters throughout, and' by Lord Herschell whose authority was second 10 none. Lord Herschell argued that it would be an advantage if your Lordships' House went more carefully into the details of Bills, and if an additional stage were provided for doing so. Accordingly, at the instance of these noble Lords, a Select Committee was set up in 1888 which reported upon the suggestion. In the following year—March, 1889—the Report of the Committee having been accepted, new Standing Orders were adopted which provided for the appointment of Standing Committees to consider Bills before they went into Committee of the whole House, though it was true that a Bill might also be committed to the whole House instead. Two such Committees were set up in April, 1889. One was for law, and it contained forty Lords. The other was for Public Bills in general, and it contained sixty Lords. These two Committees met not infrequently in the course of 1889 and 1890, and Bills were referred to them. The average attendance at these Committees, from the figures which I have examined, was between seventeen and Twenty-seven. There was rarely anything like a full attendance.
After two years' experience this system broke down, not because it had done its work badly, but because when the Bills came back from the Standing Committee to the Committee of the whole House, or to the whole House sitting whether in Committee or not, the Peers thought—and thought with a good deal of reason—
242
that the decision had been taken out of their hands, and that they were not at liberty to exercise the unfettered judgment to which they had a right upon the details of some of these very important measures. Accordingly, in January, 1891, Lord Cadogan, who had been the mover in the first instance, himself moved for another Committee of inquiry upon its failure, and in the course of that discussion the then Lord Salisbury, speaking with the great authority which he always carried in your Lordships' House, suggested that although the Standing Committees might have been a failure in the particular form in which they had existed, it might be a mistake to dispense with them altogether, and he proposed that they should be retained, but that reference of Bills to them should only be made after Bills had passed through Committee of the whole House. Another Committee—this was the second—was then appointed to inquire into this suggestion, and that Committee reported in February, 1891, in favour of a Standing Committee to which Bills should be referred after they had passed through Committee of the whole House. But it was generally accepted that no question already decided by the House should be re-opened by the Committee, and in practice the functions of the Committee were generally recognised to be those of examination of details, revision of phraseology, and matters of that sort.
We thus pass into a new era, when the second system was set up. This system had a longer existence than its predecessor, but it also carried in it the seeds of decay, and it presently perished of complete inanition. From the year 1891 onwards these Committees excited less and less interest. The attendance became smaller, and it grew to be a common practice in your Lordships' House to make a Motion that "the reference to the Standing Committee be negatived" This was a very undignified and very futile proceeding, and accordingly, after nine years' experience, another Committee—the third Select Committee—of inquiry was appointed to consider the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. It reported in favour of the abolition of the system which I have described; and in 1910 the noble Earl of whom many of us have such affectionate recollections, Lord Camperdown, moved the adoption of the Report of the Committee, and the House unanimously agreed to its acceptance, the noble Marquess

243
opposite, who was then the Leader of one of the sides of the House, joining in the general agreement to drop the proposal. That is the history, a chequered history, but a history of two-fold failure, of these Committees in your Lordships' House.
Now my noble friend Lord Burnham turns to what is passing in another place, and says, quite apart from his own experience of Grand Committees, that proposals are now being made to set up Standing Committees there. But the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, very aptly pointed out at this stage that the situation and the problems in the two Houses are entirely different. In the House of Commons what they want to do is to save the time of the House, to speed up the legislative machine to enable the Government to carry into effect the great programme of legislation which it has foreshadowed for the country. That is not what we want here. Our problem surely is a different one. We have leisure. My noble friend Lord Salisbury, the other day, was complaining that our leisure is abundant and excessive. What we want here, it seems to me, is not so much to hurry on our procedure as to make better use of our time; what we want really is to stimulate the interest in the work of this House of noble Lords, not merely those who are here, but many of those who do not attend frequently.
LORD BURNHAM: Bills all come up together.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Whether noble Lords might more readily come up to a Committee, I cannot say; it is worthy of consideration. But that at any rate is the object which, if we reform our procedure, we ought to have in view. At this stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, made a suggestion. He said that he could imagine a situation in which a Committee, whether you call it a Grand Committee or a Select Committee, might be serviceable for the examination of a particular measure. That may be. I can conceive of cases in which it might be useful and even desirable to move, with regard to a particular Bill, that it should be referred to an ad hoc Committee appointed for the purpose. Upon that Committee you might place a large number of noble Lords interested in the measure itself, and you might secure a larger attendance than we sometimes see in your Lord-
244
ships' House. That is a suggestion which I think not unworthy of consideration. But I am not certain that even that suggestion really touches the heart of the question. I have only had eleven years' experience of this House, and therefore I speak with great diffidence on the matter, but I am inclined to think that our procedure in sonic respects, the arrangement of our business, the hours at which we meet, the hours at which we separate, the manner in which we deal with Questions and so on, may to some extent be susceptible of improvement. Whether that is so or not I would prefer to trust to the judgment of more experienced Peers than myself.
Therefore my own inclination would be to await an expression of the views of other noble Lords speaking with authority in this House as to whether they think the time has arrived in which we might, perhaps, have a Select Committee to inquire into the general question of the procedure of your Lordships' House with a view of considering its proper adaptation to the prompt discharge of business and the adequate movement of the legislative machine. I should not desire on my own account to make any proposal of that sort to-day. What I would like would be to let an interval of several days, if necessary of a week, elapse; I would like to hear what other noble Lords speaking with authority have to say upon the matter; and if any strong desire is expressed that a Committee should be set up to examine into this question, I should be prepared, when I had received full information to that effect, to move that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose. But I pledge nobody by what I say now. I merely throw out the suggestion for examination by others.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure we all recognise the earnestness and conviction with which my noble friend Lord Burnham has brought forward this question. He enjoys an almost unique experience in having been a member of the Speaker's Conference and also a member of the Conference which was presided over by my noble friend below the gangway on the future of this House. He is, therefore, if we may say so, steeped to the lips in procedure and questions of that kind, and his authority cannot be questioned. At the same time when he developed, as he did, so strong a desire

245
for a recurrence to the system of Grand Committees to be applied to your Lordships' House, I am very glad that the noble Earl opposite who leads us gave such a clear and succinct account of our experience in the past.
The noble Earl's statement was, I think, accurate in every particular. I well remember all the circumstances. I frequently sat on one of those original Grand Committees dealing with general Bills to which the noble Lord has alluded. Some excellent work was done there, notably by such men as the noble Earl who was mentioned by Lord Curzon—Lord Camper-down—and some others whose skill and experience in business were beyond all question. But the failure, in spite of the excellent work that was done, of those Committees was precisely what the noble Earl has described. When measures came back here after their consideration in that room on the ground floor presided over by the picture of Moses, we used to find that noble Lords who had not been members of the Committee were apt to desire to reopen at length all manner of points which had been thoroughly thrashed out, as we thought, in the Grand Committee; and being justly enamoured of the independence of your Lordships' House, they greatly resented the implications which were usually made by those who had served on the Committee that really it was not worth while to raise the matter again here, because it had been fully considered by most competent people in the other room; and that, therefore, it was out of place to attempt to reopen the whole subject here. This, my Lords, perpetually occurred, and was, I think, the main reason for the breakdown of the system, and for the further inquiry which the noble Earl describes. It was found that no time was actually saved and some tempers were occasionally lost by the adoption of this particular process.
On the other hand, the system of delegating to Select Committee certain public Bills of a technical sort is; as the noble Earl has told us, quite familiar to this House. When I first came here I was one of the people to whom my noble friend alluded in kindly terms. I had the honour of holding a post in Queen Victoria's Household and represented the Board of Trade. It was a period when Electric Lighting Bills first began to be brought into your Lordships' House, and the subject was
246
one which excited wide interest and not a little difference of opinion. Those were public Bills, not private Bills, and they were referred to a Select Committee which lasted, as I remember, through the greater part of the session, and upon that Committee noble Lords supposed to be specially cognisant of the subject were placed. That is a procedure which can often be followed with advantage; and many of your Lordships can supply similar instances in which it has been done.
But I confess that, like the noble Earl the Leader of the House, I am not sanguine of any advantage coming from the attempt to resuscitate the system of Grand Committees here. It is not for us to speak in any critical tone of time proceedings or proposals in another place, but when we are told that it is suggested there that practically all the business of Parliament should be relegated to Grand Committees, it is right to mention that there is evidently a marked division of opinion there on this point; and the system of Grand Committees (although, I well remember, strongly opposed at the time when it was first suggested—I think by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman) has been found of no small utility, and its extension, and in particular its unlimited extension, raises a strong body of opinion who regard the prospect with something like dismay. Therefore I think we cannot, so to speak, pray in aid the experience of another place for the entirely different conditions under which we exist here.
The fact is that owing to the constitution of your Lordships' House the main political work is, and always has been within the memory of anybody alive, done by a comparatively small number of Peers. I cannot agree with my noble friend that the Committee work of the House has been anything but exceedingly well done here. I have myself, when I sat on the other side of the House, frequently suffered from the skilful attention paid by noble Lords on this side to the Bills of which I was in charge, and I do not think it can be said that measures of all kinds—those which have excited political feeling, and those which are mainly technical and do not cause differences of opinion of that kind—receive anything but the most meticulous attention from your Lordships' House. I cannot see myself why, if a certain number of competent critics are collected for the consideration of a Bill in Committee, they

247
cannot do the work just as well on these red benches as seated in one of the Committee rooms upstairs. Those who are not specially concerned do not attend, and those who are concerned have every facility for the criticism which they wish to utter. When some important point of principle is affected noble Lords troop down in large numbers and vote, but you cannot deprive them of that right at some stage or another, and you gain nothing by leaving points open in the Grand Committee because they are of a sort that may awaken party differences, for you simply postpone them to a later stage of the Bill to be settled here.
I am afraid, as a matter of fact, there is nothing to be done here by means of Grand Committees. But the noble Earl opposite made—I will not say exactly a proposition, but threw out a suggestion—for an inquiry of a wider kind, namely, that it might be possible by consideration to arrive at sonic improvement in the general procedure of your Lordships' House. I do not at all deny that that is possible, although I confess I am not exceedingly sanguine. The difficulties under which we labour here are, I am afraid, due in part to our constitution, which by common agreement in your Lordships' House by men of all parties, stands at any rate in need of some reform; and partly through the fact that we do not receive much consideration from two sets of persons who for this purpose may almost be regarded as one—I mean, the one the House of Commons and the other the Government of the day, the Government of the day being, of course, mainly dependent on and working through the House of Commons itself. That, of course, is the explanation of the grievance which we have so long laboured under, and which has so often been brought before your Lordships' House—it was brought up only the other day—that of the late period at which we receive measures for consideration. The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, was not very hopeful himself that we should do better in this regard in the future—at least so I gathered from what he said; he did not seem to think that in the circumstances we were likely to be much better off this session than we have been in the past. But until some change can be made in that respect I confess that I do not hope for very much, although some little improvement may be effected by alterations in your Lordships' procedure.
248
But at the same time, if it is proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider these questions of business and procedure, I could not think of raising the faintest objection to its appointment, although, not being very hopeful myself, I should not ask for it; but I have no doubt that those for whom I have the honour to speak in the House would do their best to contribute to a fruitful result from its labours. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will consider that I have no wish whatever to throw cold water on his suggestion, although I cannot go to the point of welcoming it with warm enthusiasm, because I do not expect a great deal from it, although I quite admit that some benefit may result.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I sympathise with a great deal of what fell from Lord Burnham as to the situation in which your Lordships' House is placed and the great obligation that rests upon it, especially at this particular moment, to see that our business is done as well as possible. There were two points, though, which I might just notice. First of all, the observations that my noble friend made in a most kindly spirit on the subject of the Lords-in-Waiting who are good enough to represent Government Departments in your Lordships' House. I share with him a certain feeling of criticism of that department of our business, and it is not because I desire to say anything in the least disrespectful of those noble Lords. On the contrary, there is no reason in the world why they should not do their work as efficiently as any noble Lord in the Government. But there appears to be some distinction between the noble Lord who represents a Department when he is a Lord-in-Waiting and the noble Lord who represents a Department when lie is an Under-Secretary. In the one case he seems to be speaking in the main entirely from a brief; in the other case he seems to the onlooker to be speaking as a man who is in the closest confidence of his chief, familiar with all that goes on in the Department, and able to speak upon any subject which may turn up that has reference to the Department almost with equal ability to the chief himself. Why should there be that distinction?
The noble Lords who form part of the Household in this House are amply qualified to defend the Departments. I cannot help thinking that the reason is—

249
if I may speak of the sacred precincts of the Departments themselves—that those noble Lords are not properly treated inside the Departments. If they were taken into confidence like an Under-Secretary would be, if they had a room and all the papers which were of importance in the Department always passing through their hands, they would, of course, be quite as well qualified—I dare say much more qualified than many Under-Secretaries are—to respond for that Department. At any rate, I venture to suggest with profound respect to the Leader of the House that it is worth his consideration whether his colleagues might not equip noble Lords who belong to the Household in a way which is more consonant with their position in your Lordships' House, and more convenient to noble Lords who want to inquire on a great variety of points as to the attitude of the Departments represented by those noble Lords.
Now upon the point of the Grand Committees. I should not like to exclude the Grand Committees as a method of getting through the business, but I must say that I share with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition the view that the Committee work of your Lordships' House is exceedingly well done. It is said that "comparisons are odious," but I must say, having had the honour of sitting in both Houses, that the Committee work in the House of Lords is better done than it is in the House of Commons. I do not mean to say that so great a number of noble Lords take part in the work as is the case in the House of Commons, but on the whole the results are more satisfactory from a legislative point of view. Also, of course, there is not that great pressure on our time, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has pointed out, which exists in the House of Commons. But Lord Burnham has pointed out that the difficulty is that all the Bills reach us at the same time. If you could divide up, as it were, the House of Lords and form several bodies out of this one body, then the several Bills which are in a crowd on our Table at one moment could be divided up, and you could by a division of labour, so to speak—I think I am representing the noble Lord rightly—
LORD BURNHAM: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:—get through much more business. That
250
certainly has an attractive side. But I am afraid that the criticism of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, is true—that is to say, that the result would not be satisfactory to those noble Lords who did not form part of the Committee to which the Bill happened to be sent, and they would re-try the issue when it came back to your Lordships' House. Yet if we find at the end of this session that there is the same difficulty as is usually the case, then we certainly ought not to exclude the remedy which Lord Burnham has proposed and which seems to be well worth consideration.
There is, however, another remedy—namely, that we should decline to take the Bills when they reach us all together in a crowd. If they are urgent they must, of course, be taken. During the war most of them were urgent and had to be taken. But there really is no reason why they should all be taken in ordinary times of peace. There used to be a reason, because Parliament separated, say, in August and did not re-assemble until the following February, and then the work had to be begun all over again. A Bill had again to pass through all its stages in the House of Commons, and great delay resulted. But now Parliament sits for most of the year; even the longest recess is to be numbered only in weeks, and the delay is not really very great. Probably when we get to August Parliament will be adjourned until October, and there is nothing to prevent us adjourning the Bills that we cannot properly consider until October. Some of them may be urgent, but most of them will not be. There will be important Bills, but a slight delay of a few weeks, or even months, will not make any difference. And even when we reach the Prorogation—which we must at some time or other (I must confess myself to be a strong supporter of the principle of what is known as "carrying over")—I should like to see the principle of carrying over adopted in Parliament. It does seem to me to be the last word in waste of time that either House of Parliament should go through the elaborate machinery of getting a Bill through Second Reading, consideration in Committee, consideration on Report, and then sent to another place, but because the Bill is not quite finished at the end of the session it has to be begun all over again in the next session. I should be glad to see in these days of crowded legislation a Standing Order adopted in both Houses of

251
Parliament by which a Bill could be taken up in the ensuing session at precisely the same stage as that at which it was left in the session preceding. If my noble friend proceeds, and the Select Committee were empowered to consider topics of that kind, I should be one of its strongest supporters.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I belong to the class of Peer whom the noble Earl the Leader of the House twice rather pointedly said he did not wish to hear on this subject, for I cannot claim to speak as a noble Lord having any authority. But I have sat in this House for well over thirty years, I have watched the procedure on Bills, and I have sometimes ventured to take sonic part in that procedure. I confess that I heard with astonishment, and indeed with a sense of shock, the speech of the noble Lord on the bench above the gangway. It is not very many months since in your Lordships' House the noble Lord was defending, on picturesque and historical grounds, such an anachronism as the Livery franchise, and I did not expect to hear from him to-day such iconoclastic sentiments. I have felt at times, in fact, that I was the only true and consistent reactionary left in your Lordships' House!
But to come to the subject which has been raised. I do not think—and I do not believe that many members of your Lordships' House who have taken much part in Committee of the whole House will think—that there is any fault to be found with our procedure in Committee now. I confess for my own part it has always seemed to me that, putting aside certain subjects on which there are prejudices in this House which are unsurmountable—subjects connected with the Church, or with land—a Bill is generally considered in Committee here with the sole desire to improve the Bill and to make a good workable measure of it. On the whole, noble Lords take part in the debate with speeches which are short and to the point, and made not for the purpose of being reported in Hansard or read in their constituencies—of which, fortunately, they have none—but for the sole purpose of enabling the House to make the Bill the best Bill it can be made for its object. It cannot be said that we are crowded with work in that sense, and that for that reason we have any necessity for devolution.
But it has been pointed out with perfect truth that it is our misfortune year after
252
year—and year after year I have heard noble Lords complain of it—to have thrust upon us a mass of important Bills at the end of the session, in the "dog days." It is true that we are sometimes asked by the Government, and very often in a. manner which cannot very well be resisted, to get on with these Bills, and get them through, and I think it is possible that the proper amount of consideration is not given to the Bills under those circumstances which we should all wish to give to them. That would not be cured by setting up Grand Committees, and for the reasons which have already been given. The number of noble Lords who take a keen and active interest in these questions is really very small, one might almost say a score or so, and you cannot have these noble Lords on all the Grand Committees. It is perfectly obvious that if they are interested, as they probably would be, they would not be satisfied with the discussion and examination in Committee of a question in which they had not taken a part. You would get in effect a second Committee stage and Report stage in circumstances which would be a good deal less convenient.
I cannot think that the remedy which has been suggested would be a remedy, but I would like to join in the appeal voiced by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—an appeal which is constantly made—that an endeavour should be made to let this House have some of the important Bills earlier. I sympathise with the noble Lord and the excellent reasons he gave, and was glad to hear such Radical sentiments, unimpaired by the Parliament Act, proceeding from the bench opposite as to Bills which have to do with finance. Of course, it is perfectly true that all these reconstructional measures are founded on finance, but in some cases it may be possible to introduce Bills here, and, if that is not possible, to get some of them before us in June and not let us have them altogether in a bunch at the end of July. I should much regret the disappearance of the Committee stage in this House. I have taken part in a great many debates, and noble Lords will agree with me that on the whole a Bill receives very careful consideration in Committee, when we are able to interchange our views very frankly. When there is no acute political question we often arrive at a better solution than if we had arrived at a solution in a give-and-take manner.

253
Another point has been raised as to the attendance in this House. If we want to get the residuum of noble Lords who seldom attend this House to come here I think they must have some opportunity of taking part in our proceedings, and I think the Government and those responsible for the conduct of business in this House might do something to encourage the back-bench Peers to take more part in our proceedings. I do not think you can expect noble Lords to attend here if they have nothing to do except to sit through debates and take part now and then in a Division. They seldom conic here because they feel that their presence is not required, and if some encouragement could be given to them, and if they had an opportunity to take part in our debates, they would come and give us the benefit of their knowledge and ability.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am disappointed that there are not more Bills introduced into this House in the first instance. Those who have had experience of the House of Commons know that through the session there is a long list of Government Bills—not of first importance but of some importance, which have to be dealt with. Ministers are anxious for an opportunity to introduce their Bills and carry them through. I think this is work that we could do well in this House, and I am sure that members of the House of Commons and also members of the Government would be very pleased with such assistance.
I had the honour myself of passing a Bill, with your Lordships' assistance, through this House—the Registration of Business Names Bill. It was an experiment, and I was told that I should not succeed in getting the Bill through. I introduced the Bill, it was referred to Committee, passed by this House, and sent down to the House of Commons. The House of Commons amended it, and when it came back to this House we accepted the Bill without interfering with the Amendments which had been made. If the Government would introduce some of their smaller Bills—I know that we should like to have the important Bills earlier—but if they would introduce their smaller Bills here, have them properly discussed and revised in Committee and then sent to the House of Commons, it would relieve the House of Commons of a vast amount of work, and
254
I have no doubt that the services of your Lordships would be highly appreciated.
There may be some old-fashioned idea that it has never been the custom of the House of Lords to deal with Bills in this manner, but I think it is a mistaken idea. With the vast, and new departments of the Government, and when Ministers are desirous to get their Bills passed, we can be of much assistance in this way at this period of the session, and the ability and knowledge possessed by members of this House is, I am quite confident, equal to what may be found in the House of Commons. The Bills would go to the. House of Commons, I am sure, in a. better shape than those which come from the House of Commons here. If my suggestion was adopted we, could be of great assistance in relieving the House of Commons of a great pressure of work, and at the same time also give your Lordships sonic occupation.

ASIATIC PROVINCES OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE.
VISCOUNT BRYCE VISCOUNT BRYCE rose to ask His Majesty's Government if they can give the House some information as to the present condition of the Asiatic Provinces of the Ottoman Empire, and the measures taken by the Allied Governments for the protection of the unarmed Christian population in those provinces.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have only a few remarks to make in introducing this subject, in order if possible to explain why it is not only important but, at this moment really very urgent. Your Lordships will remember that at the end of the Autumn, when the fortunes of war completely turned in our favour, an Armistice was concluded with the then Turkish Government by which the Turkish forces were to be disbanded, demobilised, and provision was made that in certain cases and conditions the territory of the Ottoman Empire might be occupied by Allied troops. That Armistice seems to have been concluded somewhat hastily, and, I think, without a complete comprehension of the conditions which were sure to follow on the demobilisation of the Turkish Army. We have heard very little since in regard to the interior of these Provinces. We know that British troops have now landed at the east end of the Black Sea and occupied the country along the railway front Batum to Tiflis, and from

255
Tiflis to the Caspian, and that order is being kept by a British detachment there. But in regard to the vast interior, which includes a great part of the regions which lie between the Black Sea and the Caucasan Provinces to the north, and Syria and the Levant on the south, we have hardly any information at all.
I find nothing in the daily Press, though I scan its columns with curiosity, and I find nothing from any other quarters which gives us any conception of what is really passing in those regions. Such scraps of information as come through tend to confirm what one would naturally expect, that the disbanded Turkish troops have scattered themselves over the country and wherever they have an opportunity the are perpetrating their old work of slaughter and robbery, and that the condition of the country is such as to put the unarmed population at the mercy not only of the robber tribes in the mountains but of these disbanded soldiers. That is a condition which, of course, involves considerable responsibility on the Allied forces. We very properly required the Turkish Army to be demobilised, but we ought to have made some provision then for the safety of the unarmed population, and this I am afraid has been made, so far, very imperfectly. That is the particular point to which I will direct the attention of His Majesty's Government, and on which I will beg them to supply us with some information.
May I point out three matters which render it urgent at the present moment that, if possible, due protection should be afforded to the peaceful inhabitants by the sending in of as many Allied troops as can possibly be spared to occupy the positions of most importance and to guard the lines of communication. I believe that a comparatively small force will be sufficient, and that if troops are sent to a few central points, to which the roads converge, the work can be done with a number of troops that can be spared from Syria. The reasons which make the matter urgent are these. In the first place, there is an immense mass of refugees—those who have remained from the great massacres of 1915 and 1916, who have taken refuge in neighbouring territories. Many have fled into the Russian territory of Transcaucasia, and many into Northern Syria and Macedonia, being under the charge of our forces and being fed and supported, so
256
far as we have means of supporting them. Some have taken refuge in Egypt, and are anxious to return to their homes. Others are to be found in Persia. None of these can return in safety to their homes and commence life anew until they are assured of some protection. Otherwise they will return to become the victims either of scattered Turkish bands or of such robber tribes as the Kurds.
The second reason is that during the great! massacres of 1915 an immense number of women and children were kidnapped by the Turks. Many were sold in public auction. Some were selected by the Turkish officers, and great numbers of boys were given to the Dervishes, who carried them off to put them in Moslem convents and make Mussulmans of them. From what I can learn it is still possible to rescue a good many of the women and children. Some, of course, can no longer be traced, but I believe that a number, which can be counted by thousands and probably by tens of thousands, can still be rescued if there is an Allied force upon the spot, which can give confidence to those who are able and willing to point out where they are. With a force sufficient to protect them they may be brought back to their parents and to their homes. This is a matter which, I am sure, will appeal to the human sympathy of everybody in this House. One can conceive no more hopeless lot than that of a child carried away from its parents, or of a daughter taken from her parents, or of a young wife taken from her husband and put in a Moslem harem to work as a slave for the rest of her life. If we can restore even a small number of these people to their liberty and to their relatives, we shall have done a work of mercy which we should rejoice to have an opportunity of doing.
Thirdly, there has been despatched quite recently from the United States a Relief Commission, which is carrying medical supplies, food, tools, implements of agricultural skill, mechanics, and everything needed to try to restore life and industry to these devastated regions. Millions of money are being expended by the charitable people of the United States in fitting out this relief expedition, and it is being carried in ships which the United States Government has put at the disposal of the Commission for the purpose. I had the pleasure of seeing the members of the Commission when they passed through this country

257
about a month ago. They were received with the greatest passible cordiality by His Majesty's Government, and they are ceiving, I believe, from His Majesty's ernment all the aid they can desire. s relief is to be properly administered, is to reach those for whom it is de- ed, then clearly it is necessary that the ds should be guarded and that the faces where relief is to be distributed to the miserable population should have he protection of troops, who will see that the relief is not seized by robbers, disbanded soldiers, or the Kurds, but is given to those for whom it is intended. I need hardly say that it is being sent out for the benefit of Moslems as well as of Christians, and that there is to be no distinction of race or faith in the carrying out of this work of charity.
These are three reasons which seem to make it very important that our troops, and. Allied troops generally, if any can be spared by our Allies, should carry out, this occupation as soon as possible and restore security to the country. I may add another reason of a different nature. It was announced a fortnight ago by the noble Earl, in the debate upon the Address, that it had been agreed that Turkish rule over this region between the Black Sea and Syria shall for ever cease, and that this region shall no longer be exposed to the miseries from which it has hitherto suffered. The aim of the Conference, acting in consonance with the feelings, I have no doubt, of all who love freedom and peace everywhere, is that this region shall hereafter become the home of independent nations; but it is, of course, obvious that these nations and peoples, for whose independence we entertain hopes, are not at present capable of standing alone, of maintaining efficient government, of protecting themselves, of restoring industry, and of developing those self-governing institutions which we all desire them to possess. It is proposed, as I gather from the League of Nations scheme which was published a few days ago by the Paris Conference, to entrust some sort of protection or guidance of these peoples to one civilised Power, which is to act as the mandatory of the proposed League of Nations if it comes into being, and which is to have an oversight over the countries and endeavour to do for them what the diminution of population awl the exhaustion of the means of industry prevent them from doing for themselves.
This opens up an extremely interesting question, but is may be proper to refrain from discussing it at this moment and speculating who the mandatory Power should be. I will venture to say only this, that the mandatory Power ought to be one which is quite impartial, which will do equal justice to all races and creeds, which will be free from any suspicion of having interests of its own, which will be free front jealousy on the part of other Western Powers, which will inspire confidence in the native peoples where it, will be placed, and which will also be unselfish. It must not aim at making any gains or special profits for its own citizens or subjects, but should administer the territories of which it has become the mandatory solely in the interests of the native populations themselves, with a view to the development, of their resources and to the restoration of peace, tranquility, and prosperity.
These matters, my Lords, are of very great significance for the future. It is quite natural that comparatively little attention should be paid to these remote regions by the peoples of Western Europe and of America who are absorbed in the consideration of other matters that seem to lie nearer to them, and about which they know more. We cannot expect that either here, or in France, or Italy, or America, people should be able to devote much of their time and thought to what is passing in the East when they are absorbed by the more immediately direct difficulties that arise as regards the making of peace, with Germany, the re-settlement of the parts of Europe where there are rival claims to territory, and above all the tremendous problem which is presented by the present condition of Russia.
These things are in the foreground, but, there is a background, and the phenomena of that background are of great significance, for the future liberation of the Eastern Christians and the re-settlement of those countries will hereafter be regarded as one of the most important results of the great war which we have brought to a conclusion. These regions—Asia Minor, Syria, Armenia, and Arabia—have been the homes of ancient civilisations; some of them enjoyed under the Governments which they lead a thousand or fifteen hundred years ago a real national life and prosperity, and bad a sense of their place and mission in the world which they have lost under the

259
desolating tyranny that has brooded over them for the last six centuries. We must desire that those countries which were the homes of ancient civilisations, and are still peopled by races which are capable of restoring prosperity and of building up a new civilisation upon the ruins of that which Turkish savegery destroyed, should be given the chance of a new life, and I hope we shall all feel that the sympathy, of the people of England, and the sympat by of the Western peoples generally, might to be extended, and will be extended, to the efforts which the ancient races are making to re-establish their national life, and that British influence will always be used on behalf of freedom and of peace. A great opportunity is offered to us, and it will be a misfortune if we lose it. We have it in our hands now to give what these peoples have desired for centuries past, and I earnestly trust that we shall be worthy of the power that has fallen to us.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, I did not intend to take any part in this debate, but I should be sorry if no voice from this bench were raised to thank the noble Viscount for bringing forward this subject. One of my brethren had come down specially to speak upon it, but he unfortunately had to leave before the subject was reached. It is one of the matters which have caused great sorrow to those who sit on this Bench. If we look back on past years many of us feel ashamed that the sad lot of the Christians—the oldest in the history of Christianity—has not evoked more interest among our fellow-countrymen. Our fellow-countrymen, whose sympathies are so quickly aroused when they hear of a wrong and of maltreatment, have, it seemed to us, owing to our ancient alliance with the Turks, not always been in evidence when the sufferings of the Christians in Asia Minor have been brought to our notice. They seem not to have believed in them, and those of us who have followed the fortunes of those Christians and have known how very much they have had to bear, not during these few years but for generations, have been disappointed at the amount of sympathy which has been shown for them in this country. I am glad that the Americans are stirring themselves in this matter, because I think no nation has done so much for Christians in Asia Minor as the United States. Those who have travelled in those parts, which it was my
260
fortune to do many years ago, know the enormous work that was done by what are called American Missions in raising the standard of education and in their advocac of justice for Christians. From my o recollection for many years I think t given freedom and the power to deve themselves, those Christians would do for they have in them the qualities than make a strong civilised people. Tha they have not done so before is becaus they have been so downtrodden. It would ill become me to suggest. what measures ought to be taken, but I hope that the Allies will take what steps they can to give these people that security for which they have so long pined.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, throughout his long and eminent public career the noble Viscount who introduced this question has distinguished himself by his special interest in and sympathy with the countries and populations to which lie has referred, and to no noble Lord in this House, therefore, could it be a greater pleasure to me to give a full reply. I was glad also to listen to the observations of the right rev. Prelate who has just addressed us, and who spoke with a feeling that impressed us all, and which I have no doubt reflected adequately the views held by all his right rev. brethren.
I confess that I thought the right rev. Prelate was a little disposed to underrate the degree of sympathy that is excited in this country by the long-continued and almost historical sufferings of the populations to whom he referred. Surely it is the case, my Lords, that for fifty years at least the cruel and tragic sufferings of the Armenians in particular have never failed to find, not merely expressions of sympathy, but active assistance in this country. Those who have travelled in that part of the world always seem to me to come back inspired, not only with the romance of travel, but with a personal interest in the populations whom they have seen. And the cause of the peoples to whom the right rev Prelate has alluded, even though it may not be very well understood by the public at large for reasons which are obvious to all of us, has never failed to have behind it the very powerful support of public opinion which has stood up on their behalf.
The Question of the noble Viscount covers a very wide area. It embraces what

261
he describes as the Asiatic Provinces of the Ottoman Empire; that is not an inconsiderable portion of the world's surface, for it covers the whole area from the Indian Ocean on the south to the Black Sea on the north, and from the borders of Persia on the East to the Ægean Sea on the West. If I were to endeavour to answer his Question as it ought to be answered, I should have to deal with Arabia, Mesopotamia, Kurdistan, Syria, Palestine, Cilicia, Anatolia, and the remainder of Asia Minor; and your Lordships will see that unless I were to put a strain upon the attention of the House which would be inordinate I cannot, in answer to a Question, satisfactorily or in detail cover so large a field.
But the speech of the noble Viscount relieved me of a certain anxiety in this respect, because I could see that he was more concerned with what is passing in the areas over which the military and political influence of the Allied Powers has not extended or has only imperfectly extended, than he was with the areas which have been for some time under Allied occupation. As regards the latter, I need only say a sentence or two. They include, of course, the countries of Mesopotamia, of Syria, and Palestine. In Mesopotamia we have now been—and by "we" I mean in this case the British—securely established for over two years in the countries that lie between the mouth of the estuary of the Tigris and Euphrates up to a place called Erbil on the Tigris in the north and to a place beyond Ana on the Euphrates in the north-west. The advance that has been made in that time in the development of that country in respect of irrigation, agriculture, planting, the introduction of agricultural machinery, the education of the children, and in many other ways, has been amazing. More has been done in two years for those places than has been done in the five preceding centuries; and I cannot imagine a more proud experience for any Englishman than if he were now to go out to Mesopotamia and see what is being accomplished there.
And lest it be thought that I am unduly blowing the trumpet of my own race, I should like to read one sentence from a Report which reached me the other day from a very distinguished American who had recently, in the interest of relief, visited that part of the world. He said of Meso-potamia—
262
"The work accomplished by the British since their occupation has been excellent in all respects. The populations are free and happy. Justice is administered, life and property are secure. There are no shadows in this picture."
My Lords, that is a glowing, but not I believe an exaggerated, tribute. Somewhat similar conditions apply to Palestine and to Syria. In those parts of occupied Turkish territory similar progress has been effected. Roads have been made or remade, railways have been laid, wells have been dug or have been reopened. The people are paying without difficulty the light revenue which is exacted from them. The country is paying its way in that famous land. Even if it be not restored to what was alleged to be its pristine condition of a country flowing with milk and honey, it is already enjoying a degree of prosperity which under the Turkish rule it never did and never could enjoy.
So much for the areas which are under the direct military occupation of the Allied forces. But the noble Viscount was really more concerned in the outlying portions of the Turkish Empire to which it has been and is so difficult to penetrate. He was alluding, I think, more particularly to Armenia, Cilicia, Anatolia—in fact, Asia Minor in general.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Especially to Armenia, because there is very much less Christian population in Central Anatolia.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think that is quite true. But in one sentence I must correct the noble Viscount, because he, no doubt unintentionally, somewhat misrepresented what I said the other day. What I said then was not that the Turk would be dispossessed of the whole of these areas in the future. There must obviously continue to be a home for the Turkish race. What I said was that the areas that have been taken from him and are occupied by the Allied Forces, and to which I have just specifically alluded, are not to be returned. I should not like the noble Viscount to think that I have said anything which would prejudge the decisions as to which the Peace Conference in Paris may ultimately come.
As regards the regions to which the noble Viscount referred, I think that the general description he gave of them is true. The conditions in that area are, I have no doubt, deplorable. The Com-

263
mittee of Union and Progress is still in existence; it still exercises the old authority with the old abuses; it still conceals from the people the reality of defeat, and acts as if it remained a conquering and predominant power. Simultaneously you have the difficulty, transient, I hope, but serious enough, to which the noble Viscount referred. You have these bands of demobilised soldiers, penniless themselves but armed—they are the only people who are armed—and therefore formidable, ravaging the country. No doubt in many parts a system of wholesale brigandage may be said to exist, and the fear of the inhabitants must be very great. These hardships are intensified by scarcity of provisions, by the poverty and badness of communications, and by the unhappy rigours of the climate. The present winter has been one of exceptional severity.
The noble Viscount then put the question, What are you doing, or what can you do, to relieve these conditions I think that he attached a little too much importance to the possibility of our being able to move there great bodies of troops. The fact that there are next to no roads, the fact that there are no supplies, the fact that so many important duties lie upon our troops elsewhere, are in themselves a sufficient reason why it has not been found possible to overspread this entire area with military forces. I doubt if this House has any idea of the number of British and Indian soldiers and all the paraphernalia of military campaigns at the present moment engaged either in the occupation or in the pacification of the territories belonging to the Turkish Empire. I should not be surprised if it was nearer a million than half a million; and vast as that number is, you must remember that to impose upon it fresh obligations is a very difficult task. You have growing up in this country a feeling that the soldiers must be got back. That feeling exists among the soldiers themselves; and ardent as are our sympathies with these people, if you were to call upon the Army in England, after what they regard as the conclusion of the war, to embark upon arduous, lengthy, costly campaigns in the heart of Asia Minor, I venture to think you would have a good deal of protest from the civilian population of this country. But that does not mean that we are doing nothing, or can do nothing, and within the limits of our possible action a good deal is being done. For instance, young British officers, many of them men of enthusiasm, courage, and experience, are
264
being sent out into these areas. They visit the towns and villages, and with that strange faculty that an Englishman has of seizing hold of the reins of administration and of exercising influence wherever he goes, they dominate the Turkish officials, they make them do what they like, they assume command, and presently order and some recovering degree of prosperity overspread the desolated land.
That is one thing that is being done. Another thing is that every possible encouragement, military, civil, financial, is being given to the operations of the various societies and bodies who are undertaking with so much generosity the came of relief. I have a word to say about that in a moment. Thirdly, the position which we occupy at Constantinople, the fact that war is not concluded with Turkey, that peace has not been signed, enables us to exercise a continuous pressure at the capital which, I can assure noble Lords, we have no reluctance to apply. And if your Lordships saw the correspondence that is constantly passing between the various Generals in the occupied areas—General Marshall in Mesopotamia, General Allenby in Palestine, General Milne in the Caucasus, and our High Commissioner at Constantinople—you would realise how much of their joint labours is devoted to the relief of the peoples of the regions referred to.
The noble Viscount specially referred to the Armenians and to those unhappy bands of Armenians who have been driven out of their country. The Armenians seem destined, or have hitherto been destined, to be the most persecuted and fugitive of the races of mankind—they have from time to time been driven from their homes, suffering the most cruel massacres, never quite realising where their national home or existence lay; and, although we hope that this war will be the final termination of those age-long sufferings, it remains the fact that the price that they will have had to pay for their ultimate deliverance has been heavy indeed. At the present moment we have in Syria and Palestine over 40,000 of these unhappy refugees; in Cilicia there are several thousand. They are all being eared for so far as we can. The British Armenian Fund has agents at Aleppo, Damascus, and elsewhere; the Armenian Red Cross Society is represented at Damascus, and in Cilicia there is a base from which British official assistance is given at Adana. In Mesopotamia there is a similar number

265
of fugitives—40,000 Armenians and Nestorians who have poured down from their ruined homes, in the hill country round Van and Urumieh, and who are being fed entirely at the British expense by our military authorities. In Mosul there are several thousands also in receipt of relief. In Transcaucasia, to which the Armenians have fled from what are commonly called the Armenian vilayets of the old Turkish Empire, there are about 45,000 in a similar condition. In other words, there is a total of something like 150,000 refugee and destitute Armenians who at the present moment are existing, being kept from utter starvation, by the efforts of this country.
No one took a greater interest in the fortunes and in the fate of these unfortunate people than the able and talented man whose death last week we all deplored—I mean Sir Mark Sykes. He was a man who not only had a knowledge of but a genuine passion for the East, and I ant certain, to those who knew and loved him, it will not be the least among the many pleasant recollections of his career that the last few months of his life before he came back from his last journey to the East to England were spent to a large extent in organising these efforts for the protection and relief of the unhappy peoples to whom I have referred.
What is the policy as regards these people? It was defined in correct terms by the noble Viscount. Our object is to repatriate them, to get them back to their country. But that cannot be done as long as the winter is what it is, and until the communications are somewhat improved. It would surely be no good to rescue these people from immediate starvation and send them back to starvation by slow degrees, even if it were in the country which they regard as their own. Step by step this repatriation will take place, and that is at the moment the policy and the only policy which we can satisfactorily pursue.
I have only one word to say in conclusion, and that is that I was glad to hear a tribute paid by both noble Lords who have spoken to the American share in this effort. What the noble Viscount said was perfectly true. He knows all the circumstances of this American mission under Dr. Barton, which has come from America with ships laden with stores—food, clothing, medicine, agricultural implements, and so on—that is making its way to the East. Its destination is the
266
Black Sea and the Ægean, and in different ports on those coasts, from whence it can without difficulty penetrate into the interior, it will start its efforts. That organisation has met with the most consistent and earnest support of His Majesty's Government, and not only have we facilitated its movements by every means in our power, but we are attaching to the various bands which it will send out British officers familar with the country who will accompany it and try to assist its work and alleviate the conditions with which, it will be called upon to deal.
The picture which I have been called upon to present to you is one in which there is, perhaps, more shade than there is light, but the light is increasing day by day. We have no reason to be dissatisfied with the part that we are playing in this work, and I think it is a great thing to reflect. that our officers, our soldiers, our civilians, our people of all sorts who are working in those countries, are not merely carrying on the necessary duty of military conquest and of recovery from the enemy of the lands they have misruled, but are engaged in the traditional British task of charity and mercy.
LORD LAMINGTON: Could the noble Earl say whether the Committee of Union and Progress, which he says is still carrying on its authority in certain parts of Asia Minor, is doing so under the Turkish Govern, anent or entirely on its own?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is the Turkish Government.
LORD LAMINGTON: Can the noble Earl particularise and say whether these officers and small detachments of our troops who are sent hither and thither have cone to Cilicia or Armenia itself?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: They go wherever they can; but naturally they must start from the areas where we are in military occupation. Some will start from Syria, Aleppo, and Cilicia, and move northwards; some will start from Transcaucasia and move westwards, from whatever base these parties are sent out.
LORD LAMINGTON: Circassia was alluded to, though it is not mentioned in the Question. Can the noble Earl say whether we practically dominate over Circassia, or only certain parts such as Baku and Batum?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That does not arise out of the Question.

ALLIED FORCES IN NORTHERN RUSSIA.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to ask whether His Majesty's Government are now able to give the House the information asked for on the 13th instant as to the position of the Allied Forces at Archangel and Murmansk, and the steps which have been taken or will be taken to ensure their safety.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am sorry to have to trouble your Lordships a third time this afternoon, but the Question which my noble friend put upon the Paper the other day is one which, when I read his speech—I had not the good fortune to hear it—turned out to have in the main a political import. In the form in which it appeared upon the Paper it seemed to relate exclusively to the military dispositions at Murmansk and Archangel, but when I read the speech afterwards I found that the noble Marquess had put a number of questions to which he was entitled to a reply, and I assume that in putting his Question again this afternoon he desires to give the Foreign Office an opportunity of making a response.
What the noble Marquess asked, alluding to the information that I had given as to the proposals about Prinkipo, was whether the policy of the Government might not be applied on a smaller scale, and whether it would not be possible to have something of the nature of a conference between the particular group which is concerned with military operations in Finland and the representatives of the Allies. The noble Marquess went on to say that it seemed to him that the difficulties of a large and comprehensive scheme of pacification involving the whole of Russia must be extremely formidable; and might not those difficulties be less, he asked, if the question, instead of being approached in a wholesale fashion, were to be dealt with in parts and by sections.
I think it must have been by a mistake that the noble Marquess alluded to Finland; because, of course, Finland has nothing to do with Archangel at all; nor is it directly a part of the Russian problem. The population of Finland, as nobody knows better than my noble friend, are not Russians at all; they are Finns. They are not under the Bolshevist Government of Russia. They have set up a Government of their own under an officer named General
268
Mannerheim, and they are seeking recognition. That. Government may, if they choose, on their own account deal with the Bolshevists. It has nothing to do with Archangel and the responsibility of His Majesty's advisers. Archangel has a purely Russian population and is a part of the Russian problem, as the noble Marquess rightly points out.
About the military aspect of the case I shall not say a word. My noble friend Lord Peel is here to answer the Question upon the Paper about the military position in Murmansk and Archangel; but I will reply to the suggestion of the noble Marquess. He said, Could not you consider the possibility of having a conference with the particular group that is in governing existence in that part of the world? I am not clear that my noble friend quite appreciates what is passing at Archangel. The group at Archangel is not the Bolshevists at all. The group at Archangel is a Provisional Russian Government, and Murmansk is under it. That Government is under an eminent man, Mr. Tchaikovsky, with whom I had the pleasure of a conversation during the last few weeks. He is by long tradition, by all the convictions of his life, an advanced revolutionary. He is a Socialist; but he is intensely anti-Bolshevist. He has formed this Russian Government at Archangel with the object in the first place of combining the North Russian States, and then if possible uniting them with a Federation of the whole of the various Russian groups or states which will endeavour to hold their own against the Bolshevist terror. These groups, as noble Lords know, are scattered throughout the Russian Empire. There is the group to which I am referring in the extreme north. If you go further south, in the direction of the Black Sea and the Caucasus, you have the great group—in the main consisting of Cossacks, very formidably armed, who won a. great victory the other day—under the military and political control of General Denikin. If you go to the East, to the heart of Siberia, you will find a Government at Omsk under Admiral Kolchak. Although the constitution of these varibus groups is not identical, their object in each case is the same—namely, to unite the Russian people, to rebuild the Russian nation, to give a chance to a resuscitated Russia against the tyranny by which it is overwhelmed. Mr. Tchaikovsky is at this moment in Paris, and he is a member there of a Conference which has been. set, up to

269
represent all these various anti-Bolshevist Russian Governments to which I have referred. Therefore, if that is the group to which the noble Marquess asked me to refer, there is no doubt whatever what will be its reply. They are already co-operating with us; and any failure on our part to fulfil the engagements into which we have entered with them would be a source of the greatest anxiety and alarm.
But perhaps the noble Marquess means something different. Perhaps he means, Why should not you go over the heads of this local Government at Archangel and try to come to some terms with the Bolshevists in the background? There is no local Bolshevik organisation at all. The central Soviet authority is at Moscow, nearly a thousand miles away, and the Bolshevist organisation is only represented in that part of the world by these ruffianly bands of armed soldiers who are murdering and massacring wherever they go. Supposing we were to go over the heads or behind the backs of these people and to try and make some special arrangement with the Bolshevist Government at Moscow about Archangel, what would Mr. Tchaikovsky and his Government say? They would regard you as having been guilty of an incredible act of treachery. They will not have anything to do with these murderous assassins; and if you were to desert them and try to make terms with the Bolshevists over their heads, they would continue to fight, until they went under.
Therefore, while I made out a case the other day—and I am prepared to make it out again—for the proposals which we made with regard to Russia as a whole, and to which was postulated as a Condition a complete cessation of all these horrible acts and atrocities and of military operations in any form—whether it succeeds or not, the particular proposal that you should deal with Russia piecemeal would, if applied to Archangel, be attended with the most calamitous and unfortunate results. Look at it from the other point of view. I have said what would be the feelings of the Provisional Government at Archang I. What is the attitude of the Bolshevists towards the Government at Archangel, and what do they want to do? Their object is not concealed. They want to destroy these Provisional Governments one after the other and sweep them out of existence. They want to get hold of the northern ports in
270
order to prevent any access to Russia being possible from Europe by those who are friendly to a resuscitated Russia; and no doubt most of all they want to release the forces which are operating in those regions and take them south in order to hurl them against the various groups that are being organised by Denikin, Kolchak, and others.
You can realise, this being the state of affairs, the feeling of Tchaikovsky and his Government. They say "We are holding up the flag in the north; we are a little island over which the tide of horror has not flown. We are the stepping stone, one of the stepping stones, upon which Russia may possibly advance to recover her freedom. Are you going to allow us to be submerged? Are you going to make friends with our enemies? "I hope I have not put the case in too dramatic a way, but that I believe is substantially the position—as regards the relations between the Moscow Government and the Local Government at Archangel.
There was one other suggestion made by the noble Marquess. He said—
"If we were in a position to tell these people that we could help them with the supplies they want, at any rate, that we would oppose no difficulty in the way of their reaching the starving people, I believe we might produce a very considerable impression upon them."
That is exactly what we are doing at this moment. I know that the noble Marquess did not mean to imply that we were not. In this area over which operations are extending, the people in Archangel are being entirely fed by us. The resources of the country are almost nil. They can get nothing from Siberia, as communications are held by the enemy and all the communications are severed. The whole of their supplies are imported from Europe, and in the main from this country. In order to help them we have assisted the Provisional Government to establish a new rouble currency there, which is guaranteed in the last resort by a sterling fund at the Bank of England. These are the efforts which we are devoting to the relief of these poor people.
When the noble Marquess said, in his concluding sentence, that we ought to assure them that we are not out to impose any form of government of our own choosing on the Russian people, that is not the particular misinterpretation to which we are liable in Russia. Nobody in Russia

271
thinks we want to impose on them some new constitution, some external body, and no one is so mistaken as to think that we are fighting Bolsheviks simply because we dislike or loath Bolshevism. That is not what the people of Russia are thinking of. They are thinking of living, security, food, life, and I am told by those who have just conic back from Petrograd, Moscow, and elsewhere that what the people want is in the first place to get food, and in the second place to keep the lands, and that the universal passion is not to do this under the auspices of the Bolsheviks, because they see they lose both, but to get rid of the Bolsheviks altogether. That I believe to be the real situation. Again as regards food, there is plenty of food in Russia, but the Bolsheviks will not let them have it. It is one of the weapons of terrorism which the Bolsheviks are applying. They have control of the food and the only arms in the country, and these two weapons they are using to terrorise, decimate, and destroy their own people. For my own part I feel the warmest sympathy with those who are conducting this unequal and heroic struggle, and I hope I have given to your Lordships' House sufficient reason to think that we should be ill-advised if we attempted to deal with the case piecemeal.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): May I reply to the precise Question of the noble Marquess? The Leader of the House has stated his views on the general policy, and perhaps it would be convenient if I now gave some details as to the military position. The Allied Forces at Archangel are at present holding in the main three positions—one south of Onega (1C0 miles south-west of Archangel), on the railway which runs down south to Vologda, and on the river Dwina, 100 miles south and 130 miles south-east respectively of Archangel, and in the Pinega region 80 miles east of Archangel.
During the past month a very determined offensive has been launched against the southern fronts, causing a retirement of from twenty to fifty miles and the evacuation of the town of Shenkursk. These retirements were carried out with only slight losses in men and material while the enemy paid very heavily for his infantry attacks, many of which were pressed home and very severely punished. After the town of Shenkursk was captured we were informed
272
that the place was burnt and also pillaged by the Bolsheviks.
The mobilisation of the troops of the North Russian Government is in progress, and several units have already distinguished themselves in the fighting. These troops were equipped and armed with material brought from this country. Food also has been provided for the civilian population, amounting to about half a million persons. At Murmansk our forces are echelonned down the railway to the south of Soroka on the White Sea. Part of the front is held by Karelian troops who have been equipped by us and are led by British officers. The enlistment of Russians is being proceeded with, but as the major portion of the Russian population belongs either to the official class or to the railway workers they do not present any very large material from which troops can be enlisted. In this particular theatre there is something like 100,000 of the civilian population whose needs have to be provided for.
One point raised by the noble Marqucess was as to the safety of the forces. At prevent there is no immediate anxiety felt as to the safety of our forces in either of there theatres of operation, but there is a need of technical forces to carry on the distribution of food and other matters in that district. If the Bolshevik attacks continue ill spite of the suggestion of an Armistice that has been made at Paris—so far as can be seen at present their activitics have been rather enhanced than diminished by the suggestion—if that takes place, then it may be necessary to reinforce the troops we already have in those regions. At the present moment immediate and active steps are being taken to supply all technical troops necessary, such as railway medical supply and ordnance personnel, whose business it is to maintain adequately this extended line of communications. In addition to that, we have to be prepared to send reinforcements or details to supply the wastage of the force already there.
As to the general condition of the troops, I may acid that as the reason is now advancing and the sun is over the horizon, there has been a marked change in the general feeling and health of the troops, and in their spirits as well. They are well clothed, they have got Burberry coats lined with fleece, and fur coats also. Moreover, they have tire advantage of the presence there of Sir Ernest Shackleton, who, having great knowledge of these conditions,

273
has been training the men for life in the Arctic regions. There has been, I understand, comparatively little sickness, and only a few cases of frost bite. The first case of frost bite, I understand, was suffered by the doctor who was lecturing the troops upon the way to avoid it—rather an unfortunate beginning for the lecturer So everything is being done to secure that the health of the troops is properly safeguarded; and as for their protection, I think what I have said about their safety may for the present satisfy the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend who leads the House began his speech by a quite good-humoured complaint of me for the extension which I had given to my Question last week, a Question of which it is quite true I gave the Government very short notice. I am, on the whole, inclined to plead guilty to the indictment, but I would venture to suggest two extenuating circumstances. In the first place, I certainly did not understand from my noble friend Lord Peel, who warned me that it would not be possible for him to give me anything like a full answer to the Question, that he would not be able to give me any answer at all, and I rather hoped that there would be sonic shreds of information to be gathered at the time. In addition to that, I quite candidly confess that I desired to put before the House and the public the suggestion that, in view of the some What dubious prospects of the Prinkipo Conference, it might be desirable to propose negotiations on a somewhat more limited scale.
My noble friend gave us a good deal of extremely interesting information, and he usefully corrected a certain slovenliness in my geography. But I confess I ant still rather puzzled with regard to what is intended by this Prinkipo Conference. The House will remember that what was announced was that we were going to invite to Prinkipo representatives of all the organised groups exercising or attempting to exercise authority in Siberia or Russia. I was, like many others, puzzled to know what was intended by that description. My noble friend pointed out that the Soviet authority is concentrated in the hands of the Moscow Government. That, of course, we all knew, but I thought from the formula used that the Government had in their minds something other than
274
the central Soviet Government at Moscow. My noble friend was at great pains to defend himself from the suspicion of recognising the Bolshevists, and I do not know even now to what extent it is intended to do so. He gave us a sketch of the different anti-Soviet groups which are now holding their own in different parts of Russia. I gather from the newspapers that the only one of these groups which has made any signs of a readiness to accept the invitation to Prinkipo is the group which, roughly speaking, represents the Baltic Provinces. My information may be bad, but he did not tell us whether the Prinkipo Conference is still a going concern, and whether His Majesty's Government have any reason to believe that it is likely to take place or likely to have any useful results. In these circumstances it certainly does seem to me that we may be driven to what I called partial negotiations, which would include representatives both of the Soviet and anti-Soviet camps.
One thing I feel pretty sure of, and that is that we shall never get this question satisfactorily dealt with unless we can clear up the doubts and misunderstandings which exist with regard to our aims and our position in Russia. I am under the impression that both at home and in Russia our aims and intentions are not understood. I am quite sure that in this country there is very grave misgiving: as to the prolongation of these operations, in different parts of Russia. I had a letter yesterday from a man I had never heard of before, who wrote to tell me that his only son, a soldier who had volunteered in 1915, had been ordered out to Archangel, after the Armistice, and without even the final leave to which most of these soldiers consider themselves entitled. I know that there is a great deal of impatience and resentment throughout the country in connection with such cases as this; and in a very eloquent passage in his speech my noble friend, when talking just now of the possibility of more extensive operations in different parts of the Turkish Empire, warned the House of the growing impatience with which such far-reaching military commitments are regarded in this country.
Very few people really know how we came to be entangled in these operations. Lord Milner made a very interesting statement upon the point, and made the

275
same kind of case, I think, that my noble friend made in the debate on the Address. The passage in Lord Milner's statement which I read with most satisfaction was this. He said—
"The last thing His Majesty's Government desires is to leave any British soldier in Russia a day longer than is necessary to discharge the moral obligations we have incurred."
He added that that was the guiding principle of all the Allies. "Nor do I," he said," myself think that the time when we can withdraw without disastrous consequences is necessarily distant." I hope that that anticipation of Lord Milner is likely to be fulfilled. An honourable withdrawal will, however, in my belief, never be possible until we have cleared up the position in Russia. I say this with no desire whatever to complain of His Majesty's Government. I think, on the contrary, that in attempting to set up these negotiations they are probably taking the only course which is open to them, and I sincerely hope that they will not be driven off their course by any taunts that they are negotiating with Bolsheviks.
The Prime Minister has lately told us that the Soviet Government is the only Government in existence, and the only machinery available for the distribution of food in Russia. If that is so, and if, as I believe, the food problem is the really vital problem in that sorely distressed country, I think that His Majesty's Government are perfectly right in endeavouring to get into touch with the Moscow Government, but it is the case, I am afraid, and notably in regard to Archangel, that misunderstandings have arisen. It has been stated—I believe truly stated—that in the month of June last year distinct assurances were given to the Archangel Government that we had no intention of annexing the country or of interfering in its private affairs. That assurance was published in the Russian newspapers. Almost immediately afterwards—in the month of August—came the landing of the British force at Archangel, with the result that the Soviet Government fell, and that confidence was much shaken. I hope that His Majesty's Government will pursue their policy of negotiating whether by groups or otherwise, and unless they can do so, and can do so successfully, I do not see how we are to terminate a position which is extremely embarrassing, and I believe regarded with considerable impatience by most
276
people in this country. The only observation I will add is to thank my noble friend Lord Peel, who has left the House, for the information which he was able to give me with regard to the position of the Allied forces at Archangel and Murmansk. His statement seemed to me reassuring, and I listened to it with great relief.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I merely desire to add a word to what has been said by the noble Marquess, because I cannot think that the speeches that have been made to-night have entirely cleared up this question. The noble Marquess who has just sat down congratulated His Majesty's Government on not having departed from the policy of negotiation, and stated, I think, that it appeared to be the only path towards safety. But the noble Earl opposite said nothing to-night whatever about negotiations. His speech was absolutely lucid, and it appeared, to me at any rate, to convey the idea of a Government policy altogether removed from the notion of negotiation with the Moscow Government. The noble Earl repeated those denunciations of the horrors committed by many, at any rate, of the Bolsheviks in terms with which we all agree. No words can be too strong to express our detestation of such outrages, and apparently, so far as we know, they have been numerous. The noble Earl appeared to imply that our national object was—he will correct me if I am wrong, because it is important not in any way to misquote him—rather to strengthen the hands of all those different independent Governments arrayed in different parts of Russia against the Bolshevik Government at Mcscow, and carrying out, as I understood him to state, the desire of the main body of the great Russian people to get rid of the Bolshevik tyranny. That is a perfectly intelligible policy, but I had no idea that that was understood to be the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government. We had supposed that His Majesty's Government, by their invitation addressed to all the different Russian authorities, including the Soviet Government at Moscow, to meet at Prinkipo, had. desircd to enter on a course of general negotiations. That course has been interrupted, or at any rate deflected by the unwillingness of many of those at any rate semi-established Governments to take part in any such Conference. That appears to produce something like a deadlock for

277
he time being, and what in these circumstances. His Majesty's Government propose to do we do not know, and it certainly would not be fair to press them for any immediate answer as to the course they propose to take; but the impression, I confess, that was made upon some of us by the speech of the noble Earl, was that they had in fact abandoned that policy in favour of an opposite policy of limited intervention—limited, in fact, by the possibilities of the case rather than by intention. The impression made on my mind by the noble Earl's speech was that, if we could only do it, we would gladly help all these other Governments to upset the Bolshevik tyranny and the Moscow Soviet.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: We do not want to assist them to upset what the noble Marquess describes us the Moscow tyranny. In so far as we desire to help them, it is to sustain their own national. existence; and in so far as we are involved in hostilities with the Bolsheviks, it is not from any desire to interfere in the internal condition of Russia, but because it is perfectly clear that an aggressive and successful Bolshevism, after it has swept out of existence all these groups and communities to which I refer, will spread in a great wave over other parts of Europe.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am glad to have elicited that explanation from the noble Earl, because it undoubtedly makes the matter clearer than—if he will forgive me saying so—his original observations, which rather produced the impression that I endeavoured to convey. It still is not quite clear to me why, that being so, His Majesty's Government attempt to negotiate with the Bolsheviks at all. But I am quite content to leave the matter there. We cannot, I think, carry it further to-night in the direction of pressing for any further explanation. We must be content to assume that the situation is one of suspense, and must endeavour to obtain from His Majesty's Government later on such information as they are able to give.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am rather sorry for the critical tone of the speech of the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I confess I listened to the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House with great satisfaction. The policy which he seemed to indicate was the
278
only policy consistent, as I believe, with British honour in this matter. From time to time I hear people say that the Bolshevik tyranny is very horrible, but it nearly always seems to be accompanied immediately afterwards with some desire to make some sort of concession to them. I am afraid, I am a very simple-minded person. I believe the Bolshevik tyranny to be the most horrible thing that has ever existed. All English society, all English public opinion, has been deeply concerned for the last four years over the' German atrocities. Why, the German atrocities pale into insignificance beside what is being carried out in Russia every day. I do not know whether, when noble. Lords assume that kind of critical tone towards His Majesty's Government, they really realise what awful horror, what profound wickedness, what triumph of evil, is involved in the Bolshevist Government. Then the noble Earl the Leader of the House says we ought not to give the impression to those gallant Russians who are trying to resist the Bolshevist tyranny that we are going to throw them over. I should think not. General Denikin and Admiral Kolchak and M. Tchaikovsky are entitled to every sympathy from us and every recognition that we can give them. I am not saying that there should be actual intervention; that may be impossible; but I am suggesting that when the Government say they recognise these Governments and these efforts of patriotic Russians to throw off the Bolshevist tyranny, they are entitled to every support from your Lordships' House, and I should be very sorry were it thought outside that we were slow to accord that support which we believe to be entirely due.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I should like very much, if I may, to clear up one point which still rather puzzles me. Was it intended that to the Prinkipo Conference should be invited representatives of the Bolshevist Government or Governments?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think there has been some misapprehension on the part of the noble Marquess, which has been visible in both his speeches. In his earlier speech he referred to Esthonia and the Baltic States, and he spoke about them as if they were on the same footing with the struggling groups of Russian nationalities to whom I referred. They are

279
not; they are an independent race. Those States are inhabited not by Russians but by people of other nationalities, and they are standing on their own feet and holding their own gallantly against the Bolshevists. The invitation to Prinkipo was an invitation to the central Soviet authority, I do not know whether I ought to call it Government, at Moscow. It was an invitation to that Government to meet the representatives of all these other groups to which I have referred—the group in the north, the group in the Ukraine (to which reference has not been made to-night), the group north of the Caucasus (of which Denikin is the head), the group at Omsk (where Kolchak is the head of the Government). Those, I think, are the main organisations; they are represented in Paris, and an endeavour has been made by their sympathisers to federate these movements in which M. Sazonoff has taken a prominent part. These are the persons who were invited to meet, and they were invited to meet on condition that there should be a truce to all hostilities. The object was, not to crush the Bolshevists, but to arrive at a cessation of this deplorable state of affairs; and, as we were incapable by our own arms—because we have not the men, and nobody else has the men—to invade Russia and bring the thing to an end in
280
that way, to arrive at a solution by negotiation between the different parties. That was the object. Whether it will or will not succeed I cannot say, but the attitude of most of those who have been invited so far has not been favourable.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid I was misled, and I think other people may have been misled, by the speech of my noble friend. A very striking passage in that speech was devoted to a refutation of the charge that His Majesty's Government were recognising the Bolshevists. I certainly thought, when we were told that representatives of all the organised groups who are exercising political authority in Siberia or Russia were to be invited, that that meant that at the Prinkipo Conference there was to be Bolshevist representation.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is so. I said so.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.