Lords Sitting of 10 June 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

DISORDERS IN THE PUNJAB: GENERAL DYER'S POSITION.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, on behalf of Lord Salisbury I beg to ask the Leader of the House a Question of which he has received private notice. A large number of members of this side of the House desire to raise a discussion on the question of the recent disorders in the Punjab and the petition of General Dyer. I beg to ask the noble Earl whether it would be agreeable to the Government that the discussion should take place on Monday, June 21, and that the House should sit then for the purpose, there being some difficulty as regards Papers in having it earlier. If that date should be fixed, I would also ask whether the noble Earl could give us an assurance that no decision will be arrived at with regard to General Dyer before your Lordships have had an opportunity of discussing the matter.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, gave me notice of his intention to ask the Question which has just been put by the noble Earl. It is, in my view, entirely reasonable that this House should seek an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the incidents to which the noble Earl refers, and I should have been quite prepared to give Monday, June 21, or any other day that was suitable to the convenience of your Lordships, but there is this difficulty about fixing a date at this moment. The situation has changed somewhat, as the noble Earl may have seen from the newspapers, during the last twenty-four hours. The matter is now before the Army Council in London. General Dyer has submitted a request, to which an affirmative reply has been given, to make a written statement to that body, and to that extent the matter may still be regarded as sub judice.
It is in these circumstances that the discussion of the matter in another place,

575
which was to have taken place in the debate on the Indian Budget to-day, has been postponed. It was thought not only undesirable but unfair to have a discussion upon the matter while the case is still undecided. How long it will take for General Dyer to place his case before the Army Council, and how long the Army Council will take to consider and decide upon it, I am, of course, not in a position to state. I agree with my noble friend that it is desirable that an opportunity should be given to this House at an early date to consider the matter, and when I am a little better informed as to the amount of time that will elapse before the Army Council considers and arrives at a conclusion upon the matter, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to communicate with him again as to fixing the most suitable day for the discussion here. It is obviously undesirable that while the matter is still pending it should be discussed, either in one place or in the other, and the rule of abstinence which has been prescribed to itself by the House of Commons is one which, I am convinced, your Lordships will also be quite willing, in your own interest, to follow.

SHEKLETON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Richard Auchmuty Shekleton, of Rosebank, Holy-wood, County Down, Ireland, Medical Doctor, and recently a Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps, with Katherine Jessie Shekleton, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes: Presented (on Petition) and a copy of the Proceedings in and of the Decree of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, King's Bench Division (Matrimonial): Delivered (on Oath): Bill read 1a.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
WOOD GREEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a.
EASTBOURNE WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to give the Receiver of Metropolitan Police power to acquire compulsorily under the Land Clauses Act certain premises adjoining the workshop of the Wapping police station. The workshop is used for repairing craft belonging to the River Police, but it has become inadequate. The Receiver has been in communication with the owners of the wharf. They are the Governors of the Brighton Royal Hospital, who have no power under their Trust to dispose of their premises, although they have no objection; therefore, it is necessary to resort to compulsory powers. The occupiers, also, are agreeable to surrender their lease. The procedure for compulsory acquisition is the normal one adopted in all such cases, especially provided for in the Metropolitan Police Act, and it will enable all questions of compensation to be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Land Clauses Act.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

CENSUS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR): My Lords, the last census was taken in 1911. Another is due next year. Hitherto a separate Act of Parliament has been passed every time the census had to be taken. We propose that this should be a perpetual Census Bill, enabling the Government of the day to take a census at stated intervals, as may be required. In most of its provisions the Bill is a re-enacting Bill. There are only three new points, which I will explain to your Lordships as we go through the Bill. Being a perpetual Bill, it is to be rather more elastic than the previous measures of a similar character have been.
Clause 1 creates the machinery for taking the census. The most important point here is that the Government receives power to

577
take a Census every five years instead of every ten years. We find by experience that the information available to the country, and available to the Government, towards the end of the decennial period is very inaccurate. This vitiates all our health and mortality figures. In order that they may be of any value we must be able to give those figures in terms of percentages. It is of no value to know the number of people who die of any particular disease in any area, unless we give the percentage they represent, of the population as a whole, and therefore it is absolutely essential that our main, fundamental figures of the population should be accurate. We find by experience that ten years is too long an interval. I could quote to your Lordships cases where the populations of large centres have been either over-estimated or under-estimated to the extent, in some cases, of 25 per cent., showing how inaccurate some of the vital statistics must be on which we have been dependent in the past. A large number of other countries have quinquennial instead of decennial censuses—France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, three of the Provinces of Canada, and other countries.
Under Clause 3 we take powers to create the machinery, and deal with the definition of areas, the setting up of staff, and power to get information. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the preparation of reports, and the use that is to be made of the data which will be collected. Clause 6 is one to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, because that is a new clause. Under it a local census may be made. We find that very frequently an area desires to have accurate information as to its population. It may be necessary for financial adjustments, and accordingly we believe that it will be of real assistance to a locality to be able to have a local census, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Health. Where a local census is made the expense would be borne by the rates, and would not come on the Treasury.
The Schedule is rather wider, and it must be rather wider in a perpetual census than where you have a particular census. It does not follow, because we take powers to collect information on the matters set out in the Schedule, that all possible questions will be asked on every occasion. Every time there is a census there may be a new problem before the country, and we have
578
tried to make it possible to deal with the needs of each particular census as the period arrives. The real protection in this particular Bill is that on every occasion we have to come to the two Houses of Parliament with Orders in Council. Information which is to be collected from the population must be set out in an Order in Council Presented to both Houses of Parliament. The only three new points of substance contained in this Bill, therefore, to which I would draw attention are—firstly, that it is a perpetual Bill; secondly, that we take powers to take a census every five, instead of every ten, years; and, thirdly, that we enable a local census to be made under Clause 6 if the locality so desires.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MONTENEGRO
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether ex-Ministers and Members of the late Montenegrin Parliament are still detained in prison in their own country by the Serbians;

2. Whether Montenegrins in Italy and elsewhere are prevented by the Serbians from returning to their homes;

3. Whether fighting between the Serbians and Montenegrins still continues;

4. By what authority Serbian troops occupied Montenegro after the clear and distinct promises of President Wilson that "the integrity and the rights of Montenegro shall be secured and recognised," and of M. Pichon and President Poincaré, that French troops would be employed to restore Montenegro to normal conditions;

and to move to resolve, "That it is necessary that the Serbian 'troops should be withdrawn in order that a free vote of the Montenegrin people as to their future form of Government may be obtained."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in March last I tried to bring before you the cruel treatment of the Montenegrin people by the Serbian military authorities, I must not repeat what I said on that occasion, and I will only briefly sum it up in the fewest possible words. The Serbian troops have committed atrocities of many kinds in Montenegro. Montenegrin villages have been bombarded with field guns, and women and children have been killed. Thousands of Montenegrin houses have been destroyed, and hundreds of Montenegrins have been imprisoned in their own country by the Serbians without any offence being alleged against them. I gave British evidence of some of these happenings, and also of the conditions of the prisons in which these innocent people are being confined. The noble Earl the Leader of the House did not dispute any of the charges which I made, and I was grateful to him for the sympathetic way in which he spoke of the brave little people whose national life the Serbians appear to be determined to destroy.
Since March the situation seems to have grown decidedly worse. A short time ago a meeting of Montenegrins was held at Gaeta, in Italy, and passed a Resolution which was sent to me by a former Prime Minister of Montenegro. That resolution contains these clauses—
"The Montenegrins, fleeing before the sanguinary Serbian terror into Italy, have ascertained with the greatest pain; That the Peace Conference has trampled upon all the elementary principles of international right and morality, so far as it regards the question of Montenegro, not taking into consideration that Montenegro threw in her fate with the Allies as early as 1914, losing 50 per cent. of her Army and one-third of her population: That the Peace Conference has remained indifferent to all the appeals and protests against the bloodthirsty tyranny carried on in Montenegro by the Serbian Army, which burns our homes, destroys villages, disturbs our property, and interns, imprisons and shoots our most prominent citizens: That the great Powers have not fulfilled their solemn pledges … for the restoration of Montenegro and to respect her sovereignty."
Then they go on to plead—
"That the Peace Conference should not sanction the incorporation of Montenegro with Serbia before the people of Montenegro have had an opportunity of expressing their will as to their fate, and expressing such without let and hindrance, and without the presence of the Serbian troops of occupation and their civil authorities."
That is an appeal from a large number of men, almost every one of whom was a soldier who fought most gallantly for our cause during the war.
A British officer in Montenegro wrote to me last month saying this—
"People are continually being put in prison without charge and kept indefinitely without charge or trial…It seems to me that the oppressors of this country are making a determined attempt to extinguish the hostile part of the population which, of course, represents about 90 per cent. of the people. Only a small part of this is capable of rendering any effective resistance now."
The outrageous conduct of the Serbian authorities has been extended to an American subject. These are the words of a Montenegrin ex-soldier, Nicholas Batchevitch, in a petition which he addressed to the American authorities—
"Last month I am arrived from United States in Dulcigno in Montenegro with my business to take my family back to the United States, but authority of this country they imprison me for eight days, and took my American passport No. 116,117 of the 31st January, 1920, Washington, and all my certificates and money what I had. After eight days they put me out of prison, but under guard without any permit to do communication with any American authority. I was trying to inform the American Legation in Belgrade but without any success. I did not have a chance to do it. They would not let me to do communication with the American representatives. As an American I am appealing to you for aid and protection. Save me and my family from this cruelty of suffering."
That man, while he was in prison, saw a woman flogged because one of her sons had escaped from the hands of the Serbians; and even British subjects are not quite safe.
Only the other day two British nurses were suddenly summoned to appear before the Serbian authorities, who have throughout, so far as they could, attempted to hamper the operations of British relief bodies in Montenegro. My latest British information is a letter of May 27, and the writer says this—
"All the males between the ages of 18 and 38 are being drafted into Labour Corps, which means the forcible deportation by the Serbians of all the male population capable of offering any resistance to them. This has resulted in some of the Moslems decamping into Albania which they succeeded in doing yesterday.…The Albanians and Moslems are to a man for the King.…I have had a most distressing description of the flogging of old women whose sons have escaped the terror."
That seems to be the last straw, and to be in full accord with the Bolshevist views which the Serbians seem to have adopted. If all the facts—of which I have given only a few—were known I am certain there would be a strong wave of sympathy in this

581
country for this poor little martyred people; and if Mr. Gladstone were alive to-day it is certain that these things could never have happened.
It seems only tile other day that the Press was full of praise of our gallant little Ally, the first to join the Alliance and, unfortunately for herself, to join without making any sort of conditions. As I have said, the Montenegrins played a very important part in the early stages of the war in assisting the Serbians to resist and to repel successive invasions of their country; and then, in the last stage in 1915, after the treacherous attack of the Bulgarians, they were able to do much to save the left wing of the Serbian Army in its retreat through their country. Throughout all these critical times we, with our own hands full, were able to do nothing for our small Ally. All this seems to be forgotten now; and it is only in some French papers that I ever see any reference to the sufferings of Montenegro.
From Article 7 of the Secret Treaty with Italy, which was signed on April 26, 1915, it is quite clear that at that time both His Majesty's Government and the Government of Italy contemplated an increase of territory to Montenegro as some compensation for the heaviest proportional losses borne by any one of the belligerents in the war. The Peace Conference recognised the independent status of Montenegro and appointed a representative, but I believe he was never taken into their councils; and promise after promise has been made to the Montenegrins, not one of which has been fulfilled. What is the reason of this extraordinary change of policy towards this poor little country? I cannot tell. But I know that, while the Montenegrin subsidy was stopped a year ago, the Serbians have expended a large part, upwards of 30,000,000 francs, of their liberal allowance in propaganda in their own interests. I have seen a good many specimens of this propaganda, and it is all directed to create misconceptions about the Montenegrins, to undermine the popularity of that country among us here.
The Montenegrins have been a free people for nearly six hundred years. By whose authority were the Serbians allowed to occupy Montenegrin towns at the end of 1918, to levy taxes, to abolish the Montenegrin postage stamp, to issue passports, and to tyrannise over the people in defiance of the utterances of M. Pichon and President
582
Poinearé? The noble Earl the Leader of the House pointed out that in November, 1918, a so-called National Assembly was brought together at Podgoritza and voted for union with Serbia. But the Allies, as he told us, never recognised that vote because they well knew that it was obtained by fraud and force. That question is still open, and it can be determined only in one way. The noble Earl said, what was perfectly true, that before the war Montenegro depended for financial support on Russia; but Montenegro, as is not generally known, is, perhaps, one of the most richly-mineralised States in the Balkans, and her natural resources, if properly developed, would amply enable her to stand on her own basis as an independent State. That, I am afraid, may be one of the reasons for her undoing, because, as I pointed out in March last, the Serbian Government in 1917, when almost the whole of Serbia was in the possession of the enemy, had the effrontery to grant concessions in Montenegro. One wonders sometimes whether international finance may not play a part in proceedings which one finds it very difficult to understand.
At the present moment there are thousands of Montenegrins in Italy, Albania, and elsewhere, and they are all prevented from returning to their homes unless they agree to accept Serbian rule at once. It has been said that the majority do desire such incorporation with Serbia, but my information refutes that theory entirely. But, if the Serbians really wish to incorporate Montenegro in their own territory, they could not have taken a more effectual means than they have of incurring the hatred of every patriotic Montenegrin. Their policy seems to be not only wicked but stupid from their own point of view.
All that I ask in this Motion is that your Lordships should affirm that what was once it the Sovereign State of Montenegro shall have just the same rights as are being granted to what were once hostile enemy populations. That can only be done on the conditions that the Serbian troops and authorities are withdrawn and all the refugees allowed to return to their country. We know the great complications of the Adriatic question, and we fear that that question will not be settled until at least two years have passed since the Armistice. That is very unfortunate, but this step could be taken at once and it is only then—after this step has been taken—that the

583
Supreme Council will be in a position to deal with the future of Montenegro.
The Yugo-Slav State which it is proposed to set up contains certain elements in Bosnia and Herzgovina which will never permanently submit to rule from Belgrade. Some of these elements have already given symptoms of revolt. If the Montenegrin people are forced into this union against their wish there will be a fertile source of endless trouble in the Balkans in the years to come. In this House, sympathy, which I entirely share, has been shown with the Hungarians who are being forced under an alien rule, which I am perfectly certain some of them will never tolerate. But the Hungarians were at least enemies, though through no fault of their own. I do earnestly plead for a little sympathy for Montenegro, our smallest Ally, who would have fared far better if she had declared her neutrality in the war and who could not have fared worse if she had joined in the great conspiracy of Germany against the peace of the world.
Moved, to resolve, "That it is necessary that the Serbian troops should be withdrawn in order that a free vote of the Montenegrin people as to their future form of Government may be obtained."—(Lord Sydenham.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, who takes such a keen and unabated interest in the fate of Montenegro, commenced his remarks by alluding to the discussion we had in your Lordships' House on March H last. I think it is clear from what he said then, and also from what he has said to-night, that he regards this question from a somewhat different point of view from that in which it appears to my eyes. The point of view of the noble Lord, I think, is this. He regards the Government of King Nicholas as representing the people of Montenegro, not only in theory but in fact, and he thinks that if the Montenegrins were left to their own choice that Government would at the present moment be peaceably governing the country. On the previous occasion, as to-night also, he has enlarged at some length upon the differences between the Montenegrins and the Serbians and he has spoken of the situation as if it were one of the subjugation—I think he even used the word martyrdom—of a small, gallant, and historic people by their more powerful and alien neighbours. I, on the contrary, in my remarks in March last, depicted a state of affairs in which, as the result of the great war, the peoples of
584
South - Eastern Europe—Serbs, Montenegrins (and after all the Montenegrins are Serbs), the Croats, and the Slovenes—have realised the possibility of creating for themselves a united national State in that part of the world.
The noble Lord, who is so familiar with the earlier history of Montenegro, will bear me out when I say that that has been the dream of these peoples for generations. It has been the aspiration to which expression has frequently been given by King Nicholas himself, and I believe I do not err in saying that the spring of all those movements—the idea that is in the minds of these peoples (and it is, in the last resort, a noble aspiration and a noble idea)—is that they should, out of all the troubles and turmoil of the past years, be at length enabled to realise that which has been the aspiration almost of centuries.
Speaking of the point of view of His Majesty's Government and of the Allied Powers, in March last I urged that our efforts should be directed to securing that in the Constituent Assembly, which must at no distant date be set up, the Montenegrins should have the chance of giving a free vote as to the part which they should play in this future State if it comes into being. The noble Lord, at the beginning of his remarks, exonerated me from the necessity of repeating at greater length what I said on that occasion, and to-night he has confined himself to dealing with minor, though not unimportant, issues in the events of the last few years. To some extent I am in a difficulty in replying to him, because we have no representative at this moment in Montenegro. The incidents and details which are reported to him do not come officially to us, and it is not possible for me here, as representing the Foreign Office, to give- detailed replies to any allegations that may be made.
I will, however, to the best of my ability, take the Questions which the noble Lord has placed on the Paper and give such answers to them as it is in my power to furnish. The noble Lord said, in one portion of his remarks, that the situation was growing worse. That is not borne out by the evidence that has reached me. I should have said, on the other hand, that it had perceptibly ameliorated, and I have been looking forward with greater confidence than I felt some time ago to the creation of a spirit of good will which would help both sections of the people to emerge from the troubles in which they are now involved.

585
The first Question which the noble Lord asks is "whether ex-Ministers and members of the late Montenegrin Parliament are still detained in prison in their own country by the Serbians." I cannot, for the reasons I have named, give a very specific answer to that Question. It is true, I believe, that in the years 1918 and 1919 many of the partisans of King Nicholas were detained in prison by the dominant Yugo-Slav party. Ex-Ministers may have. been—I believe they were—included among them. In a country where the conditions are as unstable as they are in Montenegro I believe the number of ex-Ministers bears a considerable ratio to the entire population. The noble Lord must remember that in a country where such primitive conditions prevail as in Montenegro, it is useless to expect that spirit of toleration which prevails in more advanced communities like our own, and it may very well be that those who regard the cause of national union as the most sacred aim for which they can work are disposed not only to regard, but to treat, those who dissent from them as persons who are disloyal to the cause and traitors to their race.
The second Question is "whether Montenegrins in Italy and elsewhere are prevented by the Serbians from returning to their homes?" Hero the noble Lord quoted from some representations I think he had received from Montenegrins in Italy. We also, in the Foreign Office, have received representations from some members of the community in Italy protesting, in language somewhat similar to that which he quoted, against the attitude of the Peace Conference and of the Great Powers, but nothing was said in the paper which I have seen about their being prevented from returning to their country. I am not aware that there is any formal or legal ban pronounced upon Montenegrins who may be abroad, but one can quite understand that there may be good reasons for such Montenegrins to hesitate to return to the country in which their political rivals are in the ascendant, more especially if they have been living for some time in Italy, and consequently, owing to the somewhat tense situation between the Italians and the Yugo-Slavs, can be looked upon as friends of Italy and therefore opposed to the Yugo-Slav aspirations. Such a view, I need hardly say, I should regard as mistaken, but it may well be entertained, and, while we may regret it, it is one which, it must be admitted, is not difficult to understand.
My noble friend's third Question is
586
"whether fighting between the Serbians and Montenegrins still continues' The answer to that Question depends upon the connotation which you attach to the word fighting. The history of Montenegro shows that the Montenegrins have never been averse from fighting, either with their neighbours or with their fellow-countrymen, and I have no doubt that, in the unsettled conditions which prevail, there is a good deal of internal disorder, and I dire say that crimes of violence are perpetrated; but I think it would be quite unfair to describe such instances of local disorder as a case of warfare between two peoples. Here is the point upon which I differ from my noble friend. Ills whole conception is that of two peoples, Serbians and Montenegrins, who are at war with each other, and he speaks of the Montenegrins as though they were a people held down, trampled upon, and conquered by an alien force. That is not my reading of the situation. To me it seems rather to be a dispute between two sections of the same people —between the dominant majority—I believe them to be the majority—who support the scheme, the idea, of a Yugo-Slav union, and the other Montenegrins who support King Nicholas. But I certainly have no reason to justify me in thinking that the conditions to which I refer can fairly be described as those of fighting between the two populations or sections of the population.
The fourth Question is by what authority Serbian troops occupied Montenegro in November, 1918, and the noble Lord seems to detect in that operation some inconsistency with published declarations by President Wilson, President Poinearé and M. Pichon, at that time Foreign Minister of the French Government. My Lords, I can see no contradiction at all between the action of Serbian troops and the declarations or promises made by President Wilson or President Poincaré, or M. Pichon. I have no responsibility whatever for anything said by them, and I cannot possibly stand up in this House and answer for, or explain, any statement which may, no doubt quite correctly, be attributed to them. What were the facts? In November, 1918, when the Austrian troops left the country, the Serbian troops were admitted under the orders of General Franchet d'Espérey, who was the French General in command of the Allied Forces. He made such dispositions as he thought fit, and he invited the Serbian troops, as part of the Allied Army, to undertake this

587
part of the operation. As to the co-operation of French troops, I, of course, have nothing to say. I believe, as a matter of fact, that a few French troops were employed in the earlier stages of the matter, and they were subsequently withdrawn.
Filially, my noble friend concludes with a Motion, winch he asks your Lordships to accept—"That it is necessary that the Serbian troops should be withdrawn in order that a free vote of the Montenegrin people as to their future form of government may be obtained." I might answer by saying that it is, of course, not for the Foreign Minister of this country, or for the Government of this country, to make any arrangements or promises as to the movements of Allied troops. They are not under the orders of this Government, but they are under the orders of those who control the movements of the Allied Forces, and as to the presence of these forces in Montenegro, all my information goes to show that the great majority of the armed forces in Montenegro to-day arc Montenegrins, who, no doubt, sympathise with the Yugo-Slav idea and look upon the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Serbia as brethren in race, religion and political aspirations, but who, nevertheless, are natives of the country mid are not acting under the terrorism of a foreign power, but in agreement with men whom they have welcomed as liberators.
What we want to do is not to give our varying accounts of the facts, but to find a solution, and here I must revert to the remarks with which I concluded on a previous occasion, and which I must ask the noble Lord to believe I put forward with the utmost sincerity as the object which we and our Allies have in view. What we want to secure is that when the Constituent Assembly is summoned Montenegro shall have a free voice in deciding the issue. What we want is that there shall be free elections in that country, and, for my own part, if it were suggested that the presence of Allied officers would be a guarantee that the elections would be free, and that terrorism or influence would not be exercised upon the voters, I should be quite ready to make that proposal myself. Anyhow, we desire that, under such conditions as we can set up, there shall be free elections; that the voters—what may be their proportion of the population I do not know—shall be entitled to vote as they desire; that the representatives whom they elect shall go to the Constituent Assembly with the power to give their votes
588
in the sense in which their constituents desire. It remains to be seen whether, as I am informed, the majority of them will be disposed to vote for their incorporation in the larger State. I cannot say. It may be that they will attach conditions to the manner in winch they shall be so incorporated. Those are details into which I cannot enter.
But, my Lords, I do ask my noble friend and your Lordships to believe that the object which I have described is the one which we shall continuously hold in view. And my own impression, so far from being as pessimistic as that which the noble Lord has put before us, is this, that when we come to the time, given the conditions which I have described, we shall find this atmosphere of distrust, not worse but to a large extent dispelled; and by a mutual display of good will, it should not be altogether impossible to secure a solution which, whatever form it takes, will represent the predominant feeling of the Montenegrin people themselves.
LORD SYDENHAM: I beg to thank the noble Earl for the very full answer he has given to my Questions. I believe, with him, that the union with the Serbian race might have been possible had the Montenegrins been treated with ordinary humanity. But I fear that this dream is dispelled by the causes to which I have referred. I hope he is right in saying that the situation is better, and I also hope that the optimistic view which he takes, but which I am afraid I cannot share, is justified by his knowledge, which, of course, must be much greater than mine.
I notice, however, that he did not refer to the very remarkable fact that I mentioned, with regard to the recent conscription of all the able-bodied males of Montenegro in a Labour Corps. That seems to me to be hardly the way to induce the Montenegrins to join their Serbian brothers in one union. I feel that if either French or British troops could have been employed for the pacification of Montenegro during the troubles arising after the Austrian occupation, none of the incidents to which I have referred need ever have arisen. If, as the noble Earl says, a perfectly free vote is to be allowed to the Montenegrin people, I feel that my object in raising this debate is satisfied, and I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.