THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY.

HL Deb 12 February 1924 vol 56 cc72-118

THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, I understand that the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack is prepared to make a statement of policy to your Lordships' House, and if that be so, I am sure your Lordships will listen to what he may have to say with great satisfaction.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)

My Lords, even if the request of the noble Marquess and the comment it contains were not a reasonable one, it is a request which is in accordance with precedent in this House. The noble Marquess asks that the Leader of the House should state the policy of the Government generally. That would have been very difficult a short time ago, but we have had at least three weeks of unbroken work, and I am in a position to indicate to your Lordships certain principles on which our minds have converged. Of necessity, at this stage these principles can only be stated, first, as general principles, but they are principles of a very fundamental character, as I will presently show.

The first thing that has concerned us, touching, to begin with, on foreign affairs, is the state of Europe—a state which is so deplorable, especially as regards Central and Eastern Europe—and we are convinced that until it can be restored to something like the conditions as they were before the war the recovery of Europe is impossible to hope for. I am not one of those who say, particularly abroad, that England is always moved in these things by commercial reasons. It is true that commercial reasons are reasons to which we attach great importance. Our trade cannot recover, our unemployment cannot cease, until the state of Europe becomes very different from what it is to-day. But, these are not the only grounds to which we attach importance. There is a question of humanity. There is a question of the evil that occurs to the whole world when a very largo part of it is left in the deplorable condition in which a large part of Europe is to-day. We know that we cannot alter these things materially merely from outside. Germany, and Russia too, must work out their own salvation, and what we have done in recognising Russia we have done with the conviction that that was the first step—only the first step—towards enabling Russia to make a beginning. Of the wisdom of what we have done opinions may differ. I can only say it was a step taken after much deliberation, and with much conviction. As to Germany, she is in a different position. She is a nation with a great power of organisation. She has, at the very beginning, to stabilise her currency, and she has begun to make some progress in that. But there are questions of another kind, to which I will come presently, that are of very great importance. Until they are solved there can be no complete recovery.

That brings me at once to the question of our relations with France, and I wish to say that it is with us a settled conviction that relations with France of a most friendly character are of supreme importance. It is not merely that we fought side by side with the French in the great, war for our liberties, it is not merely that we have made friendships there which I trust will be permanent, but it is that we recognise the great influence of France for good. If you look to the literature of France, her art, and what she has done in the way of spiritual expression, then the French stand very high indeed among the nations of the world, and I doubt whether there is any country in which they have exercised a more penetrating influence than in our own. Therefore we desire to maintain friendship with France and to make it a permanent friendship.

There are difficulties in the way, difficulties which touch policy with regard to the rest of Europe of which I spoke. What are they? France seeks two things—Reparations and security She is entitled to Reparations for the wrong done to her territory by the enemy. We agree, and the only question which requires definition and decision is this. You cannot get more Reparations than Germany is able to pay, and the question is: What is Germany able to pay ? We have to look at the whole of the circumstances in endeavouring to answer that question. At present it is the subject of investigations which I trust will be fruitful in giving us more knowledge, but until these investigations have been made, and it is determined whether Germany, by a readjustment of her finances, will be more able to pay, it is premature to express any opinion on the subject.

That brings me to security. I believe security is that which, in their hearts, the French desire most. I do not wonder. Can anybody who reads the lamentable record of how she was stricken in 1870 and what has happened since, while she was under the menace of the sharp sword, wonder that France should desire security? We wish her security almost as much as she wishes it herself, and the only difference is a difference as to methods. Grave considerations come in here. After 1870 there came a period when Germany made up her mind as to the means by which security should be preserved. Prince Bismarck himself wanted nothing more than security for Germany. He had waged three wars successfully, unified the German Empire, and his advice to the German people was: Do not try to expand, do not embark on a policy of prestige; it is the most deceitful of all policies; and do not listen to admirals and generals when they give you advice on foreign policy. That was Prince Bismarck's strongly expressed view, but it developed in the hands of men with less clear and resolute vision into a policy by which Germany went on developing her armaments with the intention of keeping the peace by the sword. That turned out to be a most disastrous plan.

I myself was sent by the British Cabinet to Berlin in 1912 to explore the ground and find out whether there was any possibility of a readjustment with regard to the growing Navies of Germany which were becoming a menace. When I went there the German Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, who, I believe, was a peaceful man, said to me, in substance: "Will you give up the Entente?" I put my cards on the table and said, in effect: "We cannot give up the Entente for a very good reason, because Germany is building up a great Navy; and, although you say you do not wish it to be as great a Navy as ours and will be content with two-thirds, still it is a menace. Other Powers have great Navies. The days of isolation have gone, and it is impossible for the British Fleet to command the seas against the whole world. We cannot afford a situation in which the whole world may combine against us. Now the Entente is something which gives us security. It gives us the security that France and Russia will not attack us. Suppose we come out of the Entente. It may be that you will make terms with France, and we may have other combinations against us. Therefore we cannot look at that proposition."

I believe the German Chancellor was quite prepared to turn an open ear to this proposition, and I approached my noble friend who was then Foreign Secretary to see if it was possible to do something more. I intimated that we should be glad to use all our influence with the Entente in order that Germany might come in if only she would give up the policy of keeping the peace with the sword. If we were all of us in one Entente then, indeed, it would be possible to find an atmosphere in which an agreement all round for a reduction of fleets and armaments could take place. I believe the then German Chancellor was willing to listen to this. But there were those who were not willing, who not only said that the only reliable way of keeping the peace was by the sword, but something more. There were those who said that the British Empire had too much of the world and that Germany had too little. My noble friend the then Foreign Secretary did all that was possible to assist the idea of expansion where it was possible and practicable. Germany would not have it. They stuck to the policy of piling up armaments and keeping the peace with the sword. What happened? The inevitable thing happened which happens when you pile up armaments. There came at last the most deplorable war the world has ever seen.

We believe that if these armaments are piled up now in the same way, if we cannot get rid of the notion of keeping the peace by the sword, a similar catastrophe will happen—perhaps not to-morrow, perhaps not in the lifetime of your Lordships or of myself—but it will happen inevitably if a false policy is pursued. That being so, what is our policy? Of course, it is plain that until other people begin to reduce their armaments we cannot do so. We should be left in a weak position. But so soon as they accept this better method of security, this method of obtaining some sort of common mind among the nations of Europe, then comes a chance for the reduction of armaments. For my own part I have never believed in reducing armaments until the people with whom we are likely to come into conflict are ready to reduce armaments as well, but when those who, like ourselves, possess great armaments will agree with us, when we can obtain what I have called one mind upon the subject, it will be a great advantage for the whole world, and a great burden may be removed.

I am speaking of things that are far ahead, and I am not talking of any immediate policy further than this: We believe in the idea of a large Entente, or concert of Europe, or whatever you like to call it. We call it now a League of Nations, which is a practical organisation and which is doing a great deal of work in spreading the idea of which I have been speaking. The League of Nations is a natural result of such a policy being brought to success, but the League of Nations is in itself rather a consequence than a cause. Get the mind, get the spirit, and you will find the League of Nations putting forward schemes such as those of which I have been speaking, and not merely as abstract propositions which only fill the air with sound and have no practical result.

Further, our policy is to aim at an improvement of the state of Europe on lines which I have indicated, and with the help of a League of Nations into which Germany and Russia could come just as much as any other Powers, and which should result in security. How long it may be necessary for great countries like France and England to keep up considerable armaments I cannot say, but once the pressure towards piling up armaments is removed I hope in the end that the burden will in itself be diminished very signally. That is a general proposition and is the description of an idea rather than anything that is immediately possible, but it is a basis and a principle on which lies the foundation of the whole foreign policy of this Government, a principle which we hope, if it is kept to the front and pressed forward, may prove fruitful. I say again that we have the most real desire for friendship with France of which the Prime Minister has given evidence lately, and we believe that if the French will come with us into consideration of this other method of security we can not only assure to France an untroubled future, so far as anything can be assured, but we can secure great relief both to them and to ourselves from a very heavy burden.

That brings me to the cognate question of our own defences. Your Lordships will observe that I have not suggested any breach in the continuity of policy by which we have for years been organising our defences upon an improved basis. This does not necessarily mean that which is called piling up armament" or competing in armaments. If you bring science into your organisation, naval, military or air, if you insist that nothing should be there that has not its definite place in the organisation of defence as a whole, you make yourself by that very fact considerably stronger, and when you do act, as you must act in these days, you add immensely by this very procees to the strength of the whole, because each addition falls into its place. Our predecessors in office also realised this fact, and they effected a reorganisation of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, became Chairman of that Committee, a new position which gave him something of the authority of a Prime Minister, as I have sometimes thought, and in any case more authority than a mere individual Minister who is one among many. That was the view which I ventured to express at the time, and it was a view which the Government adopted in the Memorandum which they published. Lord Salisbury worked very hard and made considerable progress. It has been my good fortune to succeed to the position which he occupied. I, too, am working very hard; and, more than that, I find myself able to keep up the spirit of what he did in our attention to the national defences at this moment; and I think that in the main there has been no desire to do anything else but to keep up that policy, subject, of course, to questions of little consequence as to which there may be difference of view. In the main the policy of the Government is to keep up the defences in order the better to negotiate—if I am right in what I said to your Lordships a minute ago—in a happier state of things in which those nations who have no armaments will not wish to have them and in which we shall gradually find ourselves in a position of increasing security without the strain of the present time.

In connection with the Committee of Imperial Defence, I should like to say a word of thanks to my noble friend Viscount Cave, with whom I discussed this matter before I assumed the office which I now hold. Viscount Cave recognised with me that it was impossible for the Lord Chancellor to take upon himself the Chairmanship of the Committee of Imperial Defence unless he had more time to spare from the duties of his office. The noble Viscount has generously assisted me to get rid of details and I am able to free myself from the bulk of the everyday judicial work—though I hope I shall be there if any great or serious questions arise, and shall be, I hope, in pretty close relation with the judicial work from day to day. But I am now set free from ten o'clock in the morning until four o'clock in the afternoon to devote my time to the Committee of Imperial Defence, as I am doing nearly every day, and to other matters of a more or less engrossing character, which I should not have been able to do if the business of the Lord Chancellor had devolved upon me without reorganisation. I do not think anybody who has not been through it knows how heavy is the business of the Lord Chancellor, sitting daily from ten o'clock until four and afterwards upon the Woolsack at a quarter past four, and, in addition, attending Cabinets and other meetings and looking after the general business of his Department. The late Lord Herschell used to say that no man could stand it for more than three years, but I do not think that I shall find myself overworked under the new conditions.

I proceed from that to other questions of a different order. One of the most mournful spectacles to be seen in the streets to-day is the spectacle of the unemployed—unemployed by no fault of their own, unemployed largely because of the state of Europe, and largely because of one of the cycles of depression which are with us almost periodically. Over a million men, with their wives and children, are dependent, upon the recovery of trade, and when it is a matter of keeping body and soul together you cannot wait. It is an urgent duty upon the State to make provision for the finding of work, so as, if possible, at any rate, to keep these people from starving.

But that is not the only thing. The condition of the houses in which the poorer classes live is a scandal. We have allowed these things to be neglected until at the present time we are having the full burden of them, aggravated by cessation of enterprise which set in with the war. We have to deal with these matters, and to deal with them not merely on sentimental or ethical grounds. I do not know whether your Lordships realise what is a cost account. It is an account which shows not only on one side what you have spent, but on the other side what you are getting for your money. For two hundred years the accounts presented to Parliament have been in a different form, and it is only in recent years, in the case of the Army, that a cost account has been kept. People never know how much money has been wasted, and all endeavours of mine to find out what we are paying out on unemployment, and on the temporary redress of the evils of the housing system, have failed to give me any exact figures on the subject. I can only say that the unnecessary expenditure of the State is enormous. My Lords, if it were only on the grounds of safety and security that we ought to get value for our annual expenditure, instead of wasting it, I should say it would be better that we should grapple in the most complete way we can with these problems of unemployment and housing. I have only to add that the Government is very busy about these matters at the moment. From the very first the work was set in hand, and it is being done—I do not like to say more energetically than ever before but highly energetically, and with great confidence, by men who know the conditions at first hand. That is enough for me to say at the moment. We shall see the results when they are before your Lordships more fully. It is very unwise to prophesy, but we have gone into this undertaking with some hope that we may produce a very different footing.

There is another very great question which is pressing and that is the question of agriculture, in which I do not pretend to be an expert, but my noble friend, the Lord President of the Council, who is himself a large farmer and very much interested in these things, will bring before your Lordships, from time to time, the progress we are making in a systematic endeavour to get at the truth. So far as I can form a judgment, you will never get British farming prosperous until you get organisation. People engaged in agriculture are used to old ways, and when your Lordships consider the organisation which is necessary in industry and contrast it with the organisation which exists in agriculture, you may be inclined to wonder why agriculturists have been so slow. I will say no more about it now, but your Lordships will hear more in the future.

I wish, however, to mention one other subject which is pressing itself upon us as of very great importance, and that is the scientific education of this country. I will only say that we believe that unless you get a more enlightened people you will not really get a better people or a people more capable fully of solving their own social problems. That is why we lay great stress on education in the widest sense. Science is a thing of great importance. We have not half used our scientist". The war brought to the front a class of young men trained in the hard school of the battlefield—trained in filling billets that were requisite for the war—and they brought out—I speak from what I saw and know—a class of scientific worker just as high as, if not higher than, is to be found in any other country. Nobody who goes to the Universities and looks at these things closely can fail to be struck with the tremendous work that the Universities have been doing since the war in developing science which can be applied to industry. That is a subject which we have in view. It will require time to develop, and considerable watching and supervision, because there is a great deal to be done.

In these observations, my Lords, I have mentioned a few subjects but not all. Of course, there is the Empire. We agree with our predecessors about the Empire, except in one thing—we are not convinced that a protective policy will be the right one. We hold a great deal of territory in the Empire, which I think other nations would have grudged to us more than they have done had it not been that we treat ourselves rather as trustees. I know the difficulty that obtains in the Dominions, and all I ask is that these questions may be considered as a whole. As regards more detailed questions, these were examined with a view to preserving continuity with what was done by our predecessors, but it is not possible for me to go into them to-day.

These are, roughly and broadly, the general principles on which this Government is endeavouring to work. They are only general principles, but I said before that they were basic principles. They are not principles which we wish in any way to neglect, and in that way they are of value, because, taken as they stand, they afford the solution of many problems and tend to extricate us from many difficulties.

As I listened to the words of the Writ, read out to-night three times, in which the Sovereign calls for new Peers to aid with their counsel and advice in troublous times, I felt how much more than an empty ceremony these words were. The difficulties are immense. The essential burden is very heavy. But may I remind your Lordships that after the Napoleonic Wars there was a state of things nearly as bad in this country as exists to-day—perhaps quite as bad. True it is that expenditure in those days was on a much smaller scale, but then the national resources were on a much smaller scale, and if you work out the proportion you will find something very like similarity in the proportion of the burden to the means of bearing it. What our ancestors did we may do if we attack the problems in the same spirit. They accomplished much, adding thing to thing, making step by step, until successive Governments by degrees brought the country back to that state of prosperity which was so marked in the middle of the last century, and which has been the making of our country.

THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, it is undeniable that since we last met in your Lordships' House a considerable change has passed over the scene. We may gather from the speech to which we have just listened that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack intends to assume the functions of the Leader of your Lordships' House. It may perhaps be a little difficult for us in practice to combine the requisite courtesy to him when we are addressing or answering him with a due regard for the Press, who happen to be installed in another part of the House famous for its acoustic difficulties. But still we will do our best. I gather also, from what the noble and learned Viscount has told us, that he proposes to combine with the functions of Leader of the House and Lord Chancellor, modified and alleviated by the arrangement which he described with my noble and learned friend Lord Cave, the duties of Chairman of the Standing Committee of Imperial Defence, and also of spokesman on all important occasions of the Foreign Office. If this be so, the noble and learned Viscount has, indeed, assumed a heavy burden, and, from our knowledge of him, we may be sure that it is only an overwhelming sense of public duty that can have impelled him to take it up. From that point of view I am sure that your Lordships will endeavour, so far as you legitimately and fairly can, on all occasions to render him the assistance that lies in your power.

There is also a considerable change in the quarter of the House opposite me. Some noble Lords who have taken their seats to-day will address us for the first time as Cabinet Ministers and representatives of His Majesty's Government, and, of course, they will receive at our hands all the respect and encouragement to which their great positions entitle them. But when I survey that Bench opposite, somewhat attenuated as it is, I confess I think that some of those noble Lords must find themselves there with almost as much surprise as we see them. I feel inclined, surveying them, to quote the Latin phrase, labor omnia vincit improbus. My noble friend Lord Parmoor and I have often crossed swords, without I hope ever drawing very much blood, and I have always recognised his astonishing versatility; but I confess my admiration for him in that respect never reached the point of contemplating a state of affairs in which he would have appeared here as a Labour Peer.

Then, next but one to him sits my noble friend Lord Chelmsford, whom I have long known since our Oxford days as an oxthodox pillar of Conservatism. I am certain that neither of those noble Lords will abandon the principles of their youth, and that their presence on that Bench is a guarantee of the spotless and unimpeachable orthodoxy of the policy which they will place before us. Then, in the corner of the Bench, I see my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie, who, in the fulness of days, has become a Whip. I might feel some anxiety at the burdens that will thereby be placed upon his competent shoulders were I not certain that his duties will be rarely exercised and that when it comes to the task of shepherding his flock into the Government Lobby, it will be as rapidly as it will be ineffectively accomplished.

Before I pass on to the speech to which we have just listened, may I say one word about a situation that has arisen in connection with the new Government which ought not, I think, to be left unnoticed? I speak of the duplication of the offices of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in the person of the right hon, gentleman who is the head of the present Government. I cannot recall any case, at any rate in the last century, in which that experiment has been tried.

A NOBLE LORD

There was Lord Salisbury.

THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Yes, but he was not Leader of the House of Commons. The experiment is attended, I admit, with certain advantages. In the first place, the Prime Minister, by being Foreign Secretary, ensures that co-ordination between the two sides of Downing-street which is so essential to good and harmonious working; and when, as Foreign Secretary at the Foreign Office, he has sketched out and determined upon a policy which he will recommend to his colleagues, instead of having to go over to the other side of Downing-street and consult the Prime Minister, all he has to do is to go over and consult himself— or rather, he need not move in order to perform that operation. And, further, I doubt not that a Prime Minister who is also Foreign Secretary will be invested with an authority and prestige which will not be without great weight in the councils of Europe. At the same time, I venture to think that it is an experiment in which he will find it difficult to persevere.

Just now some noble Lord mentioned the name of Lord Salisbury. Even Lord Salisbury in his prime was unable to make that experiment a permanent one, and had ultimately to lay it down. But he, as I remarked just now, was not the Leader of the House of Commons. He discharged on the whole the easier functions of the Leader of your Lordships' House. And when you contemplate the fact that the present Prime Minister will be called upon both to lead the House of Commons as the head of a Party which does not represent more than one-third of that House, that he has to preside over frequent Cabinet meetings, that he has to drive a somewhat composite team, the character of which must not be estimated entirely from the amiable noblemen who sit opposite, and some of whom have already indicated a desire to leap over the traces—when you remember that, I confess I do not see how the Prime Minister can do all the overwhelming work of the Foreign Office as well.

There is one noble Lord in this House who knows what it means; but he only knew it before and during the war. Since then it has been immensely multiplied, and it is almost impossible to exaggerate to your Lordships' House how strenuous and heavy that burden is. It involves duties which cannot be laid upon one side or put upon the shoulders of others. Every day and all day decisions of moment have to be taken by the Foreign Secretary and can be taken by him alone. Therefore, I cannot help thinking for my part that, although the advantages of the combination, as I admit, are not incon- siderable, they will be dearly purchased in the present case, and that the Prime Minister will find either that he has to neglect a certain portion of his duties or that he will greatly overtax his physical strength.

Now I turn to the speech to which we have just listened. It was a very sweet and gentle and pacifying speech and, as I listened to the periods of my noble friend on the Woolsack, I was rather reminded of a prescription with which we were all, or some of us familiar in our youth known as Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup. I felt exactly as if I was having some of that excellent condiment ladelled into my mouth. The noble and learned Viscount told us that the Government had had three weeks' incubation and that he was going to present us with the results. I confess I should have expected a rather more vigorous fowl. The noble and learned Viscount indulged in a number of excellent and unimpeachable principles. He gave us an interesting account of his conversations with German statesmen in some irrelevant period in the past, Rut when he got to business, and when we were waiting to hear from him the exact lines upon which His Majesty's Government are going to proceed, the details of their policy, the nature of the measures to which they are going to ask the assent of Parliament, the result was an absolute blank. There was a good deal of excellent common sense, if I may be allowed to say so, about his remarks, and I am glad to say that there was not the remotest trace of Socialism—not the remotest. Altogether the expectations with which I regarded the present Government have been very sensibly relieved by what we have heard this afternoon, and I feel that it may arise at a later date that when some of his colleagues begin to prance a little, I shall have to remind the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack of the manner in which he wielded the reins this afternoon.

The first point that the noble and learned Viscount took, the first matter to which he devoted himself was that of foreign affairs, and here he said with truth that the situation in Central and Eastern Europe is deplorable and that the first subject to which His Majesty's Government are addressing themselves is the clearing up of that situation. He began with France; and with all that he said on that point every one of your Lordships will agree. No one in this country has any desire whatsoever to be on any other terms than those of the closest amity with our great neighbour. That has been the basis of the whole of the policy of the late Government and, indeed, of every Government with which I have been personally associated since the beginning of the war, and a score of times in this House I have ventured to lay down the proposition that only upon that co-operation can the future recovery of Europe be built up. Therefore, there is no difference between us upon that point, and I wish the noble and learned Viscount and his Government every possible success in their attempts to carry that policy to practical and successful issues.

I was very glad to see that there has been an interchange of friendly letters between the Prime Minister and the French President du Conseil. That good relations should be established between them and that each should be convinced of the good will of the other is an important consideration. It is the right opening gambit in the game and it is one which all of us have played in our time. But no one knows better than the noble and learned Viscount that the exchange of amenities of this sort, however desirable and necessary, does not really carry us very far and that international difficulties of the nature of those with which we are confronted are not to be solved by compliments or dismissed with a smile. In the last resort the guiding consideration in international diplomacy is the material interests of the people involved, and I should like to have heard a little more from the noble and learned Viscount, had he been willing to tell us, of the exact way in which negotiations with France are proceeding at this moment. Perhaps either the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, or somebody else who speaks hereafter, may be willing to tell us, but I understand from what I read in the Press that the situation in the Palatinate and in the group of questions that have arisen therefrom is easier than it was, that the French Government have desisted from the policy upon which they appeared to have embarked of encouraging the Separatist movement in the Palatinate, a movement which had no solid foundation either in the desires or in the support of the population, and which was fraught with very great mischief and peril. I understand from the same sources that the situation as regards the British area, the British zone of occupation at Cologne, is relieved and that the French have renounced the policy which was generally interpreted as one of an attempt to blockade our position there. If that be so, so much the better. It removes one source of friction from the scene.

The noble and learned Viscount did not say much about the Ruhr, although he indicated in a few words that the question of security for France is one that is occupying, and very properly occupying, the attention of His Majesty's advisers. As regards the Ruhr, the French occupation of which, as everyone knows, has never been approved of by His Majesty's Government, the French Government themselves have passed through various phases in their justification of it. First of all, it was intended to secure Reparation payments; secondly, it was intended to induce a temper on the part of Germany which would make payments possible; and thirdly, there was wrapped up in it the question of security. We have always held, for our part, that the policy was a mistaken one, and would not produce the results either to France or to Europe which were anticipated. I am very glad to see from recent sources of information that those views are becoming more widely spread in France itself, and if the present Government can, as their policy develops, find a real, solid and friendly solution of the Ruhr question, they will have gone a long way to deserve the thanks both of this country and of our friends across the Channel. I rather gather from what the noble and learned Viscount said that the policy of His Majesty's Government in this, as in other respects, is—I will not say to sit still but to go slow, and that they are awaiting the reports of the two expert Committees, appointed by the Reparation Commission, which are now sitting. I think, if that be so, they are acting wisely. When these gentlemen—men of the highest eminence and capacity—have reported, and I believe their labours are proceeding smoothly and satisfactorily, I think a real step forward will have been taken, and for my part I shall art-tempt to exercise no pressure upon His Majesty's Government to develop any quick or sudden or meteoric policy. I would far sooner that they wait until these Committees have reported, and very likely till the French Elections have taken place, before they decide upon their ultimate line of action.

There is one point which I had rather expected the noble and learned Viscount to mention, but to which he did not refer. One of his colleagues, Mr. Henderson, the Home Secretary, spoke in a recent address in the country about the desire or intention of His Majesty's Government to summon an international conference to deal with all these great issues. Perhaps if the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, replies later on he may have something to say about that. I will only, with regard to it, make two observations. The policy of conference is one of which some of us, at any rate, have long and not always happy experience. I suppose I have assisted myself at some twelve to fifteen Conferences, perhaps more. We had the Peace Conference to begin with, there was the Conference at Genoa, the Conference at The Hague, and a dozen or more of others, and merely to say that you are going into conference is surely not to advance a yard in the right direction. It all depends upon what the conference is, of whom it is composed, what are the terms of reference to the conference, what is the spirit in which it enters upon its duties: and, if I may respectfully add this word of advice to His Majesty's Government, if at any time they are contemplating such a conference, let them, in the first place, be sure that America comes in. Without America you will arrive at no permanent solution. Secondly, let them endeavour to secure that all the great nations of Europe, whether they were victors or vanquished in the late war, come in too. Thirdly, let them, should they succeed in summoning such a conference, not discuss a corner of the question, but the whole question of the recovery of Europe; and, fourthly, let them, if they can, before they enter into such a conference, or before they persuade others to enter into it, try to arrive at some sort of preliminary understanding upon the basis of which they are to proceed. Otherwise you will find that the new conference, like some of those which have preceded it, may turn out to be a fiasco. That is all I will say about France.

I pass on to the question about which the noble and learned Viscount said a few words—namely, disarmament. Here, if I may say so, he enunciated the soundest principles, and I was glad to notice that when they assumed a rather idealistic shape he told us that he was not dealing with the immediate present, but that he was looking to things that are far ahead. Upon the principle of disarmament I suppose there is no dissent anywhere, but when you begin to talk about disarmament of course the first thing you have to do is to persuade the people whom you are going to invite to disarm to agree that they will be as safe without forces as they are at present with them. I can only say, as regards my own experience, that all those younger struggling nations of Europe who have built up their national existence since the war are, so far as I have seen them, profoundly convinced that in the strength of their right hand, as measured by armaments, at any rate for the present, their safety must lie.

Then the noble and learned Viscount said a few words about defence, and no passage in his speech was, I am convinced, more warmly welcomed by the whole House than that in which he assured us that in this respect—and we accept his assurance—there will he continuity of policy. He spoke about the labours of the Standing Committee of Imperial Defence over which my noble friend Lord Salisbury has presided with so much ability and industry during the past year. Lord Haldane told us that it was his intention and desire to carry on the work in the same spirit. I hope that what he said on that point, although he did not expressly distinguish between the various fighting services, applied particularly to the Air. There is no subject upon which popular opinion in this country is more unanimous or more rightly convinced than this: that our inferiority, our almost dangerous inferiority, in respect of air defence is one that must be not only carefully scrutinized but removed. The Standing Committee in Lord Salisbury's time—many of us were members of it—laid down the principle that we should have in this country an Air Defence Force strong enough to protect us against attack from the strongest Air Force that might be directed against us within striking distance of these shores, and they began to work out a definite programme for carrying out that principle. Of course, it will only be slow. That sort of force cannot be built up in a moment, or in a year, or in a few years. I hope I may take the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack to mean that in that respect continuity will be pursued.

He did not tell us anything about Singapore, nor do I think it necessary for me to dilate upon that subject this afternoon, but this I may say, that the question of Singapore, which was one of those that excited the deepest interest and was discussed for the greatest length of time at the Imperial Conference only a few weeks ago, is one to which we on this side of the House attach very great importance, and it will certainly be brought before your Lordships' House. We shall deprecate very earnestly any attempt to depart from the decisions which were then arrived at.

There are several smaller points upon foreign affairs to which I had rather hoped the noble and learned Viscount would have alluded, but which, as ho refrained from doing so, I will pass over. I will only refer to points that were raised in a speech that I had to make in this House only a few weeks ago when I spoke of the Convention upon which I had been engaged for three or four years in endeavouring to conclude with France and Spain over Tangier. I said that we had come to an agreement and all that remained was for it to be signed by all the Parties. I have been informed that signature has now been given by Spain as well as by France and ourselves, and if that is true that obstacle is cleared out of the way. The second point, somewhat analogous in character, was the agreement we endeavoured to conclude in the last few months of our tenure of office with the United States of America over the question of the importation of liquor and the three-mile limit. I believe that also has been signed since we left Office, and if that is so it is a source of universal satisfaction. I would like in a sentence or two to express the hope that the present Government will take the same view with regard to the ratification of the Lausanne Treaty with Turkey that we did. Had we remained in power we should have brought it before your Lordships' House at the earliest possible moment in order to secure ratification. I do not doubt but that our successors will adopt the same policy, and when it comes before your Lordships will be the time to make any further observations about it.

The noble and learned Viscount said a word or two about the League of Nations, not in its wider or more general aspect but in relation to the desire of the Government so far as possible to prepare the way for the inclusion of Germany, and even of Russia, in that body. The House knows very well the conditions under which admission to the League of Nations is secured. There must be a majority of two-thirds of the Assembly, and the League of Nations has to be assured that the Party desiring admission has faithfully fulfilled its Treaty obligations, and so on. Our attitude about the admission of Germany has always remained the same. We have felt strongly that the League of Nations will never exercise that full measure of power which we desire unless Germany is included, and on every occasion our representatives, Lord Cecil and Lord Balfour in his time, have, gone to Geneva with instructions to that effect. Hitherto the objection has been twofold. In the first place, France has always taken the line that Germany could not safely be admitted because she was a defaulter and was not faithfully fulfilling her Treaty obligations. That opposition we have never been able to overcome. Latterly, so far from Germany being anxious or willing to join, she has herself objected to joining. Her reasons were that she looked upon the League as a body composed in the main of those nations which had vanquished her in the war, that she would not get equal treatment, and was doubtful whether she would obtain admission to the Council. She was most upset by the Resolutions arrived at by the League upon the question of Upper Silesia, and she declined to submit herself to the suffrages of the League. Therefore, if you wish to succeed in your policy, you have to overcome the hostility of France and the reluctance of Germany.

As regards the admission of Russia I must confess I think that is a matter which rests in a rather more distant future. There again you have to overcome the profound suspicion which is entertained of the League by Russia itself. When I was at Lausanne trying to persuade the Turks to enter the League the people who were always exerting their influence to prevent that result were the Russians. I am glad to say that they did not succeed, but that was their attitude.

I come now to the question of the recognition of the Soviet Government by His Majesty's Government. I had rather expected the noble and learned Viscount to enter into some defence of that movement on the part of the Government to which he belongs, and I am not certain whether it would not be better, instead of detaining and possibly wearying your Lordships now, to postpone to some other occasion when we can deal with the case rather more fully a discussion on the point. I will only say this, that no one on any side of any Party in politics has ever contemplated the permanent exclusion from the comity of nations, or recognition by us, of a nation of the size and importance of Russia with its 130,000,000 of people who are destined some day again to play a part comparable to that which they have played in the past. It has never been a question of principle with us or a question of peoples. It has been a question of the Government of Russia, and it is because the Government of Russia has been what it is that we have been unable, during the-years in which I have been associated with foreign affairs, to give recognition. When this matter comes up for discussion I shall be able to state quite clearly what are the conditions which over and over again we have laid down as necessary to be fulfilled by the Soviet Government before de jure recognition could be given by His Majesty's Government. Our view always was that these conditions must be satisfied before recognition could be given.

His Majesty's present Government have taken the other view. They have given recognition without any security that they will get fulfilment of the conditions at all. I think they have made a mistake, a very great mistake. They are looking forward to a conference with the Russians at a later date, but they will have no means of bringing any pressure to bear upon them except a desire to maintain our good will, and they will enter into a discussion of questions about debts, the confiscation of property and personal injury, and so on, with no guarantee that the Soviet authorities will take a different attitude from that which they have hitherto adopted. I have never observed that particular leopard change his spots, and even if it is brought to the friendly atmosphere which will be set up by His Majesty's Government in London I think they will find very great difficulty indeed in getting an acceptance of the conditions which in my view should have been required and insisted upon before recognition was given and which I think it is the greatest mistake in the world to have thrown away without any security that you will get what you want. However, I do not desire to develop that question to-day as another opportunity will occur of doing so.

I will only refer in a few sentences to another portion of the noble and learned Viscount's speech. He talked about unemployment and spoke in tones that moved us of the spectacle, so subversive of our social system, with which we are confronted in our great cities and towns. It is a phenomenon, a spectacle, with which we have been only too familiar since the war. It has been the subject of discussion by the Cabinet and by Committees, and has been examined over and over again during the past few years by the late Government, and the late Government introduced what we thought would be a possible remedy, which was not accepted by the country. We look forward eagerly to see what are the remedies which His Majesty's present advisers intend to suggest. I have not had the faintest indication from the speech of the noble and learned Viscount of what they are going to do—not the faintest—nothing but excellent aspirations and vague and unreal formulas; but as for concrete proposals or concrete facts, not a symptom, not an indication, not the tip of a finger nail. That being so, I cannot discuss a policy as to which I am entirely ignorant. All I would say is that as His Majesty's advisers proceed with their examination of the question I am sure it will be increasingly borne in upon them that much time, much labour and much money will be required. Unemployment cannot be solved without a vast expenditure of money. Where they are going to get it from, who knows? Are you going in for a policy of extended or unlimited relief by local authorities? Are you going in for a great scheme of Government credit? What are you going in for? Not until those questions are answered is it really of any use for us to discuss the matter in your Lordships' House.

The same applies to housing. The noble and learned Viscount said a few words about housing, and we know the hopes and aspirations with which his party is approaching the task. The Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in one of his early speeches, spoke of "Houses, houses, houses!" as the desideratum, and another Minister, the Minister of Health, said they were going to complete 200,000 houses a year. You will do nothing of the sort. It is very desirable that you should, but everybody knows that problems confront us regarding housing which cannot be solved in a few weeks or months. There is the shortage of labour, particularly in skilled industries, there is the cost of labour, and there is the dearth of material, quite apart from the great expenditure involved. I am sure we wish every success to the Government in their attempts to deal with this matter, but we, expect at an early date something rather more specific and practical than that which we have heard to-day.

I am bound to say that the first attempt of His Majesty's present advisers to deal with the social problem is one which inspires me with little confidence and which the noble and learned Viscount was, I think, singularly wise to say nothing about—I mean the bold and desperate plunge into Socialism which has been attempted by one of his colleagues without, as I am told, the knowledge of his fellow Ministers, and, I am quite certain, without the knowledge of the noble and learned Viscount, for it is inconceivable that he could approve of a policy so inconsistent with everything that he has said this afternoon. However, there it is ; and I have spent the last day or two in trying to understand from the explanations of the erring Minister what exactly he did and what exactly he meant to do, or rather, what he did not do. I think I can state in a sentence or two how the case appears to me to stand.

I will not discuss it, because I venture to hope that it will be raised here later on, but the case, as I understand it, is this. You have the Poplar Board of Guardians, who have been a byword in this country for years, I think, for their senseless and almost criminal extravagance. In Poplar it pays a man to be unemployed. He has a much better time than when he is hard at work, and the burden of supporting him in his unemployment falls upon the rates of all the more respectable elements in the community. This Board of Guardians have, as we know, greatly exceeded the scale of relief payments which is permitted by the law, and have incurred a surcharge of as much as £100,000. They have defied and ignored the Order of Sir Alfred Mond, a member of the Coalition Government, of 1922, and now comes the new Minister of Health who indemnifies them for their illegality and promises them exemption from the surcharge to which they are liable. What is even worse to my mind is this: they are practically told when they are given this indemnity that they can go on sinning in a like way in the future, for if they are permitted, with the sanction of the Government, to disobey the Order of Sir Alfred Mond in 1922, what is to prevent their ignoring the flat rate of 1923? This decision in the case of the Poplar Board of Guardians is particularly unwise if one looks at the encouragement which it gives to other bodies. What Poplar may do, why should not these do also? It seems to me, therefore, that this rather tentative leap into Socialism in practice is one which is a very dangerous portent for the country and which, if persisted in by His Majesty's present advisers, will be a direct encouragement to profligate expenditure.

There was one other subject to which the noble and learned Viscount alluded in a sentence, and here I must confess that I listened to what he said with great gratification. I hope I did not misinterpret him. He was speaking of Imperial Preference and of the decisions thereupon adopted at the recent Imperial Conference, and I understood him to say that there, too, His Majesty's Government would be disposed to observe continuity of policy and to treat the resolutions and decisions arrived at with the respect to which, I think, they are entitled. I hope I interpreted him correctly and that I do not exaggerate what he said. It is a point of great importance, because the idea has got abroad that the decisions of the late Imperial Conference with regard to Preference are likely to be unfairly treated by His Majesty's advisers.

Of course they have a perfect right to remit them to the judgment of Parliament, and I hope that we in this House will have an opportunity of expressing our opinions upon the subject. If the decisions that were taken there by the Dominion representatives are subject to the sanction of their Parliaments, the decisions of our representatives are equally subject to the overriding authority of this Parliament, but I should be very reluctant indeed to think that decisions so arrived at would be likely to be thrown on one side or cancelled, not merely on account of such views as I may hold as to their inherent merit, but because I shrink from any action that is likely to discourage the Dominions or to drive them into other courses, that is likely to make them say: "That which we cannot get from our friends at home we must look to get elsewhere.'' This would, so to speak, cast a cloud upon those occasional gatherings of the Imperial Conference to which our friends come thousands of miles from all parts of the world and which are vital as an instrument of Imperial unity. If you do anything to discourage them you really deal a blow at the Empire itself.

I think I have covered the whole of the points raised by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I have perhaps been occasionally critical, but I hope that in what I have said I have not been censorious or unfair. I would ask His Majesty's Government, in conclusion, if I may do so, to bear in mind the conditions of their existence both in this House and in the country. We are trying, to-day, an experiment that has never before, to my knowledge, been essayed in Great Britain. That is the experiment of a Government which is undertaking the task of ruling the country, whereas it only represents a minority of one-fourth of the electors and a minority of one-third of the votes in the popular Chamber. The Ministers are there by accident. They were not put there, or on the Front Bench on the other side of this House, by the voice of the nation, and they only can remain there so long as they receive some measure of support, I might almost say of toleration, from the other Parties in the State.

Surely it is quite plain that, under these conditions, a Government so placed cannot impose a policy of its own upon the nation. It cannot make experiments, whether legislative or administrative, to which the majority of the nation is opposed. In so far as His Majesty's Government recognise these limitations, and in so far as they direct themselves, in the spirit which animated the noble and learned Viscount's speech this afternoon, 10 the two great problems which he placed before us, namely—firstly, the appeasement of Europe, and, secondly, the recovery of industrial and economical prosperity in this country—so far may they rest assured of our assistance and support. It is an old tradition of the House of Lords which was never more often on the lips of any man than on the lips of the Duke of Wellington, that the King's Government must be carried on, and that it is the duty of noble Lords, members of this House, and of members of Parliament in general, to lend what aid they can to Ministers in their task. That aid, my Lords, I am sure that we all of us, within the measure of our capacity, are willing and anxious to give. But the manner of the giving, and the extent to which it is given, will depend not upon us, but upon Ministers themselves.

VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON

My Lords, I must ask your Lordships to extend to me while I make a personal explanation, the indulgence which you extended just a year ago to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead. In speaking from the Front Opposition Bench a year ago the noble and learned Earl was explaining to your Lordships that, although a member of the Conservative Party, he yet, as an ex-Minister, took his seat on the Front Opposition Bench, and he told your Lordships that his doing so had no political significance, but was due to the fact that, having been so long familiar with the support of the box when speaking, he felt that he might be at a disadvantage if he were deprived of it. Well, I have to explain why it is that we, who are ex-Ministers, are not sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. One explanation is obvious if you look at the crowded stale of the Front Opposition Bench. I have noticed a constant tendency for the Front Opposition Bench in this House to be a congested district, and in the interests of our own comfort, and the comfort of those who naturally occupy the Front Opposition Bench—members of the late Government—we have thought it in the general interest that those of us who represent the Liberal Party should sit separately on this side of the House, where we have now taken our seats.

But, having said so much, I would like to claim that ex-Ministers, or at any rate ex-Ministers who are Privy Councillors, are entitled by the courtesy and practice of this House to sit on the Front Opposition Bench, and to speak from the box. I was encouraged, by the vigour and humour of the noble Earl opposite, when last month he abandoned the box and spoke from the part of the House where I am now standing, to resign myself to speaking without the support of the box. It is some thirty-two years since I have spoken in Parliament without having that support, and I should like to try whether a renewal of my youthful experiment might not result in a pleasing experience of rejuvenescence. At the same time I should like to reserve for myself, and for other ex-Ministers who are Privy Councillors, the right whenever we shall wish, of sitting on the Front Opposition Bench and of speaking from, the box.

Now let me come to the political position. In every respect, except that I am speaking from the opposite side of the House, I find myself in precisely the same position as I did a year ago. A year ago there was a Government in power of a Party to which we did not belong, pledged not to undertake any controversial measures. Now there is a Government in office representing a Party to which' we do not belong, which is indeed not pledged to undertake no controversial measures, but which is compelled by circumstances not to do so. That being so, our position is precisely the same towards the present Government as it was towards the late Government a year ago. There are great problems before the country—problems which are difficult ones and which arouse sympathy and a keen desire to see them settled, and our attitude towards the present Government will be one of desiring, while we criticise, to make that criticism assisting and helpful, and of wishing them every success in the task before them. That is much what we said last year when a Conservative Government was in office and it is what we say and feel now, as to our attitude towards the present. Government, and I am bound to say that the speech of the Lord Chancellor this afternoon has given us every encouragement in that attitude. I did not detect in it a single tendency to develop that class consciousness which has sometimes been advocated, I do not say generally, but by some prominent members of the Labour Party. Indeed, if I had not been reading the newspapers, and had come to-day to the House to get my information from the proceedings this afternoon as to what was the condition of politics, I should have listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor without dreaming for a moment that he was representing a Labour Government, or that there had been this startling change. That makes it easy to support what he has said.

So far as the practice of the Government has gone, with the exception of this resission of the Poplar Guardians Order, to which the noble Marquess opposite referred, I have no criticism to make. Even as regards that Order I should like to have information. It appeared, when the announcement was first made, that it was a startling change, opening the door to, if not inviting, boards of guardians to indulge in prodigal expenditure. But subsequently there followed an announcement to the effect that it was nothing of the kind, that there had been subsequent Regulations, which rendered the previous Order antiquated and unnecessary, and that the cancellation of it was a matter of routine. I am left somewhat mystified as to what the real effect is, and I should be very grateful for any light that the Government can afford us to clear up the doubts left by those two very opposite views of what has actually been done.

In foreign affairs it seems as if there were in the atmosphere a more genial current. If that be so I am glad to think that everything the Government have said so far will tend to increase the geniality of that atmosphere, and to make possible, perhaps, something which has hitherto not been possible, but which has been much desired. I consider that there are two main problems in foreign politics which are at present unsolved, and of which it has been very difficult to see the solution. One problem was that, as regards our relations with France, there were two aspects of those relations which conflicted with each other. The first aspect was that the French were pursuing a policy in the Ruhr, and supporting an apparently discreditable Separatist movement, in which we could not co-operate. That policy was designed, we were told by France, to secure the payment of Reparations and ultimately to get security. The feeling entertained by those of us who differed from that policy, which made it impossible for us to advocate co-operation, was not that we disagreed with the objects. We wished France to have Reparations: we wished to see her get security. What made it impossible for us to co-operate was that we believed the policy she was following was one which would not get the Reparations, and in the long run would not produce the security, but would produce insecurity and trouble. That was our difficulty.

The other aspect of our relations with France was the undoubted fact that, without co-operation between Britain and France, there could be no beginning of relief to the troubles of Europe. Those were the two conflicting aspects of our relations with France and the problem was to reconcile them. It could only be done by the greatest good will, good sense, and moderation on both sides. So far as we can gather from the Press, there is at the present moment a greater tendency than there has yet been on the French side to endeavour to reconcile those two conflicting aspects of our relations. One cannot say more than that it is a tendency, that it seems to be in the atmosphere, that there is a feeling that the relations between the two countries, with the possibility of solving that apparently insoluble problem, are not quite so hopeless as they were a short time ago.

It is not worth while to go into the causes which may have brought that about—the causes which may have been operative in the French mind to affect the French point of view. All I would say is that, so far as I can gather from the line taken by the Government, from the utterances of the present Prime Minister, and from what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said to-day about our relations with France, the Government appear to be anxious, and the language which they hold is calculated, to take advantage of better opportunities, if there are better opportunities ; and I hope that the more favourable aspect of affairs of which we seem to see the beginning will be encouraged and strengthened, and that, while I agree with the noble Marquess opposite that it is desirable to go slowly in the matter, we may in the course of the next few months see at least some prospect of getting this apparently insoluble problem of Reparations and security on the way to a solution. Anyhow, I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far in the matter, though it is, of course, but a beginning; and we trust that they will continue in the policy they have so far adopted with regard to France.

The other problem in foreign affairs is to make the League of Nations a reality. The noble and learned Earl opposite (Lord Birkenhead) generally says, with regard to a speech advocating a League of Nations policy, that it is not worth while making it. All I will ask the noble und learned Earl, next time he criticises a League of Nations policy, is not to refrain from any criticism which he thinks just and necessary, but not to stop at the end of his criticism, but rather to show some better way, to make some better contribution than we can make for the improvement of the really dangerous state of affairs in Europe. The key to the reduction of armaments is to produce a sense of security. Armaments are built up because nations do not feel secure. Unless you can give them a security which they never felt before the war, and make them feel that it is real, there will be no progress with reduction of armaments, and the problem before His Majesty's Government is to make the League of Nations such a reality that we shall produce that sense of security.

As the Government are in earnest in the matter it is desirable that they should lose no opportunity of impressing upon other nations that it is only by adopting a League of Nations policy that there can be real and cordial co-operation between His is Majesty's Government and other Powers. That has got to be done inside the Foreign Office by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I do not in the least deprecate the fact that the Lord President of the Council is to deal with direct League of Nations business, but that, by itself, will not be enough. What we want, and what I do not believe we have had since the creation of the League of Nations, is that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the Foreign Office, shall deal so persistently with Ambassadors and representatives of foreign Powers that every one of them shall keep writing home to his Government to say that the British Government is in earnest about a League of Nations policy, and that in no other policy will there really be cordial and effective relations to produce security in Europe and the results which all nations desire to see.

I will not touch further upon that point, because the matter is raised in a concrete form by a Notice which the noble Viscount. Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has upon the Paper. But I would press upon His Majesty's Government that that is one practical suggestion—not the only possible one, but one practical suggestion, for making the League of Nations a reality and enabling it to give that sense of security to Europe which is essential for the reduction of armaments. I therefore urge on His Majesty's Government that they should be as specific as possible when they come to deal with Lord Cecil's Question, either in supporting the suggestion he makes or in showing that they themselves have some other practical and concrete suggestion, calculated to give the League of Nations that reality and strength which it has not yet had.

Now I have a word to say upon the recognition of the Soviet Government. I do not quite take the view of the noble Marquess opposite. I think you would have remained at a deadlock almost for ever had you said there was to be no de jure recognition till you had arranged all the conditions which had hitherto been stipulated for. The de jure recognition is not going to make much difference. It is not going to be of any practical value to the Soviet Government by itself. I do not see that we really surrender a lever or that we make a sacrifice in giving de jure recognition to the Soviet Government. The fact that they have de jure recognition will, I think, facilitate and make easier the negotiations about the conditions which we want to obtain. I do not consider that by granting de jure recognition we have given up anything which is material.

Indeed, I observe that the Soviet Government themselves, or such of them as speak with any courtesy of the de jure recognition—because some very influential persons in the Communist Party speak with considerable asperity, if not in dignity, about His Majesty's present Government, even though they know that the de jure recognition is proposed—or speak favourably of it and express then gratitude, clearly show that their gratitude for the de jure recognition coincides with that definition of gratitude which describes it as an expectation of favours to come. I would agree that before there be "any favours to come" resulting from the de jure recognition, there should be a very strict agreement as to the condition on which there is to be any cordiality or real co-operation between the two Governments. The de jure recognition must not be a one-sided affair. If there is to be de jure recognition of the Soviet Government by His Majesty's Government there must also be de jure recognition of His Majesty's Government by the Soviet Government. That means that the Soviet Government shall observe towards His Majesty's Government those amenities and abstentions from propaganda and interference which are always an essential condition of de jure recognition between any two Governments.

For many years it was my business as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs not only to receive but to maintain cordial relations with the Ambassador of Russia who represented a Government which was a despotism. The despotism of the Tsars of Russia was something which was alien to our own political ideas. Many of the acts of that despotism were repugnant to British ideas of how Governments should rule. But we made that no reason for not receiving an Ambassador from Russia or for not making those relations as cordial as possible. I had my difficulties. Some of the acts of the Tsarist despotism aroused feeling in certain sections in this country, and I was constantly impeded in relations with the Tsar's Government by those who raised questions of pogroms of Jews, the treatment of Poles and so forth. The experience of His Majesty's present Government after the de jure recognition will very likely be the same. They are recognising a despotism, because that is what the Soviet Govern- ment is. It is a despotism, and it is a despotism, we understand, supported not only by some of the same methods but by the very same secret police as those through which the Tsarist despotism acted, and many things done under it are as repugnant to our ideas of what Governments should do as was anything done under the government of the Tsar. Having dealt with Ambassadors of the Tsar's Government I am not in a position myself to make that any reason for objecting to His Majesty's Government's de jure recognition of the Soviet Government or their reception of an Ambassador from that Government. So far as they have gone I agree that they have done what I think had become inevitable. The time had come when it had to be done, and it was going to be done by others if not by us.

But what I would observe as the difference is this-—that those who were most active in criticising and embarrassing the Government of the day for acts of despotism done under the Tears are the people who are the most silent with regard to acts of a similar kind done under the Soviet Government. Let us be quite clear about what we are doing. I think that what the Government have done is right; but let us be quite clear that what they are recognising is not a Government based upon the will of the people but a despotism which rests upon force, and, though I think their action has been right, they must be prepared for the conditions which will follow and will have to be carefully watched. If, after the de jure recognition, the propaganda continues, I would observe that, had any of the Ambassadors whom we used to receive from the Tsars engaged while he was over here in attempts to subvert our Constitution, or had his Government engaged in any attempts to do it, he would have had to leave the country within twenty-four hours.

NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON

You cannot have it both ways. I agree that the fact that the Government is a despotism, and that we do not approve of what it does, is no reason why we should not give it de jure recognition and attempt to establish good relations with its representatives. But let us be quite clear that though that has been the case previously, if it is to be the case again the same conditions must be observed and the comity of nations must be respected on both sides. As regards encouraging trade—"which, I understand, is one of the reasons for the de jure recognition—there will be no improvement of trade, of course, from the de jure recognition. Improvement of trade can only come from the restoration and the development of the power of Russia to produce. That is mainly an internal affair. It is to our interest that it should be restored; but if His Majesty's Government are thinking of giving any help to the Russian Government in the form of credits or otherwise to enable trade to revive, I trust that they will be very sure, before they make any proposal of that kind to Parliament, that any assistance they may give will really be used in the way of restoring commercial productivity in Russia and not for other purposes.

I will only say a word or two about domestic affairs. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will not think me unkind if I say that I listened with great sympathy to all he said about unemployment and housing—and I recognise the truth of it; I recognise the sincerity and the desirability of the objects which His Majesty's Government have before them—but I am quite sure that had he or anyone else in the House of Commons made that speech upon unemployment and housing and social subjects and stopped where he did, the Leader of the Labour Party, in opposition, would have found it exceedingly disappointing in not going further. I do not say it is disappointing. We know the difficulties of these problems. We know perfectly well that the Government have good will. But they cannot expect us to express our complete confidence in their ability to solve these problems till the matter has been taken a good deal further than it was by the noble and learned Viscount this afternoon. We can believe that they do intend to take it further. If they are going to leave in abeyance the controversial questions of the last Election we are really anxious to see them succeed. We can generally say we wish them all success. We are left this afternoon, after the noble and learned Viscount's speech, not in a state which in any way damps our good will—rather our good will is encouraged, if anything, by the speech. We must describe our attitude as one of good will and of hopeful expectance for what we may hear later on.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, it is not my intention to detain your Lordships long from hearing the vindication of the Government's decisions which I have no doubt will proceed from the Lord President of the Council, but there are one or two topics upon which I propose very briefly to make a few observations. I have little to add to the exhaustive statement of policy made by the Leader of the Opposition, with which I find myself in full agreement I ought, I think, to add an observation on one small point. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of the arrangements that have been made in order to relieve the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack of one arduous side of his activities. The Lord Chancellor, as all of us know, is engaged with multifarious duties, not the least of which are those which are concerned with his judicial obligations.

I understand, though I had not the good fortune to be in the House at the time, that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack announced that he was relieved of that part of his anxieties by some arrangements which he had made with my noble and learned friend Lord Cave. This statement a little puzzles me. There are of course, four ex-Lord Chancellors who sit in this House. Of those the senior—I except the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who is now Lord Chancellor—is Lord Finlay, who was Attorney-General, I think, when my learned friend Lord Cave, for whom I have the most profound admiration, and I were both private members of the Bar. Lord Buckmaster was Lord Chancellor when I became Solicitor-General, and when my noble and learned friend was still a private member of the Bar. There are four ex-Lord Chancellors, as I have said, and my strongest advice to the noble and learned Viscount is that he should do what was done in former days when the Lord Chancellor was not appointed, but the whole Office was put into Commission. My strongest advice to him is that he should put his judicial side into Commission among the four former Lord Chancellors, who will undertake to discharge all those duties by arrangement among themselves as a committee. I am bound, without any hesitation, to make it quite plain that if the judicial side of my noble and learned friend is not committed to such a committee as I suggest but is committed to an individual—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I did not intend to convey what my noble and learned friend supposes when I spoke of being relieved. I referred, of course, not only to the ex-Lord Chancellor but also to other colleagues, the Law Lords. I do not think that I did anything amounting to more: if I did it was because I used language that was not sufficiently precise. I only referred to Lord Cave because it was with Lord Cave that I individually had talked about the matter. I do not want to put the judicial functions in Commission. I hope to exercise them where I can. It is only by an informal arrangement that I am acting otherwise.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I am glad to hear that. I think the noble and learned Viscount will find that he went a little beyond that when he reads the Official REPORT to-morrow. I assure him that he has only to ask all the ex-Lord Chancellors and they will sit whenever he asks them and wherever he asks them. That is only an ordinary arrangement.

I have listened to the observations which have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Fallodon. It is interesting, indeed, to observe that his attitude in relation to this Government is exactly what his attitude was in relation to the late Government. If I understand it aright, it was constantly one of friendly and of helpful criticism. I cannot help thinking that, having regard to the very extraordinary decision that was taken by the Liberal Party only a few weeks ago, they are well-advised to prepare themselves by every means in their power for an attitude of friendly and helpful criticism, for I cannot doubt that the rest of their political lives will be spent in that task. A man is well advised who prepares himself to acquire a mastery and an aptitude for those duties to which, it is so evident, the whole of his future must be devoted.

Observe the functions for which the noble Viscount is so admirably equipped. At this moment a Socialist Government, as to whose constitution I shall ask leave to say a word or two in a moment, is poised in uneasy equipoise in Office. A year ago it was a Conservative Government. When it was a Conservative Government the noble Viscount used to come here night after night at a moment when, occasionally, I was not in complete agreement with those who then led the Conservative Party in this House, and the noble Viscount, by the sincerity of his attachment to their cause and the exposition which he gave of that cause, used to supply a kind of moral correction to any criticism I was bold enough to produce. Now we find the noble Viscount reminding me, if I may say so without disrespect, almost of a Victorian figure in the waxworks of Madame Tussaud. We find the noble Viscount to-day rising to discharge precisely the same functions and apparently prepared indefinitely to continue them, and no doubt, if this Government disappears and another Conservative Government is formed, prepared to come forward and say: "Here we are in the same attitude of helpful friendliness." I am not as old in politics as the noble Viscount, but I confess I doubt whether he is indicating a promised land to those who sit around him. It is quite true that if you have no remedy for anything you will at least escape the charge of being called a quack, but I cannot discern any other prospect which lies in front of the noble Viscount and his friends.

I should have been interested, for instance, if the noble Viscount, in the short but interesting survey which he made of our domestic affairs, had attempted some kind of reply to the very forcible observations of the Leader of the Opposition concerning the subject of Poplar. That was a test question on which we should have greatly valued the helpful criticism of the noble Viscount. Let us not deceive ourselves as to what has happened at Poplar. The vital part of it is this. A surcharge, which was imposed after a quasi-judicial inquiry by a Government authority upon a board of guardians which had abused their duties, has been removed by a colleague of my noble and learned friend the Lord President of the Council. The only answer which up to the present has been attempted, or can be attempted, is that that surcharge had not been enforced by the two previous Ministers of Health. I am not anxious to underrate the weight, for it is con- siderable, of that reply, but it does not meet the gravamen of the charge. The gravamen of the charge is that by formally removing and abstaining, on political grounds, from enforcing the surcharge you have made it plain to the other guardians, and to the whole of the members of board of guardians in the country, that they may commit similar breaches of their duty and they will receive the support of this Government.

I most specifically invite the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, to state whether he associates himself with what has been done in the ease of Poplar, and on what ground he defends the removal of these surcharges; whether he suggests that the lesson will not inevitably be drawn by other boards of guardians in similar cases that they may commit any act of illegality they choose with the certain knowledge that the surcharge will be forgiven and wiped out by this Government. The principle strikes at the root of all stable government in this country, and it is a question to which not only were we as a Party committed but to which the Liberal Party, now happily reunited in fragments, is equally committed, because it is an Order of Sir Alfred Mond which is to be wiped out by the Government.

May I add one word only upon the speech of the noble Viscount? He spoke of something I had said, or had not said, about the League of Nations. I have always thought that I made quite as good speeches in favour of the League of Nations as anyone else, but I have always been of the opinion that to praise convincingly one must praise with discrimination. Many years ago—in 1918—I made a speech in the United States, for which I incurred great censure, in which I indicated a number of reasons which led me to the conclusion that the League of Nations in its then form could never be accepted by the American people. I was generally criticised for that speech. It has been my misfortune through life to have made sound and sane predictions which I have seldom been able to persuade anybody were sound and sane at the time I made them. It was the same with the prediction I made at that moment.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)

May I interrupt the noble and learned Earl in order to prevent any mistake? It could hardly have been in 1918, because the Covenant was not formulated until 1919.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Surely the Lord President of the Council, who is a great support and prop of the League of Nations, knows very well that President Wilson had indicated it before that date?

LORD PARMOOR

Certainly.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Really, the Lord President of the Council must adapt himself a little more pliantly to the conditions of debate. I did not wait until it was formulated in all its details. I assumed when it was formulated in many of its points by President Wilson, I forget how many, that its general conceptions were definite enough to permit an intelligent criticism. I made that intelligent criticism, and it proved to be entirely right. The noble Viscount says that recognition of Russia de jure was in his opinion justified. I am not, and never have been, a strong controversialist upon this point, but when it is said that recognition de jure and de facto must be reciprocal, my only answer is that it is not reciprocal in fact and that not one single condition has been imposed by this Government, before extending our recognition, which makes it reciprocal. I look upon it not in the least as a de jure recognition of a foreign nation but as a de facto and de jure, though strictly conditional, recognition of a Soviet economic political system which is not national. You are dealing not with the nation of Russia but with a number of Soviet communities who studiously abstain from ever using the name of the Russian Empire. They speak of themselves always as a body of Soviets, and any noble Lord will only mislead himself if he lends himself to the delusion that any concession of any kind has been promised or is contemplated by the Soviet Government. So much for general considerations. I have, in conclusion, to refer to a few points which the Lord President of the Council by his lucid style is specially qualified to answer, and I am quite certain that I shall not fail to obtain a satisfactory reply.

LORD PARMOOR

I will endeavour to reply.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I am sure you will. I have been attempting to analyse, and in the interests of the future constitution of this House we ought to analyse, what are the conditions in which the representatives of the Government in (his House find themselves? I desire first of all to associate myself most closely with what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has said, that our object is, and ought to be, to make their position easy. We exceed them so much numerically and they represent the Government in circumstances so difficult that I and, I am sure, all my colleagues realise our responsibility in not unduly adding to the difficulties of their position. But while I realise all this and in reasonable matters will give them all the support of which I am capable, I feel that our relations will be more friendly, more intelligent and more intimate, if we arrive at a clear understanding at the outset.

With that object in view I should like to know exactly how far the representatives of the Government in this House go upon matters which are fundamental. I see opposite to me the Lord President of the Council, who I understand is going to reply. His political career has been as versatile as it has been distinguished. He was for many years a member, a very active member and a very eloquent member, of the Tory Party. I forget for how many years he sat for a Buckinghamshire constituency, but years ago I seem to remember that he represented a Lancashire seat. His career is coming back to me quite suddenly. Then the ingratitude of a Lancashire population, especially when Protectionist policies are proposed, ejected the noble and learned Lord from that constituency, and he sought the rural comforts of Buckinghamshire. But always as a Tory. Then he was deservedly made a Peer by the Liberal Party, by Mr. Asquith. Having served an apprenticeship in the Tory Party—a much longer apprenticeship than that served for Rebecca—he received a Peerage from Mr. Asquith, and since then has sat in this House and contributed greatly to the interest and even to the duration of our debates for many years.

Now, quite unexpectedly, we wake up one morning and find that the noble and learned Lord has become a Socialist. When did the light of conversion strike through the sophisticated and experienced mind of my noble and learned friend ? He cannot surely have been converted in a night? There are instances on record in Holy Writ with which he is very familiar of changes of mind very suddenly produced, but did the noble and learned Lord feel any glimmering of salvation until the moment when it was known that Mr. Asquith was going to turn the late Government out? I have employed three most competent secretaries to look through any public utterances on the part of the noble and learned Lord which might give the slightest indication that he was being lead astray until the moment when Mr. Asquith made that spirited speech in which he announced to the Liberal Party that although he disagreed more with the Socialist Party than with the Conservative Party he intended to turn out the Conservative Party in order to put the Socialist Party in power.

I cannot make any similar criticism in relation to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, because I do remember quite plainly that the noble and learned Viscount informed the House at least three years ago that his mind was drifting gradually towards Socialism. I always expect, from a long knowledge, that any mind which has been given so long to philosophy as that of the noble and learned Viscount is likely in matters other than philosophical to be committed to grievous error, but at least I make this admission on behalf of the noble and learned Viscount that, at a time when there was no prospect at all of the Socialist Party coming into power, he incurred, I will not say the opprobium but certainly the criticism and the disapproval of many of your Lordships by announcing to us even then, when the admission had everything to repel and nothing to recommend it, that his mind was drifting muddily in the direction of Socialism. Consequently I do not in the least grudge the noble and learned Viscount his advancement to a rank which he adorns both by his professional and technical learning and which the moderation of his speech to-day seems altogether to justify.

But I must make an inquiry, also in the same spirit of cautious and, I hope, not impolite interrogation, as to the position of Lord Chelmsford. Years ago Lord Chelmsford was justly admired as the chairman—he will correct me if I am wrong—of the Dorsetshire Conservative Association, and I cannot tell you how many speeches the noble Lord made, if my information is correct, inculcating the doctrines of Conservatism in the simple-minded people of Dorsetshire. What is causing me so much anxiety at the moment is the thought of how many people there must be living in Dorsetshire to-day who are very likely repeating the errors so speciously put into their minds by the noble Lord in those clays. Then the noble Lord went to India, where he occupied with great distinction a very responsible rank. He comes back to this House, and he is welcomed by everyone as distinguished Viceroys always are welcomed. When did conversion come to him? He had not given the slightest indication of it until the very day on which we read that he had joined the Socialist Government. Are we not entitled to ask—not because we wish unduly to criticise—certain very plain questions of all these noble Lords ? I propose to ask those questions, and the Lord President of the Council has been kind enough to promise that he will try to answer them. The questions will, I promise him, be explicit and intelligible. No man is more capable of understanding an explicit and intelligible question, and I shall await the answer with great interest. In the first place, I exclude from the ambit of my questions, out of my respect for the office and because I think a Lord Chancellor ought to be protected from all criticism, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. But I address the following questions. Is the President of the Council a Socialist at all? Is the President of the Council opposed to the capitalist system? Have I made these questions precise enough ?

LORD PARMOOR

Quite clear, thank you.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Does the President of the Council propose to support his new allies in an avowed attempt, perhaps not proximate but quite definitely conveyed as their ultimate objective, to destroy the capitalist system ? In the next place, if the noble Lord, the President of the Council, has become an anti-capitalist Socialist, will he be good enough to explain to us when precisely he became one, because we should like to trace, if we might, as a method of pathological study, the stages of his mental degeneracy? Only a few weeks ago he was addressing us apparently in complete possession of his faculties. Only a few weeks ago he was sitting as a Law Lord with no symptom of mental decay. Are we to understand that this has come quite suddenly to him? The noble Lord shakes his head. Then for some considerable time he has been conscious of these anti-capitalist tendencies?

LORD PARMOOR

I will answer the noble Earl when the time comes.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I had to deal with that shake of the head, which was very emphatic. I found myself on that, and, since the noble Lord shook his head. I conclude that it has been coming on for a long time. Let us realise this quite plainly. So long as the President of the Council makes speeches of moderation and abstains from a policy of immoderation there is nobody in this House who has the slightest intention of embarrassing the necessary course of any Party which is carrying on the necessary tasks of the King's Government. But we do feel that we have a right to know whether noble Lords who sit opposite to us have joined that Government merely in pursuance of the general maxim of the Duke of Wellington that the King's Government must be carried on, or whether they joined that Government agreeing with its fundamental doctrines. And it is for an answer on that point that I ask the noble Lord, the President of the Council, these questions, and it is to an answer on that point that I think the House is entitled.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD)

My Lords, when a personal question is raised in this House your Lordships always give the kindest indulgence to one who has to reply to it, and I wish, in a very few words and as concisely as I can, to put my position absolutely clearly before this House and before the public generally. I should like to say at the outset that, so far as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is concerned, he understands exactly what my position is. He and I had it out on the clearest under- standing, and I will tell your Lordships in a few sentences exactly how I stand. Some three weeks ago the representatives of the nation in the other House determined that the Government then in power should come to an end, and they must be presumed to have intended the consequence of their acts—namely, that a Labour Government should take its place. The noble and learned Earl who has just sat down has reiterated the saying to which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition referred as being always on the lips of The Duke of Wellington, that the King's Government must be carried on. This House is part of the Constitution of the Realm. Noble Lords opposite have made great fun of us with our attenuated numbers on this side.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

No, no. Nobody has done that.

VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD

I think the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition was inclined to be a little amusing at our expense, but I would like noble Lords to ask themselves what would happen if my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, if my noble and learned friend the Lord President of the Council, and if I myself had not found ourselves able to come and represent His Majesty's Government at the present time in this House. I think it goes without saying that it is almost impossible for the present Labour Party to find those who would accept elevation to this House, and I feel sure that, without impertinence, I may be allowed to say that this House has welcomed and appreciates those noble Lords who took their seats to-day as representatives of His Majesty's Government. Therefore it was bound to be the case, if the Labour Party of itself could not find representatives to look after their business in this House, that they would be obliged to look to those detached from politics, and to ask them whether they would come in on certain conditions.

When I was approached by the Prime Minister it was made perfectly clear on what conditions I came in. I came in not as one who took the Labour label. I made that perfectly clear. I came in not as one who had taken the Labour label, but as one detached from politics, who was prepared, as a colleague, to help to carry on the King's Government on a disclosed programme. I was told before I accepted office what the policy of the Government was likely to be in the immediate future. It was distinctly understood between ourselves that, if occasion arose where I was unable to follow the policy of the present Government, it would be regarded as fair on both sides that I should give in my resignation. It was made quite clear that on the policy disclosed I was prepared to accept office as a colleague, ready loyally to cooperate on that programme. Those are the few words that I wished to address to you to-night. I think the noble and learned Earl will be satisfied with the absolute clearness of my position, and that it is on that great principle, that the King's Government must be carried on that I find myself able to come in and assist the Government while they hold the reins of office.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Of course the noble Viscount has made a very fair statement, but I assume that in the meantime he accepts, as the Constitution requires full responsibility for all Cabinet decisions.

VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD

Of course that is so. I cannot in any way divorce myself from any Cabinet decision. I accept full responsibility, and of course will be prepared to resign if, at any moment. I find myself in disagreement. That was clearly understood between myself and the Prime Minister, and I am really very grateful to the noble and learned Earl that he has given me this opportunity, at the earliest moment, of making my position absolutely clear in this House and in the country.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, there are so many matters that I have to deal with, some of them personal, that I propose to move the adjournment of the debate, in order that it may be resumed to-morrow. I propose that it shall be taken as the first Order to-morrow.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Lord Parmoor.]

THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I have no objection to raise to the Motion, and I think it would be most unreasonable and unfair to expect the noble and learned Lord, at this rather late hour, to deal with the questions raised; but can he give us any idea as to the future course of business?

LORD PARMOOR

So far as to-morrow is concerned there is a very important Question which is to be raised by Lord Cecil, on the subject of the League of Nations. That, I think, will take to-morrow to dispose of, having regard to the speech which is to be made in the first instance. On Thursday there is a Notice by Lord Strachie to call attention to the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. I am told, however, that Lord Strachie is ill, and that the matter will have to be put off. I am not aware of any other business for Thursday, and of course if there is no business I would not propose that the House should sit. Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to give a final answer to-morrow.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Of course that is a perfectly fair request, but what we would like to know, to-morrow, is what Government business is in prospect. I am not aware whether the Government propose any legislation, or have any business to submit to us. It will be greatly to our convenience if any statement to-morrow could include that information.

EARL RUSSELL

May I intervene before the Motion is put? To-morrow is a Wednesday, and I have a Question on the Paper. It would be contrary to practice for a private member's question to be postponed on that day till after Government business. No notice of any such intention has been given, and if the matter we are now discussing be adjourned it ought to come on to-morrow without taking precedence.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I could not quite hear what Lord Parmoor said, but he mentioned Lord Strachie. Lord Strachie asked me if I would make arrangements for postponing his Notice. Of course, that will be put down on a day which may be convenient to the noble Lord.

LORD PARMOOR

I hope to be in a position, to-morrow, to give the information which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, desires. At any rate it will be given to-morrow. I think it would be convenient that the adjournment should be in such a form that I can make my reply in continuance of the debate, and that the reply should have precedence to-morrow.

EARL RUSSELL

I must again rise to point nut that it is unusual to do that on a Wednesday. It would establish a very dangerous precedent in this House.

THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I do not think the precedent is such a dangerous one, and the noble Earl has set so many precedents in his life, dangerous or otherwise, that I do not think he will object to setting one more. I think it is for the general convenience of the House that the present discussion should be continued and disposed of first to-morrow. It has been done before, and I hope that the noble Earl will not insist too strongly.

EARL RUSSELL

Of course, I do not wish to stand between the House and anything which the House desires to do, but I do wish to point out that this procedure should not be adopted as a matter of course.

LORD PARMOOR

I hope the noble Earl will consider, in the circumstances, that the occasion is an exceptional one, and that it would be convenient to continue this debate first thing to-morrow. Then the noble Earl will have his opportunity. I therefore move that the debate be adjourned and that the continuance of this debate have precedence to-morrow.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.