HL Deb 14 February 1924 vol 56 cc160-80

LORD CHARNWOOD had the following Notice on the Paper :—

To call attention to the anxiety aroused in many quarters by obligations, apparently inconsistent with their allegiance, which the Prime Minister and others of His Majesty's Ministers are alleged to have incurred towards an international organisation, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will now make a statement by which the fear of divided allegiance on the part of the Prime Minister and other Ministers may be dispelled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put this Notice on the Paper I had no intention of embarrassing His Majesty's Government in any way. At that time, upon what appeared in the newspapers, I was really under the impression that by a sort of frank statement, which a person who has been rather indiscreet and hasty can generally make, the Government might actually strengthen their position.

I am bound to confess that during the last three days, on studying the facts a little more closely, I have ceased to have much hope that any answer which can be given to me will be altogether pleasant to make or pleasant to listen to. The short point to which I address myself is this. A little while ago, while he was Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister entered into a somewhat serious entanglement—an entanglement apparently quite inconsistent with the duty not merely of a Minister of the Crown but of any Englishman or any Scotsman ; an entanglement which still continues and may, upon the face of it, possibly become a serious one, perhaps not so probably while he is still Prime Minister as at some later time when he may again have become Leader of the Opposition and chief of a powerful Party in this State. I shall have to make a rather dry statement which, in order to be quite fair, must on some points be rather full, and I shall ask your Lordships' indulgence.

But may I say first that in a certain sense I am anything but hostile to the present Government. Referring more particularly, to members of the Government who are in the obvious sense of the word Labour men, and having some friends among them, it is the keenest pleasure and satisfaction to me to see such men brought into a more important position than over before in relation to the public affairs of this country, and if the answer of the noble Lord who replies to me to-day should for this occasion altogether confute and pulverise me, I sincerely believe that nobody will be more glad of it than myself. The transactions to which I am going to call your attention are set out for the most part in the Report of the Annual Conference of the Labour Party last year. I believe it is the noble and learned Lord below me (Lord Parmoor) who is going to reply to me, and very likely he has his copy of the Report.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes, I have it.

LORD CHARNWOOD

The transactions in question took place for the most part in May and June last year. For some months before that it appears that negotiations had been going on with a view to the "reconstruction of the International." May I say at once, in case it is necessary, that the International here referred to has nothing whatever to do with the body which has acquired rather a sinister, reputation under the name of the Third International. That is quite another body and has nothing to do with my remarks. This movement began with the attempt—the successful attempt—of two great Socialist organisations in Germany to unite with one another. May I again say that it is not, to my mind, a point against this combination that it should first have originated among German Socialists. I have no very warm feeling either towards Germany or towards Socialists in general, but I am under the impression that the soundest elements in German political life are to be found among the ranks of the Socialists there. This movement, begun among them, was characterised by growing intimacy with the French and British Socialist Parties, an intimacy which was evidently warmly reciprocated upon this side of the water. In the negotiations a prominent part was taken by Mr. Henderson, now Home Secretary and then already a Privy Councillor, whom I have to mention by name because he played a particularly responsible part in the proceedings which followed.

There took place in May last a great Labour and Socialist Conference at Hamburg. This was attended by a large delegation from this country representing the Labour Party and other bodies, including, for example, the Fabian Society; but we are told that they acted for practical purposes as one delegation representing what are called the Labour forces in this country. The present Prime Minister was nominated as a delegate, but, being Leader of the Opposition, found himself unable to attend. Others of his colleagues were present. Mr. Henderson took a very prominent part in the drawing up of the constitution to which, in a moment, I shall have to refer. There were others whom I need not mention, but perhaps I may properly say that the President of the Board of Trade and Mrs. Webb were among them. At that Congress there was a great deal of discussion on the international situation of Europe, a discussion which is worth some study in several points, but I do not at this moment want to widen the area of possible dispute here. I will, therefore, only say this of the recorded proceedings of that conference, that evidently these ladies and gentlemen designed for themselves an extremely important part in the international affairs of Europe; that that part was, with obvious sincerity, directed towards the promotion of peace between nations, but not so much, it would appear, towards the promotion of peace within those nations; and that—this I think is putting it quite fairly—for the achievement of their aims the members of that Congress obviously placed very little reliance indeed upon the recognised forms of constitutional government through the votes of the citizens of a country at large-There is one other detail about the Congress to which, in fairness, I must call attention. In the constitution which was then drawn up for the new International the British delegation were, of course, a small minority of the whole conference and they were a small minority of the executive committee which was set up. But there was also set up an administrative committee, on which, with one notable exception, all the members were British delegates. I mention that because it is fair to say that obviously it was part of the design of Ministers who entered into the formation of this International that they should exercise considerable power of applying the brake to rash or dangerous proceedings on the part of the International. The headquarters and secretariat were to be in London and this administrative committee, predominantly British, was to have (special power of control over the secretariat.

Now I come to the point of main importance—that is to say, the principle set forth in the beginning of the constitution, partly drawn up by the Home Secretary, which was unanimously adopted. It opens thus— (1) The Labour and Socialist International (L.S.I.) is a union of such parties as accept the principle of the economic emancipation of the workers from capitalist domination and the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth as their object and the class struggle which finds its expression in the independent political and industrial action of the worker's organisations as a means of realising that object. (2) The object of the L.S.I. is to unify the activities of the affiliated parties, to arrange common action, and to bring about the entire unification of the International Labour and Socialist movement on the basis of this constitution. The Parties associated in the L.S.I. undertake not to affiliate to any other political International. (3) The Labour and Socialist International can only become a reality if its decisions in all international questions are binding on its affiliated bodies. The resolutions of the International will therefore imply a self-imposed limitation of the autonomy of the affiliated organisations. (4) The L.S.I. is not only an effective instrument in peace but just as absolutely essential during war. In conflicts between nations the International shall be recognised as the highest authority. Is there any ambiguity whatever about that ? If it was seriously intended, can there be any doubt that if the Labour Party, or the present Prime Minister, adopted that principle, they would be doing an act which, whether they intended it or not, quite plainly conflicted with their loyalty not only as Ministers of the Crown but as plain Englishmen or Scotsmen.

The question which I must ask is: How-far did either the Labour Party or the Prime Minister render this declaration of principle binding on themselves? So far as; I know, the only action of the Labour Party in the matter has been the passing of a resolution in the following month, June, at the Congress of the Labour Party. The resolution was moved by the present Prime Minister. It is rhetorical and very long, an omnibus resolution dealing with many matters, but I ought to read the opening sentences—

" THE NEW INTERNATIONAL.

The Conference warmly welcomes the amalgamation, recently brought about at the Hamburg Congress of the Second International and the Vienna Union of Socialist Parties into one united Labour and Socialist International, with its secretariat in London. It hopes that the movement for unity may before long, receive further extension. It notes with pleasure the important place attributed by our Continental and American comrades to the British Labour Party, and realises that a great responsibility is thus placed upon our Party in the Labour and Socialist movement of the world. Then the resolution goes on for at least a column in length, lumping together with this International question such subjects as the Ruhr, Reparation and Peace, Russia, and the Reaction in Europe.

I am not prepared to say that there are any words in what I have read which do distinctly affiliate the Labour Party to this International, and I am prepared to say that if that was the intention of the resolution if was drafted with a singular want of candour and openness towards the members of the Labour Party who were present at, the Congress and who unanimously adopted it. I am also prepared to say that the affiliation of the Labour Party to this International was the plain intention of the Prime Minister in moving that resolution, and I say that for this reason. It is not for one minute denied that the Prime Minister and certain of his colleagues the other day resigned the seats which they then occupied upon the administrative commitree of this International. That has been announced, I understand, on behalf of their Party, as a singular and important thing. But, your Lordships will see that it is not. They resigned those seats; therefore, they had previously occupied them, and there is no possible capacity or title in which they could have occupied those seats except as the delegates of a Parry in this country which was affiliated to the International and which accepted that statement of principle which I read out to your Lordships a moment ago. I do not quite see how that can be denied.

The Ministers in question have resigned their positions on the administrative committee to which I referred and on the executive. In regard to the executive, it was a provision of its constitution that upon becoming members of any Government they ipso facto vacated their seats upon it. It was a further provision that directly they passed again into Opposition they were entitled to be nominated again as members of the executive. They could not very well, so far as I can see, have done otherwise than also resign their positions on that administrative committee, and in resigning those positions they did give away, they had to give away, a certain power of salutary check which I conceive they proposed to exercise on possible proceedings of the International. But it cannot for a moment be suggested that in vacating his official position upon the International the Prime Minister throw over his allegiance as a member of that august body. The suggestion would be too dishonouring to the Prime Minister to be possibly made that, in throwing aside his official position, he east off his allegiance to his former associates. It might just as well be said that should he cease to be Prime Minister he would cast off his allegiance to this country.

I must say that this business has been made worse by the evasive manner in which it has been publicly treated. Some of your Lordships will recall a former scandal of quite a different kind connected with certain Marconi shares, when certain statesmen, then on the eve of rising to positions of great power, made a solemn declaration in the House of Commons that they did not hold any English Marconi shares, a statement which was literally true, but which I think every one of them must have regretted so much ever since that. I refer to it only because somewhat similar declarations have been made just now in this connection. To begin with the least of them, the Prime Minister a few days ago rose in the House of Commons—he was not yet Prime Minister—and eagerly interrupted another speaker in order to make the remark that this body, the International in question, does not meet in Hamburg. That was perfectly correct. This body has no fixed place of meeting in Hamburg, only as it happens, in the course of its short life of eight months, it had had one solitary meeting, which did take place in Hamburg. That is a matter of fact. There is no reason that I can see why it should not, have been held in Hamburg, but one wonders why these august persons descend to quibbling observations of that character.

Now comes a far more serious point. It was later announced on behalf of the Labour Party that these gentlemen have, as I have said, vacated certain official positions in this international body. Can there be any doubt that this literally true statement was intended to create a seriously false impression upon the public mind? Why was it made, unless to convey the idea that these gentlemen were no longer entangled in any commitments such as are involved by that constitution which I quoted to your Lordships? I am perfectly certain that the answer which will be given me to-day will be free from any such evasive treatment of what after all, is a somewhat serious matter.

May I now, without wearying your Lordships too much, make a further reference to the real seriousness which attaches to this business ? Of course we are all concerned that the action of our eminent public men should be entirely and altogether above board and free from ambiguity, but apart from that, there is, I think, a certain international importance attaching to this matter, an importance which arises from its bearing upon the foreign affairs of this country. The noble and learned Lord who is going to answer me spoke yesterday—I have only read his speech, but he would have had, to that extent, my most entire sympathy—about the policy regarding the League of Nations for which he stands and to which the Prime Minister has, as I understand him, enthusiastically committed himself.

The League of Nations is a League of established Governments. My own criticism upon the Covenant of the League would be inclined to be that it is too much a League of established Powers with their existing territories. That may be inevitable, but, at any rate, it is a League in which nations are represented by their established Governments. Is an effective League of Nations compatible with another international movement, which, as I think will be seen from a study of the proceedings at Hamburg to which I have referred, takes very little account indeed of established Governments, and in the case of certain countries, at any rate, is an association of Parties who are most violently and truculently opposed to the established Governments of their own countries. To which of the two Covenants does the Prime Minister pin himself? I know, of course, to which of them the noble and learned Lord pins himself, but for the Prime Minister, is it the Covenant of the League of Nations, or is it this covenant, which he is loyally bound to observe?

There is one quite minor but, I think, really picturesquely lurid illustration that I will venture to give your Lordships of the sort of embarrassment that is inherent in this attempt simultaneously to promote the League of Nations as covenanted for and the kind of international combinations which this great Socialistic combine represents. Among the Prime Ministers who will be our Prime Minister's colleagues as representatives of the countries in the League is the Prime Minister of Austria, but in another capacity our Prime Minister had, the other day, a colleague, and has to-day an official superior, Mr. Friedrich Adler, the General Secretary of the new International and the only non-British member of the administrative council to which I have referred.

Well, my Lords, a few years ago Mr. Friedrich Adler murdered the then Prime Minister of Austria. Of course, it is the sort of act for which people plead the damning excuse of political assassination when political liberties are in suspense. Still he did it, and I am sure my noble friend would not regard it as otherwise than, at all events, a breach of good taste. The same Mr. Adler is to-day a member of the Austrian Parliament, in vehement and prominent opposition to the existing Austrian Prime Minister. Is there any reason of principle why he should not murder the present Austrian Prime Minister—our Prime Minister's associate on the League of Nations? Very likely he will not. I imagine that murdering Prime Ministers is the sort of sport which one indulges in in the heyday of one's pacifist youth, if one is a pacifist as this gentleman was, but a sport which would very quickly satiate even a pacifist's toleration of dark deeds. Presumably, the Austrian Prime Minister is quite safe, and the embarrassment of our Prime Minister in this double association will not be so acute as might at first appear. Still, there are very likely to be real embarrassments arising out of this attempt to ride two international horses at the same time.

I do not want to go into details. There happens to be a country which is rather a storm centre, in which even my remarks might be heard, and I wish to treat this matter rather allusively. May I make an appeal to the noble and learned Lord who is going to answer me ? I have not intentionally said anything in my speech which should be unduly embarrassing in any way to him. If he will permit me to say so, I recognise the difficulties of his position, and I conceive him and his colleagues at this moment to be courageously undertaking a patriotic task. But as I understand he will generally be the representative of the League of Nations in this House, I would invite his careful study of some points in the Report of those proceedings at Hamburg, and I would invite him seriously to consider the position of his Government in relation to the, present Government of Italy, and in relation particularly—this may be important—to the Hungarian Government., and, above all, to the existing constitution of the League of Nations, on which I think, on page 12 of the Labour Party's Report, he will find some rather drastic observations.

I have tried not to put the importance of this matter too high. The Government consists, in part—the most solid and respected part of the Government—of Labour leaders, and, if I may respectfully say so, I sympathise very much with the Labour leaders in the difficult path which, throughout their careers, they are in one way or another perpetually having to tread. But it is the special temptation of people in that sort of position to be from time to time making these attempts, such as was made in those proceedings at Hamburg, simultaneously to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. It is a dangerous attempt at all times. Then there is the Prime Minister He is not by any means a Labour leader, but, on the contrary, that accomplished and aspiring Minister stands at the present day before the world as the leading representative in the world of what the papers nowadays call "intellectuals." Is it not evident from what I have said to your Lordships about his former dealings with this international organisation, and about the loyalty which he is hound in some way to feel towards it, and the bonds of which must begin to weigh on him at any rate when ho returns to a position of opposition—is it not evident that he stands to-day rather at a parting of the ways in this respect ? I know that it would be quite easy to exaggerate, and unduly to embitter, the consideration of this matter which I have laid before you, but it is at any rate of certain practical importance, and I make no apology whatsoever for having attempted to put the matter plainly before your Lordships.

THE DUKE OF NOETHUMBEBLAND

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is to be congratulated upon having brought this matter to the attention of the House. He indicated that he did not know exactly how much importance ought to be attached to it, but I do not think that too much importance can be attached to it. If the relations between the Party now in power in this country and this foreign organisation, which has recently promulgated this new international gospel from Hamburg, were a matter which stood by itself, it would be serious enough, but in that case it might perhaps have been deemed that it was due to lack of experience or lack of forethought, on the part of those who entered into those relations. In that case it might have been a mistake to attach any great importance to it. But it does not stand by itself. When we remember what the history of this International Labour movement is, and consider the methods which have been pursued in the past, since 1864. when this International Labour movement was first formed, and consider also the influences which have always been behind it, and its disastrous results on our own Labour Party in this country, the matter assumes a very much graver aspect.

It is an historical fact that from 1864 until the outbreak of the great war the International Labour movement has been, except at very rare intervals, dominated and controlled by the German Social Democratic Party. Marx, though he was not the original founder of that Party, very soon—in 1865—managed to obtain control of the movement, and Marx was himself merely an agent of Bismarck's. The German Social Democratic Party was used until l914 merely as an agent, a weapon, by the German Government. It was used as a tool for undermining and corrupting the British and French Labour movements. This was very soon realised by those patriotic British and French Labour leaders who had no intention of being controlled by the German Social Democratic Party, and that led to a series of breaches or schisms in the movement by which the British and French Socialists split off from the International. But no sooner did this International organisation come together again than, once more, the German Social Democratic Party somehow or other managed to obtain control.

The whole story of these intrigues rests on undoubted evidence. It rests on the evidence of reliable historians and on that of the most eminent Socialists themselves. No less an authority than the late veteran Socialist, Mr. Hyndman—who was closely associated with this movement from the very beginning and who (a thing which cannot always be said of every Socialist) was a patriotic Englishman, a man of great intelligence and integrity—has recorded the whole history of these intrigues, and he did his utmost to combat them. He is dead, and unfortunately we cannot quote him except from his writings. But there is another veteran Socialist, who is still with us, Mr. Adolphe Smith, who has been associated with this International Labour movement from the very beginning. He fought in the Paris Commune, and he acted as official interpreter to successive congresses until quite recent years, when he had to give up that position owing to old ago. He is a man who is universally respected in the Socialist movement, and no greater authority could possibly be quoted than Mr. Smith. He also has given us a history of these intrigues, and I propose to quote him shortly.

The efforts to prevent these German intrigues were unsuccessful. On the outbreak of war, contrary to the expectations of our Socialists and the Socialists of France, the German Social Democratic Party almost to a man lent their enthusiastic support to their own Government, abandoned all the visionary aims of universal peace which had proved so useful in order to gull the Socialists of other nations, and, in the words of Mr. Hyndman himself, in his book, "The Evolution of Revolution," they "betrayed the whole International Socialist movement." On the outbreak of war the majority of the British Labour Party proved themselves to be loyal subjects of His Majesty and patriotic citizens. That section of the Party, however, which went under the name of the Independent Labour Party may be said without exaggeration to have, in effect, espoused the cause of Germany. Their leader, the present Prime Minister, asserted that the war was due to the Machiavellian intrigues of Lord Grey; he said that Belgium was only a pretext for an utterly unjustifiable war, and that the war was only fought in order to give the British Navy a little battle practice. And, not content with this, he and several of his colleagues formed an organisation called the. Union of Democratic Control, which placed every possible obstacle in the way of our Government in the prosecution of the war. Their activities were described at the time, in another place, as seditious and treasonable. Not being a lawyer I do not know what the legal and technical definitions of those terms may be, but I do know that in the sense in which the words are ordinarily used by ordinary people their activities were both seditious and treasonable.

The high-water mark of this disloyal conduct was reached in June, 1917, when, at a bogus trade union conference, which was universally repudiated by all the patriotic Labour leaders, these gentlemen supported a resolution to form workers' and soldiers' councils in this country. It is little wonder, in view of these circumstances, that the German Press expressed its heartfelt gratitude for their efforts, and that German generals and statesmen, as we now know from their memoirs, relied very largely on the support which they were receiving from these persons in order to bring about the defeat of this country. It may, of course, be urged that the action which these gentlemen took during the war was not due to any influence which had been brought to bear upon them by German Socialists in the period prior to the war. All I can say is that it was the opinion of their own Labour colleagues and friends that it was due to that influence, and many of them even ascribed that result to corruption. I do not say that Mr. Hyndman himself actually used that term, but certainly others did, and Mr. Hyndman made no secret of the fact that he considered that their conduct during the war was entirely due to the under-mining and disintegrating influence which the German Socialist leaders had been able to bring to bear on them in the period before the war.

Such was the result of German intrigue, such the result of German control of the Socialist International. In spite of the success of this German propaganda in undermining British Labour, its leaders walked straight into the same trap the moment war was over. Mr. Adolphe Smith says— The Labour Party was inveigled into sending delegates to the German whitewashing conference held at Berne in 1919, and the similar gathering at Lucerne. At Berne especially the Labour Party representatives scandalised the onlooking representatives of the European Press by their friendly intercourse with some of the worst German and Bolshevist agents—men of such character that they were driven out of Switzerland by the police. Then later, in August, 1920. a better and more reputable International Congress was hold at Geneva, where the champagne provided by German and Bolshevist agents was less in evidence, but the British Labour Party was there helping Germany in preference to France. As to the Hamburg International, we have been told by Socialist spokesmen that it is not in any way controlled by Germans because they are in a minority on its executive. That proves nothing at all. The, point is : Have they, or have they not, undue influence at its meetings? Have they, or have they not, undue influence in the decisions reached at those meetings? On this subject Mr. Adolphe Smith is very emphatic. He says— Its principal officials and promoters are notorious for their pro-German policy. If the Governments of the Allied Powers would only publish what they know about the delegates who attended the Hamburg Congress"— that is, the Congress held last summer— as representatives of the Allied nations, there would be startling revelations. The winder is that a greater number of them wore not idiot while the D.O.R.A. laws of the various countries concerned were still in force. That is the evidence of a Socialist, of one of the most respected members of the Socialist Party in this country.

I have no inside information regarding these delegates, but we do know something about the officials of this wonderful International, and the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, has recently given us some particulars regarding its secretary, who was unfortunate in having committed a murder—he murdered his own Prime Minister. It is really a rather important matter. The Socialist Party always professes to be actuated by much higher motives and to have an altogether nobler moral standard than any other Party or section of the community. We have been recently informed by the present Prime Minister that his Party has sot out on the quest for the Holy Grail. I have not the faintest idea, of course, what that means, but obviously it implies some very high and noble aim. I suggest that it seems almost a pity to embark upon so sacred an enterprise in the company of an assassin.

The serious feature of this Hamburg International is that all the measures which were formerly adopted by responsible British and French Labour Leaders for preventing the International becoming a focus of intrigue have all been thrown away. For instance, in the old days before the war—and even in those days these precautions were unavailing, I admit—there was no general council or executive bureau because it was realised that a centralised authority would be very likely to become a centre for intrigue. Also it had no permanent secretary. Not only had it no murderer for secretary, but if, had no permanent secretary at all. The secretary of the country in which the annual congress was held acted as secretary for the time being and, of course, as soon as his lime was over he gave way to another secretary. The most careful precautions were also taken in chose days to prevent the possibility of any snatch votes. In order to prevent that, the programmes which were going to be discussed at the various conferences were printed a long time beforehand so that the delegates might have full warning of the subjects they were going to consider. All these precautions have been thrown to the winds and, with what is really incredible levity, twenty-one British delegates at Hamburg, out of a total of 462 of all nations, have committed their Party, which now numbers nearly 5,000,000 British citizens, to a policy whereby they will be controlled in time of war not by their own Government but by what is really a gang of International revolutionaries. I really do not think that the importance and the seriousness of this situation could possibly be exaggerated.

In the course of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, said that there was no comparison and no connection at all between this Hamburg International and the International of Moscow. Well, that is correct up to a certain point, but it is not a very full and complete description. As a matter of fact, we now know that only two years ago our Prime Minister was trying to unite these two Internationals. Considering that the Labour Party has always said that it has nothing whatever in common with Moscow and its aims and ideas, and that they were absolutely different from theirs, it seems rather extraordinary that they should have been trying to unite these two movements and to bring about co-operation between them. It I is also noteworthy that the only reason for the failure of this attempt to unite them was not that the Bolsheviks were people with whom no self-respecting persons ought to have any dealings—not at all. It was only because they adopted different methods. The British Labour Party believed in securing the adhesion of all trade unions in the in-interests of Socialism. The Bolsheviks do not believe in trade unionism and mean to smash it. That was only a difference of method. There was no suggestion in these regotiations that their aims were repudiated by the Labour Party or that there was any radical difference in the ultimate results which these two policies had in view. They are inextricably intermingled one with the other.

For instance, in 1919 the Secretary of the Transport Workers' Federation went to Moscow and formed what was known as the British branch of the Red Trade Union International. That I is still going on. I believe he is still its president and that it is financed from Moscow. But that gentleman remained for at least two years, if not more, after he had formed that British branch of the Red Trade Union, a member of the national executive of the Labour Party; so that here is a gentle-man who is on the national executive of the Labour Party and at the same time an official of a body the object of whose existence is to smash the Trade Union movement altogether, to ruin; the Labour Party, and to ruin every institution in this country. This matter is not, perhaps, strictly relevant to the Question which the noble Lord has asked: but, of course, if the Lord President of the Council will be good enough to give us any explanation of these very strange circumstances I feel sure we shall all be very much obliged. In any case. I hope that Parliament will insist upon the Government which is at present in power withdrawing its adhesion altogether from the constitution of this International, which is really nothing but a gang of international conspirators.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the very clear way in which the noble Duke has approached what he describes as this difficult question. I think also, although I sympathise with what he has said, that it is impossible for me on this Question and on this occasion to go through the history of the International Labour movement abroad and in this country during the last fifty years or so. That would be quite impossible, and I am sure that he realises it. The real point on which I will seek to answer his speech shortly—because I want to refer first to what the noble Lord, Lord Chan-wood said is this : I think he has mistaken the relationship of these international bodies with the Labour Party in this country; because that is the gist of the attack which he has made. If that link is broken, then what he has said about these various international movements becomes of little importance in the answer that I have to give, although I agree, as everyone must agree, that great movements of this kind have to be carefully watched and must have an enormous influence.

Before I come to the answer to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, there are one or two matters with which I should like, to deal. In the first place, although I will not read it to your Lordships as I dare say you have noticed it, a Question on the very same point, if not in quite the same language, was addressed to the Prime Minister in another place after he had become Prime Minister, and he gave an answer showing that so far as the Labour Party were concerned they were entirely independent; that such association as existed in international organisations of this kind was purely voluntary; and that what the Labour Party stood by, and will stand by, is the foreign policy which they put forward in their Election addresses at the time of the General Election. I think-that is very good sense. I want to say a little more upon that matter, but that is the answer which was given by the Prime Minister in the other House and no further question, so far as I know, has been raised about it. The Question was asked, I think, on Tuesday.

Now let me refer a little more in detail to what the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, said. It is not for me to cavil at his Question: but I think it is a rather strong thing, in reference to a Prime Minister, to ask the Lord Chancellor—for whom I am replying—"to make a statement by which the fear of divided allegiance on the part of the Prime Minister and other Ministers may be dispelled." I make that statement in the frankest and strongest terms, but I doubt, whether I ought to be called upon to make it. It is a very serious suggestion to make in reference to a Prime Minister that there is any fear of a divided allegiance. There is not. I believe, a shadow of truth in this suggestion. I am sure that if would be repudiated by a great many members of this House and by the great majority of the people of this country, whether they agree with he views which have been expressed by the Prime Minister or not. But I do not think anyone who either knows him, or is acquainted with his public utterances, can think that such a suggestion is possible at all in connection with his name.

The noble Lord also expressed the hope that my answer would be satisfactory. Well, I hoped so when he began, and I will try to make it satisfactory. But when he had spoken of the matter of the Marconi shares, although he had said that he wished to be moderate, I noticed that as regards various members of the Party to which I belong, and some of the very eminent among them, he used the expressions "quibbling," "spurious," "false" and "evasive" in reference to statements which they have made. I took those words down at the time. I think they are rather strong.

LORD CHARNWOOD

I do not think I used the word false.

LORD PARMOOR

I took the words down, carefully at the tame. If I have gone beyond the statement that was made I apologise immediately. When I heard language of that kind, and got into the neighbourhood of the Marconi share I felt that perhaps a satisfactory answer would be difficult. When I come to the answer itself it really is a very simple one. I hope the noble Duke will follow closely what I say. The International, by which no doubt he means the Hamburg International, met in 1923. I suppose it has had a history. All these organisations have. When it was reconstituted on that occasion, as the Prime Minister himself stated quite frankly, there was what he called an affiliation of the Labour Party, but the affiliation of the Labour Party, as he pointed out, was a purely voluntary association. So far from there being anything in the nature of a divided allegiance, the Labour Party expressed—and expressed in language which I think is perfectly direct and lucid—what their foreign policy would be at the time of the General Election. Your Lordships may agree with that policy or not, but that is not the question. Is there really anyone who does not know what the policy of the Labour Party was at the time of the General Election; and is there anyone who for a moment doubts that that policy is what will guide their action in the future as it guides it at the present time?

Perhaps it was an accident, but it so happened that the foreign policy of all the Parties was, as stated by their leaders, very much the same. I believe that every Party brought forward, in substance, the same view, whether it was expressed by the present Prime Minister or the late Prime Minister. In some respects one might quote them as using the same words. They all dwelt on the necessity of peace, on the advantage of introducing a more friendly spirit, particularly between France and Germany, and of the immense economic loss to this country through our own markets on the Continent being disturbed. I think they all followed that up with the further suggestion, or note, that one of the avenues by which a better condition of things might be brought about was through the League of Nations, with which I am now personally connected through the office that I hold. I cannot imagine a more impossible suggestion than that which was made by the noble Lord that the Prime Minister has taken an attitude inconsistent with what he has always avowed that is, intense admiration for the principle of the League of Nations. Having regard to his whole political life and political outlook, to suggest anything of that sort is absurd.

This society in question is like many other international societies. I belong to one myself called the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendliness through the Churches, a very similar organisation, in which we all agree to work together and do what we can to bring about a friendly spirit. It is an organisation any one can leave any day that he chooses. The Prime Minister himself likened the international organisation, in respect of which he was attacked, to the League of Nations. I need not go further in that direction. When we come to the facts of this case I should like to say a word or two, particularly in the hearing of his Grace the Duke of Northumberland. I would ask him if he would—I know that he would be likely to take the trouble—in order that his mind might be set at rest, to read the draft resolutions. I cannot read them because they are much too long. They are the only resolutions that have been passed by this international body. Here they are. They were passed at Hamburg sometime in 1923.

The noble Duke may have his suspicions regarding past history. That I really cannot go into, because it is a matter outside the purview of this Question. But I have looked through the resolutions, and what do I find? I have tried to make in my own mind a perfectly impartial summary. I find that with which your Lordships are, extremely familiar. I find a hope expressed that friendliness may take the place of animosity between the countries on the Continent. I find a hope expressed that a strengthened League of Nations—perhaps the noble Lord was right when he said that the reference to the present League of Nations was not altogether satisfactory—would provide a method by which international peace might be assured. There was a pro-test against what they called the strong sectional policy of the various small countries which, I believe we are all agreed, has interfered very much with their economic development. I do not think there is an actual reference to the Holy Grail, so the noble Duke need not trouble his mind about that, but there is a reference to the hope, an ideal hope it may be, but still a real hope, that by means of joint action on this international basis we may have peace and prosperity in our international affairs without any undue delay.

I made some notes under heads of practically all the matters that are involved in the resolutions that affect this society. I see that I have put them down under those heads:—Protest against international reaction; demands for Reparations. They were very strong that the Germans should pay Reparations for actual damage done, and they pointed out that the German working men, through this international association, promised to do all they could so far as Reparations were concerned to see that money should be duly paid by Germany for devastation. I do not think there is anything very revolutionary in that. I see that my next note has to do with the League of Nations. Lastly, there is that to which I referred just now—namely, a statement that the protection adopted by these new countries was breaking up the commercial relationship which had existed before, and was very much opposed to real economic progress.

I do not know that I can help your Lordships further. I hope that I have dispelled any fears from the mind of the noble Lord. The Labour Party has its own programme in these matters, and, to the same extent as any other Party, it has been and will be bound by that programme. These international bodies are really nothing more than voluntary associations. As for this particular body I have looked very carefully through reports of the annual meetings at which they passed any resolutions, and I could see nothing except what I have heard expressed, though perhaps in rather different language, by Prime Ministers in this country, and by other statesmen who have been concerned in trying to put right international life. I must finally repudiate once more the innuendo that the Prime Minister of this country, a man in the greatest position in the world, with the greatest desire to maintain national prestige, should ever be suspected—and I am sure this Prime Minister is not—of what is called divided allegiance.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

May I point out to the noble and learned Lord that we were not, dealing with the resolutions but with the constitution of this organisation, which commits its members to the class war for one thing, and which also recognises the authority of this International as being supreme in all international disputes. The noble and learned Lord has not dealt with that.

LORD PARMOOR

I understood that, and I think I have answered it. The noble Duke did not appreciate what I may call the voluntary character of the association, and that the only actual resolutions are those to which I have referred. However, I will not reopen the matter now.