Lords Sitting of 26 March 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR ON the Woolsack.
Henry Herbert, Lord Bishop of Carlisle—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

KING'S LYNN DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore. )
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BOMBAY, BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT rose to call attention to certain recent public pronouncements made by M. Zinoviev and others in Russia, and to their bearing on the forthcoming Anglo-Russian Conference in London. The noble Lord said My Lords, one of the first acts of the present Government on taking office was to make the announcement that they intended to give de jure recognition to the Soviet Government and to invite delegates of that Government to a Conference to be held in London to deal with the many questions outstanding between that country
1040
and ourselves. The grant was made without any sort of conditions, in the hope that it might produce an atmosphere favourable to the settlement of those questions which were to be dealt with at the Conference. The contemptuous and even insulting reception that the Government's well-meant gesture had at the hands of M. Zinoviev, who is among the most powerful political personages in Russia to-day, and others who follow him, make me feel that our relations with Russia and this question of an Anglo-Russian Conference are well worthy of your Lordships' attention for a short time.
I do not think that people in this country have given half the attention that it deserves to the Russian Revolution. The rush of startling events in the world in the last seven or eight years has been such that a revolution more or less hardly seems to count. And yet the break-up of a civilisation that has grown and developed for hundreds of years amidst scenes of horror and suffering almost, if not quite, unprecedented in modern times, and followed by a sudden and I think unparalleled lowering of the general standard of living of a population of 130,000,000 people, is an event of outstanding importance. When the history of these times comes to be written I think one feature on which great stress will be laid will be that this is the first-great revolution in history in which political action has been based on an economic theory.
There is another remarkable thing, but of a more than passing interest, which I want to mention. The economic theory on which this revolution was based has proved in practice a dismal failure. The Soviet Government avowedly repudiates the democracy of which we hear so much to-day; it is not even, as it pretends to be, a dictatorship of the proletariat; it is a self-appointed oligarchy. And yet, in spite of all these things, the men who seized power in the autumn of 1917 have retained power to this day whilst the Governments of every other great country in the world have fallen in the meantime. There is no question that it is a de facto Government. What is agitating the world to-day is whether, and, if so, when and how, de jure recognition should be given to it. America and France are resolutely opposed to anything of the kind. Great

1041
Britain and Italy have granted recognition. It is perhaps an idle speculation, but I wonder what the author of the "Letters on a Regicide Peace" would say were he, alive to-day at the spectacle of a Republican France refusing recognition to a regicide Russia when Great Britain, which still retains to the full the monarchical principle, has granted recognition.
Opinion is divided here as in the rest of the world. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition referred very briefly to this question in his speech on February 12, and said that on some future occasion he would develop his hostility to the idea of de jure recognition at greater length. Perhaps this Motion of mine may give him an opportunity of doing so. My noble friend Lord Grey of Fallodon pointed out in the same debate, with great truth, that recognition in itself would do little for the reconstruction of Russia, or for the restoration of trade between Russia and ourselves, but he thought that it was impossible to settle all outstanding questions without granting recognition. He did not think recognition was a very powerful lever in itself, and he hoped that this grant of de jure recognition might produce the favourable atmosphere that the Government desired. My own view, in the face of such authorities as those I have mentioned, is of no importance, but I must give it for the sake of the argument that follows.
I have no objection in principle to de jure recognition. It seems to me to be inevitable Sooner or later in all cases like this. But, having followed Russian events somewhat closely for the last four years and tried to obtain some kind of sense of the realities there, I was very sceptical of any good resulting from unconditional recognition, although I should have been very glad had my doubts proved ill-founded. I should explain that I am speaking entirely for myself to-day. I put down this Notice without consulting anybody. Of course, it, can always be said that it is easy to be wise after the event, but I do wish the Government had taken a careful survey of the situation beforehand and had explored the ground before they took this action so quickly. So far as I can see, their generous gesture has been thrown away, if it has not done more harm than good. Perhaps it was not quite so generous as it appeared for the ways of the new
1042
diplomacy are a little quaint. The Prime Minister of this country said, in effect: "Oh yes, we will recognise you, but remember none of your monkey tricks, and we have got a long score to settle; "to which Zinoviev replied, also in effect, "You are nothing but the mouthpiece of a lot of capitalist sharks. When you present your claim for debts, we shall meet you with a thundering ' No.' "He added—and here I am quoting—
" To make that effective we have only one argument, the Red Army and Fleet."
That is not exactly a very encouraging atmosphere to begin with.
The reason the Government's gesture has failed, if it has failed, and I am afraid it has, is this the extremists are again in the ascendant in Russia. Rykov, the Chief Commissar, who took Lenin's place, is away ill, and Kamenev is acting in his place. Russia is governed by a triumvirate of Zinoviev, who is, of course, an extremist, Stalin, who is a rigid, orthodox Communist, a man of great determination but no breadth or vision, and an extremist likewise; and Kamenev. How to class Kamenev I do not quite know. He certainly was considered a moderate in the old days, but some of his recent speeches have shown anything but moderation. Perhaps he is just swimming with the tide, and that would, again, show that the extremists are in the ascendant in Russia to-day. Zinoviev is head of the Communist International. In a Report of the Committee appointed by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—a Committee to report on political and economic conditions in Russia—there is a paragraph dealing with this International. We mention in that paragraph the Note from the Soviet Government of February 5, 1921, to His Majesty's Government of that day, denying any connection between the Communist International and the Soviet Government. We gave our reasons in our Report for not placing any credence in that denial.
The connection between the Soviet Government and the Communist International is now proved absolutely up to the hilt. Here is an extract from a speech of Zinoviev given in The Times of February 6:
" While Lenin was in a state to direct our work we, the members of the Communist

1043
International, came to him for advice, and the whole Central Committee agreed that his views were to be put into practice with-out further debate."
That, at any rate, is proof positive as to the past. But he went on to say—
" When this became impossible Lenin's guidance had to be replaced by that of a collective body."
He explains that the collective body was the Political Bureau. The Political Bureau is now replaced by the triumvirate of whom I have told your Lordships. If any further proof were needed, I should be able to find it in another speech of Zinoviev to the Communist International, early in March, in which he says—
" We know we ourselves are the Soviet Government in Moscow and in Leningrad.our home."
The important point in this is not that the Soviet Government lied when it denied all connection between itself and the Communist International in 1921. It is that the Communist International, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, and the Triumvirate that rules Russia are all intimately associated one with the other in pursuit of an identical aim.
One cannot be separated from the other. The All-Russia Congress of Soviets merely registers their decrees, but they are the real force in Russia to-day. There is one thing certain, and that is that no conclusion of any Anglo-Russian Conference will be of any avail at all unless the Communist International are a party to it. The attitude of the Communist International becomes therefore a matter of great importance. The Communist International exists, as your Lordships know, to propagate Bolshevism, to bring about Bolshevist revolutions everywhere, to discredit Parliamentary institutions, to suppress the capitalist and to confiscate capital. Zinoviev, its head, has in recent months, day after day, week after week, been denouncing in most violent language foreign capitalists and foreign bourgeois and explaining with the utmost cynicism the sinister methods employed by the Communist International to stir up revolution in other countries.
At the end of February, or early in March, he presented a report of the present activities of the Communist International, in which he said that the first great object was to bring about a proletarian revolution in Germany, and that the
1044
second urgent task was to create a powerful Communist Party in Great Britain. Early in March, in another speech, he said that Communists now swayed one-sixth of the world and in five years they would sway one-half of it. Both before and since recognition he has carried out a campaign of insult against His Majesty's Government and, with what perhaps passes for humour in Communist circles, he said, that they "should support British Labour Party, MacDonald's party, as the rope ' supports ' the man who hangs himself." Since then he has prophesied a short life for the Government and spoken of the Prime Minister with the utmost contempt. His jackals, men like Bukharin and Rothstein, have followed suit.
Here is a gem from Mr. Rothstein, the gentleman whose anti-British machinations in Persia were so extreme that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition demanded his removal from that country. This is how he regards the grant of recognition by His Majesty's Government:—
" The bourgeois world has confessed its helplessness in face of our revolution and now finds itself constrained to adopt an attitude towards us which it hitherto only accorded to respectable States recognising the sacred institutions of territorial and capital institutions, the bourgeois electoral law "—
I pause to note that the electoral law "is freedom of election, which does not exist in Russia to-day, but is the safeguard of our liberties. He goes on—
" the bourgeois freedom of the Press "—
again I point out that there is no freedom of the Press in Russia—
" religious profession "—
that is, freedom to worship God as a man may desire—
" legal conscience and other exploiting and high-sounding institutions."
Now I am credibly informed, and I do not think there is any doubt, that Mr. Rothstein, who is announced as the Secretary of the Delegation that is to come from Russia for this Anglo-Russian conference, is the same gentleman who made the speech, an extract from which I have just read to your Lordships.
I think there is no doubt that he is the same person. If so, I do not know what His Majesty's Government think about it and if the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council,

1045
has not had time to go into the matter, I will not press him now for any answer in regard to it, but all I can say is that to send such a man here is nothing less than an insult to this country. I hope that the Government will let us know in duo course whether they mean to allow him to come here or not.
I must trouble your Lordships with one other extract to show that there is no hope from those whom we have hitherto regarded as moderates. I have already spoken of Kamenev and I think I have said that he has either been captured by the extremists or goes with the tide. He is reported in the Pravda of March 6 as saying at the session of the Communist International and Moscow Soviet:—
" We must swear loyally and steadfastly to bear up the Red Standard in our proletarian hands. We must swear to carry this Standard to victory, to be merciless enemies, energetic, stubborn, inflexible in the attainment of our aims, striving with all our forces towards them and achieving them as quickly as possible for the general good of humanity."
That means stirring up Bolshevist revolution everywhere, revolutions opposed to religion, against freedom and without pity. Then he goes on to say:—
" Our single hope, our steadfast faith lies in this—that in the iron embrace of the Communist International capitalism will be crushed, and that by the cordial endeavours of the toilers of the whole world the workers' cause will triumph and triumph without end under the Red Standard of the Communist International."
I attach great importance to Kamenev standing so firmly for the Communist International. It is, surely, as plain as daylight that this organisation will never give up propaganda, because Bolshevist propaganda is its one aim and the one purpose of its existence. To ask the Communist International to cease its efforts to spread Bolshevism is not to ask the monkey to stop its tricks, but to ask the leopard to change its spots.
Now I come to the bearing of this on the London Conference. M. Rakovsky has gone to Moscow, I presume, with an exhaustive list of the questions which are to be settled. Just before he left he wrote an article in the Russian Information and Review of March 15. In that he refers to the question of credits, and my noble friend Lord Grey may be interested to hear that he is quoted as saying that there was need for credits. I was not able to find that in his speech
1046
myself. M. Rakovsky refers to two memoranda, one presented to the Board of Trade and one presented to a financial group in the City of London. I have not seen the former, but I have seen the latter and it strikes me as a very remarkable and sinister document.
It makes the recognition of debt and the return of confiscated property dependent on a loan for twenty years of from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000, one-third of which is to be handed over to the Soviet Government for it to spend as it likes in Russia. It talks further of a much larger loan of, £320,000,000, and so on, which is to be spent for Government purposes in Russia. In regard to the larger figures, I need not point out that no such sum is available here for Russia or anywhere else. But the amount is much less important than the principle. Loans or credits are, surely, a matter of business, and the lines on which they are made have been settled for generations; I might say for centuries. First of all, the lender must feel sure that the borrower intends to repay, and, secondly, if a large credit is asked for, or a credit involving great risk, the lender asks either for a high interest or for some realisable security which can be turned into money in case of default on the part of the debtor. I dare say that some Socialists call that "bourgeois morality." With Russia as an example of what is not bourgeois morality, I am inclined to think that bourgeois morality has still something to say for itself.
I say, in the first place, that British traders who have lost hundreds of millions of money, and more particularly British citizens who have lost their posts in Russia, and all their property and their incomes, and are living in conditions of great indigence and poverty in this country at the present time because of Bolshevist confiscation, consider the action of the Soviet Government a breach of the Eighth Commandment. I know that does not appeal to the Soviet-Government. They have no use for Commandments of any kind, but I am talking now to Englishmen. In the second place, it is immoral, according to any code of morality recognised here, to make the condition of the restoration of stolen property depend upon the advance of a further loan. I say, in the third place, that any British Government that dreams of lending money to the Soviet Govern-

1047
ment must be satisfied of their intention to repay it. In the fourth place, I say that the close connection between the Soviet Government and the Communist International makes it impossible to believe that they intend to repay, because all the Communist International lives for is to stir up revolution, and if they were successful in bringing about a Bolshevist revolution here there would be no call for repayment at all. There is nothing in the past or present of the Soviet Government that holds out any hope that the Soviet Government is honest as we understand honesty. So much for Mr. Rakovsky and his idea of credits.
Recently, however, I saw in one paper—I think it was the Observer of last Sunday week—that an entirely novel note has emanated from some quarters in Moscow. Messages coming from that city are either connived at or prompted by the Soviet Government. I mean telegraphic messages, because they all go through Government quarters. These messages state that the Russians no longer want credits. If there has been a change it must be due either to their feeling that His Majesty's Government are unlikely to sanction credits on any-moral or material security that is available, or else it is simply another proof of the extremists being in the ascendant. The "old guard
"of Communism always opposed even Lenin's new economic policy. They are out to break this Conference, as they broke the Conferences at Genoa and The Hague. Our own Prime Minister has said, as I understand it, that he has no intention of suggesting credits as from country to country, but that what he had in mind was much more the use of the export credits scheme or the trade facilities scheme.
With regard to those two schemes I do not say it is impossible, but it is unusual to grant facilities under them to foreigners. As I understand, the facilities that so far have been granted have been given entirely to Britishers or to members of the British Empire, and they are given on the recommendation of a Committee presided over, I think, by my noble friend Viscount St. Davids. They are given, after careful investigation by a Committee, to people of ample credit to enable them to borrow more cheaply. All the money must be spent here. Obviously, those conditions do not apply to a
1048
Government with so little credit as the Soviet Government, and to a country that wants to spend a large part of the loan in its own country. As regards export credits there is, I think, a guarantee of 42 per cent. of debts owed by foreign customers who have exported English goods. In Russia the foreign trade is completely controlled by the Soviet Government, and unless the usual precautions are going to be relaxed in regard to export credits I do not think a great deal can be available to Russia from them.
Of course, a little trade is being done with Russia—a little trade will be done with Russia—but the stream of credit that is ready to flow to Russia if private channels of trade were once more open cannot flow as things are to-day. The people most ready to do business with Russia are the people who were there before, the people whose property has been confiscated. They are still ready to go back if only confidence were restored and their property given back to them. Yet these are the very people who are assailed with these calumnious epithets, and who are called capitalist sharks.
The campaign of abuse that has been set on foot treats the Prime Minister as their tool because he dares to mention that debts and the restoration of property are among the things that require settlement. I am pretty well accustomed to the liberty of language that the Communists allow themselves, but even I am amazed with the recent outburst. Although I am no supporter of His Majesty's Government, I have watched this campaign of abuse with rising indignation. I dislike to see the well-meant gesture of any British Government treated with contempt and virulent abuse. Perhaps, however, one may lay too much stress on virulence of language on the part of violent and ill-mannered people.
More important are the facts that He behind, and they seem to me to be these. In attempting to rebuild the world on the new lines of the economic theories which analysis has proved to be so doubtful, and which practice has shown to be unsound, the Soviet Government has brought. Russia to a pitch of misery unexampled even in the war-stricken world to-day. By a policy of confiscation they have beggared the rich, and lowered the standard of the living of the poor. Unemployment exists to-day on a colossal

1049
scale. In spite of their Communism I am told that only one-sixth of the unemployed there are obtaining any unemployment benefit. Their nationalised industries—although the land, buildings, plant and machinery were confiscated, and no interest is being paid for them—are producing at a cost so high that there is a break-down of exchange as between town and country. I need not remind your Lordships that in a country like Russia, where over 80 per cent. of the population are interested in agriculture, it is internal rather than external trade that matters, and a break-down of internal trade is almost the end of all things. Yet, in spite of the high prices charged for these manufactures, the factories are all working at a loss. In this sorry plight the Soviet Government of "Russia come to seek two things. They seek for loans from Great Britain, and Great Britain is only in a position to lend because so far she has avoided Bolshevism. They seek, at the same time, to spread Bolshevism everywhere. Their first special effort is to be with Germany, and their second with Great Britain. Truly humour is not a strong point in Bolshevist circles.
I have tried to give a plain and un-exaggerated statement of the position as I see it. I am sure His Majesty's Government are anxious to maintain the prestige of this country. I am sure it is a generous impulse on their part which made them recognise the Soviet Government, but their excellent motives have led to a sorry response. I fear a fiasco at this Conference, and in these circumstances I ask the noble and learned Lord, The Lord President of the Council, to give us as full information as possible as to how His Majesty's Government regard the sinister reception which their generous gesture has received. In particular, I venture to ask for information as to the present state of the negotiations preliminary to the Conference, and what has become of the exhaustive list of questions that Mr. Rakovsky took with him to Russia. And—this is not a matter of urgent importance—is it intended that Ambassadors should be mutually appointed before or after the Conference? If the Conference is a failure are they still to be appointed? In the third place, is the Soviet Government still seeking credits? If so, is it intended to give any and what sort of credits? Alternatively
1050
I shall be glad to know if there is any truth in the rumour I mentioned just now that Russia is not now seeking credits, and, if so, whether there is any chance of their recognising debt.
I apologise to your Lordships for having detained you so long; I have only a few-words to add in conclusion. I hope I have not given any idea that I am out of sympathy with the Russian people. There is nothing I desire to see more than their return to prosperity. They are living under a Communist oligarchy, but the mass of them are not Communist at all. The peasants, who exceed eighty per cent. of the population, have defeated Communism, and Communism can never last in a country where the agriculturists have already defeated it. In industry military Communism broke down; it meant forced labour. Private trading was made illegal. It was called speculation. Speculation was made a crime punishable by death, and many people were shot for doing private trading. But that military Communism broke down, and in the autumn of 1921 Lenin was compelled, much against his wishes and inclination, to introduce a new economic policy under which a certain amount of petty private trading is allowed.
Some improvement has resulted but not a great deal. All the foreign trade and the whole of the heavy industries and manufactures remain in the hands of the Government, and the result is that crisis follows crisis. Last autumn it was a crisis owing to the excessive prices of manufactures and the relatively low prices of agricultural produce. A little later agricultural prices went up very sharply and that brought about a wage crisis, because those engaged in industries demanded that their wages should be increased. Many of them wore, and the advances led to enormous losses in contracts running at the time. That was another crisis. Now there are two crises running at the same time. One is a shortage of food. I do not know whether there is going to be another famine or not. It is too soon to know, but I hope there will not be another famine. There is, however, a shortage of food and the export of grain has been stopped. There is also a currency crisis due to the want of small change. It arises out of currency reforms which I have no time now to describe. These recurring crises are met by makeshift remedies, but makeshift remedies do not cure the disease.
Here I am going to express my own opinion that there is only one cure for this disease, and that is to open trade again to private enterprise. I am told that in Russia, to-day, political and economic conditions are quite as unsettled as they ever have been, and so far as I can see this great Marxian experiment is marching quickly to its inevitable doom. I am not going to make any prophecy when the end will come. All I say is that I feel sure it will come, and that Russia, which has great natural resources, will quickly recover when Communism disappears and nationalised industry is replaced by a system more in accordance with the genius of the Russian people.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, the noble Lord with great consideration sent me beforehand a note of some of the topics to which he has referred and also a summary of the questions with which he ended his notable speech—a speech which shows an intimate knowledge of Russian topics which I, at least, can in no wise claim to equal. Towards the end of his speech he referred to his keen desire for improved and better conditions for the Russian people. I sympathise with him in that expression, having been very closely in touch with the terrible conditions in Russia through the Famine Relief Fund. I was very desirous of going to Russia myself but was prevented from doing so. No doubt the condition of famine in Russia, in one sense almost constant, is due to the fact that the transport facilities as between different districts are so difficult. There is an old Russian proverb which says that no man ought ever to see the floor of his own granary, and it expresses the view that intercommunication is so difficult that each peasant has to depend largely on his own resources. If those resources fail you have the consequent misery to which the noble Lord has called attention.
On the general principle of granting de jure recognition, whether wisely or not in the opinion of your Lordships—I think wisely—His Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that the best chance of initiating a better spirit between Russia and this country was to give in the first place de jure recognition and leave matters in discussion and argument to a later date. The noble Lord has no doubt very potent reasons, from his point of
1052
view, for seeing failure in that policy. It was a policy, necessarily, of an experimental character, but I believe that in all the conditions the best chance, by far, was in the policy which the Government adopted, although no one can foresee whether it will be successful or not.
The next matter to which the noble Lord called attention was a series of speeches, or extracts from speeches, made by Zinoviev. Of course, every civilised person must deprecate the extracts to which he has referred. I am not here to defend them, I do not think anybody can defend them. I do not wish to use any harsh terms because the position between the British Government and the Soviet Government is one in which we hope for a better spirit of reconciliation and friendship, but nothing can be more harmful, as regards the policy which the British Government hope will be successful, than speeches of the character to which the noble Lord has referred. Let me make one other point in connection with these extracts. I think most of the speeches were made, according to my information, to the Third International. The Third International embodies the extreme revolutionary spirit in Russia and speeches made to it are always most extreme in form and character. It is the platform on which the more revolutionary members of the Soviet Government express in extreme terms their extreme views in order that they may palliate the extreme side of their Party in the Soviet Government. All the speeches are not, of course, made in one tone. I have had to read through a good many in order to see what their general character is, and I cannot deny that, generally speaking, they have the tone of the speeches from which the noble Lord himself has read extracts.
But let me give one illustration of a speech in somewhat contrary terms which was made by M. Zinoviev himself. I will read only one short extract. M. Zinoviev was making a great speech in the direction which the noble Lord has indicated against capitalists, capital and ordinary trade ideas in the extreme form of Soviet denunciation. But then I come to a passage in which he is reported to have said that among the opposition—that, of course, is the opposition to himself—were comrades who thought that "Nep," which, as the noble Lord knows, is the new economic policy, "should be circumcised."

1053
That is the expression he used. But he added that—
" There were also amongst them influential people who said that it was necessary to hasten the attraction of foreign capital and concede more to it."
It is a mistake, therefore, to suppose, when one comes to read through even these inflammatory speeches, that they are all in one tone and of one character. You find amongst them, even from such extreme speakers—and I think the noble Lord is quite right in taking Zinoviev as a type of the extreme politician of the present time in Russia—passages such as that to which I have referred. I do not think it would be of any use for me to go further into these speeches except to deprecate them, as I have already done, because the question of success in the future does not depend on calling attention to these extreme speeches. We are in the hope of bringing to the front more conciliatory statements, an illustration of which I have given to your Lordships in the quotation which I have made.
A reference was made—and I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he dealt with it—to Rothstein. The noble Lord, as I have said, kindly sent me the questions which he was to ask me at the end of his speech to your Lordships this afternoon, but though this name was brought to my notice, it was only just as I was coming into the House. I believe it was sent by the noble Lord to the Foreign Office, but a rather busy day prevented its coming to me until I was entering the House. All that I desire to say is that what the noble Lord has said will be conveyed to the Foreign Office and to the Prime Minister. Beyond that I cannot go at the present time, and, of course, it would not be right for mo to attempt to deal with a matter of that kind without having full information.
Another part of the noble Lord's speech dealt with a point upon which he is an authority, and upon which his remarks were well worthy of the attention of your Lordships. It dealt with loans and export and other credits. I am told that at the present time all matters of this kind are in abeyance, but I should like to deal with the point rather more specifically when I come to the particular questions which the noble Lord asked me, which are four in number, and to which I hope to give him specific answers.
1054
I cannot say more at the present time, because one of the matters, and one of the most important, coming on for discussion between the representatives of the Soviet Government and the representatives of His Majesty's Government will be this very class of question. I hope, as I am sure the noble Lord hopes equally, that a solution may be found, but it certainly would not help a solution to attempt to discuss in any detail matters of this kind which have to be discussed between the two parties, I hope in a friendly way, in the near future. Your Lordships would not expect that I should attempt to give any further answer on the point. The noble Lord has also referred to what he called the colossal scale of unemployment among the working classes in Russia, and I think he suggested the not improbable incidence of famine. I am afraid I have nothing to say to take away the gloom of the picture which the noble Lord has painted. We all desire and hope that better conditions may prevail, but there is nothing at the present time within my instructions which enable me in any way to alleviate the gloom of that picture.
Having said all that I can upon the general subject, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to deal with the four questions which he has specifically asked me. He kindly sent me these four questions in order that they might be studied by the authorities who are really instructing me. The first question asks His Majesty's Government for information as to the present state of negotiations preliminary to the London Conference, and enquires what has happened in reference to the list of questions between ourselves and Russia which Mr. Rakovsky took to Moscow with him. I think I have the noble Lord's question correctly. I have taken it from a letter which the noble Lord wrote to me, and I think he put the question in the same way when he was addressing your Lordships this afternoon.
The answer to that question is that it is not correct to speak of "negotiations" preliminary to the Conference. A provisional agenda was communicated to Mr. Rakovsky, and in general accepted by him, and since that time the British Delegation has been engaged in studying the questions appearing on the agenda, in preparation for the opening of the negotiations. I am aware that the noble

1055
Lord may think that an answer of that kind does not give him all the information which he desires, but it does give him all the information at my command and all the information that can really be given under conditions as they exist at the present time.
The noble Lord's second question is this. He asks if the Russians have appointed an Ambassador here, and if we have suggested an Ambassador to them. Answers have already been given on this subject in the House of Commons to the effect that no British Ambassador to Moscow has yet been appointed, and we have not yet received from the Soviet Government the name of its proposed Ambassador in London. Accordingly, the answer is in the, negative on both points.
The two next questions may, I think, be answered together. The third question asks if the Russian Government still talk of demanding credits as a condition precedent to acknowledging debts, and the fourth adds "Or is it true that they are no longer thinking of demanding credits; and if so, is there reason to suppose that they are likely to recognise debts?" Here, again, I have the advantage of reading the actual words with which the noble Lord supplied me. The answer is that we cannot tell what the desires and intentions of the Soviet Government are until we hear them from the Soviet Delegation at the Conference, pending which time their discussion cannot profitably be undertaken.
I do not think that the noble Lord could have expected any other answer than that at the present time. He knows perfectly well, and, indeed, has stated, that, whether the policy was right or wrong, the British Government elected to give de jure recognition and to leave all these matters over for future conference. Since that course has been followed, it is impossible to say what the demands of Russia may be or to forecast the general result of that Conference before the Conference has been held. All I can say is that His Majesty's Government earnestly hope that these matters may be settled at the outstanding Conference. No one is more cognisant than they are of the unfortunate conditions which prevail in great parts of Russia at present. It was the object of our de jure recognition that matters of this kind should be approached in a conciliatory and businesslike spirit,
1056
and to attempt to prophesy in any way what the result may be, would be a most unfortunate suggestion to make before the Conference itself is over. Those are the answers which I can give to the noble Lord, and I think they deal with the four specific questions which he asked me. On the wider point, as I have staged, I have no doubt the extracts which he has made from speeches are perfectly accurate, and certainly, if I express our view, they are extremely regrettable both for their extravagance of language and also as creating difficulties with regard to future Conferences.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, although the discussion in which we are taking part has so far consisted only of two speeches, it will, I think, be the view of your Lordships that it has not been without its value. In the first place, we have had from Lord Emmott what I am sure your Lordships will agree in regarding as a singularly well-informed, authoritative and well-balanced statement of the case. The noble Lord referred to the activities of a Committee which I had the honour to appoint, three or four years ago, to inquire into the political and economic conditions prevailing in Russia shortly after the termination of the war. He alluded in one passage to something which occurred in the Report of that Committee. His modesty prevented him from reminding your Lordships that he was Chairman of that Committee, and I can truthfully say that among the many war services gratuitously performed by noble Lords, and other public persons in England, none were more beneficial than the devoted industry and activity which were shown by the noble Lord and his colleagues in that inquiry.
In the course of his remarks Lord Emmott referred to something that I had said in the debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech, on which occasion I dealt quite cursorily with the topic of the recognition by His Majesty's Government of the Soviet authorities, and my noble friend invited me this afternoon, if it seemed desirable, to add something as to the view which I entertained of this action on the part of His Majesty's advisers, and of the steps that His Majesty's late Government, had they remained in office, would in all probability have taken with regard to the further solution of the

1057
Russian difficulties. I will, to some extent, reply to that invitation in the observations I am about to make. Since the noble Lord spoke we have had the utterance of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council. That speech was delivered with the noble and learned Lord's customary courtesy of manner and tone, but I am bound to say that an emptier speech, a speech that contributed less to the information of your Lordships' House, or that less answered the searching questions put by my noble friend Lord Emmott, in a somewhat considerable experience of debates in this House I have never heard. It will be my duty, in the course of the few observations that I shall make, to point out to your Lordships the respects in which the speech to which I have referred seemed to me to have been conspicuously deficient.
The first point is this. Where did we start this afternoon? The noble Lord, Lord Emmott, commenced by reminding us that in the opening days of the present Administration—I think it was before they had been in office a week—they gave this recognition to the Soviet Government. They rushed into this recognition in the most precipitate manner, bound, I suppose, in their own opinion, by the foolish assurances that they had given at an earlier date. They made no inquiry. They never paused to go into the offices of Government which they were just entering, in order to find out what information there was, and what was the exact stage of our relations with the Russian Government at the moment. They demanded no conditions. They asked for no quid pro quo. They gave full de jure recognition straightaway, unaccompanied by anything in the nature of inquiry or stipulation. What does the noble and learned Lord say about that? He says it was an experimental act. What he calls an experiment other people call a rash and foolish leap in the dark. That is what it was, and I shall show to what extent it was a leap in the dark.
Upon one point I need waste no words. It is, of course, quite true—and both speakers have tacitly acknowledged it—that de jure recognition of a Government which is already de facto Government of a country does not, in itself, constitute a very great difference in the immediate position of affairs. All it means is the use of a diplomatic phrase—the despatch
1058
of a Paper, of a document, and the substitution, as the title of your representative, of the designation chargé d'affaires for trade agent or whatever might be the name by which he was previously known. Mr. Rakovsky became chargé d'affaires in London, and Mr. Hodges became in the same hour chargé d'affaires in Moscow. If you look a little wider than that, what did it mean, and why was so much importance attached to it? It meant, in the first place, the sacrifice, without any equivalent, by His Majesty's Government, of the most potent means of pressure that it would have been possible to apply at a later date when they came to examine the question. Secondly, it was naturally regarded by the Russian Government as an evidence of weakness, amounting almost to surrender, on the part of His Majesty's Government. In the third place, it gave an enormous and, in my judgment, an uncalled-for accession of prestige and authority to the most despotic, most cruel, and in some respects the most barbarous Government existing in the world.
This experimenal act on the part of His Majesty's Government was accompanied by the Prime Minister, when he took over the Foreign Office, by a denunciation of those Governments who took a different view which I cannot help thinking was unwise. He talked about the "pompous folly" of holding aloof from recognition of the Russian Soviet Government. If that definition of our attitude be approved there must be a good many pompous fools in the world at the present moment and in high places in the world. As my noble friend behind me reminds me, high up in the category you must place the President and Secretary of State of the American Government, who have definitely and deliberately declined to proceed even to the discussion of recognition with the Soviet Government until they are satisfied, first, that the propaganda against the institutions which they value has ceased, and, secondly, that some recognition is given of the Russian debts to American citizens, amounting, I believe, to £140,000,000. Then among the other high authorities who are denounced as "pompous fools" by the present Prime Minister must be included the President of the French Republic and the Prime Minister of France, with whom he is endeavouring, somewhat cautiously and slowly, to re-

1059
establish by friendly correspondence cordial relations. I do not know that that operation will be at all facilitated by the use of the language that I have described.
Similarly among those who are equally guilty of "pompous folly "are the Governments of Japan and China. And what has happened in those cases? Japan for the last six or eight months—I am not certain that it has not been longer—has been engaged in an effort, by discussion with the Soviet emissaries at Tokio, to arrive at some understanding with them culminating in recognition. The negotiations have hopelessly broken down. The result has already been attained there which my noble friend Lord Emmott anticipates will ensue here a little later on. And even China, in her desperate state of weakness, has actually been driven so far by the tactics of the Soviet delegate who was pressing for recognition, M. Karakhan, that there also the negotiations have broken down and no solution has been reached. And indeed, if we contrast the category in which all these "pompous fools "of the universe are contained with the unpretentious wise men of whom Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is the leader who have given recognition to the Soviet Government. we find that the latter consist of Signor Mussolini, with whom there was an almost indecent competition as to who should get in first, but of whom your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that, unlike His Majesty's Government, being a man of business, he insisted on a very substantial return—Signor Mussolini in the first place, and the Governments also of Austria, Greece, and Czechoslovakia. In that estimable and distinguished company, His Majesty's advisers are marching to the solution of this question.
What have they got in return The noble Lord, Lord Emmott, devoted a considerable part of his speech to showing that they have got a good deal of what I think he called "virulent and calumnious abuse," and he read out a series of passages from the speeches of Zinoviev and others which confirmed his description. What did the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, say in reply? He said these speeches were made for the most part to the Third International, and that when you address that class of person you have to be a
1060
little violent, you have to accommodate your utterance to the audience you are addressing, who are used to that sort of thing. It is no use giving them milk and water; you have to give them undiluted gin of a very fiery description. With all the resources of the Foreign Office behind him he was only able to excavate one relatively harmless passage from the various utterances of this gentleman.
But the unfavourable remarks about His Majesty's present advisers have not been confined to the meetings of the Third International, nor to the inebriated utterances of Zinoviev. The important Russian papers have themselves been very disrespectful. I have here an extract from a paper named the Pravda published at Moscow, and the well-known and authoritative organ of the Communist Party in Russia. This paper devoted special attention to the noble and learned Lord, and this is what it said of him:
" Lord Parmoor is a typical Quaker, a reformist, a sugar-mouthed humanitarian Peer of the Realm, who during the war worked hard to convert the anti-militarist elements of the Labour movement into despicable Socialist pacifists."
That is the view entertained of the noble and learned Lord by these persons with whom he is about to enter into this experimental Conference. But you may say that, after all, the Pravda, like the Third International, represents only the more violent sections of Soviet opinion. Let us hear what the Izvestia, which is the official organ of the Soviet Government, thinks of His Majesty's advisers as a whole:
" The Socialist Government of Great Britain consiste entirely of reactionary Parliamentary Socialist members, representatives of the Radical intelligentsia and even pseudo-Radical representatives of the old bourgeois bureaucracy."
I do not know exactly which of these labels fits the noble Lords whom I see opposite. I imagine each one of them will fit the label which seems best adapted to describe himself. But at least it is a good thing to know in advance what the people who are about to enter into conference with you think of you, and to know the type of amiable and complimentary persons with whom you are shortly going to find yourself sitting at the table.
The next point I venture to make is this. In return for this recognition, have you got, or are you likely to get, any

1061
improvement in trade ?—because certainly one of the reasons for which recognition has been advocated by the Party which is represented opposite was the desirability of relieving unemployment in this country by opening again the congested channels of commerce. Whatever trade is possible with Russia—and this point was very clearly established by Lord Emmott—can perfectly easily be accomplished under the terms of the Russian Trade Agreement, which was concluded in 1921 for that very purpose. But there was one point which the noble Lord did not mention, at least I do not think that I heard him mention it, and that is that no trade between Russia and Great Britain on a large scale can possibly be expected as long as trade remains a monopoly of the Russian Government. At the present moment 84 per cent. of the Russian export trade is entirely in the hands of the Soviet authorities, and only 4 per cent. is achieved by private enterprise. And, even if this situation of affairs was changed, how would it affect the problem of unemployment in this country? I looked up the figures of trade before the war, and I found that in the most favourable years Russia only took 4 per cent. of British exports. So that even supposing the best ensued, I do not think that you are going to get any very considerable augmentation, under present conditions, of British trade.
The third question I put is this—and upon this point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, said nothing. Is there now, in consequence of this moral gesture, any cessation in the active and pestilent propaganda against British institutions, British influence, and the British Empire, which has been going on unremittingly for years, and which was in full blast when I left the Foreign Office between two and three months ago? We have heard about the "bulging corn-bins," which never bulged, because there was nothing inside them; but this I do know, that the pigeon-holes of the Foreign Office and of the India Office were bulging with information of these sinister activities to which I refer. When we concluded the Russian Trade Agreement in April, 1921, I pressed most earnestly, and with success, for the insertion in the preamble of that Trade Agreement of a solemn engagement by the Russian Government which we were quite prepared to reciprocate, and did, to
1062
abstain from all hostile propaganda against the interests or institutions of the other party. From the day that it was signed that promise was shamelessly and continuously evaded.
From that day to the present time the Russian Government has been behind the extreme Nationalist activities in Ireland, just as it was behind the Irish rebellion that took place in the course of the war. At the present moment in India there are Indian extremists who have been trained in Moscow for the special purpose of attacking the British Government and breaking down British rule. There are in India Indian emissaries who were specially trained for the purpose in a school opened with that object by the Soviet authorities at Tashkent. There is at the present moment circulating on the borders of India a paper financed by the Soviets with the object of stirring up disorder and rebellion in the frontier districts of the Indian Empire. There are at the present moment in South Africa Bolshevist agencies at work directing their activities towards the destruction of the Union of South Africa. In Persia, during the five years that I was at the Foreign Office, there was a continuous stream, unabated when I left, of propaganda and intrigue against British interests in that country. Last summer we published in a White Paper, which was circulated, the full information as to the simultaneous and corresponding intrigues of the Russian representative at Kabul.
Now I have shown this stream of activity circulating round the whole globe, and I submit that the noble and learned Lord, who has told us more than once that he has a room in the Foreign Office and who, therefore, has exceptional opportunities, might have done well before he agreed to this novel experiment, had he made some inquiries at the Foreign Office as to what was going on and as to the character of the persons with whom he was called upon to deal. Further, these people whom you have recognised are the people and the Government who have, as the title which they now assume of the Union of Soviet Republics sufficiently demonstrates, destroyed the independence and suppressed the nationality of all the small peoples round the fringes of the Russian Empire whom it has always been the traditional policy of the Liberal Party

1063
and, indeed, of all Parties in this country to support and defend. Where is Georgia? Gone! Where is Armenia? Destroyed! Where are Azerbaijan and Daghestan I Absorbed! Where are Bokhara and Khiva? Drawn into the same network of the Soviet system of Republies. In every one of those independent States or kingdoms independence has been destroyed, and the democracy of England, which thinks in holding out the hand of friendship to Russia, it is clasping hands with a democratic Government, is in reality only exchanging courtesies with the most terrible and grinding of despotisms that has been known in modern times.
The Government, in pursuit of their experimental plans, hope that there will be a change and that these people will turn over a new leaf. I recall one little incident that makes me doubt it. When the Conference was going on at Genoa a bombshell was suddenly thrown into the proceedings by the announcement that the Soviet authorities had concluded a separate agreement with Germany, known as the Treaty of Rapallo of April, 1922, Accordingly, a German Ambassador was appointed to Moscow much in the same way as the noble and learned Lord seems to anticipate that at some not distant date a British Ambassador will go to the same place; and—would you believe it? —last year, or the year before, when the revolution broke out in Germany and things were in rather a critical condition, the German Ambassador at Moscow appointed under these conditions of resumed friendship, had actually to threaten a rupture with the Russian Government and his own withdrawal from the scene because the Soviet authorities were shamelessly supporting the revolutionary policy in his country. That is the sort of thing you will probably have experience of here.
I think the question may not unfairly be put "If you denounce the recognition which has been given by the present Government as unwise and premature, how do you think they ought to have proceeded? How would you have proceeded yourself?" Because the condition of affairs hitherto existing is one very unsatisfactory to all parties, and from which everyone would have sought a release if they could. I will endeavour to answer that question. In the first place,
1064
had I come fresh to the office I think I would have made a careful study of what had been done in this direction during the last four or five years. Remember that this is not the first time that recognition has been contemplated. Mr. Lloyd George tried it as early as Paris in 1919, when he proposed a Conference at Prinkipo. At a later date we had the two Conferences to which the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, referred, at Genoa and The Hague, and the study of what happened at both those Conferences would really be very useful to anybody taking up the question anew now as explaining the causes why hitherto there has been such a complete breakdown.
Next, I think I would have waited for some evidence of greater stability in the Russian Government than at present exists. The noble Lord, Lord Emmott, talked about a schism which was developing between the extremists and the less extreme party. Indeed, it is well known that the political situation in Russia is one of flux and it is impossible to say whether the triumvirate to whom he referred will or will not retain their ascendancy a few months hence. Next, I would not have acted alone. The Prime Minister, when he assumed office, more than once described his policy as one of co-operation; by which he meant cooperation with other Powers, the great Powers of the world. In the present case, instead of rushing alone into this recognition, would it not have been well to find out what France was going to do, what America was going to do, and what Japan was going to do In how much stronger a position would you have been, had you decided to do it, if you had had the assurance of these great Powers behind you, or, if you decided not to do it, to know that you also had their support. I should have thought that that was an elementary consideration which might well have been borne in mind.
Then, would it not have been well, instead of dropping all idea of conditions, at any rate to have laid down certain broad conditions, broad principles in advance as to which you had a right to demand, and as to which you might surely have expected to receive, some assurance on the other side? Look at what America did. When the Soviet Government tried to get the same favour from President Coolidge, he said at once that he would not give de jure recognition

1065
to the Soviet authorities until, firstly, they had given compensation to dispossessed American citizens; secondly, had given recognition of Russian debts; thirdly, had abandoned their outspoken hostility to American institutions; and, fourthly, had shown works meet for repentence. That is rather a vague phrase, particularly when you are dealing with people like the Soviets, but I think, if you are going to recognise, you might at least have insisted upon the recognition of the external debt of Russia, upon the acceptance by the Russian Government of the principles of international law, and upon their reversion to what we may describe as the ordinary accepted standards of civilisation. Further, I think you might have sought for some kind of guarantee as to the manner in which the promises of the Russian Government would be fulfilled at a later date.
You are going into this Conference—and here I must confess that I was rather astonished at the reply which was given by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Emmott said to him: Can you give us any information as to what you are going to do, and about what is contained in the paper that Mr. Rakovsky took to Russia? All the noble and learned Lord said in reply was: We must wait to see the agenda paper of the Conference in order to find out what is in it. But the Conference is going to open next week, or the week after, and here is the noble and learned Lord, enthroned in a chair in the Foreign Office, who has not himself seen the agenda and has not the ghost of a notion what is in it. Nor I believe has any member of His Majesty's Government, and we and the public outside will remain in entire ignorance of what is going to be discussed until the Conference is well upon its way.
If I may venture to lay down the requirements which any British Government must hold in view in this intended Conference they would be, firstly, the recognition by Russia of pre-war debts. Remember that although our holding in those debts is very considerable, that of France is much larger. Over and over again I have heard the President, M. Millerand, and M. Poincaré discuss in most uncompromising tones their views on this matter, and we ought not to do anything which is calculated to cause alarm or arouse suspicion across the Channel. Secondly, I put the recogni-
1066
tion by the Russian Government of war debts. If you once abandon these things you have not in your bargaining a leg left to stand upon. Next, there is the restoration of the property in possession of the Russian Government—the restoration of the lands, houses, factories and other things of the various British subjects, living and trading in Russia, who have been despoiled, rifled, and plundered of all that they own by the Soviet authorities, and have never got one penny of compensation. You have got either to insist upon the restoration of their property, or compensation to them in some form.
Have your Lordships any idea of what these total figures amount to? They are pre-war debts, £167,000,000; war debts, £630,000,000; claims for property of British nationals in Russia, £180,000,000; total, nearly £1,000,000,000 sterling. That is your claim in pounds, shillings and pence against Russia. How are you going to get this out of Russia? It would be difficult in any circumstances, and impossible in all probability without a moratorium, but it seems to me it will be wholly impossible when you have given away all the cards with which you might have played, and have nothing in your hands with which to force them to the issue that you desire.
These are not the only conditions which any British Government has to bear in mind at the Conference table. I need not say anything further about the nefarious propaganda of which I was speaking a little while ago. You have no guarantees that this will be stopped. Further, if you want, as you say you do, the people of this country to invest money in Russia, to go into trade there, live there, work there, make their homes there as so many have done in the past, surely you have to ensure them conditions which will give them reasonable protection for their life and property, and which will not expose them to the arbitrary vagaries of the Soviet Government.
Have your Lordships appreciated the difference in the two situations? A Russian comes to this country. There is nothing whatever to prevent him owning property, and entering into business here. He has behind him the protection of the British Law Courts, the purest and the soundest system in the world. But if a British subject goes to Russia now and attempts to invest his money there, or to

1067
take up some occupation, or to embark in industry, he has no security at all. None. He is at the mercy of the Russian Law Courts, and the Russian Law Courts are at the mercy of the Russian Executive, which had it specially laid down in the Constitution that any decision of the Law Courts may be varied according to the exigencies of the moment as determined by the Soviet authorities. That is the system. It is a system utterly lawless and inconceivable, a system to which British subjects are at the present moment condemned if they want to trade in Russia. I have ventured to describe what it is I think that any British Government, whether it is a Labour Government, or a Conservative, or a Liberal Government, is bound to bear in mind at the forthcoming Conference.
In conclusion, I will only say a word or two about the topic which was raised by Lord Emmott, as I thought with great cogency. What do the Russians want 2 What are they coming here to ask for ? The noble Lord (Lord Emmott) said that he had seen some communications in some newspapers, I think, that there was some difference of opinion as to whether the Russian Government really wanted credit or not, or was prepared to abandon the demand for credit, and to seek consolation in some other shape. He asked for information on that point, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, was singularly obscure and uncommunicative in his reply. I have no doubt in my own mind what the Russian Government want. What they expect as the sequel to recognition is credit—money credits, long-term credits, not credits given under the Trades Facilities Acts, which are for the benefit of British subjects to enable them to trade, but credits to the Russian Government to enable them, not to give orders to British workshops but to rehabilitate their own districts, to restore their own productive forces, to rebuild their own factories to enable them to compete with British industry, and render them not dependent upon imports from this country. That is what they want credit for.
Further, if I might prophesy, I would venture to say this. You will find not only that they demand credits but they want cash. You will find an immediate demand for a loan, and a considerable loan, to be paid to nobody else but to the Russian Government. The noble
1068
Lord said that at some stage their total requirements had been estimated at £300,000,000, and that later there had been a reduction of this absurd total to £15,000,000 or £20,000,000. Whatever the figures may be I have little doubt that when it comes to business you will find that that is one of the first things they will want, and unless they get the money to re-establish themselves, they will do nothing whatever for you.
The noble Lord made another point which I thought was of very substantial importance. He said, supposing they get the money from you, or from other sources, what will they do with it? Ought you not to be quite sure as to what use they are going to make of it? If you give them money on the understanding that it shall be spent in this country in the encouragement of British trade and manufactures there may be something to be said for it, but experience tends to show that, quite apart from the consideration I have just named—the use of any money they get from you for the reconstruction of the internal resources of Russia—it is more than likely that a considerable portion of the money will go into the pockets of the Third International, about which the Lord President of the Council spoke in terms of very justifiable reprobation, and, indeed, that no small portion of the money will go to continue the propaganda against British interests.
You must remember—there is no concealment about it—that the object of the Soviet Government is not to restore British trade. They do not care two-pence about our trade. Their object is to destroy the British social organisation and to prepare the way for the triumph of revolution throughout the world. There is no concealment about it. They regard the organic life of Great Britain as the most formidable tower in the fortress against which they are directing their attacks. That is what they want to bring to the ground, and it is true that no amount of preaching, no amount of bargaining, will induce them to desist from that. It is the breath of their life, the rule of their existence. It is the principle upon which their new political principles are founded, and in meeting them at the conference table you are not dealing with the sort of people you ordinarily meet at International Conferences where you discuss and bargain

1069
with your fellow men who look at society from the same point of view as you do. You are dealing with men who come from another world, I will not say whether it is higher or lower, but it is substantially different from our own, and you are up against men who, whatever their friendly attitude may be towards you in a conference, will not be satisfied until they have destroyed the whole basis of society under which we exist in this country.
If I am right in this diagnosis of the situation, there is indeed some ground for apprehension in the Conference in which we are about to enter. That apprehension is not diminished by the knowledge of the personality of the individuals by whom, on the Russian side, it is going to be composed. The noble Lord has called attention to the fact that the Secretary-General of the Conference—I have the announcement in the newspaper with me now—is Mr. Rothstein. If it is the same gentleman, and I think it is, I know him only too well, or rather I do not know him personally but I know of his activities, and for years past there has been no more inveterate or unscrupulous agitator, whether in this country or in Russia, against British interests. But he does not stand alone. There is M. Rakovsky, and one of the most important members of the Conference is to be M. Litvinov. I know M. Litvinov. I was a member of the Government which had to turn him out of this country during the war. In the early days of the war he was admitted for a time as a sort of irregular Russian representative in this country, but so desperate were his intrigues that we had to turn him out, and on subsequent occasions whenever there was to be a conference here which it was suggested that M. Litvinov should attend, one of the things that made Mr. Lloyd George perfectly furious was the suggestion that this very man should be readmitted. Now all these things are apparently to be forgotten. Under cover of this conference M. Litvinov and M. Rothstein are to reappear on the scene. When the noble Lord quoted words referring to the activities of M. Kamenev he was probably not aware that M. Kamenev had also to made a sudden retreat from this country. I remember negotiations in which M. Kamenev was guilty of actions for which it is difficult for me at this Table to find a desirable epithet, and his active-
1070
ties were of such a nature that we were unable to readmit him to this country.
These are the excellent people who are to sit at the table and to whom you have handed away the whole of your cards in advance. I look with apprehension on the Conference. I am afraid a great disillusionment lies before the British Government and the British people. But at least in entering this Conference I beg of you most earnestly—after all, you represent this country and you owe a debt to the people of this country, and more particularly to those who have lost their all—to bear in mind those considerations of overmastering importance to which I ventured to call your attention a few minutes ago.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Marquess has given a vast range and generality to a topic which, on the Paper, was of a very limited kind, and the speech which he has just delivered has made me feel not a little sad. Here we have the spectacle of a man who has been in office for years, who has been controlling this very situation, and what does he present to us as the result of all his efforts? Failure. We are no further on in our-relations with Russia than we were at the beginning of the period. It is true there is no longer any talk of supporting White armies in their efforts to put down Bed armies: we do not interfere in any military affairs or with the internal affairs of Russia. God be thanked for that. It only led to an increase of that bitterness which has been characteristic of the situation right through, and we are well free from it, But when I pass to the suggestion of policy which the noble Marquess made, it certainly does not fill me with any sense of hope. As I have said, it is a policy which has given us nothing, that has produced no effect. I am not going to adopt phrases which were used by the Prime Minister in quite a different context, such an expression as "pompous folly." The Prime Minister did not apply that phrase to the President of the United States or the President of the French Republic.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble and learned Viscount will pardon me. The Prime Minister on entering office said that he was going to abandon the "pompous folly" of holding aloof from de jure recognition.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is very different from applying it personally, from applying it to the President of the United States or the President of the French Republic. They, of course, take their own course. The Prime Minister was defining the principle as one of pompous folly. I have no doubt he gave it many applications, but he did not give it a personal application. He said he was not going to have anything to do with a principle which, wherever it relied upon force, had failed, and might therefore be described as a pompous folly. I am not sure that it was a very bad phrase, if you judge by results. What is it that is suggested to us? Is it that we should go on with this futile ploughing of the sands in the attempt to convince the Soviet Republic that it has been wrong, and that it had better yield to our pinpricks? It will not yield to our pinpricks. It laughs at them. It is there, entrenched, with 130,000,000 people, and it will not move. And what is the result? The noble Lord gave us a very sad picture of all sorts of territories turned into Soviet Republics, a process which does not seem to have stopped, and then he went on to call attention to this terrible Government in Russia and to the saddlebags full of propaganda which were being distributed all over the world.
He asked us to look at their operations among our own people and elsewhere. So far as our own people are concerned, I do not think that Bolshevist propaganda has had any material effect. If it has had any effect at all, it has only been as a reaction against the somewhat pompous denunciation which we have had on every kind of platform, and which does not appeal to the British democracy. We need not trouble ourselves about Soviet propaganda in this country. I have heard a great deal about it, but invariably from people who seem to have no influence whatever in counteracting it. Let the British people alone; they are essentially sane, and they will keep their feet against currents of air a great deal more violent than any that are blowing from Russia.
But where does the remedy, the deliverance from the present state of thing in Russia, lie? I do not certainly know that it lies anywhere, but I am sure there is only one source from which it can come, and that is through the people of Russia themselves delivering themselves from a bad Government, if it is
1072
a bad one. I am not here to make pronouncements about the Russian Government. I am not enamoured of it, and I do not wonder that the Pravda and other papers denounce my noble friend the President of the Council, and others of us as bourgeois officials—I think that was the phrase quoted by the noble Marquess. I do not mind being called a bourgeois official. I have a great regard for bourgeois officialdom. It has done very valuable things in the past, and will probably do very valuable things in the future, and I am content to stand here, regardless of the Pravda, as a bourgeois official.
My being a bourgeois official, however, does not prevent me from saying that it is great folly to try to impose your views upon the people of Russia. I do not know what the views of the people of Russia are. I do not think they have come to a complete expression of their mind, and the very purpose of this recognition, the object of the Government in taking this new step, is to encourage the people of Russia to realise that the responsibility is upon them, and upon them alone, and that we do not intend on our side to try any more of these pin-pricks which have led in the past to so little result. That being so, the policy of recognition is a very obvious one. Its purpose is to bring home the futility of one nation trying to interfere with the internal affairs of another. Russia may have what Government it pleases. It is the affair of Russia and not our affair. I protest stoutly against any policy between leaving people alone and setting out with sufficient force to impose your will upon them. You failed to impose your will upon Russia with a policy of pin-pricks, and there is no other way but to leave it to the people of Russia to put their own affairs into such order as seems good to them.
What is the prospect? My noble friend Lord Emmott has referred to the Conference and suggested that its composition may not be agreeable to either of the parties concerned. It is quite possible that the Russians will appoint representatives who are not to our taste, and that we shall appoint representatives whom the Russians do not like on their side. But what is the object of the Conference? It is its business to discuss matters in detail. M. Rakovsky is a man of ability and of very pleasant manners. He has come over here simply to state the points which he wants to have considered. That is how

1073
matters stand, and recognition was only the very first step in the process. Does the noble Marquess think that we are not able to take care of ourselves in that Conference? That appears to be his opinion. He seems to think that we are to be invited to hand over a large sum of money by way of loan to enable the Soviet Government to play what he regards as further pranks. It is not the practice of Governments in this country, as the noble Marquess well knows, to hand over sums by way of loan in that manner. Their practice is to encourage other nations to put their affairs in order, and when their affairs are in order they can come and borrow here and elsewhere from private sources, which fortunately are open, and where money can always be got by people who give good security.
In order that people can give good security, the foundations of their Government must be sound. That is the state of affairs which we are hoping may begin to come into existence. It may be a very slow process and it may be a process that will fail. The Russian people may not succeed in putting their Government right, but if they do not, there is nobody else who will. Of that I am perfectly certain. Consequently, the only sensible and sane course seemed to the Government to be to take the line of telling the people of Russia that it is to the people of Russia alone that we look to cure the deplorable situation which the noble Marquess has described, and to set up a Government which will be able to come again to the world, to borrow and to establish its trade and commerce. It may succeed in this plan and it may fail, but at least it is a less hopeless policy than the policy which has been a declared failure, and from which we wish to dissociate ourselves once and for all.

UNEMPLOYED GRANTS COMMITTEE.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government if the refusal of the Unemployed Grants Committee to make the Middlesbrough Corporation the usual grant for road making except on the condition that they purchased English cement meets with their approval. I do not think there is any doubt about the facts, which are as follows. The Corporation of Middlesbrough desired to make a
1074
road, or roads, for the purpose of giving employment to the people in the neighbourhood, and, I presume, for other purposes. In order to do so it was necessary to obtain 400 tons of cement. They were able to obtain these 400 tons of cement at, I think, about 42s. a ton from Belgium, whereas the price asked for cement in England was somewhere about 53s. a ton. The Unemployed Grants Committee, on hearing of this, informed the Middlesbrough Corporation that unless they bought their cement from an English firm they would not receive the grant.
I have always understood—and I asked the noble Lord, the President of the Council, a question a few days ago in order that I might in no way misrepresent him—that the present Government stood for Free Trade, and not only that they stood for Free Trade but also that they stood against any trust or combine. My recollection was that the present Government at the last Election were nearly as strong in opposition to any trust or combine as they were to Protection. In the present instance they have broken the laws of Free Trade and they have supported a combine; because, as your Lordships will know, if any of you have had occasion to buy cement, one of the biggest trusts or combines in England is, so far as I am aware, the cement combine. The cement combine succeeded in raising the price of cement to a very high figure two or three years ago, and that price has been reduced by foreign competition.
I am a Protectionist, and always have been. I have always held the view that it is for the good of the people of this country that money made in this country should be spent in this country, but if the Government endorse the action of the Unemployed Grants Committee, and if the Government give as their reason that it was natural that the Unemployed Grants Committee should take this line, because the money was to be spent in the relief of unemployment, and it would be foolish to spend money in the relief of unemployment if the result of that expenditure was in some degree to benefit a foreign country or a foreign people—if that is the argument to be brought forward, I would ask them how it is that they were able during the last Election to say that Protection, the remedy of the Conservatives for unemployment, was no

1075
remedy. If Protection, which means spending money in this country and buying articles produced in this country, is no remedy for unemployment, then I say that if the argument is to be advanced that this was done in order to help unemployment, their argument at the General Election falls to the ground, and it is clear evidence that the Conservative remedy for unemployment was the right one.
Then there is another dilemma, and that is the assistance given to this particular combine. I have always held the view that it is legitimate for people to combine together for their own benefit, provided they do not in any way prevent other people from earning a livelihood That was not the view taken by the Socialist Party at the last Election with regard to combines on the part of manufacturers. They said that if they came into power they would do their best to put a stop to these combines, which they said were hampering trade. Yet here, in this particular instance, they are assisting one of the biggest combines that ever existed. If the noble Lord says, "This has nothing to do with us; it is the Unemployed Grants Committee," then I am glad to say that I see in the House the Chairman of the Unemployed Grants Committee. I have had the honour of Viscount St. Davids' acquaintance for a good many years. I have always understood that he was a very ardent Liberal and a very ardent Free Trader, and I will put the same questions to him which I have addressed to the Lord President of the Council. How does he justify the attitude which I am sure he took up at the last Election—namely, that Protection was not a remedy for unemployment? How-does he reconcile that with the action which his Committee have taken in this particular case? I have endeavoured to put my case as shortly as possible, and I shall be very much obliged to the Lord President of the Council if he will kindly reply to the two points I have raised.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, before the Government answer the noble Lord's Question I think it would be well if I were to set out exactly what has been done, and exactly under what rules and under what guidance the Unemployed Grants Committee, of which I am Chairman, are working. I am glad to say a
1076
word upon this subject, because most of my friends think that we are a Committee which is giving out doles. We are a Committee which has been trying for four winters to find work for people, instead of leaving them to live on doles. We have been active in helping the building of big docks and canals, the making of roads, the developing of water supplies, the putting up of systems of gas and systems of sewage, works of electric supply, tramways and many other public works. We have had 12,260 schemes submitted to us. We have had to turn down some, but we have approved 8,352 schemes. The schemes which have come up to us have amounted to £86,100,000 up to the end of February last. The figure is a good deal bigger now. We have had, as I have said, to turn down some of them, but we have approved of schemes amounting to £61,600,000 up to the end of February last,
We have had this luck, that dealing with this vast sum of public money we have only had, over four winters, three or four questions asked in Parliament about our proceedings, and this is the first time there has been a debate upon them. As regards Middlesbrough, we have dealt with twenty schemes for Middlesbrough, and have found for that place nearly £500,000. They have been schemes for renovating the tramway tracks, extending gas and dock construction and sewer construction, and lastly, schemes for road improvement and sanitary work. It is in connection with this last that they have been using some cement, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say here that before the war I was myself connected with some big cement combines, but I think I need not tell your Lordships that I should not have touched the matter of cement unless I had been absolutely free to do so. I resigned all connection with any cement company ten years ago. and I have not the smallest connection with any now.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I did not, of course, insinuate anything of the sort.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: No, but I wish to make that clear, because the suggestion has been made outside the House. I wish to show what is the nature of our work. Our work is to relieve unemployment.

1077
Schemes, come up to us, and we have to look at them under two heads:—(1), how much direct labour do they give; and (2), how much indirect labour? For instance, in the case of a scheme for levelling a public path, if you vote £5,000 probably the whole of it goes in direct labour. Another scheme comes up, say, to replace an engine in a waterworks. The cost may be £'5,000. In the actual putting up of the engine almost no labour is required—perhaps only ten or five per cent. of the cost is for direct labour. But then you have to look at something else. There is the making of the iron and steel, and indirectly there is an immense amount of labour employed in the building of that engine. We have to look at that. Is this House going to say that if we put £5,000 into the building of an engine, of which only £500 is in direct labour on the spot, that we are to allow £4,500 of it to be spent in some foreign country?
The noble Lord says this is not Free Trade. What has it got to do with Free Trade? This is money for the relief of unemployment as an alternative to a dole. Free Trade means that you may buy in the cheapest market. But there is no law that I know of that says you must buy in the cheapest market. It is open to anyone to buy what he likes, and where he likes. Roughly, I should say that of all plans for the relief of unemployment to which we devote money, about half of the labour that is used is in the place where the actual work is done. The other half of the labour employed is employed in a district, perhaps a very remote district, where the materials are got together. We on this Committee were appointed by a Coalition Government, we were asked to go on by Mr. Bonar Law, and again by Mr. Baldwin and by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. We remained the same body. During the time of the Coalition Government, and under Mr. Bonar Law, we exercised our own discretion without any interference by anybody, and generally we compelled the use of British materials because we were a body to find work for the relief of the unemployed.
When the late Government came into office. I think in March of last year, for some reason or other we had to put up a case to them to get their opinion, and they laid it down that we were not to allow any materials except British
1078
materials. I have had the working of this for two years, and I represented to the Government in a personal letter that we might have to deal with rings and combines, we might have some fictitious high prices to deal with, and that I thought we ought still to be allowed a discretionary power. But no, the order went out to the country, in a Government circular, saying that local authorities were required to place within this country all contracts in relation to relief work assisted by Government grants. The difficulties of administration were very great, because, practically, you could not do it. You can say an engine must be made in England, but nobody can go behind that and say the metal of which this engine is made, iron or steel, was dug out in England, or in Spain, or America. You cannot go into the source of everything. We had to act as reasonable men and to have exceptions. The Government gave in to us again, and put us back into the position we were in before, allowing us to exercise our own discretion. And I may say that in making these grants, amounting to the vast sum of over £60,000,000, we have been dealing with practically every local authority throughout the country, and almost every local authority supports our attitude and sees the reasonableness of it
I want now to deal with the Middlesbrough case. In May last the Middlesbrough Town Council approached us and asked to be allowed to utilise foreign cement, on the ground of the difference in price between that and British. The difference then was a sum of 11s. 6d. a ton, the British cement being 58s. and the foreign 46s. 6d. The Committee first of all refused to accede to the request, because the case did not seem a very strong one, but we had a minute inquiry into it, and got reports from the Ministry of Transport as to the different qualities of cement, and so on. A deputation came from Middlesbrough, and it appeared that British manufacturers had first quoted a price of 71 s. against 48 s, and there were indications that homo prices were unfairly in excess of the foreign. We accordingly gave further consideration to the matter, and got another report from the Ministry of Transport. First, a certain specific standard for cement must be adhered to. The foreign cement does reach that standard, but British cement is a very much higher

1079
quality and is generally worth about 20 per cent. more. That is my information, which I have got very carefully from a number of sources. I think it is probable that before long, by agreement, the general cement standard in this country will be raised; if it is, the effect will be to shut out the foreign cement and admit the British cement, which habitually comes up to that standard.
As the result of our consideration the Committee agreed experimentally to allow Middlesbrough to purchase foreign cement for a month, providing that in future tenders were submitted to the Committee month by month. We took this trouble long before there was any suggestion of difficulty at Middlesbrough. The tenders were submitted month by month so that we could see month by month what the British and what the foreign prices were. For several months Middlesbrough came to us and for several months we renewed our experimental permission for purchases of foreign cement. But in February last we told them that they must accept British tenders, as the difference in price had been considerably reduced. I may mention that the British price had fallen slowly and the foreign price had risen, the two prices being in September last 54 s. 6d. less 2½ percent. for British, and 46 s. 9d. for foreign cement. Then foreign prices fell again, and for December and January we allowed foreign tenders. We have been varying this month by month. When the February tenders were received it was observed that the British price was still about the same level, 55 s. less 2½ per cent. and the foreign price had dropped to 44 s. 3d. But we were informed that a number of British firms were closed down owing to depression in the trade. The noble Lord talks of combines. It is untrue that the combine includes the whole trade.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I did not say it did.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The noble Lord said the same thing—namely, that we forced these people to buy from the combines. We did not; they could buy from whom they liked. The combine, I believe, does not include, at the outside, more than one-half or two-thirds of the cement makers. All we said was that they were to buy British cement. We
1080
were told that at the present day in England 25 per cent. of the British cement plants are not working owing to scarcity of employment, and, taking all the firms which are working, the British cement industry is only paying an average dividend of about 5 per cent. Those are the circumstances under which we acted. Month by month we decided whether Middlesbrough was to buy English or foreign cement, according to the prices of the time, always allowing British cement some advantage.
The noble Lord said that that is Protection. What has it got to do with Protection? We are appointed to find work for British people. The money we vote is money that comes from the taxes, and I should say that it is very unfair indeed that the town of Middlesbrough should be the one to object. Middlesbrough produces iron and steel. All through our work we have had the greatest difficulty in insisting that such articles as tram lines should be bought by British municipalities from British makers and not from abroad. That has been our work. And I have shown that we have been acting under definite instructions from, at any rate, three Governments. It is, of course, for the Government of the day to say whether they, like the three preceding Governments, support our action. I noticed that the Minister of Health, if he was correctly reported, said very politely in another place, when questioned about this act, that he had no power to override it. That, I suppose, is technically true. We have nobody over our decisions to reverse them; but, naturally, we act as a Committee under the authority of the Government of the day, and if the authority under which we acted gave us different directions we should endeavour to carry them out as well as we could. That is the statement as far as the Committee is concerned, and I speak for the other members of the Committee as well as myself.
In regard to myself as a member of your Lordships' House answering the noble Lord who has spoken, I say that it has nothing to do with Free Trade. Free Trade, as I understand it, means that it is for the good of the country that every individual shall be allowed to buy what he likes, where he likes, and with the least hindrance possible. There is no law that forces us all to buy home goods if

1081
foreign goods are a shilling or two cheaper. This Committee carries out what, I believe, is the practice of every decent company director in the city of London. I speak for a vast number of men besides myself when I say that big companies in London, which own great industries in foreign countries, habitually give preference to British trade. We habitually give preference, and a big preference, bigger than the preference which has been given by the Unemployed Grants Committee. The noble Lord is chairman of a railway company. I was talking the other day to a great railway chairman, and I asked him "At what percentage of difference do you buy things made abroad instead of those made at home?" He said: "We never buy anything abroad. We buy everything made in Great Britain." And he told me—he may be wrong—that it was the practice of all great English railway companies. I say that it is the practice of a very great number of companies in the City of London. It has nothing to do with Free Trade. We have the right to buy abroad if we like, and we ought to have that right. But, having the right to buy abroad, if we decide to buy at home it is our own affair, and we have the option one way or the other.
What is the position with regard to the Unemployed Grants Committee? We are using public money, money taken from the taxpayer, to find work for unemployed people. That is what the money is for. Middlesbrough can buy any cement it likes abroad if it does so with its own money raised in the borough. If the money of the taxpayer which is raised to relieve unemployment is being used, it seems to me that money should be spent on British materials. I am in the hands of your Lordships' House and of the Government, but I have put alike the case of the Committee and my own view as to what I believe is the right and sensible course.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount, the Chairman of the Unemployed Grants Committee, has dealt so very fully with this subject that I need only say a very few words. On behalf of the present Government, I should like to thank him for the work he has done on this difficult topic. In regard to his previous work he has shown, of course, that the Committee has expended no less than £60,000,000. It is impossible to
1082
regard a question of this kind as though it was a question of Free Trade or Protection. This money is provided as an unemployment grant to be used for unemployment purposes. If I might quote from this circular I am sure it will bring the matter back to the noble Lord's mind. On May 15, 1923—I forget for the moment whether it was in Mr. Bonar Law's time or Mr. Baldwin's
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It was just between the two, I think.
LORD PARMOOR: —the Ministry of Health acting on a Cabinet decision issued a circular in reference to these unemployment grants, in the following terms:
" The Government have decided that as regards all works in respect to which grants are given expressly because of unemployment by the Unemployed Grants Committee or by any Government Department, it shall be a condition of the grant that all contracts for or incidental to the works are to be placed in this country."
This follows a similar condition with regard to schemes in respect to which guarantees are given under the Trade Facilities Act. The noble Viscount, the Chairman of the Unemployed Grants Committee, has explained to your Lordships that this note applies exactly to what was done in relation to the Middlesbrough contract. It was not a question of Free Trade. It does not even assist the noble Lord opposite in his love of Protection. It is neither the one nor the other. You have a special grant given for unemployment purposes, and the condition is that it shall deal to a maximum extent with the existing evils of unemployment by limiting the work done in relation to the unemployment grant to work done in this country
About the same date—I have no doubt the noble Lord is cognisant of it, though I do not think he actually quoted it—that is, May 15, 1923, a regulation was sent out to all local authorities in this country dealing with this Circular No. 400. I need only quote one passage from it. It is in these terms—
" I am directed by the Minister of Health to inform you that the Government have decided that as regards all works in respect to which grants are given expressly because of unemployment by the Unemployed Grants Committee or by any Government Department, it shall he a condition of the grant that all contracts for or incidental to the works are to be placed in this country."
After that explanation, I think—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble and learned Lord has not answered my Question, which was: Does the noble Lord admit that the spending of money in this country does away with unemployment?
LORD PARMOOR: I do not know what the noble Lord means by the term "admit." I do not think I am making any admission. I am saying that where money is given as an unemployment grant in order to meet the special necessities of unemployment in this country, that money should be employed on works produced in this country. That is the only point involved in this Question. It was that point that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, dealt with in his conclusive speech. I do not propose to go over the facts to which he has referred. I have here all the prices at various times in regard to the use of cement in Middlesbrough, and they are entirely in accordance with the statistics which he has already quoted.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, there is one question that I should like to ask. From the discussion which took place on this subject in another place, it appeared that it was the view of the Middlesbrough Corporation that the high price they were obliged to pay for cement directly curtailed the amount of employment which they could give. They were building something which required cement, and it was stated that the cement bought from the home producers was of such a high class that it actually restricted the number of payments they could make in wages and the number of people they could employ on this particular work. I do not know whether that is the fact or not, but that certainly was stated, and it did not appear to be controverted in the discussions in another place. But there is another side to this matter. It has been found that this restriction in regard to the purchase of raw material has directly reduced their capacity for employing the unemployed. If that is so, it is important that your Lordships should know whether the Government has taken that into consideration.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, Middlesbrough may say that if they had not to pay so much for their cement they could have more road-making, but it is perfectly open to them to make as many
1084
roads as they like with their own money. When, however, they come to us for a grant we, as a Committee, I think rashly, have to say to ourselves: "How much of this is going direct in labour to be employed in Middlesbrough, and how much of it is going to labour employed elsewhere? "Suppose it is half and half, and Middlesbrough are going to pay a little more for their cement, then we have to consider where the labour is going to be employed. It may be that there are not quite so many people going to be employed in Midlesbrough, but more will be employed on the Manchester Ship Canal, or somewhere else, where the cement is made. In our discretion, we have to consider the question of unemployment generally and its alleviation. It is untrue to say that if Middlesbrough bought cement elsewhere, there would be more labour employed in Great Britain. I am quite sure it would not be so at all.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Probation areas, committees and officers.
(3) Before making any order constituting a combined area, the Secretary of State shall give to the justices acting in and for any petty sessional division affected by the order an opportunity of making to him any representations which they may desire to make with respect to the order.
(4) There shall be a probation committee for every probation area which shall consist—

(a) in the case of a probation area being a petty sessional division, of three or more justices appointed in the prescribed manner by the justices acting in and for that division; and

(b) in the, case of a combined area, of such number of justices, being justices acting in and for one or other of the petty sessional divisions comprised in the area, as may be provided by the order constituting the combined area, appointed in the prescribed manner.

(5) The probation committee of every probation area shall pay to the probation officers appointed for the area and to any persons (not being probation officers) named in probation orders made by any court of summary jurisdiction acting for the area, or made by any court of assize or quarter sessions in

1085
respect of persons who have been committed for trial by examining justice acting for the area, such salaries or remuneration, and such sums on account of expenses incurred by those officers and persons in the performance of their duties as the Secretary of State may approve:
(7) The Secretary of State shall have power to make such arrangements as he thinks fit with a view to the provision of superannuation allowances or gratuities for probation officers.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON THE EARL OF CLARENDON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "Before making any order constituting a combined area the Secretary of State shall "and insert "A court of quarter sessions for a county may submit to the Secretary of State schemes with respect to the constitution of combined areas and of probation committees for such areas, and the Secretary of State shall take into consideration any such schemes which may be submitted to him and shall also, before making any order constituting a combined area."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is one which I understand the Government are pre pared to accept. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has very kindly given me an opportunity of discussing the Amendment with him, and has given me to understand that the Government are prepared to agree to it. But before formally moving it I think it would be only courteous to the House if I explained it in a few words. As your Lordships are probably aware, under Section 3. subsection (1), of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, the petty sessional court have the power of appointing these probation officers. Under the same Act, but under a different subsection of the same section, the standing joint committee of the county fixes the remuneration. Under this Bill in subsection 3 of Clause 1 power is given to the petty sessional court to fix the remuneration. So far as the county for which I speak is concerned, this change would not suit us at all. By leaving this provision in the Bill the result would be that probation officers would be appointed by the petty sessional court at unremunerative salaries, and therefore this most important work would be inefficiently performed. The present system, so far as the county for which I
1086
speak is concerned, has worked admirably. We have been enabled under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, to appoint whole time officers at remunerative salaries, with the result that the work has been most efficiently carried out. Under my Amendment I seek to give power to the quarter sessions to lay before the Secretary of State claims for his approval. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 1 and 2, leave out (" Before making any order constituting a combined area the Secretary of State shall ") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment shows the advantage of having a sufficient time-between, the different stages of a Bill. The noble Earl has devised a most useful Amendment. The scheme of the Amendment is to authorise courts of quarter sessions to submit to the Secretary of State schemes with respect to the constitution of combined areas. There are certain cases in which probation work in a county is at the present time organised on a system of combined areas under arrangements made by quarter sessions, and it is thought that before making an Order under the Bill constituting a combined area, which possibly might not coincide with any of the areas in which the work is now organised, the court of quarter sessions should have the right of making suggestions to the Secretary of State and having his suggestions considered. We have looked into the. Amendment closely, and I have great pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), paragraph (b), to leave out "acting in and for one or other of the petty sessional divisions comprised in the area," and to insert "representing the justices for the several petty sessional divisions comprised in the combined area and of such number of justices representing any court of quarter sessions in whose area any part of the combined area is situate." The noble and learned Viscount said My Lords, as the probation officers for the combined area would also supervise persons released on probation from quarter sessions it has been suggested that courts of quarter sessions ought properly to

1087
have the opportunity of nominating one or more of the members of the probation committee. This seems a very reasonable proposal and the object of this Amendment is to give effect to it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out from the first (" justices ") to (" as ") in line 16, and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "shall pay "and insert "may pay such sums in respect of any salaries or remuneration payable." The noble and learned Viscount said The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the Bill will not interfere with the present system under which voluntary probation officers who receive no remuneration from local funds are employed exceptionally. Under the Bill, as drafted, every probation officer would have to be paid by the probation committee, but cases occur where a probation officer acts without receiving remuneration from the probation committee, and the Amendment is proposed to meet this contingency.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out (" shall pay ") and insert (" may pay such sums in respect of any salaries or remuneration payable ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment in my name is purely consequential, and I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out (" such salaries or remuneration").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (5), immediately after the proviso, to leave out "the Secretary of State may approve," and insert, "may be fixed by the committee with the approval of the Secretary of State and of the Treasury." The noble and learned Viscount said My Lords, this is, in part, a drafting Amendment consequential on the previous Amendment to line 20, the effect of both Amendments together being that for a direction that the probation committee shall pay such salaries as the Secretary of State may approve there will be substituted a power to the committee to pay such salaries as the committee may fix, with the approval of the Secretary of
1088
State and the Treasury. The Bill, as drafted, did not require the approval of the Treasury, and in this respect the Amendment makes a substantial alteration. It is in accordance with recent precedents that the approval of the Treasury should be required in such a case as this.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out (" the Secretary of State may approve ") and insert (" may be fixed by the Committee with the approval of the Secretary of State and of the Treasury ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (7), after "power," to insert "by scheme "; and at the end of subsection (7), to insert:
" Provided that the Secretary of State, before making any scheme under the foregoing provision, shall cause notice thereof to be given in such manner as he thinks fit to any local authorities who may be affected thereby, and shall take into consideration any representations with respect thereto which may be submitted to him by any such authority."
The noble and learned Viscount said My Lords, these two Amendments are proposed in order to give local authorities who will be required to contribute towards the superannuation scheme an opportunity of making representations to the Secretary of State before the scheme is settled.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 8, after ("power") insert (" by scheme ")
Page 3, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 (Salaries and expenses):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment to insert the word "remuneration" after "salaries" in subsection (1) is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, after (" salaries ") insert ("remuneration").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add the following subsection to Clause 3:—
" (4) If in any case the Secretary of State thinks fit to withhold the whole or any part of the grant which would otherwise have

1089
been payable under this section to a local authority in respect of any year, he may direct that the local authority shall be relieved of the liability to pay the whole or any part of the sums falling to be defrayed under this Part of this Act by the local authority in respect of that year."
The noble and learned Viscount said My Lords, this is an Amendment in favour of local authorities. It is proposed by the Amendment that the Secretary of State, where he finds it necessary to withhold any part of the Government grant, shall also be able to relieve the local authorities of their liability to a similar extent. It is not anticipated that such a situation is likely to occur, but it seems right that the Bill should provide for the contingency.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 45, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 (Power to make rules):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The two Amendments to Clause 6 are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 36, leave out (" fixing scales of ") and insert (" regulating the ")
Page 5, line 39, leave out (" of the ") and insert (" for fixing scales of"). (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7:
Application of part 1 to London.
7.—(1) In the application of this Part of this Act to the metropolitan police court district—

(a) The provisions with respect to the appointment of probation committees shall not have effect:

(b) The power to appoint probation officers and other powers of probation committees shall he exercised by the Secretary of State:

(c) The salaries, remuneration or other sums payable to probation officers or other persons and the superannuation allowance," and gratuities payable in the case of probation officers shall be paid out of the fund out of which the salaries of the clerks of the metropolitan police courts are defrayed:

(d) Each division of the metropolitan police court district shall be deemed to be a petty sessional division.

(2) In the application of this Part of this Act to the City of London, the City shall ho deemed to be a petty sessional division.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "In the application of this Part of this Act to the Metropolitan police court district "and insert" The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall in their application to the Metropolitan police district have effect subject to the following modifications." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment, and the two following Amendments giving the modifications, are all drafting and are intended to improve the form of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 6 and 7, and insert (" The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall in their application to the metropolitan police district have effect subject to the following modifications ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I have said, the next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("have effect") and insert. ("apply in relation to the said district")
Page 6, line 11, after ("shall") insert ("in the case of the said district ").(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
"(c) There shall be paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund any sums which the Secretary of State may direct to be paid in respect of any salaries, remuneration, or other sums payable to probation officers or other persons and of any superannuation, allowances or gratuities payable in the case of probation officers, and any sums which the Secretary of State may direct to be paid towards the expense of maintaining persons who have been released on probation under a condition as to residence.
In this paragraph the expression ' probation officers ' means probation officers appointed by the Secretary of State, and the expression ' other persons ' means persons, not being probation officers, named in probation orders made by any court of summary jurisdiction sitting within the said district, or made by any court of assize or quarter sessions, in respect of persons who have been committed for trial by examining justices sitting within the said district."
The noble and learned Viscount said My Lords, this is in the main a drafting Amendment. It does not represent any change of intention since the paragraph at present in the Bill was drafted, but is merely designed to make clear what that intention is—namely, that the whole expenditure of the probation service as regards the Metropolitan police court district is to be paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State. This is the position at present under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, and if this Amendment is passed it will also be possible to make contributions out of I he fund for the additional expenditure contemplated by the Bill—namely, for superannuation purposes and for maintaining probationers in homes.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 13 to 19, leave out paragraph (c) and insert the said new paragraph (c).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I, as a new member, ask for a little information Have we the power to direct that sums shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of the Metropolitan Police Fund which is contributed to by taxes?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The practice of this House is to put in provisions of this nature in order to make the Bill intelligible, but they are not intended to reach the House of Commons. When a Bill is read a third time there is a Motion made that Privilege Amendments be agreed to. They are put in italics, and the Bill goes to the House of Commons on the footing that these Amendments have never been made. The House of Commons sees them and knows what they mean.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out (" metropolitan police court ") and insert (" said ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause the words "and shall be a probation area, and the provisions of
1092
this Part of this Act relating to the constitution of combined areas shall not apply ". The noble and learned Viscount said My Lords, this Amendment provides for the organisation of probation work in the City of London. The City of London has its own court and its own probation service, and has never been organised as part of the probation service of the Metropolitan police court district. The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions with respect to the formation of combined areas are not applicable to the City.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, after (" division ") insert (" and shall be a probation area, and the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the constitution of combined areas shall not apply ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Interpretation of Part I.
8. In this Part of this Act:—
The expression "local authority" in relation to any petty sessional division means the authority by which the salary of the clerk to the justices of the petty sessional division is paid:
The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Part of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "The expression ' local authority ' in relation to any petty sessional division means the authority by which the salary of the clerk to the justices of," and insert: "The expression ' local authority ' means the authority out of whose funds the salary of the clerk to the justices for." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, it has been suggested that the Bill as drafted might raise some doubt whether the responsible local authority was the county council or the standing joint committee. By using the words "out of whose funds" it will become quite clear that the county council, and not the standing joint committee, is the authority
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, leave out from ("authority") to ("the") in line 30, and insert (" means the authority out of whose funds the salary of the clerk to the justices for ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Message from the Commons.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. The list of Lords on the Paper is practically the same as the list of Lords who were named of the Committee last Session. The only changes are that Earl Buxton takes the place of Earl Beauchamp and that a member representing the Government is added to the Committee.
Moved, That a Committee of nine Lords be appointed to join with the Committee of the Commons, and that the Lords following be named of the Committee—

Archbishop of Canterbury,

E. Clarendon,

E. Midleton,

E. Buxton,

V. Ullswater,

L. Denman,

L. Newton,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Stuart of Wortley.

—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MARRIAGES VALIDITY (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) Bill reported without amendment
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Will the noble Earl tell us when he proposes to take the Third Reading? He put down the Committee stage almost immediately after Second Reading. That is somewhat
1094
unusual in this House. We have no objection in this case as it is purely a formal measure, but I hope he will give us due notice of when he proposes to take the Third Reading. It would not be a bad thing if the noble Earl were to wait a few days before putting the Bill down for a Third Reading.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I feel that I must apologise to your Lordships for being in such a hurry. It was entirely due to my inexperience, and I hope your Lordships will accept my apology. There is no particular hurry for this Bill, and I will willingly wait a few days. Perhaps next Tuesday would suit your Lordships.

CLAIMS OF IRISH LOYALISTS.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state the number and amount of the claims made to the Wood-Renton Commission for compensation payable by the Free State Government for damage done to property before July 11, 1921 (the date of the truce), the number of those claims which have been settled by the Wood-Renton Commission itself and by the investigators respectively, the amount which has been paid and which remains to be paid in respect of the claims so settled, and the number and amount of the claims still outstanding; whether they will make a similar statement as to the number and amount of the claims for compensation payable by the Free State Government. for damage done to person and property respectively since July 11, 1921, stating the amount claimed, the amount awarded, the amount paid and which remains to be paid, in respect of the sums awarded, and the number and amount of the claims still outstanding; and whether they will state the number and amount of the claims which have been made in accordance with the Memorandum of April, 1923 ["Cmd. 1844], for loss arising out of theft, looting, and requisitions, the number and amount of these claims which have been settled and paid, and the number and amount of these claims still outstanding; and whether he will lay on the Table copies of the correspondence which passed

1095
between His Majesty's Government and the Free State Government relating to the Damage to Property (Compensation) Bill, 1923, of the Free State Government before and after that Bill passed into law; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to trouble your Lordships for a very few moments in order to emphasise one or two points which are enquired into in the Question which I have put upon the Paper. The first point regards the pre-truce claims for damage to property up to July 11, 1921. The noble Lord opposite gave us some details on this pointon the last occasion when the question came before the House, which, I think. was on March 5 last, and I would ask him if he would now add to that information the information asked for in my Question, and, amongst other things, if he can tell us how many of the 24,000 of these pre-truce claims which he tells us have been settled came before the Wood-Renton Commission itself, and how many were settled before the investigators. There is another point in this connection. He told us that most of these pre-truce claims which had been decided had been paid. Perhaps he could tell us how much remains to be paid in respect of these claims.
I pass to the next part of the Question, which relates to post-truce damage to property and to person. The amount of that damage is enormous and must involve many millions of money. I hold in my hand a statement dealing with one subject alone—namely, the number of houses actually burned to the ground in Southern Ireland since December, 1921. The number is 212, and the buildings so burned include two Protestant churches, seven Protestant rectories and schools and three creameries and milk factories, the rest of them being for the most part private houses, great and small. I was disappointed and, indeed, surprised to hear from the noble Lord on March 5 last that hardly any of these numerous cases of damage to property and person since July, 1921, the date of the truce, had yet even been heard, and I will ask him if, when he comes to reply, he will kindly let us know how it is that these claims, many of them dating back very nearly three years, have not yet come before any tribunal at all.
Perhaps he will also be able to tell us in his answer how many have actually been heard, what the amount awarded has been and whether in all cases those amounts have been paid. From information which has come to me from private sources, I gather that there have been cases—relatively few, but nevertheless a certain number—where the amount has-been fixed, but no money has been paid at all. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate the importance of an answer on that point. Do let us bear in mind that many of the people whose property has been destroyed, or who have suffered injury to limb, and, in some cases, to life, as well as the dependants of those who have lost their lives, are very poor men, and can ill afford to wait for years after this damage and injury has occurred before they are paid.
My noble friend said the other day that these people could go to the Irish Grants Committee, presided over by Lord Eustace Percy. That is quite true. The noble Lord also mentioned the total figure of the amounts which had been given by the Irish Grants Committee to these sufferers as being £155,000. That was an advance on account of the awards which were likely to be made. It seems a very small amount indeed out of the many millions which will certainly be awarded when these cases are heard. Perhaps my noble friend will tell me whether the cases of these sufferers will be favourably considered if they go for further advances to Lord Eustace Percy's Committee.
The only other point upon which I wish to dwell for a moment concerns the last part of my Question, which asks whether the Government will lay on the Table copies of the correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Free State Government regarding the latter's Damage to Property (Compensation) Bill, 1923. It is common knowledge, I think, to many members of this House and, indeed, of the public outside, that when that Bill of 1923 was passing through the Irish Parliament attention was called to the extraordinarily unsatisfactory character of the compensation which it provided—compensation which, in many cases, was purely illusory, and which, so far from being a real compensation for the injury

1097
suffered, represented only an extremely small proportion of what the compensation might reasonably be.
Efforts were made to induce His Majesty's Government of the day to make representations to the Irish Government on the subject and to persuade them to modify and extend the provisions of that Bill. I should be glad if my noble friend would tell us whether those representations were made by the British Government of that day to the Free State Government, and, if so, whether they had any effect. If those representations were oral, no doubt he will be able to tell us what was their result. If they were in writing, I should be glad if he could give us a copy. The Papers for which I beg to move are (1), a Paper containing a tabular statement showing the information which is asked for in the Question—details of claims made, claims paid, and so on—and (2), a copy of the correspondence which passed upon the subject to which I have alluded. I beg to move.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, in reply to the noble and learned Lord I will give the figures asked for in the first part of his Question down to the latest available date, that is, February 29 last. I must explain that it is not possible to give the total amount of the claims submitted to the Commission, because a number of them are for compensation merely, and do not specify the amount claimed. Moreover, a number of the claims received are duplicates. Such claims are, of course, rejected by the Commission, but this cause of rejection has not been statistically noted amongst other causes of rejection. The total number of claims submitted to the Commission down to February 29 last has been 39,475, including the duplicates of which I have spoken. Of this total number of 39,475, the Commission has disposed of 25,645 and has made awards in 9,473. The total amount awarded by the Commission is £5,596,488, exclusive of costs and expenses
The noble Lord further asks how many claims have been settled by the Commission and by the investigators, respectively. I must, however, explain that no claims are actually settled by the investigators.
1098
Their function is to report to the Commission, who alone have power finally to award compensation. In the debate on March 5 I pointed out that in view of the very large number of cases to be dealt with, a full hearing by the Commission would be practically impossible in every instance, nor, indeed, is a full hearing in every case at all necessary. It it had been attempted it would have taken many years to deal with the large number of cases—upwards of 25,000—which the Commission has dealt with up to date, and I may say that even if such an attempt had been made, there would have been practically no difference in the result. The truth is that the position is safeguarded in every reasonable respect, because the investigators' report is only an aid to the Commissioners. It is finally considered by them, and the report is, therefore, by no means the last word on the matter.
As regards payment, your Lordships are, I think, aware that all awards are payable in the first instance by the Free State Government, and that after payment by the Free State Government, His Majesty's Government refunds to the Free State such a proportion of the payments made as is certified by the Commission to be attributable to damage done by the forces of the Crown. Your Lordships have also previously been informed that there is an inevitable delay between the time of the award and the payment by the Free State, as owing to the very numerous charges, assignments, or other dealings in these awards or in the original decrees out of which they arise, it is necessary for the Free State Government to advertise their intention to pay every award as it is issued, in order to assure that due notice is given for all claims against the award. The average duration of this delay is from six to seven weeks.
Of the 9,473 awards issued down to February 29 by the Commission,. 8,000 have been paid down to the same date by the Free State Government. As I have informed your Lordships, the awards amount to £5,596,488, and the payments amount to £3,139,175, of which sum £2,083,024 has been refunded to the Free State Government by the British Government. Of the total sum of £5,596,488 awarded by the Commission, £1,246,184 has been awarded subject to reinstatement. I explained the facts about that on

1099
March 5, and the greater part of this amount is not, of course, as yet due for payment, although a proportion has already become payable and has been paid. Excluding the amount for reinstatement, the balance of the difference between awards and payments is due to the necessary delay to which I have referred.
In the second part of his Question the noble Lord has asked for information regarding post-truce claims and awards similar to that which I have already given regarding pre-truce cases. I regret that I am not in a position to give this information, and it would be placing a very heavy burden, as I explained, upon the Free State Government to ask if they would obtain it. It must be remembered that these post-truce claims are not like pre-truce claims dealt with by a single body but by numerous courts throughout the country, so that a big amount of labour would be involved in preparing the returns for which the noble Lord asks. I would add that whereas His Majesty's Government and the British people are deeply concerned to see that justice is, so far as possible, done to those who have a claim, by reason of past loyalty, to their support, yet in the great majority of cases the question of post-truce damages is one purely domestic to the Free State.
The noble Lord asks if I could give particulars as to the number of cases which have already been tried, because, amongst other things, I stated on March 5 that very few of the cases had been tried. I think it only right to say that although, as I have explained, I was not then in a position to give the statistics for which the noble Lord asks, yet some three weeks have now elapsed and in the interval a certain number of cases have been tried. Cases are being tried now, and therefore a larger number have been tried than was the case on March 5. As, however, I have explained, it is not possible to give statistics for the reasons which I have stated. The noble Lord spoke of the delay and of the fact that certain persons were suffering because of the delay in getting their cases tried, and in receiving compensation if awarded to them. He asked whether in such cases, if a grant has already been made by way of advance by the Irish Grants Committee, it would be possible to apply for a further grant. I understand that that is so—that a further grant could be applied for, and that further appli-
1100
cation would be favourably considered. In the third part of his Question, the noble Lord asked for copies of the correspondence.—
LORD DANESFORT: The third part of the Question is as to the number and amount of the claims which have been made in accordance with the Memorandum of April, 1923?
LORD ARNOLD: I would explain in regard to that, that precisely the same position applies as applies to the previous Question. Statistics are not available without a vast amount of trouble. We have not got them and to ask for them would be to place a heavy burden on the Free State Government. In the third part of his Question, the noble Lord asks for copies of the correspondence which passed between His Majesty's Government and the Free State Government relating to the Damage to Property (Compensation) Bill. Your Lordships will, I think, appreciate that as a result of the close geographical propinquity between this country and Ireland, and of the fact that the Governments have throughout been in the closest touch, the consideration of questions of this kind has usually taken the form of verbal discussions between Ministers and officials rather than of formal correspondence between the two Governments; and there has been in fact no correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Free State Government relating to the Act in question except on certain very minor points. The noble Lord asked me whether if that was the case I would state the character of the discussions which had taken place verbally. I think, if the noble Lord will allow me, that it is only reasonable, if he desires to have such a statement, that be should be good enough to put down a further Question, because it is not in his Question on the Paper. I trust that I have not elaborated my reply at undue length, but I can assure the noble Lord that I have done my best to answer his Questions as far as is reasonably possible.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords. I understood the noble Lord to say that the claims of loyalists in Ireland appealed to English people over here, yet still it was a domestic question. I hope I do not misrepresent him.
LORD ARNOLD: I will repeat what I said. I said that whereas His Majesty's

1101
Government and the British people are deeply concerned to see that justice is, so far as possible, done to those who have a claim, by reason of past loyalty, to their support, yet in the large majority of cases, the question of post-truce damage is one purely domestic to the Free State.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Is it a domestic matter if damage is done after the truce contrary to the provisions of the truce and of the Treaty ? Surely that is a question upon which His Majesty's Government ought to say to the Free State "You must abide by the conditions implied in the truce and in the Treaty, and, if you do not, we shall make you do it." I do not see where the domesticity comes in. And I really hope that the Government will take steps to see that the provisions which were supposed to be carried out by the Free State when the true-; and the Treaty were made really are carried out. Many of us at that time had very grave doubts as to whether these provisions ever would be carried out, and, if we are to be told that this is largely a domestic question, it will remain a domestic question, which, being interpreted into common English, means that these unfortunate people will get nothing.
LORD DANESFORT: I have no doubt the noble Lord has done his best. I am deeply distressed to find that he cannot give us some information as to these numerous wicked cases of destruction of life and property and of injury to limb which have occurred since the truce. Does my noble friend realise that these people who have had their property destroyed, who have been in many cases murdered, who have been injured in life and limb, were British subjects, and that the Free State.—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that on a Motion such as this it is not usual to make a second speech, but to say something strictly confined to the Government reply.
LORD DANESFORT: It was really in reply to what my noble friend said as to this being a domestic matter to the Free State that I was speaking, but if I am out of order I will desist.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord may speak with the assent of the House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am anxious to learn the rules of order. I always understood that if you concluded with a Motion the noble Lord who moved the Motion could speak a second time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is quite right, but it must be strictly in reply to the Government statement.
LORD DANESFORT: I am very much obliged, and I will endeavour to speak strictly in reply to what my noble friend said. Does he think it a domestic matter for a British subject to be murdered in the Irish Free State? Is it a domestic matter that he should have his property destroyed in the Free State? If he does not think it a domestic matter, will he really take some trouble to find out what the Free State has done to make compensation in those cases? He says the Free State would have great difficulty in getting this information. But surely the Free State must know what it has paid. It surely must keep some account of what it has paid in awards for all this murder and destruction.
LORD ARNOLD: May I, by permission of the House, say a sentence in reply? In regard to the phrase "purely domestic to the Free State," I think, if the noble and learned Lord will read precisely what I said, he will see that he is construing into it more than the words will actually bear. I said "the great majority of cases." In regard to the points which he has raised about compensation under the Act of last year, I should like to remind him Of what I said on March 5. It was that in any event it was premature to have a debate on questions arising out of post-truce damage unless and until it should ever prove to be the case that there is good ground for serious complaint after a substantial number of claims have been heard by the Court. I submit that that stage at any rate has not arrived yet.
LORD DANESFORT: In view of what the noble Lord says I fear I cannot ask for Papers, because he does not seem to have any Papers to give. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Motion. I will call attention to the subject later.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.