Lords Sitting of 13 February 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Effingham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Lord Forteviot—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BRIXHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GOSPORT EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET.
LORD CUSHENDUN LORD CUSHENDUN had given Notice to call attention to the negotiations for a commercial treaty between this country and the Soviet Government, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether we may rest assured that any eventual definitive treaty of commerce and navigation with that Government will not be brought into force without the House of Lords being given an opportunity to express its views thereon.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as you are aware Notice has been given of other Questions and Motions referring to the subject of Soviet Russia, and one at least—that of which Notice was given by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead, and which I understand has only been postponed from to-day until next week—will raise a very large question with regard to the whole consideration of the conditions under which we resume, or have resumed, diplomatic relations with
564
Soviet Russia. I do not want this afternoon to anticipate anything that is likely to be said upon that occasion, and I will reserve anything that I have to say upon the larger question until the debate which is to be initiated by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead. I wish rather to restrict myself, moderately strictly at all events, to the Question which appears upon the Paper. It has been stated quite unequivocally in another place that negotiations are proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government with a view to the conclusion of a commercial treaty, and it is with reference to that that my Question appears upon the Paper.
I need not remind your Lordships that a very short time ago a question was raised as to whether or not a pledge given by the Government for the consultation of Parliament did or did not apply to your Lordships' House. The somewhat startling constitutional doctrine was relied upon by the Government that your Lordships formed no portion of Parliament—
A NOBLE LORD: Oh, no!
LORD CUSHENDUN:—and that opinion, I understand, was confirmed by the Attorney-General, although, when it was repeated in this House—I was not present myself, but I read the debate—some of the highest legal opinion in the country in your Lordships' House had no hesitation in saying that that doctrine was entirely wrong. That being so, it becomes necessary to exercise a certain amount of vigilance in these matters and not to assume that any promise or pledge given in another place will be applicable to your Lordships' House. I do not know that any pledge in the larger sense has been given in another place. I do not allege that on this occasion there was any statement made that Parliament should be notified or consulted in the matter. But I would like to read to your Lordships the words that were used by the Foreign Secretary the other day, in answer to a Question in the House of Commons. He said, with reference to this question of a commercial treaty:—
"In any case the hon. Member may rest assured that any eventual definitive treaty of commerce and navigation with the Soviet Government will not be brought into force without the House being given an opportunity to express its views thereon."

565
"The House," of course, meant the House of Commons.
What I am doing now is asking noble Lords opposite representing the Government whether they will give to your Lordships an exactly equivalent pledge to that which has been given in the House of Commons. Your Lordships may notice, possibly, that the words of my Question follow precisely the answer which I have just quoted as having been given by the Foreign Secretary. I ask, therefore, for the assurance that this House will be treated with the same consideration and the same constitutional importance as are accorded to the House of Commons in this matter. I might have been content to rest my case there, simply asking for flat assurance, but I think it is necessary to add that there is only too much reason to distrust the Government a good deal in this matter. This Government is certainly not distinguished for its manifestation of the understanding of economic theory. It has not shown conspicuous ability in that direction, nor has it shown any conspicuous desire to conform to the recognised principles of economic science. It is very difficult, therefore, for us to decide in our own minds to what extent the members of the Government are or are not victims of the same fallacies as their followers. No one can read what is said in another place and on many platforms without seeing that the followers of the Government are making a good many wild and even absurd statements regarding the economic position of Russia, upon which must very largely depend the wisdom or folly of making a commercial treaty with that country.
Without going into any detail, there is no doubt whatever that the economic condition of Russia has been absolutely shattered in the last few years. It is being shattered more and more almost every day. The basis of the whole economic wealth and potentiality of Russia rests upon agriculture; agriculture is and must always remain the staple of that country. At this present moment the Soviet Government as represented—I do not know, I never can quite tell the exact technical position of the various officials of the Russian Government, but Stalin at all events is a man of immense influence and power. Whether he is actually the dictator in Russia does not
566
very much matter; he is, as I say, a man of immense influence and power, and he is engaged at the present time in restoring throughout Russia the serfdom which was abolished in 1861. He is militarising, or attempting to militarise the agricultural districts on exactly the same lines as those attempted shortly after the Napoleonic wars and at various times since then. That has always been recognised as perhaps the mast terrible blot upon the Government of the Czars. That is the course which is now being taken by the Soviet Government. They are endeavouring to re-form the serfdom by destroying the independent peasants and compelling them and those who have any independent position at all to do labourer's work for the State. They are compelling them by terror, because instances have been quoted where peasants refusing to do this slavery have been summarily shot.
That being the condition of Soviet Russia, it requires very great vigilance on our part to determine to what extent a commercial treaty ought to be entered into. We are told that immense orders are probably coming to this country for tractors and other agricultural machinery which is to be used, I suppose, by the managers of these communistic farms to produce corn which the kulak peasants refuse to produce themselves, very naturally, because they are denied the proceeds of their own labour. Many of us would feel in these circumstances that, even if orders were forthcoming for agricultural machinery from Russia, much as we need an extension of our trade, greatly as we desire anything that would alleviate the position of unemployment in this country, the supply of these tractors to Russia at the present time would be simply supplying that dictator and that narrow Government of dictators with the weapons whereby they might continue to oppress these wretched people, who, of course, have no power of resisting such oppression as may be brought to bear upon them.
There is one other question which I hope the noble Lords opposite will bear in mind. It is very satisfactory to have been told by Ministers in the House of Commons that there is no intention on the part of the Government of extending any loan to the Russian Government. When we remember the disastrous proposals of 1924, when I remember, as I do

567
very well, the share in them of my noble friend who has so lately joined your Lordships, and whom I am glad to welcome here—when I remember the share that he bore in those transactions it fills me with very grave misgiving to think that he is still in a position to influence the position of the Government. But we have been assured that there is to be no loan. I hope not only will there be no loan, but that there will be nothing which will be the equivalent of a loan, because your Lordships will easily see that in the case of Russia the sole purchaser of foreign goods, the sole importer, is the Government itself, and, consequently, if that Government were to delude our people, as it is deluding them every day by an illusory promise of vast orders for machinery or for industrial plant, and if, in order to obtain those orders, our Government were asked to guarantee a credit for the purchase of these things—a longer credit than it could procure in the ordinary course of industrial life from the industrial community—your Lordships will see that it would be exactly the same thing as a loan for that amount to the Government of Russia. Therefore I earnestly hope that nothing of that sort will be done. I do not wish to pursue the matter in any detail at the present moment, and I will content myself with asking the noble Lords opposite if they will give me the assurance that is asked for in the Question on the Order Paper.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I am afraid I cannot follow the noble Lord who has just sat down into the field of discussion which he has opened up with regard to serfdom in Russia, and the nature and character of a loan, because, as he justly said, there is going to be no loan. He seems to be afraid that some arrangement which we may, in his view, enter into with Russia would amount to much the same thing as a loan. I can only assure him that His Majesty's Government in this matter will act on the advice of the best expert opinion available, and will proceed about their business in a thoroughly business-like fashion. If I may say so with the utmost respect to the noble Lord, there was not the faintest hint of these large questions in the Question on the Order Paper, and I therefore trust he will not accuse me of discourtesy if I do not follow him into what,
568
with the utmost respect, I must describe as somewhat irrelevant topics.
As regards the Question on the Order Paper it is fairly direct, and I trust I shall be able to give the noble Lord some satisfaction. In regard to the first part of the Question—namely, that in which the noble Lord draws attention to the negotiations for a commercial treaty between this country and Soviet Russia—I can say to him that for the moment the negotiations for regulating our commercial relations with Russia have not got beyond the preliminary stages, and no statement as to their nature is yet possible. This matter is being investigated from every angle, including some of those angles referred to by the noble Lord in his remarks. It is not being stamped in any way. I think I may say that His Majesty's Government are as well informed in regard to the commercial situation in Russia as any British Government ought to be, and that is saying a great deal.
As regards the second part of the Question I could, I think, reconcile it with my conscience to say, "Yes," but I do not think that would be quite fair or quite sincere to the House, and, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to give a brief explanation of the situation as it exists to-day. In regard to the conclusion of a definitive treaty of commerce and navigation with Soviet Russia, His Majesty's present Government will follow their own practice in this matter, and their usual practice. That practice was first introduced in 1924, and the form that it took was that of laying, immediately after signature, as a Command Paper, all treaty engagements involving the United Kingdom which needed ratification. I may say here that the last Government did not follow that practice. They definitely discontinued it, and to that extent they treated both Houses of Parliament with discourtesy, according to the notions now advanced by the noble Lord, who claims it as a right for this House to exercise unceasing vigilance over the activities of the Government in regard to the conclusion of treaties.
I have here a very partial list of some of the treaties entered into by the last Government with other countries. First, I find, that four conventions were concluded with the United States about rights in Palestine and other mandated

569
territories. Most delicate questions were involved, but was either House of Parliament consulted by the Government of that time of which the noble Lord was himself a spokesman and a member Was the view then held that unceasing vigilance was required by both Houses of Parliament over the foreign activities of the Government? I find, again, that an extradition treaty was signed with Esthonia. Extradition involves a great many delicate questions. Was it considered necessary to consult this House? Why was not the vigilance of this House required on that occasion? I could give you many other instances but I come to commercial treaties which were ratified with Greece, Yugo-Slavia and Siam. Was the wisdom of the last Government in regard to business matters so much superior to that shall we say of the advisers of the present Government, that they could afford to disregard both Houses of Parliament and conclude these treaties over their heads?
No, the present Government do not propose to follow that bad example. We shall continue to follow the practice we inaugurated in 1924, and, if it is any comfort to the noble Lord, I will quote an answer given in the House of Commons on July 17, 1929, by my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary. He then said—
"I am prepared to restore the practice of 1924 and to lay on the Table of the House, prior to ratification, those treaties which have to be ratified."
The Government have no intention of departing from that excellent practice in regard to the treaty mentioned by the noble Lord in his speech. A Paper will be laid in both Houses of Parliament and, therefore, an ample opportunity will be given, without raising any constitutional issue about what is meant by the term "Parliament," for noble Lords here to discuss the treaty if they think that by so doing they will help matters. But I feel bound to say, and that is why I have inflicted this statement on your Lordships, that this procedure does not, of course, imply that His Majesty's Government consider that the consent or approval of this House is a necessary condition to subsequent ratification. I trust that that answers the Question of the noble Lord. I have purposely refrained from going into the constitutional issue which he raised, because,
570
although he was himself unavoidably absent, he admitted that that question was gone into very thoroughly in a debate in this House the week before last. I hope I have answered the noble Lord's Question completely.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have no quarrel with the conclusion of the noble Lord. In substance he has been good enough to comply with the suggestion made by my noble friend that the necessary Papers should be laid before your Lordships' House at the same time as they are laid before the House of Commons. Therefore an equal opportunity will be afforded to this House to discuss the matter. I wish the noble Lord had followed his first impulse and merely said affirmatively that he is quite prepared to comply with the suggestion made to him. But the noble Lord could not refrain from making one or two what I might call Party points in his reply. We made no Party points, but the noble Lord thought fit to do so. He says that the late Government did not consult both Houses of Parliament about their treaties. There was a certain extradition treaty with Esthonia, I think, which the noble Lord thought of the very greatest importance and which he—
LORD THOMSON: I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He apparently thought it of the greatest importance, because he relied upon it in his argument. He thought we ought to have consulted both Houses of Parliament about the extradition treaty with Esthonia. I do not remember very much public attention having been called to the question at the time. My memory is a weak one—it does not compete, no doubt, with the memory of the noble Lord—but I do not remember that there was any question in the public Press or in Parliament as to our extradition relations with Esthonia. The number of criminals pending between the two countries was not supposed, as far as I remember, to be of gigantic importance. That is playing with the question. The noble Lord seems to think that our relations with Russia, and among other things our commercial relations with Russia, are something to be quoted in the same breath as our extradition relations with Esthonia. The noble Lord will, I think, remember that it was the question of our relations with Russia which led to

571
the fall of the last Labour Government. History may repeat itself. I cannot think that he really supposes either that the matter is unimportant or that the country has such immense confidence in the management of our relations with Russia on the part of the present Government that they think they may be trusted to carry them out without a certain vigilance of Parliament. Circumstances alter cases and they have to be considered in that light.
Then the noble Lord says: "You shall be given every opportunity of discussing this matter, but the Government cannot agree to be bound by your opinion upon it." I do not for a moment claim, of course, for your Lordships in matters of finance equality with the House of Commons. That would be a claim which has never been put forward for many centuries so far as your Lordships' House is concerned. No doubt the matter of a commercial treaty does apply primarily to the House of Commons. But that is no reason why this House should not express an opinion about it. We take care to remember, though it is a little difficult, that the Prime Minister at the very outset of this Government asked Parliament to act as if it were a great Council of the Nation—that is to say, that other Parties were to be treated on a perfectly fair basis of consultation. It is merely in the spirit of that doctrine that we ask that your Lordships' House should be consulted. After all, whether it be the House of Lords or the House of Commons, whether it be the Government or the Opposition, we are all subject to the supreme control of public opinion, and it is in relation to public opinion and in stimulating and awakening public opinion that discussions in your Lordships' House are so valuable.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I do not think that the noble Marquess opposite really gave due weight to what my noble friend Lord Thomson said. What he stated was—and he gave some illustrations—that the constitutional practice of the present Government, as initiated by them in 1924, gave an opportunity for discussion and publicity in both Houses of Parliament which the Conservative Party, when in power, did not give. That is the point. It is a difference in constitutional practice, and not a
572
difference between an extradition treaty with Esthonia and a commercial treaty, although as a matter of fact my noble friend Lord Thomson gave a series of instances of what I should call commercial treaties, amongst other relations, between ourselves and the United States. I should like to emphasise a further point. I think it is extremely important that both Houses should have an equal opportunity—if you like to call it that; I think it is right—of discussing these important matters. There really is no more important matter as regards the national interest than those which are very often comprised within the terms of a treaty or definitive agreement such as the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, has referred to, and it is because of that and of our desire to have full publicity that His Majesty's Government at the present time, as in 1924, have adopted the practice before ratification of placing the terms of a treaty or definitive agreement in a Command Paper before both this House and the House of Commons.
Of course the further step—I do not think the noble Lord referred much to it—of approval is a different question. I entirely agree with him in what he says. I was reading the other day a very interesting preface, written as recently as 1927, by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, to the last edition of one of the best books on constitutional principles, Bagehot's "Constitution." He there states very clearly in far-reaching terms that this House has never claimed a position of domination—that is to say of veto—and further that it is an essential feature of our Constitution that in these matters, and, in fact, in all matters, the lead should be with the House of Commons. I do not think any one will deny that. I have done all I can, I am sure, to respect the rights of this House, but to increase them or to extend them so that they really become competitors with those of the House of Commons on large matters of constitutional principle I regard as quite impossible, and I think it is a great mistake—I do not say it in any threatening terms—that we should not remember our limitations. In that way we have much greater influence than by seeking to become in any sense the rival of the House of Commons.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understand what was meant by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said: "We will lay these Papers on the Table; it does not really make much difference, because we do not recognise that you have any right to interfere with them, but there they are." That appeared to me to be scant courtesy to thus House. It is not supposed that these Papers are to be laid on the Table merely to provide us with an opportunity of reading them. But the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has gone one step further. He said that in no matter is this House ever to take the lead. I should like to know why.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not say that.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There are several things in recent times in which this House has taken the lead and its lead has been ultimately approved in another place. I must say that the one thing that disturbs me is the idea that such powers as this House has are to be slowly atrophied by a general recognition that they are of no value. He did not say it, of course, but that is exactly what was meant, and we find it put before this House again and again. I have said before, and I desire to repeat, that our powers are undoubtedly curtailed by Act of Parliament, and they are certainly modified by the practice which invariably creeps into a House like this after centuries of work; but, subject to that express limitation and subject to that modification, the powers of this House are, by the Constitution, exactly as strong as those of another place. I see no reason whatever why we should depart from that view.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will not be too hard on the noble and learned Lord who leads the House. I do not profess to have followed his remarks with any greater comprehension than my noble and learned friend did, but I did think that I detected one thing in the speech of both the noble Lords who addressed us. This marks a definite, if not very dignified, retirement from the position of heresy—ignorant heresy—which has in recent times stated that, in what the noble and learned Lord
574
opposite is in the habit of calling "matters of this kind," the House of Commons is Parliament. At any rate I take it, after the dissertation that we have heard, that, it is quite clear that it is now recognised by the present Government that, when it comes to laying before Parliament information, the rights of this House are equal with the rights of the other House. We must remember, of course, that when a retreat has to be beaten it is not altogether inappropriate that, like the cuttlefish, the Government should surround itself with a cloud of obscuring dark particles.

THE SOVIET AND THE CHURCHES.
LORD HAYTER LORD HAYTER rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government has called the attention of the Soviet Government of Russia to the fact that the action of the Soviet Government against the Christian Churches and people of Russia is not in accord with British principles of justice, and does not assist in maintaining friendship between Great Britain and Russia. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I ought to apologise for putting upon the Order Paper a Question on a subject which I had hoped would be brought before your Lordships by a, much more experienced member of this House than I can claim to be, but it is probable that most of your Lordships agree that some explanation might be asked of our Government as to their passive attitude regarding the Russian Government's organised persecution of the Russian Church and the Russian people. Has the Russian Ambassador at the Court of St. James ever been informed that we have heard of 300 or 400 sailors and soldiers being executed in time of peace and without fair trial, or that it is against our instincts as a Christian nation not to protest when an apparently overwhelming attempt is made utterly to destroy Christianity in Russia and when millions of poor Russian peasants are being persecuted and exploited by Government agents?
A few days ago a member of His Majesty's Government said:—
"The most blessed gift that God could give to any one of us is the gift of putting ourselves into the other fellow's place, for we are here to co-operate with one another in order that life, and life more abundant, may be brought to all the children of men."

575
Has the First Commissioner of Works ever said this to his colleagues in the Cabinet? Has he, or any one of them, realised that this excellent sentiment applies to the millions of Russian peasants who are the victims of a persecution as bad as the world has ever seen? We have no evidence that our British Socialist Cabinet has done anything to explain to the Russian Soviet Government that the policy now pursued in Russia is abhorrent and detestable to the mind of the British nation, as it must also be to every free and enlightened nation throughout the world. To me, and I believe to many other people, the subject seems too terrible to dwell upon at any length, but enough facts are known, and have been published by the British Press, to awaken our profound sympathy with these unfortunate people in a vast country not very far from us, and it is to be hoped that His Majesty's Government will act, and act promptly, according to the common dictates of humanity, and protest against the continuance of the present organised official persecution of the Russian people.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I feel bound to offer a few observations as the Question which has just been raised by Lord Hayter concerns me very directly, officially and personally. Everyone in this House, every right-minded man in the country, can feel nothing but the strongest indignation when he considers the organised persecution now going on in Russia against every form of religion. Yesterday, elsewhere, I tried to give expression to that indignation, and as President of the Convocation of Canterbury I made a solemn protest in the name of the Church of England, and I am satisfied in the name of multitudes of our fellow citizens throughout the country. When this matter came before your Lordships, I think in December, I said that I hoped there might be some evidence of at least some mitigation of the barbarity with which any profession of religion is pursued by the Government in Russia. I fear that my hope has not been fulfilled. So far as I can learn the policy continues unabated. I think it has lost some of its grosser barbarities, but in point of persistent oppression it remains.
576
Decrees have been published by the Soviet Government aiming at the extinction of every means by which any religious society in Russia, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Mahomedan, or Hebrew, can maintain its corporate existence. It is prescribed that if any persons of any religious group, sect, movement, or other cultus, of all kinds, desire to use any buildings which are the property of the State, then permission must be given by the local Soviets, who are required to be enemies of all religion. Religious unions—that is, now, only parishes—are only entitled to meet to pray or hold religious services if they have obtained permission from the police, and a religious union in that restricted sense can only be recognised after meeting an exhaustive questionnaire, whose object is evidently to obtain the political opinions of those who desire the permission.
These religious unions, by these decrees, are forbidden to give material or even medical help to their members, thus destroying the whole charitable fellowship of the parishes in Russia. They are forbidden to organise meetings for children or young people, or for the teaching of religion, and yet in the schools the teachers are required by the Government to "create in the children a moral aversion to religion." The destruction and spoliation of churches and monasteries, so far as I can understand, is still being pursued, and last Christmastide there was a special exhibition of these blasphemies and sacrileges, which are encouraged if not organised by the Government. In these circumstances how can any one fail to have the deepest possible sympathy with the multitudes of people who live from day to clay, unless they renounce their religious belief, in terrorism, if not of actual destruction certainly of loss of employment and possibly imprisonment?
We who live in a country which has a long heritage of civil and religious freedom can scarcely realise what it is when from day to day a man holds his religious opinions at the cost of almost certain suffering, disability and abuse. The Bishops of the Church of England have desired to mark in a special and corporate way the strength and reality of our sympathy, by asking that a day of prayer shall be observed throughout this country, and that God may be pleased to

577
restrain the fierceness of man and to uphold these poor people by His mercy and protection. But the very strength of our sympathy makes it necessary that as far as possible—it is not altogether possible—we should dissociate ourselves and our protest in the name of civilisation and religion from the more directly political issues raised this afternoon by Lord Cushendun, and which will be raised, I hear, next week by the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead. I think the force of our protest in the name of religion and humanity will be the greater if it cannot be regarded as part of any political movement. I have only too much reason to know that if it was supposed that the sufferers in Russia are in any way even indirectly concerned with the political aspects of our relations with Russia their sufferings may be increased. We have always to bear in our minds that the main object is not that we should relieve our feelings, but that we should as far as may be effect some protection of those whose sufferings excite our sympathy.
I am taking steps to see that a full inquiry into the real facts of the situation as regards persecution of every form of religion should be undertaken by responsible and trustworthy men. I hope that in the meantime, perhaps, in view of the remarkable expressions of public opinion in this country, the Soviet Government may, even now, see fit to make some mitigation of the cruelties which they encourage or perpetrate. But in any case, if the facts, so far as I can understand them, justify the belief that this persecution is continuing unabated, I shall feel bound again, and more fully than is possible this afternoon or has been attempted by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, to call the attention of this country to them and, if need be, of the noble Lords who sit on the Bench [the Government Bench] behind me. But if I do so it will be with the desire to keep that issue separate from those other political issues which quite naturally and, from their point of view, justly have been, or may be, raised by other noble Lords.
But there is one thing which I ought to say before I close, and it is this. The very fact that I am trying to keep this matter free from those political associations entitles me and those who share my view—and they are multitudes throughout the country, of every religion
578
and persuasion—to press upon the Soviet Government, which has its representative in this country, the grave risks which it is incurring if, on the one hand, it desires to obtain advantages from associations with this country, and on the other hand violates every principle and instinct for which this country in the whole course of its history has consistently stood. I venture here to repeat some words which I used yesterday, that the Soviet Government should take note that a strong public opinion is rising in this country, shared by persons of every class, party, and creed, which will insist that satisfactory relations must depend, not on material advantages only, but also, and even more, upon the common acceptance of those principles of justice, liberty, and humanity on which all international intercourse must be based.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, many in the Upper House of Convocation at Canterbury yesterday were grateful to the most rev. Primate, and many in this House to-day are equally grateful to him, for his fine words on this painful subject. Throughout the length and breadth of the land there are those who will hail with pleasure the lead that the most rev. Primate is giving to us. But I do not think that on a matter of this kind it is quite fair to leave the whole burden on his unaided shoulders; and therefore I venture myself to add a few plain words on the whole issue that is engaging our attention.
When these disclosures were first made I was travelling to Jerusalem and was out of the way, and there were many things that deterred me at the moment from taking an active part in the matter. One of the things which deterred me I have no doubt deterred many others in my position, and in other positions too; I felt that more harm than good might come if we exacerbated feeling against our fellow Christians in Russia. I was also afraid that it might be largely a newspaper enterprise, though subsequent reflection and developments have made it plain to me how very much we owe to some of the great newspapers for the way in which they are bringing this matter before the minds of the public. I felt, as one often does on these occasions, that one might be carried too far by the misguided enthusiasm of those with whom one in the main desired to

579
work. Then facts had to be verified, and I think your Lordships will all have been pleased to hear from the most rev. Primate of the pains that he has taken to get the accurate facts of the case. There are no doubt many forms of exaggeration, but I believe all your Lordships must be satisfied with the plain fact that at this time the persecution in Rusisa is something quite terrible. Then again, it is not for us who sit on this Bench to interpose in strictly political issues. That perhaps has kept some of us silent longer than otherwise would have been the case. There are always those who say: "It is not your business."
But I emphatically feel to-day that this is not a political issue but a grave religious issue. Of course, the Foreign Office necessarily has secrets of its own, and no one wishes to pry into them, or to ask for premature disclosures of foreign policy. We are more or less pledged, perhaps quite pledged, against raising any protest against the erection or continuance of any form of government in Russia. With all that I quite agree. I think it is a common fault of ours to suppose that British institutions are the ideal for the whole world. But we are not politically denouncing any form of government. What we are speaking of is the casting to the winds of all the restraints and the decencies of humanity. Such persecutions as we are hearing of to-day would have been denounced in heathen Rome long ago as contra jus gentium, which I suppose means not International Law but against the very standards of civilisation. And I claim that we are entitled to protest when we hear of these things going on almost before our eyes.
"But what good would come from such a protest?" people ask. Well, I think that stronger than law is public opinion. The noble Marquess opposite said a few minutes ago that public opinion was of the greatest importance. It is so in private, and it is so in public life at home. The easy growth of communications in the present day, I believe, gives to public opinion a much larger scope than it used to have in years gone by, and the pressure of public opinion can be felt from one country to another. Why, then, should we despair of the expression of public disgust in England doing some good
580
over there in Russia? This public opinion, informed not by diplomacy but by Christianity, is a rising tide denouncing all this cruelty and savagery, this persecution and debauchery and the defiance of all that is best and uplifting in human nature and the affairs of men. Every atom of respect for things human and things divine urges us to lift up our voice in this dreadful hour, to lift it up in compassion and appeal among men and in prayer to God.
I am one of those who very much believe in the alliance in our country between Church and State. I value it that our State is bound up with our Church, that it is not in the least out of place that a Bishop with a seat in your Lordships' House should speak here not as a politician but from the Christian standpoint. I do not speak this afternoon as a Bishop on behalf of the martyred Bishops of another church. I speak primarily as a plain Christian man, a plain man, and I believe it is the business of every Christian man and woman to condemn these things in public and in private. Your Lordships will remember the old story that when, long ago in a Roman theatre, a play was being given and the actor in his earlier lines said: "Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto"—I am a man and nothing that concerns men is outside my concern—the whole audience instinctively sprang to its feet. I believe that in the same spirit to-day the Christian world and the world of humanity is springing to its feet and saying that it is its concern when these outrages on humanity are committed. And the Christian world rises to its highest and endorses that and agrees that by every possible way and by every possible means an end should be put to these ghastly religious atrocities.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, certainly we on the Government side raise no objection to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and I personally should like to thank him for bringing forward a matter which to all Christians is undoubtedly one of supreme moment. With regard particularly to the speech of the most rev. Primate, I think, as he told us very truly, he was speaking to us in the words he spoke yesterday in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury. I read that speech with great attention. There is in it an

581
immense amount with which I am in entire agreement, and I am certainly not here either to join issue with him in his presentment of the case or to deny as a Christian—for I hope I may speak in that spirit—the enormous importance of this question to the whole basis and future of Christianity. We have also the speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Norwich who, in eloquent terms, reinforced a point which needs no reinforcement in your Lordships' House, the general outlook as regards what are called the outrages in Russia. There are one or two points which are matters of great difficulty and great responsibility, to which I intend to refer. I desire also to say quite shortly that I think it is much too early to take a pessimistic view of the outlook in Russia upon these matters. I agree entirely with what the most rev. Primate said—I noticed that he said it in his speech yesterday—that he considered it his duty from the religious standpoint (I admit that I rejoice to hear this) to make inquiry as to the accuracy of certain of the statements which have been made.
The primary difficulty, of course, from the political standpoint is this—I do not suppose that anyone in your Lordships' House would doubt the statement I am making—that, on the one hand, it is part of our political tradition to stand for religious liberty against religious persecution (so we have said very constantly) and also as a matter of constitutional tradition that we ought to be supreme in matters of internal policy, and that we ought to allow the same liberty to other countries as we claim for ourselves. Your Lordships know that in this particular case it has been made the basis of any arrangement or agreement which might be come to between Russia and ourselves, that we are not to interfere either on one side or the other with matters of entirely domestic and internal concern. I do not want to say that these serious questions are merely matters of domestic or internal concern, but they are very largely so. You really cannot effectively touch the political questions involved in religious tolerance or religious intolerance without coming very near to a claim, which might be insisted on against us as well as in our favour, that you are dealing with matters of internal and domestic concern. I will in a moment, if your Lordships
582
will allow me first of all to show the position in which we stand, state more specifically what I understand to be embraced within that very large difficulty and responsibility so far as the Government are concerned.
There are two other matters that I should like to make clear at the outset. I say that not because in this House we misrepresent one another for a moment; of course we do not; but because I think it is of the utmost importance—at least I consider it of the utmost importance—that the outlook on one or two of the leading principles involved so far as the Government are concerned should be stated with absolute clearness. Let me at the outset say that His Majesty's Government, in common, as I believe, with all other Parties in this country, are fundamentally opposed to any form of religious persecution. I say that without any restriction or limitation. Of course, the extent to which religious persecution is carried in any particular case becomes necessarily a matter of consideration. I make no limitation, I do not desire to place any limitation of any kind on the statement that I so make On the other hand, on the positive side may I say this? His Majesty's Government would desire to promote by every legitimate means the sacred cause of freedom and liberty in all forms of religious thought or religious action. That is the standpoint from which we start in this important and difficult question.
I do not for a moment desire to call in question on this point the statements which the most rev. Primate has already made. I do not think it is necessary to try to re-state them. It would be impossible for me to re-state them in the same language. I do not say that by way of attacking that language, but rather approving it. So far as I could tell, so far as I could hear, and so far as I have read the address of the most rev. Primate the other day—it is only when we come to the practical side that the difficulties in dealing with a matter of this kind arise—I do not see that any difference arises between the views he has stated and the views of the Government, or that there is any room for discussion as between the address and the attitude the Government has assumed. The strong expressions of the most rev. Primate were accompanied by a full re-

583
cognition of the differing spheres of religious and political action in the conduct of international affairs. Of course there must be a great difference between the two. I welcomed what the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said. Speaking here of course in his constitutional right as a Bishop of the Established Church, he yet spoke not from the political standpoint but from the religious outlook in our own country, where the policy of religious liberty has been illustrated in many pages of our history.
There is equally conclusive evidence—and this is the difficulty—of our strong objection to interference by any other country in our internal politics. I do not say that in any way as a reproach to the spirit of this country. I say it is the right spirit in international relationships. Then you have to consider what it means in the particular instance of these particular difficulties which have arisen in Russia. I would ask your Lordships to maintain that difficulty in your minds. I certainly think it is a great difficulty, and it is of cardinal importance to remember it for the right treatment of the question now in debate. I took out an extract upon this point from what was said in admirable language, as it appeared to me, by the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York. I took the extract from his speech, not because it in any way is different from the address of the most rev. Primate, but because it was put in a more convenient form for quotation in this House.
I will read what he said and state on behalf of the Government that I believe we agree with it wholeheartedly. He said this:—
"Anything that can be done to mitigate the horrors of that persecution, and to bring it to an end ought certainly to be done. But there is real danger—
this is where the difficulty arises—
"lest we relieve our own feelings at the cost of the very people whom we wish to succour.—
I am going to give a personal illustration of this in a moment.
"Nothing could be more disastrous than to give to the persecuting Government the smallest ground for appealing to patriotism in support of its persecuting policy … Let us indeed do anything that may truly help our persecuted brethren; but let us be vary careful that we do not add to their
584
sufferings in order to satisfy our own generous emotions."
Those words so uttered by the Archbishop are well worth consideration not only for their statement of the problem, but because it is just at that point that a great difficulty arises. I do not want to say that what is applicable in one case is necessarily applicable in another, but I dare say the noble Marquess [the Marquess of Salisbury] will recollect what was said by the late Lord Salisbury in 1896 on the question of the persecution of Christians by the Turks in Asia Minor. He said this:—
"I do not think the expression of opinion here has any effect whatever in restraining the action of the wild population who are guilty of these horrors. Of course, what is said here may have the effect of increasing the intensity of feeling between Mussulman and Christian, and that intensity of feeling is precisely what I think every friend of humanity must wish to diminish as rapidly as he can."
I do not think any one will be found in this House or elsewhere who does not agree with that statement. We must be very careful in what we do—whatever our own emotional feelings in themselves require, as we think—that we may not in the result do injury by increasing this persecution against the very persons and the very Churches whom we desire especially to protect.
I said I would give one illustration. I am glad to see the Archbishop Lord Davidson here, because we worked together in old days upon this matter, I am proud to say, as we have in many other matters. We have often been referred to the case of the Patriarch Tikhon. I had the honour of a personal acquaintance with him, and at the time when the persecution against him was being strongly commented on in this country he wrote me a letter. I was one of those who endeavoured to do what I could, as I thought, to help him. He said:
"Please be careful, and ask your friends to be careful, lest in their desire to help me they really arouse passions and difficulties which may make my position far worse than it is at the present moment."
I happened to have an opportunity of asking a friend of mine to visit the Patriarch Tikhon. I am not suggesting that at that time he was not very badly treated. He was. At that time he was imprisoned by being secluded in a monastery. It was not like a prison in

585
the ordinary form, but it was monastic life, and the message he sent back to me—that is all need deal with—was: "Please be careful lest in what you do you really make my position worse than it is at the present moment." It is a great responsibility. I feel these matters very deeply personally. What one says here and what one does here are matters of very great responsibility. We may desire, as we naturally do, to get rid of persecution, and to save those who are the subject of persecution from further horrors; yet, if we are not careful, the result will be exactly in the opposite direction.
A similar expression of the dangers, as I call them, arising from diplomatic action in trying to interfere, are to be found—I do not know how many of your Lordships have read it, and I do not propose to read the whole—in a letter from Prebendary Gough to The Times of January 11. Writing as chairman of the Committee of the Christian Protest Movement—that is the very movement which is concerning itself with these horrors to which his Grace has referred—he says:—
"May I ask you to allow me to make it known"—
that is to make it publicly known; he is writing to The Times—
"that at the Kingsway Hall meeting to be held on Monday evening and at subsequent meetings we propose to make no suggestion of diplomatic action as a means of mitigating the persecution of religion in Russia? I feel, and my committee agrees with me, that as our basis is not political we are not justified in applying for Government representations."
There is a profound truth in what Prebendary Gough says, and the profound truth is not any dereliction of the feeling of duty on our part, but if we are to do the best possible then real political restraint is often essential.
I have no intention on this occasion, nor do I desire, to belittle the horrors in Russia. I believe they are very bad. I have no intention on this occasion of making a critical analysis of the conditions, but I would urge on the most rev. Primate—no one can do it better, and it ought to be done from the religious standpoint—to press on the inquiry which himself thinks is necessary in order that the real truth may be ascertained. To my mind that is a most important matter. It is almost impossible,
586
if I may say so, to get the truth merely from messages which do not come from Russia but very often come from places quite outside Russia. Only to-day I received a message from the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee—I have no special knowledge of them myself—enclosing a note of an official statement made in Russia by a spokesmen of the Government only last Sunday, February 9. I am not asking your Lordships to accept as truth any statement of this kind, but it emphasises my point that the whole truth must be sought for and studied. It cannot be got from the statements which we see from day to day in the newspapers.
This is what the note says. This is an official statement made in Russia last Sunday, February 9:—
"To this day tens of thousands of churches of all denominations function in the U.S.S.R.—
that is the Union of Soviet and Socialist Republics—
"and priests who refrain from counterrevolutionary activities are allowed to conduct religious services unmolested."
As I say I am not asking your Lordships—of course no one who is accustomed to deal with matters of evidence would ask it—to accept a statement of that kind without further inquiry, but what I say is that there are statements on both sides and if by means of such an inquiry as has been indicated into what appears, at the present time, a horror to our whole Christian civilisation we can find the truth, an enormous step in advance will have been made.
I would like to read one further extract if I may. This is an extract from a statement made by Mr. Donald Grant, who is a Presbyterian professor in Edinburgh University and who spent last August in Moscow. He only went there in order to ascertain as far as he could what the conditions were. He is a very well known man, of course, in all questions of philosophic inquiry. He said this:—
"The Orthodox churches, as a rule—
it would not be fair if I did not say that he said that what he called the churches of sects had been very much persecuted, but he says the Orthodox churches (they are the Church of the mass in Russia)—

587
"remain open and worship is carried on in them. I attended several during my visit to Russia in August. There were always several scores of people present, most of them really taking part in the liturgical and song service. Constitutionally a Russian citizen may belong to any religion or to none."
I can only say from experience in Russia that before what is called the Bolshevist time I have never seen any cathedral in any town crowded to the extent that they were in what was then St. Petersburg and is now Leningrad.
These Orthodox churches—and the Orthodox Church, after all, covers I will not say all Christians in Russia but a very large number—he found left open and used and there was no interference with the priests last August. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord who asked this Question will realise at once the delicacy of making representations to a foreign Government on a matter which falls within the domestic affairs of that country and especially touching matters of this character. I am quite certain that the present Foreign Secretary will do all he can, of course not without regard to what he considers the necessities of the position and his knowledge. We now, of course, have Sir Esmond Ovey, our Ambassador, stationed in Moscow. I am sure he will do all he can in every direction to see if this horror can be mitigated and to push on one side this terrible outburst, as it appears to be, of religious persecution.
As I was coming into the House this afternoon I heard that a Question was going to be asked in another place very much in the same terms as the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. That Question was to be asked of the Foreign Secretary himself and, of course, in a matter of this kind it is no derogation of the dignity of this House to say that it is important to have the authority and words of the person immediately and directly responsible in a policy of this category. The Question was put by Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, and I think in order to make it quite clear I had better read both the Question and Answer. The Question was:—
"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take immediate steps under Article 11 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to bring before the League the question of the conditions affecting religious liberty in Russia."
588
The Foreign Secretary's Answer was in these terms:—
"The reports current as regards the religious situation in Russia have caused widespread and deep concern in this and other countries and are receiving the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government. I have grave doubts whether the course suggested by the right hon. gentleman would promote the object which he has in view, but the House may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will, when possible or compatible with the interests of those affected, use all its influence in support of the cause of religious liberty and the freedom of religious practice."
I can say no more than that, but I think that should go a very long way to assure your Lordships and the most rev. Primate that this is not a matter that, so long as I am a member of any Government, I can look upon as less than one of most serious moment. I think religious persecution has been and may be the curse of the world. So far as my influence goes, I shall use every effort within my power to help the Foreign Secretary to carry out the policy that is indicated in the answer given in the House of Commons.
LORD HAYTER: May I take it that the answer of His Majesty's Government to my Question is that the Russian Government have not been approached? I asked if His Majesty's Government had called the attention of the Soviet Government to this matter. Is the answer No?
LORD PARMOOR: No.
LORD HAYTER: Thank you.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the noble and learned Lord if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to do anything in the matter or to make any representation upon the subject to the Soviet Government?
LORD PARMOOR: I answered in the words of the Foreign Secretary in the other House. The Government will take every possible opportunity when a proper one arises to press forward this question and to stop this persecution. The noble Duke knows that I can say no more than that.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the noble and learned Lord what he calls a proper occasion?
LORD DAVIDSON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord inti-

589
mated to me that he would be glad if I could corroborate his recollection with regard to what passed during the imprisonment of the Patriarch Tikhon. That is some half dozen years ago or more, and for a considerable time—I should think for something like two years—I was in constant communication with those who represented the Patriarch Tikhon and were able to give such information as was practicable about the terms of his imprisonment, the prospects of an alleviation of his bondage or of his release, or, on the other hand, the fear that he might be done to death. I was unprepared with details, which I cannot give at this moment, but I had constant correspondence at that time with those who were in a position to be directly in communication with the Patriarch Tikhon during his imprisonment. I think that I should paint a rather darker picture of that imprisonment than my noble and learned friend did. I was in constant communication with those who were seeing him. He declined to write letters, on the ground of the danger that what he wrote would be seized, distorted and published, as he feared, in a garbled form, and he begged that any communication might be verbal and confidential.
He did, however, distinctly say on more than one occasion that he begged that we would take the greatest care not to allow our sympathies to lead us to use incautious terms respecting his imprisonment and the severity of it, or respecting the prospect of his life being imperilled, that we should use the greatest caution about it, because he was afraid that the results might be to his detriment if the matter could be regarded as having been exaggerated in this country. I have confined myself to that one point in a very large subject because the noble and learned Lord asked me to corroborate him. On the great question I would say, of course, that the condition of things during the lifetime of the Patriarch Tikhon, bad as it was, hard as was the lot of Christians, of the Greek Church of the Russian Church or any other, at that time, it was entirely different from the facts of to-day, There was nothing of the nature of the persecution of Christians as Christians that is going on to-day, though there was hardship enough, God knows, for those unhappy people. So far as it goes, what
590
the noble and learned Lord said as to the need of great caution in what we say publicly about it is corroborated by my own recollection.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords opposite will not, if I may so put it, be too hard on the noble and learned Lord who answered for the Government, because, after all, he to our great thankfulness was given away at the end by the Foreign Secretary's answer in another place. What the Foreign Secretary appears to have said went very much further than the sort of encouragement that the noble and learned Lord was able to give us in the course of his speech. We shall be quite satisfied if any Article in the Covenant which deals with the question of religious liberty is taken advantage of by the Foreign Secretary in the course of his negotiations and his conversations with the Ambassador of the Soviet Republics. What we have never been able to get hitherto was a definite statement that anything of that sort would be done. The most rev. Primate undertakes, quite naturally, to do the best he can to get at the facts of this most difficult question. We all know quite well that we are talking about it very largely in the dark, but I do want most respectfully to suggest to the Government that they have a responsibility in that matter quite apart from the most rev. Primate. If so be there is any treaty or covenant that, has reference to religious liberty, then the Government have the responsibility of seeing that this part of the Covenant is really decently carried out. If I may by way of example—
LORD PARMOOR: One moment. There is no reference to religious liberty in the Covenant. There is no question as regards Article 11.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: I am sorry, but the noble Lord was speaking with his back to me and, to my great regret, I misunderstood him. But I did understand him to say—I should like to be quite clear about this—that it is the intention of the Foreign Secretary to bring this matter quite definitely to the notice of the Soviet Ambassador.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD PARMOOR: I read the words of the answer. I did not find those words

591
in the answer, and I am certainly not going to make a gloss on what the Foreign Secretary said.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to ask the noble Lord who leads the House whether the Government are taking any steps to verify the appalling statements that have been made as to religious persecution by the Soviet Government, with a view to taking action upon it?
LORD PARMOOR: So far as I know—I do not pretend to be omniscient of everything that has gone on—the answer is, No.
LORD DANESFORT: May I, by leave of the House, say one word more? May I urge upon the Government that it is their duty, if they are a civilised Government, to take steps to inquire through their Ambassador or through other sources of information in Russia whether there is truth in the statements that have had some doubt cast upon them in his speech, and upon which I am quite certain that the British nation and every nation in Christendom desires to have information?
LORD PARMOOR: Do not let there be misunderstanding. I am sorry that there should be. Of course there are constant communications passing between the Government and our Ambassador.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we are restrained, of course, from saying anything by the observation of the noble and learned Lord that anything we say may do more harm than good. That
592
is what is restraining us, but I think it is right that what the Foreign Secretary actually said in another place should be cleared up. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord was good enough to read it. I certainly gathered from it that Mr. Henderson undertook to do his utmost in every respect to urge, as I understood, in some form or other, the necessity for better treatment of our fellow Christians.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Marquess is quite right, but it would be wiser if I read it out again. It is as follows:—
"I have grave doubts whether the course suggested by the right hon. gentleman would promote the object which he has in view, but"—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That was an appeal to the Covenant.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. The reply of Mr. Henderson continues:—
—"the House may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will, when possible or compatible with the interests of those affected, use all its influence in support of the cause of religious liberty and the freedom of religious practice."

BURY GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the County Borough of Bury:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at six o'clock.