Lords Sitting of 12 November 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Carrington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR.
The Right Honourable Gerald William Balfour, having succeeded to the dignity of the Earl of Balfour on the death of his brother Arthur James Balfour, Earl of Balfour, by virtue of a special remainder contained in a Patent bearing date the fifth day of May, 1922.—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICE GUILD PETITION.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the Imperial Merchant Service Guild against Article 41 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, which is usually known as the Helmsman's Order, on the grounds that no necessity exists for the proposed change; that the proposed change deals exclusively with matters belonging to their profession by an International Conference on which they were not represented, and that it is strenuously objected to by the masters and navigating officers whom the petitioners represent. The proposed change would involve grave danger not merely of casualties in pilotage waters but of catastrophes at sea in any sudden emergency, and that during the lifetime of the present generation of seamen.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

FRASERBURGH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Fraser-burgh harbour; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confirm a, Provisional Order relating to Grampian Electricity Supply, and to move that it he read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS TO MEETINGS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the admission of the Press to meetings of certain local authorities, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to he printed.

PEERS' WAR MEMORIAL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper regarding your Lordships' War Memorial.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to make the necessary arrangements for the erection of the Peers' War Memorial, and to deal generally with matters relating thereto; and that the Lords following, with the Lord President and the Chairman of

73
Committees, be named of the Committee:—

M. Salisbury,

M. Crewe,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Buxton,

E. Peel,

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Desborough,

L. Arnold. —(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EAST AFRICA.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD) moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa (Cmd. 3234 and Cmd. 3378), together with the statement of the conclusions of His Majesty's Government (Cmd. 3574), and to report thereon. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long this evening in speaking to the Motion which is upon the Paper. Four months ago, towards the end of the last Session, I spoke to a similar Motion which I subsequently obtained leave to withdraw. My object, as I then explained, was to give notice to all concerned that it was the intention of the Government to ask your Lordships' House to set up a Joint Committee to examine the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa by what is called the Hilton Young Commission and by Sir Samuel Wilson, and the conclusions reached by his Majesty's Government as stated in Command Paper 3574.
On that occasion I mentioned the more important points in the conclusions of the Government and outlined the functions which it was proposed to give to the High Commissioner appointed in respect of the three territories of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. Incidentally, I may remind your Lordships, I made it clear that the Government had not failed to take very carefully into account the position of the Tanganyika territory in their anxiety to ensure the continued observance, in the spirit as well as in the letter, of the Mandate under
74
which that territory is administered. On that point, the observations with which we might be favoured by the Permanent Mandates Commission would be taken, of course, carefully into account before any new Constitution was put into operation. But your Lordships have before you the Command Paper which sets forth, with a great deal of elucidatory appendices and explanations, the detailed proposals, and there is no need for me to go through them to-day.
There are, however, one or two questions of a more general character to which I should like to refer. I have recently heard some doubts expressed as to the desirability of setting up a Joint Committee to examine and report upon this matter. I would ask your Lordships to consider what are the alternatives to that. Of course, we might decide here and now to drop the whole idea of closer union so far as the economic system is concerned—a proposal which has been very strongly advocated in itself and for itself for the common advantage during the past five, six or seven years, and specifically and very definitely recommended in the Hilton-Young Report. On the advantages of that amount of closer union there has been, I venture to think, very little dissent, but there has been a great deal of controversy as to how exactly it should be carried out. It may be that the Joint Committee will make a negative recommendation of that kind—that we should drop the whole idea—but I do not think we can anticipate that, and we should not be justified in anticipating such a recommendation. The alternative would be that the Government should here and now proceed with its own conclusions, and put them into operation without further discussion.
I should be very sorry to have to do that, because, if I may put it quite simply to your Lordships, we have given a great deal of time and thought to this matter and we have not shirked our responsibility. We have quite definitely come to some conclusions on the subject, which we have put before the country and your Lordships in the White Paper, but we do not presume that we have all the wisdom, and we think it better that we should invite your Lordships and the other place to give us your aid in seeing that these conclusions are the best pos-

75
sible solution of this difficulty. We cannot escape our own responsibilities so long as we are in office, but at the same time the appointment of a Joint Committee seems almost the only way in which we can get the co-operation of other minds upon this problem to ensure that every point of view is adequately put forward, and that the conclusions may represent what I would venture to call the collective wisdom of Parliament. Quite simply that is our proposal. As I say, we have not shirked our own responsibility. We tell you definitely what our conclusions are. We do not claim that they are in any sense the whole of wisdom, and we should hope that the Joint Committee would go over them with due consideration so as to get a final conclusion which would represent the best opinion on the subject.
Perhaps I ought to say a word on the composition of the Committee if it is set up. I do so for a purpose that will appear presently. Your Lordships will realise that it is a matter for a separate Motion in each House, when concurrence in your Lordships' Resolution has been given in another place. Therefore, it is not put down now, but I mention it for one point, and that is the question of the procedure of the Committee. I want to make it quite clear that the Government have no right to dictate, and would not seek to dictate, to the Committee what its procedure is going to be, and, consequently, we have not been able to accede to the requests that have been made to us that certain arrangements should be made in advance. Suggestions have reached me from various sources that the Government might take the responsibility of summoning the representatives of different sections of East African opinion in order that they may put their several views before the Committee. I assume that the Joint Committee, if it is set up, will decide to take evidence, but it must clearly be for the Joint Committee to decide whether that evidence shall be oral or in writing and from whom it will be taken. Therefore, we have not—and it would not be right to do so—taken any action in that matter. I will only take this opportunity of saying that I shall certainly place no impediment in the way of carrying out any decision which the Joint Committee may come to on that point.
I might state for your Lordships' information what the Government have already done. Considered opinions upon the White Paper have been obtained in writing from the Governors of Kenya, Uganda and the Tanganyika Territory, and also from the High Commissioner for Transport, Kenya-Uganda, whilst the Government of India has been invited to record its own views in so far as Indian interests are concerned in the matter. These statements have been obtained specially for communication to the Joint Committee. I may say in passing that the Despatch from the Governor of Uganda includes a statement from the Kabaka of Buganda, and we thus have available already for the Committee a statement of the views of the ruler of the most highly organised native race in East Africa which, for special reasons connected with what is called the Uganda Agreement of 1900, has a special interest in the question of closer union. I have taken up more time than I meant to do. In conclusion, reverting to the Motion which is before the House, let me say that we feel that any proposal for setting up a new Constitution, even if only partial, for so large and important a colonial area as. East Africa, is no light matter, and we ask Parliament to go into the whole subject for itself by means of a Joint Committee. We feel that that is the best way of getting whatever light and leading can be got on the subject in correction, or supplement, or alteration of the conclusions which the Government have come to on this subject. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa (Cmd. 3234 and Cmd. 3378), together with the statement of the conclusions of His Majesty's Government (Cmd. 3571), and to report thereon.—(Lord Passfield.)
LORD LUGARD: My Lords, I support the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with even more emphasis than I did when he proposed a similar Motion some four months ago, because there would seem to be some fear lest this very important issue should become the shuttlecock of Party politics. There is no need for me to urge upon your Lordships the

77
vital importance of continuity, whatever Government may be in power, in matters concerning—the interests of the millions for which this country has become responsible overseas. It is a principle which, I know, will meet with acceptance in every part of this House, and this is the reason why I consider that a Joint Committee composed of men of all Parties from both Houses is the best possible means of obtaining a national verdict which no Government could lightly set aside.
Nor is there any reason for me to dwell in your Lordships' House on the importance of the issues which are involved. The Duke of Devonshire, speaking in this House seven years ago as Secretary for the Colonies, described the question as one of vast and far-reaching importance, which extends far outside the limits of any one Colony, and upon the decisions now taken will depend the orientation of British policy throughout Africa in the future. When I was privileged to address your Lordships a year and a half ago on this subject, f urged the desirability of setting up a Joint Committee for these reasons, and I added that I hoped that the creation of such a body would attract delegations from the Dependencies more immediately concerned. That hope has not been disappointed, and we are able to give a warm welcome to those who, on the understanding that this Committee would be set up, have come from overseas to give their assistance, to state their views, and to give the Committee the benefit of their long experience.
The problem is not an easy one, and there is no royal road to its solution. Only those who have endeavoured to follow out in detail the various facile solutions which have been proposed can realise the difficulties. We are all agreed, f think, including the spokesmen of British residents in Kenya, and all those who have had experience elsewhere in Africa, that Parliamentary institutions are not suited to the governance of these large African Dependencies. I am convinced that in their later development that will result in additional racial conflict and in a policy of repression, which, as Mr. Justice Rose-Innes, with a lifelong experience of South Africa, said in
78
a letter to The Times the other day, can only end in a terrible disaster. The problem, as I see it, is to find an alternative method and to adapt it to the varying circumstances of the different Dependencies.
My noble friend Lord Cranworth, speaking on this subject in a previous Session, said that he thought it would be useless to appoint a Joint Committee because any members who knew anything about the subject would come with unalterable views. I do not share his pessimistic forecast. The ability to put aside preconceived prejudices and preconceived opinions, when called upon to act in a judicial capacity, is one of the characteristics of our race, and I believe that if those who appear to hold irreconcilable views would meet round a table with the sincere desire and good will to arrive at conclusions based solely on the good of the country and of its inhabitants of whatever race, a solution will be found. I have personally had an opportunity of talking with two or three of the leading exponents of views with which I do not myself wholly agree, and we have in each case mutually agreed that there was no insuperable barrier between us in principle. It will, therefore, be an immense advantage to the Committee to have an opportunity of personal contact with the delegates themselves and share with them (as I hope) the satisfaction of putting an end to the controversies of the past.
It has been suggested that the White Paper on Native Policy should be included in the terms of reference, and I had rather expected to hear an Amendment moved in that sense this afternoon. I do not personally attach much importance to that proposal, because, in the first instance, the Report of the Hilton Young Commission is included in the terms of reference and there is no aspect of native policy which is not dealt with fully in that Report. Moreover, the White Paper itself, setting forth the conclusions of His Majesty's Government, which forms the basis of the terms of reference to the Committee, does refer to the White Paper on Native Policy, and therefore I conclude that the latter is inferentially included in the terms of reference. In the second place, I understand that no exception is taken to the general principles laid down in the White Paper on Native

79
Policy, but rather to its phraseology, and it is not the function of a Committee of this kind to redraft a Government Memorandum even supposing that it considered that the wording could be improved.
The Committee will, of course, frame its own conclusions and state its recommendations in its own language and since the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, in his speech last July, stated that his object in proposing the appointment of a Joint Committee was in order quite frankly to see whether the conclusions of the Government could be improved, it may doubtless be assumed that any improvement which might be recommended would cover the question of phraseology. The noble Lord said that he desired in any case to get for the policy which may eventually be decided upon a sort of sanction higher than that at any rate of the present Government and, perhaps, of any Government confined to one Party. It is with this object that I join in asking your Lordships to adopt the Resolution.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I am sorry that I have to strike a somewhat discordant note at this stage. Your Lordships will recollect that when this Motion was before the House some months ago I ventured to say that I doubted whether the appointment of this Committee was either an opportune or a satisfactory method of settling the problems which we have before us. I have had considerable time to consider the subject since then and considerable opportunity, and I am sorry to say that I find that the reasons which caused me to form my then opinion remain sufficient to cause me to retain it still. I propose to give your Lordships briefly the reasons that cause me to hold that opinion very firmly. In the first place, I would suggest that the history of these joint committees, and more especially that one which dealt with not totally dissimilar proposals in connection with India, has not been such as to give entire encouragement for the formation of the present one. The second point I make is that I do not think that the personnel from which you will be enabled to appoint this Committee stands on a sufficiently broad basis.
I agree with my noble friend on my left that probably the two great
80
qualities you require in members of this Committee are, first, a broad and open mind, and, secondly, sufficient knowledge of what, after all, is a very intricate question to be able to weigh the evidence put before them at its true worth. I do not doubt for one moment that you will be able to get twenty gentlemen with impartial minds, but there must be many of your Lordships who are members of selection committees which select candidates for constituencies, and I would ask whether in selecting those candidates they ever require of one of them that he should have an impartial mind. I venture to suggest that as a matter of fact it is the very last thing desired. The more -bigoted his mind is on your side the more votes he will get among members of the selection committee. With regard to the second quality—sufficient knowledge to weigh the evidence before them—I feel certain that you will be able to get twenty gentlemen with that qualification, but when you have to combine the two that is where you will find the difficulty.
I venture to think, in opposition to what the noble Lord on my left has said, that it is a fact that the majority, if not all, of the people with sufficient knowledge have their minds made up on the major issues now. They themselves will say that they are convinced by the overwhelming mass of evidence. Those who hold opposite opinions will say that they are encased in prejudice and obstinacy, and, if they want to be nasty, they will add serf-interest. I will just give two instances to illustrate this point. I have lived some years in East Africa and I am firmly convinced that the natives gain benefits by living in contact with the white civilisation as distinct from contact merely with white officials and white missionaries. I admit that the white settler gains advantages from contact, but I am more convinced as years go on that the natives gain advantage too. I think the one is the complement of the other. I cannot believe for one moment that any evidence put before me is going to shake for one minute that opinion which I hold. The other instance is this: there have been two great Commissions—the Ormsby-Gore Commission and the Hilton Young Commission—Commissions that were formed from all Parties. They

81
were non-Party Commissions. They investigated the evidence at great length and with great care and they produced two fine—one might almost say magnificent—Reports. Do your Lordships really suppose that those gentlemen are going to change the opinions which they formed during those investigations merely from a réchauffé of evidence once more set before them? I cannot believe that this is likely.
The third point that I wish to make is that the time is not opportune. Those countries, especially Kenya, are suffering from the economic crisis through which the world is passing. They are having great financial difficulties. Their three main crops, sisal, coffee and maize, are at this moment probably being produced at a loss. They are unable to face any great expenditure. The expenditure with regard to these proposals has been Ira to Inc as a minimum of £50,000 and a maximum of £100,000 a year. The country is unable to bear it at the present moment, and it is on those grounds that I say that this is an inopportune dine for going into that great question.
My fourth point raises the most important consideration of all. I am afraid that the spirit of accommodation in that country is dead or, as I should prefer to say, temporarily gassed. Two Papers are mentioned in this Motion, but there is a third—namely, Command Pr per 3573, the Memorandum on Native Policy. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of those who drew up that Paper. I am convinced that they believed every word they wrote, but I do say that it is a most unhappy document, and that its conclusions have been much more far-reaching than its authors contemplated. I would add that the tone of it is unhappy. It consists to a great extent of what may be described as excellent principles and platitudes, with nine-tenths of which we all agree. These are offered to the people in that country who have been carrying out those principles for twenty-five years and more. These principles are put to them as a novel doctrine. They are no novel doctrine. People out there have been carrying them out to the admiration, if not of all their countrymen, of most of the civilised world.
My second point regarding that Memorandum is that it seems to me to
82
breathe distaste and distrust of the white community in that country, whether it be settlers or officials. The third point that I would make in that regard is that it takes a phrase out of its context in another place and elevates it into a novel principle by which our Colony must be governed. I allude to the phrase "paramountcy of native interests." I admit that the phrase is taken out of the Memorandum on Indians in Kenya which was drawn up by the Conservative Government in 1923. I remember that I regretted the phrase when I first saw it, as many others did, and I feel now that we should have been more vocal in our distaste for it. But we thought—certainly I thought—that in its context it meant that our duty towards the natives was felt to be of such paramount importance that we did not dare risk entrusting them to the chance of domination by the Indians. That is what I thought it meant, and that is What I believe that its authors would say now that it meant. But that is not the sense in which, taken from its context, it is put into this Memorandum.
There may be several interpretations of the phrase "paramountcy of native interests." One of them appeared this morning in The Times, signed by among others, the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, with which I think few, and certainly not I, will be disposed to find fault. I should like just to read it to you:—
"We take it to mean no more than that the interests of the overwhelming majority of the original population must not be subordinated to those of a minority, belonging to another race, however important in itself."
That, I think, is happy phraseology, but that, even if it were the intention, is not the meaning that was put upon it in this Memorandum. The gleaning there was that for all time the European interests in this country—and you must remember that these Europeans were asked to go out there—were to be subordinated. They were to find themselves in a sub-ordinate position. Thus we find what is, to me, a somewhat peculiar spectacle—namely, a great sum of money (great in proportion to the population and riches) raised to enable a delegation to come over here to ask its own Government that in its own country it should have equal

83
rights with the rest of the population. That seems to me a peculiar thing to happen, and, I think, a regrettable one.
It may be said the meaning read into that phrase is not that which was intended. But I must further point out that it has raised intense antagonism, not only in Kenya and East Africa, but further afield, in the Union of South Africa. I say, with all due deference to the noble Lord opposite, that it seems to me a wrong thing to have ordered the publication of that Paper in those territories to millions of uneducated natives without first submitting it to His Majesty's representatives overseas. It is, perhaps, a foolish thing that the great change of policy indicated in that Paper should be placed before them without having been first submitted to the many other nations, such as the Union of South Africa, who are so deeply affected by the question.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long, and I do not wish to go into the many questions raised by the White Paper or into the conclusions of His Majesty's Government. These matters will be gone into by the Committee that is to be appointed. But there is one comment I should like to make on that point. There is one thing to which I do not think that Committee or anyone else can really agree. In one particular, the conclusions of the Government run counter to the "paramountcy of native interests," whether it be read in the form of the Memorandum on Native Policy or in the form preferred by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, and myself. It does open the door, not once but in two major issues, to the domination of the natives by the Indians. I do not believe that any one who has any real knowledge of that country can believe that this can be in the interests of the native population.
In conclusion, I would make one suggestion to the noble Lord and one appeal to him. It does seem to me to be vital in this matter that we should recover the good will of the people on the spot. There are many things that we may say and think about them. You may wish that they had never come there, at the invitation of His Majesty's Government; you may deny them what they think is their fair share in the responsibility of trusteeship for the natives; you may add to their taxation until they find it hard
84
to bear; you may—I do not think you will—overwhelm them with illiterate votes; but there is one thing that you cannot alter, and that is the fact that, in this generation at least, so far as we can see, while they are there they will be the dominant race in that country. Accordingly, to my mind, if you are to tackle these great problems with the hope of success, it is absolutely essential that this good will should be recovered, and that the people out there, who will have to carry out whatever you decide, whatever the Committee decide, should look upon the Government of this country as their friend and not as their enemy.
The suggestion that I would make to the noble Lord is this. If the House decides, as I have no doubt it will, to appoint a Committee, that you should appoint the members in due course but postpone for a few months at least the setting up of that Committee. By so doing you will show sympathy for these people in their troubles—in their economic troubles. This delegation has been over here for two months, and is now forced by stress of circumstances to return. Surely, it would be an almost intolerable burden to ask them to leave their farms or their businesses, and to return again and give evidence before the Committee. I conceive that no Committee would reach any conclusions unless they really know what the people there have in their hearts. If you adopt my suggestion you will show at least that you have sympathy with them, and you will go a great step to get back the good will which I fear is jeopardised.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have no wish to prolong the discussion at this stage. I only desire to take this opportunity, on behalf of many who are deeply interested in the problems of the whole of Africa, to impress, if it is necessary, upon the House the great and far-reaching importance of the issues which are partly [involved and partly concealed by the Motion which is before the House, and to support as strongly as I can the proposal that these questions should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. As long ago as February, 1929, a proposal that this whole problem should be referred to a Joint Committee was made in a remarkable letter which was signed by seven members of your Lordships' House, including Lord

85
Lugard, who has spoken, and my revered predecessor, Archbishop Davidson. In that letter they used the words:
"The questions to he determined in East Africa are second in their importance only to those of India."
I regard it as not without significance that we should be having this discussion on the very afternoon of the day on which, with so much impressiveness and in an atmosphere of so much hope, the Conference on the problems of India was opened by His Majesty, for indeed There is a very close analogy between the two problems; and the point where we now stand with regard to East Africa is whether we are now light-heartedly to take decisions from which afterwards it may be impossible to withdraw, and which involve the welfare of the whole of that vast Continent.
This is, as your Lordships well know, touch more than a mere administrative problem. If that were all, it might be enough to know how successfully to get round the immediate corner. There are times when the question is not to get round the next corner but what road we are ultimately to follow, so as to see that no step is taken which is not along the road carefully and thoughtfully sleeted. It is because we have reached, in the judgment of many, a turning point in the whole future of that vast Continent of Africa, that we consider that the matter deserves the most careful and full consideration of Parliament, under the guidance and help of a Joint Committee. It is because the matter is so important that we should regard it as most unfortunate if it were approached with any misunderstandings. I am not attempting this afternoon any sort of criticism, but it may be, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has indicated, that some of the language of the last Government White Paper may have contributed to this misunderstanding—I am sure, quite unintentionally.
I would go further and admit that the language used in the famous statement of 1923 might have been more happily chosen. Your Lordships are all familiar with the oft-quoted words that:—
"… the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and that if, and when, those interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail."
86
I am not surprised that these words should have given rise to great misunderstanding in the minds of the settlers, who have risked everything and are deeply attached to their country and who are concerned lest their own interests should be merely subordinated to other interests, even of the natives. It seems to me that what we have to do is to recognise fully and frankly that the great interests represented largely by the white race and the black races are in need of each other. We ought to do nothing to suggest the antithesis that pro-native means anti-white, or that anti-white means pro-native. In the long run these interests are identical, and if at any point they seem to conflict our end should he not that any interest, as such, should prevail, but that justice should be done to each.
Justice in the old sense of the term means giving to each its due—due value and due consideration—and to my mind the most fundamental question which this Joint Committee will have to determine is what authority in the future in East Africa is to hold the scales of justice. I am not in any way anticipating the conclusions of the Joint Committee, but I think it might be admitted that some self-governing constitution, chiefly representative of the white settlers, would not be the best authority to determine this question of impartial justice, not because we doubt the fairness with which the settlers would consider the problem, but from the very fact that a Legislature representing something like one out of ninety-nine of the population of the country concerned, can scarcely be regarded as wholly impartial, and ought not to be a judge in its own cause.
Indeed, let us remember, with a view of dismissing this unnecessary misunderstanding, that the elected European members of the Kenya Legislature in their manifesto said that the colonists had never disputed the necessity of investing some central authority with the duty of holding the balance even in racial matters. There ought to be evolved some arbitral authority to exercise this great function, and the task of the Joint Committee would be to suggest what that; authority should be, and how it should be exercised. I should be surprised if they did not come to the conclusion that the only real arbitral authority must

87
be the Secretary of State himself, as responsible to the Imperial Parliament. But if the authority is to be arbitral, it ought not to be arbitrary; it ought to be exercised in the closest possible association with those on the spot, wale have vital interests, and those who are concerned day by day with the life and welfare of the native.
It. would be quite out of place at the present time to indicate even in the most general way the basis upon which such an authority might be suggested. My only desire at this stage is to deprecate the approach to the discussion of this immensely important problem as if one set of interests was to be arrayed against another. The value of the Joint Committee will be that it will help Parliament to decide, at a quite critical moment in the whole future history of that vast Continent, what is the system of government there to which we are steadily to direct our efforts for many generations, and what is to be the authority that can be trusted to deal justly in all questions affecting the races towards whom we have to exercise a most responsible trust. It seems to me only right that. matters so far-reaching should receive the fullest and most careful thought at the hands of Parliament, because I do not think General Smuts exaggerated the position when he said that the question of white and black on the Continent of Africa was going to be the most interesting and enthralling problem of the twentieth century.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this Motion is a similar one to that which the noble Lord the Secretary of State put down at the end of last Session, and withdrew. Many things have happened, and much has been said in the few months that have elapsed since then. In consequence it seems to me that the position has altered considerably, and has modified to a certain extent, and I think it calls for some further comment. In the first place, it has become abundantly evident that there is an almost complete unanimity of opinion among the white population in East Africa unfavourable to the two White Papers which were issued by the Government last summer—namely, the White Paper on Closer Union and the White Paper on the question of Native Policy; and,
88
as a matter of fact, it is the latter which has probably created the worst impression. This is a very unfortunate state of affairs, and I think it only right to say that one wonders whether in the circumstances, and owing to the sense of insecurity which has been created in East Africa, it is likely that the Joint Committee which it is proposed to set up can achieve any very tangible results.
I think this is doubly unfortunate, because when Sir Samuel Wilson went out to East Africa last year he managed to obtain a very extraordinary measure of agreement with regard to these problems, taking everything into consideration. He certainly carried out his work in an admirable way: but I am very much afraid that most of the good which he did has been done away with by these two Government White Papers, and particularly by the actual phraseology and the impression created by this White Paper on Native Policy. The interpretation which has been put upon the word "paramountcy," which has been referred to already this evening, has undoubtedly created alarm, and not only in Kenya itself, but in the two Rhodesias as well, particularly Northern Rhodesia. The white populations in those countries have acquired the conviction that the legitimate interests of the colonists will not receive fair consideration and support from the Colonial Office at home. Whether those fears are justified or not I do not know, but that is actually what has happened, and that is the situation which the Government have to face at the present moment.
With regard to the actual scheme proposed by the Government, I want to say very little. It was discussed last July at some length. I think I said even then that in my view it required a number of radical alterations before it could possibly be looked upon as acceptable. I do not wish to traverse that ground again to-day. On general principles, though, I would like to say that we on this Bench welcome the idea that the great question of policy in East Africa should he dealt with as far as possible on a non-Party basis, by some such means as the Joint Committee proposed by the Government. I am certain we are all most anxious to do everything we can to keep these big Imperial and Colonial questions out of Party politics. But there is one

89
point that I think I must make clear. The Government have expressed their intention to submit the White Paper on Closer Union to the Joint Committee, but it is not their intention, I understand, to submit the White Paper on Native Policy to that Committee. I think that is rather a curious step to have taken. It comes to this, that, in our opinion, in consequence of that action, the White Paper on Native Policy must be looked upon as a Party document and Prot as an agreed document, and must therefore be considered to be open to revision by any Government that may succeed the present one.
I should like to refer to the circumstances which have led up to the present state of affairs. There have been three Commissions or Inquiries in recent years rent out to East Africa. We first had one presided over by Mr. Ormsby-Gore, which was sent out by a Labour Government in 1924, and was an entirely non-Party body. That Commission made unanimous recommendations, I think, against any form of closer union. They believed that agreement on matters of common interest between the different countries out there could be attained by conferences, such as the Governors' Conference, and other technical conferences which might easily be set going. Then, in 1927, we Fad the Commission presided over by Sir Hilton Young, and that Commission certainly made some proposals with regard to closer union, but they were only made in broad outlines, many of the details were left out, and many problems and difficulties were left undecided. As the result of that, last year Sir Samuel Wilson was sent out to work out the details on the spot, in consultation with those whose interests were involved, and I venture to say again that he did so with very great success, and achieved a very great measure of agreement. But in spite of those three Reports, the Government have rejected the proposals of all three, and have instead put forward new proposals of their own. I venture to say that this is a somewhat extraordinary attitude to have taken up.
I do not wish to go further into the actual proposals because, as I have said, they were discussed at some length a short time ago, and admittedly, they are to be subjected to the consideration
90
of the Joint Select Committee. But I must repeat that I doubt very much whether, in consequence of the political and economic circumstances now obtaining in East Africa, the Joint Committee will be able so to amend the proposals of the Government as to make them either practicable or acceptable. However, in view of the expressed intention of those of us on this side to refer the Reports of these various Commissions to a Joint Committee, we are prepared to co-operate in further examining these proposals. At the same time, we reserve to ourselves complete freedom of action should there be a change of Government in the future.
I should like to say a very few words about the Committee and its composition. With regard to the Chairman—and here I feel certain the noble Lord knows that I do not speak personally in any way—I am very glad that it has been decided that the noble Lord himself should not be Chairman. That position, I think, would have been a very unfortunate one. The Secretary of State would have been at one and the same time Chairman of the Committee and chief protagonist of the scheme which was before the Committee. That, I think, would have created a very bad impression, and I am sure he will agree with me that there are plenty of precedents against such a course. I understand that nothing has been definitely settled on this subject, but I hope, if I may put it in that way, that a noble Lord who is not closely identified with the Front Bench of any Party may be selected to preside over the Committee. As to the procedure of the Committee, I feel very strongly, and I think the noble Lord stated in his speech that he agreed, that the Committee should be left free to regularise its own procedure both with regard to evidence and the documents, official or otherwise, which are to be called before it. I think that is an important point.
I do not think there is anything else which I wish to say about any detail of these proposals. I would only add in conclusion that which I know we all feel—tihat the question of policy in East Africa is a vast and complicated problem and that, whatever may issue from all these discussions, we may be certain that the effect of any decisions which are come to will be very far reaching

91
indeed. The government of a new country from Downing Street is a very difficult business at the best of times. The past success of Great Britain as a Colonial Power has depended to a very large extent on the ability of those at home to enter into the feelings of all the diverse populations subjected to official rule. One thing is absolutely certain, and I am confident that the Government realise this: no good can come to any section of the population, least of all the native section, if the good will between those who govern and those who are governed is in any way forfeited.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will not detain the House many moments in replying to the debate, but perhaps in courtesy I ought to say a few words with regard to some of the remarks that have been made. If I pass over most of them it is merely to save time, and to deal only with those on which some further explanation or elucidation might be given. With regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, I think a large part of his criticisms and objections turned on the use of the word "paramountcy"—the paramountcy of the native interests. That expression occurs not only in the Memorandum on Native Policy but at the beginning also of the Memorandum on Closer Union. Therefore, it is very specifically referred to the Joint Committee. Perhaps it was a natural weakness on the part of the Government that they did wish to maintain the principle of continuity as far as they possibly could, and I can assure the noble Lord that there was no notion in our minds of interpreting this in any new way. I want to say that quite definitely. As a matter of fact it was very fully and elaborately stated in 1923, not merely in a sentence but in a whole paragraph. That was examined in the Report of the Hilton Young Commission at considerable length, and the Government are not expressing any new doctrine when they simply repeat the declaration that the Duke of Devonshire made in 1923.
Then the suggestion is that at any rate it was wrong to distribute the Paper among the population. I do not know how far it has been distributed among the two and a-half millions of natives. I would only say that the 1923 Paper had
92
an equal circulation, as far as we can make out, and the Hilton Young Report also. It is not possible to keep these things secret if they are published. We have certainly taken no steps to distribute it among the native population. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we want to secure the good will of the people on the spot and, whatever may have been the faults of myself or of my colleagues in the matter, surely one of the best ways in which we can try to make amends is to call them into counsel in this Joint Committee. It is deliberately in order to obtain the greatest possible measure of good will that I am asking your Lordships to agree to a Joint Committee to go into the whole matter.
If I pass over the remarks of others and refer to what was said by the noble Earl who has just sat down, I would only ask him to note that I am sorry I cannot agree with him that there has been almost complete unanimity among the white population of East. Africa against both White Papers. I hope there has not been that, and that in so far as there has been objection to them it has not been to the whole of the Papers but only to some expression in them, or to some wrong phrase or something of that sort. At any rate, whatever sense of uncertainly may exist, that again is one of the reasons why we are asking your Lordships to agree to a Joint Committee. We want, if possible, to remove that sense of uncertainty and any ill will there may be.
We quite understand that the noble Earl who has just sat down reserves all the rights of himself and his Party in any future Government to disregard whatever was or was not done. I would only like to say, incidentally, that the Memorandum on Native Policy will necessarily be before the Joint Committee. It is actually referred to in the Memorandum on Closer Union. It is actually founded on the Hilton Young Report, which was definitely referred to the Joint Committee. There wall certainly be no attempt on my part to prevent the Joint Committee taking it into account as fully as it chooses in relation to the powers which are proposed to be given to the High Commissioner, to which it is exactly relevant. So that

93
there is no withholding at all. Having said so much, I do not propose to detain our Lordships any longer.
LORD DELAMERE: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships if I have not followed the rules of your Lordships' House in rising to say one or two words after the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has spoken. I must say that I was taken in by a noble Lord opposite who, I expected, was to speak this afternoon, and whom I saw drinking a glass of water. I hope your Lordships will accept my humble apology if I have not entirely followed the rules of your Lordships' House, with which I am not acquainted. I am afraid that I shall not be able to give you a very connected statement upon the facts that have been mentioned this afternoon.
I should like to start by taking exception to a remark made by the noble Lord who moved this Resolution. He said just now that it was impossible to prevent publication of the White Papers, including the White Paper on Native Policy, nor their wide distribution among the natives of countries which are governed by Governors appointed from this country. I may say that the note at the beginning of the Memorandum on Native Policy states that instructions have been sent that the widest possible publicity should be given to the statements made of native policy, and that copies should be communicated to the Government officials who may be in any way concerned, and in particular that every administrative officer—that is; the officer living among the natives—should be supplied with a copy. I was very glad to hear Lord Lugard speak on this subject, although. I am afraid we are not in entire agreement. If it had not been for the noble Lord, we should not be sitting here talking about East Africa to-day, because the British territories in East Africa would probably not have been in existence.
If there were any purpose in doing so, T. would appeal to the noble Lord to withdraw this Motion and, at the same time, to withdraw the White Paper on Native. Policy which was issued last June. I am quite sure that that would be the best plan for the noble Lord to adopt from the point of view of reopening discussions upon the whole matter in East Africa in an atmosphere in which it is
94
possible to talk about these things from a construcitve point of view. I am sure noble Lords will not think I am saying too much when I say that if the policy laid down in the statement of conclusions were enforced, it would meet with the strongest possible political obstruction right through the whole of the East African territories, from the local Governments, from the officials, and from the colonists in those countries. That being so, what is the practical object in laying before this Committee, partly chosen from your Lordships' House, the consideration of a policy so far removed from the actual facts of the East African situation, and so impossible of acceptance by the colonists of Eastern Africa, in whose hands, whatever may be the Constitution of the future, the happiness and well-being of the natives is bound to rest?
I must say it was a shock to me, as one of the greatest believers in democratic institutions, to hear from the most rev. Primate that in his opinion Parliamentary institutions were not fitted to be applied in East Africa. The most rev. Primate will forgive me as a new but not young member of your Lordships' House, if I say that so far as I am concerned I believe, and shall continue to believe, that Parliamentary institutions are the only institutions in the world to-day that are showing any possibility of the development and progress of the countries in which they exist. Your Lordships will remember that in the East to-day there are only three countries which have adopted Parliamentary institutions on the plan more or less that we have in Europe—Turkey, Japan and China. In regard to China I ought perhaps to say that it is on the way to adopt Parliamentary institutions. Those are the only three countries in Asia so far as I know which are really making progress. I believe that those people in East Africa whom I have the honour to represent now in England, believe that the only possible correct form of government for East Africa is a form of government which has been adopted throughout the South African and East. African Territories which to-day are governing themselves by means of a system of sell-government in which British colonists and European colonists are completely paramount. I honestly believe there is no other possible policy.

95
We talk round these things. We say that we ought to find some other method of governing those countries. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, some little time ago, you have got to govern with the help of your own people and your own colonists in Africa. Now you have, as an effect of this White Paper of 1930, the position that the white colonists of East Africa are today in a frame of mind which makes it extremely difficult to make clear to them a great many of the issues which are impending in the future, because this White Paper has undoubtedly made them think that it is the wish of this Government to withdraw from them the trust of the people at home and to withdraw from them the government of these countries. I think the position of East Africa to-day—I specially represent Kenya, but Tanganyika undoubtedly agrees with us—is that unless some conclusion can be come to in this country that His Majesty's Government are willing to trust their own people in East Africa, we would rather see closer union go into cold storage for a time and all Changes of Constitution for the time being laid aside to be revived only at a time when more thought can be given to the question.
I am sorry in a way that we are going to have this Joint Committee appointed. On the other hand I should like to say that we have nothing to conceal. If this Committee is appointed we shall undoubtedly do our best to put all our opinions before that Committee in the hope that some method may he found which will still enable your own people in East Africa to believe that they are advancing to self-government on the ordinary lines of all the British Colonies that have gone before in Africa.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them there-with and to desire their concurrence.

RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD had given Notice that he would call attention to the relationship between this country and the Government of the Soviet Republic of Russia; ask His Majesty's Government—

1, What steps they have taken or propose to take dealing with Russian propaganda in the Empire;

96

2, Whether they propose to take any and, if so, What steps to prevent the dumping in this country of the products of Russia grown or manufactured under unfair conditions;

3, Whether they still intend to continue the export credits scheme to Russia;

and move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Questions which I desire to ask the Government this afternoon are, I venture to submit, of some considerable importance. In putting the Questions, I really am going to suggest that the Government or the Foreign Secretary have been guilty of either misleading Parliament or, at all events, of a complete change of view—one or the other—since these troubles began. Your Lordships will remember that as long ago as March, 1927, when we were in office, the present Prime Minister declared quite definitely that the propaganda of the Russian Government in this country was illegitimate. He went out of his way to make that declaration. Moreover, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the same time, in March, 1927, made a very clear statement that there was no difference between the Russian Government and the Communist International. In fact, his statement was very considered. Indeed, said Mr. Snowden, the Soviet Government, the Communist International and the Russian trade unions are a trinity—three in one, and one in three. I want your Lordships to remember those two statements, because a complete change seems to have taken place as far as I can gather in the mind of Mr. Henderson, the present Foreign Secretary.
The Government were determined, apparently, to re-establish relations with Russia. Mr. MacDonald himself, in a speech during the Election, said that they must do it, if they came into power, by hook or by crook. "By hook or by crook" is the foundation, as it were, of the policy of the present Government in dealing with the question of relations between us and the Soviet Government. As soon m the present Government came into office there was an announcement in the King's Speech that discussions had already begun. The Foreign Secretary, in order to make it clear to the

97
House—and I venture to think in order to placate opinion on our side of the House—laid it down quite clearly that we were not going to tolerate any form of propaganda, of interference in the internal affairs either of this country or of any of the Dominions or of any part of the British Empire.
That is the basis which the Foreign Secretary laid down as the one upon which negotiations were going to take place between Russia and ourselves, and when an arrangement was come to between Russia and ourselves, it was clearly provided that we should each of us refrain from and restrain all persons and organisations under their direct or indirect control from any act liable in any way whatsoever to endanger the tranquillity or prosperity of the British Empire or the Soviet Republic. That is an extract from Article 16 of the previous Treaty made in 1924 between the Labour Government and the Soviet Government. Article 16 was actually re-enacted by Mr. Arthur Henderson and by, I think, Mr. Dovgalevski, who was Russian Ambassador or Russian Envoy to treat in these negotiations. Article 16 actually went so far as to bar all organisations receiving financial assistance from either Government. I ask your Lordships specially to take note of those words "financial assistance," because I shall show to your Lordships very shortly that financial assistance has quite recently been given by the Russian Government to one or other of these organisations.
When these negotiation's took place the present, Prime Minister was perfectly aware of the position between the Russian Government and the Third International. Really the charter as it were of my case in this debate is the celebrated Despatch by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald when he was Foreign Secretary, dealing with the Zinoviev Letter of October 24, 1924. Re sent a Despatch to Russia in which he laid down with the utmost clearness that—
"No one who understands the constitution and relationship of the Communist International will doubt its intimate connection and contact with the Soviet Government."
He went on to say:—
"No Government"—
98
he was speaking of our own Government, the Government of Great Britain—
"will ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government by which the latter is in formal diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it, whilst at the same time a propagandist body organically connected with that foreign Government encourages and even orders subjects of the former to plot and plan for its overthrow."
I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, who I understand will reply for the Government, whether any change has taken place in the view of the Government since that celebrated Despatch of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in 1924. I would like to ask whether they are now prepared to tolerate in a Government with which they are "in correct"—that is his expression—"correct diplomatic relations," propaganda organically connected with that foreign Government.
Mr. Henderson, speaking in the House of Commons on November 5 last year, when he was dealing with the question of the resumption of these diplomatic relations, referred to that Despatch of 1924, and ho said:—
"It has been plainly stated to the Soviet representative, and stated again twice by myself, that the Communist International will be regarded by His Majesty's Government as an organ of the Soviet Government."
In your Lordships' House the late Lord Thomson, whom we miss so much, said on December 4 last:—
"From the outset the Government have made it clear that they will regard this undertaking—"
that is, the undertaking in reference to propaganda—
"as including the Third International."
If these statements were at the time correct, and I believe they were, I want to ask the Government this afternoon whether they adhere to them, whether they regard the Third International as organically connected with the Soviet Government, and whether they regard the undertaking given by the Soviet Government as still including the Third International.
I cannot conceive it possible that they are not aware that either the Third International or the Government itself is still indulging in propaganda. In September last year there was a Conference of the principal scouts of the Red agita-

99
tion in the East, and Stalin himself—not merely a member of the Third International, but, as far as we can fix the appropriate rank, the Prime Minister of Russia at that time, and certainly the leading member of the Russian Government to-day—Stalin informed the Assembly that the Soviet Government had decided to grant for the year 1930 to the special section of the Third International occupied with work in the East a total credit of 500,000 dollars, of which 200,000 dollars was for India alone. Here you get the most powerful member of that Government announcing to the Red Scouts, a branch of the Third International, that the Government was actually going to provide them with a definite sum of money for agitation in India. That clearly comes within Article 16 of the Treaty of 1924 to which I have referred.
Then, as your Lordships know, the Daily Worker, a paper which perhaps one does not always read, was started on January 1 of this year, and its first issue in this country contained a message from the head of the Third International announcing that it was to be "a new and powerful weapon in the fight against capitalism, against nationalism, and against the Socialist-Fascist-Labour Government." I am here trying to help the Labour Government. I sympathise with them in the attack that has been made upon them by the Socialist Republic of Russia. But, whether we have a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, I equally deny the right of any foreign country or foreign propaganda organisation, after the signature of that Treaty, to take any part in propaganda against the Government in this country. On January 17 the Daily Worker made no secret about its desires when it stated that the International was engaged in stirring up unrest in this country, in India and in Australia. That was too much for the present Foreign Secretary, Mr. Henderson, who apparently had his attention called to it in the House of Commons. He told the House that he had called the attention of the Soviet Ambassador to this and had informed him that such action was likely to impede the improvement in the relations between the two countries. And then Mr. Henderson added, in a moment of real bathos:-
100
"For the present His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any further steps."
He clearly admitted, by calling the attention of the Soviet Ambassador to this matter, that it was propaganda within the meaning of Article 16, propaganda which the Soviet Government had undertaken not to indulge in. He calls their attention to it and he says that for the present His Majesty's Government intend to take no further steps.
That was eleven months ago. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite will tell me whether "for the present" is still to be read as applying to the present day, and whether they are taking or have taken any further steps. When he was further pressed in the House of Commons, Mr. Henderson actually said:-
"I did not ask His Excellency for any reply."
I suppose it was a kind of pleasant afternoon at the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Secretary said to the Russian Ambassador "This is all very wrong and against Article 16 and your solemn Treaty; have another cup of tea, and do not trouble to answer." The Foreign Secretary said: "I did not ask him for any answer." I wonder what the Ambassador said. We were not told this in the other House. The Foreign Secretary, after making this complaint, did not ask for an answer. Did the. Ambassador sit still and say nothing at all? I should like to know that. A few days after, the Izvestia, which, as your Lordships know, is one of the official papers in Russia, said that the Soviet Ambassador had given Mr. Henderson a very definite and unequivocal reply to the effect that his point of view with regard to the activities of the Comintern was not, and never would be, accepted by the Soviet Government. The Foreign Secretary has said that the Ambassador made no reply and, if the Lord President says that the Ambassador never said this, I accept that in preference to any statement in any Moscow newspaper whatever.
In May it went a little further, and the Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that he was keeping an eye on the matter. He did not explain the precise manner in which he was keeping his eye upon Russia, because he was not certain that it would be in the public interest to do so. Things have

101
moved since that date, when it was not in the public interest for Mr. Henderson to tell the nation what he was doing with the eye that he was keeping on Russian propaganda in this country. In May of this year the Third International sent out two telegrams of rather great importance, signed by Stalin—I repeat, by the most important Cabinet Minister in Russia. These were an appeal to the people of India, Asia and Oceania. One ran:—
"We send you an appeal asking you to fight against capitalists. Wage battle against them without mercy. Our Government takes under its protection all revolutionary organisations of the entire world."
This appeal is sent out broadcast to the people of India by a man who is a responsible Minister of the Russian Government, which has entered into a Treaty with this country to stop all propaganda, either here or in any of our Dominions. On the following day the Pravda, another official newspaper of the Russian Government—as your Lordships know, no statement of any importance regarding foreign policy can be made in any newspaper in Russia without the full approval of the Government of the day, for there is a strong censorship—the Pravda declared that the International would give the Indian revolutionaries its sympathy and unlimited assistance, which would enable them to fight to the finish. It is bad enough to have propaganda in this country, but it is worse for a Government which has entered into this solemn Treaty to make this attempt at propaganda on the very combustible character of the Indian people.
Therefore it is no longer necessary for me to prove the propaganda. In the House of Commons on June 6 of this year the Foreign Secretary made a statement in which he said:—
"I have never denied, and I am not going to try and persuade the House that propaganda is not going on."
I am simply quoting from the mouth of the Foreign Secretary—
"I have to bring that propaganda home to the Government before I can take action."
Stalin is a member of the Government. I have quoted to your Lordships telegrams sent by him. Mr. Henderson went on to say that if the Government could bring it home that the Russian Government were responsible, the
102
Government would do one of two things. Here at last is a really strong action that is going to be taken by the Government! As soon as they can bring it home to the Russian Government that there is propaganda, they will do one of two things. I wonder if all of your Lordships realise what those two things are. The Government would either break off relations with the Russian Government, or they would—
"ask the House to release us from the statements that we made in the early stages of debate on this subject."
Was there ever a more pusillanimous statement made by a Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, or made on behalf of this Government? It was made by the successor of Disraeli, Palmerston and all the great Foreign Secretaries of the past. "Either we will break off relations": we all know that they will not break off relations. Russia, must know by now that nothing will induce them, however much they may be kicked by Russia, to break off those diplomatic relations which they have establislhed by hook or by crook.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LOAD PARMOOR): Will the noble Viscount tell me the date of the last statement?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: On June 6, in the House of Commons, and then Mr. Henderson said that if they did not break off relations the other great step they would take would be to ask the House to release them from the statements made by them in the earlier discussions. What does that mean? The Government made certain declarations to the House of Commons, which I have read to your Lordships' House. They were perfectly clear and perfectly definite, and then Mr. Henderson says: "If we find that those agreements are being broken then we will ask the House of Commons to release us from the statements we have previously made." Is any further faith ever to be placed in any statement, of the Government, either in the House of Commons or elsewhere? When they get, into difficulties they will ask the House of Commons to allow them to be released from their statements made about Soviet propaganda!
I go further. In July of this year-Stalin made a speech to the 16th Con-

103
gress of the Russian Communist Party. I quote him because he is one of the most important Ministers—the equivalent of a Cabinet Minister in this country—in Russia to-day. He spoke of the revolution in China and referred to an Indian revolution which
"will hasten the end of the capitalist domination over Asia. The workers' movement in India should emerge from the limits of non-violence as well as of full nationalism."
This is your friend or ally, with whom you have entered into diplomatic relations. This is the leader of a great friendly Government, who has undertaken not to have any propaganda of any kind inimical to the British Government and to the British Empire. He continued:—
"The problem to be resolved is how to throw the English into the sea and put an end to the imperialistic exploitation."
What is the representative of the Foreign Office in this House going to say to your Lordships this afternoon with regard to that? Is it a breach of the Treaty? Clearly it is propaganda. It is an incitement to the subjects of the King-Emperor to rebel. It is an incitement to violence on the part of the subjects of the King-Emperor in India. Is the Foreign Secretary coming down at long last to say: "I am exceedingly sorry but I must withdraw all I said with regard to propaganda, and ask the House and the country to release me and the Government from what I have said" I do not think your Lordships will release them, and I doubt whether the Opposition in another place will do so.
But more has happened since Parliament met. On October 29 Mr. Henderson, replying to a Question by Sir William Davison, said he had been making inquiries into this propaganda and as a result he had seen the Soviet Ambassador and represented to him that his Government had not been observing the pledge against propaganda which was exchanged last year. Mr. Henderson added:—
"The Ambassador assured me in reply that his Government had done and will continue to do all in their power to observe the pledge regarding propaganda."
"All in their power," when I have read the statement of the Prime Minister in Russia himself which is an appeal published to the world and to the people of
104
India to throw off their allegiance ! Then the Ambassador, Mr. Henderson says, went on to add that "his Government could not control the activities of the Third International." We know they can. I am sorry to give a blunt negative to the Russian Ambassador. The Russian Government are in the closest touch with the Third International. They have what is known in the City as interlocking directors. There is no secret about, it. It is known to the world and to our Government here. I have read the statements of Mr. MacDonald and of Mr. Henderson and it is no good the Russian Ambassador denying it. Our own Government say they agree that the Government of Russia is responsible for the Third International and that is why we made Article 16 explicit. It was to cover any body which was either in touch with or subsidised by the Russian Government.
Then the Secretary of State went on to say:—
"In the interview that took place I very fully stated the interpretation which this Government placed upon the question of propaganda, and the obligation which we thought that his Government entered into when they signed the propaganda undertaking on the 3rd October."
No wonder the House of Commons was startled. Sir Austen Chamberlain got up and asked whether the reply of the Soviet Ambassador was not a repudiation of the interpretation which the British Government had put upon the Treaty. The answer of Mr. Henderson was certainly the most astonishing answer that I can remember. He said:—
"It is quite clear that there are two interpretations. I placed my interpretation, and I have given the House what he said was his interpretation. That is as far as I am in a position to take the matter."
The Government said: "This is our interpretation. We entered into the agreement relying upon that interpretation. The Treaty was based upon that interpretation. We told the Ambassador what that interpretation was. Now the Ambassador puts forward a different "I interpretation." shrug my shoulders," says Mr. Henderson, "and that is as far as I can take the matter." I hope the President of the Council will be able to take the matter a little further this afternoon, and that he will

105
be able to give us a little more assurance that his Government are going to take the matter further.
It was taken a little further in the House of Commons on November 5, when a further Question was asked by Sir Kingsley Wood and Sir William Davison, who enquired as to what date Mr. Henderson first ascertained that the Soviet Government repudiated our interpretation of the pledge, and Mr. Henderson replied referring to the speech which he made on November 5, 1929, and said that the hon. member
"will nowhere find any statement by me to the effect that the Soviet Government accepted the interpretation which His Majesty's Government placed upon the pledge—namely, that it covers propaganda by the Third International. No question of repudiation, therefore, arises. I have, however, repeatedly made it plain that this is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon it."
How were those negotiations conducted? They were not five-minute negotiations, as the House knows. There were negotiations in London, and then the Foreign Secretary and Dovgalevski motored off to a small hotel in the town of Lewes, and there had their negotiations and came to conclusions. Are we asked to believe that the Foreign Secretary enters into negotiations on a very important question, which the Government put very much to the forefront with the electors in the course of their campaign, and that in the course of these negotiations either in London or Brighton or Lewes, they never, to put it quite frankly, had it out with one another, that Mr. Henderson never said to the Russian Ambassador "Well, quite clearly we are going to guard against the Third International interfering: that is our object"?
Are we to assume that the Soviet Ambassador said nothing the whole time, and never stated his view? Obviously, if the Ambassador had said: "Oh no, the Third International has nothing to do with us," then the Foreign Secretary would say: "It is no good entering into this Treaty." This is, of course, the 1924 Treaty which has been revived by Mr. Henderson. But it is a very curious statement. It goes a little further than anything Mr. Henderson said in the House of Commons last week. If the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House would look at the speech
106
of Mr. Henderson in the House of Commons on November 5, 1929, he will find, a rather more definite statement. He, said—
"After 1924 it has been plainly stated to the Soviet representatives, and stated again twice by myself, that the Communist International will be regarded by His Majesty's Government as an organ of the Soviet Government."
Only last week Mr. Henderson referred to that statement again and said: "That is my position—the position I laid down in a speech on November 5, 1929." He-further said:—
"We stand by the declaration of 1924 that we could not allow any direct interference from outside in British domestic affairs and would insist on the promise, given by the Soviet Government to refrain…."
And then he added this very remarkable' sentence—
"This is, in fact, an undertaking that: Soviet propaganda will not be tolerated in any form or at any time."
To that statement Mr. Henderson referred only the other day in the House of Commons.
Finally he said at the end of his speech:—
"Let the put the House, in mind of the two conditions which were laid down last July … First the Government declared that an agreement embodying a definite undertaking with regard to propaganda was necessary … The first (condition) has been fulfilled in the restoration of Article 16 and the interpretation which I placed upon that Article in the negotiations with M. Dovgalevski."
That is the first time I have been able to find out that Mr. Henderson has ever admitted that in the original negotiations fifteen months ago with M. Dovgalevski he told him then and there of the interpretation which he placed upon it. Well, in that case how can we be satisfied to leave this matter in the hands of the Government who now practically take refuge in saying "We have nothing further to say"? I ask these Questions of the noble and learned Lord this afternoon. I do not want to-use harsh language, but I think the wriggle and the wobble of the Foreign Secretary in the last few weeks in the House of Commons, the efforts he has made to evade this question are such as to entitle us to ask these Questions in this place, where more freedom is possible perhaps than in another place.

107
May I deal for a moment with the question of dumping? This question is becoming a very serious one indeed, particularly if the answer to the first Question I put is, as I think it will be, unsatisfactory. If the real truth is that the Russian Government first of all try to beat us by propaganda, and secondly try to beat us in the economic market by destroying our trade and commerce, then really we have to consider in the third Question whether we shall go on any longer financing them with export credits. The Trades Union Congress even dealt with this matter. Mr. Ernest Bevin, a trade unionist, told his colleagues there that Russia was dumping goods here which were manufactured for little or no wages, but only for food and clothing. The Daily Herald gave descriptions of food queues in Russia and imports into this country. I will not labour that, but I want to make quite clear what I mean by "dumping." Ordinary dumping, of course, is the export of the surplus which the home market cannot reasonably dispose of. But in this case the dumping is part of a deliberate policy of a Government to destroy our trade here—dumping which consists of manufactures or cereals produced by what is, in effect, slave labour, without, as Mr. Bevin said, the payment of any wages, but only payment by food and clothing.
Are we to draw the line, or are we to go on and on till the Russian five-year plan is fully carried out? Five hundred tons of Russian soap were dumped here the other day. Coal, of course, is being dumped in all part of the world in competition with ourselves. I agree that we cannot prevent coal being dumped in Italy or other countries which are not members of the British Empire; but coal is actually being dumped in Canada to-day at a figure which leaves the price of Is. 3d. a ton, pit-head, after the cost of transport has been paid. But Canada appears to be one of those countries which is a little more alive to the evil of dumping of slave-produced goods than we are here. I should like to know the opinions of trade unionist miners on the dumping of Russian coal. Actually some of it has been sent here. We have heard of carrying coal to Newcastle, but at a time when the Government have just passed a Coal Bill for increasing the price of coal and protecting the work and wages of the miner, they are apparently
108
prepared to allow Russian coal to be dumped here. I have no time to go fully into the activities of the Russian five-year plan, but it is known that the plan lasts for five years, 1928–1933, no fewer than 2,000 new factories are being built, various State trusts are being put into operation, trusts for machinery, trusts for cotton, trusts for steel, trusts for canning, and so forth; and the whole scheme involves expenditure in the heavy industries of nearly £1,000,000,000 and in the light industries of £260,000,000, while the people of Russia are starving. The dumping, of course, has been most felt in the East of Europe, in Rumania, Bulgaria and so on, and from the dumping of timber in the Baltic States. The timber trade in Latvia and Estonia is almost at a standstill.
A very remarkable letter from a British officer on one of our ships at Archangel appeared in the Daily Mail in August of this year—I have verified this letter—describing the loading of timber vessels by convicts, as he calls them, working on twelve-hour shifts, marched about in gangs of two to three hundred, and all of them destitute. He says that they were not convicts in the ordinary acceptance of the term, not criminal convicts; they were slaves, pure and simple, and as slaves ninety-five per cent. of them did not know why they were there. To see them hungrily watching our men going along the decks at meal time with their steaming soup, roast beef, vegetables and so forth would make a stone heart bleed.
There are also some very remarkable statements made by two Socialists who have recently been to Russia—Mr. Toole, Member of Parliament for Salford, and Mr. Hughes, who, I think, is on the staff of one of the Government papers called Forward. They tell us what they saw of the horrible condition of affairs in Russia, of the food queues, of the efforts of men and women to get even a small quantity of food. Remember that wheat, the main food of all, is being exported very largely from Russia. My noble friend who will open the debate on agriculture to-morrow or myself will deal with the food question, so I will not touch upon it now. But the prices of food in Russia compared with the prices at which it is dumped here show clearly that there is a definite attempt on the part of

109
Russia to impede our own trades in this country. She has actually exported to this country a great deal of confectionery and sugar goods which, I believe, have been very largely manufactured out of the Cuban sugar which we exported to Russia under the provisions of the exports credits scheme, which your Lordships will remember was discussed in this House a few months ago. Actually, we are lending money to Russia to buy Cuban sugar in order that it may be Made into sweetstuffs there and re-ex-ported to this country to the detriment of our own manufacturers. Mr. Toole, who is a Socialist, remember, gave a very grim picture of Russia. He said that it will take many years to make the place -sanitary. From the worst English slums there does not issue a stench—this is a Socialist Member of Parliament who is speaking—like that from parts of Leningrad and Moscow. If this is a real effort on the part of Russia, and I think it is, to destroy or to hinder our trade, as part and parcel of their propaganda scheme, surely we are entitled to ask the Government what they are going to do about it.
In October of this year another Russian Government publication was issued which I have had translated as "National Economy." It has a rather difficult name to pronounce—Narodnoye Khoziav stvo. It is an economic paper issued by the Government, and it definitely says—
"We are making a concentrated effort on the export front. Our exporting organisations … are exporting and will continue to export everything that can be disposed of in foreign countries. Our enemies may howl about dumping as much as they like. Our system"—
our system !—
"enables us to compete against all corners at all times."
In a second paper, the Economic Review, also a Government paper, there is this statement. Again, I may say, that I am indebted to the courtesy of a newspaper with which all your Lordships may not always be in agreement, the Daily Mail, for supplying me with certified extracts from these papers. The Economic Review says:—
"Our five-year plan provides for an increase in our exports from 774,000,000 roubles to 2,050,000,000 roubles in 1932 … Exports of industrial products are assuming greater importance at the expense of agricultural exports. Despite the
110
howls of the capitalist Press against our exports, our competitive ability will soon show that we can stay on the market."
That is what is going on.
Now just as in connection with the last question I appealed to the present Prime Minister, so I appeal to him again. Speaking at Birmingham in October -of last year, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald dealt with the question and said:—
"Where there are glaring examples of sweated goods produced under conditions against Which people could not compete without lowering their standard of living…."
Will any noble Lord deny that the goods produced in Russia to-day for the export trade are produced under conditions against which British people could not possibly compete without lowering their standard of living? They are produced under conditions of slavery, as the noble Lord knows. They are produced under conditions of poverty and hardship such as God forbid that our English workmen should ever be driven down to. What was the remedy mentioned by the Prime Minister?
—"the remedy is not safeguarding but prohibiting the entry of such goods."
I again appeal to the Prime Minister. There is his statement, that the remedy for sweated goods pouring into this country is prohibition. What are the Government going to do about it? Are they going to adopt the Prime Minister's opinion of last year, that it is not a question of tariffs, but of prohibition? I say to your Lordships that it is time—and it will be very much time in 1932—for arrangements to be made to prohibit absolutely the importation into this country of sweated goods at a price utterly below that at which English workmen can compete. France is moving already, and a special Commission has just been instituted to control the import of goods from Russia. Holland is moving. Belgium is establishing a system for dealing with the matter. Rumania has already stopped goods from pouring over her eastern frontier, and, as I told your Lordships, Canada has moved. Are the Government doing anything? America realises the position. The Assistant Secretary to the Treasury made the very remarkable statement recently that this is part and parcel of an economic war against the capitalist

111
States of the world. We have propaganda, and we are asking the Government to deal with propaganda. We have imports of sweated goods. We now ask the Government what they propose to do in regard to them.
Lastly, and I think I need not deal at any length with this, there is the question of export credits. The Minister for Overseas Trade in the House of Commons last week said that we have given Russia £4,750,000—sterling not roubles—in export credits, of which the Government are liable for £2,750,000. When he was asked what security we have for this £4,750,000 of money, he said it is in effect a loan that we have made to Russia. This in spite of the fact that, as I said a few months ago in dealing with this matter, there has been for some time past a balance of trade in Russia's favour in this country, a very large balance of money which Russia is using, not to buy British goods—she prefers to buy British goods on credit—but for buying goods from some of our competitors in America and so forth. Is it reasonable that we should go on lending Russia more and more money when she is really using all the cash she can get to finance this five-year plan for importing into this or any other capitalist country, or any country which is in close relationship with ourselves, goods produced under the conditions which I have described, and which are certainly described by the Prime Minister's statement?
I ask the Government to answer those three questions, to deal fully and fairly and frankly, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will, with the question of propaganda. Whether he is able to make any statement on behalf of the Government I do not know, but I ask him to make a statement, if he can, as to what the Government intend to do regarding this dumping, either of food or manufactured articles, and whether they intend to take any action in the near future in regard to that matter; and finally whether they still think it right, necessary, or wise to continue the export credits system between this country and Russia. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I want to say one word on the subject of export credits. The present Government have given Russia credit to the extent
112
of several millions of pounds in spite of the fact that the record of that Government is the record of a bandit and a robber. In regard to the future possibilities, I would point out that Russia, with its immense population, as the noble Viscount has already pointed out to your Lordships, organised agriculturally and industrially, working for a pittance and less than a pittance, can so undercut our world trade and our home markets that any Government here in the future might find it necessary to pass an anti-dumping measure against Russian imports. Supposing that happened, the men who control Russia would have a strangle hold. They would be the masters, and they would say: "Very well; we refuse to pay for the goods we have bought from you if you refuse to allow our produce to came into your country." I think no more credit should be given to Russia, if only for that reason. If people want to trade with Russia, let them do so at their own risk. I am entirely against the taxpayers' money being risked to provide the Government of Russia with the means to destroy our trade and prosperity. That is the only point I wish to make.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, has used some strong language in moving his Motion. I hope to show that the allegations he has made, particularly against the Foreign Secretary, are wholly without foundation, and for that purpose I shall quote consecutively what the Foreign Secretary has said from the time when he first spoke about this matter in November, 1929, up to the present time. I quite admit that we approach this question from an entirely different standpoint from that of the noble Viscount. The present Government approach it as a very important factor in what is called the unemployment question, and both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, naturally enough, during the last Election, both by statement and speech, said that in order to deal with the curse of unemployment they would do what they could fully to re-establish trade relationship between this country and Russia. That really has been the basis on which the whole of our policy towards Russia has been based. I should like to ask the noble Viscount this. Assuming that that basis is right—that it is of enormous im-

113
portance in order to increase the volume of exports from this country and so to relieve the great evil of unemployment that we should encourage our export trade to Russia—would be then use the language that he has used in addressing your Lordships this evening?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If the noble Lord asks me a question, I will answer it, but if he is to put a series of questions perhaps I had better answer them at the end.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Viscount, will answer them, if he desires. He will have an opportunity of replying. I want to keep the questions in regard to the Foreign Secretary, extremely important as they are, distinct. I desire at the moment to test what has been said about the export credits. It really is the third question—"Whether they still intend to continue the export credits scheme to Russia"? I will say at once the answer is that we certainly do. But what the export credits scheme to Russia means is this, that we give the credits to our own exporters which enables them to carry on that export trade which in other circumstances they could not succeed in doing. Is that a laudable thing or not? I say that under existing conditions of unemployment—I do not want to quote, but I could quote any number of illustrative statements—nothing is more important than to increase the volume of our experts, and a Government with that object should do what I shall show in a moment we have done—namely, give credits to enable that export trade to be carried on.
I must say one or two preliminary words before I come to the actual terms of what is called the export credits scheme. I know that the noble Viscount took a different view from what I am stating at the time of the Arcos raid. I am not going back into that. He has since stated—and I do not say I agree with him, because I do not—that so long as the credits were continued the political diplomatic breach was not of much moment. The answer to that is, I think, quite complete, and it is that the moment a breach took place our trade decreased and decreased in a steadily growing proportion. After all, that is only what you would expect. Trade, to a great extent, depends upon diplomatic friend-
114
ship between the two countries concerned. In fact, that is the basis of a large amount of our foreign trade. You may obtain foreign trade in one country or another, but in our present condition it is essential that we should keep the volume as large as possible, and for this purpose we are utilising our system of granting credits to exporters in order that they may be able to carry on a trade of this character. They could not carry it on without these export credits, certainly not to the extent that they do now.
Let me give an illustration in answer to what the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow said. He seems to think that the object of the credits system is to provide money for Russia for Russian trade or to assist the propaganda which has been referred to against this country. The matters involved in propaganda I desire to keep distinct for the moment. I shall have to go through them, I am afraid, at some length before I sit down. The Overseas Trade Acts from 1920 to 1930, which you are now dealing with, empower the Board of Trade, with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with the Advisory Committee appointed for that purpose, to give guarantees in connection with the export of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom. So far as the Consultative Committee is concerned the noble Viscount knows quite well that it has a free hand. As a matter of fact the Chairman and all its members except three were appointed before the present Government came into power, and they were appointed from the point of view that they were persons who had great knowledge of trade conditions here and abroad. The Committee comprised a large number of the first men in the City of London, and they had sufficient knowledge to give advice to the Board of Trade in any particular case whether it was advisable to give these credits to the exporter or not.
Since 1921 there has been practically no legislative restriction on the destination of exports in respect of which guarantees might be given, but Russia, under conditions which I shall state, was excluded from the scope of the scheme by administrative action until August, 1929. Therefore up till August, 1929, the benefit of fostering export trade

115
by helping the credit of the exporter—he was the person aimed at—was not attained as regards Russian trade, although it was as regards trade in all other directions. That was not a legislative restriction but an administrative one. The President of the Board of Trade then announced that the Advisory Committee would be free to consider applications in connection with transactions in Russia. At a meeting of the Advisory Committee held a few days later the Chairman stated that the President of the Board of Trade had made it clear to him that in the case of Russia, as in the case of other countries, the Committee would be free to recommend or decline any transactions and to form their own opinion as to the length of credit and any other matters which might come up for consideration.
Does the noble Viscount desire that this system of assisting export trade should be discontinued? That is what it really comes to. Are we in this great market of Russia—in which, of course, we would seek to do trade if we were not met with what I may call "propaganda difficulties"—are we, apart from that, to stop credits of this kind, or are we to encourage trade which in the aggregate tends to become a very large trade indeed, giving employment to a number of men who would otherwise be unemployed in this country? I have a quotation from the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, himself. The reference is to the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT of Thursday, July 3 last. The noble Viscount said:—
"your Lordships will find if it is very carefully examined that the increase of trade is due more to the removal of the ban"—
that is the ban against giving credit to exporters to Russia—
"and the opening of the export credit system to Russia than to any resumption of diplomatic relations."
I entirely agree in one sense with the noble Viscount. I think the resumption of political relations was more favourable to trade than he considers, but I think he is quite right in saying that the encouragement of resumption of this trade—which after all is far less than it used to be with Russia in the old days—is more due to removal of the ban which up to that date had prevented credit being given to exporters to the Russian market.
116
I entirely agree with him there, but when we come to the question of propaganda he may say that the advantages are more than counterbalanced by disadvantages on the other side. I am dealing, however, for the moment, with the credit system and I find—I do not know whether he himself used this expression—that the expression has been used in many quarters that in order to relieve the great burden as well as the great misery of unemployment, it is hoped that the Government will give full assistance by taking off the ban which up to a certain point had prevented credit being given to exporters to Russia. When speaking of trade with Russia, members of the Opposition, I think—I do not want to say anything personal—invariably talk as though the primary object of the export credits guarantee scheme were to benefit the Russian Government. Of course it is nothing of the sort.
LORD NEWTON: It does benefit them.
LORD PARMOOR: Incidentally it does benefit them. That is all the better to my mind—a double advantage. But that is not the basis of the scheme. The scheme is to increase our exports, and I say again that in view of the present conditions of unemployment that is the most serious question which any Government has to face. The object of the scheme is to assist exporters from the United Kingdom, to increase their overseas trade. Incidentally some benefit may be conferred on Russia, but surely that is not a reason for withdrawing these facilities? In any case the Government have no intention of doing so. I do not want to repeat myself, but the Government look on this Russian question as in the main an economic question. They regard Russia as a great field for absorption of the manufactures of this country. They believe that as far as combating unemployment is concerned it is a most fruitful field to which they can look in the immediate future. Therefore, although Russia may be incidentally benefited, they give these credits, not to Russia but to the exporter—to the British exporter—in order to encourage the maximum exports of goods which otherwise would not be sent abroad, in return, of course, for the remuneration which comes here.

117
One noble Lord spoke as if we were piling up the resources of Russia. Of course in one sense all trade is important to both parties concerned, but are we to starve people in this country by keeping up a campaign which in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, cannot be justified? Russia is put on the same basis as other countries as regards the encouragement of exports from the United Kingdom. That is the whole matter when you put, prejudice on one side. I do not know that it is necessary to say any more. I cannot believe that, taking that question by itself, any one who feels the terrible conditions which undoubtedly exist—and are growing, I am sorry to say—in this country, can do otherwise than support the Government in attempting to increase as much as may be the volume of our exports and particularly in encouraging exporters to send goods to the Russian market.
There is one more matter on which perhaps it is hardly worth while to dwell at length. The noble Viscount referred to the sugar question. That, again, has been a matter of misapprehension. Very careful inquiries have been made as to the actual facts. I am bound to say that in my opinion there is more prejudice on this point than on almost any other point where Russian trade is concerned. These are the facts. Raw sugar is imported into this country and is refined here, giving employment to a large number of people and representing about 30 per cent. of its value. That refined sugar, like any other product or manufacture, may be exported to Russia under the export credits scheme. Inquiries have been made into this matter. Mistakes and misstatements have certainly been made in regard to it. It is perfectly obvious that this is a trade for Russia itself, and not, as has been suggested, for some outside interests which do not affect Russia or Russian trade at all. I will not go into all the facts, though I have them here, but, your Lordships may take it quite certainly from me—and the noble Viscount gave me a good character in that respect—that inquiries that have been carefully made into this matter have dispelled the illusions with which it was surrounded and have eventuated in showing that this is a trade carried out for the profit
118
of this country, which does the refining of this sugar, and represents about 30 per cent. of its value.
I will come to propaganda last, if I may, because I think it is very important. The next question is dumping. I agree with the noble Viscount that we have to consider first of all what we mean by the term "dumping." I understand that in his opinion it is not dumping if a country of origin has a surplus amount of a particular article and exports it as a matter of business—I am not dealing with the other matter now—to other countries. We do not dump our cotton goods in India because we export goods which are surplus in this respect, that they cannot be consumed in this country. We do not dump Northampton shoes and boots in Canada (I think that was an illustration that I saw given) because our manufacturers are enabled, as a matter of legitimate trade, to produce a surplus quantity. Indeed, if it were not for that, all international trade could be interfered with.
International trade depends on the production of surplus quantities in the countries of origin, and there is no reason why they should not make the best they can of the export of those goods to other countries. As a matter of fact, "dumping" is a word very largely used merely of that process. Long before the dumping of corn from Russia—which, after all, is a very small matter—came to the front, what we were complaining of here was the dumping of prairie wheat, which, of course, can be produced, as we all know, far more cheaply than people can produce it in this country. What people complain of is that another country, which can produce any product of manufacture on lower terms than we can in our own country, should send it here; and "dumping" is used as a term of reproach by people who are anxious in their own interest to stop imports of that character. But that is absurd when you come to the question of trade. It is the very essence of trade to produce commodities where you can do so most cheaply and to exchange them for other commodities produced by another country on cheaper terms, in order that world consumers may in the long run be benefited.
As regard unfair conditions, I entirely dispute what the noble Viscount has said,

119
I am quite aware that on this Russian question you find almost any statement made, and you have to consider everything carefully. We are told about the dumping of wood, and I think even stolen wood, as an export from Russia to America. After investigation, America admitted that timber and no further question was raised upon the ground of unfair conditions. If we were to take the Statute to which the noble Viscount referred—I have not got it with me but no doubt your Lordships are aware of it—I think there is an attempt there to give a specific meaning to the word "dumping," and it was done in this way; that wherever goods were sold at less than their cost of production in the country of origin, that was a case which might legitimately be considered as unfair competition, and therefore dumping. Of course that is a most difficult and complex problem and, as has been pointed out, the definition does not meet the difficulties. Take what we are dealing with here. I will not go particularly into wheat—I think the noble Viscount pointed out that we might have a discussion another day—but, if you take those commodities which are said to be dumped into this country from Russia, they are almost infinitesimal, and really they do not matter, except that everyone who produces those commodities in this country naturally dislikes the importations which are able to undersell him in the ordinary average market. But if you take the view that I do, and that always has been taken, that you have to consider the interests of the consumer, then, if there is nothing unfair, it is unjust to him to exclude commodities because they can be produced more cheaply in some other area than our own.
I want to put this, if I may, to the noble Viscount. I dare say he is aware of the meeting at Warsaw which, I think, took place last spring or summer. A number of countries were represented there, and one of the questions was whether it was fair that countries should give bounties to their own manufacturers in order that they might undersell in the foreign market. The general view was against it, and I should agree with that view. Moreover, an arrangement was made, and a Committee was constituted which is now considering the matter, and I suppose we shall hear some time what the result is. But unless you can find
120
unfair conditions, I am bound to admit that I think the word "dumping" is a mere term of prejudice. Of course, if there are unfair conditions it is different, but when the noble Viscount talks about unfair conditions, we want the conditions very carefully ascertained and very carefully stated in order not to make any error in a matter of that kind.
Let me put this to the noble Viscount. Taking the policy of His Majesty's Government, it is that we desire, and always have desired and advocated in the International Labour Office at Geneva, that, having regard to differences in conditions of climate and so on, you should have a standard living wage for standard working hours, below which no country should be allowed to compete in the international market. I am in favour of that proposal. A good many people may not be, but those who are not in favour of it are always stating the objection that it is an interference with English liberty. I say take that test if you like. Take the Washington Conference. If it becomes a matter of international arrangement then I think the particular country which does not comply with the condition so assented to may well be said to be carrying on what is called dumping under unfair conditions. Does the noble Viscount wish an arrangement to be made so that the standard of living may be made reasonable and decent in all countries? It has not been the policy of the Government with which he was associated, since the Washington Convention in 1920, signed by the late Lord Balfour but never ratified. So far whenever ratification has been sought to be brought on it has been argued that an international standard of living would interfere with the interests of this country. I say that there ought to be such a standard, and then you can determine whether dumping is unfair or not.
Then I come to the question of propaganda. I wish that the noble Viscount could have levelled his criticisms against myself rather than against the Foreign Secretary. I believe I am equally guilty, and the Foreign Secretary of course cannot be here. If suggestions are made of mala fides—I think it went, to that—they ought to be made in the Assembly where the Foreign Secretary himself is, and I am sure he would repudiate suggestions

121
of that character with every success. First of all I would say a word as to the general position, and then I will give chapter and verse, as far as I have got them. From the very start—the noble Viscount is quite right—the Foreign Secretary has said that there is a, difference of view. The difference of view was whether the obligation with regard to propaganda included the Third international or not. Also, from the fiery start—this is much more important —-until now, on every occasion the Foreign Secretary has stated quite clearly, I think without any possibility of misconception, the Government's view of what the condition was. The noble Viscount has said that it is a terrible thing to have an arrangement in which the two parties take a different view of an essential term. That may be so, but in this case I think it does not matter. When from the very start that difficulty is recognised and established, if we should take the view, which we of course have, that it includes the Third International, what does it matter? It leaves it in our power, and the Foreign Secretary has made it quite clean—I want to use his own words because his honour has been questioned—made it quite clear from the very start that his view and the view of the Government was that the Third International must be controlled, that it came within the obligations attaching to the Soviet Government, and that they were determined, if conditions arose, to break off the agreement owing to a breach of that condition.
What is there then either dishonourable or false, or anything of that kind, in an arrangement of that sort? It was made quite clear from the beginning. I must in justice to the Foreign Secretary go as shortly as I can through the history of events. I also want to say a word on one other matter which I think the noble Viscount forgot. At some time about last May the Foreign Secretary stated that he had appointed a small body to which could be referred the question whether a breach of the propaganda condition had been proved, and if so what steps should be taken. That body was constituted, and met, and the Home Secretary has stated that in the action lie has taken—or not taken if you so prefer to put it—he did not act out of accord with the representations made, but followed those recommendations. That I
122
thought was accepted in the other House by every one who heard it. I do not like to leave this matter at this stage, and I think reference should be made shortly to what is the history of this matter. Otherwise, unless you have the whole picture in your mind, you cannot, I think, justly deal with an accusation such as the noble Viscount has made. On the other hand, I should not have an opportunity to repudiate, as I do wholly and absolutely, any suggestion of the kind which has come from the noble Viscount.
We are all aware that there is a conflict of opinion between the two Governments as to the relations existing between the Soviet Government and the Third International in Moscow. Not only are we all aware of it, but on every occasion the Foreign Secretary has made that quite clear. The Soviet Government contend that they have no control whatever over the activities of the Third International. That they have always contended. His Majesty's Government, on the other hand, have always maintained and still maintain, without any change of any kind, that the two organisations cannot be thus dissociated, and from that position they neither desire nor intend to retreat.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: I am glad to hear that the noble Viscount assents.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I have said it over and over again to-day.
LORD PARMOOR: If the noble Viscount says "Hear, hear," then we come to this point, the question of policy, and when we come to the question of policy I again want to follow the various steps which I think we have rightly followed, with full explanation by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, and with such explanations as Lord Ponsofiby and myself have been able to give in this House from time to time. When the pledges regarding propaganda were exchanged on December 20 last the Soviet Government were under no delusion regarding the interpretation which His Majesty's Government held on the subject of propagandism. No doubt the organs of the Soviet Press have continued to repudiate the responsibility of the Soviet Government for the acts of the Third International, but, if noble Lords

123
have followed the debates in another place they must be aware that His Majesty's Government have remained unshaken by these disclaimers, and that they maintain the view which they have always held and expressed.
Now let us see what the Government's course of conduct has been. In fact, His Majesty's Government have taken serious action on two occasions. On January 1—I recollect very well the late noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, making a very explicit speech on that occasion—a new Communist publication appeared in this country, called the Daily Worker. I do not know whether I ought to congratulate the noble Viscount because he is the first person I have ever heard of who has seen or read that publication. I do not know whether it has ever appeared except on that one occasion, and then there were only a few hundred copies. That publication contained a message addressed to it by the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International. So many questions were raised on this article in this House and in another place that your Lordships are no doubt familiar with its terms. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs decided that it could not be overlooked, and on January 7 last he drew the attention of the Soviet Ambassador to the article, and expressed his regret at its appearance in an organ of the British Press. He added that he could not fail to regard the message as an action calculated to impede the improvement in the relations between the two countries which the negotiations at that time had as their object.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: The noble and learned Lord has accused me of varying things, but I read that to the House half an hour ago. And he himself has not read the concluding words—
"For the present His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any steps."
That is the gravamen of my remarks.
LORD PARMOOR: Perfectly right. All the facts were discussed, all the facts were known. His Majesty's Government, who have always declared that they must be the judges in this propaganda question, decided to take no steps—of course, largely owing to the great importance of maintaining friendly trade relationships with Russia. There the
124
matter dropped. It is all very well to go back now nearly a year. The matter was discussed, the Foreign Secretary giving the frankest and fullest explanations. He did not disguise that there had been in his opinion a certain infringement of the undertaking of the Soviet Government, and after that full inquiry, and a very long debate in this House, the impression left on my mind was that the two Houses and people generally were satisfied that on that occasion, at any rate, the Foreign Secretary had taken the right action.
On June 6 last Mr. Henderson again made his position absolutely clear. He did not deny that there were reasons for dissatisfaction at the way in which the propaganda pledges were being carried out. Is not that perfectly straightforward? He adverted to an announcement he had made on May 26 to the effect that His Majesty's Government had set up appropriate machinery for sifting all the evidence of propaganda in their possession with a view to deciding what action would be appropriate in all the circumstances. Is not that right? What is there not straightforward in that? Of course, if the noble Viscount wants to break off relations with Russia in all circumstances, I can understand his attitude, but if we want to maintain, for trade purposes, the ordinary diplomatic friendly relationships, then I say we were quite right not to take umbrage at what is a comparatively small matter and to set up a body which could advise and consider the evidence.
Your Lordships know that on October 29 my right hon. friend again made representations to the Soviet Ambassador on the question of propaganda. He asked the Ambassador to impress seriously on his Government that the continuation of this propaganda would be calculated to endanger the relations between the two countries. In reply the Ambassador assured him that the Soviet Government have done and will continue to do all in their power to observe the pledge given on December 20 last, but he added that they could not control the activities of the Third International. There were renewed Questions on this point in another place—I should think a hundred or more—reiterating the position of His Majesty's Government. The

125
Foreign Secretary emphasised two points, and said, first, that the Soviet Government are still held responsible for the action of the Third International, and, secondly, that His Majesty's Government intended in the first place to be judges of the importance of any incidents that may arise and of the action, if any, which they judge it necessary to take. We come there to a question of policy, not a question of honour. On a question of policy surely the Government must be the judges of whether any particular breach should lead to the giving up of the economic relationship between the two countries. They must be the judges of what action it is necessary to take. Of course, it is impossible for any other body than the Government to be the judges in such a matter. I quite agree that if the Government are not prepared to take a responsibility of that kind they are not worthy to govern she country.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I accept that.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, but I said—if they are not willing to take the responsibility. The noble Viscount differs from us there, and that is the real basis of the whole of his speech. I am not going to try to convince him; it would be a hopeless task. But what I say is that all the insinuations be made against the honour of the Foreign Secretary are wholly without foundation, and upon this point of policy, whether we are right or wrong, the Foreign Secretary was right when he said that the Government would take the responsibility. I think the noble Viscount agreed with me that if they could not do that they would not be worthy of being the Government of a great country like ours. There is no change. This remains the position. This is what the Foreign Secretary then said. There is no change and no intention to change. I hope the noble Viscount considers that. There is no change of policy, and no intention to change our policy. I would, however, ask noble Lords whether they are not magnifying out of all proportion the question of propaganda so far as it has been carried on in this country. I take that as a test and I take it as to the credit of the Labour Government. Communism has died out. There are only a few thousand left. It is at
126
this country that Russia aid the Soviet Republic look askance, because they feel that the good sense and good feeling and the desire for stability amongst the working classes of this country have been so great, that not only have they made no advance in propaganda here, but they have fallen altogether out of any chance of taking any step in that direction.
I have gone, I am afraid, at great length, but it was necessary to do so, through the points which the noble Viscount raised. Do not let him think that we do not differ. Of course, we differ. But I hope he will reconsider some of the phrases that he used regarding the attitude of the Foreign Secretary of this country. Although I do not want to put any special weight upon this, I would ask him to recollect that Stalin has no official position in the Russian Government. He really represents the Third International, which, although it is an outside body, is, I admit, the body as to which, under the terms of the arrangement we have made with the Russian Government, we did regard and will regard and shall regard an obligation as existing upon them to stop any propaganda from that body. I thank your Lordships for listening to me. I am afraid I have been rather long but the matter is of great importance. With regard to Papers, I should like to say that there really are no Papers that could be permitted. The noble Viscount knows, from his experience of administration, that matters which have passed confidentially in the course of diplomatic relationship cannot be published. If you once broke into the immunity of diplomatic relationship in those matters it would be almost impossible to carry out any real understanding between two countries.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have no desire to prolong this debate which certainly, as regards the last speech delivered, has been of the unsatisfactory nature which characterises Russian debates. I only rise to call attention to the conflict between my noble friend Lord Brentford and the noble and learned Lord opposite on the question of dumping. What I gather from the noble and learned Lord is that there is no dumping and that, if there was any dumping, it would be a good thing.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not say that.
LORD NEWTON: I also gathered from him that there is no justification for the expression "slave labour." I will not go into that, but I confess that, so far as I can see, I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend. Here may I say parenthetically that I hope he will not find it necessary to withdraw any single expression he made use of in the course of his speech. With regard to the question of dumping, which appears to me to be far more important than even the question of propaganda, it ought to be plain to the meanest intelligence in the country that the Soviet Government, after waging political war upon us for the last thirteen years, is now embarking upon an economic war. I do not think that anybody can be blind to the fact, and it seems to me one of the most alarming portents that have confronted us for some time. It is perfectly idle to contend that it is not going on. Although it may seem an almost impossible thing for one country to destroy the industry of all civilised Governments, these people, unfortunately, have a much greater potentiality of doing it than anybody else. They start with the initial advantage of repudiating debts. They steal all property and they conscript labour. I believe unemployment is a crime in Russia at the present time.
LORD PARMOOR: There is none.
LORD NEWTON: Labour can be conscripted to any amount and, as everybody knows, the ordinary person in Russia is completely under the control of the Government who can do whatever they choose with him. In those circum stances, the so-called five-year plan, which many people are inclined to de ride, is really a universal danger, and in my opinion it is the highest form of folly to speak of it as if it was a contemptible effort to which no attention need be paid. To me, at all events, it seems one of the most formidable menaces that we have been confronted with. I gather from the statement of the noble and learned Lord and from statements in another place that nothing whatever is going to be done, and that the Government are actually going to continue the policy -of financing this movement which is directed against ourselves. All I can say is that though I
128
have often ardently wished for the termination of His Majesty's Government, I feel all the more strongly now that in the interests of this country and of everybody who has any vestige of common sense their end ought to come before long, so that the disastrous policy upon which they have embarked with regard to Russia, fraught as it is with all these dangers, may be immediately reversed by their successors.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, at this hour of the evening, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will not expect me to deal with the case that he has made. There will be other opportunities, I doubt not, I hope there will be—
LORD PARMOOR: I appreciate that.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: —to discuss various points with him. Therefore, I will not trouble about the two first points he made. But he has accused me of using language which, perhaps, is not usual in your Lordships' House. I had no intention of using any unparliamentary language, but so far as what I meant is concerned I do not withdraw one word that I said. I charge the Foreign Secretary, in effect, with having stated to the House of Commons on November 5 last year, just twelve months ago, that he had entered into a certain agreement with Russia,. He read that agreement to the House. It was perfectly clear. There was nothing whatever said that we take one view of the meaning and the other side take another view. It was read to that audience of the English House of Commons straight out and it was as perfectly and transparently clear as any legal document could be.
He did not say: "I think it my duty to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and this House that though they have signed this agreement they do not agree with it.
Though we think it includes the Third International, the Russian Government are laughing in their sleeves the whole time because they do not mean to be bound by it." He did not say that. What he did say was—
"We stand by the declaration we made in 1924 to the effect that we could not allow any direct interference from outside in British domestic affairs and would insist that the promise given by the Soviet Government to refrain from any act liable

129
to endanger the tranquillity or prosperity of the British Empire, and to restrain from such acts all persons and organisations under their direct or indirect control…."
He used the words again—"refrain" and "restrain." This is, in fact, an undertaking that Soviet propaganda will not be tolerated in any form or at any time.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: The noble Lord opposite comes and says that it is admitted that is propaganda. Mr. Henderson admitted that in the House of Commons. If you want to break there are sufficient reasons for doing so. May I paraphrase the noble Lord in conclusion by saying: "If you do not want to break then you will stand anything." Is it not possible for the noble Lord to give some Papers?
LORD PARMOOR: I do not know the Papers which the noble Viscount thinks could be given, hut if he would suggest them and they can be laid on the Table we will do so, but he knows that these diplomatic matters cannot be disclosed. I am not aware of the nature of the Papers, but I will have inquiries made. If I can assist the noble Viscount I am most anxious to do so, but I hope he will not press the Motion. I am sure that would be the better way.
LORD NEWTON: May I be permitted to suggest that there could be no difficulty in publishing Papers relating to the conditions of labour in Russia? That would settle the controversy between the two noble Lords. Would the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, entertain any suggestion of that character?
LORD PARMOOR: It is very difficult to give an answer across the floor of the House as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, knows. He is fair in all these
130
matters. The suggestion will be considered with a view to seeing if it can be adopted. I cannot go beyond that. I think if we left it in that way that would be best. We are constantly meeting, and I will do all I can to bring the view that has been expressed to the notice of the Foreign Office, but I cannot go further than that, because I do not know what the nature of those Papers may be.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I do not want to press the Government unduly. Naturally I would not ask for Papers relating to Despatches from our Government to our own Ambassadors, but if there are any communications between the Foreign Office and the Russian Government I think we ought to have them. I cannot think that would be against public policy. That is the kind of Paper I had in my mind. Then in regard to the question of dumping, I think there must be considerable information at the Board of Trade as to what has been dumped in the course of the last twelve months, and there must be somewhere in our Government Departments a great deal more authentic information than perhaps the public has in regard to the conditions of the working people of Russia. A statement has been made at the Trades Union Congress by some of the noble Lord's supporters, and I think it would be fair to him and them and all of us that we should have all the information which the Government has it in its power to give. I say this in order that the noble Lord may realise what I want. I will gladly talk the matter over with him, relying, as I know always can, on any undertaking he gives. I will not press my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.