Lords Sitting of 1 November 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee.

EDINBURGH ROYAL MATERNITY AND SIMPSON MEMORIAL HOS- PITAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Edinburgh Royal Maternity and Simpson Memorial Hospital, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
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.

MACDUFF HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Macduff Harbour, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
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.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to intro-
920
duce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Aberdeen Harbour, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
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.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government, in view of the development of semi-automatic signalling on motor vehicles, if they intend to issue suggestions or regulations as to their construction and adoption, and their future policy towards automatic and semi-automatic signalling for facilitating the movements and the safety of the users of the roads; and to move for Papers?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not detain the House more than a few moments in submitting my Question and moving my Motion. When I first put the Question on the Order Paper nothing had been done to suggest that the Government were taking any interest in the direction of semi-automatic signals on motor vehicles, and, after I had sent the Question in, the whole matter was referred to a Departmental Committee on Road Traffic. Knowing Departmental Committees and Committees in general I was quite prepared to leave it there for some considerable time and not raise the matter at all, but on October 6, in the News-Chronicle, much to my surprise, I read a full account of a report which this Departmental Committee was supposed to be making to the Minister of Transport, including a report on this very matter which I raise in my Question. This report appeared in a large number of other newspapers, and, finally on October 11, it appeared in a certain technical journal and was quoted there as being premature and unauthorised. I looked at the copy of the report which appeared in the News-Chronicle, and to my mind it bears every indication of being entirely authentic, because there are certain very well-drawn designs and signs reproduced, and one or two other things, and actual words from the report are quoted.
I can quite believe that this report is premature and unauthorised, but I do think the noble Earl who replies to this Question for the Government might give us some indication as to how this leakage of information occurred, because it is to my mind a very serious matter. Perhaps he can tell us whether the Minister has had a report from this Committee, and, if so, whether it is as it was published in the newspaper; and, further, how a copy of the report managed to get to the Press. How did the News-Chronicle manage to get the article, and is it really in the public interest that official documents, presumably confidential, should be permitted to leak out? Has any inquiry been made as to the origin of this report and if none has taken place will some inquiries be made? This may appear to be only a small matter, but in certain other cases it might be a very serious matter. I think some steps should be taken to stop the leakage of information.
In consequence of this I speak this afternoon under some difficulty, not knowing whether I am talking to the converted or to the unconverted. I think that all noble Lords will agree with me that some uniformity in automatic signals on motor cars should be obtained. Several large manufacturers have started to make a variety of signs and I think that a very grave error is being made in some of them. It is essential that we should have development of automatic signalling. It is undoubtedly necessary because modern body-work makes it almost impossible to give correct signals from inside a car. Moreover, many people fail to give correct signals not only because of that impossibility but because they are too idle to give them or do not know them. I put down this Question because it seems to me essential that there should be simplicity of operation of these signals and that the signals themselves should be simple to understand. Anything like coloured flashing lights which may distract a driver's attention is a bad thing. There are some simple indicators and perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether the Commissioner of Police has had any reports on the very admirable indicators fitted to a certain number of taxicabs.
There is another point to which the Minister might give attention. I think
922
it is essential under modern conditions that every motor vehicle with electrical equipment should have a stop light. I drive a great deal myself and I know from experience that it is extremely rare for drivers to make any attempt to show that they are stopping or applying their brakes. More particularly essential is the fitting of stop lights on tramcars. They are the quickest vehicles to stop, and since it is now an offence in many places to pass a stationary tramcar, whether people are alighting or not, motorists ought to have the longest possible warning of the intention of the drivers of these vehicles to stop. I would suggest to the Minister that if he is going to make regulations on this matter of signals on vehicles, he should make them compulsory not on private vehicles but on public service vehicles. It is impossible when you are driving behind a big char-a-banc or a big omnibus to understand what signals the driver is making. You have a tremendous length of vehicle along which to look and a man's hand, probably only just showing out of the side window, is extremely difficult to see. I think, therefore, that it should be made compulsory for all public service vehicles to be fitted with indicators. I think that an increasingly large number of manufacturers will fit some kind of indicator to motor cars and, therefore, it need not be made compulsory for every one to have one because ultimately that will come about voluntarily.
I come now to the question of automatic signals as used in streets. I do not think it will be denied that these signals have been a very wide success and I hope that we shall see large extensions of them. Before that comes about, however, I think we must have certain revisions of the regulations governing the movement of traffic by these lights. Complaints have been brought to my notice, and I have personally cause for complaint, as to the size of these lights. They are very difficult to see in certain cases owing to the fact that they are too small. It is obvious that these lights must be seen before they can be obeyed. Therefore I suggest to the Minister that he should pay serious attention to the size of these lights before making further regulations. Another difficulty which strikes me as rather important at the present moment is that where these lights are installed drivers tend to race, or attempt to race, the

923
lights. I have seen that done myself and any noble Lord who passes along Oxford Street can see, almost any day, people trying to beat the lights. One of the things which struck me very forcibly when I was visiting the United States some few years ago was that it was possible to enter a town and drive through it perhaps for three or four miles, and by keeping a steady pace of fifteen miles per hour, or even up to twenty miles per hour, go through it from one end to the other without ever pausing, the traffic being entirely controlled by lights.
There is another point on which I think the Minister might take some action, not necessarily, perhaps, by regulation, but by laying it down in the Highway Code that an amber light when shown after green is the same as a red light and that it is obligatory on motorists to stop. It should be made equally clear that an amber light shown after a red light is not a permission for motorists to try to race each other from a traffic jam. There is a tendency to get that state of affairs, so that two streams of traffic are moving at cross roads at the same time. It ought to be definitely laid down that an amber light has the same meaning as a red light and that traffic should become motionless. Another very important point is that, especially in busy streets, the pedestrian should be made to realise that traffic lights are for his control as well as for the control of people in vehicles. It is very annoying—or even pathetic, according to the point of view from which you regard it—to see people dodging in and out of traffic when by waiting for a few moments they could cross the road in perfect safety. There is still one more matter which I should like to ask the Minister to take into consideration, and that is the extension of these lights to main roads outside towns and to the suburbs. If people will not slow down at cross roads or main roads and in the suburbs they must be made to do so, and these lights provide the very best method we can possibly have of ensuring caution.
Perhaps the noble Earl has some information that lie can give us about the system adopted in certain London streets whereby traffic lights are worked by the traffic itself so that the traffic passing over pads in the roadway sets signals
924
against traffic coming from cross roads, or automatically, after passing over the cross roads, releases the traffic in the side roads. I wonder if the noble Earl could give any information as to whether it would be practicable to instal such lights at big main road crossings and in the suburbs. People must be made to be cautious. Safety is paramount on the roads in these days and a large extension of these lights is one of the best ways, I believe, in which we can secure it. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am pleased this Question has been raised, although on questions relating to motor cars our little Party on this side is usually split. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, will always go into the opposite Lobby to the one I go into on these questions. The noble Lord opposite has left me practically nothing to say, but he did mention the subject of tramcars. Tramcars have magnetic brakes which will stop them at least twice as quickly as any motor car and there is nothing to warn you that they are going to stop. I was driving a motor car this wet afternoon behind a tramcar which pulled up smartly and it was with great difficulty I managed to avoid bumping into it. I hardly knew whether to take the right-hand side or risk knocking someone over on the left; and that is usually what happens. It is essential that some warning should be given that the tramcar is going to stop. With a motor car the foot brake operates the light at the back and I suppose some such device could be used on tramcars. At any rate motorists should be given some indication of what a tramcar is going to do.
Take the example of ships. You do not get ships adopting different signals. I used to have a small motor cruiser and come up what is called London River on it, and I had to get to know the various siren toots of the tugs. If they blew four short and one long it meant turning to port, and so on. You did not find that they had different systems of signalling. In the case of bicycles there are reflectors in a certain place; you do not find a bicyclist at night with it on the top of his head or in the middle of his back. I hope the Government will give some satisfactory reply on this Question, which I regard as a serious matter in view of the enormous number of accidents to-day on the roads.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I have absolutely no quarrel to pick with the noble Lord for the way in which he moved his Motion and I am very glad to have the opportunity straightaway of correcting the misapprehension that this very important subject has not been interesting closely the Minister of Transport. It has been interesting the Minister for a very considerable time and he has given the whole subject a great deal of careful thought. As your Lordships know, amongst the many provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, there was one which empowers the Minister of Transport
"to make Regulations with regard to appliances to be fitted for … intimating any intended change of the speed or direction of a motor vehicle and the use of any such appliance."
Up to now it has not been considered necessary to make the fitting either of direction indicators or of stop lights compulsory, but the use of such appliances as an alternative to hand signalling is recognised in the Highway Code.
The advisability of making regulations laying down requirements with which such devices, if fitted, should conform, has been considered from time to time since the Road Traffic Act was passed. Early this year, however, it was decided not to make regulations on the subject, but to write to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and inform them, and through them the motor trade generally, of the Minister's views on the subject. The motives which actuated the Minister in adopting this course were, in the first place, that he was loth to make additional regulations. There were already a large number of them and he did not want to make any unnecessary regulations. If he had adopted certain definite and specific regulations the effect might have been to stifle any inventive-minded person likely to devise something satisfactory. Admittedly the whole position with regard to these direction indicators was in a more or less experimental stage and it might have been unfortunate to come to a final decision until it had been possible to try out a large number of devices.
I should like to quote a considerable portion of the letter which the Minister
926
wrote to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders because I think it lies at the root of the whole matter. The letter is headed: "Direction Indicators on Motor Vehicles" and proceeds:
"The Highway Code, as your society will be aware, contains the following paragraph under the heading of 'Signals.'
When you intend to stop, slow down or change direction, give the appropriate signal clearly, definitely and in good time.
('Hand signals for this purpose are fully described and illustrated in the Appendix (see page 18). Where the appropriate signal can be given effectively by a suitable mechanical or electrical device, there is no objection to its use')."
The letter continues:
"The Minister has carefully considered whether or not he should exercise his powers under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to make regulations controlling the design and use of these devices. He is opposed to the making of unnecessary regulations and he does not wish to do anything which would discourage the production of effective devices for this purpose.
"For the present, therefore, the Minister does not propose to make any regulations on this subject. At the same time I am to point out that if signalling devices are to be relied on instead of hand signals, the indications which they give of the intentions of the driver must be clear and unmistakable and easily visible to the drivers of other vehicles by whom it is intended that they should be seen. They should not depend for their efficacy upon any arbitrary interpretation to be attached to any particular symbol or coloured light other than the ordinary significance attached to an arrow and to a red stop light.
"It may of course be necessary for the Minister to make regulations on the subject if unsatisfactory devices for the purpose under consideration are marketed or if for any other reason regulations appear to him to be necessary in the interests of public safety."
I think that letter was couched in very clear terms and I believe it commanded the general assent of the various organisations which were interested in the subject. It was undoubtedly hoped that this letter would be a sufficient safeguard against the adoption on any considerable scale of direction indicators which did not conform with the views expressed by the letter. During the course of this summer certain devices were put upon the market which did not appear prima facie to conform to the views distinctly expressed in this letter, and as a result, as the noble Lord has told the House, the Minister referred the whole of this subject to the Departmental Committee which had already been set up to consider

927
the question of traffic signs generally, and they were asked to deal with this matter as a matter of urgency. The terms of reference to the Committee were as follows:
"To consider the proposed use of certain types of direction indicators on motor vehicles on a large scale and to make recommendations at an early date as to whether the powers of the Minister of Transport to make regulations with regard to such devices should be exercised and, if so, in what manner."
I am only able to say that the Committee have examined various devices of this description which are, or have been, proposed to be used on a considerable scale on motor vehicles, and I understand that their report will be very shortly in the hands of the Minister. Clearly until that report is received the Minister is not able to announce his policy definitely with regard to the matter, but I may inform the House that the report of the Committee will be published as soon as the Minister of Transport has had time to consider it.
Lord de Clifford referred to what he described as a leakage of information on the subject with regard to the deliberations of this Committee. I regret that I am not in a position to tell him anything with regard to the matter. I know nothing about it whatsoever, but what I can say is that the statement in that newspaper on that day was entirely unauthorised. He further asked me a question as to the action of the Commissioner of Police with regard to these devices. I can only tell him that we do know that the Commissioner of Police has tried out a certain number of devices on taxi-cabs in London, but up to now we have received no report with regard to the matter. I am afraid that that is all that I can tell him with regard to the first part of his Question, but I hope it will go to show the House that the Minister is giving the matter very careful thought, and hopes to be in a position to make a more definite statement at a very early date.
I confess I did not realise that the noble Lord's Motion dealt with the question of other types of automatic and semi-automatic signalling on the road. It may have been my fault but I did not realise that it dealt with more than signals on cars. The noble Lord did raise the matter, however, and it is of course of the very greatest importance to the
928
users of the road generally. I do not know if he remembers that I had an opportunity of explaining the position of die Minister, and of the Government generally, with regard to this matter at the end of last summer, and I think I made it quite clear then that although there had been certain delays in London, and progress was not quite so quick in London as in the provinces, at any rate the matter was being pressed forward and there was a likelihood of a considerable increase in the number of points and streets where these automatic signals would be used—a likelihood of a considerable increase within a comparatively short time. The Minister is certainly fully aware of the value of this form of signalling, and is fully aware of the success it has attained where it has been tried. On the other hand it is only fair to issue one note of warning, and that is that I think it would be fatal, as it were, to adopt these signals broadcast throughout London and the suburban areas in places where their location is not really warranted. Probably it would only have the effect of having these signals disregarded, and result in a worse situation than before.
The noble Lord referred to what he had seen in New York when he went over to the United States, and described how a motor car was able to pass the whole way through the City at a level fifteen miles an hour without being stopped or interrupted. I personally have not myself indulged in, or seen anybody else indulge in, the new game of "beating the light" in Oxford Street, but I can tell him that these lights are designed for this very purpose, that you can travel down Oxford Street at sixteen miles an hour, if the road is clear, and be entirely uninterrupted, and that is the point in instituting these new automatic signals throughout the country. This point is very carefully considered as one of the primary essentials that are necessary. The noble Lord also referred to traffic actuated signals being used. They are being used in increased numbers, and are proving satisfactory. At first it was thought in the Ministry that only light traffic could be dealt with by means of this type of signal, but it was found possible to deal with heavy traffic as well, and further experiments are being made. I do not know whether

929
there is any further point made by the noble Lord that I have missed, but if so I will try and give an answer to it. I do assure him that the matter he has raised is considered to be of the greatest importance by the Minister, and that we hope considerable progress will be made in London with regard to it within a short time.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I be forgiven if I say a few words on the speech which we have just heard from the noble Earl? First I should like to say how much I welcome the announcement he made of the general principle followed by the Ministry with regard to motor vehicles—namely, that they are opposed to unnecessary regulations. Many sections of the motor trade, and ninny motor car users, have been very nervous in regard to the very great powers vested in the Ministry for making regulations affecting the motor traffic, and the announcement which the noble Earl has made, that the Ministry is opposed to making unnecessary regulations, will be very well received indeed. The subject which the noble Lord has raised is one of the very greatest importance and I was relieved to hear what the noble Earl has said with regard to the question of signalling on cars. There is danger that signals which do not conform to the memorandum read out may be widely adopted. There is a type of vehicle being fitted with light signals, the meaning of which certainly is not obvious to everyone, and I hope that the Minister will keep a careful eye upon them.
With regard to the question of signal lights in the streets, there is one point which I desire to submit to the Minister, and that is the question of the location of these lights. At present they are fitted at the side of the street, and that is exactly the place where they should not be. There are two reasons why they should not be there. First of all, the careful driver should keep his main attention fixed upon the roadway ahead of him, and should not be concentrating his mind on the side of the road, which he must do if he is going to pay attention to a large number of signal lights, such as you find in Oxford Street. Again, the lights at the side of the road may very easily be obscured by certain classes of vehicle, in which case the motorist may quite easily over-run the lights without being aware of it. I know that careful
930
trials have been carried out, but abroad in several cities which I have driven through you sometimes find lights hanging right over the centre of the crossroads, suspended from wires. In that position they are very much more clearly visible to drivers. They are not nearly so liable to be obscured. I know the answer is that they may be obscured by the construction of the bodywork of cars, but that all depends on the height at which they are suspended.
I hope that, this particular matter can be explored a little more. I should imagine that one central light, as compared with four lighting positions, at a cross-roads would be much cheaper, and therefore we might get an extended use of light signals. I am quite certain that light signals very definitely make for safety on our roads, and I do very much hope that it will be found possible for public authorities and for the Ministry of Transport to do everything in their power to encourage them. On the whole I welcome very much the Minister's statement, and I hope that this important question will be kept carefully under review.
There is only one other point, and that is the question of the pedestrian. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, mentioned this in his remarks. At present pedestrians do not seem to realise the significance of the lights. I do not know what can be done to help them, but I am perfectly convinced that if we in this country could have definite crossing places for pedestrians, such as you find in practically every large city throughout Europe, it would make for greater safety for them. If those crossing places could be marked out by studs on the highway I am sure that, in the event of any pedestrian being injured between the studs, the magistrates, as in the case of French cities and Italian cities, would deal very severely with the motorist who was responsible. At the same time, the pedestrian could be encouraged to look at the lights. But something ought certainly to be done to help the pedestrian to understand the significance of the lights. The Ministry is opposed to having signs in unnecessary places, and signs are dotted about in places where the necessity for them is not quite clear. There are two lights on the road leading to Croydon for the use of pedestrians, which are very largely

931
used as a new game for children. We do not want to cry "Wolf !" in connection with these light signals. They must either mean something or not, and I am not at all sure that those signals erected for the use of pedestrians, being taken advantage of, as they are, by small children, can always be justified.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I know that type. It is not the exact type that I was referring to when I spoke.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I especially desire to join with my noble friend Lord Howe in saying how glad I am that the Ministry realises that a mass of regulations is not good for the motor trade. While I shall be very interested to see the final results of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, I shall also be very interested to see how they compare with the report which has already been published. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House no export credits should be provided for Russian trade, nor any further commercial agreement, temporary or otherwise, concluded between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Soviet Union, till that Union has taken some steps to liquidate its debts to the British Government and British nationals.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of Russia is always one which interests your Lordships' House and the country as a whole, and therefore I make no apology for bringing it up again for discussion to-day. It is now six months since my noble friend Lord Lloyd initiated a very interesting debate here, though I am afraid he did not get much satisfaction from His Majesty's Government. But there was one statement made by a then member of the Government, Lord Snowden, which seemed to me one of the most remarkable statements ever made by a British Minister. Lord Lloyd had made his Motion, and others had
932
spoken to it, including myself, and, dealing with a statement that I had made, Lord Snowden said that we must not do anything of that sort, because, if we did, the Soviet Government would redouble their propaganda against us. That seemed to me one of the most defeatist statements ever made in the British Parliament. We were told that we should not do what we think right because, forsooth, some people overseas might try to make themselves disagreeable to us. I trust that no such statement will ever be made again by a British Minister.
Apart from the fact that the passage of time would justify me in bringing up this question again, there are two circumstances which have occurred, either of which would, in my opinion, justify a debate. The present National Government, containing as it does a vast majority of Conservatives, has done what it vehemently denounced when in opposition: it has followed the example of its Socialist predecessors, and has extended further export credits to British merchants trading with Russia. It has also, as the result of the Ottawa Conference, denounced the Temporary Commercial Agreement which was signed in April, 1930, by the then Socialist Government. I welcome the denunciation of the Temporary Agreement, because I never was in favour of any agreement at all, and therefore any steps which can be taken to terminate that Agreement, which has been of no benefit to us, I welcome. But the Government did not do that because it thought the Agreement was bad. It did not do so because it dissented in any way from the policy of its Socialist predecessors; it did it simply because the Canadian Government showed it the right way. The Canadian Government, as part of the terms of their making an Agreement at Ottawa, stipulated that this Temporary Commercial Agreement should be denounced because, if it remained in being, it might nullify all the preferences which we are gladly giving to Canada.
But the Government are so anxious to placate, and to be subservient to, the Soviet Government that in the same announcement in which they state that they are denouncing the Agreement of 1930, they say they are at once going to get into communication with the Soviet Government with a view to entering into discussions upon the situation created by

933
the denunciation of the Agreement, with, I presume, the idea of making another agreement. Why does the present Government, why did the Socialist Government, want to have these Agreements at all? The Conservative Government in 1927 denounced the Commercial Agreement entered into by a preceding Government in 1921, and I have yet to be shown that any evil results followed from the denunciation of that Agreement in 1927.
Apart from that, take the United States. The United States have no agreement with the Soviet Government; they have no diplomatic relations; yet they, without any of these precious trade agreements, without any diplomatic representation at Moscow, or Soviet representation at Washington, are able to do a far more profitable trade with Russia than we do, with a trade balance in their favour. With all our efforts, with all our trade agreements, with all our export credits, the balance is immensely in favour of the Russians in the trade between this country and Russia. Indeed, the Lord President of the Council, only last week or the week before, in the House of Commons, stated that the trade that we do with Russia is only a fraction of the trade which they do with us. I think he said it was one-fifth. Therefore, any change that happens cannot be to our detriment and must be to the detriment of the Soviet Government.
I hope and trust that if a new trade agreement is made the Government will not fall into the error which was made by all preceeding Governments of inserting any clause in that agreement prohibiting the Soviets from making propaganda against this country. For eleven years now we have had this clause in various Agreements with the Soviet Government. It has not had the slightest influence in preventing the Soviet Government from propagating their ideas against this country. It has been a most humiliating position for this country to be in. It began when the late Lord Curzon protested in 1921 and it has gone on through the terms of office of the various Foreign Secretaries, including poor Mr. Henderson, who begged and prayed the Soviet people to give him something to show to the House of Commons. I do not know whether the present Government have protested in any way; we do not know whether they
934
have. At any rate, unless you are going to take steps to enforce such a clause in an agreement, for heaven's sake do not put one in and continue to be the laughing-stock of the world, as we have been for the last eleven years, owing to the way in which the Soviet Government have treated us.
May I say one word about this propaganda? It is common knowledge that this propaganda against us has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. I will not call them "riots," but these disturbances in Hyde Park and elsewhere during the last few days and the proposed march on the Houses of Parliament this afternoon are not genuine displays of discontent by the ordinary unemployed man or woman in this country. They are the organised results of Soviet money sent into this country. As long ago as 1921, Lord Stonehaven, then Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, stated in the House of Commons that Soviet money was coming into this country to the tune of £250,000 every year for propaganda purposes against us. During the Arcos raid by the Conservative Government in 1927 we had numerous papers published which proved conclusively that, in the opinion of the then Government, large sums of money were coming into this country to stir up sedition and strikes; and only last March in the House of Commons the then Home Secretary, Sir Herbert Samuel, said that the Communist propaganda against this country was being intensified and was stronger than it had ever been.
That means that more money is coming in here in order to do us as much harm as possible. I admit that it is no use for anybody to appeal to this Government or any Government to stop Communist funds coming into this country. No Government can do that. There are many ways of sending money through banks and other channels into this country which no law can stop, though you may hamper it. But you facilitate it if you have a Soviet Ambassador here and a Trade Delegation here with diplomatic immunity. I can understand that if you have an Ambassador here you must give him and his entourage diplomatic immunity. But why in the name of common sense should you so favour the Soviet Government that they alone, as I understand it, are allowed to have a Trade

935
Delegation of four members with diplomatic immunity? You simply make a grand high road for their money to come in here, and then you feel quite astonished when these riots take place.
Although it is incidentally relevant, it is not strictly relevant to this Motion, but I hope you will allow me to say one word about the insufficiency of the law to deal with agitators who are trying to stir up strife in this country. I am all for liberty of speech. I am all for giving the greatest possible chance to everybody to express his opinions; but I do think that it is a pitiful spectacle which this country presents to the world—that there should be no means known to the law to prevent the organisers of these hunger marches from organising these marches and bringing their wretched dupes hundreds of miles up to the chief City of the Empire and then leaving them without any means of getting food and without any opportunity of securing shelter. Surely some steps could be taken to make that an illegal act.
Further, my Lords, are we really right in allowing these organised processions to fill our streets day by day and week by week? We have at the present moment in existence, not, I think, a law, but a Resolution of the House of Commons which directs the Commissioner of Police to prevent any organised procession approaching the Houses of Parliament while Parliament is sitting; and a very sound rule it is. Cannot we somewhat enlarge the radius of the action of that Resolution or law and say that, at any rate in the chief streets of this City, we are not going to allow processions to take place unless they are authorised by the Commissioner of Police as being legitimate processions and ones which are necessary for the wellbeing of the community? It is really very hard indeed upon our police and upon the special constables that, day after day, they should be kept for hours and hours on duty to deal with what is an insignificant fraction of the population of this country.
Now, if I may switch over for a moment to another part of my Motion, I should like to ask the Government what they are doing about the Russian debts which are owed to this country. I wonder if the nation as a whole realises the vast sums involved, the really enormous sums involved, in the case of the debts owed
936
by the Russian Government to this nation, excluding private debts. It is over one year's income of this country. It is considerably more money than is voted in the annual Budget in the House of Commons. What are the figures? The Soviet Government owe more than £1,000,000,000 to this country. Take the individual claims on the Soviet Government. There are 50,000 private claims registered at the Board of Trade by British subjects who assert that the Soviet Government is responsible for the robbery of their goods and property in Russia, and they claim that the amount they should get is round about £400,000,000. We all know when people make claims that they are apt to exaggerate a little, but I think a conservative figure would indicate that at any rate the private claims can legitimately amount to £300,000,000, and, therefore, we reach the gigantic figure of £1,300,000,000, which, undoubtedly, the Soviet Government is responsible for and ought to pay over to the taxpayers of this country and to a large number of private individuals.
What answer have the Soviet Government always given to our Foreign Office representations when we have asked for payment of that £1,000,000,000 owing by the Soviet Government to this nation? "Oh," they say, "we are not liable because all of it was lent to the Czarist Government, and we are not responsible for it." A more flimsy excuse cannot be imagined. We might just as well get rid of our National Debt by proclaiming a Republic and saying we are not responsible for the money owed by this country when it was a Monarchy. Therefore there is no excuse possible; it is pure and simple repudiation.
I wonder if the country realises what this repudiation of the money owed by the Soviet Government to this country really implies. I am dealing not with the private claims but with the Government claims alone. If you turn up the House of Commons Debates for July 23, 1930, you will see that the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer said—I would draw the attention of your Lordships to this very remarkable statement:
"The money lent to Russia during the War was borrowed by His Majesty's Government at over 5 per cent. interest, and the

937
annual sum now paid by the British taxpayer for interest thereon accordingly amounts to over £45,000,000 a year."
That is to say the British taxpayers have to pay £45,000,000 every year—and my authority for that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1930—because the Soviet Government have defaulted. I will indicate presently what I would do. Surely it does justify some rather drastic action, some energetic action on the part of His Majesty's Government. £45,000,000 a year ! The columns of our newspapers were crowded with paeans of praise and rejoicing because the Conversion Loan saved £21,000,000 net to the British taxpayer, but nobody seems to worry in the least that £45,000,000 have to be found every year by the British taxpayer because of the repudiation of the Soviet Government. Successive Governments—I blame all Governments—have taken no drastic steps to deal with the situation.
Then take the private individuals. How have they suffered at the hands of the Soviet Government? The Soviet Government have confiscated the oilfields and timber forests developed by British capital, and sold the produce to the people from whom it was stolen. What has been done to help those people? Nothing at all. Take the most glaring instance of Soviet perfidy and absolute disregard of all honesty, the Lena Goldfields Concession, of which some of your Lordships may have heard. At the risk of repeating I will, for the benefit of some who may not know about it, sketch the situation in half a dozen sentences. The Lena Goldfields Concession was a mining concession in Russia. From 1925 —the date of the Concession signed, sealed and delivered by the Soviet Government—to 1930 this company sank £4,000,000 sterling in developing the property. They did not simply hold the Concession and wait for something to turn up, for in those five years the shareholders in the Lena Goldfields Concession sank £4,000,000 sterling in the enterprise. There happened what always happens when you have a concession in Russia. The Russian Government thought it was in nice working order, British money had put it in working order, and they stole it by the Russian method of preventing the workmen going to their work and charging the officials with plotting against the
938
State, and resorting to the hundred and one ways by which you can make business impossible in that country. Then, under the terms of the Concession—and this was embodied in the Concession, signed by the Soviet Government—the dispute went to arbitration before an international tribunal. That international tribunal went carefully into the matter and awarded Lena Goldfields £13,000,000. What was the attitude of the Soviet Government? Cynical indifference. They simply said: "We are not going to pay any attention to the award."
Promises are no good. What the country has to consider now is whether the use of the big stick is not preferable to these piteous implorings of the Soviet Government extending over eleven years. I suggest—it is only the suggestion of an individual and is sure not to be agreed to by the Government even though it came from heaven, because naturally the Government can never receive any sound suggestion from a private member—I suggest to the Government that, as they are proposing to sign a new agreement, they should intimate to Russia, in the first place, that we will sign no further agreement till we receive some money on account—nothing doing until we receive some money on account. I know they cannot pay very much, but some money on account would show their willingness to acknowledge this past debt which they owe to us. I should myself, if I had the handling of it, allocate that money not to the British taxpayer but to the wretched private individuals who in many cases have lost their all owing to this robbery by the Russian Government. Secondly, we should tell them when we sign the Agreement: "It will only have force as long as you continue to pay. Directly you cease payment the Agreement will come to an end; and if you refuse these two clauses then we will treat you as we have treated the Irish Free State." Nobody pretends—I do not at any rate—that the present situation with regard to the Irish Free State is all on one side, that they suffer all the loss and we have all the gain. We suffer, too, but our gains are immeasurably greater than our losses, and I venture to prophesy that in three or four months what we have fought for in the case of the Irish Free State—namely, payment of our just debts —will be arrived at.
If you do the same thing as far as Russia is concerned I am not pretending that it will not to a certain extent hurt some of our export trade. But remember that Russia must have cash. She is obliged to have cash to finance her five-year plan and her ten-year plan. The balance is in her favour by four or five to one. We pay the Russians in cash and they only pay us in credit. We are the only country where they can get cash. They do not get cash in America, because there the boot is on the other foot. The Americans do four times as much trade with Russia as Russia does with them. Therefore, Russia would be in as equally a disagreeable position as Ireland is now because she must have cash and we are the only people to provide her with cash. Surely, when we consider our self-respect and our position in the word, when we consider the patience we have had for eleven years, and when we consider above all the vast sums involved and the £45,000,000 which the taxpayers in this country have to find, then I think I am justified in saying that although my plan may not be ideal—the Government may have a better plan—they ought not to stand still and do nothing. They ought to take some steps to show that this sort of thing cannot be allowed to go on.
I apologise for occupying the time of the House so long, but this really is an important subject and one which takes some little time to treat sufficiently well in its various aspects and from its various angles. May I say a word now about the export credits for Russia to which I also refer in my Resolution Your Lordships will probably know that up to the end of May this year the Export Credits Department had assumed Russian trade liabilities up to £10,000,000. Of course, I know—and the Government in their reply will, no doubt, make it quite clear—that these export credits are not given as a douceur, or as a tip to the Soviet Government. This money is used to facilitate trade between this country and Russia. The Government, therefore, back the credit of the private trader, the idea being that he should do more trade with Russia. It was announced in May this year, to the indignant surprise, I think, of a vast number of people in this country, that the National Government—four-fifths or five-sixths of the members of which are Conservatives—had done what they denounced in every term and
940
tense when they were in Opposition—namely, they had given further export credits to the traders with Russia. In May it was announced that a further £1,600,000 was to be given, but that each credit was to operate at the most for not more than eighteen months.
It does seem to me (I regret to have to say it) very extraordinary that several distinguished statesmen, who are naturally regarded as the brightest ornaments of the Conservative Party, support—they must support, because they are still in the Government—action which a year or eighteen months ago they were denouncing as the most stupid and the most unpatriotic thing that could possibly be done. In February of last year the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who leads your Lordships' House, spoke most strongly, I think I am right in saying, against lending money to Russia. But let me quote an even more important person than the noble and learned Viscount, if I may say so, the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin, speaking at Newton Abbot in March this year, said:
"Russia needs no credits to buy from us. She sells us four or five times as much as she buys."
If Russia needs no credits from us, according to the Lord President of the Council, why should we go out of our way to grant them? Russia has an enormous trade balance in this country which she can use for purchasing our goods. Why does she not use it? Is it because she uses it to buy in America where she has to pay cash?
These statements are not very specific, but I base my objection to export credits on a remarkably able speech made by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies, as we know, is a man expert in trade and finance, and in the House of Commons last year—to be exact, on July 22, 1931—he made a violent attack on export credits to Russia. I would invite your Lordships' attention to what he said, because I am not going to make any comments on export credits but intend to base my case entirely upon the views of the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister said:

941
"In volume alone it far overshadows all other credits which the Government are giving to all other countries put together, not excluding the British Empire. As far as I can see from the official figures, in the six months ended 30th May, 1931, the credit given to the Russian Government amounted roughly to £2,500,000, while the credit given to all other countries put together amounted to £1,419,000.….
"I take the Board of Trade figures for the year 1930. The imports from Russia to this country were £34,200,000 and the British exports to Russia were £6,800,000."
That is nearly 5½ to 1.
Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister went on to say:
"British re-exports to Russia.…were £2,500,000. What does that mean? It means that if you take the trade, apart front re-exports, between this country and Russia, Russia had last year"—
that is, in 1930—
"a balance of nearly £27,500,000 in her favour."
Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister also said:
"Where you get a position in Russia is selling for cash in this country more titan four times as much as she is buying here on credit, what necessity can there be to find Government credit with which to do the business?"
That is what the present Secretary of State for the Colonies said only a year ago. He went on to say:
"Therefore, the result of your priceless Trade Agreement and your extended credit is that you have in fact done less business than you did before.…"
What about the United States? Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister said:
"In the United States, as is well known, there is not, and never has been, any recognition."
With no credit, Sir Philip went on,
"Russia sold to the United States 38,400,000 roubles' worth of goods and bought 152,900,000 roubles' worth of goods.…Well, take the next year, 1929–30. Russia sold to Great Britain 237,600,000 roubles' worth and Russia bought from Great Britain 83,700,000 roubles' worth."
I would like to call the attention of your Lordships to these further figures which Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister gave:
"In 1923–30 Russia sold there [in the United States] 44,500,000 roubles' worth and Russia bought from the United States 280,000,000 roubles' worth of products."
What I would put to your Lordships is this. We give Russia credit which she uses to buy goods from other countries, and by conscript labour she launches an attack on our labour conditions here. I say nothing more myself. I am quite
942
willing to base my opposition to export credits, and to ask your Lordships to oppose export credits, on the able speeches of the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for War and the present Secretary of State for the Colonies. I will not detain your Lordships much longer, but I would ask what does all this imply as far as Russia is concerned? It means that the National Government, including all the Conservative Ministers—of course if they did not agree they would not be in the Government—have definitely adopted the Socialist view-point on Russia. I will prove it. The Government rejoice in the presence of a Soviet Ambassador in this country. They are so pleased with this Ambassador that they sent a special representative of the Foreign Office to meet him last week at Victoria. What did the Conservative Administration of 1927 do? There was no question of meeting him. It sent him packing and gave him his passport without delay. Most unwillingly the Government have denounced the Socialist Commercial Agreement of 1930 and have done so under pressure from Canada. They are anxious to sign another commercial agreement with Russia. The Government of 1927 terminated a Trade Agreement. The present Government give further export credits and allow open propaganda against us in this country and all over the world and takes no action. That is following Socialist precedent. But the Socialist Foreign Secretary did at least negotiate with a view to some payment on account of the money owed to us whereas the present Government take no action at all.
Why not follow the dignified, statesmanlike and businesslike attitude of the United States? Allow private individuals to trade with the Soviet Government if they so wish. There is nothing to prevent them. It is not necessary to have your Trade Agreement to carry on trade. The little increase you may get as the result of export credits is no compensation for all the disadvantages pointed out by the Colonial Secretary. If the Government would only show some backbone I am sure they would have the overwhelming approval of the country. Wash out all these debts with Russia, treating her exactly as if she was the most friendly country in the world, which is obviously

943
absurd, or face up to the situation and deal with her as she was dealt with in 1927, plus the precedent of Ireland, and then you would get something back, I believe, for the hard pressed taxpayers of this country and the robbed and impoverished private individuals who have lost their all.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House no export credits should be provided for Russian trade, nor any further commercial agreement, temporary or otherwise, concluded between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Soviet Union, till that Union has taken some steps to liquidate its debts to the British Government and British nationals. — (Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, before the Government deal with this Motion I venture to put forward one or two considerations. The noble Lord appeared to me to be somewhat confused. His reasoning was a little hard to follow and he dealt with a considerable number of matters not contained in the Motion. He dealt with disturbances in Hyde Park, with the breaking off of diplomatic relations—"kicking out" I think was the term he used—with the Soviet Ambassador and with the vast sums spent on propaganda. But I trust the Government will deal mainly with the actual terms of the Motion.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I am sorry to interrupt. I admit I did introduce one or two extraneous matters, but I thought I dealt at some length with export credits and the Trade Agreement.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Lord admits that he dealt with extraneous matters and that was what I was saying. The question is peculiar because the noble Lord has linked up two separate questions, export credits and debts, and the only connection between them that I can see is that in either case a great deal of harm to this country might be done. With regard to export credits it is a fact that, whenever there has been an interference with them the result has been to lower Russian purchases in this country. If the noble Lord says he sees no evil results, for example, from denouncing the Agreement in 1927 I would ask him to look at
944
the purchases in this country, and I think he would then realise that the effect was a drop of £3,000,000 in the first year and of another £7,000,000 in the next year in those purchases. That may be nothing to the noble Lord, but I would remind him that every million less spent in this country means unemployment for another 8,000 persons. Has it occurred to the noble Lord that there is some connection between growing unemployment and the disturbances in Hyde Park? Has it occurred to him that unemployment is unpleasant for the unemployed and that interference with trade may bring a good deal of misery and unhappiness to countless British homes?
The noble Lord referred to the Arcos raid a few years ago. The immediate effect of that was a heavy drop in the export of British goods to Russia with an increase of the unemployed, in the neighbourhood probably of 60,000 or 70,000—with their families probably a quarter of a million of people. The noble Lord says something about our unfavourable trade balance. The trouble is that his figures are hopelessly out of date. It is true we had an unfavourable trade balance with Russia, but every time there is interference with exports by non-recognition, or by "kicking out" the Soviet Ambassador, or by lowering our export trade facilities, there is a definite increase in the amount of the unfavourable nature of our balance, which reached the maximum at the time of the Arcos raid. I do not think there is a great deal in this argument about unfavourable trade balance because of course there can never be an exact balance between one country and another; but I did not notice the noble Lord protesting against the unfavourable trade balance between this country and the United States, the unfavourable balance with the Argentine, with Canada—£15,000,000 a year—New Zealand, Germany or France. These unfavourable balances are not mentioned by him. All his anxiety is devoted to Russian trade.
If he had looked at the most recent figures he would have seen that the unfavourable balance has in the first six months of this year been turned into a favourable balance. Any one would think that the unfavourable balance was against us to this day, but that is not the case. British exports to Russia in

945
the first six months of this year increased by 31 per cent., and we are now in the position of an even balance. In the same six months American exports to Russia decreased by 86 per cent. as a result of the American failure to give credits and recognition. The fact is the noble Lord has not been given a good brief. The credits given by other countries to Russia are far higher than the credits given by this country. Germany is giving credits up to fifty-four months. Italy is giving credits for four and a-half years. The United States credits are given by private firms, and not by the Government, and these firms give credit amounting in many cases to four years and more. And I would remind the noble Lord in that connection that some at least of the German credits are financed by patriotic British banks, who give money to Germany in order that Germany may give credit to Russia and so get orders which Russia otherwise would place in this country. Then we have this kind of argument cropping up, and we find as a result of failure to give credits that in the first six months of this year orders amounting to £6,000,000, actually offered here, were cut down by half because credits were not available.
Where did those orders go? £1,000,000 of them, for machine tools, went mostly to the United States, and £2,000,000 for iron and steel went to Germany, giving employment to American or German workers and causing unemployment in this country. Yet that is the sort of policy to which the noble Lord is asking the Government to assent. Let me remind him that industrialists do not take this point of view. The Federation of British industries, in an interview a few days ago, dealt with this matter and complained of the failure to give additional credits. Mr. Greenwood, the manager of the insurance department of the Federation, said:
"A great number of British manufacturers depend to a great extent, if not mainly, on the Russian market for the sale of their products, and unless that market is fostered, many of the firms who look to Russian orders to keep them alive until the present conditions improve will be forced to close."
Does the noble Lord differ from the Federation of British Industries, or does he know more about British industry than the Federation?
The Federation goes on to say:
946
"We are constantly being told by firms in this industry (engineering) that the Soviet Government is now practically their sole market, and that unless they can accept the orders offered to them from that source they will have to dismiss their employees and close, with the result that when ultimately other markets arise we shall have ceased to manufacture … and the orders will go to other countries."
British manufacturers, Mr. Greenwood says, look in vain to the Government Export Credits Guarantee Department to assist them in discounting the bills at a rate that is not prohibitive. "Therefore," he adds, "we seem to be in the unhappy position of seeing this business slip through our fingers and go to another country where the required credit can be obtained." This is the sort of result to which the noble Lord is asking this House to give its assent—more unemployment by losing these orders, which will go to other countries. Many Manchester firms have been communicating with the Government and with the Press in the same direction. It is impossible to quote them all, but as an example Messrs. Craven Brothers said they had orders offered to them which would keep them busy until the end of 1934 if only they could get the necessary credits. They then go on to say:
"The contracts (with Russia) we are now completing were entered into in September, 1931, as a result of the extension of the export credits scheme. … These contracts were to the value of £423,000 and have enabled us to keep seven or eight hundred additional workpeople employed during the past year. But this work is now drawing to an end … unless we can secure these new contracts after November we shall only be employing three to four hundred men, mainly for the home market."
So that is the sort of policy to which the noble Lord is asking this House to agree, and I hope very much that the Government will not look at that type of suggestion.
The noble Lord knows, surely, and it was stated by Lord Snowden, that many industries are dependent to the extent of something like 80 per cent. of their exports on Russian orders—not one piece of production but a considerable number of British productive enterprises. That fact was emphasised in a letter to the Press only about a week ago by Sir Alfred Herbert, who said:
"Many Russian orders destined for this country were diverted to foreign engineers during the suspension of the export insur-

947
ance scheme, and now that this insurance is again available a further obstacle to Russian business has been created."
Then he goes on to point out that the trade which can be given by Canada is only a fraction of that which can be secured from Russia. That is the point of view which is supported by a well-known backer of this Government, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, who has just come back from Russia, and who said in Edinburgh, only a few days ago," I am in favour of increasing trade with Russia as much as possible." I hope this advice will be followed. When I was visiting Russian factories a few weeks ago I came across many instances of United States and German machinery in use, and again and again the directors of those factories said: "We prefer British machinery and would like to have it, but we are not able to get the credits which would enable us to buy."
I am not going to pretend that the Export Credits Department is perfect, and I would like the Government to indicate whether they can improve that Department. I think the premiums charged are too high, especially to Russia, when there has not been a single default in payment by Russia, and Russia is the only country in which that is the case. It is a fact that our Export Credits Department is making high profits. I have not the figures, but it must amount to several million pounds of profit. That is very nice for the taxpayers, and reduces their taxes, but I think that these profits are too high and some of them might be put into lower premiums. Equally, I think, our term of eighteen months is far too short, when compared with the credits of fifty to sixty months given by other countries. I also think that the amount of the credits is far too small. Germany offer credits up to £70,000,000. And it is entirely wrong to say that there are £10,000,000 of credits outstanding. The actual amount outstanding, according to the most recent figures given by the Secretary to the Overseas Department in the House of Commons, is only £3,900,000. The effect of this policy is suggested by the Berlin Correspondent of the Manchester Guardian. He writes:
"No doubt Germany will gain in trade what England loses, unless the gain is shared by the United States, whose relations with Russia are steadily improving."
948
Then the noble Lord dealt with the debt question. He objected that he did not like the Russian Government saying that they did not recognise the debts contracted by the Czarist régime. I would remind him that large sums of money were owed in this country by the United States Government under the old Civil War "greenback" note issue. We do not hear anything about that. We do not hear anything about the debts unpaid by Italy and France—France who not only repudiated 80 per cent. of her debts by lowering the value of the franc, but was actually let off by a British Government £373,000,000 of her War Debts, costing the British taxpayers £18,000,000 a year. There is no mention of coercing France with the big stick to which the noble Lord refers. In the case of Italy the British Government let off that country £500,000,000, which means that the British taxpayer is paying £25,000,000 a year. The noble Lord does not mention the big stick for Italy. Why reserve it for Russia? The Russians have been perfectly fair in negotiating. They did negotiate at the Genoa Conference, and they pointed out that, as a set-off to the debts owed by them, they would require the consideration of the debts owed by us to Russia as the cost of our intervention in Russia—an intervention which is estimated to have cost the British taxpayer £250,000,000, meaning £12,500,000 a year now, for which we obtain absolutely nothing. Mr. Lloyd George, speaking in the House of Commons shortly after this, said that Britain had contributed more than all the other Powers put together in supporting the anti-revolutionary elements in Russia.
LORD LLOYD: Will the noble Lord forgive me? I am not quite clear. I think the noble Lord is suggesting, is he not? that the Russian Government is worthy of our trust and credit. If that is the case, perhaps he would just touch on the Lena Goldfields question.
LORD MARLEY: The interest of the noble Lord in the Lena Goldfields question is remarkable when we realise the fact that of the debt in connection with that 80 per cent. will go to America, and £600,000 to the Deutsche Bank in Germany.
LORD LLOYD: I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the repute

949
of the Russian Government. Are they fit to be trusted? I do not care whether it goes to America or to Germany.
LORD MARLEY: As long as this country is in friendly diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government the noble Lord has no right to make the suggestion that the Soviet Government are not to be trusted. That is definitely an unfriendly act, and should not be permitted in this or any other assembly.
LORD LLOYD: But have they, or have they not, refused to pay £13,000,000 which was awarded to the Lena Goldfields by an International Court?
LORD MARLEY: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the £13,000,000 is a grossly exaggerated sum, and that the Russian Government offered a lump sum payment—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: £1,000,000.
LORD MARLEY: —in settlement, which was refused by the bondholders. Now, the total invested in the Lena Goldfields was nothing like £13,000,000. The total sum invested was, as regards this country, £400,000, as regards the Deutsche Bank £600,000, and as regards the United States £3,000,000—a total of £4,000,000. There could be no possible justification for a swollen claim of £13,000,000 for a total investment of £4,000,000, only ten per cent. of which was invested by this country.
LORD LLOYD: The Court awarded it.
LORD MARLEY: This intervention, which the noble Lord so conveniently forgets, let me remind him, was enquired into by a British Government Committee, the Emmott Committee, who in their Report said:
"We doubt whether so much human misery as has existed in Russia during the last three years (1918–20) has ever been the lot of any people within so short a time in the history of the modern world.…We are prepared to admit that the intervention was a contributory factor in causing this misery."
What compensation can we offer to a country for misery referred to in those terms? The actual damages have been estimated at £4,000,000,000, and if the Russians pressed a counter-claim against any British claim, however large, the balance might very well be in their
950
favour. It was interesting that a group of people which went out to Russia to enquire into this question in 1920 made a similar report. They said they were profoundly impressed by the effects of the intervention policy which was at the root of the worst evils which were afflicting Russia, and which caused the loss of thousands of lives by infectious disease. That group included a member of your Lordships' House, a keen supporter of the present Government, Lord Allen of Hurtwood, and also a very well known Peeress, Viscountess Snowden. Their report is, I think, well worthy of your Lordships' study as some indication of the amount of suffering inflicted by the intervention in Russia which the noble Lord forgets.
What is the effect of the proposals contained in his Motion? First of all, the stopping of the credits would lower the exports from this country, and therefore cause more unemployment and more suffering. His proposal to force Russia to pay her debts indicates that he has no memory of what is universally admitted to be the effect of War Debt payments between countries since the War—namely, that they cause far more harm than good, being the source of unemployment, suffering and misery. The effect would be an increase of exports from Russia, and therefore what the noble Lord might reasonably term dumping. In fact, the noble Lord's suggestion is an attempt to collect the bad debts of the rich at the expense of the standard of life of the poor. We, and not Russia, would suffer. Russia can turn to other countries for the goods that we want to export and that she requires, and we should be the sufferers. I hope that the Government in replying will give consideration to the possibility of more and better credits. I should like to see the cancellation of the War Debts, I should like to see these other claims and counterclaims written off, as was offered by Russia.
LORD LLOYD: What about private debts? Will you cancel them?
LORD MARLEY: As regards private debts, the Russians have always been prepared to discuss any question of hardship. Finally, I want to suggest that a very interesting proposal was put forward by a noble Lord who made his

951
maiden speech last week, Lord Revelstoke, who suggested that there should be a long-term industrial loan to Russia. He said that, instead of antagonising Russia by hard words we should consider helping our trade by a long-term industrial loan; and the Spectator, dealing with that, called it
"a wise and timely appeal for the abandonment of personal and political prejudice in the approach to the problems of relations with Russia."
I am afraid that the noble Lord has a good deal of personal and political prejudice, which is indicated in the unfortunate proposal which he has put before your Lordships' House, and for which I hope the Government will have no consideration whatever.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend who moved this Resolution has spoken with great force this afternoon, and has put his case with great clearness, as he always does. If he will allow me to say so, I think he travelled a little outside the terms of his Resolution, but of course he is perfectly entitled to do so. In this House a very great latitude is allowed to your Lordships and I make no complaint about that. But I am sure the noble Lord will not think me discourteous if I do not enter into some of the matters which he raised. My business this afternoon, I take it, is to explain the attitude of His Majesty's Government and to inform him that if we cannot accept this Resolution, as we cannot, it is not, I can assure him and your Lordships, out of any undue tenderness for the Soviet Government—I will refer to that again later—but solely because we do not consider that the object which he and the Government have in view would be advanced in the slightest degree by the course which he proposes.
May I assure him at once that, as regards his reference to the debate raised by my noble friend on the Cross Benches six months ago, I am not going to give such an excuse for non-action, if he likes, or not sufficient action, as was given by the noble Lord, the late Lord Privy Seal, on that occasion. The question of the action which it is possible for the Government to take with a view to securing the payment of debts due to His Majesty's Government and to British subjects has been debated in this House on many occasions, as your Lordships
952
are aware. It will probably be within the recollection of your Lordships that the question of the extension to Russia of credits or loans has been put forward by the Soviet Government as a necessary preliminary to any settlement of Russian indebtedness to this country. But I would make this quite clear, that, as noble Lords may be aware, this view has never been concurred in by the British Government. They have refused to consider questions as being so intimately connected. On the 27th of January last my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs addressed a Note to the Soviet Government in which he stated:
"The principle that debt settlement must be associated with arrangements for a credit or a loan"—
is one—
"which His Majesty's Government have refused to accept in the past and they do not propose to alter their policy in the present circumstances."
Here may I assure my noble friend who raised this question, who seemed to think that His Majesty's Government, along with all other Governments—I suppose including the Government in which he was himself such a distinguished ornament—were lukewarm in this matter—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: No; we sent them all away; we sent them back.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The noble Lord did include all Governments. However, let me get on. I can assure the House that the problem of past debts is one which continues to engage the very anxious consideration of the Government, and they will take any opportunity which may come their way to secure a settlement of this very difficult and most unfortunate problem. His Majesty's Government have held that the question of debts and the question of current trade and of such credits as may be necessary to enable that trade to be carried on are questions which must be considered separately on their merits.
With regard to export credits I think there is still, if I may say so with all due respect, a slight misapprehension on the subject. The fact is that the export credits guarantee scheme exists solely for the encouragement of British export trade. It is not, as I rather think my noble friend suggested—I may be wrong—that money under this scheme is advanced to Russia. That is not so.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: No; I expressly said the opposite.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg his pardon. I thought he said that. It is my mistake. It is true that the Russians too may benefit incidentally from the operation of the scheme, but that is not, in the view of His Majesty's Government, an adequate reason for withholding facilities which have been of very real help to our manufacturers, more particularly in the heavy engineering and other industries which have suffered most acutely from the trade depression. The export credits guarantee scheme applies not only to exports to Russia but to exports to all countries. Indeed, up to August, 1929, Russia was the only market which was excluded from the scope of the scheme. All that was then done was to extend to firms exporting to Russia facilities which exporters to other countries had already enjoyed for some years and still enjoy.
I would remind your Lordships that the scheme is confined to goods made in this country and sold on credit, the exporter being able to obtain from the Department a guarantee that a proportion (not exceeding 75 per cent.) of the sum due to him from his foreign customer will be duly paid. With this guarantee he is able to obtain whatever accommodation he may require from his bankers to enable him to accept orders which he might otherwise be unable to execute. The Statutes governing the scheme require that, before any guarantee is given, an Advisory Committee, appointed by the Board of Trade for this purpose, shall be consulted. This Committee consists of eminent bankers and business men and in practice no guarantee is given except on their recommendation. Nor is this a question of subsidising trade with Russia, since a premium, to which my noble friend opposite, Lord Marley, referred, which varies according to the degree of risk involved, is charged for, every guarantee given.
Here may I interpose one observation upon the speech which was made by Lord Marley? He said that he thought that the premiums were too high and he asked me what the profits of the Export Credits Department amounted to in the year. I am very sorry, but I did not come armed with that particular information and I am afraid that I cannot give it; but as
954
regards the premium being too high, no doubt that question will be considered by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Now I should like to give you a few figures showing that the trade of this country with Russia has increased during the last five years owing to this export credits scheme. Of course, if the trade has increased naturally it means that more employment has been given. In 1928 the value of the United Kingdom goods exported to Russia had fallen to £2,700,000. In 1929 it was £3,700,000. In 1930, after the scheme had been extended to Russia, it increased to £6,800,000, and in 1931 to £7,300,000, and the first nine months of 1932 show an increase of more than £2,000,000 over the corresponding period in 1931. It may be suggested that the United States has done a very much larger export trade with Soviet Russia without any Form of Government guarantee. It is true that in 1930 and 1931 the United States did a large export trade, 114,000,000 dollars and 106,000,000 dollars respectively; but this was to a large extent due to the fact that Russia then required quantities of goods, such as tractors, which we were unable to supply. The latest figures which have been given to me show that the United States exports to Soviet Russia for the first seven months of this present year represent little more than ten per cent. of the corresponding figure for a year ago, 1931.
Referring to our own trade it is an important point to note that the increase has taken place in the industries which have suffered most from the trade depression—namely, steel tubes and sheets, machine tools, electrical machinery, cranes, presses, oil, gas and steam engines, excavating and mining machinery, dredgers and so forth. Exports of machinery to Russia in 1931 accounted for nearly 14 per cent. of the total value of exports of machinery to all destinations, and machine tools are almost entirely dependent on the Russian trade, which represents about 80 per cent. Of the whole export of these tools. I have stated these figures in order to try to prove that any interference with this exports credits scheme would have, as we think, an unfortunate effect on our figures of unemployment. I repeat, and I come again to the point, that I hope it, will not be considered that our attitude is due to any undue tenderness to

955
Russia, either on the part of the individual who addresses you or on the part of His Majesty's Government. Many a time in the last two years we have been chaffed by noble Lords opposite—the noble Lord who leads the Opposition (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) and the noble Lord, Lord Marley—about our attitude to Russia.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I have not.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I remember very well the noble Lord who leads the Opposition saying he hardly dare mention Russia in this House because of the effect on noble Lords on this side. I plead guilty to that. Speaking for myself, if I may for a moment, I regard with the utmost loathing the present régime in Russia. Speaking entirely for myself, it is to my mind the negation of three things by which I set most store —individuality, home life, and not only Christianity but all kinds of religion. I have no doubt that feeling is largely shared by noble Lords, at any rate on this side of the House. At the same time I cannot see that by taking the course suggested by my noble friend you would do any good in the direction in which he is anxious to move: the recovery of these debts or increasing the volume of employment in this country.
What is the great problem which faces not only His Majesty's Government but every member in this House and in another place, the problem that is with us day and night and week-in and week-out? It is the problem of unemployment. It is a most terrible problem, one which I think transcends in importance all the other problems which face this Government, and I sometimes think, to my noble friend the Secretary of State for War (Viscount Hailsham), who sits on this Bench, and to the Cabinet who are directly responsible, this problem must seem at times almost insoluble. What are we to do to combat this terrible problem? I suppose we can do small things personally by which we may increase in some little degree the numbers in employment but it is very little that we can do personally. Most of the work towards this end must be done no doubt by His Majesty's Government. They have already brought forward certain
956
measures to alleviate the problem. These measures will be added to next week when, as we hope, the Ottawa Agreements Bill comes before your Lordships' House, shortly to become law. There is one thing which the Government need not and will not do, and that is by any deliberate action—and this would be deliberate action—increase, if they can help it, by a single man the numbers put out of employment in this country. It is because we feel that the proposal of my noble friend will increase unemployment without in any way benefiting those whom he wishes to help that the Government cannot support this Motion; and, with all due respect, I would appeal to my noble friend to withdraw it.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I was very much more interested in the first portion of my noble friend's reply than in the second portion. As he knows, we are familiar with some of the conditions for the grant of export credits, but I was interested in what he said about the attitude of the Government towards the Russian debt. I had been under the impression that the Government with all the numerous and heavy problems lying upon them had been a little forgetful of this particular question, but I am glad to be reassured by being told that the Government are taking the question of Russian debts into their most earnest consideration. How satisfactory a statement is that? I confess I have heard it made on various occasions when it has not always necessarily been followed by very active or very decisive action, but I understand in this case the noble Lord means us to put a different construction on what he said.
I should have been more glad if he had been able to give us some indication of the particular line or course of action which the Government are going to take in order to get some of these debts recognised or paid, but, if I am thankful for small mercies, I am rather glad to see that my noble friend does not take the view of the noble Lord opposite. The view of the noble Lord opposite was clear. He said in effect: "Russia owes us nothing, because, although Russia owes us so many million pounds, it has a counterclaim which is far greater." I notice in this curious world in which we are now living that it is the regular method of debtors to say, "Oh yes, we

957
may owe you something, but our counterclaim is far larger than your claim, and therefore the whole thing is washed out." It is really a great thing to have historical imagination and historical knowledge, because it is quite easy to bring in some fact from the past which seems to upset the strongest and most settled arrangement, and to show that what you think is the firmest of debts is not a debt due to you at all.
The noble Lord opposite takes another point, and it is this, that it is a great misfortune to have your debts repaid to you, that it is positively dangerous to the country that receives payment of its debts. I think that throws a new light on the subject altogether. He tells us that if Russia were to repay these debts to us it would be a misfortune to this country, and that instead of their being apparently our enemy and our defaulting debtor, they are really our benevolent friends, because they refuse to inflict upon us the damage which they would inflict upon us if they paid us back any portion of the debt they owe us.
LORD MARLEY: Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to say that we on this side of the House believe it would be for the benefit or the whole world if we cancelled all War Debts and international debts of this kind.
EARL PEEL: That is rather a larger matter. I should be less opposed to the view of the noble Lord if I thought that all debts all over the world were to be cancelled, provided I discovered first of all that what I owed was so large that it would be advantageous to this country to have all debts cancelled. I should like to say one word, if I may, on this question of export credits. I do not doubt that the work is done extremely well. I may say that a relative of my own is one of the Committee, and that assures me that the work is extremely well done. I am not questioning it on that ground. I was already persuaded that, subject to the instructions given, the work was extremely well done. What I do want to criticise is the whole system of export credits as being a rather clumsy way of doing things which you could do by simpler methods. I am not going into the ethical question of whether or not I should trade with a country of whose Government and methods I disapproved. I am avoiding a difficult
958
disquisition of that kind. I am assuming with the noble Lord that, subject of course to ordinary security that you will be paid, you should do a certain amount of trade with Russia, and I note —I believe it is true—that there has been in our dealing with Russia on this export credits basis no default. I do not, give immense credit to Russia for that, because, having such a bad record as a debtor already, they know that if they did default in any of these transactions their credit would be entirely gone.
May I remind your Lordships of the position? It is admitted—and it was bought out well by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, who has given us the figurus—that they have sold to us very much more than we have sold to them; therefore they have large credits in this country. These credits are lodged in the banks in this country. The suggestion I am going to make is based upon the fact that the Russian Government are themselves responsible for all sales and all purchases. In the case of trade with other countries that is not so. You have different Sellers and different buyers. But in Russia you are dealing with one entity. It seems to me that having these large credits in this country it is rather absurd not to make a little more businesslike arrangement.
As we all know these exports are guaranteed by the British Government—guaranteed, that is to say, to the extent of the cost price. The profit has to be recovered or not, as the case may be, by the man who trades. If you were to make some such arrangement as this with Russia, if you were to say: "Well, if you want to trade with us give us rather greater security, give us something in the nature of a charge on the accumulating credits that you have got in this country"; if that were done—as I believe it could be done easily as a matter of arrangement—you would have far greater security. The trader in this country, when exporting to Russia, would know that the British Government would be able to hand over to him as soon as he put the goods on board ship, not a guarantee but the full amount of the money he had risked. From the point of view of Russia what would be the advantage? Surely it would be to the advantage of Russia to enter into some such transaction, because she would be able to do more trade. If this were done then

959
this cumbersome system of export credits could be entirely done away with. That is the suggestion I make.
I do not take quite such a gloomy view as that of my noble friend that any suggestion made to the Government by any unofficial member is always entirely disregarded. I trust that there may be some exceptions to that. I think it is quite possible to bring about an arrangement of the kind I suggest which I believe would largely increase trade, which would certainly give more security. I think it would be contemplated probably as a good arrangement by the Soviet Government themselves because if the Soviet Government want, as I suppose they do want, to buy or sell more goods from or to this country, that is one way of doing it. I am not myself against doing business with Russia, but I want to do it, if it can be done, in the simplest and best way, and I believe that the way I have suggested would be a far more direct way than the present method. If it could be arranged—as I believe it could be arranged—all the elaborate and cumbrous system of export credits which has been so freely criticised could be done away with.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, one remarkable fact which has emerged from this debate is that my noble friend Lord Templemore, speaking for the Government, did not venture to deny or to controvert in any degree whatsoever the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, as to the intolerable confiscations, robberies and hardships inflicted by the Soviet Government upon British subjects. He did not deny that and could not deny that. Indeed the noble Lord very properly stated that he had a loathing for the Soviet Government in many respects which he particularised. These facts are admitted and could not be and were not denied by the Government, but the lamentable fact is that they do not suggest one single method by which any of these injustices and confiscations and robberies could be got over or mended. They have no proposals whatsoever. That looks to me very like a practical condonation by His Majesty's Government of this system of—
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I be allowed to interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I do not think I could have been expected to give any outline of the method by which the debts were to be
960
recovered. I do not think that really comes within the limits of this debate.
LORD DANESFORT: I venture to differ with all respect from my noble friend, because the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, called attention to these desperate evils and put forward a proposal of his own for dealing with them. If the Government did not dispute these appalling evils but objected to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Mount Temple, surely it would have been right in the interest of justice to British subjects to indicate at any rate what they hoped to do in order to remove those evils.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I again interrupt my noble friend? That might have been quite correct if this had been a question to the Government, but this is a proposed Resolution of the House. I naturally did not know what the noble Lord was going to say, and I really could not obtain such information at such short notice.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not desire to blame my noble friend Lord Templemore in the least. He was only following the answers given by Ministers to questions in the House of Commons in the course of the last six months or more. When attention was drawn in the House of Commons by very pointed questions to what is going on in Russia, the answer of Ministers was: "We cannot do anything. We are very sorry but we have no remedy to offer." I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Templemore was not in a position to give a better answer today in this House than that given by Ministers in the House of Commons, but the fact remains that up to now the Government admit these evils though they do not venture to suggest any remedy whatsoever. Suppose one private individual had been captured in Soviet Russia and robbed. Would there not promptly have been diplomatic representations from this country to Soviet Russia, and in all probability would there not have been some remedy found for that gross injustice to a British subject? But when you find thousands of British subjects robbed to the extent, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mount Temple, of something like £300,000,000, when that is stated and not disputed, the Government say, "Oh ! we can do nothing." Their only justification is that we are

961
carrying on trade with Russia which is profitable to us.
I think they ought to do a little more. I think they ought not merely to say: "We are carrying on this trade which we think is good." I think they ought to be able to say what they propose to do to put an end to this appalling state of things. Can it be doubted that we have ample means of bringing pressure to bear upon Russia to force her to do something in this case? Has any pressure of that sort been exerted, or has it even been threatened? I know of none. I dare say there may be objections to the proposal of my noble friend, but until I hear some better means of bringing pressure to bear upon Russia to put an end to a state of things which is an injustice to thousands of British subjects, a state of things intolerable in itself and a disgrace to civilised government, I for my part certainly support the proposal of my noble friend.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I think it hardly possible for me after the interesting debate we have had to say anything of very great value. We have listened to very important speeches and speaking for myself I am very glad that the noble Lord has brought forward this Motion. It deals with a subject which it, is right to consider and debate, but. I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his Motion to a Division. We had a debate of a similar character as recently as April 20. But this question which the noble Lord has raised is viewed from what I might call a narrower standpoint. I understand that in the Motion he links the question of the continuance of trade with Russia with recognition and repayment of Russian debts. We are well aware that it is very difficult for any of us to approach this question with an unprejudiced mind. If I may venture to put it in this way, there are two schools of thought. There is one school of thought, which views with condemnation the appalling state of affairs which has existed in Russia for a great many years and feels that by reason of that we should adopt an attitude of resistance towards Russia, of not having any dealings with that country—in fact, of creating a breach between the two
962
countries. There is another school of thought that is forgetful of all the tragedies that have occurred in Russia and believes it sees something which shows that Russia will develop and eventually become a self-respecting nation capable of occupying an honourable place among the nations of the world.
This afternoon I shall endeavour to take a line somewhat between those differing opinions. I want to take what I might call the practical line. The noble Lord who moved the Motion was loud in his condemnation. He spoke of the big stick. He did not quite define what the big stick was to be, but he felt that the Government were taking altogether a very supine line and not realising that in their hands lay their power of punishing Russia for their misdeeds.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Not punishing Russia for their misdeeds, but recovering for the British nation the money owing it, which is rather a different thing.
THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY: If I have misinterpreted what the noble Lord said I am quite willing to withdraw. But he did use that threatening phrase "the big stick" and the final meaning of the big stick is a declaration of war. I am quite sure there is no one in this country who wishes, if our protestations fall on deaf ears, that we should go further and declare war. When we are discussing disarmament at Geneva anything which could lead us to contemplate so awful a catastrophe as a recrudescence of war would fill us with alarm and with a hope that we should be able to find some other means of getting over our difficulties. Lord Peel came forward with some valuable suggestions, and as he is one who is in a very good position to give advice, I can assure him I shall take notice of what he has said and shall represent his words in the proper quarter.
What is the object of the Motion before your Lordships' House? Is it to secure recovery of the debts owing by Russian creditors or is it to prevent trade with Russia altogether? If the line along which the noble Lord wishes to proceed is to secure the recovery of debts, I venture to say that the methods he suggests must be a failure. The noble Lord will agree, to begin with, that the world is suffering from high tariffs and that there

963
is great difficulty in nations paying by means of goods. Further, we know that Russia has no gold and it is impossible for her to pay in gold. I think we shall find that Russia would not be forced into acknowledgement of her debts, or even induced to make an effort, by the policy the noble Lord has recommended. Moreover, we should lose the advantage which trading with Russia gives with regard to unemployment. My noble friend who spoke for the Government mentioned unemployment and so did the noble Lord opposite. Whilst the noble Lord who moved this Resolution has not the responsibility which he had heretofore and can speak from a position of greater liberty, those of us who are concerned with these matters have to consider the policies of this country as a whole. I am sure the noble Lord fully realises the great problem we are endeavouring to solve and that the burden which perhaps rests more heavily on our shoulders than anything else is unemployment. We should be wrong if we turned from any suggestion or any method, consistent with the habits in which this country has been accustomed to live, by which we could employ any section of our people. If we took the line the noble Lord suggests, and cut off trade with Russia, as I think he said, if Russia does not pay something on account, we should find not only that we should add to unemployment in this country, but we should also receive universal condemnation from the trades affected by the loss of Russian trade.
Whilst the relations which we have now with Russia are condemned by many people, and whilst it cannot be said that we look on Russian policy with any favour in this country, one does feel that a breach of relations with that country at this time would lead to further difficulties in Europe than exist at present, and I feel that on the eve of the World Economic Conference we should do everything we can to help deliberations aimed at making the streams of commerce flow into great rivers throughout all the countries of the world. If we began by cutting ourselves adrift from the commercial relations we have with Russia at present I think we should do real disservice to that cause of economic reconstruction which we all have at heart. If we consider the other point—that of preventing trade with Russia
964
altogether—I venture to ask whether we should help ourselves or help those Russians with whom we may and do sympathise in the cruel and remorseless tyranny under which they are now living. I say in that way we do not help them at all and we certainly do not give any assistance to the traders of this country.
The reason why this Motion has been moved is that the Government have given notice of the termination of the present Trade Agreement with Russia. This Agreement has been found unsatisfactory because it does nothing to prevent dumping in this country and nothing which will secure anything like what we understand as a fair balance of trade. At the same time the Government have notified that they are willing to negotiate a new agreement which will provide against dumping, as the Ottawa Agreement demands. The noble Lord took the view that we had been—I think he used the word—"subservient" to the demands which were made by the Dominions in this respect, but I think the noble Lord will understand that it was done in the interests of trade, and that if we were negotiating arrangements with Canada it would be foolish to have arrangements with Russia which would neutralise all the advantages which one hoped would accrue from the arrangements which have come out of the Ottawa Conference.
I do not think there is much that I need add to what has already been said. The noble Lord produced some figures in moving his Resolution, and the noble Lord opposite countered those figures, and I am bound to say that the figures which the noble Lord opposite put before your Lordships were more correct. He spoke very fully about the trade of this country, about which I have also ventured to say a few words. I am one of those who, in reference to the criticisms which the noble Lord made upon the Russian Government's policy, feel in agreement with him. We have passed through a very difficult time, and we have found that the Russian Government have given us no assistance at all. In fact, in the past we have attributed much of the troubles of this country to the machinations of the Russian Government, but I am not sure that we are not inclined to attribute our own difficulties a great deal too much to Russian propaganda, and to the activities which Russian Governments

965
have continued in this country. I think it is wise that we should consider this problem as a whole, and realise that it is of the highest importance that as time goes on Russia should take its place among the nations of the world. I have already referred to the World Economic Conference, and one must feel that no successful result can come from that Conference if a whole population of 180,000,000 people is left out.
It is for these reasons that I would urge the noble Lord not to press his Resolution. He need have no fear, I think, that His Majesty's Government are weakening, if I may use that expression, in their attitude towards the wholly reprehensible attitude which we think the Russian Government have taken during the last few years. We have always condemned those outrages in Russia. On the other hand I am wondering how far it is right and proper for other countries to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country. I am not sure, when we look back over history, that any of those interventions have ever had the results which were hoped for them. I believe that one can say that all interventions into the affairs of foreign countries, in which they have been endeavouring to work out their own destinies after they have had to pass through the throes of a revolution—I am not sure that foreign interventions can ever be said to have done any good.
We can feel sympathy with those multitudes of people in Russia who are oppressed by the régime now in existence. We have ever believed that such a régime cannot continue with benefit to the civilised world; but that they will have to go through with it, and will have to pass through perhaps even more difficult times than they have passed through in the past, is one of those facts which we have got to accept. I do feel this, however, that of the two attitudes which are being advocated, one to cut off our relations with Russia and the other to continue relations, far the better effect will be had upon the outcome of Russian development if we maintain the relations which we maintain at the present moment, instead of cutting them adrift and giving an example to the world of making outcasts of a whole nation. I do not think I need add anything more to the debate. The case has been put by the noble Lord,
966
Lord Mount Temple, and I hope he will not press his Resolution, because I think my noble friend Lord Templemore has given the answer which the Resolution demanded.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, in rising to ask leave to withdraw my Motion may I in the first place thank both Lord Templemore and the noble Marquess for their very courteous and clear answers to my Motion. I am not in the least convinced—it does not follow that their answers are not very well grounded—and if I might detain your Lordships for only two minutes, might I deal with one statement made by the noble Marquess, which I do not think was quite justified by my remarks. He said, in effect, that my method of economic pressure would fail unless we went to war. That is the last thing which I am suggesting—that we should go to war with Russia. What I am suggesting is that what is sauce for the Irish goose would be sauce for the Russian gander; that if the Government think that by dealing on a fiscal basis with default in Ireland they are going to be successful, then why should they not apply the same method to Russia. Ireland has to come to this country to find a market; Russia, on the other hand, has to come to this country to find cash; and I am quite sure that if you applied the same methods to Russia as you are applying to Ireland you would meet with a large measure of success. No one suggests that because you have a tariff war with the Free State you are going to war with them. It is quite true that my suggestion would entail a certain amount of extra unemployment in this country. You have to face that, but you have equally to face an extra amount of unemployment in this country by reason of your tariff war with the Free State. I cannot see why, if it is good to treat Ireland as you have, it should not be equally good to try and treat Russia in the same way. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
Message from the Commons, to acquaint the House that they have made the following Order relative to the London

967
Passenger Transport Bill: "That further proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill be further suspended till the next Session of Parliament."
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Arising out of the Message that has just been read, may I ask whether some Motion will come before this House?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am
968
much obliged to the noble Lord, and I think probably it would be convenient to put down a Motion in similar terms in your Lordships' House, and to take it on Thursday after the agricultural debate, which I think is the only Order of the Day for that afternoon.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.