Sitting of 25 May 1922

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill—(King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas Consolidation) Bill [Lords]—(King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Neath Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Railways (West Scottish Group) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday. 12th June.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,
Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Water) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 2) BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Provisional Order (Marriages) Act, 1905." presented by Sir JOHN BAIRD; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to he printed. [Bill 138.]
LONDON ELECTRIC AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL,
"to empower the London Electric and City and South London Railway Companies to raise additional capital; to confer further powers on those companies; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (F. ALLSOPP).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the late F. Allsopp, No. 477,120, sapper, Royal Engineers, suffered from sunstroke and malaria while in Mesopotamia, and that shortly after demobilisation he was afflicted with paralysis; whether the claim for pension was disallowed, and on what grounds; and whether the circumstances of his death have been reported to the Ministry, and with what result to his widow?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I am, looking into this case, and will communicate with my hon. Friend at an early date.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS SIGNALS (G. E. CROOK).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that G. E. Crook, No. 588,678, sapper, Royal

    1387
    Engineers Signals, 3/1 London Divisional Signals, had his left eye and ear injured by shrapnel while on service in France, that the records of these injuries cannot be found, but that the case is remembered by one of his medical attendants; that Mr. Crook is now almost blind; and whether he can say why his blindness, in view of the injuries received, has been stated to be not attributable to service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: After full consideration of all the circumstances, it was decided by the Ministry that the eye condition is constitutional and in no way related to the wounds (of which the Ministry have a record) or to military service. This decision has been confirmed on appeal by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and I regret, therefore, that the case cannot be re-opened.

    AGRICULTURAL COMPANY (S. E. SMITH).
    Mr. GEORGE EDWARDSasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Sydney Edward Smith, of Great Moulton, near Tivetshall, Norfolk, was attested on 24th May, 1917, and passed as Class A, and was passed into the Army on 24th May, 1917, in the Agricultural Company, No. 646,678, was sent to France in perfect good health, and was invalided home on 1st April, 1919, as unfit for military service; that he produced a certificate from his own medical officer which states that he did not suffer from rheumatism and myelitis before his enlistment and his health was good, and that he was a strong, athletic man; seeing that he is now totally disabled for life, suffering from chronic rheumatism and myelitis caused by exposure in France, will he say why he was not allowed a pension by the Appeal Tribunal; and will he make inquiries and see that justice is done to this man?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Pensions Appeal Tribunal having confirmed and made final the decisions of the Ministry that the disabilities mentioned are neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, I regret that the case cannot be re-opened.

  IRELAND.

    MALICIOUS INJURIES COMMISSION.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his atten-
    1388
    tion has been called to a statement made before the Commission that is sitting to inquire into awards made by judges of the Irish Courts under the Criminal and Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act and repeated in the Irish Press, that he expected the gross total of the awards made by His Majesty's judges to be reduced by the Commission by 50 per cent.; and is he able to say that in the above statement he has been misrepresented?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRE LAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): My attention has been drawn to a Press report of the statement referred to, which, presumably, is based on a remark I made in the course of last week's Debate on the Compensation for Damage (Northern Ireland) Grant, in which I expressed the sanguine opinion that the claims in respect of damage to property in Southern Ireland would be found on investigation by the Compensation Commission to be exaggerated possibly by as much as 50 per cent. I do not wish to withdraw that opinion, which is based on the well-known custom of litigants in Ireland, as elsewhere, to err well on the side of generosity in estimating the amount of damage they claim to have sustained, but if there is any suggestion that I intended to imply that the Commission have received any instructions requiring them to reduce these claims, it is, of course, wholly unfounded.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice of the County Court Judges in cases which are not defended is to cross-examine the witnesses for the claim, in order to test the validity of the claim?
    8. The hon. Member (Sir J. Butcher) asked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the right of compensation for malicious injuries is a statutory right, and that the time for appeal from an award is by statutory rules limited to 10 days from the date of the award, he will state under what authority the Commission recently appointed, with Lord Shaw as chairman, can retry undefended cases unless such power is conferred by statute?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension as to the functions of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, which is in

    1389
    no sense a Court of Law, and has no power to retry cases. In view of the fact that in present circumstances it is not practicable to enforce decrees issued by the courts in respect of malicious injuries committed prior to 11th July, the two Governments concerned have thought it right that payments should be made by way of compensation for such injuries, and the Commission in question has been appointed to determine and report what compensation ought in reason and fairness to be awarded. No statutory authority is required for this purpose.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what Government—this Government or the Irish Government —these claims, when investigated by Lord Shaw's Commission, will be paid?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: That question has been raised a great many times. The awards, after the decision of Lord Shaw's Commission, will be honoured in the first place by the Provisional Government, and we will reimburse them as far as we are liable.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Are we to take it that the awards as made by the county court judges will stand, if they are capable of being enforced?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say that.
    Lieut. - Colonel ASHLEY: As these awards are being made under Statute and as Lord Shaw's Commission, according to the right hon. Gentleman, will have power to review, how can he then say that Lord Shaw's Commission is not changing awards given under Statute?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman raises a legal point which it would be impossible for me to answer offhand. I have given a complete answer to the question on the Paper.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. and learned Friend asked what power Lord Shaw's Commission has to override Statutes—a specific question to which we have had no reply whatever.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Mr. G. BARKERasked the Chief Secretary the number of officers and the number of constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary to be disbanded under the
    1390
    Constabulary (Ireland) Bill; the number of officers and constables under one year's service and the number under two and under three years' service who will be disbanded; and the annual amount of compensation to be paid to the officer or constable in each period?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The reply is a detailed one, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    About 300 officers and about 12,300 non-commissioned officers and men will be disbanded and will receive compensation allowances under the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill.
    There are approximately 25 officers under one year's service, 50 under two years' service, and 22 under three years' service. There are approximately 2,000 men under one year's service, 3,500 under two years' service, and 720 under three years' service. The minimum annual rate of compensation allowance for officers is as follows:

    Under one year, £107;

    One year to one and a-half years, £115 18s. 4d.;

    One and a-half years to two and a-half years, £124 16s. 8d.;

    Two and a-half years to three and a-half years, £133 15s.

    In the case of constables it is as follows:

    Under one year, £46 16s.;

    One year to one and a-half years, £50 14s.

    One and a-half years to two and a-half years, £54 12s.

    Two and a-half years to three and a-half years, £58 10s.

    FREEMASONS (SOUTHERN IRELAND).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether, having regard to the fact that the meetings and proceedings of the Grand Lodge of the Freemasons of Ireland were expressly protected under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and in view of the virtual suppression of the order in the South of Ireland during the past six months, he will say if any actual or implied agreement was arrived at in the negotiations that took place in December of last year that the liberties of non-political and non-sectarian orders

    1391
    should be preserved in the constitution of the Irish Free State which is about to be placed before this House and the assembly of the South of Ireland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel NEWMAN: When the right hon. Gentleman says "the answer is in the negative," does he mean that at the present moment, the Freemasons cannot hold meetings in Southern Ireland? May we have an answer to that?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question on the Paper is, whether any actual or implied agreement was arrived at, in the negotiations that took place in December of last year, for the protection of these associations. To that I have said the answer is in the negative.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Order of Freemasons is, in fact, at the moment being suppressed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen some statements in the papers. I have also reason to know that the Masonic Hall of Dublin is in the hands of lawless people.
    Mr. SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: In reference to the portion of the reply which deals with the Masonic Hall in Dublin—the headquarters of the Masonic Order in Ireland—has the Government made any representation's to the Provisional Government requesting that this hall should be handed back?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We have made continuous representations to the Provisional Government, not only in regard to this hall, lout in regard to the general maintenance of law and order in the country for which they have assumed responsibility.
    Mr. SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Has any specific representation been made in regard to this matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a specific question.

    STORES (TRANSFER TO PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
    1392
    he can give an exact list of the stores so far handed over to the Provisional Government; and whether it is intended to hand over any more stores?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not yet possible to furnish the information asked for in this question. Large quantities of non-military stores of different kinds have been handed over on the evacuation of military and police barracks and camps throughout Southern Ireland, and to prepare a complete digest of the numerous inventories which have been taken would entail an expenditure of clerical labour which for the moment cannot conveniently be undertaken. I am unable in the present circumstances to give any definite reply to the last part of my Noble Friend's question.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right. hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of these stores have been paid for in cash, or have they been handed over "on tick"?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: None have been paid for in cash. It is intended that they should be brought into the general financial settlement between the two countries, if that is what my hon. and gallant Friend intends by the expression of which he made use.

    IRISH REGIMENTS (DISBANDMENT).
    Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the grave danger to loyal soldiers who return to their homes in Ireland, he will postpone the disbanding of the Irish regiments until such time as law and order has been re-established in Ireland?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut. - Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to answer this question. I regret that I am unable to postpone the disbandment of these regiments.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: May I ask the Leader of the House what provision will be made for those Irishmen disbanded from Irish regiments who are unable to return to their homes?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend the same con-

    1393
    sideration to these men as has been extended to the disbanded men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, namely, give them 15s. a week separation allowance?

    BELFAST DISTURBANCES.
    Captain CRAIG: Can the Secretary of State for the Colonies give the House any information with regard to the state of affairs in Ulster?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received a telegram from the Prime Minister of the Government of Northern Ireland as follows:
    "Situation in Belfast still extremely grave. Fierce fighting took place between the police and rebel forces in the vicinity of North Street and Carrick Hill last night. Between 5.45 and 6.15 p.m. five bombs were thrown from a Roman Catholic area at tramcars which were full of shipyard workers returning to their homes. A bomb was also thrown at a police Lancia car. Two attempts were made to fire tramcars, one near the City Cemetery in the morning and the other on the Falls Road at 8 p.m. The second car was totally destroyed. At 9 a.m. yesterday morning St. Silas National School (Protestant), Old Park Road, was attacked by incendiaries. Considerable amount of damage done, but the fire brigade managed to extinguish the flames. Messrs. Greeves Flax Mills (Protestant) were set on fire, and when the fire brigade attempted to deal with the flames they were forced back by armed men. The Carnegie Library, municipal property, Falls Road, was also set on fire and a considerable amount of damage clone. As far as can be ascertained at present three were killed and 20 wounded. Everything possible is being done to cope with the situation."

    COMMERCIAL AVIATION.
    Mr. W. GREENWOODasked the Secretary of Stale for Air the amount of money we are spending to extend commercial aviation in this country, and the comparison such expenditure bears to that in Germany and Russia?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The estimated expenditure on civil aviation during the current financial year on the basis of the organisation forecasted when presenting the Estimates in £325,000. In addition, however, services on behalf of civil aviation are rendered by the Department of Supply and Research, the Controllcrate of Communications, and the Meteorological Office. The German Government is giving direct assistance to the air transport
    1394
    industry by the payment of a subsidy of 10 marks per kilometre flown for distances under 300 kilometres, and 11 marks for distances above 300 kilometres. In addition, in 1921, a sum of 10,000,000 marks was devoted to the relief of aircraft constructional companies. The amounts set aside as subsidies for air transport in 1920, 1921 and 1922 are reported to be as follow:

    1920, 12,000,000 marks.

    1921, 11,000,000 marks (and 1,000,000 marks for meteorology).

    1922, 40,000,000 marks.

    The Russian Government is understood to have entrusted recently the development of air lines in Russia and between Russia and Germany to a German concern, the Aero-Union Aktien Gesellschaft, with which it has co-operated in the financing of a Russian-German air transport company.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the number of commercial aeroplanes operating in England as a result of that expenditure, as compared with England?
    Captain GUEST: If my hon. Friend will put a question down, I will give him all the information I can.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Is there not a great deal of money being spent by the Admiralty which might more profitably be spent on civil aviation?

  PEACE TREATIES.

    SUCCESSION STATES (ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Linder-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, seeing that under the Trianon Treaty, Articles 207–6 and Article 208, the Reparation Commission have the power to enforce economic cooperation between the succession states, what action to that end is intended?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Reference to the Articles mentioned will show that it is misleading to suggest that the Reparation Commission have power to enforce economic cooperation between the successor states. Such co-operation was, however, the

    1395
    object of the Conference held last October at Porto Rose, which His Majesty's Government did everything possible to encourage. I hope that the results of the Genoa Conference will contribute to the same end.

    ALLIES (INDEPENDENT ACTION).
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received any assurance from the French Government that, in the exercise of the rights conferred by Paragraph 18, Annex 2, Part VIII, of the Treaty of Versailles, the French Government would not act save in accord with its Allies?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I would refer the hon. and gallant. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) on the 18th instant. That answer is now the subject of correspondence with the French Government-, and, in these circumstances, I should prefer not to make any further statement at the present time.

    GREECE AND TURKEY.
    Sir CHARLES TOWNSHENDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Kemal, in his note to the Allied Powers, dated 22nd April last, whilst saying that he could not accept the principle of an armistice with the Greeks without simultaneons evacuation of Turkish territory, nevertheless declared himself ready to enter into negotiations at Ismid with the Allied Powers and Greece, and that Kemal's proposal was acceptable to France and -Italy as opening a path to peace, he will urge upon the Greek Government the desirability of accepting this proposal?
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that a conference of Turks, Greeks and Allies offers the only peaceable solution, and that Mustapha Kemal Pasha has suggested that such a conference should be held at Ismid, he will say whether the British Government has supported this specific proposal?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Mustapha Kemal Pasha did not express readiness to enter into ntgotiations with the Allied Powers and Greece the implication rather is that the delegates to the Athens and Constantinople Governments were to be excluded from the proposed meeting. There is therefore no question of urging the Greek Government to accept it.
    Both the refusal of the armistice prior to evacuation and the proposal of a meeting prior to acceptance of the peace conditions involve a departure from, if not a repudiation of, the plan of the Paris Conference. Once this plan were abandoned in favour of a preliminary meeting with one of the interested parties, the other two, namely, the Governments of Constantinople and Athens, would be equally entitled to demand preliminary meetings on their own territory for the purpose of bargaining on the basis of the Paris offer. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, there is no room for separate bargaining, and they would prefer to obtain a definite acceptance or refusal of their offer from the three Governments concerned.
    Sir C. TOWNSHENDasked the Prime Minister whether the Soviet Government was invited at the Genoa Conference to take sides against Turkey in her conflict with Greece?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Prime Minister if a Commission will be appointed to inquire into the alleged atrocities of Turks on Greeks and of Greeks on Turks: if the Italian and French Governments do not favour such a course; and why has the British Government refused to publish the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the alleged atrocities of Greeks in the Smyrna vilayet?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend's question contains no point which has not already been dealt with in this House, and I beg leave to refer him, regarding the first part of his question, to the replies given to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) on the 17th instant; as regards the second part, to the reply returned to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 22nd instant, and with reference to the third

    1397
    part, to the reply returned to my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) on the 24th instant.
    Mr. HERBERT: May I, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, ask whether the answer is not completely unsatisfactory to all those inquiring into the, subject?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member could answer that better himself.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government are now taking to bring about peace in the Near East, and in Turkey-in-Asia in particular; and whether any progress has been made?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The three Allied Governments are considering the position resulting from the attitude of Greece and Turkey towards the Allied proposals for a settlement. I cannot say more at present.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have His Majesty's Government considered means of stopping the fighting and an invitation to both these warring Governments to go to The Hague, and enter into a pact of non-aggression?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I do not think I can say more at present.
    Captain COOTEasked the Prime Minister whether any reply has yet been received from the foreign Governments approached in connection with the sending of commissioners to Pontus and Smyrna; if so, what is the character thereof; and, if not, whether, in view of the anxious situation in the Near East., the Government will take isolated action in the sense indicated within a fixed limit of time?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which was given to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 22nd instant. The reply of the United States Government has not yet been received, but it is expected shortly, and His Majesty's Government propose to await its receipt before taking any further decision.
    Captain COOTE: May I ask how long the Government proposes to wait for a reply from the United States?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already dealt with that in previous answers. I think it is only courteous to give the United States Government time to consider our proposal. I hope that they may accept it.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    OFFICE OF WORKS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how many civilians and ex-service men, respectively, have been dismissed from the maintenance branch of the building department of the Office of Works during the last three months and whether, in all cases of dismissal, ex-service men have been given preferential treatment over civilians?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): All labour required for work on the maintenance branch of the building department is supplied by the Board's maintenance contractor as and when required, and the First Commissioner is unable to supply the figures asked for, as it does not necessarily follow that a man is dismissed by the contractor because he is not at the moment required on the Board's work. The maintenance contractor, however, is on the King's Roll and employs a very high percentage of disabled and ex-service men.

    CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
    Captain COOTEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Civil Service Commissioners do not give reasons for their decision when rejecting candidates examined by an investigating board under paragraphs 36–39 of the Third Interim Report of the Lytton Committee; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which this procedure arouses, arrangements can be made whereby the reasons could be obtained by the individuals concerned?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The adoption of the arrangement suggested in the second part is not only impracticable, but would be entirely at variance with the established practice in such matters.

    EXCHANGE CARDS, STAFFORD.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Phillips, 92, Cambridge Street, Stafford, an ex-service man, who had obtained a job on a new pipe-track started by the Stafford Corporation and, on making application to the Local Exchange, was refused the necessary card to enable him to start work; that this man obtained another job with Messrs. Sandy and Company, another relief scheme, and again the Exchange withheld his card; and whether, in view of the fact that this ex-service man has a widowed mother to support, fulfilled the necessary qualifications, was genuinely unemployed, and of his persistent efforts to obtain work, he will have inquiries made as to the reason for this action on the part of the Local Exchange?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): It is necessary for the Exchange, in selecting men for relief work to have regard to the relevant circumstances of each applicant for the work, including the registered period of unemployment and the number of dependants. On the occasions in question, the number of applicants with prior claims to consideration was more than sufficient to fill the vacancies notified and I regret that it was, therefore, not possible for the Employment Exchange to submit the applicant in question.

  GENOA CONFERENCE.

    BRITISH DELEGATION (COST).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister the total cost to the country of the British delegation to Genoa; whether the cost of the hotel expenses at Genoa is to be borne by this country; whether any persons other than those on the delegation took advantage of the facilities provided for the British delegation; and, if so, how the cost will be met?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: So far as can be ascertained at present, it is anticipated that the cost of the British delegation will amount to approximately £7,000, but it will be obvious that until all the accounts have been received no final total can be given, and there may be some small addition to this figure.
    The Italian Government having been generous enough to extend hospitality to
    1400
    the whole of the British delegation, the cost of hotel expenses, with the exception of the usual gratuities, will not fall upon British funds.
    With regard to the last part of this question, the only facilities provided for persons other than members of the delegation were travelling facilities, the cost of which has been or will be recovered from the persons concerned.
    Viscount CURZON: Did any persons other than the delegation actually take advantage of the facilities provided by the Italian Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think not, but I will make inquiries.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister if he will indicate the nationalities of the armies which he stated, in an interview reported in the Press, were, a few weeks ago, massing on frontiers extending over thousands of miles with every intention of marching against each other, and whose march has been arrested by the Genoa Conference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend will deal with this question in the course of his statement on the Genoa Conference.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the question of publishing and distributing free the Note presented to the Russian delegates by the Powers at the Genoa Conference on 2nd May, together with the Russian reply of 11th May?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply. The documents to which the hon. Member refers have already been printed in Command 1667 (papers relating to International Economic Conferences, Genoa), of which, I understand, a full distribution has been made.
    Mr. MILLS: In view of the carefully edited publicity which has been given to both Notes, is it possible that the Government can consider the publication of this in the same way as they have done in previous disputes of an internal character, not carrying with them the signification of this international settlement?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I really do not understand what my hon. Friend means.
    Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is not a single newspaper which has given anything like a précis of the Note either of this Government or of the Russian Government?
    Sir R. HORNE: I really am not responsible for what the public Press does.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will publish the details of the claims put forward by the Russian representatives at the Genoa Conference of the damage wrought on Russian territory by the campaigns of Denikin, Koltchak, Yudenitch, and Wrangel?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A general claim was made by M. Litvinoff in the course of the experts' discussions, but was not entertained by the Powers concerned.
    Captain W. BENN: Would it be correct to say that the claims of Russia against us in a war made by us against Russia are an obstacle to settlement?
    HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"

    ENEMY ACTION (CLAIMS).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he can state the progress which has been made with the settlement of the claims of passengers who were on vessels torpedoed in the War;
    (2) whether he is aware that the claims of passengers who were victims in the sinking of the steamship "Arabic ' during the War are still unsettled, though seven years have elapsed; and when a settlement in this matter may be expected?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. As regards the latter question, the answer to the first part is in the affirmative. The Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action is considering as rapidly as possible claims by British nationals against the £5,000,000 provided for the purpose of making ex gratia grants in respect of damage by enemy action. Claims arising out of death and personal injury are receiving first consideration. I am not in a position to make any statement as to the progress made pending publication of the Report of the Royal Commission.

    MICHAEL ROCHE (CONVICTION AND RELEASE).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Michael Roche, who was convicted, in January last, of a serious crime against military disciplne and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, was released in April; and, if so, whether those responsible for the discipline of the Army were first consulted, and did they approve?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): When it was decided to release the other men who were convicted with Roche, his case was also considered, and it was thought right to remit the remainder of his sentence. Roche was convicted by a civil court of larceny, and no question of military discipline arose.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my question, as to whether those responsible for the discipline of the Army were first consulted?
    Mr. SHORTT: This was a civil case.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who gave orders for the release of this man, as well as the two Irish prisoners convicted of stealing the guns? Was it the Cabinet, or the right hon. Gentleman himself as Home Secretary?
    Mr. SHORTT: It was part of the general policy.
    Mr. SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this non-commissioned officer has been reinstated in his regiment?
    Mr. SHORTT: I should think not, but I do not know.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (IMBER COURT PARK).
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Home Secretary (1) what buildings have been erected at Imber Court Park by the Metropolitan Police, and the cost thereof; whether other buildings are in course of erection or contemplated, and the estimated cost; whether the Adam and Eve stables, Kensington, are still

    1403
    retained as a training and sick depot for the mounted branch; and, if not, what has been done with this property;
    (2) whether Imber Court Park has been purchased by the Metropolitan Police; whether this property was formerly used as a racecourse; what is the extent thereof; whether he can state what price was paid; who was the previous owner; for what police purpose has it been obtained by the police authority; and on whose recommendation or advice was the purchase made?
    Mr. SHORTT: Part of the Imber Court Estate was purchased in 1920, on the recommendation of the then Commissioner of Police and of the Receiver, to provide new reserve stables, etc., for the mounted branch of the Metropolitan Police, the price paid being £12,743. Buildings comprising a riding school, stables, and married quarters have been erected at a cost of £35,000; no other buildings are contemplated. The land purchased covers about 37 acres, and was bought from Major Smith, of the Imber Court Engineering Works. It previously formed part of the estate of the late Lord Michelham, and was, I understand, used before the War as a trotting racecourse. Part of the old reserve stables at Adam and Eve Mews has been let for garage purposes, the remainder, with the quarters over, being used for the mounted men of the Paddington Division and for one of the prison vans.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The right, hon. Gentleman said it formed part of the estate of Lord Michelham. In whose possession was it at the time it was bought by the Government?
    Mr. SHORTTI have answered that. It was purchased from Major Smith, of the Imber Court Engineering Works.
    Captain W. BENN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this enterprise might have been economised in view of the necessity for such a useful enterprise as the retention of the women police?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have already answered that.

    EX-INSPECTOR SYME.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that ex-
    1404
    Inspector John Syme, of the Metropolitan Police, was sentenced on 18th November, 1921, to three months' imprisonment in default of finding sureties to be of good behaviour for 12 months: that the prisoner has resorted to hunger-and-thirst strike, refusing even to partake of water, as a protest against his imprisonment; that he was temporarily released from Pentonville Prison on 23rd May under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for lil-Health) Act, 1913; that this is the seventh release during the term of the sentence imposed on 18th November last; how many days of this sentence have been served and how many days still remain to be served; what has been the cost incurred by the police authorities and prison service, respectively, in cab fares and expenses of escort conveying the prisoner to and from Brixton, Wandsworth, and Pentonville Prisons and his home since his original arrest on l5th November; whether police officers attached to the Special Branch, New Scotland Yard, have been employed daily keeping observation on ex-Inspector Syme during his periods of temporary release; what has been the total cost to the police authorities in wages and expenses of the officers so employed; whether four officers were employed daily on this duty between 22nd April and 18th May; whether such observation is usually kept on prisoners temporarily released; and, in view of the need for economy in the police service, will he consider the desirability or advisability of granting an inquiry into ex-Inspector Syme's alleged grievance?
    Mr. SHORTT: The facts are correctly stated in the first part of the question. Owing to Syme's persistency in refusing to take sustenance when in prison, he has, I understand, actually served only 41 days out of the three months' imprisonment passed on him in November. I cannot say what is the total cost incurred by the police in connection with the case, but it must be considerable. For other than financial reasons I greatly regret. the exceptional measures to which the hon. Member draws attention, but I see no alternative. I cannot regard Syme's persistency as affording any ground for departing from the decision which was arrived at after repeated consideration of his case by my predecessors and myself.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the persistence of this individual, as the right

    1405
    hon. Gentleman says, in trying to bring before the public what he considers to be a grievance against the Government, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this man has been sufficiently punished, and that it would be a greater economy to the nation not to be constantly imprisoning and constantly releasing him and having him followed up and clown the streets, when released, by detectives?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question has already been answered.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I want to know whether this cat-and-mouse Act is going to be continued in regard to this individual, and whether it is not a case of atrocity on the part of the British Government regarding an individual who has been persecuted for the last four or five years?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating the original question.

    POISONS.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a suggestion recently made by one of His Majesty's judges that strychnine should be coloured other than white, thereby protecting the public against misadventure in its use; if he is aware that experts agree that strychnine can be made a different colour; and will his medical officers give consideration to the suggestion with a view to legislation or an Order being issued enacting that all poisons should be of a definite colour?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes. My attention has been called to this suggestion, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave no Tuesday to a question on the same subject by the hon. and gallant Member for South-West St. Pancras (Major Barnett).

  EDUCATION.

    PROVISION OF MEALS (COST).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister on what grounds the Government have transferred to the local rates an expense of over £30,000 per month to meet the cost of
    1406
    feeding school children clue to continued unemployment, which last year was borne by the National Exchequer?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): As any right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already stated, the Government do not agree with the hon. Member's assertion, and I am unable to add to the reply given to his question of the 9th instant.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that half this charge was borne by the Treasury last year and is now thrown entirely on the local rates, and how are the local authorities going to find the money, seeing that they are already overburdened?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has put that question already.
    Mr. THOMSON: I have never had an answer.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education the number of secondary schools in England and Wales which, not having prior to the year 1918 received from the Board any maintenance grants or other grants-in-aid, have since applied for recognition as State-aided schools and of these how many have been so recognised; and whether he can state the total amount of grants paid by the Board since 1918 on account of such schools?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Ninety-five schools not previously in receipt of aid from the Board applied under the Secondary School Regulations for grants as from 1st August, 1918, or later dates. Of these, 81 were accepted and 14 refused. Of the 81, 10 have been transferred to local education authorities. The grants paid in respect of the 81 schools uncles the Secondary School Regulations up to the 31st March last amounted to £175,000. In addition, deficiency grant has been paid in respect of certain expenditure incurred by local authorities on the schools.

    HAGUE CONFERENCE.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the date of The Hague

    1407
    Conference has yet been fixed; what countries have been invited to take part; and what countries have refused?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to questions on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore).
    Viscount CURZON: Does that answer state definitely what nations have refused?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered this question completely, and my Noble Friend would save himself and others trouble, as also save the time of the House, if he were to inform himself of what has taken place. No country has refused.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister the reasons for the non-admittance of German experts to the Conference of Experts to be held at The Hague?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reasons are set forth in the correspondence printed in Part I, B, of Command Paper No. 1667.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand from that that at no stage of these negotiations will German experts, as apart from the German Government representatives, be admitted to any of the Conferences, however much they affect Germany?
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether it has been agreed that those States that may be dissatisfied with the results of the preliminary discussions at The Hague on 15th June need not appoint experts for the general meeting of 26th June, but as a consequence cannot prevent it from taking place?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to Command Paper 1667, Part I, No. 7, paragraph 4.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to facilitating the work of the proposed commissions at The Hague, adequate preparations will be made for a joint secretariat; and whether the time before 15th June
    1408
    will be utilised in an endeavour to remove some of the more obvious misunderstandings between the conveners of the Conference, so that an agreed and perfectly definite agenda may be before this preliminary meeting of the non-Russian Powers on 15th June?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The President of the Genoa Conference has undertaken to make the necessary arrangements with the Netherlands Government for the assembling of the Commissions at The Hague, which will include secretarial arrangements. The Foreign Office are keeping in touch on these matters. I am not aware of the misunderstandings to which the hon. Member refers; but the object of the preliminary meeting on the 15th June is to enable the non-Russian Powers to have a full exchange of views and to determine the constitution of the non-Russian Commission.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (PART II, ORDERS).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is great unemployment in the fabric glove and other industries in which the Board of Trade Committees have recommended that Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act should be applied: that, owing to his absence abroad, no decision of the Government could be arrived at; and whether, in view of the great urgency and importance of the matter, he is now able to announce the intention of the Government as to making an Order in accordance with the provisions of the Statute?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that it will be possible to announce the policy of the Government before the Whitsuntide Recess.
    Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite date when the Government can announce their policy, in view of the great urgency and importance of this matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I can say no more than I have said, and perhaps I had better not have said as much.
    Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this announcement will he made, and whether, if it be in

    1409
    favour of making Orders, the Orders will he laid before the House before the House disperses for Whitsuntide?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot add anything to the answer.
    Captain BENN: Not, even, when?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I said I hoped a statement would be made before Whitsuntide.

    SMYRNA (ALLEGED ATROCITIES).
    Sir C. TOWNSHENDasked the Prime Minister why the Report of the inquiry commission on atrocities committed by the Greek troops at the occupation of Smyrna has never been published?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) on the 24th instant.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government propose to instruct the British delegate to bring the question of the admission of Germany and/or Russia to the League of Nations at the next meeting of either the Council or Assembly of the League of Nations?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of the admission of Germany to the League depends primarily on the desire and initiative of Germany herself, and it would be premature for His Majesty's Government to decide upon any course of action until these are known. The attitude of Russia is well known.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (FINANCIAL PROCEDURE).
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the advisability of setting up a Committee to consider the financial procedure of the House; and, if so, what the terms of reference will be?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir: I have not discussed this subject with any of my colleagues except the Chancellor of the
    1410
    Exchequer, with whom I had some conversation before speaking on the occasion to which I think that my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Is it in the recollection of my right hon. Friend that he was giving consideration to this question in February last, and has not the interval been sufficient to enable him to give some indication to the House of his intentions in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I was giving attention to the question then, but the reception accorded to my suggestion did not encourage me to proceed, as it was plain that there was not that general agreement or desire to co-operate which would enable me to go further.

    FAR EASTERN REPUBLIC (JAPANESE TROOPS).
    Mr. MILLSasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, under the Armistice terms accepted by the Powers at the Genoa Conference, the Japanese troops now in Siberia will evacuate that country;
    (2) in what manner the truce accepted by the Powers represented at the Genoa Conference will affect the Japanese occupation of Siberia?
    Mr. ROBERTSONasked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of the acceptance of the pact of non-aggression by the Japanese Government at the Genoa Conference, the Japanese have withdrawn the terms of the ultimatum presented to the delegates of the Far Eastern Republic by the Japanese delegates at the Dairen Conference on 15th April?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was resolved at Genoa on the 19th May that "the pact to refrain from acts of aggression will be founded on the observance of the existing status quo." The present situation in Eastern Siberia will therefore not be affected. I have no doubt, however, that the Japanese will withdraw their troops as soon as they find it possible to do so, in accordance with the assurance given by their representatives at Washington. As has already been stated, His Majesty's Government have no information in regard to the alleged ultimatum referred to by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson).
    Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made as to the accuracy of the reported further advance of the Japanese troops, in view of this Agreement reached at Washington?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that arises.

  POST OFFICE.

    SELECT COMMITTEE (TELEPHONE SERVICES).
    Major GLYNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is intended to give this House an early opportunity of discussing the Report of the Select Committee set up to inquire into the telephone services of the Post Office, which matter was not fully considered during the debate on the Post Office Estimates.?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: An opportunity for this discussion was afforded on the Post Office Estimates and the Postmaster-General himself dealt with the most important recommendations of the Report. I cannot give special facilities for a further discussion.

    ADVISORY COUNCIL.
    Mr. HURDasked the Postmaster General whether he has received any expression of willingness on the part of the National Farmers' Union to nominate a representative to serve on the Post Office Advisory Council; and whether, in view of the anxiety of that organisation to promote the increased use of the telephone in rural areas, he proposes to appoint an additional number of the Advisory Council so that it may contain an accredited representative of the only organisation of working farmers which represents and has machinery covering all the administrative counties of England and Wales?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): I have received a letter from the National Farmers' Union in the sense referred to by the hon. Member. The members of the Post Office Advisory Council are selected on account of their individual qualifications and not as representatives of particular interests. But, as I have already informed the House, I have appointed a gentleman to the Council who is a member of the National Farmers' Union and exceptionally qualified to speak on behalf of agricultural interests.
    Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the desirability of having two representatives of the greatest British industry upon this Council in view of the Government policy of home production?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: No, Sir. I think that industry is fairly represented.
    Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he has made an addition to the Advisory Council when he has stated previously that he would never add to it? Why has he thus differentiated?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not added to it. There happened to be a vacancy, and I have filled it.
    Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that when another vacancy occurs it shall be filled up by a representative of the agricultural interest?
    Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that other interests are represented as well?

    TRADE JOURNALS (POSTAGE).
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the discrepancy between the cost of postages for weekly and monthly trade journals, and the advantages in postal rates enjoyed by foreign publishers, he will revise the present rates of postages for fortnightly and monthly trade journals?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer on this subject given to the hon. Member for Poplar (South Division) on 10th May.

    TELEPHONE CALL BOXES, EUSTON STATION.
    Mr. W. GREENWOODasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that there are no telephone call offices on the departure platforms at Euston Station; and when does he propose to instal one?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my replies to questions on this subject on the 81h and 21st February, copies of which I am sending to him.

    CANADA (BANK ACT).
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations,

    1413
    if any, he is making to the Canadian Government in regard to the Bank Act of Canada, and especially the alleged inequitable operation of Clauses 88 and 89 whereby preference is said to be granted to Canadian banks and facilities created for fraudulent practices on the part of importers: and whether he is considering the specific proposals made on this matter by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The President of the Board of Trade does not contemplate taking any action in this matter. I am not aware of the nature of the proposals of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
    Mr. HURD: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the considerable disturbance and feeling in Canada and this country in this matter? Are the Government taking any action whatever?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think the point to which my hon. Friend refers is the preference accorded to Canadian banks. That is, I believe, part of the existing law, and while I know that objection has been taken to that law, my right hon. Friend, I understand, has not received any direct representation.

    HORTICULTURAL JOURNAL.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that an English firm, issuing a quarterly journal for horticulturists, applied to his Department for the names of printing firms in Germany, and that the names were supplied; that the publication in question is now being entirely produced in and posted from Germany; and whether it is the practice, of the Department to give such information which, in this instance, has resulted in a loss to an industry faced with a considerable percentage of unemployment?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not aware of any quarterly journal for horticulturists being produced in and posted from Germany as the result of information supplied by my Department. As regards the second part of the question, such information was furnished in a single instance some months ago to a firm who pressed for it very strongly on the ground that they could not otherwise cope with
    1414
    foreign competitors who were having their catalogues printed in and posted from Germany, but the information was only given after the possibility of placing the order in this country had been exhaustively discussed with the firm concerned.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the publication in question, which I have in my hand, bears no imprint as it would have to bear if produced in this country, and will his Department see that the German printers are placed on the same footing as the British printers?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not know what is the publication to which my hon. Friend refers, but I shall be very glad to see a copy of it afterwards.

    GERMANY (TOTAL DEBT).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the total debt of Germany, imperial, state, and local, in 1914, and what was the then sterling equivalent; and what is the present debt of Germany and its present sterling equivalent converted, respectively, at the present rate of exchange and at the rate of exchange which represents the ratio between the level of wholesal prices in both countries?
    Sir R. HORNE: With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate the answer, which contains many figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The answer is as follows:

    GERMANY.

    National Debt.

    Debt on 31st March, 1914.

    Millions of Marks.

    Sterling equivalent £ millions.

    Imperial

    5,199

    254½

    Federal States

    16,782

    821½

    Total

    21,981

    1,076

    Data are not available for the local indebtedness.
    Present Debt.
    The latest available figure is for the 31st December, 1921, at which date the

    1415
    debt (Imperial only) was 318,982 millions of marks. The sterling equivalent at the exchange of the day (770 marks to £1) was £414 millions. At the present exchange of 1,320 it would be 241½ millions. On the basis of relative wholesale prices in Germany (3,487) and the United Kingdom (171·3) in December, 1921, the sterling equivalent of the German debt was £767 millions. On the basis of the most recent index numbers available, those for March, 1922 (5433 and 163·3) this figure would be 469 millions.

    INCOME TAX (RHUBARB GROWERS).
    Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what powers rhubarb growers who prior to 1918 have been assessed to and paid Income Tax under Schedule B are now in some districts only, and not in others, having their assessments reopened and new assessments made on them on the basis and principles of Schedule D; why has this been done in some districts and not in others; and whether, in the interests of finality, and seeing that the period of three years in which a new assessment. can be made has now expired, in the interests of justice, and the prevention of inequality, and having regard to the comparatively small amount involved, he can see his way to direct that rhubarb growers shall only come under the provisions of Rule 8 and Schedule B of the Income Tax Act, 1918, from the date of the passing of that Act?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of any case where a rhubarb grower, who prior to 1918 had been assessed to, and paid Income Tax under, Schedule B, is now having his assessments re-opened and new assessments made on him on the basis and principles of Schedule D. If my hon. Friend has in mind any case in which this course has been taken, I shall be happy to have the matter looked into if he will furnish me with the necessary particulars.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I will do so.

    BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.
    Mr. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the British Cellulose Company has sold its power station; and,
    1416
    if so, what is the price and who has bought it?
    Sir R. HORNE: An agreement has been made under which the Cellulose Holding and Investment Company have an option to purchase the power station at a price of £200,000 and it is likely that the option will be exercised.
    Mr. WISEfurther asked if the Government has any nominee on the board of directors of the Cellulose Holding and Investment Company; and what is the relation between this company and the British Cellulose Company?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Government has no nominee on the board of the Cellulose Holding and Investment Company in which company the Government has no financial interest. The relationship between the Cellulose Holding and Investment Company and the British Cellulose Company is that the Cellulose Holding and Investment Company are purchasing £500,000 first mortgage debenture stock from the British Cellulose Company.

    DOMINION AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS (LIABILITIE0).
    Sir W. RAEBURNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any Report has been received from the Treasury Committee appointed to consider questions arising in connection with the liability of Dominion and foreign Goverments and of such bodies as the League of Nations and the Reparation Commission to United Kingdom taxation in respect of profits, property, or otherwise, etc.; and, if no Report has been received, wile may it be expected?
    Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the second part does not., therefore, arise.

    GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the Government investments in commercial, industrial, and other undertakings at home and abroad; what was the original cost of such investments; and what is their approximate market value to-day?
    Sir R. HORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to House of Commons Paper No. 250 of 10th November, 1921, and to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave to the hon. Member for Wigan on 20th February last.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the total liabilities the Government have incurred by the guaranteeing of capital or interest, or both, on commercial and industrial undertakings at home and abroad at the present time?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Treasury have agreed to guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act the principal and interest of loans amounting to £16,710,645.

    SUGAR (EXCISE DUTY).
    Sir JOHN GANZONIasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representations and, if so, of what nature, from any sugar-producing parts of the British Empire against the waiving of an Excise Duty on sugar produced in this country?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am unaware of any representations having been addressed to me in the sense suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    RENTALS, LONDON AND BERLIN.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the rent in marks before the War of a German artisan's dwelling generally similar to that which would have been let for 10s. a week, inclusive of rates, in this country; what, approximately, is the rent, inclusive of rates, of such a house in England to-day; and what is the rent of the corresponding German house to-day, respectively, in marks, and in sterling converted at the present rate of exchange and at the rate of exchange which represents the ratio between the level of wholesale prices in both countries?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to reply. As the answer is lengthy, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    London and Berlin Working Class Rents, 1914 and 1922.
    There is in Germany no system of local taxation based on the rental value of a dwelling, the bulk of the cost of local government being defrayed out of the proceeds of separate Income Tax levied by the local authority. While, therefore, the British artisan's rent comprises local rates, that of the German artisan does not. Before the War a working class rental so high as 10s. weekly (including rates) was rare in this country outside the London area, where a four-roomed dwelling was procurable at that figure. In Berlin before the War a skilled workman's flat very seldom exceeded three rooms (two living rooms and a kitchen). This is still the case. The average cubic content of a room in a typical tenement in Berlin is, however, appreciably greater than in a London dwelling of the same type. A comparison between a four-roomed dwelling in London and a three-roomed dwelling in Berlin may therefore be considered legitimate for present purposes.

    Weekly Rent.

    London (4-roomed dwelling):

    In 1914

    10s.*

    In 1922

    15s.*

    Berlin (3-roomed dwelling with larger rooms):

    Marks.

    In 1914

    15†

    In 1922

    25.5†

    *Calculated from figures supplied by town clerks and other officials of boroughs and urban districts in the London area.

    †The present Berlin rent of 25,5 marks is obtained by increasing the pre-War rent by 70 per cent. (the maximum permissible under local regulations recently issued in pursuance of a law in force since the beginning of 1922).

    But of the London worker's rent about 2s. 5d. in 1914, and about 4s. 8d. in 1922, consisted of rates. If therefore, the comparison he confined to the rent element in both cases it would be follows:

    London.

    In 1914

    7s.

    7d.

    In 1922

    10s.

    4d.

    Berlin.

    Marks.

    In 1914

    15

    In 1922

    25.5

    The rent of the Berlin dwelling to-day therefore,

    (a) expressed in marks

    25.5 marks

    (b) expressed in sterling at the present rate of exchange

    4¼d.

    (c) at wholesale purchasing power parity

    7¾

    BRITISH GUIANA (LOAN).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British Guiana is coming on the money market for a loan; whether the British Government are to guarantee the loan; if not, will he make it clear whether or not the Colonial Office consider themselves bound by a statement of the right hon. Joseph Chamberlain to the effect that, guarantee or no, this country could not allow any Crown Colony to default in interest on their loans and, if they do hold with Mr. Chamberlain's dictum, will he, by a clear and definite guarantee, enable the loan to be floated on better terms both for the Colony and for the British taxpayer?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; the Government of British Guiana recently called locally for tenders for a loan for 50 years of £1,000,000 at 5½ per cent., and has accepted a tender at 96. This loan is not guaranteed by His Majesty's Government. British Guiana is not a Crown Colony, and accordingly the latter part of the question does not arise.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the statement made by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in reference to the Crown Colonies apply here?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: British Guiana is a Colony which has a legislature responsible for the proper control of its own affairs, and therefore stands in a slightly different position to the other Colonies we have control over or have to deal with.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it from that that there is no sort of implied guarantee resting upon this country for whatever loans British Guiana may itself raise either now or in the future?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is what I said. I hope, nevertheless, that this colony, which is in a backward state, will get support and that the money will be
    1420
    raised to help the colony to help itself, but this will not be aided by its credit being unduly cried down by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to look after the credit of this country? May I ask, if the loan has been completed, why he should make these aspersions, which are absolutely unwarranted, upon an hon. Member of this House?

    BRITISH NORTH BORNEO COMPANY.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the North Borneo Chartered Company retains to itself the monopoly of gambling rights amongst the Chinese labourers of the territory; that the company puts up to auction each year the sole rights to organise and farm out gambling among the coolies; and what was the amount received by the company at the last sale by public auction of this right?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, I will ask the British North Borneo Company for the requisite information.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British North Borneo Company make £25,000 a year out of these gambling licences? [HON. MBMBERS "Why not?"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be on the wrong bench!
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. It is true I may be on the wrong bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take it like a man!"]—for the moment, but not, I hope, for ever!

  TRANSPORT.

    VEHICLE (LIGHTS).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that since the Committee on Lights on Vehicles reported considerable improvements have recently been and are stall being made in

    1421
    reflectors and similar mechanical catch-light devices; and whether, before introducing any Bill amending the law on lights on road vehicles, he will further investigate the efficiency of these methods of protection as compared with the best rear lamps, which experience shows it is difficult to keep alight on certain classes of roads?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I shall be happy to instruct a technical officer to attend a demonstration of any new reflectors and similar mechanical catch-light devices which it may be desired to bring to my notice. A reply to this effect was addressed to a letter from the National Cyclists' Union, dated 30th January last, but up to the present no proposal for any such demonstration has been received from them.
    Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of that part of the answer which I did hear, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman will be willing to receive a representative deputation from the pedal cyclists on the question?
    Mr. NEAL: That does not arise.

    TIMBER (RAILWAY RATES).
    Mr. WILLIAM SHAWasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware that owing to the excessive railway rates charged on home-grown timber it is impossible to market this commodity at a profit; that great quantities of timber are being left in the woods to rot; and that three-quarters of the saw-mills in Scotland are standing idle, entailing much unemployment.; and can he say what steps he is prepared to take to secure a reduction in the railway rates?
    Mr. NEAL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 8th instant to the hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, of which 'I am sending him a copy. I have no information as to the facts mentioned in the second and third parts of the question. I understand some concession in respect of pitwood used in Scotland has been granted by the Scottish companies.
    Major HOWARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the railway companies are charging more for the carriage of home-grown timber than for sea-borne timber?
    Mr. NEAL: That may very well be. But the traders have their own remedy if they care to adopt it.
    Major HOWARD: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what are these remedies?
    Mr. M. STEVENS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a certain class of timber carried into Lancashire from a certain port costs 42s. 9d. per ton, while the same class of timber imported costs 35s.?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman also appears to be on the wrong bench.

    UNITED STATES TARIFFS.
    Mr. W. GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if be is aware that in July next there will be very considerable increases in the tariffs on goods imported into the United States; and if he proposes taking any action?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Proposals for the revision of the Customs Tariff are at. present before the Unitel States Legislature, but I am unable to forecast to what extent they will be adopted. I will consider, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any action which His Majesty's Government can usefully take in the matter.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: In view of the encouraging cheers from my hon. Friends, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will consider the advisability of sending a, specifically strong deputation to the United States, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) to protest against the Safeguarding of Industries Act in another country?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think that is a proposal which ought to be addressed to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith. I am sure that either with or without his assistance all the steps that can he taken will be taken.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Member prepared to advise the Government to bring this question of tariffs before The Hague Conference with a view to knocking down some of these tariff barriers?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have spent about six weeks at Genoa very largely trying to get all the countries of Europe to adopt the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, and I hope not altogether without result.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the report mentioned by the hon. Member be circulated?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes. The Report of the Economic Commission has already been circulated as a Parliamentary Paper.
    Captain W. BENN: Did the hon. Member communicate to that, Conference extracts from his own speeches in favour of Protection made in this House?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I delivered a speech at the Conference in favour of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause which I am pleased to say commanded the sympathy of my hon. and gallant Friend.

    FORESTRY ACT (GRANTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEYasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he can state what steps the Forestry Commission are taking to make the grants authorised under the 1919 Forestry Act available and suitable for landowners and orporate bodies?
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER (for the Forestry Commissioners): The power to award planting grants to landowners and corporate bodies under the Forestry Act, 1919, is practically inoperative owing to the proviso for repayment in certain events and the consequent necessity of keeping accounts through the whole period of the rotation. The Forestry Commissioners are of the opinion that the amount of the repayments would be so small and the work involved in keeping the accounts so considerable that it would be in the interest of forestry that the free grants, which were awarded last winter under the Forestry Act, 1921, and which proved very successful in securing the planting of over 10,000 acres and in finding employment for from 2,000 to 3,000 men, should be continued in future years. The Forestry Commissioners have accordingly suggested to the Treasury that legislation should be introduced with this object.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Has the hon. Gentleman any hopes of securing further grants for unemployment?
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: We have addressed to the Treasury a letter which I hope will receive favourable consideration.

    HOUSING (GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether a private builder who has received certificate A qualifying him for the Government subsidy on his houses will be refused the same for any houses not actually completed by 23rd June next, or is he prepared to grant some slight extension of time in cases where buildings are practically completed?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The condition as to completion by the 23rd June, 1922, was expressly laid down in a Memorandum issued as long ago as 23rd July, 1921, and I am not prepared to vary it.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. BANTONasked the Minister of Health if he has given his definition of destitution and adequate relief to those who have the administration of poor relief, so that they may know at what point they may avoid surcharge?
    Sir A. MOND: I am sending the hon. Member copies of two circulars which have been addressed to Poor Law authorities on this subject.

    BEDWELTY UNION.
    Mr. G. BARKERasked the Minister of Health if he has received a letter from the guardians of the Bedwelty union calling the attention of the Government to the serious financial state of the union and the very urgent need for material State aid; is he aware that the poor rates for the several parishes of the union for the year ended 31st March, 1922, averaged 22s. 6d. in the; that these abnormal high local rates are due to extensive and long-standing unemployment which has prevailed, and is still prevailing, in the Bedwelty union,

    1425
    and the operation of these high rates are retarding the recovery of industry and are inflicting great distress upon the inhabitants; that the present liabilities of the Bedwelty union are upwards of £74,000; and will the Government bring in legislation with the least possible delay to deal with this state of things?
    Sir A. MOND: I have received the letter referred to. The financial position of this union is due in part to the guardians granting relief on a scale which may place a man in receipt of relief in a better position than an independent workman in the union. A substantial loan was offered to the guardians some months ago on condition that they would follow the example of neighbouring unions and revise their scale of relief. They refused to accept this offer, but it is still open to them.
    Mr. BARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this union is already £74,000 in debt, and that the Poor Rate is 22s. 6d. in the £, and therefore it is impossible for them to meet their liabilities?
    Sir A. MOND: I am informed that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. I have seen the representatives of this union myself, and I consented to assist them in obtaining a loan for a number of years in order that they might meet their liabilities if they will reduce their excessive scale of relief, and I never understood why they did not accept that offer. They have a scale of relief far in excess of the neighbouring unions, and they continue paying it instead of putting their finances into a sound position.

    HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICINES).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that necessary medicines beyond a certain price cannot be prescribed for serious illnesses, e.g., gastric enteritis, under the health insurance scheme, and that as a result of this some panel doctors are informing their panel patients that they cannot prescribe adequate remedies, but that if they become private patients suitable medicines could be prescribed; what is the limit of price allowed; and, if such patients have been wrongly advised, will he take steps to prevent its recurrence?
    Sir A. MOND: I am not aware that the facts in regard to prescribing by panel doctors are as stated in the question. Insurance practitioners are required to order such drugs and appliances as are necessary, without limit of price, subject to certain necessary precautions against needlessly expensive prescribing. I should take severe disciplinary action in any case of proved failure to carry out this duty.
    Mr. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that doctors called before the responsible committee have to give explanations of their expenditure, and are reprimanded on occasions?
    Sir A. MOND: I have no doubt that course is taken. I will take what disciplinary action is necessary.

    WATER SUPPLY.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of a possible recurrence of another extended dry period this spring and summer, his Department is, in the interests of public health, taking any steps to watch the water supply of the country; whether the depleted springs of last year have been refilled; whether he is aware that there is already water shortage in parts of the country; and whether public authorities have been in any way warned as to the need for care and prudence?
    Sir A. MOND: Yes, Sir. I am fully ay.-are of the situation as regards water supply, and it is being carefully watched by my Department. A circular on the subject was recently issued, and I will send the hon. Member a copy.

    GRETNA WORKS (SALE).
    Sir CECIL BECKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for the publicity in connection with the sale of the Gretna works; and whether the posting in the back turnings off Waterloo Road, S.E., of bills announcing the sale of property worth several million pounds is intended to attract purchasers of the above-mentioned property?
    Mr. YOUNG: With regard to the first part of the question, the Disposal and Liquidation Commission are responsible for publicity in connection with the sale of His Majesty's factory, Gretna. I am advised that the sale of this factory has not been advertised by poster. From inquiries made by the Commission it appears probable that the poster seen by the hon. and learned Member referred to a resale at the factory of certain stores which had been purchased en bloc from the Commission.

    TEACHERS AND CIVIL SERVICE (SALARIES).
    Major BIRCHALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give to the House a comparative statement showing the relative position in 1914 and 1922, as regards length of training, emoluments, and pension, of a certificated teacher and of an official of similar qualifications and age in the Civil Service?
    Mr. YOUNG: I find it difficult to supply the comparison required by the hon. and gallant Member without a clearer understanding of his intention. If he will be so good as to let me know what he would consider to be an official of similar qualifications for the purpose of the comparison, I will do my best to furnish him with the information he desires.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT (SINGLE MEN AND WOMEN).
    Mr. LYLE SAMUELasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the hardship caused to many families by the decision of his Department not to allow single men and women to benefit under the six weeks' extension of the Unemployment Insurance Act, Section 3, if they are maintained wholly or mainly by their relatives; and whether he has received representations against this policy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. Representations have been made as suggested in the last part of the question. I sent out the directions, which refer only to "free" or uncovenanted benefit, after most careful consideration of the volume
    1428
    and nature of the obligations which the Insurance Act has to meet. I can best make my purpose clear by sending my hon. Friend, if I may, a copy of a communication I sent out on 8th April.

    APPRENTICES.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Minister of Labour whether boys serving as indentured apprentices are excluded from any grant under the Unemployment Insurance Act when, for reasons over which they have no control, the firm training them closes down; whether he is aware that in cases where these boys are fed by their respective firms the officials of his Department are none the less contending they are mainly maintained by their relatives and therefore not available for benefit; and that this policy is driving out-of-work families on to the Poor Law; and whether, in view of the regrettable associations thus formed, he will reconsider this treatment both of the young and their parents?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In the case of claims to benefit by boys serving as indentured apprentices, the decision depends upon the terms of the indenture in the particular case. The Umpire, whose decision is final on such matters, has taken the view that where the apprentice is, under the terms of his indenture, entitled to wages from his employer during periods of slackness, he is not unemployed or entitled to benefit. I have no power to alter this decision.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of some of these boys, all that is being offered to them now by some of the unions concerned is that they should be admitted to the workhouse, and does he think that is socially and economically desirable?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member will send me particulars of any such cases I will go into them.

    SWINE FEVER.
    Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to correspondence between the National Citizens' Union (Spilsbury branch) and the Lindsey Agricultural Committee in September, 1921, and subsequently, relating to the

    1429
    alleged unnecessary visits of several officials in dealing with a case of swine fever; whether he is aware that a Report upon this was submitted by the Lindsey Agricultural Committee to the Ministry of Agriculture with a view to protesting against the overlapping of officials in dealing with this case; and whether he will investigate the procedure in order to reduce unnecessary expenditure in similar circumstances?
    Major BARNSTON (for Sir A. Boscawen): The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish further particulars of the case in question my right hon. Friend will have the matter investigated.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the treatment meted out to warrant or non-commissioned officers in the Regular Army who received permanent commissions in respect of the amount of retired pay, as compared with men of the same ranks in the Royal Marines who received only temporary commissions during the War, the retired pay of the former being £150 and of the latter £250 per annum; and whether he will consider an adjustment of this inequality?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): My attention has already been called to the comparison between the special rate of retired pay of £250 for certain Royal Marine officers, and the rates of retired pay and pensions for Army officers who formerly served in the ranks. In settling the new scales for Army and Navy, regard was paid to the general desirability of assimilation. As, however, the circumstances of the two Services differ so much, complete identity-cannot be expected.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION (FREE PASSAGES).
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an Order limiting the free passage of officers and nurses returning home from service with the British Army of the Rhine on retirement,
    1430
    half pay, demobilisation, or on completion of contract to the port of disembarkation in the United Kingdom, and imposing on them the liability to pay their own expenses thence to their destinations; and whether he can see his way to remove this liability on those who are serving their country abroad having regard to the very small saving effected by the Order?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Under the Regulations, regular officers and nurses when returning from abroad on retirement or resignation are not entitled to travelling expenses in the United Kingdom, but during the war a concession allowing such expenses was made, primarily in the interest of temporary officers and temporary nurses. This concession, which was not intended to be permanent, was generally withdrawn on 1st March last, and the standing Regulations were again brought into force. Having regard to the necessity for economy, I am not prepared to recommend a permanent relaxation of these Regulations, but I will consider whether, and under what conditions, the concession can be restored for the benefit of such few temporary officers and nurses as have not yet been demobilised.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House to make an announcement with regard to the business next week? Does he intend on Tuesday to adjourn the House? May I ask also whether, in view of the large number of questions which it is known it is wished to raise, he will consent to the House meeting at 11 o'clock on that day? Finally, can he announce the business to be taken after the House reassembles?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the wishes expressed on the benches opposite that two days should be given to the Budget, we were prepared to allocate Monday and Tuesday for that purpose and to take the Motion for Adjournment on Wednesday. If it be the general wish—and I can only do that by the general consent of the House—iffie House can meet on Tuesday at 11 o clock, and, if it finishes the Budget discussion in good time, we can take the Adjournment Debate. To that the Government would, of course, raise no objection. I can only add that if I have a practical assurance

1431
that a Motion appearing on the Paper for that purpose will be accepted in all quarters it shall be put down.
Mr. CLYNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not anticipate that the Budget discussion will conclude on Monday night?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite agree it could be concluded on Monday and that all that it is profitable to say can be said in one day, but there is a great gap between that conviction and an assurance of what the House can do, and will do, if it chooses. I am bound to prepare for eventualities. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite, representing the different parties, are content with one day for the Budget, there is no reason why we should not take the Adjournment Motion on Tuesday as the first order, and the arrangement will then be, Monday for the Budget, and Tuesday for the Adjournment Debate.
Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the promised statement by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on Ireland, may I ask when the Debate on that statement will take place?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is one of the disturbing factors which prevents me making a confident prediction as to the length of time we shall have to sit next week.
Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Does that mean we are to assume we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Colonial Secretary's statement?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, a discussion on the statement can be raised on the Motion for Adjournment. There is another way in which a discussion can be raised known to hon. Gentlemen and within their control. I do not propose to anticipate evil. I think I can assure the House they may escape without a sitting on Wednesday.
Mr. CLYNES: What about the business after Whitsuntide?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will make a statement on that matter early next week. I shall try to arrange that, on the Monday on which we reassemble, Bills of a non-contentions character will be taken.

BILLS REPORTED.
Swansea Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee [Title amended].
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

GAMING BILL [Lords].
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

BREAD ACTS AMENDMENT BM,
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING (VENEREAL DISEASE) (No. 2) BILL,
"to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1921, with respect to seamen suffering from venereal disease, "presented by Major COLFOX; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Raw, Captain Elliot, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. Havelock Wilson, and Mr. Till tt; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 139].

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they agreed to,
Melville Trust Order Confirmation Bill,
Kilmarnock Water Provisional Order Bill,
Ayr Burgh (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
Sheffield Gas Company Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to,
Trafford Park Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907."[Advertisements Regulation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the powers of the Courts of the Universities of Scotland in the making of ordinances for the superannuation and pensioning of principals and professors, and for the admission of lecturers and readers to the senatus academicus, and to provide for the admission of lecturers and readers to membership of the general councils of those Universities." [Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1911, and to make provision with
1434
respect to the unauthorised application to goods of Government marks, and with respect to the unauthorised use of the Royal arms and devices and Royal and State titles." [Merchandise Marks Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the constitution of the Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners and the tolls to be taken at the quays at Dartmouth; and for other purposes."[Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords].

DARTMOUTH HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS (RECONSTITUTION) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [10th Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES Hoes in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CLASS II.

      FOREIGN OFFICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £154,679, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including the News Department." [Note: £90,000 has been voted on account.]

GENOA CONFERENCE.
  RESULTS ALREADY ATTAINED.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): It is very difficult, in giving an explanation of transactions which took six weeks in the making, to choose the particular subjects upon which the House requires elucidation. I always feel, in making these statements, that I may be dwelling at unnecessary length upon one particular part of the transactions, while at the same time, perhaps, not dwelling at adequate length upon other parts, on which the House would like to have a clearer, fuller and more detailed explanation. It was for that reason, let me assure the Committee, that I was anxious rather to rise later in the course of the discussion, after questions had been addressed to me, and that the reason was not any endeavour in the slightest degree to escape the obvious duty which it is my privilege to discharge to the House of Commons. However, I hope the House will extend to me the indulgence of another opportunity of replying later on—if I find it necessary—to any questions which may be addressed to me, or to any criticisms that may be offered upon the action of my colleagues and myself at Genoa.
    1450
    I should also like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, to thank the House of Commons for the great forbearance which it extended to us during the six weeks when we were at Genoa. Before we went there, there was a discussion in the House, there were criticisms addressed on the policy proclaimed on behalf of the Government, there were even challenges of the composition of the delegates, and there were obvious reasons why the delegation would have been very much better had it been chosen from other quarters of the House of Commons. No doubt that was perfectly legitimate criticism. When, however, we were at Genoa, the House of Commons treated us, not as the representatives of a party, but as the representatives of our country, and extended to us every fair play and good treatment. And I feel that it is my duty, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, to thank the House for the great indulgence they extended, under what must have appeared to most of them to be very trying conditions.

    BUSINESS OF THE CONFERENCE.
    I do not propose to say anything this afternoon on the question of German reparation, or of the relations with France. I understand that there is to be a discussion next week upon that subject, and I shall, therefore, confine myself this afternoon entirely to the business of the Genoa Conference. We had there assembled, probably, the largest gathering of nations that has ever met in the history of this world. We had, I think, 34 nations represented around the tables, and represented, in the main, by some of their leading Ministers. They were there to discuss the restoration of Europe to normal conditions, and the restoration of peaceable relations among themselves. There were nations there at the tables hardly on speaking terms with each other. There had been feuds and misunderstandings between them, prolonged up to the very hour of the Conference. We met in perfect calm, in perfect harmony. We discussed, not all the questions which were in dispute between those nations, because many of them had already been referred to other tribunals, including the League of Nations; but we discussed many of them, and we all discussed those matters in a spirit of perfect amity, right to the very last hour of the Conference.

    1451
    I felt that, if a Conference of that kind had assembled in 1914, the world would have been spared a very tragic experience.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In 1918.
    The PRIME MINISTER: In 1914. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to continue my statement. We discussed questions of which I had already given a summary to the House of Commons just a week before we went there. The main purpose of the Conference, I think, I summarised quite fairly—the restoration of financial and trading relations, the improvement of diplomatic relations, the removal of disputes which were endangering the peace of nations. Did we succeed? My answer will be simply to state the facts, and let hon. Members judge for themselves upon those facts. I will state them fairly; I only ask that hon. Members should judge them fairly. The attainment of normal conditions in Europe was impeded by numerous obstacles, and the removal of those obstacles constituted the aim of the Genoa Conference.

    FOUR COMMISSIONS.
    4.0 p.m.
    What were those obstacles? They were, firstly, currency difficulties and the instability of exchanges; secondly, Customs and trading restrictions; thirdly, transport difficulties; and, fourthly, the absence of sense of security against war. There were four Commissions set up for the purpose of reporting upon four different branches of the various problems upon which we were engaged. There was, first of all, the Financial Commission, which was presided over with very great ability by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir R. Horne), who, fortunately, was able to conclude the labours of that Commission before he left. There were the Economic Commission, the Transport Commission, and the Political Commission. On these Commissions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) and my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) appeared on behalf of this country, and they rendered, as anyone who knows their capacity can be assured, the most admir-
    1452
    able assistance. I had better say a few words about the work of the Financial Commission, the Transport Commission, and the Economic Commission, before I come to the work of the Political Commission, around which most of the controversy ranged, and which excited most interest at the Commission, as also I rather think outside as well.

    INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
    The Financial Commission made an attempt to re-establish currency, and to improve the stability of the exchanges. The Commission not only defined the conditions under which the currency and exchange problems of Europe can be solved, but it also indicated the precise steps to be taken, and arranged for the initiation of reforms at a meeting of central banks. The Resolution aimed at removing currency difficulties, and it began with a currency code. The object of this code is to again anchor paper currencies, directly or indirectly, to gold and to secure for the nation a credit policy, in order to prevent fluctuations.
    With regard to exchanges, the primary recommendation was that the artificial control of exchange operations should be removed, in order that nothing should stand in the way of the recovery of exchanges as currencies recover, and as the exports which support them improve. Trade was checked and impeded, we found, by the absence of credit. There, a very fruitful suggestion was made in the organisation of an international corporation, which will he explained by my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for War. A good deal of labour has been expended by him upon the organisation of that invaluable body, and assistance has been rendered in its formation by some of the leading financial countries of the world. Restrictions, impediments, unfair conditions in the way of trade were to be found everywhere. It is one of the unfortunate results of the War—of a war which demonstrated the power of international good will almost more than any other events in the history of the world—that it should have ended in an abnormal development of a narrow, selfish and blind nationalism. You found it in every direction—in the Customs in restrictions upon trade, in restrictions upon transport—transport, organised in order to develop international trade, used for the purpose of preventing international trade. It is

    1453
    not merely the amount of the tariff, but the fluctuations of the tariff, the uncertainty of the tariff, but human ingenuity exhausted, in order to make trade between nations as difficult as possible.
    That is the. condition which we found on the Continent of Europe, and I am very hopeful that the reports of the various Commissions, upon which most of these nations were represented and collaborated, will have the effect of producing a great improvement in some of these unfortunate conditions. Although peace has been established in Europe, it is quite clear that the. War atmosphere, to a certain extent, remains. There is a good deal that I should like to say about that, but for the moment I shall postpone it. There was commercial war, transport war, Customs war, diplomatic war, propapandist war, war of armaments, and even war of the marching and counter-marching of armies. An hon. Member opposite, by a question which he put, seems to think that that has no foundation in fact. I wish it had not. As a matter of fact, during the time that the Conference was sitting there were troops marching towards frontiers in very considerable numbers. There was clearly in Europe an atmosphere of international suspicion and pending conflict.

    PROBLEM OF RUSSIA.
    The problem which naturally occupied most of the attention of the delegations, and the one which excited most controversy was the problem of Russia. I should like to tell the Members of the Committee how the problem presented itself to us there, and I think it is essential that I should state the facts, without reference to their particular bearing upon any conclusions which either Members or I may draw from them. Some may draw one set of conclusions, and others may draw a different set of conclusions. My business is to state the facts as they appeared to us at Genoa, and I shall do so quite frankly and quite fearlessly, because, unless we get to the realities of the European situation, we shall never clear up that situation.
    There sat around that table the representatives of 34 nations. Over there sat the Russian delegation, representing more human poverty, wretchedness, desolation, hunger, pestilence, horror, and
    1454
    despair than all the other nations represented round the table. That was the first fact to realise. The other fact was this, that without the assistance of the other nations, it was hopeless for Russia, whatever its Government, to extricate itself from that pit of squalid misery. The Russian people are a gallant people, a loyal people, a patient people, a people capable of greater heights of unselfish devotion than almost any race in the world, as they demonstrated during the first two or three years of the Great War, when, more particularly on one occasion, they sacrificed themselves, in order to save the Allies, but also a people accustomed for generations to obey ruthless and relentless autocracy, and a people who, under the lash of despair, could be very formidable to their neighbours.
    There—it was no use questioning it—sat the men who represent the unchallenged masters for the time being of the fate of that formidable, but very distressed people. The millions of Russia could only be dealt with through them. They could only be brought into contact with the outside world through them. They could only be rescued from hunger and death through them. The treasures of Russia could not be unlocked to the outside world except through them. Peace or war with Russia could only be made through them, and whether Russia marched forward or retreated, whether the 1,500,000 she has under arms marched to-day, and whether the 4,000,000 she has in the background in reserve would march to-morrow is a question whether they obey them or not. That was the first fact that you had to get well into your mind before you began with the business of Russia.

    THREE ALTERNATIVES.
    There were three alternatives in dealing with the situation with which we were all confronted. It was not a question of which of the three we would prefer. It was a question of which of the three was possible. There was, first of all, the course which had been tried before, and had failed, of using force. That, no one suggested at Genoa, whatever their hostility to the present Government. The other was to leave Russia to her fate until she had a more benevolent and acceptable demeanour. The third was that which I described to the House the last time as the Pitt policy, the policy of Mr. Pitt

    1455
    —the policy that abhorrence of the principles and conduct of a Government should not preclude relations with it which would enable you to deal with the people under its sway. With regard to the first, I dismiss it. No one discussed it, no one suggested it. I come to the second which we have in our mind, and which we may be driven to adopt, and that is, that you should leave Russia alone to her fate. Let us examine that. No one put it forward at Genoa, and if I examine it now, it is only because it is the only possibility left.
    But I want the House of Commons and the country to realise what it means, after the facts which came to our knowledge at Genoa. If you leave Russia to its fate, assuming this Government goes, what next? It is either a question of a more extreme communist organisation, or the possibility of a militarist organisation. Would a hungry Russia sit quietly whilst her children are dying? That is not the experience of the past. Is anyone ready to ensure the peace of Europe whilst that policy is maturing? There has been a very great development of insurance recently in this country, but I should like to see a journal which would ensure Europe against the risks of that policy for a single year.

    RUSSO-GERMAN AGREEMENT A MISTAKE.
    Now I come to a flash of light, which the Conference itself cast upon the sinister possibilities of leaving this question alone. I am referring to the Russo-German Agreement. I am not going to discuss it on its merits. I think it was a great error in judgment, but what I have to say on that subject. I have already said, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat it. It was a mistake, undoubtedly for Germany, but that is not, the aspect of it which I want to bring to the notice of the House of Commons. I am not going to dwell upon the silly forgeries of military conventions which take no one in. It is not necessary. The effect of that agreement is in itself a. portent. Let hon. Members consider for a moment what the agreement means. Here you have two of the greatest nations in the world, whether you regard territory, population, or potential power and resource, both out of favour, each having done something which has discredited them with the other nations of
    1456
    the world., not quite received into the full society of nations, peace signed, a nominal equality, but there was a sense of the superior nation and the inferior nation—the nation that sat above the salt, and the nation that sat below it. These are the fundamental facts. There may be good reasons in both cases. It is the sort of society treatment of persons who behave discreditably. You felt that in the Conference, and they felt it together. There was a community of misfortune. There was a community of debasement. There was a community of what they regarded as male fides. There was a difficulty as to getting them on to Commissions. Pariahs are more gregarious than paragons, who have a sense that they do not require society, but, those on whom discredit falls want society and friendship. This may ripen into a fierce friendship.
    What does that mean? I want the House to understand thoroughly its possibilities. Germany is disarmed and if necessary, you could disarm her still more. I will not say you could take every gun away—you find that difficulty in Ireland—but you could take most. You could render her perfectly impotent, but there is one thing you cannot do, and that is to prevent the re-arming of Russia if the nations are driven to despair. Germany cannot re-equip Russia economically. She has not the capital. It needs the West. That is not the case with armaments, where you have every natural resource in one country, and every technical skill in the other. It is necessary that we should look at all the possibilities of the situation, and I hope the warning I have given to-day may not be quoted a few years hence. It is my sincere hope that no occasion will ever arise which will make it necessary to go back, and refer to the warning which I uttered as to the danger of the possibilities of that situation. The average man cannot be excited to hope or fear by the possibility of something happening years hence. It is the business of statesmen to look ahead. That. is why I am appealing to the House of Commons, which has responsibility on behalf of a great nation and a great Empire—a responsibility not merely for that Empire, but a responsibility which extends to the whole of Europe, to think as to the dangers lurking in this situation, and to provide against them.

    ARRANGEMENT WITH RUSSIA NECESSARY.
    The British Empire Delegation met together to consult upon the whole of these facts, and I must say one word about that. You had the representatives of Canada, Australia, Africa, New 'Zealand, and India. They came into our consultations. There was not a step of any kind taken without previous consultation. The action we took had their unanimous support, and was arrived at after the guidance which they gave us. They came to the same conclusion as we did—that it was necessary, in the interests of the peace of the world, whatever we thought about the Soviet Government—and let me say at once we had no difference of opinion about that. But it is not my business to tell the House of Commons what was that view. It is the Government of another country. Had it been the Government of this country, I know what would have been said. But they came to the same conclusion as we did—that, in the interest of the peace of the world, some arrangement with Russia was necessary in order to save the misery in Russia itself, necessary in order to enable Russia to make her contribution to the needs of the world, necessary to enable Russia to help in the swelling of that volume of trade upon which so many millions of people depend for their daily bread, necessary in order to give a sense of stability, necessary, above all, in order to avert those evils which lurk in die future if nothing be done to unravel this tangle of misunderstanding. For that reason the British Empire Delegation—all of us—gave the whole of our strength and our minds, day after day, to fight the battle of the peace of the world.
    Now I come to the practical difficulty we experienced in dealing with the Russian problem. Russia needed goods and customers for her produce in the future. We needed produce and customers for the goods that Russia needed for her development. It seemed very simple. There was her need, here was our supply. [Interruption.] I do not think I am Concealing a single fact, whichever way it goes, in the House of Commons. Therefore it seemed perfectly simple. There was a seller, and here was a buyer. And yet, when you came to deal with it, you found a chasm, deep, wide, impassable, between the man who needed this and the man who could supply it, and the man
    1458
    on the other hand who needed this and the man on the other side who could supply it—a chasm rent by the revolution between the old and the new. The first question was, "Could that chasm be filled up?' We said, "No, for a generation." The next question is, "Can it be bridged? "That was our problem, and a great engineering problem, because you had to find foundations for the piers of your bridge in a shallow and shifting channel of mud and quicksands. Without that bridge, there is no intercourse between those 120,000,000 of brave, gallant, hardworking people, who are in misery, and Europe, which needs them, and is ready to help them.
    How did this difficulty arise, or, rather, what concrete form did it take? Revolutions on a great scale always carry in their train confiscation of property, and, I am sorry to say, confiscation without compensation. It was our experience in England. We had a religious revolution, which was a source of so many calamities. There was the French Revolution, which was accompanied by a wholesale confiscation of the land of France, without compensation. In fact the conservatism of France to-day is rooted in confiscation. [HON. MEMBERS: "And of this country."] I want to state the whole problem. In addition to that, there is another feature of revolution, and that is the repudiation of pre-revolutionary obligations. That was the position, but there is this difference: France created a system of peasant proprietorship without compensation, but she was not seeking credits from the world. Russia, with her repudiation, Russia with her confiscation, is coming to the very people whose claims she refuses to pay, and whose property she has confiscated, and she says: "Lend me more" They are practically asking for credits from these same people, and they can only get it on the conditions which have been laid down—the restoration of the confidence upon which credit is based. The Russian leaders quite realise this. Whatever they may be, they are men of exceptional ability, and they are men with a knowledge of the outside world. However much they communicate that knowledge to their followers, they certainly know it for themselves. In spite of what some people have said, they know that they are not going to get credit in the West upon the basis of confiscation and repudiation of debt. They also know that

    1459
    Russia can never be restored until she gets credit. That is the position they took.
    We had at the beginning of the Conference a close examination of the problem, in a two-days' conversation. Representatives of France, Belgium, Italy, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and myself, had frank and very searching conversations with the leaders of Soviet Russia. I will state to the House the position which they took up, and the proposals which were put before them in those conversations. They said: "The revolution is a break with the past, a break with the methods of the past, with the traditions of the past, with the obligations of the past. But we quite realise that Russia cannot be restored economically without the help of systems which are different from our own, and systems with which we are at war "—as they put it, "the capitalistic system. "They said: "We also know that we cannot get the help of the capitalistic system except upon conditions, and, although we do not abandon any of our principles, we realise that we cannot get the assistance required unless we make terms with the capitalists."
    That, roughly, is the, position they took up. With regard to debts, with regard to money which had been advanced to Russia before the Revolution, they were prepared to acknowledge those debts. I will come to the question of property, which presented the greatest difficulty of all, later on. They were prepared to make arrangements for repayment. What they said was this: "To ask us now to pay "—I forget what the amount is, but it is a very considerable sum—" or even to pay the interest upon it, is to ask us for something that it would be quite impossible either for us or for anybody to pay. We should be entering into an obligation which we could not discharge, and until Russia is restored economically we can pay nothing. "That is quite true. Therefore they said: "The obligations which we enter into will depend upon the assistance which you give us."
    This country has been in the habit of dealing in the past with defaulting States, but it has always been a condition, whenever a defaulting State comes for further
    1460
    credits, that they should acknowledge their old debts. There has always been a wiping out of past interest, a postponement of interest in the future, and sometimes a writing down of the capital amount as a condition of further assistance. That was the proposition they made there. They said: "Before we can tell you what moratorium we should require, and how we can repay, we must know first of all what you are prepared to do, in order to put Russia on a sound economic basis by helping her with credits. "There was a basis for a business discussion. There was no challenge of principle at all. It was purely a business discussion.

    SOVIETS AND PROPERTY CLAUSE.
    The first challenge of principle came in regard to the claim put forward by the Soviet Government for compensation for ruin wrought in the civil war. They said: "Most of the smashing of property in Russia was done by you." I am putting simply the proposition which they submitted. They said that the damage was done by Denikin, Koltchak and Wrangel's intervention, and they put forward a claim in a certain document. The House will get a copy of it by and by. It is a very interesting document. It is for a trifling £5,000,00,000 sterling, which is said to have been the damage done in these various operations. We had to tell them "We cannot acknowledge that, under any circumstances." Historically, it is an unsound proposition, because in revolutions assistance has been given in the past by other countries to one or other of the parties. Assistance was given by France to the Royalist party in our Civil War, and, undoubtedly, the assistance that was given by France kept them going much longer than would otherwise have been the case. Therefore, there might have been a bill for reparations against France. Instead of that, I think, Cromwell made friends with France as soon as he could get the opportunity. On the other hand, we gave every assistance to the anti-revolutionary party in France, and I have never heard of France putting in a bill for reparations against the British Ministry of that date. The Russian claim in this respect was one that we could not acknowledge.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Alabama.
    The PRIME MINISTER: We were prepared to take into account the fact that Russia was damaged by the civil war, and the effect of the destruction which civil war had wrought in their territory, that that is a question which a creditor is not merely entitled to take into account, but is bound to take into account, when he is considering what payment he can expect from a debtor. No doubt hon. Members have seen the document of the 15th April. It is a very important document, because it represents the first approach between the two parties. First of all, we said that we could not accept any liability, but we were willing, in view of the serious economic condition of Russia, to write down the claims for money advanced by Governments during the War. That was agreed to by France, Belgium, Italy and ourselves. But we could not accept any claim to be put against the money advanced by any nationals, by any individuals, to Russia, or acknowledge any counter claim to be put in its place in regard to damage done to property, or to property which was withdrawn from Russia. That was the proposition we put forward. There was a letter from the Russian Delegation which was not wholly satisfactory, but the powers came to the conclusion that it was good enough for us to go on with the discussion. That was the position at that date.
    As I have already stated, when you come to the question of debts there is no insuperable question of loans to Russia in the past, and no insuperable question of principle which divides the parties. But when you came to property, the division was a much more serious one. I hope the Members of the House have got the Cannes Resolutions. The position of the European powers is very clearly stated in those Resolutions, and that statement of the case of Europe against the Soviet Government was never assailed by the Russians during the whole proceedings. They accepted the Cannes Resolutions. The first Resolution acknowledges the sovereign right of a State to do what it likes with property within its own territory. That was done in Czecho-Slovakia and Roumania. Property was transferred there with a minimum of compensation. We have had complaints from our nationals. We have never been able to interfere, because the sovereign
    1462
    rights of these communities were involved. But in Section 3 we say that, although a country has a right to do what it chooses with the property inside its own jurisdiction, still, if it is seeking credits from the rest of the world, it must either restore property or give compensation.
    The powers were in complete agreement upon this. I will tell you where there was a slight disagreement, because a great deal has been made out of it. Our claim in respect of property was framed in the first instance by three of the ablest jurists in Europe. One is Mons. Fromgeot, a very able French jurist. Another is Sir Cecil Hurst, one of our most distinguished jurists. The other represents Belgium, and is a most able jurist and, in addition to that, a great banker. Those were the three men who drafted what became known as Clause 7 in respect of property, and the British Empire Delegation accepted their draft. It came before the Political Commission. I want the House of Commons to get these facts. The delegates of France accepted that draft, which was just as much theirs as ours, with the addition of one Amendment, which we thought was an improvement and accepted. There was, therefore, no difference of opinion between France and ourselves upon the Property Clause which is embodied in our Memorandum. Belgium took a different view. The Belgian jurist had helped to draft the Clause. The Belgian representative in the Conference refused to accept it. His view was the view expressed in the Cannes Resolution—restoration or compensation, which is the principle of every civilized Government. If a Government take land or property away it must compensate, but it has the full right to do that. The Belgian position was that the property must be restored if it were materially possible. That is not the Cannes Resolution. That was the only difference. France acted with Belgium afterwards—not in agreement, because they had already accepted the draft—but rather out of general sympathy with Belgium. But the whole of the Conference accepted the draft which was prepared by the British, French and Belgian jurists.
    I thought it necessary to explain that to the House. Fortunately nothing arises out of it, because the Russian Delegation did not accept that document. They put

    1463
    forward a document which is known as the document of 11th May. There they went back a little upon their previous decision. In order to realise why they did so, it is necessary to state one or two facts, because the House cannot judge the Russian situation without understanding what that means. Between the date of the Villa d'Albertis conversation and the 11th May, the 1st of May intervened. Hon. Members opposite know what that means. It is not very easy to negotiate immediately after 1st May, and the same thing happened in Russia. There is no doubt that there has been a great struggle there between the practical statesman of the Soviet system and the extreme theorists. For some time the more moderate and practical men were on top. Then came the struggle of the 1st of May. There were great demonstrations in Russia, great demands that there should be no surrender, and that was undoubtedly reflected in the action of the Soviet Delegation.
    It is a great mistake to imagine that autocratic Governments are altogether free from the influence of public opinion. There is only one public opinion in Russia, and that is not the public opinion of the vast masses of the people. Ninety-five per cent. of the people are indifferent or hostile to this system. The only opinion there that matters is the opinion of the workmen in the towns, who represent less than 1 per cent. of the whole population. But the Soviet system and its power are based upon them. It is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy, and this talk about nationalisation in Russia is all humbug. When they talk about the great principles of the Revolution 95 per cent. of the property in Russia is land. Nominally they have nationalised it. Let them try to take it back. It is as much a peasant proprietary as if the title had been written out, and they know that. I told them so, and they could not challenge it. And they say, "We cannot give up the great sacred principles of the Revolution. "The fact is that the vast majority of the Russian people are more individualists than the people of this country, and you have that paradox of a Communist Government speaking in the name of an individualist population. And that communism is what is known as "export beer" It was not really in
    1464
    Russia itself. In the towns you have got it, but you get it less and less in the towns than it was before. Therefore the difficulty is not a difficulty in practice. It is a difficulty in principle.
    You have got theorists there coming into being. Whenever business is being discussed, they write documents asking for credits, most of which is taken up with a defence of the doctrine of repudiation. You have to realise it. Many among them realise it now, and know what a foolish document that of 11th May was. It was so foolish a document that it could only have been written by a very clever man. If they want credits they must get them where credits are. Suppose they came to float a loan in England, held a meeting in the Cannon Street Hotel, and Mr. Tchitcherin delivered an eloquent exposition of the doctrines of the revolution by way of commending the loan, and said that "the basis of all revolutionary principles is the repudiation of debts, and the confiscation of property. "I have no doubt that he would illustrate it with a wealth of historical allusion which only he himself could command, but the more powerful the argument, the less he would convince: and at the end of it he might have a vote of thanks proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy—
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Seconded by you.
    The PRIME MINISTER:—seconded by Mr. George Lansbury, and that Resolution of thanks is the only thing that he would take away in his pocket. These theorists cannot realise the difference between a logical proposition and a business one. There is all the difference in the world. Men in business know. Therefore, they have got to realise that they will not get credits for their business until they command the confidence of the only people who are in a position to give them those credits. Until then, they will get nothing from them. I should like to ask how many trade unions would have invested their funds on the strength of that document? Up to the time they wrote that document, the Russians were discussing business. We had a basis for a business discussion as to amount and moratorium, as to bonds and debts. Then came the 1st of May, when they nailed their flag to that barren fig tree of Com-

    1465
    munism under which multitudes are dying of pestilence. But they were themselves anxious to get away as far as possible from that atmosphere, and to come to a discussion of the practical difficulties. This is what I was informed, and we were all informed—that it was easier to settle these matters in practice than in principle. If you say to them, "You must accept this principle," they say, "No, we cannot; that is a sacred doctrine of the Revolution." But if you say to them, "Well, now, what about that property? Will you restore it?" they say, "Well, that is another matter," and the Hague Conference is to proceed from a different angle. The Cannes Resolutions are accepted as a basis.
    5.0 p.m.
    Then you come to the practical discussion between experts as to what they are really prepared to do. They state that a vast majority of the properties—and most of our difficulties came over property—can be restored. The real reason is, they do not know what to do with them. However, that I did not discover from them. They have not the skill; they have not the knowledge; they have not the workmen; and they are most anxious to hand these over to anyone who knows what to do with them. That is the fact of the matter. Most of the properties, I understand, are in a position to be restored, and are ready to be restored. Then comes the question, what is to be done about the rest? With regard to the rest of the properties, they are prepared to consider compensation in kind of one category or another. I believe they have come nearly to the end of their gold, and what they have is essential to keep the population from starvation. Therefore, payment in gold is something for which we cannot hope. You are dealing with a bankrupt community.
    What they are prepared to do is to discuss the giving of concessions. Where there have been amalgamations by the State of concerns like the Donetz coal mines, they are prepared to give compensation, in the form of shares in the larger combines, to the owners of any particular mines; and with regard to the small minority, which I am sure will be left, they are prepared to give bonds, which I do not think anyone will regard with very much joy. It is a country of infinite natural resources. These are matters
    1466
    which the property owners will consider, and they will do it with the full knowledge, because they are practical men, that they are dealing with concerns which may not for a great many years to come pay 20s. in the £.
    These are the things to be discussed at the Hague. Meanwhile, there will also be the question of what credits will he available. They need money for railways, for ports, for machinery, for agricultural implements, for the re-equipment of their factories and mines, and for the clothing of their people, who are in rags. Those questions will have to be considered very carefully at the Hague, in conjunction with the other propositions. I am very hopeful that when we come to an examination of the practical details, something may be achieved.

    DANGER OF EUROPEAN CONFLICTS.
    Meanwhile, we are to consider what is to be done in order to prevent conflicts in Europe. There was real danger. The Red Army at the present moment is an army of 1,450,000 men under arms. On 1st January of last year, they had 5,000,000 men under arms. Since the 1st January the number of men on the frontiers have doubled, according to the reports we have received here. The reports I received at Genoa were of an even more alarming character. One day the Prime Minister of Rumania came to me, and said that a very considerable body of Red troops—I believe he said seven infantry divisions and two cavalry divisions—were massing on the Bessarabian frontier. There has been a considerable increase in the forces on the Polish frontier, and I was told that when the attention of Mr. Tchitcherin was called to it, and he was asked, "Why are you massing troops on my frontier?" the reply of Mr. Tchitcherin was, "Because you are massing troops on your frontier." The same thing applies to other parts of the Russian Soviet territory. Whether the troops are there for attack or de-fence does not altogether remove apprehension, because it is the fears of nations that make conflicts. Russia may be afraid of attack from Rumania or Poland, or Poland and Rumania may be afraid of attack from Russia. These fears make conflicts, when troops begin to mass, to increase and to march towards each other.

    TRUCE OF PEACE.
    That was the position in Genoa. The first thing we had to do, if we were to continue the Genoa examination, was to ensure that the peace of Europe should be maintained during that period. That is why we have the Truce of Peace, which embodied a solemn declaration on the part of 34 nations that they would be guilty of no act of aggression against their neighbours during the period of these examinations, nor would they be guilty of any act of aggression against the institutions of each other during that period. I hope that once the sense of security, which comes from a fact of that kind, begins to take root, the fears which cause wars will be dispelled, and that it will end in a real pact of peace.
    When the Hague Conference have examined the propositions which are submitted to them, if they make recommendations, and the Governments take them up, and consider whether they will adopt them, and if they be favourable and acceptable, then I hope there will be a peace which will be permanent. Boundary questions will then he determined, and, for the first time, you will have peace in Europe. There was nothing more striking at the Genoa Conference than the deep, passionate anxiety of the nations represented there to have peace. Whenever there was anything which looked like a rupture, there was an anxiety to prevent it. It is all very well for us here, hundreds of miles away from these things, to feel thankful to have peace, with the sea between us and any trouble. It is a different thing when you look across a passable stream at a country with 1,500,000 revolutionaries under arms and a hungry population behind them. It causes a sense of fear and a sense of insecurity, because each of these countries is a country which has actually seen the marchings of armies within the last six or seven years.

    GREAT RESULTS ALREADY FROM GENOA.
    I am not going to say whether Genoa will ultimately succeed. I believe it has accomplished great things already. You have had 34 nations coming together to discuss their troubles, their difficulties, their disputes and their apprehensions, and making a real effort to arrive at an understanding together. They are nations which had not met before for
    1468
    years, nations which had been in deadly conflict with each other. If Genoa were to fail, the condition of Europe would indeed be tragic. The channels of international trade would become hopelessly clogged by restrictions and difficulties, artificial and otherwise. Commerce would stagnate into poisonous national swamps of insolvency. There would be quarrels, suspicions and feuds between nations, ending—who knows where l—in great conflicts.
    But if Genoa succeed even partially, great things will be accomplished for the peace of Europe. We have already captured positions from which further advances may be made. We have been working on the battlefield, and on the morrow we can advance. We have established a truce of peace between nations which had armies massing against each other, and advancing towards each other. If we can go further, and make an arrangement, by the good will and cooperation of these great nations of Europe, the psychological effect on trade will be immediate and incalculable. It would he like the genial breath of spring on a continent which has been withered by a long and cruel winter. Trade would burst into life and goodwill among nations would flourish. That is why the British Empire Delegation are proud that they took a leading part in upholding and fighting for the high ideals which will ever be associated with the great Conference at Genoa.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, rather late in the day, wise counsels have prevailed, and that we have had an opportunity this afternoon of hearing from his lips and in the first instance the account which the House of Commons has been promised more than once from our chief plenipotentiary, of what did and what did not happen at Genoa. Of all the Conferences that have taken place in Europe —I am not speaking of Washington now —since the Armistice, none was more loudly heralded and more extensively advertised than the Conference of Genoa. A special Vote of Confidence was extracted from the House of Commons to give it exceptional prestige and authority. It was to open a new era. In a phrase which has been used, and I think has been coined since the Conference began, by the Prime Minister himself—one of the

    1469
    most daring adventures even of his soaring rhetoric, the
    "tocsin of peace."
    I congratulate him on the fertility and inventiveness which has brought together two ideas, both hitherto irreconcilable —it is a triumph of rhetoric—
    "the tocsin of peace was to resound through the whole of Europe."
    Another phrase which I believe is also the product of his sojourn in the somewhat rhetorical climate of Italy—
    "the pious aspirations and phrases so common in diplomacy were to be transmuted into facts by the alchemy of action."
    Does he recognise that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.
    Mr. ASQUITH: Unusual modesty on the part of so prolific an author.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.
    Mr. ASQUITH: Well, I saw it in the Press, and I hope he will not disown it, at all events. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Now the Conference is over, and we have received from the Prime Minister an account which we may assume is as full and as satisfactory as the facts will permit, of how far the reality-corresponds with the expectations which were aroused in advance. And I am bound to say, and I listened carefully to his words, the results are depressingly and even distressingly meagre. Everyone upon these Benches—those with whom I politically associate myself—wished well to the Genoa Conference. I have never said one word in disparagement of its objects, which, I think, were admirable, nor a word that could possibly, during the whole conduct of it, hamper or embarrass its procedure. Those objects were objects which we all share, the restoration of the economic life of Europe and the establishment of the relations of all countries on the basis of stable and enduring peace. Those were the objects; what has actually been achieved? The Prime Minister occupied very nearly an hour. I am not complaining at all of that-1 am showing what the distribution of the subject matter of his speech was—in discussing the various evolutions and convolutions of the diplomacy of the Conference in regard to Russia, and the restoration of economic relations—which no one has insisted on more strongly than I have—between
    1470
    Russia and this country and the rest of Europe. What was the sum and substance of the whole thing? The Prime Minister very rightly said he ruled out two alternative courses—first, the application of force to Russia. I wish that had been ruled out long ago. It was tried very expensively and with disastrous or at any rate futile results. He ruled out also, and again I think he is perfectly right, the possible alternative of leaving Russia severely alone. There, again, I wish that at least a year ago we might have done something actively to alleviate the terrible conditions of the people and mitigate the still worse conditions which prevailed in Russia economically. Then he came to the practical conclusion, which seems to have been adopted by our representatives at the Conference, of trying to re-open in a generous and at the same time a businesslike spirit economic relations between Russia and the rest of Europe. He ventured on, I think, some rather dangerous epigrams in the course of that exposition, such as that
    "Confiscation had turned out in history to be sometimes the basis of conservatism."
    His illustrations of that were not confined to France. He also drew them from this country. They included the proceedings of Henry VIII at the time of the Reformation and the dissolution of the monasteries. It was a curious kind of conservatism which that established—the enrichment of half-a-dozen or a dozen great families at the expense of the tillers of the soil and the great masses of the population. Nor do I at all agree, though I do not want to go into historical controversy, with what he said about France. But, at any rate, it is a great encouragement to the Bolshevists and the Soviet Government that they should learn on such high authority that the basis of a conservative society in Russia may be found, and that there is a body of historical precedents to support the view, on a policy of confiscation. That is by the way.
    What is the net result, I ask the Committee, of this long—I do not say too long —exposition, on the part of the Prime Minister, of what the Conference did, or rather what it tried to do and failed to do, in regard to Russia? It very nearly got, as we know, to breaking point, or something approaching breaking point, between the respective positions taken up on the one side by France and Belgium,

    1471
    and on the other side by ourselves, and I imagine practically the whole of the rest of the members of the Conference. That was averted by the unreasonable refusal —I think it was unreasonable—on the part of the representatives of the Soviet Government to do more than offer practically anon, possumus to the suggestions made by the other Powers. Where are we to-day? Have we advanced one single step, as the result of this Conference, towards a regulation, or, I would rather say, a re-opening, of economic relations between Russia and the rest of Europe? All has been relegated to The Hague Conference. The Hague Conference will really start with atabula rasa upon which nothing is written, and with the memory —the rather discouraging memory—behind it that these great people representing thirty-four Powers spent five weeks in Genoa, and when the Conference rose, it was in exactly the same position as when it began.
    The re-opening of relations with Russia was one of the first conditions of a settlement. What is the positive achievement which the Genoa Conference is entitled to claim? It is this pact—I do not know how the word pact has crept into our vocabulary, but let us call it a pact, between the 34 Powers, or whatever number there were—what to do? To refrain from flying at one another's throats for a period which is limited by four months from the expiration of this Conference at The Hague. The Prime Minister used come enthusiastic language on that subject. Let me point out the real facts. Who are the parties to this pact'? Germany is not one. As regards the others, with, I think, no exception, certainly with a perfectly negligible exception, leaving Russia out of account, they were all bound by the Covenant of the League of Nations to a much more solemn and enduring pledge to abstain from aggression on one another, or, indeed, carrying any dispute to the arbitrament of war. What about Russia? The right hon. Gentleman has not referred during the whole of his speech to the fact that before the Genoa Conference opened, and indeed on the eve of the Genoa Conference, there was a meeting held at Riga at which, on the 30th March, an agreement was come to between Esthonia and Latvia—the Baltic States—Poland and Russia. What were
    1472
    the terms of that agreement? They begin by a pious declaration, as all these things do, of a sincere desire for a universal peace. Then they go on to say that with this object they will whole-heartedly support the principle of the limitation of armaments and recognise that to guarantee peace it is necessary that the frontiers of States should be guarded exclusively by the regular troops of the Government whose frontier is being guarded. Was that what the Prime Minister alluded to when he spoke of the terrible spectre of 1,500,000 troops massed, or supposed to be massed, on the Russian frontier in some undescribed locality, under the menace of which the Genoa Conference took its decision. That agreement sets forth that it was indispensable to establish along the frontiers a zone to which only a minimum of armed forces would be admitted. It was a complete agreement between those countries—the Baltic Powers, Poland, and Russia—to abstain from aggression one against the other. The hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin (Major-General Sir C. Townshend)—I see him opposite now—asked a question in this House on this subject on the 11th May, only about a fortnight ago. He asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:
    "Whether he has any official information to the effect that a group of two Russian armies are now being concentrated on the Polish frontier and another group of two Russian armies are also in process of concentration on the Rumanian border, under a project of operations, it is said, from Russian headquarters at Moscow and whether he has any statement to make on the subject."
    The question was answered by the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India as follows—and it must be observed that this is when the Genoa Conference was in full blast:
    "Earl WINTERTON: No official information is available respecting the reported Russian concentration on the Polish and Rumanian frontiers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May. 1922; col. 2361, Vol. 153.]
    Where did, the Prime Minister get his information?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I got it from the Prime Minister of Poland and the Prime Minister of Rumania.
    Mr. ASQUITH: The Prime Minister had that special information, but it was not vouchsafed to the House of Commons. It was only a fortnight ago. I see from

    1473
    the reports of the Genoa Conference itself that on the 17th May both the Prime Minister of Poland and the Prime Minister of Rumania spoke, and there was no suggestion of an attack by Russia then, and a pact was entered into on the 30th March between Poland, Russia, and the Baltic Powers which forbade anything of the kind. How can it be seriously contended that at that time there was any menace of any sort or kind? To sum up what I have got to say, what. is the reason that the Conference has failed? I, for one, certainly—and, I believe, most people—hoped it would have more solid and more fruitful results. I have said so over and over again, and, the right hon. Gentleman cannot quote a single phrase of mine from the time when the Conference was first contemplated throughout the whole progress of it to show that I have not expressed the utmost sympathy with it.
    But what is the real reason for its relative failure to take even a substantial step towards the solution of these great problems? The abstention of America was a very serious matter. I do not want to use provocative or even disputable language, but at any rate I will say that the half-hearted participation of France, whose Prime Minister abstained and was not present at Genoa, was another serious matter. But what was far more serious, and what I will venture with the utmost assurance to predict will wreck all future proceedings of this kind, was that it was precluded in advance from dealing with the real problem of the European economic situation. What is the good of passing these Resolutions, which I see were described, in an unusually dithyrambic mood, by the Secretary of State for War as only comparable to the Pandects of Justinian? What use is there in the world of passing Resolutions of that kind in regard to stabilising exchanges and so forth, until you have dealt with the fundamental problem of adjusting and liquidating reparations and international indebtedness? That lies at the root of the whole European situation. Not even the establishment of better economic relations with Russia, which, after all, from our point of view and from the European point of view, is not by any means the most important factor—what. is the use of all that, so long as you ignore and postpone the one thing on which the real re-establishment of credit, free inter-
    1474
    course and interchange, and the ultimate economic restoration of Europe depend, namely, settling reparations, letting everybody know once and for all how the matter stands, and providing, as I think we ought to provide, in a large and generous spirit for a substantial remission of any claims we ourselves may have made?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Prime Minister, in spite of the limitations which he put upon himself, contrived to say a great deal which will, I hope, meet with general approval, but the Prime Minister announced that he could not say anything on reparations and on our present relations with France, and that necessarily took a great deal of the interest out of his speech, as all the other matters that have been dealt with this afternoon are inseparably connected with these two questions. I think the right hon. Gentleman might make a greater success of these conferences if his Government and the main body of his following genuinely believed more in this method of adjusting the European differences. I think again this afternoon we have had some evidence that the general supporters of the Government are much more aroused and interested in a few political thrusts than at such account as the Prime Minister could give of his six weeks' labours. Peace conferences, if they are to succeed, must be made real in the sense that the main body of the Government's supporters must really believe in them as a method for adjusting the troubles and solving the difficulties which have arisen from what is the first cause of these conferences, namely, the Peace Treaty of Versailles. Genoa clearly is not the end of anything, and I wish I could say it was the beginning of a new plan of dealing with the evils, which by this time are almost old, arising out of that Peace Treaty. If the Conference had been so great a success as some have claimed, I do not think the Prime Minister would have shown any hesitation, hut would have himself hastened to announce the triumph to this House. Three-fourths of his speech were taken up in a description of the situation as it is in Russia economically and politically, and I hope that description will not be lost upon those who heard it, for the economical and political situation in Russia has come more and more during the last half-year to mean much to the whole of Europe, and that is a fact

    1475
    which has been seen more clearly since Russia arranged her political alliance with Germany recently.
    I informed the Prime Minister before he went to Genoa that this method of conference as a settlement of international differences is an old Labour method, and our criticism of it in this instance has been that it cannot succeed until the program is ample enough to allow those who attend these conferences to deal with the big outstanding questions of substance and no longer limit themselves to matters of secondary importance. It is not that we are beginning conferences too early. Any limitation and handicap on those engaged in these conferences is that they have begun too late. For too long we tried the secret discussions between those who were described, I think, as the Big Four. We kept in being a body which called itself the Supreme Council, and frequently those men met together in different parts of Europe, all in the spirit of showing Germany how she should be kept in her place, and of showing Russia how foolish in her own interests she had been. The Prime Minister deserves credit for his resourceful efforts in relation to Genoa, and for holding on as he did in the hope of making his plan successful at a time when it appeared to many that there was no hope whatever of any good result being found. Only the persistence of the Prime Minister saved the Genoa Conference in the first week, but even the Prime Minister could not keep alive the spirit of real confidence, which in that week had been killed. That spirit of real confidence might have been assured if open and repeated efforts had been made beforehand in relation to the various subjects which had to be dealt with. At Cannes, I remember the Prime Minister stated that it was advisable that preliminary understandings and discussions as to items on the Agenda should be undertaken and reached between this country and France. Clearly now that is an essential course, if any body of delegates is to bring back what is worth having from any one of these signatories.
    I do not know when we are to discuss frankly and fully in this House relations with France. We are to have some opportunity, I understand, on Tuesday, but I doubt whether then a policy, which will show France the loss involved in the
    1476
    policy pursued, will be courageously announced to the country. I do not blame France for her attitude. We are largely to blame for it. We granted to France all the apparent, if illusory, gains and benefits of the Treaty of Versailles, and, naturally, the French Government and the French Prime Minister now turn round and say, "All that we ask for is embodied in that Treaty." The question for us is, Have we reached a stage where boldly we must say that we have guaranteed more than we can deliver; that we have built up hopes and expectations in France which cannot be realised? We cannot rid ourselves, for instance, of the consequences of the Election of 1918, and we can say little for a Peace Treaty which has already resulted in producing a Europe dominated more by armies and the war spirit now than even in 1914. Another War Treaty is the name that should be given to that document, instead of a Peace Treaty, for the lands of Europe are now in more warlike mind, and they are training larger numbers of men to feats of arms than in the year before the War. A time of armed peace, even although it may last for years, is only a period between two wars, and that will not do. That is the old sort of arrangement between nations which tended to ruin before the Great War broke out, and, therefore, a new policy must come from these Conferences, or they will not be worth having. Important as efforts are to balance exchanges, right our currencies, improve conditions of transport, the ablest men will not succeed in these lesser matters until primary questions of international policy have been settled. The Labour view, then, is that these conferences must be held, because the Treaties and the so-called settlements embody numerous crimes and blunders in international relationships. It cannot be said that Labour has been guilty of any of them. Indeed, I assert that these will be rectified by the use of straightforwardness in diplomacy and openness in discussion, and in wisdom of action, which, for long, we have advised our statesmen to follow. So that the Prime Minister can depend upon it, that if he will take steps to make it work well, the method itself, as an alternative to friction, to conflict, to jealousy and war, will have such approval as can be given it on this side of the House.

    1477
    One little by-product of the gathering at Genoa was only casually alluded to by the Prime Minister. If we are not improving our own alliances, or producing a world alliance such as we are wishful to see, we are at least provoking a sectional alliance in other quarters. The agreement between Russia and Germany relates, it is said, only to matters of mutual debts and economic interests. Whatever it covers, as an alliance in itself it ought not to surprise us. The victorious allied nations cannot claim to monopolise alliances, and they ought not to be surprised if others follow their example. It is long since it was said from this side of the House that two great countries like Russia and Germany, great in population and territory, could not be kept in a position of subjection from the standpoint of diplomatic treatment, or the standpoint of trade and general relations, and it is not therefore surprising that these outcasts have formed a friendship. I am glad to have so fully and frankly the admission of the Prime Minister as to the inevitability of an alliance of a sectional character being born out of any other alliance of a sectional character. Indeed, if this agreement between Russia and Germany has any military significance, that should only all the more produce on our own part some improvement in our international policy.
    We have a choice of two paths in the government of Europe in the future. One is the path of government in the spirit of militarism: the other is the path of government which will tend to disarmament, and to that real state of peace for which millions fought, throughout the years of the Great War. We may not, and, indeed, we do not, in some instances particularly, like all our neighbours overseas, but, as a business and trading nation, if we are not to consider the matter from any other standpoint, we have got to live with them and work with them, and if we do not live on a footing of friendship, both with Germany and Russia, those two countries, with their immense populations, will give to Europe, in due course, far more trouble than Europe will find it easy to deal with. It was easy for anyone three years ago, and particularly two years ago, to foresee the stage which would be reached by these two countries, and the re-formation of those alliances and rings. I do not think I have heard the Prime
    1478
    Minister speak before to-day in terms of such sustained sympathy and understanding of the Russian situation. The eloquent and human picture he painted contrasts strangely with the chilling reception given to those who, only a few months ago in this House, appealed for some little national assistance from our resources for the starving people of Russia. An act of official and national kindness of that nature would have gone further to touch, even the heart of a Bolshevist, than any outstretched hand to establish diplomatic relations. We have behaved in a soulless and niggardly manner on this great. human subject, and if the Prime Minister's better touches of to-day indicate any improvement in our relations with Russia, I think it may be said there is yet in our time an opportunity to make good the remissness and the shortcomings shown when in this House repeated appeals were made to commit one of the best and most far-reaching acts that could stand to the credit of any Government.
    The Prime Minister referred at length to the question of debts. We on this side give no support to Russia in any general repudiation of debt which honourably and fairly she should admit. That does not mean we condemn Russia for repudiation of some of the items which, it is said, she ought to pay, but, on the general question of repudiation, is it not clear—indeed, we have had it officially from the Prime Minister to-day—that we are not beyond repudiating what is clearly an obligation. I put it to the Prime Minister that when, by the might of military aid, by the supply of material, by the substantial and moral assistance which we gave to those ventures of invasion in Russian territory, surely we incurred some obligation. There was enormous damage to Russian life and property. If we begin to repudiate obligations which, clearly, we have incurred, and if we tell the Russian Government that we shall make no acknowledgment of the cost of the destruction which, to some extent, we caused, is that not sufficient to invite counter-repudiations from the Russian side? I think, then, the better policy will be to put no further limits, or limit of any kind, to our recognition of the Russian Government. That Government, like all others, will, in due course, find its level. It will last just as long as the majority of the Russian people care to

    1479
    tolerate it, or resort to some effective measures to upset it, and, in the meantime, it is our business to deal with whatever Government we have. In every country a large section of the people at any time may have a good reason for not recognising their Government. That way anarchy lies. Whatever the Government be for the time being, it is the Government, and we have already paid dearly for foolishly persisting in refusing officially to deal with the Russian people, and through their appointed and accredited representatives.
    6.0 p.m.
    As I understand the Russian case, it is this: Recognition first then discussion of obligations, debts, and so on. In such discussion there may be a margin large enough for arrangements mutually satisfactory. I am certain that, at any rate, they would be mutually beneficial to the two parties concerned. The spirit in which we would have these conferences proceed is that of seeing that security for the various countries which take part in them cannot be found in military alliances, but can only be found under the terms of the covenant of the League of Nations. That covenant, observed and carried out, would forge those real links of friendship which were spoken so freely about, but which I am certain is not sufficiently deep a matter in our hearts to make that peace an enduring thing.
    What was the good of putting into the forefront of the Peace Treaty all these professions for maintaining the peace of Europe and the world, and then maintaining such an attitude as for years we have done towards Germany and Russia? I am not sure, indeed, that Germany understands that she is desired or expected to come into the League of Nations. I cannot recall any definite pronouncement which may be described as an invitation to Germany to come into the League of Nations. It is more likely that people would consider an invitation after it had been received. An alliance between this country and any one country or any other few countries would, in due course, produce the rival alliances and the rings which existed before the War, and therefore swing the world back to that point of great danger. It is upon the plan I have outlined that the Prime Minister must proceed if further good is to be done at The Hague
    1480
    than was done at Genoa. I do not say that Genoa has been altogether without result, but for the economic and financial effects of the work at Genoa we shall have to await the outcome of the Commissions: we shall have to watch the, work in respect to giving effect to what these Commissions have decided. Herein I would like the Prime Minister, in respect to these decisions of the Committees or Sub-committees upon currencies, finance, and transport, to see that the Commissions are kept in being, and that these decisions are more than pious resolutions. It will not do to pass them and to send them to the respective countries through the Press and then take no further action upon them. There has been too much of that, with very little effect, for the last few years. If at Genoa anything like a workable plan was reached the plan should be made to work by industrious attention to every possibility that might be regarded. We have got from Genoa something like a pledge of non-aggression for at least a period of eight months—though I do not know why such a term was fixed for the duration of this state of non-aggression.
    We have certainly a little closer relations with our good friend and ally Italy. These things are not insignificant in themselves, but they are in relation to the great purpose for which the Genoa Conference was held. We may differ materially from the Prime Minister on many points in relation to these Conferences, but we cannot but admire the systematic and thorough manner in which he struggled to make the Conference effective. I hope, therefore, particularly in relation to Russia, he will not cease to do his best to arrange terms with that country. While it is true that she must depend for her rebuilding upon both the credit and the material of the outside world, she has such vast internal resources that her present level of living should not last a long time. I am not sure that she has such a spirit and that she has been so tested in tasks and endurance that she will not easily yield. If so, would it not be better that the House of Commons should favour an arrangement if it possibly can be made. It is true that Russia has no need of this country or of the other countries of the world, but we are in need of the great opportunities offered by Russian trade. Germany is not blind to these great trade opportunities, and the business men in

    1481
    this House are doing damage to their own trade interests, as I think, in some cases because of their stupid political attitude towards Russia. So we await this account of the economic and other labours of the members of the delegation. We also await some information from the Prime Minister as to further efforts to get from the main body of his followers real, full, genuine proof of the support of this new policy of so settling European tangles and quarrels by means of harmonious conferences.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: In rising to speak on the subject of the Genoa Conference, I may give as my reason for occupying for a few minutes the time of the Committee the fact that I, as President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, was asked, along with Colonel Armstrong, President of the Federation of British Industries, to join the British Delegation at Genoa in a consultative capacity. Although we were not there in our official capacity, the compliment was paid to us of considering that we represented in some degree the commercial opinion of this country, and were able to point out how the problems of international trade would be viewed by the members of the British community at home. It is, therefore, from this standpoint that I should like to speak, and I would first deal with what, in my opinion, are some of the tangible results of the Conference. There are some who claim that there have been no tangible results, and that the Resolutions are merely words. I entirely disagree from that, and I shall tell hon. Members why.
    In the first place, you have a transport question. It is needless for me to dwell on it. Every one of us here knows and fully realises that not only Central Europe, but Eastern Europe is suffering severely from the lack of transportation facilities between the points of production and the points of consumption. I admit that there was not at Genoa a magician's wand by which worn-out rolling stock and war-broken permanent way could be renovated in an instant, but if there was no magic there was practical action, and this great problem was turned over to the competent engineering experts of the different nations. The political difficulties which would beset the expert's attempt to deal with it in his private capacity have been smoothed over by the
    1482
    meetings at Genoa, and those who undertake the re-organisation will do so with the full approval and assistance of the various Governments concerned. In a similar manner the financial problem has been placed in a new light. The principles on which national finance must be based have been set out in that remarkable document, the Report of the Financial Sub-Commission. All the points suggested the re-assertion of the belief in the gold standard and the proposed steps for fixing the gold value of the monetary unit, an International Conference to centralise and co-ordinate the demands for gold, and a meeting of the central banks to regulate credit policy are not merely pious assurances of financial goodwill, but lay down a line along which the financial experts of the various countries may work, secure in the belief that their efforts will not be hampered by the interference of Ministers of Finance anxious to balance their budgets with debased currency.
    On the points with which I have just dealt I think most hon. Members of this House will find little to cavil at. I do not, however, wish to appear to shirk any of the difficulties with which a supporter of the Genoa policy is commonly supposed to be faced. These difficulties may be summed up in the word, Russia! I maintain as strongly to-day as I did in this House on 3rd April that, in the present state of unemployment in this country, trade with every possible customer is absolutely essential to national prosperity. I would ask those who belittle the opportunities which Russian trade present to consider the new problem which is presented by a country in resurrection from such terrible death-throes. There, new markets are to be found every day, and with the fall of an old regime there is also the fall of some of the old restrictions which before the War were often placed in the way of Russian trade. With the needs of the country so much greater and its resources so infinite it is impossible to set analogous limits on its trade potentialities.
    On the other hand, I maintain with equal firmness that it is useless to ask British traders to invest their money in a country in which there is not the slightest security for the preservation of their trading effects, and this brings me to consider the practical point with which

    1483
    the business man who had interests in Russia before the War is faced when he looks to re-starting his business. We recognise that the Russian people have the right to change their laws. They have the right to say, "Freehold land shall no longer exist in our country, but land shall be used on leases and concessions from the State." They have a perfect right to say that with regard to the future. They have no right to repudiate the obligations undertaken by the Russian Governments of the past Where freehold land has been owned by foreigners in times past it must be returned to them, or compensation given for its condemnation. I do not mean to suggest that where the Russian Government has developed land that it has acquired that the land should be returned to its old owner in this state. That is obviously a point for arbitration, so that the benefit conferred on the land by its new ownership may be deducted from the compensation to be paid to its old owner. The main principle, however, of repudiation is one which we cannot for the moment admit. I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that the longer we delay in re-establishing contact with Russia the less becomes the chance of saving our very considerable property and investments in Russia.
    So much for particular problems of the Conference. I would like to make a few remarks, for only a few moments, on the more general aspects of the case. In the first place, although science and the daily Press have been trying to convince us for a long time how small the world has become, it is extraordinary how difficult it is not merely for the average mortal but for the average Minister to realise how complete is its interdependence. I think that one of the greatest results of Genoa is that it has driven this lesson home in a way that few things could do. The discussion in the Economic Commission brought this home to all countries, and I believe the result of the resolutions which were adopted will provide an easier path for international trade in the future. When the representatives of so many nations sit round the council table they begin to see in an entirely new light problems which they thought were as remote from themselves as the most academic disputes. New judgments of world condi-
    1484
    tions are formed, and, at the same time, new judgments of men. Among the latter one stood clear. Everyone realised more than ever before how great was the influence of our own Prime Minister in this struggle for European peace and economic recuperation. I cannot sit down without paying my tribute to the work he and his colleagues have done, for I firmly believe that the historian of the future will find in Genoa a great beginning in the restoration of a broken world.
    Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    Like the Prime Minister, the hon. Member who has just sat down devoted a large part of his speech to telling us what might have taken place at Genoa, but not in fact what did take place. Therefore, I was not able to derive any more hope from the hon. Member's speech than I did from that made by the Prime Minister. I have risen for the purpose of moving a reduction in the Foreign Office Vote. It is one of the anomalies of this House that because we are not agreed about the Genoa Conference, one has to move a reduction in this Vote when, as a matter of fact, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his Department have had nothing whatever to do with Genoa at all. As far as I am aware, no permanent official in the Foreign Office was invited to be present at Genoa. The Foreign Minister was not there, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office were not there. No ambassadors were there, and I believe the only person of any prominence from the. Foreign Office was the legal adviser.
    I think that is an important fact to note when we realise what the Conference was called for. The Prime Minister has a tendency to place people without expert knowledge in charge of important affairs. When he wanted to solve the housing problem he put a doctor in charge of it. When during the War he had to tackle very difficult financial problems in America, he took the Lord Chief Justice, but, up till now, they have always had the advice of the experts of the Departments concerned. On the present occasion, however, the right hon. Gentleman chose certain of his colleagues and himself, and they took on this job apparently unaided by experts, relying on the help of a tame

    1485
    Press, and the formation of a sort of international rotary luncheon club.
    He took out the Secretary of State for War, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Lord Chancellor. All these right hon. Gentlemen were no doubt charming companions, but they cannot, I think, pose as experts in foreign affairs and they are not linguists. On a great occasion like this, when you are dealing with 34 nations, all with different points of view, it seems to me to be essential that you should have someone representing you who is conversant with some of the languages of the other nations, or, at any rate, they should have the assistance of the very highly qualified staff which we keep at the Foreign Office. Indeed I find myself in agreement with the Leader of the House, who, speaking this week at a dinner in honour of M. Cambon, said:
    "I am not sure, M. Cambon, that you and I do not belong to a generation that has passed, or is passing, away. I have a suspicion that you still like the old diplomacy, with its reticence, its silence, its careful avoidance of the limelight and the Press. So do I."
    When I read those words the Leader of the House reminded me of the middle-aged lady who went to a modern dance, and having condemned as shocking the costumes and the steps, was so attracted by them that she became a frequenter of night clubs and wore costumes even more scanty than the younger generation. The right hon. Gentleman condemns this modern diplomacy and yet he boasts of being responsible for calling together the conference on Ireland. As I listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon, telling us of what took place at Genoa, I was reminded of the last Debate we had on Genoa, when we were told that the object of the Conference at Genoa was an economic and financial conference. These are the right hon. Gentleman's own words:
    "The Conference has been called to consider the problem of the reconstruction of economic Europe. The main theme of the Conference is the establishment of peace, confidence, credit, currency, exchange, transport."
    What we have been told this afternoon by the Prime Minister does not proceed on any of those lines. On the 3rd April the Prime Minister said:
    "What are the conditions of peace laid down at Cannes? Russia must recognise
    1486
    her national obligations. Where the property of our nationals has been confiscated, it must be restored or compensation paid. Impartial tribunals must be established and those tribunals must not be the creature of the Executive. Is Russia prepared to accept these conditions? These are indications of a complete change of attitude."
    I ask the Committee whether the Prime Minister in anything he has said in his speech has had any of those conditions fulfilled. Has he arranged that the property of British subjects which has been seized in Russia should be returned to them? Has he arranged for tribunals which will be free from the tyranny of the Executive in Russia? It cannot be said that the Prime Minister was not warned beforehand. As is well known the American President, Mr. Hughes, refused to be present or send representatives to the Genoa Conference, because as he said, whilst he was in favour of an economic conference, he believed that this will turn out to be a political one. Subsequent events have shown how correct Mr. Hughes' prediction has turned out to be. These are the very words used by Mr. Hughes in a letter which he wrote to the Italian Ambassador refusing to go to Genoa. He wrote:
    "I regret to inform you that after careful examination it has been found impossible to escape the conclusion that the proposed Conference is not primarily an economic Conference, but is rather a Conference of a political character in which the United States Government could not helpfully participate."
    Therefore the Prime Minister was warned, and one would have thought that he would have made every endeavour to prevent that forecast from coming true. The right hon. Gentleman could have maintained the economic character of that Conference if he had resolutely stood by the report of the London experts which was prepared prior to the meeting of the Conference. That report had two strong points in its favour. First of all it was an unanimous report of the experts of all the Allies. That in itself did not commend if to the Bolshevists who hate unanimity, and whose sole aim is to divide the Allies in order to get the better of them. Therefore it is not surprising that their reply of 3rd May to the Allies' Memorandum was not acceptable, in fact the Russian delegation went out of its way to attack that report.
    For another reason the London experts' report was sound because it was based on

    1487
    the economic principles which were approved by two successive Americans, Mr. Colby and Mr. Hughes, and it embodied Lord Emmott's Report. That Report laid down certain conditions, as follow:—
    "The Russian Soviet Government shall accept the financial obligations of its predecessor."
    That is one of the most important necessities before we can get back to any stable state of affairs in Europe. The same Report proceeds by saying:
    " The Russian Government shall undertake to provide for good administration of justice independent of the Executive authority."
    In short, that report laid down principles which really might have been insisted upon by business men who wish to invest capital in Russia. Was the Prime Minister able to say that one of those recommendations which he set out to obtain has been accepted? Instead of those conditions being forced upon the Bolshevists, all we have got in their place is some vague reports of various commissions which provide no satisfaction whatever to business men. What a difference there is if one contrasts the result of Genoa with the result of the Washington Conference. On the one side we have certain concrete definite principles laid down, and on the other we have vague generalities. Supposing the Prime Minister says, as indeed he inferred, "It is true we have not come to any definite conclusions, but still we look for future happiness in another conference at The Hague." Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the whole of these conferences with the Russians simply result in agreements being made with men of bad faith, men who have 'broken every clause in the trade agreement as the Bolshevists did, which the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has already proved. Does the Prime Minister not realise that at Genoa these very men went behind his back and concluded a separate treaty with Germany? You have only to turn to the Prime Minister's own statements in order to prove that these men are not desirable persons to deal with. I heard him say in this Chamber not so very long go:
    "The horrors of Bolshevist rule are so that there is a sense of disgust when come to deal with its leaders."
    1488
    That view seemed to have faded away when the Prime Minister asked those Russian gentlemen to lunch with him at Genoa. I think it is a matter of disgust that the Prime Minister of this country should do a thing like that. The Prime Minister also said:
    "The chariot of Bolshevism is drawn by plunder and terror."
    In March last, speaking upon the subject of trade agreements, the Prime Minister said:
    "Some of my hon. Friends think this is a sort of recognition of Soviet Government, that we are shaking hands with murder and embracing these robbers. But we are simply converting them. This is a gentle process of instruction, a kind of Borstal system for converting these criminals into honest, sober, decent citizens."
    He and his colleagues at Genoa appear to have been continuing this Borstal system even to the extent of entertaining them and showing them hospitality. Yet these very men went to Genoa clothed with the proceeds of goods of which they had robbed the Churches.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask how far it is proper for an hon. Member to go on attacking a foreign Government which has now been recognised? Will it be open for other hon. Members to attack other Governments in the same way?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall): I have not heard anything from the hon. Member yet which is out of order. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member's second point, I will wait and hear what other Members may say.
    Mr. GWYNNE: I should have thought that the hon. and gallant. Member for Central Hull would by now have got accustomed to hearing his friends and colleagues in Russia harshly spoken of. They do not appear to have turned over a new leaf, and my present information is that they are still continuing their base practices. This Conference, when one somes to weigh it up after listening very carefully to the Prime Minister's description of it, cannot be said to have achieved any economic results. indeed, the Prime Minister has admitted that the only results were of a political character. One has but to turn to the interview which he gave to the Press Association on his return from Genoa the other evening to realise that. He then admitted that this peace pact had been secured for eight

    1489
    months. That was all he could tell the Press at that time. as to the results of the Conference. But why eight months? Was the period suggested by the Lord Chancellor? I remember on a former occasion when he wanted more battleships, his demand, "We want eight: we won't wait"? Then the Prime Minister went on to say to the Press representatives that this peace pact was one of the most dramatic spectacles he had ever witnessed in his life. He said:
    "We all stood up in silence and declared that there should be no war for eight months."
    Is he certain we shall have war in Ireland within eight months? This is how he described it:
    "I started first. Then the representatives from our Colonies, and then all the other nations in alphabetical order. We all stood up and said, 'There shall be no more war for eight months'."
    The description sounds to me like the passing of a vote of condolence at a meeting when all stand up to pass it in silence. It would have been more satisfactory if there had been something more definite. The right hon. Gentleman was asked if Russia signed the pact. He replied that she did not exactly sign it, but "we all stood up." Surely, if these gentlemen, the friends of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, want to make, war, they will not hesitate to do so simply because they stood up on that occasion. I do not think we can gather any very great feeling of confidence from that matter. There were other political results which were achieved at Genoa, to which the Prime Minister did not refer, either to-day or in his interview with the Press representatives. He did not tell us he had strengthened enormously, as a result of the Genoa Conference, the diplomatic position of Germany and Russia. How has he done it in the case of Germany? Germany has been able to show to the world that she can negotiate alliances not only in spite of, but contrary to, the Treaty of Versailles, and, as to Russia, she has been placed in a position she has sought to occupy ever since the Bolshevists came into power; she has been enabled to play off one great Power against another. In that connection, I would like to ask the Secretary for War, whom I see in his place, if either he or the Prime. Minister will tell us whether the War Office have received any report in regard to this so-called military agree-
    1490
    ment between Germany and Russia, and whether, if any such report has been received, he has had a report made upon it? Can he tell us the result of that report, and will he assure the, House that the matter is being given that full consideration which is due to it? I hope the Secretary for War will see that we get an answer on this point.
    The Prime Minister also did not emphasise this point, that not only had Germany and Russia been allowed to come together by this Treaty under the noses of the 34 Powers at Genoa, but that at the same time the relations between France and Great Britain had been seriously endangered. While the Prime Minister told certain Press correspondents that he was still a friend of France, he allowed his own Press to make attacks upon France that ought never to have been made, and infinite harm might have been done if there had not been a very strong feeling in this country which made it clear that we would not allow Germany and Russia to come in and upset our friendly relations with France. Heaven knows what damage might have been done had that not been the case! I take the view that the results of Genoa are not satisfactory. On the contrary, I submit to the Committee that while the Prime Minister summoned that Conference to deal with economic matters, it has proved entirely barren and has not brought about any economic result. In spite of the warning of the United States of America, he allowed it to degenerate into a political conference, which has resulted only in benefiting the two countries which detest the victory of the Allies in the War, namely, Germany and Bolshevist Russia.
    The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, referred to the £800,000,000 which Russia owes us. As he dropped his voice, I could not quite gather whether he said he was prepared to write it off or that he had written it off. If it has been written off, or is to be written off, what is the quid pro quo he has got? I should like, before it is written off, to see that some advantage is to be thereby gained, and that the Bolshevists will give some recognition of our national rights to property in that country. It. is I suppose because the Prime Minister and his colleagues knew in their heart of hearts that this Conference had really been a failure that a reception was organised

    1491
    on his return at Victoria Station. It rather reminded me of the stories one reads of during the decline of the Roman Empire, where, when a general returned to the Capitol after an unsuccessful war in a distant country, he was welcomed back with triumphal cars in order to delude the populace into the idea he has been successful. Really, when I got an invitation to go to Victoria Station on Saturday night to meet the Prime Minister and to show him how much we appreciated his efforts, it reminded me of the Mad Hatter in "Alice in Wonderland" who, when he found his watch was not in working order, put some butter into it. He was surprised that the butter did not make it work, and so he said: "Perhaps it was not the best butter, let us try that." I suppose, because the reception at Victoria was not quite successful, there is going to be a lunch to-morrow, with the best butter, and all the prospective baronets will have to go to this lunch at 15s. per head. It was only knights who were present at Victoria Station. The truth of the matter is, that these admirers of the Prime Minister will be told to wait until The Hague Conference for the desired result of Genoa.
    The Prime Minister reminds me of a farmer whose land is covered with thistles and thinks he can get rid of them by cutting off their heads, hut the result of cutting off their, heads is that for each one cut off three or four more grow in its place. You want to get at the root of the thistle. You want to pull it up, and that is what the Prime Minister never does. Whether it be an industrial dispute or an international difficulty, he just cuts off its head, and the result is we have three or four inure difficulties coming up soon after. It is the same here. At Genoa he got for the time being what he calls an eight months' peace pact. Now we are to leave it to The Hague. Having realised the impossibility of solving this question with the Bolshevists, he now tells us it is to be left with the experts. They, in fact, are to be the scapegoats at The Hague. I very much fear that when the time comes the results of The Hague will not be much better than those of Genoa. It is on these grounds I beg to move a reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: We have listened to a very entertaining speech. I am not going to follow my hon. Friend's disquisitions on the character of the Prime Minister and the methods which he believes were employed in order to secure a reception for him at Victoria. Perhaps I look at the thing rather impartially. I was not invited. But I approach this question really much more simply than my hon. Friend does. I must say I have always felt that a real breakdown at Genoa would have been a disaster to the world, and therefore I was always anxious that some decent success should be secured at this Conference. The objects of it were absolutely incontrovertible. Everyone wants to restore the economic position of Europe and the peace of the world. Everyone feels that what I think the Prime Minister called the tangle of European suspicion, or of European enmities—I forget the exact phrase—which has existed, unfortunately, ever since the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, and which, I am afraid, is partly due to the terms of that Treaty, should be put an end to. At the same time, what we have to consider, and what we are invited by the Prime Minister to consider, is what, in fact, have been the results of the Conference? Have they been successful on the whole or not? The Prime Minister did not say very much—and I do not complain at all of that—about the financial provisions, which he left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. I shall be very interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about them. I confess that, reading them only as I have been able to read them in the Blue Book, they do not appear to me to be a very material advance on what was already agreed upon at the Brussels Conference. They may have features which were not to be found in the Brussels conclusions, and there certainly were features in the Brussels conclusions which are not to be found in this new code of Justinian.
    In the same way, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Sir A. Shirley Bonn), who is always listened to with great respect, referred to the great importance of our organising transport. I agree most fully that that is an urgent matter. It has been for a long time an urgent matter. But, there again, considerable work had already been done at the Conference at Barcelona, and I do

    1493
    not at the moment see that anything vary material has been added to what was there laid down. The difficulty of these matters is not to lay down good principles, but to get them carried into effect. If my right hon. Friend can say that these things are going to be carried into effect, that is a different matter, and he will be entitled to great credit for achieving that. All these sentiments about the currency, about the danger of artificially trying to back it up—to "boost" it was, I think, the phrase used—all these things which you find in the Brussels Report, all the statements about the dangers of the printing press, and so on, are admirable. I only hope that my right hon. Friend has really some ground for thinking that they will be carried out. I should like very much to know what machinery is provided, because, as I understand it, there is some reference to the League of Nations which I do not quite follow. My right hon. Friend, however, will, no doubt, be able to tell us what is the machinery that has been provided for seeing that these things are really effected.
    I do not want to make any attack on my right hon. Friend or on the Prime Minister in reference to these rather meagre results, as they seem to me to be, on the financial and economic side. I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) just now, that, if you exclude reparations and Allied debts, you have really excluded the great subjects which are keeping Europe in an economic turmoil. I am not going to discuss the reparations policy which might be pursued, but I do feel that all these questions—and here I am sure I shall have the agreement of the Government—would have had much more chance of being really usefully solved if the United States of America had taken part in Genoa. I do not know how it was that the United States decided not to accept Genoa. They have now been asked, apparently rather at the last moment, after the Hague Conference had been settled upon, to attend the Hague Conference, and they have again declined, if I understand their message rightly, but they have declined in rather a different way. They have expressed their willingness, as I read their reply, to take part in an economic discussion, but they have laid down certain conditions, into which I need not go at this moment, under
    1494
    which they would participate. If it is at all possible that those conditions can be complied with—and, after all, they do not appear to me to be very different from what I think the majority of the House of Commons, if they were left quite free from party ties, would emphatically approve of—if these conditions can be complied with, is it not worth everything to get the assistance of the United States in a matter of this kind? I venture very strongly to commend to my right hon. Friends opposite whether it is not worth while, if necessary, even to postpone this Hague Conference, if there is any chance at all of arranging some economic conference in which the United States will take part. I feel strongly, and I should have thought my right hon. Friends would have felt strongly, that the importance of that is so great that it is well worth while.
    I admit that I am a little in the dark as to what The Hague Conference is really going to do. They are going, as I understand it, to try new methods of approaching the Russian problem. I shall not be sorry for that. But what is the economic and financial policy of the Government in dealing with this matter I have read the Russian replies as they are printed in the Blue Book, and I agree most fully with the Prime Minister that they are the kind of thing which is specially irritating to an English reader—long discussions of principles when you really want to get down to business. Substantially, however, does it not come to this: "We want money or credits from the Governments. We want de jure recognition from the Governments. That is what we ask." As for private property, there are great difficulties about the principles, which I need not go into, but they make a most astounding offer, as I understand it, that they will allow the previous owners to buy back their property—to have a right of pre-emption—but that, if anyone offers a larger sum than the previous owner, it is to go to the other person. That does not appear to he a very valuable right to secure. I should like to ask the Government quite specifically—because it is a very important matter, and one on which I express no opinion for the moment till I know what the Government say upon it—is it part of their policy to grant Government credits to Russia? I am not referring to loans, because that has been answered in the

    1495
    House, but I do not recall whether the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer covered credits as well.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Of course, it did.
    Lord R. CECIL: The Government may buy goods here, and supply them on credit without giving a loan of money to the Russian Government. I merely give that as an illustration. There is no difference, of course, financially, but there is a difference in terms. I want to know about that, because I think it is very serious. What I want to put to the Government is this: Supposing that they decide, as I imagine they will, that it is impossible for them to give any Government loan or Government credit, have they really any expectation that they will get any further at The Hague than at Genoa? If not, do not let us have another international Conference which leads to no results. It is not really an indifferent matter that these great Conferences meet and then break up without achieving anything, or without achieving anything substantial. It does harm. You have thrown away one of your cards, and you cannot play over and over again. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me some comfort in regard to that.
    There is another matter upon which I should like to ask a question. The Prime Minister said, "Let us put aside principles and come down to business." I agree that that is the great thing to do in this matter, which is entirely a business matter. I do not pretend to be a financial authority, but do my right hon. Friends think, if they are not going to give any Government credit, that they will get any private credits, whatever assurances the Russian Government give unless they go further than giving assurances? Suppose that the Russian Government said, "Certainly, we will respect private property, and give all the assurances for which the Conference at Genoa asked in the first instance." Will that alone open the pockets of private investors in this country? I should have thought not. I should have thought that the private investor would say, "I should like to see what the Russian Government are actually going to do before I venture
    1496
    my money or my goods on the faith of promises put up from Russia." I do not say this with a view of discouraging this policy. On the contrary, I am and always shall be anxious for it. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) in his dislike of renewing relations in any form or in any shape with Russia. I do not believe you will restore the economic condition of Europe until you get these great nations back into the economic system.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Let us have another Government.
    7.0 p.m.
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not feel sure about that, but what I do feel sure of is that mere assurances will not do it. You must have something with which you can go to the private investor and tell him that an impartial tribunal has been established, that so much money has actually been paid, that so much private property has actually been restored. You must be able to tell him of something that has been actually done, and I doubt very much whether all these elaborate negotiations, trying to induce the Russian delegates to say this or that, really carry us any further. The prime Minister said that he wanted to get back to realities. I entirely agree. I think these glittering unrealities of rhetoric are the greatest danger. We want to get back to solid ground in this matter. I confess that the prospect of a renewal at The Hague of these elaborate discussions with ingenious Russians on the principles of private property does not attract me. It seems to me that a very grave mistake was made, as I have ventured to impress upon the House on more than one occasion, when the Government decided not to intervene to assist in the Russian famine. I am quite aware that I pressed that upon the Government and upon the House mainly on humanitarian grounds, and I do not wish to go back upon them, but it does appear to me that if you could have sent in manufactured goods—clothing, railway material, agricultural implements, any of the things which would have directly helped the starving Russians—if they could have been sent in through some international body such as existed at the time for the purpose of administering these things and for getting such payment as could be secured for them, while it could not have been entered into as

    1497
    a business proposition, I believe there would have been a fair chance of obtaining payment, and I believe it would have enabled us to renew relations with the Russian people, which is what we really want to do, and to avoid these interminable discussions of principles and economic theories which will always, I am afraid, beset our negotiations with the representatives of the Soviet Government. Therefore I am not very sanguine as to the economic and financial results of the Hague. The Prime Minister attached much greater weight to the Peace Truce. I am not going to repeat what an hon. Member said about the Covenant League of Nations. I entirely agree, but I confess that this truce, which does not appear to have been signed and the terms of which seem to have been rather vague, as I have heard them re-ported—
    The PRIME MINISTER: It was exactly the terms of the Covenant of Non-Aggression of the League of Nations.
    Lord R. CECIL: I heard my right hon. Friend, who is always glad to say something against the League of Nations if he can—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—interject a remark.
    The PRIME MINISTER: All I said was that it was exactly the terms of the Covenant of Non-Aggression of the League of Nations; practically the same words.
    Lord R. CECIL: Are they the same words? There is a great difference. There is nobody to see it carried out. You must have very precise terms, or a body ready to carry them out. However, I do not want to say that the Peace Truce is of no value. On the contrary, anything that makes for peace among the Powers of Europe is always of value. I hope we may rely on the Russian promise of peaceful intention, because, of course, it is a Russian promise, and nothing else, and that is the thing that matters. The only thing you have obtained which you had not got before is the Russian promise, and I hope the promise of M. Tchitcherin will be carried out by the Russian Government. Without making any attack on the Soviet Government, I would say that one of the peculiarities of all Russian Administrations has been the great want of continuity between them, so that a promise given by one member or official of the
    1498
    Government is not always carried out by other officials. I hope it will be carried out, and I trust very much that it will be an additional security, if additional security be wanted, for keeping the peace definitely for eight months.
    That, as I understand it, is what has been gained by the Conference. Has nothing been lost? I am afraid it is too sanguine to say that nothing has been lost. I do not want to go into the various discussions that have taken place about our differences with France. I do not want to go into details, but I am afraid, from all the information we can glean, not only from the French Press, but from those people who have been recently in Paris, that our relations are not so good with France as they were before Genoa. I shall be very glad to receive assurances that that view is mistaken, but it certainly is the impression that any reader of the Press of both countries would get. I do want to say this. I think any breach of our Entente with France would be a real disaster to Europe. I do not mean by that that we should always conform in policy to French policy. We must have our own policy and must.carry it out. if the French policy is, in the opinion of our Government, leading towards war that would be too great a price to pay even to avoid a shaking of the Entente, but do not let us underrate the grave disadvantage of a breach with France—I will not say "a breach with France," for I hope that is a long way off—but of so serious a disagreement, that the French Government would be unwilling to cooperate with us in a hearty way in European problems. I do not want to develop that more than by that single sentence. I confess if the result of Genoa has been to bring that state of things appreciably nearer I should like to see very important advantages before I thought that Genoa had been a success.
    May I, in that connection, say a word as to the methods of negotiation which appear to have been pursued at Genoa? There is a great deal to be said, though I am not an advocate of a return to it, of what was called the "old diplomacy." I do not advocate a return to it, I assure the House, but what was it? It essentially consisted of meetings between Ministers and Ambassadors of different countries, and of discussions which were always reported immediately they had taken place, the records of which were

    1499
    usually published in due course, and that were secret. Now, that has some advantage. There is, I think, much greater advantage to be gained from really open discussion, discussion in conference, where the public is admitted, where a matter is discussed quite openly, and where, if any Power takes up an unreasonable attitude, it is exposed to the condemnation of the world at large. I do see, however, very grave objections to private conferences under circumstances which make it very uncertain whether the privacy will be respected. You get a series of rumours and suggestions, which do a very great deal of harm by reason of the fact that, as the conferences are private, it is very often exceedingly difficult completely to dispose of the rumours that have been raised. Secrecy has advantages, publicity has advantages; but what may perhaps be described as advertised secrecy, that is to say, conference under conditions which invite a breach of secrecy, seems to me to have very few advantages. I think that some of the difficulties that arose in Genoa were perhaps due to the method employed in that respect.
    Apart from the difficulties with France, is it quite certain that our relations with neutral nations were improved? I do not know, but some accounts that we read—of course, we have only got the accounts we received to go by—rather represent the great mass of the work as being done by closed Conferences at which certain selected Powers were present and the others were not. It is quite true that there was always in the dim and distant future a meeting of the commission or the sub-commission, or a plenary meeting which would eventually take place; but, as far as one can judge by the reports in the papers, at any rate, on the political side, very few plenary meetings did take place. I ask the question because I have had brought to my notice what has been said by the neutral Press. I will not read a number of extracts, but one which is, I think, the clearest for my purpose. It comes from the well-known Swedish paper that supported us whole-heartedly right through the War, and which was, I believe, rightly said to be the organ of M. Branting, the Prime Minister of Sweden. This is the extract:
    "Collaboration was to have been the principle of the Conference, and the principle was not applied in a satisfactory manner."
    The PRIME MINISTER: What is the date of that?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think it is 11th May. I would not like to pledge myself to the date; I am sorry I have left the document, from which I took this, at home.
    Mr. BETTERTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the name of the paper?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is the "Social Demokraten." There are other extracts I could read from the Norwegian papers, I think from the Dutch papers, and certainly one from the Swiss papers. My feeling is that there has been too much of what I might call the methods of the Supreme Council rather than those of open conference at Genoa. As the third very serious result, in my judgment, I must put the Russo-German Treaty. I confess I think that a very serious matter. It was foreseen, no doubt. Arapprochement between Russia and Germany was a matter which I have no doubt the Government must have counted with for many months and many years.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): We warned the House against it.
    Lord R. CECIL: I daresay the Government have warned the House against it. Certainly, I have done it myself in more than one speech. It was an obvious thing. Still, here it has occurred. It does foreshadow a possible recrudescence of European grouping: a Russo-German group on one side, and then, no doubt, a great attempt to raise a counter-group on the other side. I am sure the House would agree that if such a thing were to take place it would be most disastrous to the cause of peace. I cannot imagine anything worse. I know there are people who lightly talk of ordering the Russians and the Germans to tear up their Treaty, and things of that sort. All that is folly. It is not practical policy. I looked, therefore, with great interest at what the Germans had to say about this in the Blue Book. They say this, and it is their excuse for what they did. They recite that they were asked there on equal terms; they recite the various suggestions which have been made, and which they think contrary to their interests, and they go on:
    "On the other hand, the German Delegation learned that the inviting Powers"—

    1501
    that is the Supreme Council—
    "had initiated separate negotiation with Russia. From information received regarding these negotiations it seemed that an agreement was about to be reached in which the legitimate desires of Germany would not be considered. Under those circumstances the German Delegation was clearly forced to safeguard its interests 'by direct means, and it would otherwise have been confronted—"
    and so on. I do not at all agree with the Germans that that was their proper course to take or that it was a wise course. What. is interesting, however, is that they at any rate assert—
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Read the answer.
    Lord R. CECIL: I am going to give the answer. They assert that it was the method adopted at. the Genoa Conference which induced them to do it. They said, "You are going to make an agreement with Russia which will not be in our interest, and therefore we thought it necessary to enter into what they will no doubt call a contract of re-insurance with Russia." What is the reply? This is it:
    "The allegation that the informal discussions with the Russians on the subject of the recognition of debts exposed the Delegation to the risk of being confronted with a scheme unacceptable to Germany, but already approved by the majority of the members of the Commission, is equally unfounded. No scheme would or could have been accepted by the Conference without the fullest opportunity for discussion in the competent Committees and Sub-Committees unless Germany was represented on a footing of equality with other Powers."
    With the greatest respect to those who drew up that reply, I cannot think it is a very satisfactory one. What, in fact, will be the position, supposing the German allegation is right? An agreement made, contrary to their interests, by the most powerful of those represented at the Conference of Genoa—the convening Powers. It is presented as an agreement made with Russia to a sub-Commission. Germany is there no doubt, and can make what objections she can. Does anyone think she would be in the same position to secure her interest as if the matter had been at first discussed with her as well as with the other Powers? That makes me feel that there was a great deal that was objectionable and deplorable in the methods pursued at this Conference. I cannot feel much doubt, unless my facts
    1502
    are all wrong, that it was really a kind of prolongation of a Supreme Council with a certain number of added Powers. The great mass of the meetings seem to have been secret meetings at Villas, not with the whole of the countries there represented, or even the whole of the countries on the Commissions and sub-Commissions to which the particular business had been allotted. They were meetings of many of the Powers which composed the Supreme Council, and that is a hopeless plan of restoring peace in Europe. There are two broad principles on which you can conduct international conferences. There is the principle of domination, and there is the principle of co-operation. If you believe in domination, you are right to have, a group of Powers who shall be chiefly consulted, who shall have special rights, who shall have a special position, who shall be consulted first, who shall make up their minds first, and who shall then go to the, other Powers and say, "There it is. You have to accept it or reject it, but you have little or no voice in deciding it." That was roughly the plan which was adopted at the Paris Conference, and I do not think it was a very good one. Or you may have all the Powers with equal rights. Not all with equal influence. No one proposes that. That would be an impossible demand. The great Powers will always have more influence than the small Powers. They will all have a right to be heard on equal terms, a right to present their case formally and openly, and that is the kind of demand which I find made by some of these neutral Powers. That is the other principle—the principle of co-operation. I believe you have to make your decision between the principle of domination and the principle of co-operation. That is the real issue in international politics at present. I have always been a warm adherent of the principle of cooperation. I believe we are internationally on the same road as we have pursued individually. There is a great statement made by one of the greatest journalists who ever lived, that the progress of civilisation is from status to contract—that is from a position of subordination to a position of equal freedom one with another. I believe that it is the line of progress internationally. I am convinced that it is only by adherence to that principle of co-operation, undiluted, without reservation, without any

    1503
    attempt to come back upon it by actual procedure, in a word, the procedure adopted by the League of Nations—[Interruption.]I know the Prime Minister dare not deny it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not.
    Lord R. CECIL: On these principles only will we secure real peace, a real reestablishment of confidence and security in Europe, and it is because I am afraid that in some respect at any rate the Genoa Conference deviated from those principles that its want of complete success is mainly due.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord has delivered one of his characteristic speeches. The Genoa Conference he approves, but the methods were all wrong. That was not the way to do it. He is all for co-operation, especially with France. It is most important. But whenever you try to act with France, that was not the time to have done it and that was not the way to have done it. The Russo-German Agreement he properly describes as a very foolish document. It is a document which was not concluded at the Genoa Conference. It was prepared before the Genoa Conference ever began. He has chosen to put the German view with regard to that. I was anxious not to do anything to embarrass the German Government by entering into the facts, but he has forced me to do so. On the Tuesday, Germany was put upon every important political Commission and Sub-Commission on terms of perfect equality with every other Power. In two or three days, before the work of the Conference had developed at all, Germany goes behind our backs and signs a separate Treaty with Russia. Does anyone say that was justified by anything that was done, after Germany had been put on terms of perfect equality upon this Conference? He says, "Ah, but they were private conversations." Are there no private conversations in the League of Nations? If not, that accounts for a good deal. But are there none? I shall IS e surprised if there are no private conversations between the leading representatives of the various States. I cannot understand a number of men coming together to transact business and insisting on never discussing with the leading representa-
    1504
    Lives of the various nations, even privately, but insisting on having it in full plenary conference when everyone is there—30 or 40 nations. There never was a more futile way of doing business. The Noble Lord says he never approved of it in Paris. Did he never have private conversations about the League of Nations with President Wilson? Of course he had. He had private conversations with the British Delegation, including myself. He had private conversations with President Wilson constantly with regard to the framing of it, and he was quite right. So had General Smuts. These conversations are an essential part of the transaction of business in any great conference. Take the Washington Conference. That Conference would never have come to such a triumphant end had it not been for the fact that Lord Balfour and Mr. Hughes and the Japanese Delegates had constant conversations together before they ever came into full conference.
    Lord R. CECIL: I can only say that Mr. Hughes solemnly stated, and Lord Balfour confirmed it, that lie never knew anything whatever about the proposals before they were made.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly he never knew before the first speech, but before any arrangements were come to there were constant conversations between these three leading representatives of the leading Powers there who were most vitally concerned in making the thing a success, and without those conversations success would never have been attained. When the Noble Lord says Conferences can be held without private conversations between the leading men who represent the various States, he is talking something which I do not like to say he must know is a futility, but he ought to know from his experience. What happened? The moment you get everyone there the whole opportunity of prospecting and finding out what the general position is in order to clear the way for further discussions is lost. You either have small conversations or you have everyone there.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why not have the Germans there?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had no experience of Conferences, and I sincerely hope, in the interests of this country, that he will not. I have no hesitation in saying that the

    1505
    Noble Lord when he represents South Africa at Geneva has private conferences with various people to prepare the presentation of his point of view, to clear the ground and to advance certain propositions, and it is the right course for him to take. I hope he will continue it. I hope he will not be mislead by his own glittering rhetoric into the conclusions which he is trying to force upon us. Then he comes to the case of France. What does he mean? Of course a serious disagreement with France is one of the most disastrous things which could happen to the peace of the world. Cooperation with France, as I said at Genoa, is one of the pillars of the Temple of Peace in Europe. But what does the Noble Lord mean? You must have your own policy. You must have no difference with France, but you must not do what France wants. You must take your own line, but you must not differ from France. You must not have a pact with France. You must reduce the reparations which France is exacting from Germany. You must not have sanctions to compel Germany to pay to France. All the same, you must not quarrel with France. What is the use of talking in that way? This is the politician who pre-eminently talks about the doctrine of honesty. Is it realty honest to go to France and say: "We do not propose to have any disagreement with you," but in your own heart, having made up your mind that whenever France proposes to enforce reparations, whenever France proposes pact to defend her frontiers, you will not agree to it; whenever France asks that the money which Germany owes to her shall be paid to the last farthing you will not support her, but you will resist her? Is that honest politics?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is a misrepresentation of what I said.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord thinks there is a good deal to b., said for the old diplomacy. Surely he is a champion of the new diplomacy. There, again, he is going to have it both ways. The old diplomacy, if it is disagreeable to the Government, the new diplomacy if it does not suit the Government. There is only one test. He will support the old and he will support the new: in fact, he will support anything so long as it is against the Government.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Hon. Members opposite will support anything so long as it is for the Government.
    The PRIME MINISTER: What is the League of Nations? Is that the old diplomacy? The League of Nations is taking out of the hands of the old diplomacy the settlement of the most important international questions in the world. The Noble Lord is not merely the champion of the League of Nations, but the only champion. He will not allow anybody else to say a word about it. I am not allowed to say a word in support of it. I have done it, but if I have done it, I do not mean it. The only supporter of the League of Nations, the champion of the League of Nations, champions the old diplomacy in this House. Really the Noble Lord must make up his mind which of these things he really wants. What he said about America and The Hague Conference is all right, but could he get America there? If he could, we should be delighted to get her there. We want America there. We appealed to America to come there, but we have no means of compelling America to come there, not even by the League of Nations.
    Mr. MACLEAN: She has had too much experience of you.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at all sure that that is so. In her last experience of us we: entered into a very admirable agreement.
    Mr. MACLEAN: You were not there.
    The PRIME MINISTER: There was a Member of this Government there. One word about the neutrals. The Noble Lord quoted an extract from a Socialist paper in Sweden, saying that we treated the neutrals badly. As a matter of fact, Mr. Branting was a member of the very Commission, the very sub-Commission, that settled every line of the document which led up to the 11th May. The neutrals chose their own representatives.
    Lord R. CECIL: That does not prove anything.
    The PRIME MINISTER: There, again, facts, of course, are of no concern. [Interruption.] I listened to criticism, and I am entitled to reply. Two representatives of the neutrals were chosen by the neutral Powers. One of them was Sweden. One of them was Mr. Branting,

    1507
    whose organ the Noble Lord quoted. He was present at every discussion. The whole of that document was settled at those discussions, except for what happened when three jurists were chosen by that body to draft Clause 7. He was there during the whole of the discussions, until he left for Sweden. That was not our fault. If he chose to leave for Sweden, he did it for reasons of his own, but he left a very able representative behind, and the Noble Lord will be shocked to hear that that representative was present even at the private conferences. The two representatives of the neutrals were present even at the private discussions which took place at those monstrous Villa discussions which the Noble Lord deprecates so soundly, and very helpful they both were. So much for what the Noble Lord said.
    Now I come to something that fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). I must say that I was rather in despair about that speech. What is the complaint of my right hon. Friend? He first of all complained that he could not very well make a speech to the House until I had first of all given my explanation, when he would know exactly what happened, and then he delivered a prepared speech which had no reference to anything that I had said. He delivered a speech of elaborately prepared condemnation, and I must say they were rather poor, thin, cheap gibes. What is it that he complains of? Peace with Russia? Had he not always insisted upon it? Yes, in words. What would he have done? He condemned everything we did. What would he have done? [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"] He would have had America there, and he would have settled reparations at the same time. In fact, he would have made a clean job of the whole business. What does he mean? America was invited there, but would not come. France refused to discuss reparations. What would he have done?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have gone on without her.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Have gone on discussing reparations without her? That is the sort of argument we get. That is the way to consolidate the Entente! You invite France there, and you say, "We propose to discuss repara-
    1508
    tions with Germany." France would have said, "Very well, we do not mean to do it. We propose to proceed under the machinery of the Treaty." "Very well, we will get along without you." That is the way to consolidate the alliance and friendship with France. This is an indication of the kind of talk that is going on. First of all, we are condemned because, for reasons which are quite obvious, we do not agree with certain proposals which France has made. She is an independent country; so are we. We are each putting our own points of view. We do it quite fearlessly. We come to an agreement eventually, as we have done before, and the only way to come to an agreement is by discussing things quite frankly, every one putting quite frankly his own point of view. They say, "Have an Entente with France. We do not like these disagreements." That is what they say on one side. Then they come to another, and they say, "France is asking too much. We disprove of these sanctions. You will never get peace in Europe so long as the Treaty of Versailles is to be maintained." Which of these two policies is their honest one?
    Now I come to what my right hon. Friend would have done. America would not have come, even if he had invited them. France would not have agreed to discuss reparations, even if he had been at the head of the Government. He may be sure of that. France has its definite, clear policy upon that matter. What would he have done? Would he then have said: "We will not discuss peace with Russia until we can settle up reparations with Germany, and have America there." Is that the policy? If it is, why on earth was not that said before we went to Genoa? What would have happened in the meantime? Are we never to make peace with Russia, until we settle up the other matter? I am all for settling reparations, but you are not going to settle reparations unless you carry the judgment of France along with you, and you are not going to do it by flouting the Treaty of Versailles, and by saying that you will go along with it, whether France will or not.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman asks: "What were these movements of troops?" He doubted it. The opinion of the Polish Prime Minister is of no account. What the Rumanian Prime

    1509
    Minister reported to France, to myself, and to others, is of no account. They were there. They had to deal with them. They actually sent troops there to defend the frontiers against this spectre, as it is called. My right hon. Friend said: "Had we not an answer from the Under-Secretary of State a fortnight ago?" Yes, but he might have quoted the whole of that answer. No. I do not mind saying that I was rather surprised, because that is not his method of controversy. I will say that at once. The latter part of that answer surely has a bearing upon what I stated. In fact, it bears out absolutely what I stated. I said that since the 1st January the numbers of Russian forces on the frontiers of Poland and Rumania had been doubled. This is the answer of my Noble Friend.
    "No official information is available respecting the reported Russian concentration on the Polish and Rumanian frontiers."
    My right hon. Friend stopped there. This is the remainder of the answer:
    "There has been an increase in the number of formations in Western Russia since the beginning of the year, and the effective strength of those formations is believed to have been increased recently by the incorporation of the 1922 class."
    What does my right hon. Friend mean?
    Mr. ASQUITH: The quotation I have before me contained those words.
    The PRIME MINISTER: You did not read them.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I am very sorry that did not read then—
    The PRIME MINISTER: Then I have nothing more to say.
    Mr. ASQUITH:—but it would have made no difference whatever to my argument.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It would have made a very great difference in the opinion of the House—in the effect that it had upon the House. My Noble Friend at that time had no official information; but we had the official information down at Genoa, which came to us from foreign sources, and those sources were the country's concerns. We have the official information now in the War Office on the subject. My Noble Friend did say there was an increase in the formation upon the frontiers. Is that no menace? If my right hon. Friend did not mean
    1510
    to withhold that from the House I accept it absolutely. That is all that I have to say on this subject. I have not very much to complain of the general tone of the argument or even of the general criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). He put a few questions with regard to the method of enforcing these recommendations, which will be answered later on by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who is going to deal with that particular portion of the subject relating to currency exchanges, transport, credit, and so forth. All I wanted to say is that the right hon. Gentleman treated the Genoa Conference as if it had been completed. The practical difficulties of carrying out the programme is a subject for expert investigation. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) has just told us what ought to have been done. He says that we must find out whether these people are going to restore the property or what they are going to do. That is exactly what these experts are going to do. I hope that he will not change his mind when he finds that they do that. I expect to see the Noble Lord, having forgotten his own speech, delivering a violent condemnation of the very action which he commended to us.
    Lord R. CECIL: I have never done anything of the kind.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord is quite unconscious of the general character of his own speeches. He has been condemning in one part of his speech what he has been recommending in another.
    Lord R. CECIL: I am not at all surprised at the failure of Genoa, if that be your criticism.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord never waits for a second speech to contradict the first. He generally goes through the process which he went through to-day, when he commended in one part of his speech complete agreement with France, and in a second part urged that we should disagree with France upon every fundamental proposition.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Which do you want?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I want to work with the democracy of France. I

    1511
    am earnestly desirous that France and Great Britain should work together, but we must work together for peace in Europe, and upon that principle I hope that we shall work as whole-heartedly with the democracy of France as we worked in order to defend Europe against the aggression of her common foe.
    Mr. M OSLEY: We have listened to a speech which illustrates admirably the origin of some of the difficulties which beset Europe to-day. The right hon. Gentleman can at any time display an unrivalled casuistry in misrepresenting his opponents. The Noble Lord has stated, as many have stated from these benches, that evidently in the nature of things differences, and grave differences, may arise from time to time between this country and France. But the policy of the Noble Lord is to state those differences frankly, to state them as friend to friend in order that they may be settled. The policy of the Prime Minister is to conceal differences and to issue, in communiques, statements to the effect that complete accord exists, and then to set to work by subterranean intrigue to undermine the settlement to which he has just put his signature. It is that which irritates the French. The Prime Minister has set out on many of these adventurous journeys with the French nation which he now deplores. The trouble is that he always goes home half way and leaves them in the lurch. That is why such bad relations exist between this country and France to-day.
    An eminent Frenchman once observed that if you ask a man to accompany you on a tiger shooting expedition and he refuses, it is possibly a matter for some disappointment. But, if he accepts your invitation, starts out on the journey, and then, having reached half way, goes home, you have a subject, not for disappointment, but for considerable anger. The right hon. Gentleman has set out on these policies and has gone halfway through with them and then has come home. That is why bad relationship arose between these countries. The Noble Lord said that differences must arise and that we should state our divergence of view frankly and openly and discuss them with France. That is a wise policy, and if pursued from the very beginning would have led to a far better understanding
    1512
    than the policy of the Prime Minister, which is to patch up by verbal sophistry agreements, where no agreements exist, and then to set to work by the subterranean methods, of which he is master in international politics as well as in domestic politics, to undermine a settlement.
    The right hon. Gentleman has let off some of his fireworks to produce a smokescreen to cover his very precipitate retreat. The right hon. Gentleman may think that he has performed a greater service to himself by this little display to-night than his supporters at Victoria Station were able to perform. I do not think that his supporters performed any great service at all to the right hon. Gentleman. History proves rather conclusively the fact that on the occasion of a great success demonstrations occur without the assistance of a three-line whip. May I remind him of the precedent of Napoleon. When he returned from Jena it was unnecessary for his supporters to organise a demonstration, but when he returned from Moscow it was painfully necessary. The right hon. Gentleman had better leave his reputation in the hands of Mr. Garvin, a gentleman who seems to me to have positively transformed himself into a species of musical doormat, which sings "Hallelujah" every time the Prime Minister wipes his feet on its principles. Let the Prime Minister rely upon his journalistic friends rather than on the efforts of his whips.
    The right hon. Gentleman complained that the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) had said nothing in reply to his speech. There was nothing to reply to. What was there in the speech of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister summoned to his aid all those rhetorical arts of which he is such a pastmaster to disguise the failure of a Conference which had effected nothing, which on its commercial and financial side merely repeated, as the Noble Lord has said, the work of the Brussels Conference, and, in regard to Russia, was not able to effect anything at all. And now the right hon. Gentleman says that the matter of the Russian negotiations is to be referred to a conference of the experts at The Hague, and, in a rather unfortunate passage of his speech, he said he hoped that they would achieve something. Would it not have been better to have summoned that conference of experts to

    1513
    discuss the basis of negotiation before the Genoa Conference rather than afterwards? If the Conference had been held under the auspices of the League it might have been the case that a proper study by experts would have been devoted to the subject prior to the meeting of the Conference. Then the League of Nations is an organisation, and Genoa was merely a brilliant or not very brilliant improvisation. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to state the achievements at Genoa. He was unable in the course of his speech to prove that anything had been achieved in once more bringing that great country Russia within the comity of nations. He was unable even to announce any solid achievement in the practical, financial and economic difficulties which beset Europe.
    8.0 P.M.
    The only concrete achievement of the Genoa Conference that I can recognise is that the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in reconciling the Secretary of State for the Colonies with his pristine enemies, the Bolshevists, whom he has frequently described in such vivid terms. Be has succeeded in persuading the right hon. Gentleman to remain a member of a Government which was engaged in embracing his former foes. More remarkable still, the right hon. Gentleman has persuaded the Secretary of State for the Colonies to violate that great precedent which is reputed to have animated him to a romantic and adventurous career. For the great Napoleon was compelled by an adverse fate to retreat from Moscow. The right hon. Gentleman has been compelled by an equally adverse fate in the shape of the Prime Minister to retreat to Moscow. There to be received in the fatal grip, not of the wintry snow, but of the warm and fraternal bosom of the gentleman whom he had previously described as a monster seated on a throne of skulls. That is the only concrete achievement that I can discover from the, records of the Genoa. Conference. The Prime Minister has been bitterly attacked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) for having once again undertaken the, task, with which he has grown familiar, of shaking hands with that which he has previously described as murder. I think the Prime Minister is wise to show no great squeamishness in these matters. If he once started to prosecute inquiries into the
    1514
    past, the right hon. Gentleman, with his present Liberal tendencies, might even discover some slight difficulty in shaking hands with himself. There is nothing I can find on the asset side of the Genoa Conference except that the Bolshevists have reiterated a pledge they gave in March last not to attack their neighbours—that and the reconciliation of the Secretary for the Colonies with those with whom on former occasions he was on rather bad terms. Those are the only concrete assets in favour of the Genoa Conference. On the debit side, much has occurred that we may deplore. The introduction once again of the Supreme Council method has gone far to undermine any prospect of European reconciliation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Cabinet Ministers?"]
    I am happy to see that the Minister of Education, who has entered the Committee, is to be charged with the conduct of our Foreign Affairs during the dinner hour. Possibly the Chief Secretary for Ireland may help him in the benevolent task of reconciliation and goodwill among men. I am happy, indeed, to welcome the arrival of the hero of Balbriggan becoming disguised as the Angel of Peace. We are always glad to see him employing his energies and his vivid oratory in the cause of peace and goodwill, and I have no doubt that many platforms in this country will resound with the hearty notes of the right hon. Gentleman in advancing that great and glorious humanitarian principle.
    The Prime Minister, again with that casuistry which distinguishes most of his utterances and to-day's utterance in particular, endeavoured to take up the argument of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) on the question of these private conferences. The Noble Lord never said that men engaged in a conference, whether under the auspices of the Genoa method or the League of Nations' method, were not at liberty to meet in private and discuss the affairs of the day. What my Noble Friend did say was that it was highly improper that a gathering of Powers, specially denoted by the fact that they were victorious Allies in the recent War, should assemble in a private villa, and from that vantage point should dictate to the rest of the Powers of Europe a policy which had been settled in private. His argument was that such a procedure must inevitably

    1515
    perpetuate the present divisions and animosities in Europe. He said that the people of this country and of the world must choose between a policy of domination and a policy of co-operation, and that these meetings in private villas of Powers recently victorious in the Great War and there dictating policy to a subjected Europe, was a policy of domination and not that of co-operation on terms of equality, frankness and confidence which alone can bring peace to Europe.
    I sometimes feel that the present representatives of this country will never realise that the gaping wounds of Europe cannot and will not be healed by private intrigues in private villas. Those of us who maintain the contrary policy, the policy of co-operation as opposed to that of domination, believe that these wounds can be healed only by frank and open conference under the auspices of the League of Nations and under the methods of that League. Thus, and thus alone, can the basis of peace in Europe be discovered. If that policy be not adopted, we shall live to see Europe drifting once again into a titanic disaster, while those pygmies who represent our statesmanship bandy verbal sophistries—as they did at Genoa—which are hailed by their journalistic sycophants as personal triumphs or electioneering stunts. What a prospect of disaster is presented by Genoa, unless methods and personalities can be changed and personalities and methods introduced which can bring some hope to Europe of alteration in a system which is threatening to bring this country and the world to the verge of immense and irrevocable disaster.
    Mr. WISE: I have listened very attentively to the last speaker, and, although I do not aspire to his language, I cannot see anything constructive in any part of his speech. I think he does not realise the great difficulties of 34 nations meeting together. I do not suppose he has had the opportunity of attending these international conferences and of realising the great difficulty of even interpreting what is said, and the meaning of what is said when that interpretation is made. I hold that Genoa will eventually prove to have been a great success, and that the Prime Minister's speech will go down historic-
    1516
    ally as one of the great things he has done not only for Europe., but for the world. We all regret sincerely that America did not come to the Conference, but I think Washington had good reason for not joining and assisting us in Europe. There wore certain conditions attached which were not agreeable to the American Government. The Conference more or less divides itself into three parts. The first is the general settlement of Russia. Speaking candidly, I think it is a bit too early to endeavour to get Russia right. I am in favour of these conferences, but when anybody looks at the position of Russia to-day he must realise the terrible catastrophe which has befallen that country, which owns about one-sixth of the total habitable world, and has a population of about 160,000,000. It is a country where the Government owns everything, but owns nothing. If you look at the position from that point of view you must realise that it will take many years to get Russia back into a stable condition.
    One object of the Conference was to endeavour to get trade back to the 1914 level. If we refer to the figures of 1914 we find that France, who made great investments in Russia, had only 4·5 per cent. of the import trade to Russia; that the United Kingdom, who had started in 1910 to make investments in Russia, had 13 per cent. of the trade that the United States of America, which practically did not invest at all in Russia, had 7½ per cent. of the trade; and that Germany, who made no investments in Russia, had 47 per cent. of the trade. I contend that unless you get stability in Germany, and with the assistance of Germany, it will be difficult to get Russia back to stability. Let us suppose that Russia had agreed to the terms set before her, that is, to recognise the debts that were made up to 1914 and to recognise private property. I ant all in favour of Russia recognising privately property. But will it be humanly possible for her to recognise debts previous to 1914 or even private property? A country that is in such a condition can only pay in kind, and I can conceive that even if nationals insisted on the recognition of private property it will take years before Russia can pay the debt which may be due to those nationals. Russia went to Genoa and demanded 3 milliards of gold roubles. What is her

    1517
    debt now and what was her debt in 1914? In 1914 it was 8,000 million roubles. Possibly some Members may recall a question put down on 30th March by the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain). He asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he was able to state the figures, in gold roubles, of the Russian Budget for the first nine months of the current year. The reply was rather long and included a letter from Mr. Hodgson to the Marquis Curzon of Kedleston, dated 6th December, 1921, and received here on 19th December. It is drawn out in five paragraphs. I will refer only to the first and fifth. The first paragraph says:
    "The Budget is to be on a basis of gold roubles. Funds will be issued to departments in paper money, at a rate to be fixed by the People's Commissary of Finance every three months, in accordance with the drop in the value of the rouble."
    Paragraph five says:
    "The deficit, which is estimated to be 230 million gold roubles, is to be covered by a paper issue."
    Since that was made, there has been a fresh Estimate, and it has been discovered that this particular Estimate is far short of the real figures. The Budget Estimate from January, 1922, to October, 1922, runs into 800 million gold roubles, which is equal to £80,000,000, but if you take it on the paper issue, it comes to a figure that it is quite impossible to explain. I do not think we have invented a name for the figure. It is 150 with 15 noughts after it. That is the only way I can explain it. It is for these reasons that, although I am in favour of these conferences, and although I believe that it is only by conferences we can get to understand each other, I think it is a little early to think of getting anything definite from Russia. We do not know what her debt is at the present time. We know she owes America 193,000,000 dollars. We know she owes us £561,000,000, but beyond that there is no name to describe the deficit in paper roubles. You cannot extend credit unless you get some definite basis for that credit. As regards the Treaty of Rapallo, I, personally, do not think much of it. There is no good in two beggars meeting to make a treaty and although Germany may not be quite so badly off as Russia, there is not really very much difference between the two as far as financial stability is concerned. The problems are indeed very difficult.
    1518
    The Soviet Government has unlimited power for destroying capital and a desire to spread revolution. Anybody who reads the history of the French Revolution must know that debts were repudiated by France. In Russia is liberty under law to be transformed into law over liberty? I do wish Russia herself would endeavour to assist the chaotic situation in Europe by trying to get something definite in her own country. I feel until she can do something in her own country, she does not deserve to be helped from outside. The "Times" recently referred to the enormous interest that was being paid for Russian credits. A short article from their correspondent at Berne states that the Deutsche Bank at Berlin has informed the Swiss banks by circular, that the Russian Soviet State Bank offers 36 per cent. for depoits on current accounts, and the Deutsche Bank is prepared-to act as intermediary for the deposits. That shows the position of Russia in a nutshell.
    My second point is the introduction of Germany into international Society. I think the crux of the whole European situation is the crux between France and Germany. France needs two things—money and security. Germany must be honest and pay to the last farthing. France insists, and I think rightly insists, that she should also have security. We know she wants money; anybody who looks at the last French Budget must realise the enormous deficit that, she has to face, and I think, if one wants to appreciate the position of France, one must try to get into the skin of a Frenchman. Then it is possible to appreciate France's difficulties, and what she has gone through, and the possibilities of her position to-day. In many ways it is tragic. I sincerely hope that Britain and France will keep together. It is vital that this relationship should be soldered, so that we may go forward in the hope of getting the security and the peace which we all require. One of the troubles of Europe to-day is the immense amount which all the nations owe. In pre-War days that amount was £9,000,000,000, now it is £53,000,000,000. It is a gigantic amount, and until you get these important points settled you cannot get stability and get the trade of Europe going as we should all desire. I take one very important document which I do not think has been referred to and which was issued at Genoa. It struck me as indeed containing

    1519
    a possibility of bringing the nations to peace. I refer to the remarkable document issued by Pope Pius XI. The letter was to the Governments of the peoples of the world and in it was described, as a new spur to universal brotherhood and a new admonition, the disasters likely to befall mankind if efforts for true pacification should fail. Those are important words, and I think they might almost have been spoken or written by our Prime Minister. There is no man more anxious for peace than he.
    My third point is that Pan-European peace should be made for a definite number of years. It was discussed at Genoa and although it did not fructify there, we sincerely hope it may result in something really solid. The Sub-Committees at Genoa appeared to me to have done more good, possibly, than the big Conferences. There were Sub-Committees on Transport and on Finance, and the report of the Sub-Committee on Finance was very similar to the proposals in the Brussels Report of September, 1920. It must be remembered that the Brussels meeting was under the League of Nations, who had not the control or, I should say, the power that the Genoa Conference had. The Sub-Committee on Finance discussed the gold standard. It is very easy to talk about the gold standard, but I cannot conceive a real gold standard unless you get the Allied debts and the debts owed to the United States of America settled in some definite form. They also discussed the limiting of paper money. Until we balance our Budgets we cannot possibly limit paper money. What is happening to-day in Germany? She is paying her reparations by issuing paper money, and the people of the world are buying that paper money, which gives her credit in England, America and other countries. If that can be stopped at all, it can only be by Germany balancing her Budget and, possibly, altering the reparation. Another point raised was the co-ordination of gold. Again, that is very difficult, as 45 per cent. of the gold of the world is in America. We, as a united Empire, are the great producers of gold. I think it would be very difficult to get co-ordination of gold at the present time, with America holding 45 per cent. I am sure we all desire peace and co-ordina-
    1520
    tion, but I should like to refer to what Mr. Gladstone said in 1869:
    "The statesmen of to-day—(that was 1866)—have a new mission opened to them; the mission of substituting the concert of nations for their conflicts and of teaching them to grow great in common and to give to others by giving to themselves."
    I think that is the policy of our Prime Minister. I think the Genoa Conference has been a success, and I feel confident if the Prime Minister continues on the same policy of having conferences and getting nations to meet, that in due time we shall have peace, permanent peace, the peace with security which we all desire.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I venture for the first time to say a few words upon this subject of foreign policy, and I approach it purely from the standpoint of what I conceive to be the view of the man in the street. I frankly confess that, having listened to the various speeches from the leaders on both sides, I am somewhat tired of these sophistries bandied about from one side to the other. I am a little disposed to say, a plague upon your party manœuvres. Let us try to remember that Europe is in need of resuscitation and reorganisation. The plain man in the street wants one thing, and one thing only, and that is peace. He wants peace, because he is fully conscious of the fact that only through the medium of peace can he have restored to him that happiness and contentment which he has the right to believe ought to be his log in his days, after the greatest war in all history. Before the Prime Minister went to Genoa, we had a discussion in this House as to the purpose of that Conference, and the Government, by way of initiating that discussion, placed upon the Order Paper a vote of confidence in itself. We on these Benches—we, at least, who belong to the Labour party—placed on the Paper all Amendment to the official Resolution, and I voted for that Amendment, not because I did not desire to see the Genoa Conference succeed, but because I could not believe that the gentlemen who were responsible for the Versailles Treaty could in the slightest degree make the re-organisation of Europe possible through the medium of Genoa. Genoa was paraded in the public Press as being the forerunner of the new Europe, and the Prime Minister led us to believe that if he were just given this one last chance Europe would then have the possibility of finding

    1521
    itself at peace. The Prime Minister has returned and has given us this afternoon an interesting, but not very illuminating, account of what actually has happened at Genoa. Indeed, I think I might say with accuracy, that we have heard far more about Genoa from the public Press than we have heard from the leading citizen of the country in this House this afternoon.
    What has the Prime Minister told us? I invite hon. Members opposite to tell us frankly: What has he told us of the achievements at Genoa? What has been done? As the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) pointed out, quite rightly, he devoted nearly an hour of his speech to the discussion of the internal conditions of Russia, a discussion of Russia's philosophy of government, Russia's revolutionary point of view, and so on, but apart from that examination of the Russian mind, he was unable to point to a single tangible achievement to the credit of the Prime Minister as the result of the Genoa Conference. But those of us who have followed the doings of the diplomats at Genoa have been able to draw conclusions of our own. The Prime Minister was able to point to the peace pact, which is to last for a very short time. For my part, I am glad there is a peace pact established, even for that short time, because, however brief that peace may be, it is all to the good of Europe that they should be able to realise that a peace is possible if only they approach it from the proper point of view, and therefore I am very glad of this very brief peace pact. But I would draw attention to this, that, in the summary which the Prime Minister has attempted of the Genoa Conference, singularly enough the relationship of this country with France, which was one of our leading Allies in the War, was the one unmentionable subject as the result of Genoa. The Prime Minister dared not mention it. He was so fearful of the subject, it was so dangerous a problem, that he dared not discuss it in this House this afternoon. That, to my mind, is an indication of the complete failure of the Genoa Conference. It shows that, as the result of discussions abroad, one of our leading Allies in the War has been almost completely alienated from us, and alienated for reasons which a very large number of us, if we cannot actually say it with authority, can at least guess very accurately, namely, that it has been due
    1522
    to France's militaristic atmosphere and spirit at this particular moment.
    I might say, quite frankly and with confidence, that the people who belong to the working class movement of this country are watching with very great misgiving the present attitude of the French Premier, Monsieur Poincaré. We are not prepared to contemplate any more the possibility, either through an open military alliance or through an understanding such as existed between this country and France, before the War, our being drawn into another international broil on account of misunderstandings which are not made absolutely public and open to the light of day, and I think it is well for the Government to be told that the working classes of this country, before they commit themselves to another war of the character of the late one, will want to know by what authority the foreign Ministers of this country have committed us to any alliance, open or implied, with foreign nations in this sense or in that. There is another significant fact emerging from the Genoa Conference, and that is that there seems to be a new alignment of Powers. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) referred to it, and I think it so important that it is well that it should be underlined. I do not regard the Rapallo Treaty as being so terrible in its significance as the right hon. Gentlemen who have previously spoken seemed to imply. I think it a good thing that Russia and Germany should be able to come to an agreement, provided that that agreement should not tend to be an exclusive agreement, and provided that they leave the door open for the enlargement of that agreement, so as to enable other nations to come in, and so I understand the published terms of that Treaty of Rapallo. In so far as those two nations, which after all represent by far the largest proportion of the population of Europe, a population of some 200,000,000, have been able to arrive at an agreement which, to my mind, is likely to lead to the resuscitation of European activity, then the Rapallo Treaty will be one of the first really constructive achievements that has stood to the credit of any European nation since the late War.
    I would like to see that idea contained in the Treaty extended, but there is a danger, which gives one a little mis giving. One knows full well that before the late War the Chancelleries of Europe,

    1523
    as it were, were divided into two separate and opposing camps, and it would be most unfortunate and, indeed, very regrettable if the Rapallo Treaty did eventuate in a new alignment of European Powers, Germany and Russia on the one side, and our own country with, perhaps, France and Italy and, possibly, Japan on the other side, leading to new co-operative groups of Powers, thus leading to suspicion, suspicion begetting armaments, and armaments once more begetting a new war. Therefore I trust, in the interests of European, if not of world, peace, efforts will be made to extend the Rapallo Treaty, so as to include all the leading nations at this particular moment.
    What exactly is the attitude of our own Government in respect of the present position of Japan in Siberia? It is a most important question, because, after all, we might well find aurselves drawn into a new broil through the presence of Japan at that particular point, and I think we ought to make it perfectly clear—I speak for myself, of course, without committing other people—that there is a growing opinion which looks with very great misgiving upon the presence of Japan in that part of the world. There is another point I would like to make concerning Russia. Let me say, by way of preface, that I do not subscribe to the Bolshevist theory of government. I disagree with it, but if it be the Russian way of governing Russia, that is their affair and not ours. I have noticed with some interest, if not surprise, constant expression given to a feeling in this House that the proper attitude to take towards Russia is to do nothing. Really that is an impossible point of view. Either you must frankly make an effort to draw Russia into the Concert of Europe, or openly declare that she is free to make any other alliances she wishes. Either be friends with Russia, or openly declare that you are enemies of Russia. You cannot have it both ways. You say you dislike Russia because of her revolutionary opinions at this moment. You did not make that particular objection regarding Serbia when King Peter ascended the Serbian throne. He ascended by means of a revolution, and a revolution of blood. You broke off diplomatic relationship with Serbia for a very brief
    1524
    period, but, as soon as it became convenient for you, regardless of the fact of that bloody revolution, you quickly made friends with Serbia, because it was diplomatically convenient at the moment. You did not care twopence whether King Peter came to his throne through a revolution of blood. Similarly with the Turkish revolution. You overlooked the character of that revolution, and quickly made friends with the new power in Turkey, because it was diplomatically convenient. It may not be diplomatically convenient for certain people in this country to make diplomatic friends with Russia, but it is industrially convenient: it is humanly convenient; it is convenient on good, solid, well-founded international grounds, for if Russia be left outside the community of nations in Europe at this moment, a large number of our people in this country are deprived of the opportunity of making goods which, in more normal conditions, Russia could take from us. Therefore, in the interests of the eventual return of our people to employment we should begin seriously to reflect upon this policy towards the Russian people. I do not emphasise the argument, but, after all, it is fair to point out that the Russian people made very great sacrifices during the late War, and, if that be so, I think it is fair and just that you should have regard to those sacrifices as well as to the present shortcomings, if they are shortcomings, of the leaders of that nation.
    There is another question upon which I want to touch. Can we get this evening from the Government a little light as to the retinues of oil interests which appeared at Genoa? Will the spokesman for the Government to-night be good enough to tell us about those people who descended on Genoa like the hosts of Sennacherib, some representing the Standard Oil companies, some representing the Shell group, and some representing the Dutch companies? Shall we have a little light as to how far they had influence on our own foreign policy there? Can we have a little light, further, as to how far their interests were reflected in the policy of other countries, and, therefore, influenced our own? I think it is right to say that the miracle of the New Testament with which we are most familiar is the miracle of turning water into wine. I think the miracle of the new capitalism will be the miracle of con-

    1525
    verting blood into oil, and I think it would be well to be informed how far these oil interests of the world at this moment are dictating and dominating the foreign policy of our own country. Material interests are often apt to become more important even than human interests, and it is true, as an early thinker once declared:
    "Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together,"
    and they appear to have been fairly abundant, so far as Genoa was concerned, during the last two months.
    We who belong to the Labour movement are very anxious to see the recognition of the Russian Government an established fact in the immediate future, not, I repeat, because we agree with their point of view, but because we think that, for good or for ill, they are the accepted Government of the day in Russia. They have as good a right to say that they are, as hon. Members have to say that they are not, and I am perfectly sure that if it came to an examination of one's right to speak for a people, M. Tchitcherin could very aptly invite the Prime Minister to say how much more of a mandate did he get in 1918 over and above the hanging of the Kaiser—which has not been done, I observe—and making the Germans pay? The interests of the world, I think, demand the recognition of this Russian Government, not, I repeat, out of sympathy with its Governmental ideas—not at all—but because of the right of every people to be governed along the lines which they themselves think best. That being so, I think if that first step were taken, we should then be able to start upon the road towards that new peace in Europe which we all desire. The great need of Europe is peace, a peace without armaments, a peace without any danger of war. As a matter of fact, in spite of all the conferences at which hon. Members opposite have been represented, there are more possibilities of war in 1-ilurope to-day than in July, 1914. That is a result of the type of peace that has been set up. We say it is time to get back to normal conditions, and the only way of meeting unemployment to-day is for us to have done with this idea that the interests of one nation are essentially opposed to the interests of another. They are not. The peoples of the world are one. The time is coming when, if diplomats will not do it, the working-
    1526
    class people will establish a unity which will make the machinations of diplomats and statesmen futile the world over. The only way of doing that is by having done with war implements and armaments, and establishing Europe once more on a basis of international concord and credit.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I view Genoa from a different angle altogether to that from which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken sees it. His solution of the evils of Europe at the present time is to recognise Russia. That, if I may say so, is the bee in the bonnet of the Labour party, not only in this House, but all over the country. They go down to platforms; you can hear it from every orange-box in the country, that the way to cure unemployment is to recognise Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, recognition of Russia has always been held up, if not by Members in this House—because the argument can be so easily proved to be ridiculous—yet outside the House, and by hon. Members' disciples in the country. You can hear it at every street corner, that what we ought to do is to recognise the Bolshevists, and then we can have plenty of employment. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken used that argument in a modified way.
    Mr. M. JONES: I merely said, or implied anyhow, that was one way of curing unemployment.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Well, it is so regarded by many of the friends of the hon. Gentleman. However, let us consider what our trade with Russia was before the War. It was then 5 per cent. of our ordinary trade. We have at the present time three-fifths of that in trading with those parts of Russia which have split off from old Russia, such as Esthonia, Latvia, Poland, and so on. We are doing very nearly as much trade as before the War. I am afraid that even if the Bolchevists could be recognised, that is to say, if they would agree to certain international amenities which they have been asked to do at Genoa, and refused to agree to, that the- result of it would not be much beyond what I have stated. Even if they could pay for goods which were sent to them—which they could not do—even if they could do that, the increase in the trade of this country would not be worth practically anything at all. We could hardly do any more trade than we are doing, although we might possibly

    1527
    do more with Germany. I want to allude to that later.
    I was struck by the argument used by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) in relation to France. He made a very anti-French speech, I thought. He accused France of adhering to a militarist policy simply because France says: "We made a Treaty at Versailles and we wish it carried out to the letter.' France says that under that Treaty, by paragraph 18, they are entitled to take certain measures, such as occupying the Ruhr district, and that was not to be regarded, according to the paragraph, by Germany as an act of war. The French are only insisting on the carrying out of the Versailles Treaty. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly says what he does about the French people, and says that he is speaking for the working classes of this country, I assure him he only speaks for a small section of the working classes. The Labour party do not represent the working classes. That is another bee in their bonnet. A few do represent a section of the working classes of this country, but not by any means the majority, or, of course, some of us would not be here.
    As regards the Genoa Conference, I was one of those who in this matter voted against the Government. I did so because I did not believe it was a good thing to hold a conference, more especially in regard to the suggestion at that time that Russia should be recognised. Everything we said at that time has come true. There is nothing really which has turned up at Genoa except the eight months' Peace Pact, which in the first place does not mean anything at all, because the Bolshevists, who are the principal people concerned, never pretend to keep any treaty. They are not men of honour. They openly proclaim that they only go into these conferences and make treaties with people in order to push their propaganda, and so on, in other countries. We hear of their pacts, but whether they are made at San Remo or at Genoa makes no difference. As a matter of fact, there never was any great danger during the next eight months of any Army being on the march. That was one of the reasons given at Genoa for the agreement. Much as the Bolshevists would like to march, they cannot do it. They have not much in the way of transport behind them, and
    1528
    you cannot move a huge Army of 2,000,000 men into a foreign country and keep them supplied and equipped without enormous transport preparations and facilities. That probably conies about by the mercy of providence; therefore we need not be afraid of any attack by the Bolshevists at the present time, although, of course, the treaty with Germany might lead up in the future to a very dangerous situation.
    The ostensible object of the Conference was to revive confidence and bring about better trade conditions in Europe. We have been told that certain resolutions have been passed, but really we have not been given any meat in the speech of the Prime Minister. We have been told nothing really useful as to what has been clone in that direction, and I for one still believe that it was a mistake to hold a Conference. It is quite true we all are willing and anxious that everything should be done to cement peace. I believe, however, that the proper way to cement peace is to see that Treaties like the Versailles Treaty are carried out and that you cannot, peace being a plant, pull it up by the roots every month or so by a Conference and put it down again in the ground and expect it to continue in normal growth. You cannot, I say, do that with peace. Peace is a thing which grows up gradually and consists in the building up of friendships, especially after a tremendous cataclysm like the Great War. I believe it is far better to let the Russians keep out of Europe for the present, for it must be obvious that it cannot really matter to Europe. When they are ready to give the ordinary guarantees of every civilised nation to those who want to travel in their country and wish to do business there, then we may recognise them, and perhaps even help them with trade credits, but not until then.
    I would like to remind hon. Members opposite that that view is shared by the two greatest democracies in the world next to our own, namely, the United States and France. Both those countries are against the recognition of Russia, and they are both against granting loans or trading with Russia until they have altered their habits. In the case of the countries which have been mentioned where revolutions have taken place, they did not massacre anything like the number of people which the Russians have done. According to one Russian Bolshevist publication, no less than

    1529
    1,766,000 men, women, and children have been executed by these villains. Surely there is a great difference between the Portuguese revolution, which was comparatively peaceful as revolutions go, and the case of Russia, where the present Government got into power by committing such frightful cruelties and atrocities. If hon. Members could visualise a crowd of 1,766,000 people gathered together in Trafalgar Square, or perhaps it would be better to say Hyde Park, I think that that would bring home to them the holocaust which has been made in Russia.
    In order to get rid of our terrible state of unemployment we want to push our trade. The trade we do with Europe is not our biggest trade. We carry on most of our trade with countries outside Europe and within the British Empire. Our own Empire takes a greater percentage of our trade than Europe, and so do other countries outside Europe. Our trade with Europe during 1920, which is the last year for which the figures are available, shows that we imported £446,000,000 from Europe, and from other countries £925,000,000. We imported no less than £559,000,000 from the British Empire. In the same year our exports to Europe were £625,000,000 and to other countries £405,000,000, whilst we exported to different parts of the British Empire £526,000,000. It is true that to the whole of Europe we did export a little more than we did to the British Empire, but there is not very much difference.
    9.0 P.M.
    I suggest that the best thing we can do is to have a conference of the representatives of the British Empire and ask the Government and the Cabinet to turn their energies towards calling together an Imperial Conference to deal with trade questions, in order to bring about the granting of credits, if possible, from this country to push our Imperial trade. We are much more likely to benefit in that way, and we are more likely to benefit our people overseas. We know how much more valuable they are to us than any foreigners. I believe in nationalism and not internationalism. The Prime Minister alluded to selfish nationalism. Many people go to the other extreme, and they are always advocating internationalism, but we ought first of all to look to our own interests. We ought to build up the trade of the British Empire and our own country, and not go running about chasing will-o'-
    1530
    the-wisps like the trade of Russia. I hope that hon. Members belonging to the Labour party will not continue to lay so much stress on Russian trade, no matter what they may desire in the shape of recognising Russia, because the trade of Russia, even if it is recognised, cannot possibly be of any great value. I do not think that the Prime Minister has really come back from Genoa with anything which is of much value. Nobody denies the energy, the brilliancy and the industry with which he has tackled his work at Genoa, but it is the policy which the Prime Minister and the Cabinet has adopted at this Conference in regard to trade with Russia with which we disagree. I hope that before the Hague Conference takes place, we shall be assured that America will come to it, but if France refuses to go to The Hague as well as America, it will be far better not to hold that Conference, and devote the whole of our energies to solving the very serious and terrible problems which are before us in our own country, in Ireland, in the British Empire, in India and in our Colonial possessions. I think if the Government would call a conference of representatives of the British Empire with the object of encouraging migration within the Empire, it would do more good to this country and to the world in general.
    Mr. G. BARNES: The first word I wish to say is in reference to the last word of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I think there is too much disposition on the part of hon. Members to push one particular idea to the exclusion of all others. I am in favour of other methods besides those embodied in this Conference in order to get a better state of things in Europe, and in order to get employment for our own people. But that is no reason why I should condemn what has been done at Genoa. I have listened to a good deal of this Debate, and I have been rather disappointed with it for several reasons. Here is a great effort being made for the pacification of Europe and getting our men into employment and obtaining some security for peace in the world for some time to come, and I should have thought under those circumstances that we should have had a note of encouragement from hon. Members instead of which they have been laying

    1531
    emphasis on the negative side rather than on the positive side of the Conference.
    The League of Nations has been brought into this question in such a way as to rather damage it. In my opinion the League of Nations is the hope of the world, and therefore I am all the more sorry that it should have been made the subject matter of recriminations and personalities in this House to-day. Let me say that I believe with the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) that if it had been possible to have had a conference of the League of Nations that method would have been rather better than the methods which have been adopted at Genoa. But what is the good of talking like that. The League could not have convened such a conference. What was the main object of the Genoa Conference? It was to get Russia back into the comity of nations. The very first thing that should occur to any hon. Member making that suggestion is the repeated declaration of Russia that she would have nothing at all to do with the League of Nations. Therefore if the Conference had been convened by the League of Nations, you would have had no Russians there at I regret the bandying about of the League of Nations in a way which seems to me detrimental to that League.
    I am sorry also that a good deal has been said that will not in any way tend to improve our relations with France. There again words have been bandied across the Floor which will not have a good effect on our future relations. I believe, as we all of us believe, that we must do everything possible and even stretch the point a great deal in order o continue our relations with France, for that is the pillar upon which European peace must depend. The very fact of our common experience from 1914 onwards, the experience of four and a half years of dreadful war and slaughter, that very fact in itself must have sunk deep into the minds and consciences of the people, not only of this country, but also of France, and it should be a great consideration with us to do nothing and to say nothing which will in any way endanger the relations between the two countries. I am rather sorry to think that something has been said to-day in that way. Let me again emphasise that there has been too much of a tendency on the part of some Members to lay too
    1532
    great a stress on the negative features of the Conference. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said that the Genoa Conference had been a complete failure, yet almost in the next sentence he admitted it had given us an eight months' truce. Is an eight months' truce nothing at this time of the day? It seems to me that if we got nothing else out of the Conference every single man in this House ought to be grateful for that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I thought we had got a 10 years' truce.
    Mr. BARNES: That is a rather rhetorical statement which was made some time ago.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We have reduced our Army and our Navy on the strength of it.
    Mr. BARNES: And I think we might reduce our Navy a good deal more, but that is not the point. Some time ago statements were made about a 10 years' peace, and the position is not so satisfactory to-day from the international point of view as it was when those statements were made. I think if there was nothing else to commend this Conference this eight months' truce must be considered a feather in the cap of the Prime Minister. Does it not keep the door open? What happened at Genoa? Those who have been watching will know that the economical question, the question of the ownership of property, really hung up the Conference. The chief aim was to get a pact of European nations so that we might get back to work in peace and security. That was the main object of the Conference, but it was held up by questions about the ownership of property in Russia. Directly we get those questions settled, as I hope we shall by the people best qualified to settle them at The Hague, then we may get on with the larger questions of getting Russia sonic-how or other into the comity of nations and thus have some security for the peace of Europe. The hon. and gallant Gentle man who last spoke said a good deal about the question of getting Russia to the comity of nations. He produced some figures to show the small amount of our trade with Russia, and then he poured ridicule on the Labour party for being so anxious to resume trade with Russia when there was so little really

    1533
    involved. I want Russia brought into the comity of nations, not in order to get back the 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. of trade, but in order to get rid of the army which Russia now has. As a matter of fact, she has 1,500,000 armed men at the present moment, and that is the most sinister element in Europe to-day. If you have 1,500,000 armed men in Russia, how can you expect other countries to reduce their armies and navies? The main obstacle in Europe—the main obstacle to that peace which we all desire—is to be found in this great army.
    The Prime Minister has put up a magnificent fight. If he had succeeded, as we should have liked, it would have been a great thing, but there are sometimes successes even in failure, and I believe that the Prime Minister has emphasised the importance and enhanced the prestige of this country by standing up once more, as he has frequently done since the War, as the champion of getting all the countries in Europe, including Germany, into a pact which is to secure peace. I believe that Russia is the most dangerous, not only because she has this Army of 1,500,000 men, but because of the fact that the resources of Russia may be exploited and organised by the fertile brain of the German. The danger is that we may have these two great peoples, numbering altogether, I suppose, 250,000,000, the one with the resources, and the other with the brains to organise and exploit them. If that comes about, if you are going to have that as a fore-runner of the two groups in Europe, then, to my mind, the outlook is indeed very black.
    I believe we are partly responsible for it. We have, I will not say refused admission to Germany into the League of Nations, but we have not taken the part we should have done in encouraging Germany to apply for admission, and that is very largely the root of the trouble which we find to-day. I should like to see that policy reversed, and I should like to have it made known somehow that this country stands for strengthening the League of Nations by making it a universal League of all nations in Europe, and then, I believe, America, seeing that we are at last taking the obvious course of putting our own house in order, may also come in. But, whether she does or not, we have got ourselves into this trouble by keeping Germany out of they
    1534
    League of Nations, and thereby throwing her into the arms of Russia. The Prime Minister, I believe, has made heroic efforts to undo that policy at Genoa. I want to say no word of reproach or recrimination, but I desire to congratulate him on having made a great fight, and I thank him for it.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Barnes) ended his very interesting speech by saying that the Prime Minister at Genoa had endeavoured to undo some of his mistakes in the past.
    Mr. G. BARNES: I made no reference to mistakes in the past.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Well, the right hon. Gentleman, with all his admiration for the Prime Minister, implied that at these international conferences he had, not to put it higher, committed several mistakes. I am bound to say that I was rather surprised at the hour at which the Prime Minister rose to make his second speech. The Committee understood, when he asked for its indulgence—which, by the way, was not necessary—for a second speech, that it would be delivered at the end of the day; but, instead, the Prime Minister rose before 8 o'clock, when it was quite obvious that there were many criticisms still to be made by hon. Members, to which criticisms the right hon. Gentleman, of course, will not reply. In the course of his second speech words were bandied across the House which were eminently characteristic of the Prime Minister and his methods. I wondered whether, when the Prime Minister dilated at great length upon his objections to the old diplomacy, what the Leader of the House, who was sitting beside him, thought of what he said; because the Leader of the House, in a speech which was reported in the Press of Saturday last, and to which I had the privilege of listening, proposed the health of the late French Ambassador, and in the course of that speech he said:
    "I am afraid, Monsieur Cambon, that you and I be-long to a generation that is passing away, a generation that feels that there is much to be said for the old diplomacy."
    I wondered what the Leader of the House thought of the Prime Minister's observations about the old diplomacy. Then a passage of arms took place in which were introduced the words "honesty"

    1535
    and "policy." I venture to suggest to the Prime Minister what in his international relations would be the honest policy, and would be more likely to lead to a better understanding between ourselves and France than any of these conferences upon which he has been engaged, and that is to acknowledge the mistakes he has made during the past three years, and to ask France to talk out the whole situation frankly in order that a general agreement might be arrived at. But the Prime Minister has never done that. Instead, he has dragged France from one Conference to another. Before going to those Conferences, he has agreed with the French Prime Minister upon an agenda and upon resolutions, and that certain things shall not be discussed; but on every occasion at the Conference he has tried to manœuvre the French into a false position. That is the situation in which we find ourselves to-day, and it is those methods and that practice which undoubtedly gave rise to much of the misunderstanding which occurred at Genoa. The Prime Minister, in his opening remarks, drew attention to the objects for which the Conference at Genoa was summoned—the restoration of trading and financial.relations, the improvement of diplomatic relations, and other objects of that nature; and he suggested that time alone could show whether or not the Conference in those particular respects had been a success. I noticed, however, that towards the end of his speech—the period of sunsets and mountain tops—the Prime Minister said that the Conference has already accomplished great things. If the Prime Minister had said what was in his mind, he would have said that Genoa has had one achievement from his point of view, and that is that it has established contact with Russia—a contact which did not previously exist. I venture to say that that contact is not in itself a necessarily useful thing. If it be an achievement, it is at the moment an achievement of a purely abstract nature. The results of that contact, so far as Great Britain is concerned, can only be judged by future events, and it is yet too early to refer to Genoa, as the Prime Minister did in an interview reported in the Press, as a landmark in our history.
    1536
    On the other hand, it is quite clear that there have been concrete disadvantages associated with the Genoa, Conference. In the first place, it cannot be said that it has been helpful to the League of Nations' policy. I believe that even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals will agree with me in that. The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the spot when he pointed to the omission of His Majesty's Government to encourage Germany to enter the League, as being one of the reasons why Genoa might be described as a, failure. I view with grave misgiving, arising, as it does, directly out of that failure on the part of His Majesty's Government to encourage Germany to come into the League, the Rapallo Treaty, which has been concluded between Russia and Germany. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals pointed out that one of the greatest dangers from which Europe is suffering to-day is the standing army of 1,500,000 men, which is round the frontiers of Russia. The Prime Minister referred to the Russo-German Military Treaty, to which reference has been made in the Press, as a forgery. With regard to that, I want to repeat a question which was put by another hon. Member, and I hope the Secretary of State for War will reply to it. Have the War Office received any information, from those gentlemen whom it employs for such purposes, with regard to this Treaty, and, if so, is, what has appeared in the Press a forgery or is it not?
    There are other directions in which to my mind the Genoa Conference has not been helpful, and one of these is in connection with our relations with the United States of America. The Prime Minister, in his opening remarks, made no reference at all to the United States. In his second speech he said that he regretted that the United States had not taken part in the Conference. It is not enough to regret that. What is wanted is a real understanding of the situation in the United States, and the ordinary courteous diplomatic methods of dealing with her Government. What happened at Genoa? When at Cannes it was decided to invite the United States of America to take part in the Genoa Conference. I think I am correct in saying that the United States Secretary of State saw for the first time in the public Press in Washington that

    1537
    this invitation was to be issued. Is that a correct method of dealing with a friendly Power? Is it likely to induce that Power to fall in with the arrangements that you are going to make? Is it not more likely to lead to a feeling that the hand of the recipient of the invitation is to be forced by its premature publication?
    What happened at Genoa in relation to The Hague? I put the question to the Leader of the House a few days ago. I asked him:
    "If, prior to the issue of the invitation to the United States Government to attend the proposed Conference at The Hague, steps were first taken to ascertain at Washington whether the invitation was likely to be acceptable to that Government?"
    That is the ordinary diplomatic method of procedure. The Leader of the House, in reply said:
    "Steps were taken informally, through the United States Ambassador in Rome, to enquire whether an invitation to participate in the work of The Hague Commission would be acceptable to the United States of America. The views of the Secretary of State upon the subject are contained in the message which was communicated to the Press by the United States Government."
    Yes, but that leaves out a very material point, which is, that before any reply was received by the United States Ambassador, Mr. Childs, at Genoa, as to whether or not the invitation was likely to be acceptable, the invitation was issued. No delay was allowed in order to ascertain whether the invitation was likely to be acceptable; it was issued, and again the United States Government were placed in a false position.
    It is not by methods such as these that you are going to induce the United States Government, or her people, to take the interest in European affairs which is necessary to the financial and economic reconstruction of the Eastern hemisphere. I venture to lay down, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that if you really wish to achieve the economic reconstruction of Europe you must take the United States Government and the United States people with you. I say, further, that the Prime Minister has either utterly failed to understand that or has totally ignored it. In the very interesting speech to which we listened from the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise), who on financial and economic subjects always gains the respectful ear of the House, he laid particular stress
    1538
    upon this point, and no doubt he could have developed it at very much greater length He said:
    "You will not get a real gold standard unless the Allied debts are settled in some definite form."
    He said that without the United States you could not settle these Allied debts in any definite form. We owe them some £50,000,000 in interest on the debt each year, and, indeed, it is not too much to say, that without the United States, and without the full and cordial co-operation of her Government and people, we shall never really get down to the economic problems with which we are confronted at the present time.
    In saying that, I lead up to this, that in all the circumstances particular account ought, to have been taken of the susceptibilities of the United States in relation to the Russian problem. Was that done? No, of course it was not. No attempt was made to do it. Whose fault it was I am unable to say, but I presume that in view of the fact that no representative of the Foreign Office, except its legal adviser, was present at Genoa—
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department was present.
    Captain W. BENN: He is a joint product of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: With all due deference to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I cannot accept the suggestion that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department is a representative of the Foreign Office.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: He is an Under Secretary of State.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: He never went there in the sense of being a representative of the Foreign Office. With all respect to my hon. Friend, I really cannot accept that. He is a sort of appanage of both Departments; he has got a Department of his own. For certain purposes he may be tied to the Foreign Office, but does he represent the Foreign Office in this House? Of course he does not. That Department is very ably represented by my hon. Friend. As I say, no particular account was taken of the susceptibilities of the United States in

    1539
    regard to Russia. Quite apart from Genoa, the United States was not sounded as to whether she would participate in The Hague. She was not sounded as to in what manner she would be inclined to join in an exploration of Russian economic problems. I venture to say—the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War may think it comic—
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I do not think it comic, I think it incorrect that the United States was not sounded as to The Hague. The opposite is the fact.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: As the right hon. Gentleman says that, I must trouble the House with chapter and verse. Perhaps he was not listening when I referred to it a moment or two ago. What did happen? At Genoa, the United States Ambassador, Mr. Childs, was asked by the French representative to convey to Washington a suggestion that the Powers, including the United States, should co-operate in an expert investigation of Russian affairs. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Mr. Childs having submitted this outline of a plan, the State Department lost no time in replying that the United States had always been ready to join in arranging an inquiry by experts, but that the Government naturally desired fuller information before committing itself. So far so good. What happened? While this reply was on its way to Genoa the invitation to The Hague was apparently on its way to Washington. Is that the way to sound a friendly Power? It may be the methods of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, but it is not the method by which frank and cordial co-operation can be obtained.
    What was the United States prepared to do? I lay emphasis on this point. The United States is prepared to join in an exploration of Russian economic problems:
    "The United States Government believes that a Commission of recognised experts might with advantage go into Russia to make an intimate study of the actual needs of that nation and the means of meeting those needs. The United States is ready to embark with other Powers on any purely scientific investigation of the conditions in Russia, and of the steps necessary to bring about commercial, industrial, and financial revival in that country."
    1540
    Is there anything in that with which we cannot agree? Is it not worth while to bring the United States into Europe on conditions such as those? Why have we not attempted in any sense to suggest to the United States, if she really is willing, as her State Department says she is, to enter once again into the European financial and economic problems, co-operation on conditions such as these? Why is that not done? Do you mean to say if the Prime Minister said he was willing to accept an invitation issued by the United States for an inquiry under those conditions the House would not give him a more genuine vote of confidence than he has ever received from it? Of course it would. I hope it is not yet even too late. The Hague has been arranged—an indefinable something which may be as great a fiasco as some of the conferences which have preceded it. But let the Government even now approach the United States. Let them ask the United States the conditions under which they would be wiling to cooperate with us in these serious problems which confront us. Then and then only will the Prime Minister and his Government be doing something for the real restoration of the European economic and financial situation.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: I wish to give the Committee a message from those with rather Victorian proclivities, who look on the whole matter, not as a question of opportunism and inopportunism, but as a matter of right and wrong. We have witnessed to-day the coming back from Genoa of our Prime Minister with his report. I wish to correlate that fact and that report with a great rule which the Prime Minister laid down last autumn, when he gave, as his line of guidance for the future in dealing with certain difficult problems:
    "We must not choose, we must look to those who can deliver the goods."
    Twice has the Prime Minister gone to those who can deliver the goods. The first time it was to the present Irish Provisional Government. Have they delivered the goods? Are they delivering the goods?
    The CHAIRMAN: This is a Vote for the Foreign Office, and not the Irish Estimates.
    Sir C. OMAN: I accept the correction. The second time was to an even more

    1541
    strange race of people, the Bolshevists of Russia. The Prime Minister has come hack with the report of his strange experiences in endeavouring to carry out his mission in Genoa—to "the people who can deliver the goods." First of all, these particular people have not any goods to deliver; secondly, they would not deliver them if they could; and, thirdly, it requires talents, such as I hope are not to be found in this House, not even on the Front Benches, to discomfit by his own methods a Russian Jew of Bolshevist tendencies. The whole matter has, as the Prime Minister has honestly confessed, failed entirely in regard to the negotiations with Russia. As for the other matters for which le took to himself credit, I think they were trifling. But the Genoa project, by which he endeavoured to run Russia into a new scheme for the re-organisation of Europe, has been a failure. Not that I consider that this is so very important. Russian trade represented 2 per cent. of British trade before the War, and that that 2 per cent. should be added or left out does not seem to me a thing of the highest importance compared with the unfortunate disadvantage of having to touch pitch. The resolve of the Government to deal with these people was, by the most inaccurate historical parallel I ever remember being made, compared by the Prime Minister to the case of Pitt, who hated the French Revolution, yet had finally to negotiate with the French revolutionary Government in 1796 and afterwards. One little fact was omitted by the Prime Minister in this parallel. It was that the gentlemen whom Pitt so much disliked, Robespierre and all his crew, had already been beheaded by that French Government with which Mr. Pitt unwillingly in after years had to deal. Even then he failed because of the French Government's extreme love of asking too much and giving too little.
    I f the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom were here, I would ask him to ponder whether it would not be well to wait to open negotiations with the Russian Government till we shall have a Russian Government corresponding to that French Government with which Mr. Pitt negotiated, that is to say, till those Russians who shall have beheaded Lenin and Trotsky are in power, just as the French who beheaded Robespierre were in power when Pitt commenced negotia-
    1542
    tions. The French politicians with whom Mr. Pitt negotiated were not the gang of 1793–94. They were the much more corrupt, but, after all, less bloodthirsty gang that followed. Let us wait for something of that kind in Russia, and then, when the Jacobins have been beheaded, let us think of endeavouring to open discussions with their successors. Till then I must deprecate this continual line of conferences. There is one personage to whom the Prime Minister at present, to my mind, seems to hear a certain resemblance, a character very familiar to us all, the prophet Balaam, who went around from one nice, healthy hill-top to another endeavouring to carry out a spell or ban on certain people. They represented to him financial difficulties. A higher power, the Highest Power, unfortunately inhibited Balaam from carrying out the spell, and he moved round most ineffectively to Pisgah and to Peor. Again he attempted to carry out his spellbinding, after banquets of seven oxen and seven rams, but failed. The third time he moved on, I think, to the hill which looks toward Jeshimon, but again the inhibiting power was too great, and he went home, his task frustrated. I feel that really there is something against the success of these conferences, and I hope Balaam will return to "the River of the Children of his People," and leave these off-essayed spells unaccomplished, for surely there is a power against him.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Prime Minister, in giving his report of the transactions at Genoa, made what was an admission of complete failure. The Conference at Genoa had four main points of discussion. Those four points are set forth in the Blue Paper that has been issued to-day, and according to the Prime Minister the only thing that has matured from the Conference is that part which was discussed under what he termed the menace and fear of war. For eight months there is to be no likelihood of war between the 34 nations which have entered into this contract. It seems rather singular that in May, 1922, 3½ years after the 11th November, 1918, we should have a Prime Minister in this House informing us that the success of the Conference was so gigantic—he informed the reporters who waited upon him, after the brilliant reception at Victoria, that the decision was one of the most stupendous in the history of Europe—because 34

    1543
    nations had agreed to have an eight months' armed neutrality, 3½ years after we had signed the Armistice ending the War that was to end war for all time. That is the rare and refreshing fruit which the Prime Minister brings back from Genoa. If it were not for the tragic condition of Europe the results would be farcical.
    The best part of the Prime Minister's speech was devoted to explaining the internal conditions of Russia. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) passed strictures upon the Labour party for taking upon themselves the advocacy of the recognition of Russia. We do not claim that it would cure unemployment—no member of the Labour party has ever said that it would cure unemployment, and no Labour advocate on the innumerable orange boxes of which the hon. and gallant Member spoke, has ever said that peace with Russia would cure unemployment—but we do say that trade with Russia, the complete recognition of Russia, would tend to alleviate the distress in this country and in other European countries, and that trading relationships restored between the countries would largely reduce the amount of unemployment which exists to-day. The Prime Minister told us what is happening in Russia. No-one is more responsible for the conditions that prevail in Europe today than the Prime Minister and the Members of the Government. It was the policy dictated by them and France at Versailles, a policy from which they cannot escape, that has brought about this state of affairs. That Conference was held so soon after the general election which sent hon. and right hon. Members here in such show. At the behest of the Prime Minister, and following his lead, even the diehards, who now turn him adrift and cast him out because they have no longer any use for him, would, if an election came along to-morrow and they saw nothing likely to carry them back to this House, accept the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I admit there would be one or two honourable exceptions, but the bulk of the diehards will not die hard in an election, because they want to come back here soft.
    The hon. Members who follow the Prime Minister, and who cheered him so loudly to-day, came here on the promises
    1544
    which he made to the people of this country. The Prime Minister said in this House that the Kaiser would be tried, and that he would be tried in London. You all came into the House on that promise. Now some of you are finding fault with him for going to Genoa in order to try and bring about peace with Russia. Those who cheer him because he went, also cheered the Colonial Secretary time and time again when he stood at that box and spoke about tracking down Bolshevism in Russia, and financing Denikin, Koltchak and Wrangel. You followed him into the Lobby and you voted sums of £15,000,000 for that purpose. Now you come to the House and, in the words of the Prime Minister, we are told that Europe is lying bruised, battered, and broken. Three years after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the Prime Minister tells us that there is no peace in Europe. There can never be peace in Europe so long as the policy is followed that the Coalition Government is following to-day. The Prime Minister, in order to placate hon. Members, and in order that their loyalty might not be strained too severely, spoke of Russia as being governed by a communist government, but declared that it was not a communist community. He said that 95 per cent. of the property in Russia is in land, and that 95 per cent. is at present in the hands of the people who work the land, and that there you have peasant proprietorship such as you have not in any other part of the world. Individualism was the word he used to describe the conditions throughout a great part of Russia to-day, and hon. Members cheered him.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Not all.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I always excuse the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. He would never cheer the Prime Minister- He never cheers anybody, except when he gets the Dogs Bill passed through the House of Commons.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have cheered you.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am afraid I must examine my speech to-morrow and find out exactly which sentence the right hon. Baronet cheered.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right one.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I shall have to correct it before the reporters put it in the bound

    1545
    volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Members who cheered the Prime Minister when he made that statement evidently forget the methods by which these peasant proprietors became possessed of their land. Would they cheer if in this country the Independent Liberals or the Labour party were to advocate that we should have a form of peasant proprietorship in this country on lines similar to that which exist in Russia. That is the logical corollary to their cheering of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that we had confiscation in this country and in France during past revolutions. He spoke of the French Revolution, and of the dissolution of monastries in this country. They were too very fine historical illustrations for a revolutionary party to take advantage of. When you take the land of a country, history, in the end, either approves or disapproves of the methods by which you take possession of that property. Would you assist the Labour party if we attempted to bring back under Church control the land of this country from the private landowners who now hold it? The passage of time has sanctified the dissolution of the monastries, just as the passage of time has sanctified those atrocities which took place in the early days of the terrorist period in the French Revolution. To-day we are all proud of being the ally of France and of the entente cordiale, but because we are friendly with a people and are prepared to make sacrifices for them is no reason why we are going to be dragged always behind a people even when we think that they are wrong.
    The Prime Minister's achievements are his usual achievements, word-spinning, rhetoric, sentences to cajole the public, never once handing back those things which the people require. Europe is distracted and broken, but will never be restored by the members who head the Government of this country, and will never he restored so long as France pursues the policy that she is pursuing. This is no new thing for me to say, for in 1919 I said in this House that the Peace Treaty would require to be revised, that there could be no peace in Europe so long as the Treaty of Versailles remained as it was then. If the Labour party came into power, one of their first duties would be the revision of those treaties. Consequently, it is not a change
    1546
    of faith on my part to say what I am saying to-night, but it is a change of faith on the part of every Member of this House who cheered the Prime Minister this afternoon, just as it is a change of faith on the part of the Prime Minister himself, and if it were necessary and if it were advisable or possible for the Prime Minister to change some of the ideas and some of the expressions which he has already used, he would change them again.
    10.0 P.M.
    No one ever sees the Secretary of State for the Colonies sitting with a smile upon his face when the Prime Minister stands at that box telling of his new ideas with regard to Russia. These ideas are repugnant to the Colonial Secretary and to most Members on the other side, but they are prepared to make the best of a bad bargain. They took the Prime Minister to their bosom, and now they have got to follow him. Otherwise their party breaks up. The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury spoke about the small percentage of trade that this country had with Russia in pro-war times, but he forgets—I do not say that he conveniently forgets—that the condition of the world to-day is such that no one can judge of the amount of trade that can be done between one country and another in the terms of pre-war relationship. Russia has been invaded and torn asunder, not merely during the period of the Great War by financed by France. The condition but she has been invaded by her own people, who went there to overthrow the Government and take over control of the country, financed by this country and financed by France. The conditions of Russia to-day is due to the policy adopted by the French and British Governments. We are reminded of what Russia might have done, and there are accusations of atrocities against Russia. Russia has assassinated or slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people who did not agree with the Government. If we are going to judge a country for its atrocities, then the hands of some of our own Allies are not too clean. We for many years had a treaty with Japan. What is Japan's history with regard to her treatment of Korea—a country which this country and Japan jointly decided by Treaty to maintain in its independence, and which has now become a slave State, dominated by Japan? Within recent

    1547
    years 30,000 Koreans have been murdered by the Japanese. One in 30 of the population has been deported. Korea, at present, is dominated by Japanese police, her schools are filled with Japanese educationists, no Korean is allowed to leave the country or to enter any of the professions. The highest to which he can aspire is to be a skilled artisan.
    Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. Is this relevant to the question before us?
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): On the Foreign Office Vote a general discussion is permitted, but hon. Members must exercise discretion as to how far they will carry their arguments.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I was merely quoting some points to answer the remarks of an hon. Member opposite. Korea to-day is practically a Japanese dependency. All control of the country has been taken away from the Koreans. So if we tell of the atrocities committed by Russians we must also tell of atrocities committed by other nations which are our own Allies. It is not a question of atrocities that regulates our conduct in these things. Even in spite of the atrocities the Prime Minister says that Europe requires Russia, and Russia requires Europe. Not because of the good thing which it would be to associate with Russia, but because of the expediency, because it will bring good trade and help to rebuild Europe. Even from that point of view I am willing to welcome anything that is likely to lead to friendly relations with Russia. I am willing to welcome anything from any part of this House which is calculated to break down all those entangling alliances, all those menacing compacts, all those seeds for future wars that we have to-day in Europe. If we can have some scheme laid before this House that is calculated to bring some form of alliance among all the nations of Europe and enable all the countries to join together in the work of making Europe as a whole commercially and financially successful, no matter from which side of the House or from which part of this country or of Europe such a scheme may come every Member on these Benches will welcome it and support it. So far as the Prime Minister's scheme is concerned, the fact that Genoa has failed, with only an eight months' pact of peace
    1548
    in its favour, the fact that there has been handed over to The Hague Conference questions that ought to have been settled at Genoa, and the further fact that all these Conferences are nothing more nor less than a series of performances by perambulating diplomatic conjurors who bring us nowhere and give us nothing to justify me in opposing the idea of the Genoa Conference and in voting against the Government to-night.
    Major-General SEELY: In five minutes I will try to convince my hon. Friend who has just spoken that his concluding sentences were not his considered judgment, in view of one fact which I will bring before the Committee. I take it that the question before us is, "Was the Genoa Conference worth while, and is it worth while going on with such Conferences, and especially with the Conference which flows from Genoa, namely, the Conference at The Hague? Has Genoa achieved anything which makes it worth while? I submit that it has been worth while. For one thing, nothing but a great Conference like Genoa could have brought us the pact of peace. I think it probable, and certainly possible —the right hon. Gentleman who will follow me will probably not deny it—that had there been no Genoa Conference, Eastern Europe would have been plunged into another war, into which we might conceivably have been drawn. I must try to make good that thesis. The one good thing that came out of the last War, apart from the fact that we thought we had won a victory for civilisation, which I am sure we did, and gave Alsace Lorraine back to France, was that the great tragedy of the partition of Poland, the great international crime, was put right. There is not a single Member of the House who will not say that he rejoices that as part of the Treaty of Peace, Poland again came by her own. But, unfortunately, the nations which divided Poland in the days of our grandfathers, do not take that view.
    I was surprised to find so little made of the warning statement issued by the Under-Secretary of State for India, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) referred. I had heard something of the movement of troops on the Polish frontier, and I have heard a great deal more since. What he then said was that not only were the very large forces known to be on the Polish

    1549
    and Rumanian frontiers reinforced, but they were reinforced by fresh formations, and a still more menacing thing than anything said by the Prime Minister was that the new classes of recruits had been called to the colours in both countries before their time. There can be no doubt—and it is a sad thing to have to say—that there is one thing which unites all classes in Russia, those of the old régime and those of the present not wholly inefficient military dictatorship, and that is the deter-ruination to get rid of independent Poland. Whatever view may be taken of the rest of the Treaty of Versailles, we do not want to see Poland destroyed. But Russia does.
    As against that it may be said that in March, before the Genoa Conference took place, the Soviet delegates on their way from the North of Russia to Genoa, concluded a pact of non-aggression with the two Northern States and with Poland. It is true that Roumania was not included. What I state is that after that date the movement and the increase of troops continued. I shall be very glad if the Secretary of State for War will tell me whether that information is confirmed in his Department. You were on the verge of war between Poland, Roumania, Russia and the Northern States. The fact that the Genoa Conference was in session, I claim, was a great contributory factor in avoiding that most disastrous war. It may be said that the only solution of this matter is to have a series of conferences, and that conferences should be in perpetual succession. That is perhaps a gloomy prospect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but continuous conferences are better than perpetual war, and the experience we had had during the last few months—1 hold no brief for the Government in the matter—
    Lord R. CECIL: Hear, hear!
    Major-General SEELY: My Noble Friend allows his hostility to the Government to have the most extraordinary effect on him. I thought it was sufficiently well known, indeed I have stated it repeatedly, that I differ from the Government on many matters of foreign affairs. But am I to be held up to public scorn because I believe that by conference you may avert war? I hope my Noble Friend, who has been good enough to interrupt me, will look back on some of the things he has said to-day and remember that he
    1550
    who condemns conferences may well bring on war.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: If the issue were as stated, between continuous conferences and perpetual war, we should indeed be in a sorry state. The whole issue has turned on an attempt to place those who oppose the Government on the horns of a truly false dilemma. The right hon. and gallant Member invites the Noble Lord to say whether he will not regret having today opposed conferences when he finds that the result is war. That is not the issue. Speaking from the point of view of one who, although in political opposition to the Government, would back the Government to the full extent of his limited capacity in trying to secure world peace, I say that I would support every conference and any conference. It is not true that we were opposed to the Genoa Conference. It is not true that we were opposed to an attempt being made by our Prime Minister to bring peace, to restore trade, to rehabilitate the exchanges throughout the world. You might as well ask us if we are in favour of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] We on our side make the Government side a present of the fact that they are in favour of both those excellent institutions. Before the Conference we said unless there was an approved agenda there could not be a successful Conference. There was no approved agenda. We also said unless America came in, the Conference could not achieve a world object. It might achieve a local object; that in itself would be good, and we did not oppose that, but we said that the fact that what had been done at Cannes could not be continued at Genoa made the prospects gloomy.
    Was there ever an occasion in the history of this House when so much was hoped for and so little realised? Was there ever an occasion when hon. Members were so anxious to hear something definite as to peace and as to the restoration of good will and of trade, and has ever so little arisen in actual fact to justify those hopes and anticipations? What do we actually know to-day as the result of this Debate. America is the creditor nation of the world. That position has not been altered and America was absent from the Genoa Conference. We attended Genoa in great power and

    1551
    glory as the creditor nation of Europe, but was anything done with reference to reparation? Nothing. That is the position—America creditor nation of the world refusing to attend the Conference which in her absence must fail in world purpose; ourselves, the creditor nation of Europe, refusing to consider reparations, which meant that the Conference must fail in its purpose of restoring exchanges. I ask this Committee most solemnly, at this solemn hour m our financial and economic history—[Laughter]—I do not want mocking laughter. The country is going to read this Debate to-morrow. Business men are anxious to know how far the Government has got on with the job. I think I am speaking fairly and I am not making any personal attack on the Prime Minister or on the Government. This is a very serious matter and a matter upon which I have very strong feelings.
    We on this side have backed up the Government in all its good purposes. I am speaking for myself and for many of my colleagues when I repeat that in all the good purposes the Government hoped to achieve at Genoa we have been their loyal supporters. I voted for the Government on the Genoa Debate, and I shall vote for them again on further conferences, but I say to them, Do not hold another board meeting of directors until you have an agenda to discuss; do not ask people to come into conference until you know what you are going to confer about; do not pretend you are going to have a conference, when some of those coming to the conference have already told you they will not agree to the proposals which are to be made; do not hold out promises to befool the peoples in every country, by saying that you can perform things which you know perfectly well you cannot perform. We have had the delicate subject of France before us. Not one of us wishes to see the breaking up of the Entente. Not one of us wishes to forget the associations of the War, but when we hear talk about stretching points, we ask you to remember you are stretching so many points that you are keeping Europe stretched on the rack. Until you declare what is your policy, and that you will act within the competence of your own power and leave it at that, there can be but little hope of the conferences of the future.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am glad that all the supporters of the Government do not show their support in the same way as the hon. Member who last spoke. He complained that this Conference had no agenda, and patted himself on the back as a prophet of failure, because the Conference had no agenda. I wonder where he began his studies of the Genoa Conference. Did he go back to the time when it was decided by the Allied Powers at Cannes to call this Conference? If he had gone back to that Paper—because the Resolutions at Cannes were issued to this House as a White Paper—he would have seen that the agenda was very carefully settled on that occasion. I do not feel, after the speeches of the Prime. Minister, that I have any large scope, but there are a few questions which have been addressed to the Government which I shall try to answer, and there are a few observations and criticisms that have been made which I do not think ought to pass entirely without notice. There was a complaint made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray), and I think some others, that at the Genoa Conference the Foreign Office w as not represented. That is quite a fallacy, for the Foreign Office was most ably represented. If it had been possible for the Foreign Secretary to be there in person, no one would have welcomed his assistance more than the Prime Minister and the other delegates, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that the Foreign Secretary has been on his back the whole of the—
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I never suggested that he should be there.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: —the w hole of the last five or six weeks. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says he never suggested that the Foreign Secretary should be there, but he was complaining that the Genoa Conference was conducted without representatives of the Foreign Office. The representative of the Foreign Office who would have been there had it been possible, who was, in fact, nominated as a member of the delegation representing Great Britain, was the Foreign Secretary, but because of illness he was unable to be present. There are two Under-Secretaries to the Foreign Office. One is the hon. Member who is also the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department

    1553
    (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame). The Conference at Genoa was primarily an economic conference, dealing with foreign trade and the conditions of international trade, and the Foreign Office was represented by one of its Under-Secretaries, being the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. As a matter of fact, the other Under-Secretary (Mr. C. Harmsworth) had to remain in London for the other business of the Foreign Office, but I think we should have had him very likely out at Genoa if he also had not suffered from illness during that time. The head of the Russian Department at the.Foreign Office was at Genoa, and there were several other very able representatives of the Foreign Office who were advising and helping us at Genoa, so the complaint is not well founded.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) made a speech and asked various questions, with some of which I propose to deal. He referred to what is known as the London experts' report. That, I believe, is the first paper in the Blue Book. It is a report on proposals that should be made to Russia, compiled by experts representing the Allied Powers who met in London to prepare the work of the Genoa Conference, and the hon. Gentleman says, "Why did not you enforce that report upon the Russian Delegation? How does he propose to do that? The Genoa Conference was a conference called by 34 or 36 nations on terms of equality to consider these grave questions. How does he propose that the British Government should enforce upon that Conference the report of the London experts? The hon. Gentleman says, why did not we enforce upon the Russians the London experts' report? How was it possible? If the hon. Member says if they did not accept it we ought to have broken off negotiations, then I can understand the position he takes up. He is quite entitled to say the London experts' report was the minimum we ought to have demanded from Russia, and, failing acceptance of those conditions there and then, we ought to have broken off negotiations. That is what I understand he means. We took a different line, and I think we were right. We were patient. The hon. Member himself thinks, perhaps, we were too patient. There were times when I had doubts myself whether it was
    1554
    worth while going on. There seemed to be such a wide difference between their view and our view that it seemed to me at times doubtful whether it was worth while going on, and if we had misled them by our patience, I would agree that we ought not to have gone on. We took very good care not to mislead them. Their main preoccupation was to get credits. They knew that. Russia could not be restored without financial assistance from outside, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin asked me, what was the policy of the Government with regard to Government credits? Did this Government intend to make loans to Russia, or—and he did not distinguish between the two—did this Government intend to give credits to Russia?
    We made no mystery about the position. We told them definitely that this Government would not give them a Government loan or a Government credit. I remember very well that in conversations —the sort of conversations to which. I am afraid, the Noble Lord objects, but still, I believe, which are very fruitful methods of making people understand your view—in that sort of conversations they brought forward plans of Government credits which they required. At one moment they said, "We want £200,000,000 from the Western European Governments as loans," and at another time they put forward a plan under which they required £360,000,000—sterling, not paper roubles—of loans, in order to reconstruct Russia. I ought to say that the £360,000,000 was not all to be given at once, but in equal sums of £120,000,000 a year for three years. I myself told them that there was not that amount of money in the world in the power of any Government to give to them, and if there were that amount of money in the world, the people of the world would not allow their Governments to give it, and there was not a penny to be got by Government credits. Then the Noble Lord said, "Well, if that be the case, what is the use of The Hague?" I will answer him again. The Hague was arranged long after we told them that there was not a penny of Government credits, and I should not be repeating the Government statement unless I told the House that while I said there was no Government credit for them, I said, "If you will restore the Western belief in your

    1555
    methods of business, in your honesty, then there will be credits for you. People will come and trade with you, and there will be trade credits available for you as soon as you reassure them that, when they sell goods to you, you will pay, and when they lend money to you, you will re-pay." We told them that we in England had methods by which the Government assisted our traders in their foreign trade; that I had no doubt that once their credit was restored, once our people knew it was safe to trade with them, then the former owners of businesses would be anxious to get back to Russia, and continue their business, and that in that way they would get the necessaries that their people required.
    Lord R. CECIL: May I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should clear up the statement he made that the Government had methods to help our own traders? He referred, of course, to the Trade Facilities Act and things of that sort?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, I referred to export credits, to the Trade Facilities Act, and the International Finance Corporation, with which, if I have time, I propose to deal presently. The Prime Minister left them in no doubt about the position. I do not know whether hon. Members have read the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made at the final plenary session of the Conference? He told them quite plainly that the Western nations had principles, or prejudices if they liked—the prejudice that if they sold goods they wanted to be paid for them, and that if someone had borrowed and came again for a further loan, it was not the slightest use of the would-be borrower coming and giving an eloquent disquisition upon the right of repudiation, that such a person would shock the prejudices rooted in the Western nations and would not be likely to get what he wanted. We were patient, but we did not conceal our position at all. We believe we were right to be patient. The hon. Member for Eastbourne would, of course, have broken off communications on the first day of the Conference, and if not the first day the second day. He would have said, "No! Nothing doing. The experts' reports not accepted: break off the Conference at once." Would he have been so ready to do so, and would he have been right? Who suffered from our
    1556
    attitude? We may have suffered ourselves by being condemned to remain in Genoa for so long. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not very polite to your Italian hosts.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Our hosts were charming all the time and hospitable, and were real friends. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was there, but for so few days that he did not get samples of the climate or of the hospitality. If we had broken off negotiations there would have been no Pact of Peace. Here, again, the hon. Member for Eastbourne was disdainful of the Pact of Peace. He said it was not signed. He said everybody stood up as if they were celebrating a death, silently. I wish he had been there.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Why?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was there, and there was nothing more impressive than that Pact of Peace!
    Mr. GWYNNE: Was it better than the Irish Treaty?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The sneers of the hon. Member are really rather trivial. Let me tell him what that scene was like. The Resolution was put before this great Conference of 34 nations and it was a Conference that altogether had lasted six weeks. The Pact of Peace was read to them. The Italian President asked that the delegates should stand up and say whether they accepted it on behalf of their nations or not. One delegate after another, nation after nation, got up and said: "I accept that on behalf of my nation." The British Empire, which the hon. Gentleman, I ant sure, loves as well as I do, was represented not merely by the Prime Minister, but by Canada, Australia, and South Africa. He should have seen the interest when the name of New Zealand was called. [HON. MEMBERS: "And India?"] The hon. Member should have witnessed the scene when the name of India's delegate was called, and he stood up and said: "I accept this Pact fully for the Indian Empire." There was nothing there small or mean. It was a solemn pact which every delegate present meant to carry out. If we had followed the advice of the hon. Member and there had been no pact, how many lives would that

    1557
    have cost? If we had broken off, as ho suggests, there would have been a setback in Europe and a still further postponement of the date, whenever it may come, when international trade may be fully resumed. Who knows what added suffering there would have been to those people who are now out of work, and, who have really the greatest call upon our services. There has been an inclination, not merely by the hon. Member for Eastbourne—I have finished with him—but by other hon. Members, to suggest that Genoa has done no good, and that the Conference there, if it has not failed, at least has done no good.
    I would ask those hon. Members first of all to bear in mind the nature of the Conference, for I believe that the mere meeting of that Conference was good in itself. This Conference was unlike any other which has been held since the War. It was not called together for the purpose of enforcing some rights gained by the War or for adjudicating between the conquerors and the vanquished. It was a Peace Conference, to which all European nations were called on a footing of equality to discuss not the interests of some particular Power or some group of Powers but the peaceful restoration of the economic life of Europe in the interests of all the Powers and all peoples. I believe that the holding of that Conference has shown that they were wrong who supposed that the victors in the Great War thought only of themselves and thought only of imposing their will on the rest of Europe. We have proved ourselves loyal to our old friendships, hut while we have not forgotten the comradeship of the War, we have shown ourselves ready to co-operate with all nations in lifting Europe out of the misery into which the War has plunged her.
    I think the Conference has also proved that while the Western European States hold steadfastly to their individualistic systems upon which their former prosperity depended, and upon which their future position and power equally depends, they are not blind to their duties as statesmen, or to the calls of humanity, and they are anxious to prepare and pursue policies which will hasten the employment of producers, and do everything in their power to alleviate the suffering of others. This Conference was therefore a Peace Conference as well as
    1558
    an Economic Conference. Let us test its success by a question. Have we left Europe more peaceful than when we met at Genoa'? I personally do not doubt that real progress has been made. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) who, I am sorry is not in his place, declared it was a sham and a fraud to say that there was any menace on the Russian frontier. He said there had already been a Treaty, or at any rate some agreement, at Riga between Esthonia, Latvia, Poland and Russia, which was not only a pact of nonaggression, but an agreement for the limitation of the armaments, and also for the creation of a neutral zone. He claimed, therefore, that the Protocol of Riga did more than the pact of non-aggression at Genoa accomplished. He was unfortunate in another quotation he made today, and he was equally unfortunate in this quotation. Unwittingly, of course, he has entirely misrepresented the nature of the document signed at Riga. What did the document signed at Riga do? He said there was a general statement of brave words as an introduction or preamble, but he did not quote the conclusion. What was it? That the delegations from Esthonia, Latvia, Poland and Russia present at Riga expressed the opinion that it would be useful that the parties represented at this meeting elaborate at Genoa the precise plans in order to realise the above-mentioned principles.
    What the right hon. Gentleman said was that everything was accomplished at Riga that was accomplished by the pact of Genoa; but far from that being the case, principles were laid down at Riga, which required another agreement and another document to put them into operation, and the parties who elaborated those principles there declared at the same time it was necessary to go further into them, and they proposed to do so at Genoa. What happened at Genoa was that at least a part of that proposal at Riga was in fact carried out. Altogether apart from that aspect of the question, the pact bound many others who were not bound by the Riga Agreement, including Rumania, Lithuania, and Finland, who were not represented at Riga. Moreover, Japan was vitally interested. She also was not represented at Riga. All these States have now agreed to respect each other's boundaries, and have entered

    1559
    into a pact of non-aggression. To say that that was not necessary is to ignore the facts that are known. No one can doubt that suspicion reigned in Russia and the neighbouring States, and that at any moment difficulties might have arisen. An ill-fed people were being urged to go where food was. Frontiers, in some cases not finally fixed, might have been crossed, and fighting would certainly have followed. I hope that the pact of nonaggression will give time for suspicion to be allayed and for real peace to be settled and danger removed. The pact will last for eight months, but it need not terminate then. I hope it will not. I cannot believe that, once these nations have got together, once they have begun to examine the differences and the suspicions which have separated them, they will ever be willing not to renew that pact.
    Besides that, a good deal else has been done at Genoa, and I have been asked to deal with some of the work of the other three Commissions about which the Noble Lord has asked some questions. Quite naturally, he has compared the work of these Commissions at Genoa with the work of a somewhat similar inquiry at Brussels, and he has asked what progress has been made in the interval of two years. I am sure the Committee would not wish that I should go into great detail in regard to the financial and economic resolutions. They are printed in the Blue Book, and they have been discussed at length by experts, whose reports are also available, and any hon. Member who wishes to go into them has ample material before him. But I can say in a few words what the object of these three Commissions was. The object was in each case the same—to arrive at some degree of stability which would enable international trade to he carried on. Without stable conditions the exchange of the products of labour cannot be resumed. A large part of Europe is suffering from scarcity, while millions who are willing to produce are unemployed. The problem which each of these Commissions had to deal with was actually the same—how can we restore stability so that international trade can be developed and employment and plenty be re-established?
    The Financial Commission dealt with questions of currency, exchange and credits. The international currency of
    1560
    our own country, thanks to the progressive reduction in expenditure and to the evidence given to the world that we mean to meet our expenditure out of income, has been gradually improving, and has not been subject to violent fluctuations; but in many other countries in Europe currencies have danced up and down, so that there has been in fact no stable measure of value: and international exchanges have necessarily followed the, same chaotic course. To restore international trade and employment, stability must be restored, both in currencies and in exchange. The Commission dealing with economic and commercial questions found the same want of stability. Restrictions and limitations on imports and exports have been created and withdrawn, duties have been raised and, perhaps, lowered, arbitrarily and without notice, and if the international trader survives the troubles of currencies and exchange, he may find his business rendered impossible, or at least unprofitable, by harassing restrictions of which he has been unaware. The Economic Commission therefore examined these problems with the object of removing those obstacles, or at least of ensuring full publicity, so that the trader might be less hampered. The Transport Commission worked on similar lines, to restore international transport to at least the pre-War level, to remove difficulties due to the breaking-up of the large States, and to ensure the co-operation of the Succession States so as to open up again the normal trade routes. That was the object of the Commission.
    The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin asks me, "How did Genoa differ from Brussels?" Let me try and answer that. It is a very proper and pertinent question. At Brussels, experts only were present. Admirable advice they gave: better-known experts were not to be found in Europe. Practically the same experts were at Genoa. They gave expert advice, but at Genoa there was this difference. Ministers were present. When the experts had advised those Ministers, those Ministers dealt with the questions in the various Sub-Commissions and Commissions, and finally, when the reports were brought before the Conference, the Ministers pledged themselves, so far as they could, to carry out the advice that was given.
    Lord R. CECIL: When was that?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Noble Lord will find that in the speeches generally. I cannot remember where it is, but it is so. He may take it from me that those who brought forward those Resolutions at the full Conference did pledge themselves, so far as it was possible, to go to their countries and put into practice the precepts which the experts had advised, which were embodied in those Resolutions. There were practical bankers present on these expert committees who had had two years' experience of Europe after the Brussels Conference, and after the advice that had been given by Brussels.
    The Genoa Conference, therefore, differed considerably from Brussels, and not only in these respects. It differed in other respects. Brussels had no power to take executive action, and did not advise executive action. This Conference did advise executive action. With regard to currencies and exchanges it has asked the Bank of England to call a meeting of Central banks, so that the Central banks may consider what steps are necessary to bring about an International Monetary Convention, which will, in itself, bind the States which become parties to it. I understand that the Bank of England is prepared to call that meeting of the Central banks. I understand that the Federal Reserve Bank of America is willing to take part in that Conference. We have, therefore, begun to take all the practicable executive action that it is possible to take. Similarly, in regard to transport. I again say not a word against the excellent work done at Barcelona, yet again it lacked just that finishing touch which I hope Genoa has given to that excellent work. A conference is to he called by the French Railway Administration of all the big railway administrations in Europe for the purpose of getting that through traffic that is required.
    That seems to me to differentiate the work of Genoa from the work of Brussels, not that I want for a moment to belittle the work of Brussels. It was excellent pioneer work, and Genoa has but carried on to a further stage the work that was then done. Of course the other work, this work to which I have just been referring, has not attracted the same public atten-
    tion as the political work. It is dull work. It is spade work which merely prepares the seed-bed. It does not give an immediate return, but I believe it will bear fruit in work and wages for those who are at present unemployed and supplies for those who are at present deprived of the necessaries of life. The House of Commons may be proud of the vote it gave on 3rd April. By a sure instinct and an overwhelming majority it approved of the Cannes Resolutions and pledged itself to support the Prime Minister in going to Genoa to give effect to them. The Prime Minister went to Genoa. His position amongst the members of the Conference was remarkable. His honesty of purpose, his untiring effort for the good of Europe, made an impression upon every delegate in that Conference. He maintained and enhanced the British reputation. Through fair weather or through foul, the chief delegate of Great Britain persevered, day by day overcoming obstacles and day by day succeeding, and the success of the Genoa Conference is chiefly due to him. If this Committee will take my humble advice, it will once more express its disapproval. It will renew the Vote of Confidence it gave on 3rd April.
    Mr. CLYNES: I wish to state to the Committee that our differences with the Government on foreign affairs are too great to allow us to support them in the Lobby in the event of a Division, but on the other hand we cannot in any way be blind to the reasons which prompted this Amendment, and therefore we cannot vote for it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the minute I have left I want to say two things.
    Mr. GWYNNE Mr. GWYNNE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £153,679, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 235.

    Division No. 124.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon, Sir Frederick G.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmote

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Balfour, George (Hampttead)

    Cralg, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Ersklne, James Malcolm Monteith

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Poison, Sir Thomas A.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley

    Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

    Reid, D. D.

    Jellett, William Morgan

    Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M

    Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Mr. R. Gwynne and Mr. Gretton.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    NOES.

    Adklns, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S,

    Forrest, Walter

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Allred Mcritz

    Arm tage, Robert

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Gange, E. Stanley

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Gardiner, James

    Neal, Arthur

    Barnston, Major Harry

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Barrand, A. R.

    Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

    Barr e, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel sir John

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Parker, James

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gould, James C.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbrldge, Mddx.)

    Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Perring, William George

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Greene, Lt.-Col- Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Pnkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Gregory, Holman

    Pratt, John William

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Gri th-

    Grenfell, Edward Charles

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rankin, Captain James Stuart

    Bowyer, Captain G. w. E.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Rw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Remer, J. R.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Renwick, Sir George

    Britton, G. B.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hinds, John

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Casey, T. W.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hudson, R. M.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Blrm.,W).

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Chamberlain, N. (Blrm., Ladywood)

    Insk p, Thomas Walker H.

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Simm, M. T.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richaro Beale

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Cope, Major William

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk- George

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Davidson, J.C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stephenson, Lieut-Colonel H. K.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Sugden, W. H.

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Taylor, J.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Ednam, Viscount

    Lorden, John William

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Waddington, R.

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Wallace, J.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Elveden, Viscount

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Ward Jackson, Major C. L.

    Evans, Ernest

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Fldes, Henry

    Martin, A. E.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Finney, Samuel

    Mason, Robert

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Winterton, Earl

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Wise, Frederick

    1564

    1565

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    McCurdy.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Question, "That the Question be now put." put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question "That the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

LAW OF PROPERTY [STAMP DUTY, etc.].
Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present. Session to assimilate and amend the Law of real and personal estate, to abolish copyhold and other special tenures, to amend the Law relating to commonable lands and of intestacy, and to amend the Wills Act, 1837, the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, the Conveyancing Acts, 1881 to 1911, the Trustee Act, 1893, and the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897, it is expedient that,

(a) Any receipt of moneys secured by a mortgage which by virtue of the said Act operates as a surrender or reconveyance shall be liable to the same stamp duty as if it were a reconveyance;

(b) There shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof, any deficiencies in the insurance fund established under the Land Transfer Act., 1897, in so far as such deficiencies are attributable to any rights of indemnity conferred by the said Act of the present Session;

(c) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any compensation payable under the said Act of the present Session to officers of a local deed registry established for any riding of Yorkshire and to the county council of the riding in respect of any future loss of fees or otherwise "—(King's recommendation signified).— [Mr. Hilton Young.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think we ought to have some explanation of this Resolution.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not exempted business, and can be taken only by consent.
The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Leslie Scott): I ask the Committee to let me have this Resolution. It is purely a technical matter. We require it in order to get on with the Bill upstairs. The Committee stage of the Bill started today.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This is too important a matter to be allowed to go through in this way.
It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceedings, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Committee report Progress: to sit again upon Monday next.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

GENOA CONFERENCE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was prevented from saying what I desired to say a few moments ago, and I propose to say it now. I am very glad the Secretary of State for War found a few words to say in appreciation of the very great effort made by the Italian Government to make a success of the Genoa Conference. I was there for a day or two, and everyone I met was high in their praises of the very fine arrangements, the very generous hospitality, and the general atmosphere of good will and welcome which prevailed in that beautiful Mediterranean town. When the Government take over three hours for their spokesmen in a one-day Debate on a matter of this importance, the least they can do is to give the Opposition a. chance of stating their case. After all, we are continually told this is not a party matter, that Genoa was a Conference at which our delegates spoke for the nation, but as long as that atmosphere is created and maintained by the Government I, for one, am prepared to support them. On the whole matter of

1567
Genoa, I think I can sum up the impressions of this Debate in one sentence. When you see a man putting out a fire, even if he has helped originally to set the building alight, it is just as well to help and support him, but do not forget to make the reckoning afterwards. Who has been responsible for the state of
1568
affairs in Europe that has needed the Genoa Conference? The present Govern-ment—
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House Counted, and 40 Members not being present
The House was adjourned at Twenty Minutes after Eleven of the Clock till To-morrow (Friday).

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PENSIONS COMMITTEES.
  PENSIONS COMMITTEES.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (RECOVERABLE ADVANCES).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (RECOVERABLE ADVANCES).
  DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
  DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
  SOLDIERS' UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT (LOSSES, IRELAND).
  SOLDIERS' UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT (LOSSES, IRELAND).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE.
  CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE.
  FOREIGN LOANS.
  FOREIGN LOANS.
EGYPT.
  MARTIAL LAW.
  MARTIAL LAW.
  ZAGHLOUL PASHA.
  ZAGHLOUL PASHA.
POST OFFICE.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS (CANVASSING).
  SUB-POSTMASTERS (CANVASSING).
  BRANCH OFFICES.
  BRANCH OFFICES.
  BLACKFRIARS ROAD SUB-OFFICE.
  BLACKFRIARS ROAD SUB-OFFICE.
  WIRELESS SERVICE, LONDON AND SWITZERLAND.
  WIRELESS SERVICE, LONDON AND SWITZERLAND.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (C. H. BRITTAIN, LIMITED).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (C. H. BRITTAIN, LIMITED).
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  UNITED STATES TARIFF.
  UNITED STATES TARIFF.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  NURSES.
  NURSES.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY (ECONOMIC RELATIONS).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY (ECONOMIC RELATIONS).
  ALLOTMENT ACREAGE.
  ALLOTMENT ACREAGE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
STOCK CONVERSION AND INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED (NORTH WESTERN TRUST) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

DARTMOUTH HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS (RECONSTITUTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS WATER BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name with regard to these Bills. I think it is reasonable in the circumstances.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bills read 3a accordingly, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

SITUATION IN IRELAND.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with reference to the conversation which passed yesterday, your Lordships will remember that the Government
752
suggested that one day, early next week, should be allotted to an Irish discussion—I do not mean to say that the Irish discussion should take the whole of the sitting, but that it should take place on an early day next week—but a certain ambiguity was left as to which day it should be. I do not know whether my noble friend who is leading the House can now inform us which day he would prefer. Personally, I think the general convenience would seem to indicate Tuesday of next week as the better day. It must be either Monday or Tuesday, and Tuesday would not interfere with the other arrangements of the Government.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, we are entirely in your Lordships' hands in this matter, and only desire to serve the general convenience of the House. If I may express a preference, it is strongly that your Lordships should follow the programme adumbrated by the noble Marquess. It is understood, I believe, that a statement on Irish affairs will be made in another place on Monday, and your Lordships, if you discuss the subject on Tuesday, will have the advantage of reading what has passed elsewhere on the previous day. It would also have a very great advantage in that it would not unduly congest the latest stages of the Allotments Bill. I take it, therefore, that, if your Lordships generally agree, we will settle the programme as follows:—Monday, the Report stage of the Allotments Bill; Tuesday, the first or a very early occasion for discussing Irish matters; Wednesday, the final stages of the Allotments Bill. I have a Motion lower down on the Paper which deals with business, but which I do not think would in any way interfere with that programme.

MELVILLE TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
KILMARNOCK WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
AYR BURGH (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, this is, I believe, an entirely non-contentious measure. There are really only two matters of importance with which it deals—(1) the discipline of the Royal Navy personnel when serving in Dominion naval ships or establishments, and (2) an increase in the compulsory deduction from the pay of ratings for the maintenance of wife, or children, or illegitimate children. The remaining provisions of the Bill are entirely formal, or comparatively unimportant.
Clause 1 merely brings the law so far as the Naval Discipline Act is concerned into harmony with the ordinary law of the land applicable to all other Courts competent to award penal servitude by permitting a sentence of three years' penal servitude to be inflicted instead of a minimum of five years. Clause 2 merely regularises the position under which lieutenant-commanders can sit on Courts-Martial. At the time the Naval Discipline Act was passed there was no such rank as lieutenant-commander and it is necessary to insert it in the Act. Clause 3 is merely a matter of convenience. Under the present Naval Discipline Act Courts-Martial have to sit de die in diem. This permits the Court at its discretion to adjourn for a period not exceeding six days, if it is desirable to do so in the interests of justice.
Clause 4, again, merely brings the Naval Discipline Act into conformity with the provisions of the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1884, under which a person imprisoned in England can only be transferred to a lunatic asylum by the order of the Home Secretary. It is thought desirable that that should be embodied in the Naval Discipline Act. Clause 5 redresses an anomaly which has been caused by a new nomenclature of naval ranks. Under the existing Act a naval warrant officer counts as an officer, whilst a marine warrant officer does not count as an officer. It is thought desirable, as they both proceed to
754
sea under similar conditions, that they should be in the same boat. This clause, therefore, regularises their position, and provides that marine warrant officers, class 1, shall rank as officers.
The most important clause is Clause 6, dealing with the, status of personnel of the Royal Navy serving under a Dominion, or in a Dominion naval establishment. Under the existing law they are not automatically liable to the Naval Discipline Act of the particular Dominion which they are serving; that is to say, to the law of the Dominion in which they are serving. This has been represented to the Admiralty frequently, particularly by the Canadian authorities, and it is thought desirable that both officers and men—who, after all, volunteer for these services and have the position explained to them quite clearly before they so volunteer—should come under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Acts of the different Dominions in which they are serving.
Clause 7 deals with the payment of maintenance allowances. The scale of deductions which may be made, and which were computed in pre-war times, are obviously quite inappropriate either to the circumstances and needs of the beneficiaries or to the much higher rate of pay which the naval personnel receives. This same problem has been dealt with both by the War Office and by the Air Ministry in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1921, and all that is contemplated in this case is to bring the Navy into line with the scales adopted in the cases of the Army and the Air Force, and to make them more appropriate to the changed conditions which have resulted since the war. There is one provision which is inserted for the protection of the naval ratings themselves. Under the existing law if there are any arrears of payment when a man leaves the Service, he is liable to arrest by a civil Court because those arrears are unpaid, or until they are paid. It is now provided that a naval rating shall not be imprisoned for arrears unless the Court is satisfied that since he left the Navy he has had a reasonable opportunity of paying up what he owes. This is procedure which has been adopted by the other two fighting Services, and it has been given Parliamentary approval in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1921. In this case, therefore, we are again only bringing the Navy into line with the other two Services.

755
The last clause, the printing clause, is entirely formal. It enables the main Naval Discipline Act to be officially reprinted, as amended by the present Bill or by subsequent Bills. It is a matter merely of convenience, and we thought it desirable to deal with it once for all in the new measure. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill seems to me to be a thoroughly reasonable measure. There is one question of principle which I should like to ask. It refers to Clause 6, which provides that the officers and seamen in ships of self-governed Dominions are to be under the laws of the particular Dominion, "provided such ship is not at the time placed at the disposal of the Admiralty." The point is as to the choice of those words. One sees the good sense of it, and I think it is probably what the Dominions would agree to and wish to observe when those ships are the King's ships under the Dominion Minister and Dominion laws. "Placed at the disposal of the Admiralty" is, perhaps, not enough to take them out of that category. If the Dominion Governments have assented to these words, or raised no objection to them, then it is right enough. It is certainly legislation under the powers of the Imperial Parliament, but coming in and trenching upon Dominion powers. It may well be that this has been found the most convenient way of doing it, and that the Dominions have raised no objection. If so, it is all right. Otherwise, it is using the powers of the Imperial Parliament to trench upon a matter which might come under the Dominions.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: In reply to the noble and learned Viscount, I can only say that this provision has been drawn up in close conversation with the Dominions. It applies, after all, only to Royal Naval ratings, and if the ship in which they serve is no longer for the time being under the control of the Dominion concerned but under the Admiralty, it is surplus.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The difficulty is the words "placed at the disposal." You may put a ship at the disposal of the Admiralty quite well, and yet it might still remain a Canadian ship.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Quite.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: If the noble Lord says that the words have been discussed with the Dominions I should take it that they have said, as they did in reference to the Copyright Act, "We welcome Imperial legislation as putting everything on a sensible footing."
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

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

CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Conviction for manslaughter in certain cases.
1. Where a woman is charged with the murder of her infant child, and upon the trial evidence is given that at the time the offence was committed the woman had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child, the jury may convict her of manslaughter instead of murder.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had given Notice to move, at the beginning of the clause, to leave out, "Where a woman" and insert "A woman who." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not one of any particular importance in itself, but is the first of a number of Amendments that I have placed on the Paper, and I should like to say a word in explanation of the position in which I find myself in regard to them. Had the Bill come on in the ordinary course last Tuesday my Amendments would have been the only ones before the House, but at the last moment the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill postponed it until to-day, and in the interval the situation has very greatly changed, because the noble and learned

757
Viscount on the Woolsack has put down a most comprehensive Amendment. It is, of course, a most valuable thing that your Lordships should have that aspect of the case presented by the Lord Chancellor rather than by a modest and insignificant person. But I hope there will be some opportunity, later on, of saying something upon the merits of his Amendment. He may not have noticed that it covers, with a great deal more, all the points to which I had wished to call the attention of the House. That being so, it seems likely that I shall not have to trouble your Lordships with my Amendments.
I rather wished to make a sort of apology, if it was not patent on the facts what the state of things was, for putting Town a lot of Amendments, and ending, perhaps, by not moving them. I have no real knowledge of the view of the position taken by my noble and learned friend, and I do not know whether I ant entitled at this stage to say anything about it. Though it is a little anticipating what is coming before the House, I should like to say how glad I am that the Lord Chancellor's Amendment appears to be entirely sympathetic to the Bill; in fact, that he looks upon it exactly as I do—that the case of Hetty in "Adam Bede" is no longer to be treated as being exactly the same as that of Bill Sykes in "Oliver Twist." I will make my Motion pro forum.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("Where a woman") ant insert ("A woman who").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): I think the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the substance of his Amendment is proposed to be dealt with by a slightly different method in the Amendment that stands in my name. I understand he is not adverse to my Amendment, and it will be the more convenient course, perhaps, that he should withdraw his.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that would be the more convenient course. I very much appreciate Lord Muir Mackenzie's friendly attitude towards the Bill, but I am bound to say that I think it would be better to take the discussion on the Lord Chancellor's Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit all words after "Where a woman" and insert—
"Unlawfully by any direct means intentionally causes the death of her newly born child, but at the time when she so caused its death she had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to such child, and by reason thereof the balance of her mind was then disturbed, she shall, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for this Act the offence would have amounted to murder, be guilty of felony, to wit of infanticide, and may for such offence be punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of such child.
"(2) Where upon the trial of a woman for the murder of her newly born child, the jury are of opinion that she unlawfully by any direct means intentionally caused its death, but that at the time when she so caused its death she had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to such child, and that by reason thereof the balance of her mind was then disturbed, the jury may, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for the provisions of this Act they might have returned a verdict of murder, return in lieu thereof a verdict of infanticide.
"(3) Nothing in this Act shall limit the power of the jury upon an indictment for murder to return a verdict of manslaughter, or a verdict of guilty but insane, or a verdict of concealment of birth, in pursuance of section 60 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I have had to place on the Paper an Amendment of considerable length, but the importance of the subject and the Parliamentary vicissitudes through which successive proposals have passed are, perhaps, a sufficient excuse. One would have thought that the mischief which has been aimed at now for a period of some twenty or twenty-five years in various legislative proposals was a very simple one to comprehend, and not a very difficult one to deal with by process of legislation. But the actual history of the successive attempts has disproved an anticipation which would have occurred to most of us. One proposal after another has been brought forward, supported by the weight of great apparent legal authority, and has then succumbed to the criticisms with which it has been met either here or in another place.
The mischief, of course, is a very simple one. It is that, under the existing law, if a woman has given birth to a child under the circumstances contemplated by this Bill and its predecessors, and has, it has ultimately been determined, not been completely mistress of her faculties, but has been distraught in the period immediately following on the birth of the child and has done it to death, there exist no means

759
which would avoid the necessity of imposing upon her in open Court the death sentence, which, in fact, never was carried out, which all those who listened to it in Court with its dreadful paraphernalia knew quite well would not be carried out. It has been felt by generations of lawyers and a long succession of distinguished Judges who have had to go through this form that it ought to be corrected.
As I have already indicated, a series of efforts has been made and none of them has been so fortunate as to meet with the approval of this House, of another place, and of the legal profession generally, and the noble and learned Lord has made a praiseworthy attempt to step into the breach with a practical proposal. I do not know whether I am right because the history of this matter is a little obscure, but I believe that this proposal was originally fathered by the noble and learned Lord with the assistance of the very high authority of the late Lord James of Hereford and the late Lord Alverstone. I do not know whether I am right in that, but I have been told that it is so.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Lord James of Hereford.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Not Lord Alverstone, but Lord James of Hereford.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the Lord Chancellor is right. It was Lord Alverstone, and corrected by Lord James of Hereford. They were both interested in it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought so. However, it is sufficient for me to say that it can be affiliated to very respectable judicial authority. I am still, none the less, in the position I occupy, bound to exercise my own judgment upon these proposals, however respectable is the authority upon which they depend, and must say quite plainly that in the form in which this proposal comes before the House I am not prepared to make myself responsible for it, or to recommend it to the House. The more I sympathise with the object of the noble and learned Lord, the more apprehensive I become of the exact form of his proposal.
May I ask the House for a moment to look at the language of Clause 1:—
"Where a woman is charged with the murder of her infant, child, and upon the trial evidence is given that at the time the offence was committed the woman had not fully recovered from
760
the effect of giving birth to the child, the jury may convict her of manslaughter instead of murder."
The generality of that language, the lack of particularity, is really almost terrifying to one who has had much experience of criminal trials. My noble and learned friend, Lord Parmoor, was so extraordinarily fortunate in the practice of our common profession that he began to make an enormous fortune in civil matters at a time when most of us were confined to criminal matters at Sessions, and I do not think he was ever particularly tempted to prosecute the criminal side of our profession.
I shudder when I think of the vagueness of his language. What does it mean? It means that if a woman is charged with the murder of her infant child, and anybody comes forward to give evidence that at the time the offence was committed the woman was not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child, the jury may convict her of manslaughter. I pretend to no particular authority on obstetrical questions, but I think it may be laid down in an average case that for a month or five weeks you could produce a doctor who could very reasonably give it as his opinion that the woman had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child, and, except among savage tribes, I am informed that it would be true in nineteen cases out of twenty that within four or five weeks the woman had not recovered, but non constat that the fact that she is not physically completely recovered—there may, for instance, be puerperal fever—would produce the slightest effect upon her mind which ought to have the result of excusing her from the consequences of what she has done.
I cannot help believing that the noble and learned Lord desires, and those with whom he has been so honourably associated in this matter desire, that if you get a case where, taking all the circumstances of the birth, taking the immense emotional and physical strain in combination under these circumstances, those elements in the human mind which lead to action at its decisive moment have been so deranged that there is not a free decision as between the forces of right and the forces of wrong, then that case ought to be dealt with in the way suggested in this Bill. I am sure that is what the noble and learned Lord means, but it is very difficult to put these things into any Act of Parliament.

761
I do not pretend that I have completely succeeded, but at least the words which I have placed on the Paper do represent, in the first place, my own individual contribution, such as it is. I then submitted it for the consideration of the Public Prosecutor who, as your Lordships know, has an unrivalled experience in this branch of the law, and it has been since submitted to the judgment of the Law Officers of the Crown. They all concur in accepting the draft which I have made as a reasonable method of attempting to carry out the object of the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps your Lordships will be good enough to allow me to read it. I propose that—
"(1) Where a woman unlawfully by any direct means intentionally causes the death of her newly born child, but at the time when she so caused its death she had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to such child, and by reason thereof the balance of her mind was then disturbed, she shall, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for this Act the offence would have amounted to murder, be guilty of felony, to wit of infanticide, and may for such offence be punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of such child.
"(2) Where upon the trial of a woman for the murder of her newly born child, the jury are of opinion that she unlawfully by any direct means intentionally caused its death, but that at the time when she so caused its death she had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to such child, and that by reason thereof the balance of her mind was then disturbed, the jury may, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for the provisions of this Act they might have returned a verdict of murder, return in lieu thereof a verdict of infanticide.
"(3) Nothing in this Act shall limit the power of the jury upon an indictment for murder to return a verdict of manslaughter, or a verdict of guilty but insane, or a verdict of concealment of birth, in pursuance of section 60 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861."
I think the noble and learned Lord who is responsible for this Bill will not disagree with the effect of subsection (3) as being a proper protection against misunderstanding.
It really conies to this. In the proposal which I make the remedy conceived of by the Bill comes into operation when it appears that by reason of the non-recovery of the woman the balance of her mind was disturbed, and the only criticism, I think, which can reasonably be made—and it is quite a reasonable criticism—of the words I have prepared is that they are new words. They are not terms of art. I very deeply considered that possible objection, and I came to the conclusion that there was more
762
reason for misunderstanding by attempting to use the language which had been appropriated by prescriptive usage to insanity proper and to mental derangement produced by drunkenness, and that it was better to attempt a formula which might be the subject of reasonable judicial decision, and which seemed to give effect to that which I believe to be the intention of the noble and learned Lord and all those who have preceded him in this particular path of legal reform.
I can assure the noble and learned Lord who is responsible for the Bill in its present form that in its present form we can offer him no encouragement and no help in another place, and I must take the responsibility of saying that quite plainly. On the other hand, in the form which I suggest, if it commends itself by way of amendment to the noble and learned Lord, I cannot, of course, in the evident circumstances of the Parliamentary situation give him any distinct pledge, but I can at least go so far as to say to him it would be the desire of the Government that the Bill should become law, and that if a reasonable Parliamentary opportunity presents itself of carrying that decision into effect they will certainly not neglect it. I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he might very usefully consider whether these words do not carry out his real object, and may not place him in respect of a very helpful branch of our law among those who have made effective contributions to its reform. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 6 to 11, leave out from ("woman") to end of clause, and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the sympathetic way in which he has approached what is really a very difficult question, and also a very important one in the administration of our Criminal Law. I am afraid he was unduly complimentary to myself in one respect. The drafting of this Bill as presented to your Lordships is not to be placed either to my credit or discredit. In its present form it has already passed the House of Commons, and comes from the House of Commons, having gone through Grand Committee with the acceptance of the Home Secretary.
Then as regards this House. In 1909 a Bill was accepted after discussion in

763
Committee, and in Standing Committee, by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn, the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Cross, and Lord Ashburne, and as I read the discussion in your Lordships' House the objection raised to the Bill was not that it went too far but that it did not go far enough in the direction of remedying the evils to which the Lord Chancellor has referred. It is true, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that I have not been closely connected with the Criminal Law, but for nearly thirty years I have sat as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and although we do not deal with murder cases it gives a considerable experience as regards the general administration of the Criminal Law.
I do not propose to object to the Amendment which the Lord Chancellor has introduced. I agree that it is of the utmost importance in matters of this kind not only that the Lord Chancellor, as the head of our legal system, should be approached for advice but also that his advice should be followed, unless there is any good reason to the contrary. May I offer some observations on the form of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. He says: "unlawfully by any direct means intentionally causes the death." I do not know what the words "by any direct means intentionally" really mean; "unlawfully causes," I think, is the ordinary form. There may be something in the additional words, but I have not been able to understand how they carry the matter further than "unlawfully causes the death."
The Lord Chancellor has pointed out what are the crucial words of his proposal. They are: "by reason thereof the balance of her mind was then disturbed." I agree that it is important in a Bill of this kind to avoid phrases which may have some technical meaning, particularly in our Criminal Law. There are two objections to the phrase "the balance of her mind was then disturbed." It would necessitate consideration of medical evidence, perhaps conflicting expert medical evidence, as regards the "balance of her mind," which should be avoided if possible. A poor woman does not want to get into the midst of a technical discussion of that kind. The Lord Chancellor talked of the physical strain; perhaps he would agree to some such words as these—
"From the effect of giving birth to such child by reason of the physical and mental strain her mind has thereby been disturbed."
764
It is difficult to say that the "balance of her mind is disturbed."
That is a technical point, but what I have in my mind is that the physical and mental conditions are such that the poor woman, in these circumstances, is not completely mistress of her own actions. It appears to me that the words are too limiting and there would be a difficulty in their application. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will consider my suggestion between now and Report. I do not think it is part of my duty, honestly desiring that the Bill should pass, to put myself in opposition to the Lord Chancellor on this matter. I know he has not only taken the trouble to consider the question very carefully himself, but he has also had the advice of Sir Archibald Bodkin, one of our best authorities on criminal matters.
May I also comment on the phrase "would have amounted to murder, be guilty of felony, to wit of infanticide." It seems to me a rather clumsy phrase, and I do not think it is necessary. Under a recent Act, I think the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the distinction between felony and misdemeanour has gone. I have no further criticism to offer. I shall not oppose an Amendment of this kind introduced on the authority of the Lord Chancellor, and I accept gratefully his assurances with regard to another place. If the Bill had not been altered at all, if the form in which it was presented to your Lordships had been preserved, it need not have gone to another place. It would have passed automatically. But I think the wiser plan is for me to accept the Amendment, reserving to myself the right, on Report stage, to bring forward again an alteration to his Amendment, which perhaps he will consider in the meantime.
LORD CARSON: I need hardly say that I have followed the administration of the Criminal Law in this country for many years and I should be sorry if it was thought that the law in these cases had ever been exercised in any inhuman way. My experience has been that in cases of the kind contemplated by the Bill juries have been only too willing to reduce the crime to manslaughter, or guilty but insane, or even to concealment of birth, the three matters to which the Lord Chancellor refers in his Amendment. It is quite right to make it perfectly clear that under particular conditions not only should it not be a mere matter of the humanity of

765
the jury but of direct law, and I am very glad the Lord Chancellor has proposed his Amendment in the form he has.
Your Lordships must always take care in these cases that you are not led away by feelings of tender compassion, aroused by a certain class of case, into passing slipshod legislation which may lead to great harm. We have to take carp that no woman should be allowed to be under any impression that the law mitigates her crime merely because she has gone through the process of giving birth to a child. Nothing could be worse. One knows that there is a great deal of infantile mortality which could probably, by care, be avoided, and to let a woman imagine for a moment that the law said that, because she was undergoing the infirmities resulting from having had a child, that would be in any sense, as it would be under the Bill as it was brought in here, a defence to the intentional killing of the child, would, I think, be a great calamity.
There must be some evidence—I hope the Lord Chancellor will not in any wise moderate the language that he has used—there must be and ought to be evidence that the crime when committed was the result of the balance of her mind having been disturbed. If that is shown, it is perfectly right; but to make the language more general, and to allow it to be thought that the mere natural infirmity should be allowed as a defence would, I think, be a calamity.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The great matter is that this legislation should go through. It has been wanted now for a great many years, and it was, I think, only an unfortunate accident that prevented the Bill which Lord Alverstone introduced in one form, and Lord James of Hereford converted into another form—not perfect, but not far from being perfect—passing into law in 1909. If the Lord Chancellor, who is a master of legions, will get his Bill (for it is a new one) through the House of Commons, which has passed the other Bill, that is so much to be desired that one does not want to make any unnecessary difficulties.
There are, however, two passages in this Amendment which I should like your Lordships and the Lord Chancellor to think more upon—
"Where a woman unlawfully by any direct means intentionally."
766
I do not know how these words have been arrived at, but it seems to me that it would be possible to say that a woman caused the death of her child by indirect means, and was guilty of murder, and, in that case, this enabling and saving section will not apply to her. I have been considering what words to substitute, and it has occurred to me, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor would be good enough to consider them, that the words
"Unlawfully and feloniously causes"
would perhaps meet the case. They seem to me to be wider, and therefore safer for the woman. Otherwise, it might happen that this very clause would not apply to the particular case to which, perhaps, of all others, one means it to apply. I do not know the phrase "by ally direct means intentionally," except as some kind of paraphrase in some text-book of the law, and I confess that I think some such words as I have suggested would he much better.
Next, I deprecate very strongly the introduction of a new crime—infanticide. What is infanticide? The slaying of a child. But you are going to use it only in a case when a mother kills her child. You suggest that there is a lower class of murder, infanticide, and somebody may come along a few years hence, and say "Be logical; you have made infanticide a lower class." I think that is really the objection which wrecked Lord Lord-burn's original Bill—that you put an infant in certain circumstances in an unprotected class or one only partially protected. I think I see the reason why it has been put in. It is not logical, perhaps, to call it "manslaughter," and therefore, instead of the Bill standing as it left the other House with the word "manslaughter," it is to be treated as a felony, punished like manslaughter. There, again, I would suggest that if it is necessary to avoid making it manslaughter you should use some such words as
"Be guilty of a felony under this statute."
And when you come to the second subsection, where you have something like the present provision with regard to "guilty but insane"—
"The jury shall find the special verdict warranted by the statute"
or
"The jury may, notwithstanding that circumstance, return in lieu thereof a special verdict to the effect of this statute"—

767
or some such words as that. I do deprecate, for the reasons which I have given, the introduction of the new crime of infanticide.
As regards the third subsection, it was outlined by the Lord Chancellor in his speech on the Second Reading. I am still of opinion that it is not necessary, but on the other hand I am quite sure that there is no harm in it. If anybody thinks it is desirable, it had much better be left in, and consequently I will give my support to it. If the Bill is to be amended in order that it may then have the support of the Government, I shall be quite content to accept the Lord Chancellor's Amendments. But I trust that, if not now, at any rate on Report, the two objections which I have mentioned, to which I have given a good deal of thought and upon which I feel very strongly, should be considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The short discussion which has taken place has been entirely helpful. With reference to the words "by any direct means," I tell your Lordships frankly that they were not in my original draft. They were inserted by the Public Prosecutor, and my general understanding is that they were founded upon some dictum in a case which, he considered, if not dealt with, might cause difficulty, but before the Report stage I will address myself much snore closely to the explanation of words which I did not myself draft.
With regard to the other observation or objection made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, I do not think that the effect of my Amendment is to put infanticide in a lower grade of murder. The Amendment reads in this way:
"notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that, but for the provisions of this Act, they might have returned a verdict of murder, return in lieu thereof a verdict of infanticide."
It is, of course, the very purpose of this Bill, and of all the legislative proposals which have preceded this Bill, enacted by the reformers who have preceded the noble and learned Lord, that infanticide shall be treated as a lower grade of criminal offence.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I quite agree, only I would not call it infanticide. That is what I mean.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will consider that, too. I see the noble and
768
learned Lord's point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, has called attention to a point of greater substance, and I do not think that the progress of this debate has really obscured what I conceive to be a point of real difference. I am not prepared—and that was the object of my Amendment—to say in the case of a normal healthy woman, who has given birth to a child and who kills that child, that the mere fact that she has gone through the ordinary physical suffering of a woman in childbirth, aggravated by such additional mental suffering as a woman who has an illegitimate child may be supposed to entertain—I am not prepared to go to the length of saying that those circumstances alone constitute a ground for introducing an exception to the ordinary basis of responsibility for criminal acts, and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, is in agreement with this view.
You must establish some exceptional derangement and disturbance, and the precise words in which that derangement and disturbance are to be defined are undoubtedly a matter of difficulty, having regard to the obvious expediency of not using words which acquire a different atmosphere and intention in the Law Courts. I will consider, between now and Report, whether the words I have suggested can be improved in relation to the criticisms which have been made. I think the word I have used, "disturbance," is on the whole the best that can be adopted, but I will give further attention to the point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Muir Mackenzie does not move his Amendments to this clause?
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I do not move.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Short title and extent.
2.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Child Murder (Trial) Act, 1922.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I think, my Lords, having in view the discussion that has taken place over the word "infanticide," that it would be better not to

769
move my Amendment—to leave out "child murder" and insert "infanticide"—at this stage. If the Lord Chancellor's Bill were going to stand exactly as it is now it seems to me it would be the proper title, but, if the House will allow me, I will not move that Amendment at present.
Clause 2 agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the noble Lord (Lord Parmoor) will allow me to suggest to him that there would be come convenience if a little interval elapsed between Committee and the next stage of the Bill. The title requires consideration, and I should also like to consider the various Amendments made. I suggest that it should stand over till after Whitsuntide.
LORD PARMOOR: Of course, I accept that suggestion, and will put the Report stage down for shortly after Whitsuntide, on a day convenient to the Lord Chancellor.

GUARDIANSHIP, ETC., OF INFANTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had given Notice, that on this Motion he would move, That the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord said: The Bill received its Second Reading on March 1 last, and upon the debate the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who was in charge for the Government, expressed his sympathy with the movement but pointed out numerous legal difficulties. He added that "a small Committee of the Cabinet has been formed to consider the whole of this question, and it has been suggested that the noble Lord who introduced the Bill might meet that Committee, and confer with them with a view to seeing if a solution of the question cannot be arrived at"; and Lord Haldane, who supported the Bill, said he was wholly in accord with it, but that matters of detail required looking into.
The conference there suggested has taken place, and a suggestion was made that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee of both Houses. There are,
770
undoubtedly, some legal difficulties in the matter, and as there is no chance of the Bill going through this session, with the consent of those supporting it, and on the advice of the Cabinet, I move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I understand that a Motion of agreement will be made in another place.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to: Ordered, That, a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion of which Notice has been given in reference to the Empire Settlement Bill. This is a measure which was in the charge of my noble friend, the Duke of Sutherland. He has been called to Scotland to perform public duties, and, accordingly, I put the Bill down for Second Reading after your Lordships reassemble after Whitsuntide; but I have been approached from so many quarters to press this Bill forward, that I am venturing to ask that the Second Reading and, if possible, the subsequent stages, should be taken before the House adjourns for the recess. Otherwise, anything from two to three weeks will elapse before the Bill can become operative. It has already passed through the House of Commons with a very great measure of public approval.
Everything is awaiting the Royal Assent to the Bill, to allow this movement of people to the Dominions and Colonies Overseas. Pressure is coming from this country of persons who wish to go, and likewise from responsible authorities overseas who wish to receive these men, at the earliest possible moment. I, therefore, earnestly ask your Lordships to pass this Motion, and to give what co-operation you think fit in securing the passage of the Bill and the Royal Assent at the earliest moment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the permission of the House be given to advance the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill (now standing for the first day after the recess at Whitsuntide) to Monday next.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
EARL STANHOPE: Do I understand that the noble Earl proposes that the Bill should go through all its stages before Whitsuntide?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is my desire, or at any rate, that the House should give as many stages before Whitsuntide as it is prepared to grant. I want to make as much progress as I can.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CHURCH AND STATE IN RUSSIA.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information respecting the alleged arrest of the Patriarch of the Russian Church and the threatened execution of bishops and priests. The matter to which I call the attention of the Government is a grave and anxious one—more so, perhaps, than is apparent to all who have not gone through the history of what has been happening in this particular matter. A very few facts as to the past will, I think, make clear to your Lordships both the significance and the importance of the particular incident to which I am calling attention.
During the war, in the hurly-burly and the excitement which then existed all over Europe, matters ecclesiastical naturally were put in the background, and did not receive much public attention or consideration, and it came about that an ecclesiastical change of the first magnitude took place in the constitution of the Russian branch of the Eastern Church, which may have very far-reaching consequences hereafter. In the last months of 1917, or four and a half years ago, the constitution of the Russian Church was completely altered, or rather made to revert to what had been its constitution some three hundred years before.
In the time of Peter the Great, or just after, the old constitution of the Russian Church was altered, and a plan was started which gave a different character to that Church. In 1917 the people of Russia, quite apart from any question of revolution and race, decided to go back again to the old system whereby there was a Patriarch of All Russia, presiding over the whole Sobor of the nation in its ecclesiastical aspect, and that change was brought
772
about with the minimum of friction and opposition. The Patriarchate which existed for centuries before the time of Peter the Great was restored, and the man elected to the Patriarchate was the Metropolitan Tikhon, who holds the position to-day.
The Patriarch Tikhon, as he now is, is a remarkable man. He is fifty-six years old; a great scholar, a great theologian, a great teacher, a missionary of remarkable success and influence, and, by popular consent, a saint in the truest sense of that word. He is a man who holds, to the people of Russia as well as to the Church of Russia, a position of a very remarkable kind. He is in touch with much with which Russian ecclesiastics have not always been in touch, and he lived for some years in the United States. He is familiar with English literature and English modes of thought, and it was of no small advantage to Christendom generally, and above all to the relations which the Church of the West—our Church and other branches of the Western Church—might have to the Church of the East when in 1917 he was elected Metropolitan of Moscow, and when, as soon as the Patriarchate was restored, he was elected by acclamation to be the Patriarch of All Russia.
I was in frequent communication with the newly appointed Patriarch at that time. Communications which passed between us were made public, and all who read what he wrote and said at that time must have been struck alike by the dignity of his attitude in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty and by the wisdom of some of the things that he said. His relation to the Bolshevist Government was obviously one of extreme difficulty, and a few months after his accession to the Patriarchate he thought it right to issue a grave manifesto denouncing the lawlessness of some of the Bolshevist principles, pointing out how far they departed from the larger and truer ideals which he existed, like other Christian prelates and leaders, to set forth, and ending his manifesto with the words, "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword."
But, having thus delivered himself as to the large principles upon which he desired as far as possible that Russia and the Russian Church should be governed, he withheld himself absolutely from political strife; he abstained from intervening in matters in which his intervention would

773
undoubtedly have been possible, though, as he thought, it might have been mischievous. He deprecated an attack by any of us upon the Bolshevist Government as such, in relation particularly to its dealings with the Church, and he acquiesced in and practically recognised the Soviet Government as the Government de facto and the Government in power, to whom he and others owed in a large sense an element of allegiance. His position was compared, and rightly compared, to that which was taken in the earliest days of the Church, when the Apostles spoke of the powers that be, who were ordained of God, being constituted at that moment in the Emperor Nero. None the less they were authorities to whom deference was due as such. And that is the line throughout—this point is important—which the Patriarch has taken. He issued a pastoral letter in September, 1919, in which the central phrase was, "The establishment of one or other form of government is not a matter of the Church but of the people," and therefore, as he went on to say, all possible obedience must be paid to the powers that be in the land, though he had already shown what he felt about the principles underlying their régime.
During these years I have tried, difficult and even impossible as it has often been, to follow as closely as might be the story of the relation of the Bolshevist Government to the Church in Russia. The contradiction of statements that have been made public, the variety of incidents and relationship between Church and State in the different parts of Russia has been marked, and the whole thing has been shrouded in the confusion that has attended all recent history in Russia. As far as I can judge, there were different modes of treatment of the Church in different places. There were different modes according to who might be the ruling power or authority, the ruling individual or leader, and it would be difficult to generalise about Russia as a whole in any accurate manner.
Whatever allowances may be made for exaggerations or difficulties in this place or that, however, the fact remains that the Bolshevist authorities themselves have admitted the doing to death el at least 1,700 priests. There is no question about that. At least 1,700 priests have been done to death by the Bolshevist authorities during that time. The bishops and Metropolitans in different places in Russia and on
774
the borders of Russia have again and again communicated with myself during these years, owing to the position I hold in the Church in this country, and telegrams have passed frequently. Some of them it was thought undesirable to publish in the public interest, and my answers have been duly published. But the Patriarch Tikhon has never appealed to me during that time, at least for the kind of aid that others have asked for. His original letter stood, but he has never appealed to me or, as far as I know, outside Russia, or within Russia at that time.
But it goes further than that. In the communications which I have had with the Patriarch—I will not say exactly by what means, but means which were absolutely trustworthy—he has expressed on more than one occasion his hope that, as things were going, I and others with me would not try to raise agitation on the subject, for the sake of Russia as a whole. He believed it to be undesirable. I accordingly have acted on what I knew to be his wish. Then there came a space during the year 1920 and part of 1921 when, as far as I know, there was no very special persecution of the Church in Russia, although undoubtedly there were grave wrongs in different places. Then came the famine. What effect did that have on the situation? In July, 1921, the Patriarch made an appeal. The form of his appeal was a telegram addressed to myself. As a matter of fact, that telegram did not reach me; at least, it did not reach me until months after it had been sent; but it found its way into the Press, both on the Continent and in England. So far as I know, it was the first document which revealed the real extent and gravity, and the ultimate danger, of the Russian famine. It was a document carefully balanced and worded, appealing for aid for the sufferers under the famine and promising the help, the guidance, the protection which would be gladly given by the Church in Russia in any distribution of funds which might be forthcoming.
Besides that, the Patriarch resolved at that time to do his utmost to make an appeal within Russia himself. When the All Russian Committee, as it was called—formed under Maxim Gorki in 1921 to make an appeal to meet Russian necessities—was set up, the Patriarch desired to take a full share on the Church's behalf in its action, with the one condition that representatives

775
of the Church should be privy to the disposition of the money that was raised. He thought that those whom he could influence to produce the money should be assured, and that he should be in a position to assure them, that the money would be properly expended; therefore, they must have access to the authorities with regard to the manner of its distribution. The request that he might do that was absolutely refused. No such appeal was allowed to be issued; no document was permitted to appear under the Patriarch's authority, or under the authority of the Church, or with his name attached to it. Public notices with the Patriarch's name upon them were not allowed to be made, and his request was absolutely declined.
Some little time passed, and in the autumn of last year the Patriarch again asked leave to make an appeal, not in conjunction with the appeal which Maxim Gorki had made and which at that time had either been withdrawn or dropped, but under the auspices of the Church far and near, for money to aid Russia in its terrible distress. Again he did not wish to mix it up with the Gorki plan which at that moment was not to the fore, but to do it independently. He also undertook, as before, that supervision should be given by the Church authorities to the manner in which the money was disposed of and that an account of it should be rendered. His request was absolutely refused. He was told that he must not do it and that nothing of the kind would be allowed.
Then, in March of the present year, the Bolshevist authorities ordered the Patriarch in a peremptory manner to issue an ecclesiastical edict bidding the bishops and clergy of the Russian Church to surrender the Church treasures throughout the country, for, as they put it, the famine, but without any kind of undertaking or even any suggestion that anyone but the Soviet authority was to be told what was done with the money which was procured by the seizure and sale or disposal in some fashion of such treasures. The Patriarch made the grave answer that he and his colleagues were forbidden by their sacred promises, by their oaths, and by the canons of the Church, to dispose of the property of the Church, which was and had been devoted from time immemorial to sacred purposes. He did not say that it could not by any means be disposed of, but that
776
it could not be disposed of in a reckless manner or without the Church knowing exactly what was done with it, and who was going to deal with it; that the danger of sacrilege would certainly arise, and that he was not, therefore, in a position, without violating his oath, to do what was requested.
But he went on to say: "We are prepared on behalf of the Church to undertake to raise the very money you think you will get by the sale of these treasures, and to be responsible for seeing that the money so raised goes to the famine areas, if you will leave the treasures where they are and allow us to deal with them as seems to us to be consistent with the oaths we have taken and the promises we have made." I do not know in detail what the intention of the Church was, but presumably it was something in the way of allowing the treasures of the Church to be placed in trusted hands, who would see that there was no danger of their use for sacriligious purposes, and the raising of the money by the mortgage of the vessels, and so on. I do not know what the intention was, but the Patriarch said: "We are ready to find the money provided you will allow us to hold to our oaths. We cannot voluntarily consent to the giving up of these sacred things."
The answer came immediately: "We decline absolutely to allow any such arrangement to be made"; and the Commissars were ordered to go into the Churches, to tear down the ornaments, some of them, as your Lordships know, of extraordinary interest, antiquity, and beauty—ikons, vessels, books, hangings, and so on—to take them in defiance of their custodians, the priests of the Church, and to allow no interference at all. That process is going on now. Certain inflammatory accounts have appeared, for which I accept no responsibility, as to the horrible violence and roughness with which this has been done, violence which has sometimes provoked the resistance of the people, who in Russia put much value on these treasures, and are naturally provoked by what is going on. I do not know what has become of the money, said to be an enormous sum, which has already been secured by the taking away from the Churches of hangings, books, ikons, ornaments, and sacred vessels. The protest of the Patriarch against the violence that has been shown is the only means of any

777
knowledge that I have as to what has actually happened in the Churches, but the Patriarch has renewed his endeavour to persuade the authorities to allow the money to be raised in the way that he would desire to raise it.
What has happened now? I have a letter here, which I received a week ago from a Russian ecclesiastic of high authority, the Metropolitan Eulogius, who is the Russian Prelate who looks after congregations of Russians outside of Russia in Europe. He writes from Berlin, and his letter is dated May 11. In it he says:
"To-day's paper brought us the sad news of All Russia's Patriarch Tikhon's arrest by the Moscow Soviet authorities, who will not fail undoubtedly to inflict on him the severest penalty. The only accusation brought against him is his obedience to a sense of duty in refusing to submit to the theft of Church property, of sacred vessels, and relics, and all needed for holy services.
"In the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ we appeal to you and to all the Episcopalian members of the Church of England to lift your voice in protest of this act of unheard-of violence and illegality, directed against the highest representative of the Russian clergy. We implore you to use your influence to alleviate as much as possible Patriarch Tikhon's undeserved chastisement.
"With a feeling of deep reverence and brotherly love in Christ."
On the receipt of that letter I proceeded to verify the statements by such means as are possible, though I have not been able to do it independently, and I am looking for the answer that the Government may be able to give me as to the facts regarding the Patriarch's arrest and present condition.
I ask now to be told what information is forthcoming here as to what seems to me to be a very grave outrage in Christendom. We are accustomed to the thought of grave outrages in connection with Russian affairs at the present time, but hitherto there has been a certain absence of this kind of direct and open attack upon the great ecclesiastical possessions, forces and influences in Russia. Now that attitude, so to say, seems to have come to an end, and if the accounts that are published are true— I have no means of knowing—the Patriarch has not only been arrested but removed from his ordinary home in Moscow and interned elsewhere in what is euphemistically described in a telegram from Russia to-day as "another monastery"—but to what is practically a prison. He was removed; he is gone, and that merely means that his arrest has taken place.
778
I no longer feel that I am under the pledge that I have felt myself to be under hitherto not to make the appeal, or to make public the needs, as it seems to me, of the Russian Church for at least the sympathy and the knowledge of the Christians of Europe generally as to what is now taking place. It is necessary to make some statement, for this reason: It is now being said with brazen effrontery and falsehood that the Church is being punished because she declined in the beginning to be helpful in respect to the famine. I have pointed out to your Lordships that on three or four separate occasions the Church had undertaken, in the fullest possible manner that it could officially do so, to raise larger sums of money than anybody was likely to have raised in any other manner; to see to it that the money so raised should be properly administered, and to help in every possible way. Those offers have been absolutely refused, and the man who has throughout with extraordinary public spirit, with reticence, with dignity, and with power, held himself in restraint during these years is now apparently under arrest, and perhaps in danger of death.
We are told that both bishops and clergy have not only been arrested but have already been done to death. It is on behalf of the Church in Russia that I appeal for information so that we may know how things stand. I am not asking, at this moment, for more than information about it. A great scholar, a great teacher, a great leader, with his followers, is now suffering in the way I have tried to describe, and is being maligned in a perfectly shameful manner for not doing the very thing which, throughout this time, he and his friends have been endeavouring to do. I do not think we, as Christians, can look on unmoved at such an incident as that, and I feel that I am fully justified, on behalf of the Church to which I belong, in raising this matter here.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies on behalf of the Government, may I add a few words to what the most rev. Primate has said? For the last two years the greater part of my time has been taken up in connection with Russia, in presiding over a Committee which the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, asked me to take in hand, investigating the political and economic conditions of Russia, and, during the last six months, in connection with the Russian famine.

779
The subject raised by the most rev. Primate is, I think, one of very great importance, and I desire respectfully to associate myself with what he has said. I think that in the famine conditions of Russia and in the extreme poverty from which Russia suffers at the present time, there was a decided claim on the Russian Church to do what she could, but the most rev. Primate has made it perfectly clear that offer after offer of help was made, and that an agreement was made to submit to great sacrifices on behalf of the Church provided the funds raised by the Church were either administered by themselves or at any rate were administered by a committee on which the Church was represented. But this was not accepted. I say that that is a perfectly proper condition to lay down. From the very little I know of Russia I would not trust money, without conditions, to the tender mercies of the Russian Government. That was a perfectly proper stipulation to make.
Apparently, no agreement was come to in regard to this matter, and two months ago, as the most rev. Primate has said, the Decree confiscating the treasures of the Church was promulgated. There were riots. In some places priests were arraigned before the Extraordinary Commission and eight or nine of them lie in prison condemned to death. I sincerely hope they will not be executed. If the noble Earl can tell us anything about that matter to relieve our anxiety we should be very glad. I would even go further than the most rev. Primate. I would appeal to the Government to give a most emphatic warning to the Soviet Government that if any extreme measures be taken against either the Patriarch or his priests that would have the most deplorable results in this country upon the relief work in connection with the famine and also in regard to the wider question—a question of enormous importance—the general reconstruction of Russia.
We must always remember in regard to Russia that there is a struggle going on at the present time—I mean in Government circles—between moderates and extremists. The Government was founded by, and is based on, what are called class-conscious Communists, but they differ among themselves, as, indeed, other Governments in their time have differed, and the danger that I fear is that the extremists will gain the day. There are a good many other
780
signs, besides this particular incident which the most rev. Primate has brought before your Lordships' notice, which make me uneasy in regard to Russia. Not only is there the question of these priests, but there is also the question of the Social Revolutionaries who are to be tried, and in whose defence members of the Labour Party in this country are going to Russia.
Certain difficulties—I think my noble friend, Lord Weardale, will not object to my mentioning this—have arisen, particularly in regard to his own organisation, as to the personnel of the workers sent out to administer the relief subscribed for by people in this country. There are great difficulties about visas for perfectly proper people proposed by the Save the Children Fund to go out and administer this famine relief. After all, people at the present time do not go out to administer famine relief in Russia for the sake of their health, but only because they feel it is a sacred duty. How far this is due to Mr. Eiduck, who is head of the Commission in regard to the famine, I do not know, but this Mr. Eiduck was head of the special department of the Extraordinary Commission dealing with the counter-revolution. He is not a suitable man for his post in any way, and either he or the Government at the present time are making unnecessary difficulties about this question of visas. That is another of those signs that the extremists are gaining the upper hand in Soviet Russia.
Again, I am informed that the extremists have been making attempts, and with some success, to remove moderate Bolsheviks from Moscow to distant provinces. A very distingished man named Mr. Martens was recently ordered to go to South Russia. Whether his protests have availed, and he has not been sent, I am not sure, but he was not only a member of the Presidium but was assistant-President of the Presidium of the Supreme Economic Council. Sending him away from Moscow is not only a degradation, but it is a getting rid of a moderate element, and is another of those signs which I do not like. I do not want to weary your Lordships, but I would mention, in conclusion, that the official paper, the Pravda, has carried on all through the Genoa Conference a campaign of general abuse of the Conference as an attempt on the part of the capitalist power to crush the revolution in Russia. Those attacks have been

781
officially allowed, and very possibly officially prompted, because nothing can be published in Russia except by consent of the Government. These things all make me very uneasy, and more uneasy about this particular incident than I should have been otherwise. That this incident should occur now between Genoa and the Conference at The Hague is, I think, a very disquieting symptom.
If I may add one or two words it would be on the rather wider question, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for touching upon this. So far as I am concerned, I can take no part in attacking the objects aimed at by the Genoa Conference. I believe that the great mass of non-Bolskevik Russians—this is information given to me by Englishmen who have recently been in Russia, who speak the Russian language, and who communicated with the people—looked with hope to the Genoa Conference. Personally, I think that what I have done shows I have every wish to help Russia, and there is nothing that I desire more than to see her included in the comity of nations. But such matters as have been brought before your Lordships this afternoon by the most rev. Primate endanger that. Political matters in Russia are inextricably mixed up obviously with economic matters, and I have great doubt whether Europe is treating Russia on the right lines at the present time.
In The Times to-day there is an extract from a speech by Dr. Benes, one of the notable figures at the Genoa Conference, and a distinguished European statesman. In this he says:
"Real agreement with Russia was only possible by the open abandonment by the Soviet of the strict Communistic standpoint, and by its making a compromise not only in international policy but also in its home policy toward the non-Communistic population of Russia."
If that is the fundamental minimum, and I think it is, I wonder whether we are going the right way to bring anything of the kind about. I suggest that discussions would be far better carried on in Moscow than elsewhere in Europe. I should have had much more hope of the Hague Conference if there was some delay, and if there was some attempt at discussions of these political and economic questions in the meantime, not in the limelight of a European Conference, but quietly by suitable negotiators, who could really talk matters out with the Russians. I apologise if I have
782
opened up rather large questions, and I cannot expect the noble Earl who is to reply for the Foreign Office to deal with them this afternoon. But the subject raised by the most rev. Primate is part of these larger questions, and I entertain some little doubt as to whether we are dealing with Russia on quite the right lines.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate had it not been for the fact that my noble friend has made some reference to the particular fund with which I am associated. I confirm frankly and openly in some respects the account he has given of the difficulties we have encountered with regard to our agents in Russia. It must be understood that our fund and, I believe, all the other funds have adopted as a principle that they will only employ British subjects, of course, men intimately acquainted with the Russian tongue, for the administration of their relief in Russia. In order to obtain suitable men for that purpose there is rather a limited choice. There are a great number of men who are not, unfortunately, qualified for this particular office. When you consider the claims of these men it is almost impossible to find any of them who, in some form or other, have not been interested in action of some kind in Russia since the Revolutionary period. Although many of them have not been engaged in any actual warlike expedition, still the mere fact of their having been in Russia at all is regarded with suspicion by the Soviet authorities, who make it an excuse for refusing to accord them a visa.
I have been informed in recent correspondence that there is at this moment a change of sentiment on the part of the Soviet authorities with regard to visas, and it has taken place simultaneously with the Genoa Conference. What the impression conveyed by the Genoa Conference on the Moscow authorities may have been, I do not know, but it has had a bad effect on their action in according facilities for our work in Russia. That is a fact we have to deplore. On the other hand, our action has not been impeded by the Soviet authorities. It is going on with regularity, and I am glad to say that our supplies are arriving with much greater rapidity and regularity than before. In that respect we have praise rather than criticism to offer, and I hope the particular

783
difficulty, which I trust is only momentary, with regard to the visas, will be overcome and that we shall arrive at a more reasonable situation.
May I also say, with regard to visas, that there has been a little misunderstanding as to the exact way they should be obtained. All the societies are working in Russia under what is known as the Nansen Agreement, and the Soviet authorities argue that all visas should be obtained exclusively through the representatives of Dr. Nansen. I think there have been cases in which visas have been applied for without recourse to the assistance of Dr. Nansen's representatives, and that may have been the cause of certain embarrassment. I wish to make this explanation, which I fear is not very clear, with regard to the difficulties we have encountered, because I should be extremely sorry if it were popularly supposed that these difficulties are seriously interfering with our relief work.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the announcement which has just been made by Lord Weardale will give widespread gratification. I acknowledge that he and his friends are subjected to these worries, annoyances and obstructions in carrying out the work they have undertaken. But, notwithstanding the difficulty of which the noble Lord has spoken, the fundamental fact remains that the work is progressing well, and, what is still more satisfactory—a fact which Lord Weardale confirms, and more than confirms, to-day—that recently there has been a material improvement in the transport arrangements upon which the whole efficacy of these relief movements depends. I am glad the noble Lord has made that statement, because I am afraid it is the only consoling statement your Lordships are likely to hear this afternoon.
Lord Emmott was very far from hopeful. He referred to the general uneasiness which prevails and recommended an attitude of severity on the part of the British Government as contrasted from what he regards as the rather benevolent attitude which prevailed in the Genoa Conference. I am not qualified to discuss that question. I merely content myself by saying that the central and governing idea of the Government in promoting that Conference, and in carrying it through, was the profound hope and conviction that
784
a broad attitude of pacification, or at any rate of non-aggression, affords the only sure basis upon which economic peace, quite apart from other advantages, can be secured to Europe as a whole. The attitude may have been right, or it may have been wrong; but it may be argued that an attitude of severity, of aloofness, towards Russia would have made that country more sensitive to the views which prevail over Western Europe.
LORD EMMOTT: If I gave the impression that I was advocating an attitude of severity towards Russia it was far from my intention. My criticism, so far as it was a criticism, was rather to the fact that I believe quiet conversations without so much limelight, where matters could be discussed without the attention of the Press, would be more likely to achieve results than the conditions which are necessary in the case of great European Conferences.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hope the noble Lord will acquit me of intentionally misrepresenting him. I agree with his sentiment. I abominate limelight, but if you have a number of countries, twenty or thirty, represented in a single town is it not impossible to prevent anyone who has the right and power to play the limelight on their proceedings from doing so? Is it possible, assuming that a Conference of ten or twenty or thirty Powers is necessary in order to discuss things in a free and, moreover, in a rapid manner—is it possible to say that limelight and all the abominations that it involves can be excluded? I am afraid not. I am afraid that we have to recognise the fact that, if Conferences take place, if anything takes place, and limelight is a source of amusement to the public, limelight will be provided.
Let me turn to the very much narrower but intensely important Question raised by the most rev. Primate. I will inform him in brief of the whole of the information which is at the disposal of Lord Curzon. Your Lordships will see from my reply that the Lord Archbishop has special means of access to information which is not at the disposal of the Diplomatic Service, but all the knowledge at the disposal of the Foreign Office confirms, and more than confirms, His Grace's tribute to the personality, distinction, and high character of the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church. I will recount very briefly what has passed so far as our official knowledge goes.

785
The recent Decree of the Soviet Government, ordering the confiscation of all Church valuables in the interests of the famine, led to riots in various parts of Russia when the valuables were being taken from the churches. Sa far as His Majesty's Government are aware, these riots, to which the Archbishop referred, were spontaneous outbreaks, and there is no evidence to show that they formed part of a conspiracy in which either the Patriarch or the responsible representatives of the Russian Church were implicated. It is understood that a number of people were arrested in connection with these outbreaks and, amongst others, eight priests, as Lord Emmott has just said, were condemned to be shot. Sentence has not yet been carried out, but there is reason to believe that the Soviet Government does not at present intend to reverse the decision.
During the trial of these priests, the Patriarch was summoned to give evidence, and was accused of having used his influence to frustrate the execution of the Soviet Decree for the confiscation of Church property. As the Lord Archbishop has recounted, the Patriarch, in his defence, maintained that he had never opposed the principle that the Church should contribute to the utmost of its capacity to the relief of the famine-stricken, but that he claimed the right, as trustee of the property of the Church, to have some control over the distribution of the supplies obtained from the sale or mortgage of Church property. The attitude adopted by the Patriarch led to his arrest and to his removal to the Donskoi monastery, where he is now being kept in close confinement. It is understood that he is shortly to be tried, but it is not clear when and exactly on what charge the trial is to be carried out.
Lord Curzon's attention has been called to reports appearing in the Soviet Press to the effect that the action taken by the Patriarch has caused a division amongst the bishops of the Russian Church, and that he has in consequence resigned his office. I understand that these reports are not correct; that, though considerable pressure has been brought to bear upon him, he has refused to resign; and that his resignation would not be considered valid without the consent of Conclave. In conclusion it is naturally not within the province of His Majesty's Government to pass judgment on the issues involved in the trial of the Patriarch, but it is a well-
786
known fact that the Patriarch, as already outlined to your Lordships, has shown great sympathy towards the population of the famine area since the outbreak of the famine last year.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Earl, or do the Government, propose to take any steps, in conformity with the suggestion of the most reverend Primate and of the noble Lord below the gangway, to make representations to the Russian Government on this matter?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If the Foreign Office had thought that representations of this kind would at the present moment be profitable, I should have made the announcement to your Lordships.

MURDER OF DEAN FINLAY.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether any person has been brought to justice for the murder in June last of the very reverend John Finlay, aged 80, formerly Dean of Leighlin, who was foully murdered in his residence in the City of Cavan; and whether any, and if so, what efforts have been made to secure the punishment of his murderers.
I understand that yesterday the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack rather deprecated my asking the Question which I have put on the Paper, on account of the general discussion regarding Ireland which it is proposed to take next Tuesday. But I can promise the noble Viscount that I will not enlarge it into a general discussion of any kind; I will solely and entirely confine myself to the facts of the particular case.
May I say perfectly frankly to your Lordships that I was prompted to put down this Question when I saw the question of the Archbishop of Canterbury? The Archbishop of Canterbury very naturally takes a great and wide interest in this persecuted divine and in other divines of the Russian Church, and in the threats which are now being made against the whole of the Church in that country. I cannot tell your Lordships how often I have been twitted by those with whom I was brought up in Ireland, and who are now refugees in this country, with the utter absence of any interest on the part of the bench of Bishops in the persecution of Irish Protestants. This sort of thing is

787
often said to me: "I see there is a large subscription being raised in England, fostered in the City and fostered by the Church, on behalf of the starving victims of the Soviet, on behalf of the Church in Russia, on behalf of Armenians who have been persecuted by Turks, on behalf of the Greek Church, and other matters of that kind; but nobody seems to take the slightest interest in what is happening or going to happen to your Protestant fellow-countrymen in Ireland." Never since I came into this House have I heard one word of sympathy from the bench of Bishops regarding what is happening to these people in Ireland.
I have promised, however, not to raise the wider question. This case of the very rev. John Finlay is one of the most pathetic out of all the horrible crimes that have been committed during the last two or three years in Ireland, and one which I should have thought would have awakened some feeling among the bench of Bishops, who are so devoted to religion in this country. This rev. gentleman, eighty years of age, at one time Dean of Leighlin, and at one time chaplain to the Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland, always a man entirely removed from politics and much beloved by everybody who had ever come across him, had retired some little time before to this small property which he had in the County of Cavan, and was leading with his aged wife an ordinary simple life of retirement, having done his work in the Church of which he was a great ornament. His house was raided by gunmen, not for any political reason so far as one can make out, not at a time when the Provisional Government had been set up, but when the country was under the control of His Majesty's Government. Coming downstairs, with his wife following him, he was pulled out on to the steps, riddled with bullets, and after he had been shot dead his head was battered in by a blunt instrument. That was not all. These scoundrels then proceeded into the house, where his wife was, set fire to the house, and burnt the whole place to the ground. That is the case of the very rev. John Finlay.
I have put this Question down really in the hope of arousing some interest in what a man like the rev. John Finlay has had to go through, after the kind of life I have described. I do not know whether His Majesty's Government can give me any information. I have never heard that anybody has ever been arrested for this
788
murder, or has been brought to justice, but as His Majesty's Government handed over the control of this County, among others, to the Provisional Government, I should like to ask whether any terms or conditions were made with them that they were to attempt to bring these murderers to justice. If I may ask one more question, which is not on the Paper, I should like to know whether any compensation has been given for the burning of his house, or any other compensation to his poor wife, who was a witness of this dreadful affair.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Before an answer is made to the noble and learned Lord's Question, I should like to reply to what he has said with regard to the lack of sympathy with which he imagines the bishops in England view the position of affairs in Ireland. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to believe that I am in closest touch with three of the most prominent ecclesiastics in Ireland, namely, the Archbishop of Armagh, the Archbishop of Dublin and the late Archbishop, now Provost of Trinity College. If he will consult them, I am sure he will find that there has been no lack of constant and frequent intercourse with them as to the difficulty and complications of the whole matter, and no lack of sympathy on our part, or of desire to assist them.
LORD CARSON: I quite accept what the most reverend Primate says, but I was referring to the public action which the Churches of this country have taken in aid of other Churches, and never so far as I know has there been any public action for the assistance of the Protestant Church in Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I appreciate the purpose of the noble and learned Lord in confining this debate within narrow limits, and I think in doing so he has adopted a convenient course, having regard to the fact that there must be discussion at an early date dealing with more general questions. The noble and learned Lord has spoken about subscriptions for Russian purposes, and made one or two observations. The competitive claims of different objects are always very difficult to appraise, but I confess I think there are cases of hardship among all classes in Ireland, emerging in the last twelve or eighteen months, which would justify a claim upon the assistance of

789
the compassionate not inferior to any that can be urged in the case of Russia, nor do I think it would be possible to maintain that in the rapidly deteriorating standards of the sanctity of life there is a very great deal to be learned by one community from the other.
The noble and learned Lord has asked me a question as to what took place nearly a year ago, and the facts in relation to the question he has put to me are as follows:—About 2 a.m. on the morning of June 12 of last year, Dean Finlay was murdered on the lawn outside his house. More than one witness tstated at the Military inquiry that about forty men broke into the house, which they set on fire. Afterwards, the Dean was found on the lawn. He was dead. A few days later nine men were arrested on suspicion and were identified by different witnesses as strangers who had been present on that occasion, and some of them were stated to have carried short iron bars, with which Dean Finlay might have been struck down. No witness came forward who was able to say that he saw the blow delivered. These nine men were in custody awaiting trial at the time of the General Amnesty which followed the signing of the Treaty. They were never brought to trial, and were released from custody in pursuance of the Amnesty extended to persons convicted of, or suspected of having committed, offences from political motives in Ireland. No person has since been brought to justice by the Provisional Government for the murder. As regards the last part of the Question, the restoration and maintenance of law and order in Southern Ireland is now a matter for that Government.
The noble and learned Lord has asked me a further Question, which he himself has pointed out was not in the Question on the Paper. It is with reference to the compensation which might be payable, or ought to be paid, to the widow of the late Dean. I am not in a position to deal with that question without notice, but this I may say, that the claim would appear to be a strong one for compensation and one which, there can be no doubt at all, will be treated as a case in which full compensation should be paid. If the noble and learned Lord will allow me, after having obtained specific information I will communicate with him privately and inform him what course has been adopted.
There are general issues involved, but as he stated the facts disclosed by the 790
particular Question of the noble and learned Lord make it plain that a particularly horrible murder was perpetrated under circumstances of exceptional cowardice, the victim being a blameless and worthy servant of the Church, and a devoted citizen of his country. We must all recognise, each of us drawing what inferences he thinks proper from a recognition which I think must be general, that since that date, more than a year ago, there has been a succession of detestable crimes which I think it would be impossible to match in any comparable period even in the history of that unhappy country. Many noble Lords will probably have views to urge, and inferences to suggest, and facts which I think will not be very greatly controverted in the debate, and I shall perhaps be forgiven if, without in any way under-rating the gravity of the case which the noble and learned Lord has put before the House, I ask leave not to anticipate the observations which I shall make next week.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. What progress the Voluntary Hospitals Commission has made in appointing local voluntary hospital committees in accordance with the Report of Lord Cave's Committee.

2. What information the Voluntary Hospitals Commission has of the general financial position of the hospitals and how far they have proceeded in the distribution of the Government grant of £500,000.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will shortly rise for the Whitsuntide recess, and I knew there are very large numbers of people, in different parts of the country, who are much interested in this subject and are anxiously awaiting a statement from His Majesty's Government. I ask these Questions in no spirit of captious criticism, because I can say nothing but good of the work which has been done by the Voluntary Hospitals Commission as regards the establishment of committees and other work, and I desire to thank the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for the enormous amount of devoted personal service which he has put into this business.
The first Question I wish to put is: What is the exact position of the voluntary hospital committees to-day? How many committees remain still to be formed, and has the scheme been generally well responded to throughout the country? The next question is: Can the noble Earl tell me what proportion of the fund has been distributed already, and how much, if any, still remains for further distribution? I know the difficulties that my noble friend has probably had to meet. Hospitals have been very dilatory in sending in their accounts, and I am fully prepared to hear that my noble friend has had many difficulties of that sort to meet. Can my noble friend tell me anything in regard to the form in which these grants are made? I hope that any risk of the well-managed hospitals getting less money than the less well-managed hospitals may be avoided. Some suggestion was put forward that we might possibly give a bonus on good management, but that is a difficult matter.
With regard to further expansion, I take it that, with the present shortage of money, there is no possibility of any funds being available for further expenditure. The sources of hospitals are dried up owing to taxation and the effects of the war, and the demands put on these hospitals have daily increased. The cost of running hospitals is very much higher, the number of persons who expect treatment in them has enormously increased, and you get a different class of patient going into hospitals. Another point, which is a somewhat delicate one, is the question of poor law infirmaries. Naturally, the Poor Law Guardians and the ratepayers are somewhat jealous of their infirmaries being used for ordinary hospital purposes. But I hope that some means may be found whereby there will be a greater exchange of duties between infirmaries and ordinary hospitals, provided that the beds in the infirmaries do not fail to supply the need for which those institutions were established.
The next point I desire to raise is that of voluntary hospital representation on the Commission. Many of your Lordships have taken an interest in hospital work, and no doubt you know that it is impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast line for all hospitals. I hope some means will be found by which some representative of these voluntary hospital committees will be given a place upon the central Commission sitting in London. I think it would be
792
to the mutual advantage of both, and very much to the advantage of the voluntary committees themselves. I believe that the King's Fund and several other bodies are already represented on the Commission. I beg to put the Questions standing in my name.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the noble Earl, who is chairman of the Hospital Saturday Fund, is anxious to receive information on this subject. In answer to his first Question on the Paper, it is proposed to constitute, in all, 62 committees throughout England, Scotland, and Wales. Of this number, 52 are already formed, and are actually functioning; six will very soon be ready. The only reason why they have not actually commenced work is that all the nominations have not been completed. In two cases, one in England, the other in Scotland, no committees are to be formed because the local conditions are such that it is not necessary; there is only one hospital in one county, and it would be obviously unnecessary to appoint a committee. In two others no decision has been reached.
Some of these committees have been in existence for a considerable time, but the majority have only begun to work in the last few months. We asked them all to send in a report as to the actual situation in their area, and many of them have sent in valuable reports, though we have not, of course, received sufficient information about all the small areas to be able to make a comprehensive survey of an authoritative nature of the situation throughout the country. We have had very good reports from Devon, Cornwall, Warwickshire, Bristol, Derbyshire, Wiltshire, Sheffield, and others I might mention.
With reference to a point to which the noble Earl referred at the end of his speech—namely, the question of the representation of local committees on the Voluntary Hospitals Commission—as your Lordships are aware, that Commission was formed on the recommendation of Lord Cave's Committee, with the addition of a representative for Wales. Of the representatives on that Commission, five are appointed by the Ministry of Health, one by the Secretary for Scotland, and seven by various bodies connected with the hospitals—the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians, the Order of St. John and the British Red

793
Cross Society, the British Hospitals Association, the British Medical Association (which has two representatives, one for England and one for Scotland), and King Edward's Fund.
King Edward's Fund has accepted, in accordance with the recommendation of Lord Cave's Committee, the position of voluntary hospitals committee for London; so that in that respect the metropolitan area is directly represented on the Commission. The other committees, of course, were not formed when the Commission was appointed, so that there could be no question about their being represented thereon, but now that they are functioning the question is one of very great importance and has not been lost sight of. I may say that a conference of all members of local committees will meet in London on July 18 and 19, at which a full discussion of this question will be possible. The views of the members of local committees as to whether the Commission would be strengthened by adding representatives drawn from London, and whether they think it desirable in their own interests to be so represented, will be of very great value and importance. How that representation should be made, and so forth, is a matter of interest to all concerned. I wish that the noble Viscount, Lord Cave, had been present because it would be very interesting to hear his views on this point, as he was the originator of the idea and it was on his advice that the Commission was formed. Personally, I think an important thing is to avoid making the Commission so large as to be an unwieldy body, but I do not think that would be a necessary corollary to the proposal.
I now turn to the second part of the Question which deals with finance. The original Government grant was of £500,000. Up to the present we have spent altogether £142,738, which is made up as follows: In London, £103,450, and in the provinces, £339,288. Your Lordships will comment, perhaps, on the fact that London has received so considerable a share of this sum of £142,738, but the difference is due to the fact that London was able to get to work very much more quickly. As I have already observed, King Edward's Fund set to work immediately as the voluntary hospitals committee for London, and therefore the reports and so forth were available much more speedily for London than they were for the provinces. The London
794
grants so far have been mainly, in fact, almost entirely, emergency grants; that is to say, grants to hospitals who have exhausted their realisable assets. The grants, therefore, were mostly given before the annual accounts were made up. I am glad to say that these grants have enabled beds in London which were closed to be reopened and have prevented the threatened closure of others.
In reference to the other Question which the noble Earl put to me as to the principle on which the grants have been made, I may say that the Commission have decided as a general principle not to make grants in excess of half the deficit on the ordinary maintenance expenditure for the year ending December 31, 1921, and those grants are to be made £for£ against new money received or in sight. This question of money received or in sight is rather a difficult one to define, and we have had a good many inquiries about it from the hospitals and the voluntary hospital committees. We have explained it to the best of our ability, and we are just issuing a new circular dealing with the whole matter at length, which I trust will put everybody in a position to understand exactly what is meant by the Treasury conditions.
As to the position of the hospital finances I would like to say a word. The Government grant of £500,000 was based on the estimate of Lord Cave's Report that the total deficit on maintenance account for 1921 would be approximately the same as that in 1920—namely, £1,000,000 for the whole country. But it is very gratifying to note that the reports so far almost all show that in all probability the 1921 deficit will be less, and I think and hope that it will be considerably less, than the 1920 deficit. The 1920 deficit in London amounted to £463,000, and the estimate—it is only an estimate yet, but it is a fairly accurate one—is that the deficit for 1921 will be about £140,000 less. The same sort of figures reach us from other localities, and, therefore, I am in great hopes that the deficit for 1921 will show a considerable shrinkage on that for 1920. That being so, we may hope that our finances will allow us to give some assistance in respect of accumulated deficits. I am not able to make any promise on that point, and I cannot say anything really definite about it until we have a complete estimate of the amount of the deficits for 1921 throughout the whole country.

795
The noble Earl referred to the fact—and, perhaps, your Lordships will have seen that it is true from the small amount of money that we have already distributed—that the hospitals have been somewhat dilatory in sending in their claims. That is the case. We have written to the hospitals, and have sent a communication to the Press to the same effect, asking them to send in their claims as soon as possible and without any unnecessary delay. I understand, of course, that hospitals have found some difficulty in making up their claims because they do not make up their accounts until the beginning of the year, when the auditors' officers are very busy and it is very difficult to get a proper audit. We are now almost at the end of May, and I hope we shall be able to get our claims in soon so as to be able to proceed with the distribution.
There is another point I should like to mention because it is one which I think hospitals would do well to consider. An arrangement was made with Approved Societies last year for payments to hospitals in respect of their members. We have had representations from the societies that the claims are not coming in from the hospitals. I hope, and the Commission hopes, that all hospitals will ask any patients who come to them whether they belong to a society, and, if so, whether it is one of those societies as to which the hospital has to make a claim; also that the hospitals with as little delay as possible will make the claims they are entitled to make, and which the societies are desirous of meeting, in respect to the treatment of these patients. I hope I have been able to indicate to your Lordships that the position of the hospitals is improving. It must, however, be remembered that the deficits are still very formidable, that no effort must be relaxed and that everything possible should be done to put the hospitals again on to their pre-war footing. Cooperation, I am sure, is the only way in which that may be successfully done—cooperation to reduce expenditure, to increase income, and to prevent overlapping and waste.
I should like to mention one other point in regard to that matter. Certain hospitals are proposing schemes for extension. I feel that these schemes of extension should he very carefully examined. I am sure it is not a wise procedure to build a new wing to your house before you are able to pay
796
the weekly bills. Hospitals should not only see that they are paying their way, and able to carry on, as they are at present, their ordinary work, but they should also see that their income is sufficient to pay for any increased expenses of maintenance which the extension will necessitate. That is a matter which should be most carefully examined by all hospital committees. I do not want to say that an extension should not be undertaken. In circumstances of a peculiar nature, even when the maintenance account is somewhat deficient, it may be desirable to have an extension, because sometimes capital expenditure is true economy. But it is a matter which requires careful and serious consideration on the part of those who propose to undertake such developments.
The noble Lord referred to the possibility of utilising poor law infirmaries. The noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, who is not here to-night, raised this point last year. These infirmaries are said to have occasionally vacant beds which could be utilised; I have no doubt that is often the case. Actual co-operation of that kind has been undertaken in certain places; for instance, in Paddington and Wolverhampton. I went to Paddington infirmary. It is an admirable place, and works with the local hospital in a magnificent manner. But one must remember that the poor law infirmaries are the property of the ratepayers, and that you cannot do anything to touch them unless the guardians and the ratepayers come forward and say that they are ready and willing to oc-operate with the voluntary hospitals. Now that local committees have been formed there is an authority which can deal with the voluntary hospital area extension. A local committee can form an idea of what is required in the way of beds, and, if the poor law authorities in the district are willing to meet them, they can come together and perhaps form a scheme which will utilise the beds that are vacant in the infirmaries, if such there be. That will relieve the voluntary hospitals, and may, perhaps, avoid the necessity of considerable extensions in the hospitals. The essential point to remember, however, is that these infirmaries are the property of the poor law authorities, and that only with their consent and cooperation can anything whatever be done. There are many members of boards of guardians who are also members of voluntary

797
hospital committees, so that cooperation between the two should not prove a difficult task.
I should like to say one further word upon the question of finance. So far as our information goes income on the whole is well maintained, although in a few cases there has been a falling off, especially in areas where there have been strikes. Speaking generally, the income has kept up in a rather remarkable way, in spite of unemployment and high taxation. Again, expenditure is falling. Food, which is a very large item in hospital expenditure, is coming down considerably, but drugs and dressings are remaining at a rather high figure, and have not fallen in the manner which had been hoped and anticipated.
I would make one comment on the success of the scheme of mass contributions. I do not know whether any of your Lordships are familiar with the Sheffield area, but in that area they have done very remarkable work under this scheme of mass contribution. It is very important for local committees to keep that matter in mind, and to organise schemes wherever they possibly can. Until the Oxford scheme was developed the mass contributions were mainly confined to Northern England, and the success of the scheme at Oxford is worthy of note. The chairman of the hospital committee told me the other day that they raised £16,000 last year by these contributions. This is mainly an agricultural County, and the success of that scheme in Oxford shows that similar efforts might be undertaken elsewhere with success. I believe the noble Lords own County, Hampshire, has made a great success already of the scheme. In Manchester they have made an arrangement with the Hospital Saturday Fund for a combined collection and the organisation of mass contributions. These schemes are of the utmost value, and are to be recommended to the consideration of committees. I may add a word of congratulation to London. I think the London collection yesterday must have been very successful. I hope it will realise all the new money that is necessary to obtain funds from the Commission.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of joining in the tribute which the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, paid to the noble Earl at the head of the Commission. I am a member of the Devon local hospital
798
committee. We sent in our claims, and within a month received promise of the assistance that we were going to get. I think that is extremely satisfactory, and shows the enormous amount of personal attention that the noble Earl has paid to the matter. I understand that not half of the £500,000 has yet been distributed. I think I am right in saying that, apart from London, something like £100,000 only has been promised.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have not the figures by me, but I think £103,000 has been distributed in London, and about £39,000 in the provinces. I trust that there will be considerably more funds for the provinces when w get in the claims. If all the counties were as assiduous as the noble Earl's County of Devon we should have distributed a great deal more to the provinces.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that statement, and I should like to know whether the claims that the various local committees have sent in are the final claims that they can make?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If the noble Earl has any further claims to make the Commission will be only too glad to consider them.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the statement he has made, and congratulate him upon the success of the scheme so far.

MANDATE FOR PALESTINE.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I desire to ask that His Majesty's Government should ensure that the Mandate for Palestine be considered and approved by Parliament prior to ratification by the Council of the League of Nations.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the Mandate cannot be confirmed, I understand, for some time to come, and the Government would invite Lord Islington, therefore, to select a day soon after the Whitsuntide recess on which he should put down a Motion and raise a discussion on the subject.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock until Monday next a quarter past four o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION (GAS CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

LONDON ELECTRIC AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES.
PETITION FOR BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
First Report from the Joint Committee made and to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the first sitting day after the recess at Whitsuntide; Bills to be printed as amended.

TORQUAY CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
AYR BURGH ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments, from the Select Committee.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE RAMWAYS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.