Sitting of 3 March 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
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 Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Bristol Water Bill.
Bill committed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts, 1905 and 1924," presented by Captain HACKING; read the First time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

SUPREME COURT (PRIZE, &C.) DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1925–26.
Copy ordered of,
"Account of bile Receipts and Payments of the Accounting Officer of the Vote for the Supreme Court on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1926, and for the period 4th day of August, 1914, to 31st day of March, 1926; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. Ronald McNeill.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR PENSIONERS.
    Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Pensions how many pensioners who were permanently disabled in the South African war are still under treatment by the Ministry for their war disabilities; and whether, on grounds of equity, he will favourably consider the grant of treatment allowances in respect of their wives and children?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. The suggestion made in the second part of the question was fully considered in 1919 and 1920 when the rates of disability pension generally were under consideration. The Government then decided that, while the rates of pension available to men disabled in former wars should be raised to the level of those of the Great War, they would not be justified in extending pre-war Warrants by the inclusion of family and other allowances which were not within the scheme of those Warrants. I should not be prepared to recommend that that decision should be reconsidered. I would remind the hon. Member, at the same time, that the pension may be raised to the maximum, subject to the prescribed conditions, when a, disabled former-war pensioner is obliged to undergo a course of treatment for his war disability.
    Mr. DALTON: Was any estimate made, of the cost in giving allowances to wives and children? Would it not be small in view of the fact that many of these men are now advanced in years?
    Major TRYON: The question raised refers to a very small number of pensioners, but I could not say what figures were before the Government of that time, as the matter refers to 1919.

    HOSPITALS.
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Pensions what number of Ministry of Pensions hospitals he proposes to retain definitely to ensure that

    527
    adequate facilities for in-patient treatment are available for so long as such may be necessary?
    Major TRYON: It is not possible as yet to determine what will prove to be the definite, that is the ultimate, requirements of the Ministry in regard to hospital treatment, nor in what manner those requirements should best be met.
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Pensions what is the total number of hospitals utilised for the treatment of war disabilities and the total bed accommodation provided as at the 1st February, 1927?
    Major TRYON: On the date referred to there were 20 hospitals under the entire control of the Ministry with 4,388 beds, and 17 other hospitals, not under the control of the Ministry, whose accommodation was wholly reserved for pensioners containing 2,158 beds. In addition, 8,152 beds were occupied by pensioners under treatment at the charge of the Ministry of Pensions in sanatoria and general or special civil hospitals.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Pensions if he will give the number of applicants for pensions, and the number refused, during 1926?
    Major TRYON: The total number of claims for pensions of all classes in 1926 was 21,750. The number of these claims which were refused both by the Ministry and, where appeal was made, by the independent Appeal Tribunal also, is approximately 14,500.
    Mr. BECKETT: In view of the fact that, speaking quickly, nearly 70 per cent. of the applications were refused, and in view of the fact, that the ex-service men and their dependants are in distress all over the country, cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider having an inquiry into the subject?
    Major TRYON: No, Sir. As the War becomes more distant the number of valid claims naturally becomes less.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Pensions the number of pensioners on the 1st February, 1926, and 1927, respectively; and the number who have died during that period?
    Major TRYON: On the 31st December, 1925 and 1926—the nearest dates to those stated in the question for which figures can be given—the number was 1,058,000 at the earlier date and 1.022,000 at the later date. The number of pensioners whose deaths were notified during the year 1926 was 19,550.
    Mr. BECKETT: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, according to these figures, is rather rapidly engaged in depriving these men of their pensions—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper question to put.

    POTTERY MANUFACTURE (GLAZE TESTING).
    Mr. CLOWESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often a sample of the glaze is taken for testing purposes when a pottery firm changes from lead glaze to leadless or low solubility; and how many samples of glaze were taken for analysis in the years 1924, 1925 and 1926?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): It is not the practice to take a sample immediately after a change, but before the change takes place the inspector mutt be satisfied that the glaze will conform to the prescribed standard. After that, reliance is placed mainly upon systematic routine sampling. The total number of samples taken under the Regulations was, it 1924, 83; in 1925, 97; and in 1926, 84.

    STEAM TRACTORS (SMOKE EMISSION).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Home Secretary whether he has received representations from the Minister of Transport respecting the danger caused by the emission of smoke, steam and sparks by steam tractors; and what action he has taken or proposes to take?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, and I propose to issue a memorandum to Chief Constables reminding them of their powers.
    Mr. BAKER: In view of the very great difficulty which exists on the outskirts

    529
    of London, will the Home Secretary draw the special attention of the police to those roads which are running out of London?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am going to issue A Circular to Chief Constables and that will include notification to the Chief of the Metropolitan Police.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will my right hon. Friend state briefly what are the powers which Chief Constables have?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They may rake any steps they think fit.

    POLICE COURT FINES (RECEIPTS)
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an incident at the Willesden Police Court in which a defendant stated that he paid his fine as he left the Court; whether he is aware that the magistrate was informed by the warrant officer that no receipts are given for fines; and, Whether, seeing that the man in question had no proof of payment and was ordered to pay the money forthwith or be committed to prison, he will consider the desirability of issuing receipts for all moneys paid?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. On inquiry I find that the defendant in this case said he would not be able to identify the officer to whom he alleged he had paid the fine. The Justices, after he had been confronted with the warrant officers and had admitted he had not paid the fine to any of them, told him that in their opinion the fine had not been paid. The money was then paid and a receipt, given. The general question involved is receiving attention.

    TAXI-CABS, LONDON.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Home, Secretary when it is proposed to introduce the cheaper taximeter cabs on the London streets; and whether he has any information with regard to the effect of the cheapening of the taximeter cab fares in New York?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand that one or two firms have been proceeding with the designing and con-
    530
    struction of a two-seater taxi-cab, but, they have progressed so slowly in the direction of making available to the public a cheaper form of taxi-cab that I now propose to inform them that unless they are in a position to place upon the market, within the next three months, two-seater taxi-cabs in reasonable numbers, I shall hold myself free to reopen the whole question of taxi-cab fares.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: With regard to the last part of the question, could my right hon. Friend give any information about New York? Is he aware that the number of taxi-cab users there has more than doubled since the charge was reduced, and that the drivers realise that it is much more profitable to have numerous trips than to have only part occupation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is true, but I understand that a great deal of the profit in New York arises from the taxi-cabs standing still, owing to the congestion of traffic.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take any practical steps to improve the condition of taximeter cabs in London and to reduce their fares?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Every taxicab is required at the time of the renewal of its annual licence to be thoroughly overhauled and renovated. If on inspection and trial the engines of any taxi-cab are found not to conform to the Commissioner's standard of fitness its licence is not renewed until the defects are satisfactorily rectified. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 10th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, despite the fact that he has been talking about this question for nearly two years, the taxi-cabs of London remain the most uncomfortable and expensive in the world and will he take steps to bring about an improvement?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members seem inclined to give their own answers to questions.

    COAL TRADE DISPUTE (POLICE COST).
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary the total payments made to local police authorities, together with the names of such authorities, as a result of the loan of police drafted into the mining districts during the recent mining lock-out?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Police were borrowed by the police authorities of nine forces from over 30 other forces; their total payments amounting to about £96,000.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these forces has made a profit?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think so. The charge was only for ordinary expenses.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Devon County Council has stated that a big profit has been made?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was not aware of that.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the £96,000 was paid to coal companies for the imported police?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot give any details without notice.

    CINEMA SCHOOLS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that there are many bogus self-styled cinema schools in operation in London and some of the principal towns in the provinces; and if he will consider the introduction of legislation for the purpose of regulating these establishments?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has not previously been called to this matter. If the hon. Member will kindly let me have any information which he possesses I will consider it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that we do not all want to he regulated by this House?
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that there is a great deal of fraud going on with these
    532
    cinema schools in which the public are being defrauded, and will he take precautions to stop it?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will bear in mind both views of the Labour party.

    FILM CENSORSHIP.
    Sir HENRY COWANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that this country is the only part of the Empire without a State censorship of films; and whether he will consider the desirability of transferring this function from the hands of the film trade to the State?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The statement contained in the first part of the question is, I understand, substantially correct. As regards the second part of the question, the change suggested could not be made without legislation, and, as I have stated in reply to similar questions, there is not sufficient evidence that the present system of censorship (which I would point out includes an important element of control by local authorities) fails to secure on the whole an adequate standard.
    Sir H. COWAN: Would my right hon. Friend say whether it is not the case that the present Censor is both appointed and paid by the film trade?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is true.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be very great opposition in this House to the Government, and especially this Government, having this power in its hands?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is true, as far as I am concerned—unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman brings in a Bill.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the present censorship has worked very successfully up to the present time?
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does my right hon. Friend not think that legislation is necessary, in view of the fact that the present censorship is largely exercised in the interest of foreign exhibitors?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was not aware of the latter point. The question is a difficult one, but I thought that on the whole there wasp a desire not to impose too much restriction, and that the present system was working fairly well—I do not say more than that.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is it not a serious allegation against what is practically a national censorship to cay that it is used mainly in the interests of foreign exhibitors; and should not the hon. Member have bad the decency, which is usual among colleagues in this House, to have notified the right hon. Gentleman who is Censor of films before making that allegation? It is an abuse of privilege.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And the Father of the House too.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the suggestion inadvisable.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: May I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to say a personal word? There was a question on the Paper asking the Home Secretary to transfer the film censorship from the film trade to the State, and on the spur of the moment when I asked a question I had forgotten that the head of the censorship was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), the Father of the House for whom we all feel so much respect and affection. The facts on which I base my question are these. The staff of the censorship is paid by the trade and 92 per cent. of the capital of the film trade in this country is American. If the House does not think that these facts justify my question, I beg to express my sincere regret.
    Sir H. COWAN: Referring to my hon. Friend's remark about the supplementary question which he put arising out of a question put by myself in regard to the film censorship, I should like to say that, in suggesting that the Film Censor should be appointed and paid by the Government, I did not intend for one moment to reflect upon the present Censor, the Father of the House, a Member whom we all respect and admire.

  RUSSIA.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (GREAT BRITAIN).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary how many Russian subjects, suspected of Communist propaganda in this country have been imprisoned during the past 10 years for longer than six months without being brought for examination or trial before any magistrate, Justice, or Court of Law of any kind; and whether such persons so detained were examined only by police officers before deportation on the order of the Home Secretary?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: None, Sir.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Under the Aliens Act has not the right hon. Gentleman the power, and does he not exercise the power, of detaining persons without trial and deporting them if he feels it is in the interest of the country so to do?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not the question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite a separate matter.

    LORD BIRKENHEAD'S SPEECH.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the speech of the Secretary of State for India at the Birkenhead Hippodrome on Saturday evening last, in which he described Russia as a by-word in the world, a place where there was no law, and where murders, were weekly and daily ordained by a subterranean revolutionary committee, and further described the Russian Government as a junta of swollen frogs; whether these epithets were applied to a Government with whom we have official relations, after consultation with the Cabinet; and, if not, whether they represent the policy of the Government?
    Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies might I ask him whether Lord Birkenhead said anything which Lord Curzon did not say four years ago, which the Foreign Secretary has not in substance said; and whether there is a single statement in Lord Birkenhead's speech which is not indisputably true?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member wants to argue the matter.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My attention has not been called to the speech in question. The policy of the Government upon a given topic is to be collected from the speeches generally of Ministers. It is not customary nor would it be possible for individual Ministers to consult the Cabinet upon the terms of their forthcoming speeches. Upon the general matter referred to in the question the policy and views of the Government have just been very elaborately explained in a Note to the Union of Soviet Republics by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether it was not in a speech that the Secretary of State for India committed the same offence which His Majesty's Government charged against the Soviet Government, namely, abuse by a Minister of another Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is a matter which should be argued in debate. We must not anticipate the debate.

    PAINT (WHITE LEAD).
    Mr. VIANTasked the Home Secretary the dates of the conferences held since 15th December, 1926, with representatives of the painting and decorating industry, for the purpose of arriving at agreement in connection with the circular recently issued for the regulation of the use of white lead in paint; and whether there was unanimity on the points raised in the circular?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the answer is a long one I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting a misunderstanding which has arisen in connection with the explanatory letter issued with the draft Regulations under the Lead Paint Act. The letter stated that the terms of the Regulations had been discussed at a series of conferences with the industry at which a complete agreement was arrived at. The reference here was to certain conferences which had taken place in 1922 for the purpose of determining what Regulations could be made in the event of the Geneva
    536
    Convention being ratified, but the statement has apparently been taken in some quarters to imply that conferences had been held subsequently to the passing of the Act, and that the draft Regulations were the outcome of a fresh agreement. This was not the case and no such implication was intended or conveyed. The sole object of the circular was to remind the industry of the previous discussions and the agreement then reached, which applied not only to external painting but also to internal painting during the interval before the prohibition was to take effect.
    Since the issue of the draft Regulations there has been a further meeting with representatives of the industry. This resulted, I am informed, in general agreement on the points discussed.

    SUNDAY TRADING.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increase in Sunday trading, he can see his way to widen the scope of the Departmental Committee on Shop Hours in order that the question of the Sunday opening of shops may be considered and dealt with in the Report?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I am afraid I cannot adopt this suggestion. As I explained in reply to a question on Thursday last by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) I considered very carefully the scope of the Inquiry in settling the terms of reference, and decided that it would be best to restrict it to the specific quest on on which serious public controversy has arisen, and on which an early decision is necessary.
    Mr. MORRISON: In view of the alarming increase in the amount of Sunday trading, will the right lion. Gentleman consider setting up a separate Committee to go into the question of the number of shops open on Sundays?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is an entirely different question.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: At the same time as the right hon. Gentleman is considering Sunday trading will he take into account the sale of literature on Sundays at political meetings?

    SHOPS ACTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Sir FRANK MEYERasked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to give the names of the members of the Departmental Committee which he has undertaken to appoint to inquire into the Shops Acts, 1920 and 1921?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not Yet received replies from all of those to whom I have sent invitations to serve on this Committee, but I hope to be in a position to announce its composition in a few days.
    Sir F. MEYER: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that if here is much more delay in setting up his Committee, it will make it more difficult to carry into effect any recommendations which the Committee make?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know all the difficulties and perhaps my hon. Friend does not realise the difficulty of getting members to answer letters quickly and to say "Yes" or "No"

  EDUCATION.

    WEDNESBURY.
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education what was the total expenditure by the Wednesbury Education Committee upon elementary and secondary education, respectively, during 1926, or for the latest available period?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): In 1925–26 the net expenditure of the Wednesbury Authority on elementary education was £41,578, and on higher education, £392. This authority is not a local authority for the purposes of higher education.
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education what was the number of elementary schools in Wednesbury; the date when the most recently built school was opened; and the total number of school children then attending such schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: There are 10 public elementary schools in Wednesbury, the most recently built of which was opened on the 1st April, 1912, and the number
    538
    of pupils on the registers in January of that year was 5,195. Plans for a new school for 250 infants, to replace existing unsatisfactory accommodation, were approved by my Department in January of last year.
    Mr. SH0RTasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in the case of the Wednesbury Boys' High School, he will state the number of scholars now in attendance, the number of free places occupied, the number of fee payers, and the local areas catered for?
    Lord E. PERCY: The number of pupils on the 1st October, 1926, was 129, of whom 66 were free pupils and 63 fee-payers. The pupils are drawn from the following areas: Wednesbury, Willenhall, Bilston, Walsall, Tipton, Darlaston and Coseley.

    TEACHERS (RURAL TRAINING).
    Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the President of the Board of Education what action he is taking to establish courses of training for teachers interested in country life and occupations?
    Lord E. PERCY: The Board have been recently considering the best means of offering to intending teachers courses of training which will meet the special needs of country schools in the way of practical instruction, while at the same time maintaining a high general standard of education among teachers serving in country schools. I have now appointed a Departmental Committee, under the Chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb), to consider the whole question. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names and terms of reference of this Committee.
    Mr. COVE: Is it not a fact that there is no elementary school teacher on this Committee; and will the noble Lord consider the advisability of having a practical elementary school teacher on it?
    Lord E. PERCY: That matter was considered. I would ask the hon. Member to remember the difficulty of keeping a Committee within manageable dimensions and in this case the Committee has to represent the training colleges as well as local authorities, so that there is ample teachers' representation.
    Mr. COVE: Is it right, in the judgment of the noble Lord, that a Committee which has to deal with this question should not include a representative of the elementary teachers with practical experience?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think the Committee will have the full advantage of evidence from elementary school teachers on their experience in the schools and the needs of the schools. I think if the hon. Member looks into the membership of the Committee he will see that it ensures ample knowledge of the needs of the schools.
    Mr. COVE: Will the Noble Lord consider representations upon that point?
    Lord E. PERCY: Certainly.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Does the Noble Lord suggest that the inclusion of an elementary school teacher on that Committee would make it unmanageable?
    Following are the names and terms of reference:
    Terms of Reference.
    To consider

    (1) the desirability of providing courses of training specially suitable for teachers interested in country life and occupations, and the lines which such courses should follow:

    (2) (a) the framing of the syllabus of an examination which would be open to rural pupil teachers and other persons serving in country schools and which would qualify candidates either for admission to training colleges or for recognition as uncertificated teachers; and (b) the establishment of a body to conduct such an examination.

    The members of the Committee are:

    Mr. J. Q. Lamb, J.P., M.P. (Chairman).

    The Vice-Chancellor of Reading University.

    Miss M. M. Allan.

    Mr. W. A. Brockington, O.B.E.

    Professor A. A. Cock.

    Mr. P. G. Dallinger, O.B.E., Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    Mr. H. Hartley, Staff Inspector for the Training of Teachers.

    Sir Percy Jackson, J.P., LL.D.

    Mr. E. W. Maples, O.B.E., LL.D

    540

    Mr. J. O. Peet, His. Majesty's Inspector.

    Miss A. E. War, C.B.E., Chief Woman Inspector.

    The Secretary to the Committee is Mr. G. K. Sutherland, His Majesty's Inspector, and the Assistant Secretary, Mr. M. Sweeny.

    TRAINING COLLEGES.
    Mr. RHYSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that students leaving training colleges in England and Wales are experiencing difficulty n finding employment; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Education the exact amount per head expended from public funds during the two years' course at training colleges for teachers of men and women students, respectively; and if he can give the number of male and female teachers who have left training colleges last year and who have not secured employment as teachers?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT some statistics bearing on this question. The conclusion from these figures would seem to be that the state of unemployment among teachers has been much exaggerated. The percentage of teachers who are absorbed within 18 months after leaving college has, in fact, improved in the last two years, though teachers who left college last July are being absorbed somewhat less rapidly than those who left in July, 1925. The number of teachers retiring annually on account of age, death or infirmity has fallen by over 1,000 since September, 1924, while in the same period the number of certificated posts has increased by over 3,000, but it is evident from the statistics that prospects in the profession depend not only upon these calculable factors but also upon the annual wastage due to teachers quitting the profession for private reasons, as to which no safe estimate can be made.
    Mr. RHYS: Has the Noble Lord anything to say at out uncertificated teachers?
    Lord E. PERCY: That hardly arises out of the question. The teachers leaving training colleges are certificated teachers.
    Colonel DAY: Can the Noble Lord say what is the percentage of teachers absorbed?
    Lord E. PERCY: That will be found in the statistics which I am publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statistical statement:
    The returns furnished by training colleges do not enable me to state the exact amount per head expended from public funds in respect of two-year courses, but according to the latest available figures for voluntary colleges (1924–25), the average amounts of grant paid by the Board on account of two-year students were:

    Per Annum.

    £

    s.

    d.

    'Resident man student

    70

    9

    9

    Day man student

    54

    16

    8

    Resident woman student

    59

    7

    7

    Day woman student

    45

    8

    7

    From the accounts furnished to the Board for the same period, it appears that the average expenditure per student at colleges provided by local authorities was about £70. In addition, local authorities may pay the fees, etc., of students who attend colleges not provided by them.
    Of 6.900 teachers who left training colleges and university training departments in July, 1924, and about whom the authorities of the colleges had information, 6.580 or 95.4 per cent. had obtained posts by December, 1925; 125 or 1.8 per cent. had not attempted to obtain posts; and 195 or 2.8 per cent. had failed to obtain posts. The corresponding figures for December, 1926, relating to those who left college in July, 1925, are:—7,001; 6,752 (96.5 per cent.); 85 (1.2 per cent.): and 164 (2.3 per cent.).
    Figures can also be given (though they are not exactly comparable) of the number of teachers obtaining posts in the same year as they left college. Of 6,845 teachers who left college in July, 1925, and about whom the authorities had information at the time, 6,259 or 91.4 per cent. had obtained posts by December, 1925; 155 or 2.3 per cent. had not attempted to obtain posts; and 431 or 6.3 per cent. had failed to obtain posts. The corresponding figures for December, 1926, relating to students who left
    542
    college in July, 1926, are:—7,058; 6,156 (87.2 per cent.); 146 (2.1 per cent.); and 756 (10.7 per cent.).
    Age retirements of teachers on pension—year to September, 1924, 3,077; September, 1925, 2,723; September, 1926, 2,101.
    Death and infirmity retirements of teachers in the last three years:—1,149; 1,139; 1,122.
    Increase in the number of certificated teachers—year to September, 1924, 727; September, 1925, 2,170; September, 1926, 834.

    WAR OFFICE BOOKLET.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education if he can say in how many schools in this country a War Office booklet entitled The Army of To-day is being circulated?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir.

    MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS (LANCASHIRE).
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that school medical officers of the Lancashire education authority are accompanied by a nurse and a secretary when they examine children at a school; if there is any other authority in the country which provides secretaries for their school medical officers; and what are the conditions in Lancashire which make this extra help necessary?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the arrangement referred to. According to the information in the possession of my Department it appears to be exceptional. I am not aware of any special reason for its adoption in Lancashire, and I am making inquiries of the local authority.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the Noble Lord aware that the average cost throughout the country is £1 per head for each examination?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, I am not aware of anything of the sort, but if my hon. and gallant Friend puts down a question, I will try to get the figure.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Why are these services not undertaken by the medical officer for the district concerned?
    Lord E. PERCY: In the case of Lancashire the medical officer of health and the senior school medical officer are the same.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Will the Noble Lord take it that the cost of these examinations is as stated; and, in view of the great expense, will he endeavour to make a saving?
    Lord E. PERCY: No. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that his statistics are wholly inaccurate.

    LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE CONSERVATIVE TEACHERS' CIRCLE.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the activities of the Lancashire and Cheshire Conservative Teachers' Circle; whether he is aware that the annual meeting, held recently at the Constitutional Club, Manchester, was addressed by the chairman of the Conservative party; and will he take steps to secure that the members of this organisation do not take advantage of their position in the schools to influence the scholars in favour of their political party?
    Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I gather, from what I have seen in the Press, that it is the main aim of this organisation to assert the right and the duty of teachers rigidly to exclude from the schools all party politics and every sort of political propaganda. If the hon. Member has any reason to believe that any member of the organisation is infringing this principle, I shall he glad if he will supply me with the necessary information.
    Mr. MORRISON: Has the Noble Lord seen that the chairman of the Conservative party, a Member of this House, in his speech, told these teachers that they had reached a stage when it was no good pretending to be non-political and that it was they duty of the members to save the children from being contaminated by the proposals of Labour organizations? Is this the Noble Lord's interpretation of his widely reported utterances about keeping politics out of school, that it only means the politics of other parties, and not of his own?
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Lord E. PERCY: I will answer the supplementary questions together, which I have a perfect right to do.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: In view of what is happening throughout the country, is not this a very impertinent question?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE: Is it not a, fact that there is an organisation called the Teachers' Labour League?
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to characterise the question of another hon. Member as an impertinent question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It seemed to me without point. Probably, I could not see the point.
    Lord E. PERCY: With regard to the first supplementary question, I will leave it to the hon. Member, and all other hon. Members in the House, to read the speech to which he refers and to compare it with the speeches of his own party—
    Mr. BECKETT: Two blacks do not make a white!
    Lord E. PERCY: —and to see whether he does not consider the speech to which he refers as not only wholly unobjectionable in itself, but in the strongest contrast to the tone of the speeches of the hon. Member's own colleagues.

    CARNARVONSHIRE (MAINTENANCE GRANTS).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the President of the Beard of Education whether, seeing that the Carnarvonshire County Council decided to raise the school age to 15, and that, in order to make this possible for poor parents compelled to keep their children in school over 14, they also decided to give maintenance grants in the case of such children, he will state for what reason he has now refused to recognise this expenditure for grant?
    Lord E. PERCY: As regards my attitude on this point last year, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), of the 11th February, 1926, of which I am sending him a copy. The authority have included pro-

    545
    vision for these maintenance allowances in their three-year programme, which I am now considering.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does the Noble Lord agree that the possibility arising from this decision of his may be the withdrawal of the by-law raising the school age?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers as my decision.The point of my answer is that I have taken none.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SANITARY ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. DALTONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in new schools now being built by the London County Council the sanitary accommodation is below that of the Board's Building Regulations of 1914; and whether he will take steps to see that the standard hitherto enforced in respect of the building and remodelling of public elementary schools is pre
    Lord E. PERCY: I am aware that, in the case of some girls' departments, the County Council have provided rather less sanitary accommodation than that previously required under the Building Regulations of 1914. Authorities are free to suggest a departure from the current practice where it appears to them desirable to do so; but no individual proposal is approved until the Board are satisfied that the accommodation of all kinds to be provided is adequate having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.
    Mr. DALTON: Will the Noble Lord take the opinion of a competent medical authority before sanctioning any reduction in the sanitary accommodation of the schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: I always take the opinion of very competent medical authority.
    Mr. DALTON: Will the Noble Lord act upon it?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reductions that have been suggested by the local
    546
    authority are largely the result of the pressure he has put upon them by his Circulars?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, I am not aware of that at all, and I should have thought that an attitude of dealing with this question on the basis of the merits of the actual case, and not on the basis of paper Regulations, was one to which no reasonable person could object.

    FUEL RESEARCH.
    Mr. CONNOLLYasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Special Report on the work done by the fuel research station during 1926 has been published; and, if not, when the same will be published or, alternatively, some clear statement on the authority of fuel technologists showing the present position regarding smoke prevention?
    Lord E. PERCY: The Special Report on the Work on Low Temperature Carbonisation carried out at the fuel research station during 1926 was published this morning.

    HOUSE BOATS (RATING).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if he will consider legislation to provide that rates shall be chargeable in respect of house-boats moored in tidal waters, but adjacent to land?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the point to which the hon. Member refers.

  POOR LAW.

    OUTDOOR RELIEF.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health the amount of outdoor poor relief paid to able-bodied unemployed persons between December, 1918, and December, 1926, or the nearest available date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Figures based on the classification of "able-bodied unemployed" are not available. The total amount of out-relief in money and kind paid to persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation and their dependants from the date of the Armistice to December, 1926, is approximately £50,270,000.

    POOR RATE, MIDDLESBROUGH.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health the average amount of the poor rate levied in the Middlesbrough Poor Law Union for the three years ending 31st December, 1914, and for the three years ending 31st December, 1926?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The rate in the pound of the overseers' contributions out of the poor rate to the common fund of the union during the financial years ending on 31st March was as follows:—

    Year.

    Rate in pound.

    s.

    d.

    1911–12

    1

    6¼

    1912–13

    1

    4½

    1913–14

    1

    2¾

    1923–24

    6

    5½

    1924–25

    5

    9¾

    1925–26

    5

    1½

    EX-SERVICE MEN (RELIEF).
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Health what was his reply to the Gateshead Board of Guardians as to the propriety of taking into consideration naval and military pensions when fixing Poor Law relief; and whether he has been consulted on this question by any other boards of guardians?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I informed the guardians that it was their duty, in determining what amount of relief should be afforded in any particular case, to take into consideration the whole of the resources of the applicant's household from whatever source derived, with certain statutory exceptions, which did not include pensions to children of fathers killed in the War. Inquiries on the same subject have occasionally been addressed to me by other boards of guardians.
    Mr. BECKETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that in the case of an orphan child, with neither father nor mother, living in somebody else's home, the few shillings a week given in pension leaves any margin for the rest of the household?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot go beyond the law which I have explained to the board of guardians.
    Mr. BECKETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is any law which obliges 4s. 6d. a week for an infant child to be used for the support of the rest of the family?
    Miss LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what law there is to charge persons other than in the relation of father and child, and what law there is for charging maintenance on brothers and cousins or the general members of the household? Will he explain that?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That had better be put on the Order Paper.
    Mr. BECKETT rose
    Mr. SPEAKER: This relates to naval and military pensions. The hon. Gentleman's question seems to be a separate question, and I think he might put it down.
    Mr. BECKETT: The point is that the child of whom I am speaking was the child of a soldier who had been killed in the War, whose mother was also dead, and was receiving a m litany pension. My question was strictly to do with the military pension.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better have it defined on the Order Paper.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Minister of Health if he can give the names of the boards of guardians which are paying relief to ex-service men of the late War; and if he can give the numbers of men receiving relief in each case?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Statistics are not available distinguishing ex-service men from other persons in receipt of relief.

    RELIEF STATISTICS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health how many able-bodied persons, men and women and young persons over the age of 16, were in receipt of Poor Law relief during each of the 12 months ending 31st December, 1926, showing the miners and their dependants apart from the rest?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Figures based on the classification of "able-bodied persons" were not obtained for the period specified. The average numbers of men and women (including young persons over 16 years of age) ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation, who were in receipt of domiciliary Poor Law relief during each of the 12 months ending December, 1926, and the dependent wives of those persons, were as follows:

    Average numbers.

    Month.

    Men.

    Women.

    January

    150,448

    135,953

    February

    149,648

    133,914

    March

    145,691

    129,786

    April

    142,048

    125,775

    May

    344,891

    322,579

    June

    430,910

    406,024

    July

    453,198

    426,148

    August

    454,384

    430,352

    September

    438,321

    417,513

    October

    412,374

    390,106

    November

    389,513

    368,188

    December

    284,292

    259,950

    The above figures include men involved in the recent coal dispute who were constructively in receipt of Poor Law relief by reason of the relief afforded to their dependants. Separate particulars of miners and their dependants are not available, but reference may be made to the extensive table relating to persons in receipt, of relief in 78 mining Unions which was supplied in an answer to a question on the 22nd November last.

    CASUAL WARDS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health the number of men, women, and children who received assistance in tramp and casual wards in England and Wales during the months of October, November, December, and January, 1925–26, and the same months for 1926–27, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a statement giving the required particulars so far as they are available.
    Following is the statement:

    Total number of casuals in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales on the undermentioned dates.

    Date.

    Number.

    2nd October, 1925

    8,016

    9th October, 1925

    8,032

    36th October, 1925

    7,850

    23rd October, 1925

    8,355

    30th October, 1925

    8,234

    6th November, 1925

    8,587

    13th November, 1925

    8,395

    20th November, 1925

    8,408

    27th November, 1925

    8,154

    4th December, 1925

    8,085

    11th December, 1925

    8,025

    18th December, 1925

    7,738

    25th December, 1925

    6,726

    1st January, 1926

    8,162

    8th January, 1926

    8,531

    15th January, 1926

    8,535

    22nd January, 1926

    8,547

    29th January, 1926

    8,814

    1st October, 1926

    9,612

    8th October, 1926

    10,130

    15th October, 1926

    10,515

    22nd October, 1926

    10,514

    29th October, 1926

    10,056

    5th November, 1926

    10,140

    12th November, 1926

    10,302

    19th November, 1926

    10,497

    26th November, 1926

    10,492

    3rd December, 1926

    10,301

    10th December, 1926

    10,151

    17th December, 1926

    9,904

    24th December, 1926

    9,196

    31st December, 1926

    9,674

    7th January, 1927

    10,409

    14th January, 1927

    10,471

    21st January, 1927

    10,473

    28th January, 1927

    10,610

    Separate figures for men, women and children are not available except for the 1st January, 1926, on which date there were 7,669 men, 439 women and 54 children.
    Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health (1) whether his attention has been called to the published report of the Lampeter Board of Guardians urging the need to reopen some of the closed casual wards in Wales; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    (2) what action is to be taken in view of the fact as stated by the chairman of the West Wales Vagrancy Committee

    551
    that, in consequence of the Newcastle Emlyn casual ward being closed with the sanction of the Minister, the board of guardians are dependent, to discharge their duty, on the charity of two farmers, who are accommodating large numbers of casual vagrants in one barn, irrespective of sex?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are three institutions within the area of the West Wales Vagrancy Committee at which the casual wards are at present closed. Newcastle-in-Emlyn is one of these, and I am having special inquiry made as to the position in this union. I am not at present satisfied that it is desirable to reopen these casual wards, or that their reopening would afford any substantial relief to the wards at Lampeter. I am, however, in communication with the vagrancy committee on the subject, and with all the boards of guardians who are more immediately concerned.

    RELIEF (REPAYMENT).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Camberwell Board of Guardians urging the Government to promote immediate legislation to define the position of persons in receipt of relief and who are subsequently able to repay the cost of such relief; and whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative; the matter is under consideration.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    SALFORD (PARTIAL EMPLOYMENT AND CLASSES).
    Mr. WEBBasked the Minister of Health whether he has sanctioned the provision for unemployed men made jointly by the Town Council and Board of Guardians for Salford, under which such men are found partial employment at normal hourly wage rates by the town council as supernumeraries, the guardians recouping the council for their whole cost, while the younger men not so employed the guardians give outdoor relief in return for attendance for two hours daily at educational classes provided by the guardians, leaving the remainder of the
    552
    day for search for employment; and whether he will take steps to make this example known to other boards of guardians?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have sanctioned at Salford, as in other cases, proposals of the guardians to contribute to the cost of a scheme of work to be provided by the corporation a sum not exceeding the amount which would be saved by the Guardians as the result of the removal of persons from the relief list. I have also sanctioned for an experimental period of six months, a scheme under which young men in receipt of outdoor relief are required to attend classes for a prescribed number of hours. The latter scheme must be regarded as experimental, and it would be premature to press similar schemes on other boards of guardians until experience has been obtained of its successful working. I shall, however, be willing to consider sympathetically any similar applications which may be made to me.

    PUBLIC UTILITY WORKS.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government contemplates further schemes for works of public utility, to be administered by local authorities, to provide employment for unemployed persons and so obviate the necessity of paying away sums of public money in relief and for which there is no return?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. The policy of the Government was communicated by circular to local authorities in December, 1925. It has not varied since. It is open to authorities in areas where unemployment is exceptional to apply for financial assistance in respect of works accelerated by at least five years. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the circular referred to.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Since there is only, approximately, one-third of the number of people employed on these relief schemes to-day compared with 12 months since, will not the right hon. Gentleman relax these Regulations to enable local authorities to put work in hand for the unemployed?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not as at present advised, but the matter is one for Debate, if anyone wishes to raise it on a suitable occasion.

    OPEN SPACES, LONDON.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Minister of Health whether, in the last five years, there have been any appreciable reductions in the number of parks, recreation grounds, open spaces, and playing fields in the metropolitan boroughs of London; and, if so, what localities are chiefly affected?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that there has been no reduction in the number of parks, recreation grounds and open spaces of London during the past five years, but that, on the contrary, large additions have been made. Information

    SUMMARY of Parks and Open Spaces maintained in the City of London and in each Metropolitan Borough by Public Authorities.

    City or Borough.

    Area of land and inland water in City or Borough.

    Approximate area of Parks and Open Spaces maintained by

    Total.

    Approximate acreage of Playing Fields in Public Parks and Open Spaces.

    The Government.

    The London County Council.

    City and Metropolitan Borough Councils.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    City of London

    …

    675

    1

    —

    3

    4

    Nil

    Battersea

    …

    2,160

    —

    402

    3

    405

    157

    Bermondsey

    …

    1,500

    —

    66

    8

    74

    33½

    Bethnal Green

    …

    759

    —

    98

    1

    99

    98

    Camberwell

    …

    4,480

    —

    192

    34

    226

    79¼

    Chelsea

    …

    660

    —

    1

    4

    5

    Nil

    Deptford

    …

    1,563

    —

    27

    5

    32

    13¾

    Finsbury

    …

    587

    —

    2

    9*

    11

    ¼

    Fulham

    …

    1,703

    —

    17

    54

    71

    28

    Greenwich

    …

    3,852

    313

    110

    6

    429

    70

    Hackney

    …

    3,288

    —

    606

    13

    619

    296¾

    Hammersmith

    …

    2,286

    —

    260

    17

    277

    127

    Hampstead

    …

    2,265

    34

    371

    3

    408

    60

    Holborn

    …

    405

    —

    7

    2

    9

    1¾

    Islington

    …

    3,092

    —

    28

    18

    46

    17

    Kensington

    …

    2,291

    55

    1

    4

    60

    Nil

    Lambeth

    …

    4,080

    —

    242

    16

    258

    161

    Lewisham

    …

    7,014

    —

    331

    27

    358

    173

    Paddington

    …

    1,356

    67

    —

    33

    100

    22½

    Poplar

    …

    2,328

    —

    81

    6

    87

    5¾

    St. Marylebone

    …

    1,473

    339

    —

    10

    349

    28

    St. Pancras

    …

    2,694

    99

    220

    16

    335

    80¾

    Shoreditch

    …

    658

    —

    3

    7

    10

    ¼

    Southwark

    …

    1,131

    —

    6

    7

    13

    ¾

    Stepney

    …

    1,766

    4

    24

    6

    34

    Nil

    Stoke Newington

    …

    863

    —

    55

    —

    55

    67¼

    Wandsworth

    …

    9,107

    236

    494

    11

    l,152†

    175½

    Westminster (City)

    2,503

    676

    13

    4

    693

    Nil

    Woolwich

    …

    8,277

    76

    368

    4

    448

    119¼

    Total

    …

    74,816

    1,900

    4,025

    331

    6,667†

    1,816¼

    * Including Bunhill-flelds burial ground (four acres) maintained by the City of London Corporation.

    † The figure for Wandsworth includes 411 acres, portions of Putney and Wimbledon Commons, situated within the County. The total area of the Commons is 1,045 acres.

    as to private playing fields is not available.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Minister of Health if, taking the different London boroughs, he will state the average acreage in each devoted firstly to parks and public recreation grounds and secondly to playing fields?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that particulars cannot be given for private playing fields.
    Following is the information:

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Health what surplus, if any, over the actuarial calculation has been accumulated in the widows' pension fund to the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no separate widows' pension fund as the question of the hon. Member appears to suggest. The contributions payable are not apportionable between the different classes of pensions provided for by the Act, and there is a single Treasury Pensions Account. The Act provides that this Account should be first examined actuarially in 1935, and, while the Treasury may direct an investigation at an earlier date, it would be quite premature to consider the matter at the present time.
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Health whether he has received resolutions from the Middlesbrough and other heal pensions committees urging that uninsured persons should be granted the old age pension at 65; and whether, in view of the hardship to many persons of British nationality caused by the present arrangement, he will reconsider the present position?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): His Majesty's Government are not prepared to recommend that Parliament should extend still further the important provision already made for pensions at 65 by the Widows' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health the number of persons aged 60 years and over in Britain; and what would be the estimated cost of a noncontributory pension of 30s. a week to all persons aged 60?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of persons aged 60 years or over in January, 1926, was estimated at 4,528,000, rising to 6,397,000 in 1940, and 7,558,000 in 1960. The cost of a non-contributory pension of 30s. a week would have been £353 millions a year in 1926, rising to £499 millions in 1940 and £590 millions in 1960.
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Health whether a pre-Act widow in receipt of pension under the
    556
    Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, who has reached the age of 65 years, and whose youngest child is under the age of 14½ years on the 2nd January, 1928, will be granted the old age pension?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative, as a person cannot receive a widow's pension and an old age pension concurrently. When the widow's pension expires, the widow would not he entitled to a contributory old age pension by virtue of her husband's insurance. If, however, she is herself an insured person and satisfies the statutory conditions, she will, on the cessation of her widow's pension, be entitled to an old age pension.
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to issue the instructions as to applications for pensions at 65 payable under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act on 2nd January, 1928?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is is hoped to issue these instructions in the course of the next two months.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the widow of a naval rating killed in the service of the country is entitled to a pension varying from 10s. 6d. per week upwards if The is childless or mentally or physically unable to earn her own living, and that there are further allowances for a child or children; that naval ratings subscribe 4½d. per week under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; what benefit the widow of a naval rating killed in the service of his country derives from the 4½d. per week he has paid; and, if no benefit, will he consider the refund of the 4½d. in such circumstances to the widow or an amendment of the law?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third and fourth parts, the payment of contributions by a naval rating normally insures him for all the benefits of the Act, namely, for widow's pension including children's allowances, orphans' pensions and old age pensions for himself and his wife at the age of 65. It is true that the Act specifically provides that the widow's pension shall not be

    557
    payable if she becomes entitled to an Admiralty pension in respect of the death of her husband attributable to or connected with his service, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, it would be contrary to the principles of insurance to refund the premiums paid when the risk against which the insurance was effected does not mature.
    Sir B. FALLE: Does that mean that the widow of a man killed in the service of his country receives nothing whatever for the 4½d. paid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, if the risk does not mature, then no pension is paid.
    Sir B. FALLE: But he has been killed.

    HOUSING (RURAL AREAS).
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Health what proportion of the housing shortage of 800,000 in England and Wales and 130,000 in Scotland, as determined by the 1919 housing survey, was in primarily rural areas?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The 800,000 referred to was, approximately, the number of houses which local authorities in England and Wales estimated in 1919 would be required during the subsequent three years to meet unsatisfied demands and replacement of houses falling below a reasonable standard. I am unable to say how many of these were in primarily rural areas, but the number in all rural districts was 150,000. It was difficult to obtain satisfactory estimates, and the hon. Member must not take it that I regard these figures as reliable. As regards Scotland, the hon. Member should address a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    VACCINATION, SUNDERLAND AND DARLINGTON.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health the number of infants born in each year at Sunderland and Darlington for the years 1905 to 1925, the number dying unvaccinated, the number vaccinated, and the number for whom exemption certificates have been obtained?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following figures relate to the Poor Law Unions of Sunderland and Darlington which include the whole of the County Boroughs of those names.

    Births.

    Died Un-vaccinated.

    Successful Vaccinations.

    Number in respect of whom statutory declarations of conscientious objection have been received.

    Sunderland Union.

    1905

    6,784

    730

    5,725

    55

    1906

    6,996

    767

    5,831

    66

    1907

    6,913

    709

    5,613

    175

    1908

    6,793

    680

    5,339

    392

    1909

    6,171

    612

    4,702

    510

    1910

    6,001

    595

    4,505

    606

    1911

    5,951

    663

    4,289

    695

    1912

    6,182

    562

    4,363

    817

    1913

    6,081

    623

    4,229

    851

    1914

    7,451

    704

    4,357

    952

    1915

    5,739

    571

    3,957

    833

    1916

    5,244

    494

    3,750

    726

    1917

    4,464

    442

    3,128

    646

    1918

    4,874

    481

    3,396

    757

    1919

    5,373

    445

    3,831

    846

    1920

    7,018

    540

    4,961

    1,262

    1921

    6,249

    503

    4,276

    1,247

    1922

    5,886

    402

    4,261

    1,026

    1923

    5,301

    337

    4,222

    545

    1924

    5,441

    401

    4,438

    443

    1925

    5,326

    379

    4,191

    577

    Darlington Union.

    1905

    1,802

    177

    1,355

    99

    1906

    1,770

    187

    1,277

    156

    1907

    1,737

    147

    1,234

    209

    1908

    1,890

    164

    1,044

    552

    1909

    1,851

    144

    845

    743

    1910

    1,774

    138

    708

    785

    1911

    1,808

    166

    694

    847

    1912

    1,806

    107

    629

    988

    1913

    1,861

    129

    607

    1,025

    1914

    1,911

    118

    559

    1,132

    1915

    1,809

    128

    557

    1,013

    1916

    1,705

    116

    459

    973

    1917

    1,441

    101

    367

    864

    1918

    1,533

    121

    320

    931

    1919

    1,590

    136

    390

    953

    1920

    2,025

    112

    413

    1,381

    1921

    1,868

    122

    408

    1,238

    1922

    1,773

    93

    372

    1,235

    1923

    1,736

    84

    521

    1,046

    1924

    1,657

    101

    439

    1,041

    1925

    1,513

    78

    358

    1,009

    MINISTERS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES).
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister whether he will in future make it a condition of acceptance of office that no ex-Minister shall be permitted, when writing articles for monetary considerations, to make use of information of a confidential character acquired during his period of office?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Sir, I cannot attempt to prescribe the rules which should govern the decisions of those who in future times may be called upon by the Crown to form administrations. The rules which His Majesty's present advisers have adopted preclude the practice by Ministers of journalism in any form; but this inhibition does not extend, and has never extended, to authorship or to writings of a literary, historical, scientific philosophical or romantic character, for which there exist numerous and respectable precedents. Information of a confidential character should never be used improperly by any person, and in particular those who have held high office under the Crown are, in my opinion, under an obligation to consult the Government of the day or the heads of the Departments affected upon the publication of any confidential matter of which they may have acquired official knowledge which may affect the public interest; and to obtain in any doubtful case formal permission.
    Mr. AMMON: May we take it, then, the Prime Minister condemns the action of one of his colleagues who has reflected upon a very high person in the Admiralty by recent statements he has made in the Press, and does the Prime Minister consider that literature or journalism?
    Major CRAWFURD: May I ask if the Prime Minister is aware that, a few months ago, an official, I think under the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Home Secretary, was fined a very large amount for a similar offence, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Law Officers of the Crown will consider any case of an ex-Minister doing the same thing?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure they will consider any suitable case. With regard to what may or may not be in the book in question, and which may be
    560
    a matter of opinion, I would advise hon. Members to purchase the book, and read it.
    Mr. AMMON: May I ask whether that covers the contribution already in the "Times"—not the book itself—in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already condemned in effect an Admiral who gave gallant service in the War?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating another question on the subject.

    MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health whether the information in his. Department shows that the butter and cheese imported from countries where bovine tuberculosis and other diseases are rife convey no less risk to the consumer than the milk from which they are made; and what steps are being taken by securing access for British inspectors to foreign dairies or otherwise to give British consumers a protection from disease in the case of foreign products similar to that provided by the Milk and Dairies Order in the case of British home products?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I know of no scientific evidence showing that bovine tuberculosis and other diseases are spread by the consumption of imported butter and cheese, and in these circumstances I do not think it necessary to attempt to secure facilities for the supervision of foreign dairies by British inspectors. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte), on the 24th ultimo, imported butter and cheese are subject to inspection both at the ports and at the time exposure for sale.
    Mr. HURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman attach importance to that inspection from the point of view of this question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

    RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Health whether, according to his information, rheumatoid arthritis is on the increase; whether any new methods for dealing with this disease

    561
    have been brought to his notice; and what steps he is taking to investigate these new methods?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second and third parts, new methods of treatment are suggested from time to time and any that gives promise of success is investigated by medical officers of my Department.

    RATING AND VALUATION ACT.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Health if the recommendations of the Central Valuation Committee constituted under Section 57 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and circulated by the Ministry to local authorities, have received his approbation and are instructions upon which it is intended that valuations are to proceed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The recommendations of the Central Valuation Committee which is a committee composed almost entirely of representatives of local authorities were circulated by me precisely in the form in which I received them. The Committee, as they themselves point out, are an advisory body, and their recommendations, which I have brought to the notice of rating and assessment authorities, are not instructions. My view of the recommendations is that they should at this stage be regarded as in the nature of valuable advice given by a body of very competent local administrators specially constituted for the purpose, and I commend the recommendations as embodying such advice to the serious attention of all the local authorities concerned.
    Colonel GRETTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate issuing any definite instructions at a later date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not at present contemplating that.

    CROSS-WORD PUZZLES (TAXATION).
    Mr. BETHELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the desirability of taxing the promoters of cross-word puzzles either by a percentage tax on receipts or by making a charge for licence, or both, similar to the tax on betting?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted, but that does riot imply that it will be acted upon.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 13,000,000 letters dealing with cross-word puzzles are sent annually through the post?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not particularly familiar with the figures.
    Mr. BETHEL: Would not the result of this be the same as the Betting Duty?

    CIVIL AND FIGHTING SERVICES (PENSIONS).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost of pensions for 12 months to the last convenient date in respect of the Civil Service pensions, Navy Service pensions, Army Service pensions, and Air Force Service pensions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The total cost of these pensions for the 12 months ended 31st March, 1926, is as follows:

    £

    Civil Service

    4,693,468

    (Plus additional allowances (lump sums) amounting to

    1,038,151)

    Navy

    6,625,073

    Army

    7,780,083

    Air Force

    62,685

    In the last three cases the figures in elude widows' pensions.

  GOLD STANDARD.

    LONDON AND NEW YORK SHORT LOANS.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, at the time of the return to the gold standard, an agreement was made with America by which Great Britain undertook to maintain any fixed ratio between the London and New York short-loan money markets?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the negative.

    UNITED STATES CREDITS.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the credits arranged for with America at the time of the return to the gold standard have been required; and, if so, to what extent and what charges have fallen upon the Exchequer in the way of commission or interest, or otherwise?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; in reply to the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply given to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 24th February last.

    DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether steps will be taken to make public money expended on a committee which either fails to make a report or does not make it in time to be of any value recoverable from the sources involved?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
    Viscount SANDON: Is then the £370 of public money spent on the Meston Committee to be absolutely wasted?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is difficult enough to get Committees to give voluntary service in these times, and I think the public service would be exposed to great embarrassment if it were to happen that persons serving on those Committees might be charged a heavy sum.
    Viscount SANDON: Is there any object in a Committee starting if it does not finish?

    ESTATE DUTY (INVENTORY OF ESTATES).
    Mr. COUPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes, in connection with the collection of Estate Duties, to introduce into England and Wales the same system as obtains in Scotland, by which an inventory of the estate accompanies any grant of representation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave
    564
    him to a question on this subject on the 17th February, and to which I am unable to add anything at the present time.
    Sir F. MEYER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will bear in mind that the inhabitants south of the Tweed still desire to retain a few of their individual customs and characteristics?

    CANADA (REPARATION RECEIPTS).
    Sir NEWTON MOOREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of reparations collected by the British Government on account of Canada, the total amount transferred to Canada, the amount due and unpaid, and the reason for the balance being unpaid?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Canada's share of the British Empire reparation receipts under the Dawes plan (covering the period 1st September, 1924, to 30th November, 1926) amounts to approximately £734,000, which has been paid over.
    Canada is also entitled to a share in the pre-Dawes reparation receipts which, on the basis of accounts accepted by the other Dominions, is estimated at £778,650; and this will be paid over as soon as the accounts are accepted and a settlement is reached on certain financial claims outstanding between Great Britain and Canada. I submitted proposals for a settlement to Mr. Mackenzie King last November hut I have not yet received the reply of the Canadian Government.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STATIONERY OFFICE PUBLICATIONS).
    Mr. R. HUDSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he anticipates being able to arrange for Members to hand in at the Vote Office the title of Stationery Office publications which they require instead of having, as at present, to apply in writing to the Controller for such documents?
    Mr. McNEILL: Forms will shortly be available in the Vote Office on which Members can give the titles of the non-Parliamentary publications they require.

    COINAGE (SILVER CROWNS).
    Lord APSLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the new silver crowns have been actually cast; and whether, before any decision is reached as to the appropriateness for public issue, specimens can be placed in the Library of the House for the inspection of Members?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot at present add to previous answers; the designs are still under consideration.

    OXFORD (PORT MEADOW LETTING).
    Sir H. COWANasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps, if any, have been taken by him with regard to the action of the Oxford City Council and freemen of Oxford in letting for a period of 10 years, for allotment, purposes, 20 acres of the children's playground section of the common known as the Port Meadow, temporarily appropriated for cultivation during the late War; and whether, seeing that the council were bound to restore such land to the common to the satisfaction of the Minister, he will inquire into the decision of the council to appropriate an additional portion of the Port Meadow in defiance of the statutory provisions for the protection of commons contained in the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, and the Allotments Act, 1922?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The powers of the Oxford City Council to appropriate the 20 acres of Port Meadow, to which my hon. Friend refers, expired on the 25th March, 1923, and the Ministry requested the council to take immediate steps to obtain an alternative site or sites for the allotment holders then in occupation of this land. I am enquiring into the present position as regards this land and also into the decision of the council to appropriate an additional portion of Port Meadow and will let my hon. Friend know the result of my inquiries.
    Mr. R. HUDSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Port Meadow is mentioned in Doomsday Book, and has been a common for the last 1,000 years, and will he take steps to see that it is not used for other than common purposes?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Oxford City Council were warned by the Mayor when they came to this decision that they were acting illegally and we are taking up the matter.

    LIQUID MILK (IMPORTATION).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the latest available figures of the importation of liquid milk into Great Britain from the Continent and Ireland, respectively; and whether this milk is produced under regulations for cleanliness, &c., similar to those of our own milk and dairies orders?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply and I would refer my hon. Friend generally to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Colonel Acland-Troyte) on 10th February.
    As regards the Continent of Europe, I understand that the total imports of liquid milk in 1926 were 184 cwts. The conditions prescribed by the Imported Milk Regulations will secure that milk from the Continent is in a substantially similar condition as regards cleanliness to that produced in thin country in accordance with the Milk and Dairies Order.
    I understand that no milk is brought from Ireland into England and Wales.
    Mr. HURD: May I ask if that applies also to cream from the Irish Free State?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

    DUTCH MEAT (IMPORTATION FROM IRELAND).
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information that Dutch carcases are coming into this country by way of Ireland?
    Mr. GUINNESS: So far as I am aware, no Dutch carcases are entering this country by way of Ireland. The Governments of both Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State have made Orders similar to that of Great Britain, prohibiting the import of fresh carcases

    567
    from the Continent, and I have been assured by these Governments that the Orders are strictly enforced.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases of foot-and-mouth disease there were during February?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Eight outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease were confirmed during February.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the number and total acreage of small holdings above one acre and under 50 acres in the county of Stafford; what number and acreage belong to the county council; how many approved applicants for holdings are there; how many applicants who are still awaiting interview; and what capital per acre is regarded as the minimum necessary for approval of any applicant?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The number of small holdings above one acre and not exceeding 50 acres in the county of Stafford as recorded in the Agricultural Returns for 1926 was 7,104. The acreage of such small holdings is not known but the acreage of holdings in the same category in 1924 was 117,619 acres. The number of small holdings provided by the county council is 296 with an area of 6,900 acres. The number of approved applicants not provided with holdings according to the latest available information is 8O, and the number still awaiting interview or standing over 336. I am not in a position to say what amount of capital per acre the county council consider to be necessary. It would depend on the character of the holding.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether there is any minimum in any county as to the amount of capital?
    Mr. GUINNESS: That is a matter entirely within the administration of the local authorities.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It varies from county to county?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Undoubtedly it would vary according to the quality of the land, and I should think there would be great variations in each county, according to the character of the holding.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has already had applications from any county councils for sanction to go forward with small holding schemes under the new Small Holdings Act, 1926; and, if so, how many county councils have made such applications and the number of schemes submitted?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Act referred to does not require councils to apply to my Department for sanction to put the Act into operation in their areas. In the event of any council proposing to acquire land the sub-division of which into small holdings will in their opinion involve a financial loss, they are required by Section 2 of the Act to obtain the Ministry's approval to their proposals and estimates. One application has been received in accordance with this Section. It has been approved, and the Ministry has undertaken to pay the maximum contribution.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from that reply that only one county council has sought permission to provide small holdings under the 1926 Act?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Act only came into force a few weeks ago, and naturally negotiations are necessary before offers of land can be brought before the Minister.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware a that there are the names of tens of thousands of applicants already on the books of the county councils, and some of them have been there for years.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, I have frequently answered questions on that point giving the figures.
    Mr. RILEY: May I ask if the Department has circularised the county councils calling attention to the provisions of the new Act?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, we have.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for marking of agricultural produce under the Merchandise Marks Act have been received; and if he will state the articles in respect of which applications have been made?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Two applications, in respect of eggs and oatmeal respectively, have been received.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Are these cases now under the consideration of the Committee?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Before any of these applications can go before the Committee, we have to be satisfied, in conjunction with the Scottish Office and the Home Office, representing Northern Ireland, that the applications substantially conform to certain conditions laid down in the Act. We are taking consultation with the other offices and as soon as we get their reply, we shall take action.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the Committee for dealing with these cases already set up, and are the officials appointed?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are they being paid a salary to deal with two cases?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, no, any payment will be by the day. They do not receive anything until they attend.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the applicationa in respect of oatmeal is that each separate grade should be marked?
    Mr. GUINNESS: That would be a matter for the Committee.

    AIR-MAIL SERVICES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air when the air-mail service to the Cape of Good Hope from Egypt will be commenced; and what preparations are being made to enable this service to be started?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first part of the question, it is not possible at present to state when a civil
    570
    aeroplane service from Egypt to the Cape will be inaugurated. As regards the last part, the Royal Air Force are now co-operating in flights between Cairo and Khartum in connection with the experimental fortnightly service between Khartum and Kisumu now in progress, and, as announced at the recent Imperial Conference, His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa have decided to carry out one or more flights to complete the connection at the southern end.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air when it is proposed to extend the air mail route from Egypt to India to Burma and Australia; and what preparations are being made with this object?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, it is too early for me to be able to give a definite, or even an approximate, date. I may say, however, that I understand that the Government of India are taking preparatory steps with a view to giving effect to the recommendation of the Indian Air Board in regard to the systematic survey of the main trunk routes in India; and that the possibility of instituting an air service between Calcutta and Rangoon is also engaging their attention. His Majesty's Government in Australia have decided in accordance with the announcement made during the Imperial Conference, to arrange for flights to be carried out by the Royal Australian Air Force from Australia to Singapore to link up with flights to be undertaken by the Royal Air Force from Singapore towards Australia. It is not yet possible, however, to give a definite date when these flights, which will enable a thorough investigation of the route to be made, will commence.

    IRAQ (ADMINISTRATION REPORTS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any reports are received at the Colonial Office as to the working of the Iraq administration; and, in particular, whether he can find out if any change has been made in the method of collecting tithe in that country, especially in, date-bearing lands?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): Yes, Sir. Such reports are received periodically in the Colonial Office and form the basis of the Annual Report by His Britannic Majesty's Government to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Iraq. This report is published by the Stationery Office. So far as I am aware no change has been made in the method of collecting tithe in Iraq, but inquiry has been made of the High Commissioner and I will acquaint the hon. and gallant Member with the result in due course. The Iraq Government have for some time had under consideration the question of the desirability of changing the present system of assessment and collection of land taxation, and they are at present endeavouring to secure the services of a revenue expert to examine and advise upon this question. The defects of the present system are discussed at some length in Section III of the Report on Iraq for the period April, 1923 to December, 1924 (Colonial No. 13)

    CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (MEDICAL SERVICES).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the annual sum spent on the authority of the Colonial office out of Imperial funds and funds of the Crown Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories on expert advice with regard to medical matters, not including expenditure on the regular medical services?
    Mr. AMERY: As the answer to this question can most conveniently be given in the form of a table, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    £

    s.

    (1) Chief Medical Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

    Salary paid from Imperial Funds

    1,500

    0

    (2) Colonial Advisory Medical and Sanitary Committee.

    Expenses for the year 1925 apportioned among Colonies, Protectorates, etc.

    904

    11

    (3) Advisory Committee of the Tropical Diseases Research Fund.

    £

    s.

    Approximate amount expended annually on the advice of the Committee from the Fund, which is; formed* mainly by contributions from the Governments of Colonies, Protectorates, etc.

    2,400

    0

    (4) Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases.

    The Bureau's estimated expenditure for 1927–1928 is £9,567 13s. Its revenue is estimated at £8,92s (apart from balance in hand): of this revenue £1,000 represents grant-in-aid from Imperial Funds and £4,360 approximate contributions from the Colonies, Protectorates, etc. the balance being made up by contributions from certain Dominion Governments, Indian Provincial Governments, Egypt and the Sudan, together with proceeds of the sales of the Bureau's publications.

    (5) Imperial Bureau of Entomology.

    His Majesty's Government contribute £1,000 annually and the Colonies, Protectorates, etc., £7,100 annually.

    The Bureau co-ordinates entomological work throughout the Empire in relation both to human and animal diseases and to agriculture, and the Director of the Bureau inter alia advises on all entomological questions referred to him. It is not possible to state what proportion of the grants made for the upkeep of the Bureau can properly be regarded as representing the cost of advice on medical matters.

    (6) British Social Hygiene Council.

    £

    s.

    Contribution towards expenses of the work of the Council in British possessions overseas (paid from Imperial Funds 1926–7)

    1,000

    0

    (7) Hookworm Eradication—Jamaica.

    A temporary service for advice and treatment is being maintained jointly by the Jamaican Government and the Rockefeller Foundation—the amount voted from Colonial Government funds in 1926–7 (say)

    3,750

    0

    Note.—The above statement takes no account of expenditure on missions or services of a special and non-recurrent nature.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  BUDGET (DATE).
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us the Business he proposes to take next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, we propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates, and consider Votes A, 1, 10, 13, 14 and 15 in Committee. The Army Estimates, I believe, are already in the Vote Office, and I hope the Supplementary Army Estimate will be in the Vote Office later in the day.
  Tuesday: until 8.15, we propose to take the Committee stage of the Army Supplementary Estimate, and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper.
  Wednesday: until 8.15, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Bill, the Government of India (Indian Navy) Bill, the Royal Naval Reserve Bill, the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill, and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper.
  Thursday: we propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Air Estimates, and consider Votes A, 1, 4, 2 and
  574
  3 in Committee. The Air Estimates, I hope, will be circulated during the present week-end.
  Mr. MacDONALD: Might I put two questions to the Prime Minister which it may be convenient if I put them at the same time. The first is when he proposes to introduce the promised Trade Union Bill; and my second question is when we are going to have the Budget.
  The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first question, I propose circulating the Trade Union Bill before Easter, taking the Second Reading as soon as is convenient on our return after the holidays.
  With regard to the Budget, the Government are of opinion that, in the present state of trade and finances, it would be a good thing that the Budget should be introduced as early as possible to allay any doubts there may be, and we propose to take it on the 11th April. I am afraid it would be necessary to ask the House to forego two Private Members' evenings that week, in order that the Committee stage of the Resolutions may be taken before we adjourn for the Easter holidays. I think it will probably be for the convenience, not only of the House but of the community generally, that they should know what are our financial proposals and our financial prospects.
  Mr. MacDONALD: Might I say now that the suggestion that Private Members' time should be given up for this purpose has been made for the first time now, and we receive that with reserve.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously that is so, but I am afraid, looking to the time, it would be impossible to get the Resolutions through without that, and I give the house due warning.
  Mr. THURTLE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to say whether or not the Supplementary Estimate in respect of the Shanghai Defence Force will be introduced before Easter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the figures that the hon. Member desires will be in the Army Supplementary Estimate, which I have announced will be taken on Tuesday. The White Paper concerning it will, I hope, be in the Vote Office this afternoon.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BILL,
  "to provide for the abolition of capital punishment and to substitute other punishment therefor, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHY; supported by Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Morris, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Barr and Sir Robert Newman; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
  OFFICES REGULATION BILL,
  "to regulate offices and the employment of young persons therein, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Miss WILKINSON; supported by Mr. William Graham, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Mr. Townend, Mr. Dalton, Dr. Salter, Dr. Shiels, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Walter Baker, Mr. Mon tague and Mr. Robert Wilson; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) PFNALTLES BILL,
  "to amend the Law with respect to penalties for illegal fishing by trawl vessels," presented by Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONE; supported by Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir Godfrey Collins, Captain Garro-Jones, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. Morris, Mr. Runciman and Major Sir Archibald Sinclair; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
  MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Mercantile Marine Memorial Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had come to the following Resolutions, which they had directed him to report to the House:—
That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place temporarily in case of necessity.
That, in the absence of the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, the Panel may be convened at the request of any two Members of the Panel.
That where, on two successive sittings of a Standing Committee called for the consideration of a particular Bill, the Committee has to be adjourned by reason of the absence of a quorum within the first, 20 minutes of the time for which the said Committee was summoned, the Chairman do instruct the Clerk to place the particular Bill at the bottom of the list of Bills then waiting consideration of that Committee and that the Committee shall forthwith he convened to consider the other Bill or Bills then waiting.
That it is the undoubted and established right of the Chairman who is appointed to a Standing Committee for the consideration of a particular Bill to name the day and hour on which the consideration of the Bill shall begin.
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill): and Sir Robert Sanders of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Forestry Bill).
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the protection of the lapwing." [Protection of Lapwings Bill [Lords.]

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899 (PANEL).
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That,

577
in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had discharged the following Member from the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House selected to act as Commissioners: Mr. Kidd.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Sir Robert Gower; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Warner.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill): Mr. Albert Alexander, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Clayton, Captain Gunston, Mr. Jacob, Mr. Tinne, Mr. Viant, Mr. Herbert Williams, Mr. Womersley, and Sir Kingsley Wood.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [2nd ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Resolution [28th February] reported,

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1927 (Von ON ACCOUNT).
    "That a sum, not exceeding £114,650,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance, and other Grants) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, namely:— [For details of Vote on. Account, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 2927, cols. 55–58.]
    Resolution read a Second time.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.
Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to move to leave out "£i 14,650,000," and to insert instead thereof "£114,649,900."
In moving a reduction of £100 in the salary of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and in introducing the subject of our relations with Russia, I am going to be brief, because I know that a great number of Members are anxious to express a great many different points of view in this Debate. There are, no doubt, some who will approach the subject from the standpoint of interest in and sympathy with a political experiment unprecedented in the history of our civilisation. For my own part, I confess I cannot share that sympathy, for I have a loathing for tyranny, whether in the form of Monarchism, Militarism, Fascism or Bolshevism. On the other hand, there are those, no doubt, who will approach it filled with hatred for the Bolshevist system, and also with some hopes of being able to turn the anti-Bolshevist prejudice in the country to their electoral advantage at the next election; and there are some, like the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), whom I see on the opposite side of the House, and the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander 0. Locker-Lampson), who gave distin-
600
guished and loyal service to the country on the Russian front during the War, who fought with brave and loyal Russian officers and men, and who saw many of those who fought most loyally and bravely in the War foully murdered, often with every accompaniment of ferocious cruelty; and one can understand their feelings of abhorrence at entering into relations with men who might be held responsible—in so far as individuals can he held responsible for revolutionary excesses—for those atrocities.
I venture to think, however, that, natural and, if I may he allowed to use the word, creditable as such feelings may be, they have to be mastered if we are to form a cool, detached and impartial judgment as to how the relations with a great country have to be handled. After all, if we had been mastered by feelings such as those, we could hardly even yet have restored peace in Europe, we should have come to no settlement of our age-long differences with Ireland, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would hardly be pursuing his present policy in China. I shall, therefore, approach this question solely from the standpoint of British interests, peace and a revival of industry. There is no use in being friends of every country but our own, or, on the other hand, in being blinded, by hatred for a foreign political system, to the interests of our own country. I hold that it is our duty to take as long and as enlightened a view as we are able of the interests of those who sent us here.
What are our interests in Russia? They are, I take it, peace and trade. They are very similar to the interests which the Secretary of State described the other day as being our interests in China, namely, peace and trade. We have made, in China, great efforts and sacrifices to preserve our trade. We have not only sent there a costly naval and military expedition, but we are running serious risks in that country to defend—and I think rightly—British lives and British property. Hon. Members opposite often dilate upon the importance of British trade interests in China. They say what a vast trade we have there, and how necessary it is to keep that trade in the interests of our own country and of our unemployed. I

601
agree that it is a vast trade and a great interest. Where I part company from hon. Members opposite is in this: The same hon. Members pour scorn on our "insignificant and paltry" trade with Russia, which is, they say, hardly worth taking into serious consideration. I have been at some trouble to collect the figures. I am not going to bore the House by reading them in detail, but am only going to give the aggregate figures of our trade with Russia and China in recent years. I find that, in 1924, our imports from China aggregated £14,500,000, and our exports to China, including Hong Kong, aggregated £29,000,000. In the same year the figures for Russia were £19,000,000 for imports, and £11,000,000 for exports, including re-exports.
Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Baronet say what were the exports of British goods?
Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member asks me what were the exports of British goods. He wishes me to disregard entirely our valuable entrepot trade. What do these re-exports mean? They mean goods brought here in British ships manned by British sailors, financed by British banks, insured in British insurance offices, brought into British ports, taken from the ships by British dock labourers, taken from British warehouses again to British railways, handled by British carters, British railwaymen and British labourers, under arrangements made by British merchants, token to another British port, and then the same procedure carried on in the same way by British capital and labour in the ports from which they are exported, probably in British ships. That is not a trade which in these days we can afford to scoff at. Another thing about which hon. Members are fond of talking is this: They say our exports are so small, our imports are so great, from Russia. There is a very sound principle, with which IL do not think even Protectionists can quarrel. Every little import has an export, visible or invisible, tied round its neck. It may go out by means of service, it may go out by goods. It may not go out to the same country. It may go out by triangular trade. But those imports must eventually be paid for by British exports.
602
4.0 p.m.
There is another thing to remember. What are these imports? They are imports of raw material, timber, platinum, flax, tallow, hides, bristles—things that are bought by our industries in the cheapest market and used to manufacture British goods which can be sold, by reason of the cheapness of the raw materials, in competition with other goods manufactured in other parts of the world. I have been drawn away from my argument. I will take the totals of British trade with Russia and with China for the last three years. I find that the total of British trade with Russia for 1924 was £31,000,000, and with China it was £44,000,000; for 1925 British trade with Russia was £44,000,000, and with China it was £34,000,000; and for 1926 British trade with Russia was £38,000,000, and with China it was £32,000,000. You find, therefore, that in the last two years our trade with Russia is actually greater than our trade with China, and over a long period of years it is comparable and equally capable of expansion. Therefore, I say that in these critical years it is well worth preserving and developing that important trade with that great country of such vast potentialities—
Commander BELLAIRS rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: We have an important Debate and only a short time for it. I suggest, therefore, that there should not be any unnecessary interruptions. They only lengthen the speeches and thus debar some hon. Members from getting the opportunity of making orderly contributions to the Debate.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I want to pursue a little further this point of our trade with Russia which I consider a vital point. I see present the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) who is an authority on this question, and who has taken a vary leading part in shaping the course of our relations with that great country. Speaking in his constituency at Hillhead the other day, he said:
"When Russia indicated her willingness to give a written pledge that she would cease her hostile activities against us, he frankly believed that she would try and keep her word."
I see the right hon. Gentleman nod's his head, but, if he ever dreamed that this

603
Bolshevist Government, as at present constituted, would ever cease to strive for world revolution, then he was living in a world of solitary illusion.
Sir ROBERT HORNE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is sitting beside the hon. and gallant Member, shares that illusion.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am being as quick as I can, but I have not finished my speech, and I am coming to the right hon. Gentleman. I say that he cannot quote one authority in support of that view. I defy him to say that the Foreign Office advised him in that sense. I do not for one moment believe it, and I do not believe that anybody who knew the Bolshevists and their methods in Russia and Hungary advised them that this Bolshevist Government, as at present constituted, would stop their propaganda for a world revolution. The reasons for entering into this arrangement with Russia were quite different. The reasons given were not hatred, or love of Russia, or, still less, of the Bolshevist Government. The reasons were to try and do something to restore our British trade and to help our unemployed people here. That was the first and big reason. We have got the trade. It may not have come up to the rosiest anticipations, but it is substantial and profitable. The right hon. Gentleman knew then, and advocated then, that it was impossible to stop propaganda by frowns, rebukes or force. The only way you can fight a bad idea is with a good idea, and, as regards propaganda, it was hoped, and rightly hoped, that with the creation of trade relations between Russia and this country, with the increasing flow of trade, the foundations of Bolshevism in Russia would gradually be undermined. That was the process that was looked forward to, and, as a matter of fact, that process has quietly been going on in Russia all the time. We see in many industries in Russia a gradual revival which is accompanied—I will not say because of it, but at any rate it is remarkable that it is accompanied—by a revival of private enterprise, and, as the benefits of these trade relations with the outside world are appreciated more by the Russian people, and as prosperity, the greatest solvent against Bolshevism any country
604
can have, returns to Russia, will you cut off this tide of propaganda at its source.
There was a very remarkable development only last year in the political sphere. The extraordinary thing about the Bolshevist party from 1918 onwards was its coherence, but last year a rift developed. There were two parties in Russia, the extremists led by Zinovieff and Trotsky, and the relative moderates with Stalin at their head, and the moderates won. The extremists were beaten, and for the first time we saw clear indications of the gradual growth of more reasonable influences in Russia. Yet this is a moment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hill-head, the author and negotiator of the Trade Agreement, chooses to perform a political somersault, and to call upon the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to turn and rend his own child. I would remind the House and those hon. Gentlemen, for whose leadership he is apparently posing himself, that he is the man who broke the anti-Bolshevist front, and in isolation and in advance of other Powers came in and made an agreement with Soviet Russia. I believe that events have proved that he was right, but do not let him ask us to forget to give him the credit which is due to him. Now he wants to lead us back into a far more dangerous isolation. Alone among the nations of Europe, we are to sever our relations with Russia. This policy, if pursued, would not only lead us into isolation, but it would ruin a substantial trade and imperil the peace of Europe. Last year Lord Balfour, a member of the Government who speaks with unique authority on questions of foreign affairs, observed:
"There is a great difference between breaking off relations and not entering into them, because the first of these two operations produces disturbances which may go far beyond the confines either of Russia or of this country. Dir whole of the industrial and financial and economic world on this side of the Atlantic at all events is in a most sensitive and embarrassed condition. Nobody can doubt it is a condition under which it would be the height of rashness, except for a really serious gain, to introduce a new disturbing element."
If by his own confession, his judgment was at fault in 1921—
Sir R. HORNE: You say it was not.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I say it was not, but the right hon. Gentleman says it was at fault. If his judgment was at fault when he led us into an agreement with Russia, he is now asking us to pursue a far more hazardous course than the course which, according to himself, he erroneously led us to take a few years ago, and I hope the House will not submit to his erratic guidance. At this juncture to rupture trade relations with Russia would be to sacrifice substantial and profitable trade, to encourage the extremists not only in Russia but also in this country and every country in the world, to increase their influence, to cause them to redouble their activities, to expose the prospects of peace not only in the Far East but in the Balkans in Central Europe and in the Baltic States to the revived fury of their mischief and malevolence, and to deprive ourselves of our existing rights to object to intensified propaganda against British institutions and interests in our own Empire and in foreign countries; and, when that blast of malice, hatred, and hostility strikes us, what action will the right hon. Gentleman and his friends then recommend us to take?
Now, before coming to my concluding sentences, in which I shall indicate the policy which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will follow, I feel it is my duty to switch the aim of my argument front his critics on to his own head, because after all it is the salary of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which I have moved to reduce. It is the only one which I have got within my reach. I do not like doing it, I am an humble but a discriminating admirer of the right hon. Gentleman. If this Government is awarded by posterity any laurels which I rather doubt, they would be those which have been earned by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the direction of his policy. But what can one say of the right hon. Gentleman's Note to the Bolshevist Government. Obviously, he was torn between the dictates of his better judgment and those of loyalty to his party, wagged as, the Tory party always is, by its Die-hard tail. He took what he thought was the line of least resistance. They are getting exasperated. They cry out, "Are we going to put up with the Bolshevik propaganda or are we going to
606
clear out the Reds?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to have got those supporting cheers and to know that I have defined aright the issue, because I myself hesitate to ascribe such a definition of the issue to any Member of this House. The right hon. Gentleman himself knows better than anyone its futility. There is no antithesis in it. The only effect of clearing out the Reds will inevitably be to intensify propaganda against the interests of this country.
Hon. Members opposite are the armchair critics of the Government. In the War we all knew the people who, behind the lines, breathed defiance and demanded resolute action at the Front. In this matter, the men who are standing in the front line trenches at present are the Foreign Office, headed by the Secretary of State, and then the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and Derby (Mr. Thomas), who are fighting this thing day in and day out in their trade unions and up and down the country. They know well enough that to apply the remedy advocated by hon. Members opposite would be to play straight into the hands of the Bolshevik extremists. But the unruly Die-hard tail has wagged the Government and the Secretary of State. The Note has been sent. The Bolshevik reply has been received. The Birkenhead kettle has called the Bukharin pot red and the Chicherin pot has retaliated by calling the Churchillian kettle black, but the right hon. Gentleman has lent official dignity to this controversy, and the honour of Britain is engaged. No one thinks the matter can be allowed to rest there. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) I am glad to see supports me. He, and other hon. Members opposite have made speeches or given interviews saying it cannot possibly be left as it is at present. I am also here with the assent of my hon. Friends and colleagues to say the same thing. What do the spectators abroad say? Look at newspapers of different hues and complexions. The "Taglische Rundschau" and the, "Deutsche Zeitung," the "Temps" and the "Débats" on the one hand, the "Petit Journal" and the "Ere Nouvelle" on the other hand and other papers whether they are of the right or

607
of the left, say that we cannot possibly let this controversy stand in the position it is in at present.
Nor does this Note, after all, stand alone. It is one of a series. In 1923, Lord Curzon sent a very peremptory Note that unless within 10 days of the receipt of the above communication, the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Government undertook to comply fully with the requests it contained, His Majesty's Government would recognise that the Government did not wish existing relations to be maintained. There is this difference between Lord Curzon's Note and that of the Secretary of State, that it dealt with at least two questions on which we got full satisfaction. Then we come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon. He said, when Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that no Government would ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government by which the latter was in diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it whilst at the same time a propagandist body organically connected with the foreign Government encourages and even orders the subjects of the former to plot and plan revolutions for its overthrow. I quite agree. I am merely indicating what, are the conditions of the problem at present. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman himself writes to the Soviet Government that the continuance of such acts as are here complained of must sooner or later render inevitable the abrogation of the trade agreement and even the severance of ordinary diplomatic relations. Therefore, the Secretary of State cannot stand still. The only question is what attitude is to be adopted and what course of action he is to take. That is the question I now put to him. There are two possible courses, the one to which I have referred, which will lead to nothing but disaster and disillusionment, but there is another which I will indicate, and if he adopts that course then I have no doubt that I shall have the concurrence of my hon. Friends here in asking the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment. Let him think once, twice and three times about the concluding sentences in the Bolshevik Note. It is very remarkable that after his very firm, stiff
608
and, as it must appear to them, insulting Note, they say at the end of theirs:
"In declaring that the threats against the Soviet Government will have no in- timidating effect upon anyone in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Government takes the liberty to express its firm conviction that the conclusion of the Trade Agreement in 1921 and the subsequent restoration of diplomatic relations corresponded to the interests and necessities of the people of the Soviet Union as well as those of the British Empire."
And further:
"On its part the Soviet Government confirms the statement of the late M. Krassin quoted in the Note of the British Government concerning the desirability of removing all difficulties existing between the two countries and everything giving grounds for mutual complaint and of establishing quite normal relations actually correspond to the immutable and sincere wishes of the Soviet Government."
Here lies the opportunity to improve the relations between the two countries, to lay firmly the foundations of world peace, to increase and expand the trade of Britain, to strengthen the elements of reconstruction in Russia arid to check those of hatred and destruction. If the Secretary of State has the courage to proceed on these lilies, he will not only dam, by the only available means, that spate of vile propaganda which exasperates us all, but he will accelerate the deliverance of Russia itself from the thraldom of Bolshevism, he will establish conditions for the expansion of British trade in a market with unlimited potentialities, he will give the Russian people a stake which they will be afraid to lose in good relations between their country and ours, and will create between Russia and ourselves a great field of common interest and common endeavour which will he a binding pledge, and the only pledge that can possibly he binding, of work together in the common interest of the two countries and for the advancement of civilisation.
Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has brought me to my feet at a somewhat earlier period of the Debate than I intended to address the House. I am sure it was a speech on which the whole House would desire to congratulate him, not merely for the liveliness of its spirit, but also for the great desire to expedite and find a solution of what, after all, is a very difficult question. He ended with the expression

609
of a great aspiration, that if the Foreign Secretary would take a certain course, it would bring about that identification of interests between Russia and Great Britain which we have so long sought. But that is exactly the spirit in which I was in the year 1921 when I made the Trade Agreement, and the hon. Gentleman reproached me with extraordinary obtuseness at that point of time because he said if I really imagined that these people would disavow their aspirations after a world revolution, I must be living in a position of solitary illusion. I think to-day he is preparing to take advantage of the experience I have had, and while he thinks the advice I gave the Cabinet and the House of Commons in 1921 was right, I think he may at least trust my judgment that after my experience, I may possibly now be right again.
I admit that I am in a somewhat delicate position here. Nearly every friend I have beside me on these benches has condemned the Trade Agreement. I have noticed in the Press recently a large variety of speeches which have attributed much of our trouble to the fact that that Trade Agreement was entered into. Tennyson gives a certain meritorious position to those who have loved and lost, and there are occasions in life when it is better to make an attempt than never to make it at all. I made an effort which I admit to have been an entire failure, but I am not sorry I made it. In the same circumstances I would make it again. But at least if I am to be reprobated for having made that effort, I can rely now upon the experience I have had as to whether it was worth making or not. At that time Europe was in a state of dis-peace, trade and commerce between nations was impaired and in Britain we were suffering beyond all other things from the fact that we had a vast army of people unemployed. I saw in Russia a country which, if it was brought into the comity of the nations of Europe was able, with its vast resources, to revive the fortunes of every State provided it was properly governed and its resources were sufficiently and adequately exploited, and I took upon myself the business of trying to build such a bridge as would at once restore trade and might also, as I hoped, have the advantage of bringing peace where there was nothing but enmity and hostility. I am not
610
ashamed of the effort I made, nor do I regret at all that I made the attempt. I was greatly supported by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who, I believe, shared in every respect the hopes and aspirations which at that time animated my own breast.
I am bound to confess that everything I hoped for has failed to materialise, and that everything in which I believed has proved a failure. My negotiations with the late Mr. Krassin were of the most agreeable order. I am perfectly certain that he, at least, whatever was the attitude of his colleagues and the people behind him in Moscow, was genuine in the desire to bring about amicable relations between Russia and Britain, and that he, at least, was anxious that Russia should keep her word in the stipulations made in the Trade Agreement. That was my very confident impression of Mr. Krassin. The trade for which I hoped has not come. My hon. Friend to-day has referred to the amount of our trade with Russia, and I do not wish to minimise that in the slightest. The trade which is of the most importance to us is that which affords direct employment to our people. As he says, that was one of the main objects of our entering into this Trade Agreement. That trade to-day amounts to an export of £5,800,000. I do not leave out the entrepot trade. On the other hand, we are importing from Russia goods amounting to the value of, think, £23,060,000. Whether we take my hon. Friend's figure of £11,000,000 for the whole of our export trade or not, we certainly find a very great disparity between the amount of employment that we are giving to Russia as compared with the amount of employment that Russia is giving to us. I do not want to put it higher or stronger than that.
On the other hand, America, which has treated Russia as an outcast among the nations, which refuses to receive her envoy, whose Trade Union Congress rejects with contumely the idea of entering into any association with Russia, gets more trade than we do from Russia. When it comes to the grant of concessions, the citizens of America are getting far greater advantage than our citizens are getting in Russia. [An HON. MEMBER: "The almighty dollar!"] Yes, no doubt they are in a position to pay

611
more, but does that explain why it is that when it comes to the attack upon capitalistic nations, which is supposed to be the chief Russian dogma, that we are the capitalist nation which is singled out, for attack, and America, which is a far greater and more prominent example of capitalism than we are, is scarcely ever mentioned Why is it that all the costumely is heaped upon us, who were the first people to hold out any hand of friendship to them, while those who even now show them no favour whatever get far greater advantage from them than we do? I ask any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite who may reply in the Debate to explain that extraordinary situation and to say what advantage we have got either in the shape of trade or friendship by reason of our consideration towards this people, which has been far in advance of that shown by any other nation. Yet we are to-day throughout the world the chief objects of every assault both by language and action which they are capable of making.
There has been a suggestion that, indeed, the Russian Government has not been responsible for much that has been done. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition long ago exposed the fallacy of any such argument as that. He pointed out in his note in the year 1924, as he pointed out only a few days ago, that you cannot divide, the Russian Government from the Third International, that they are, indeed, the same body, animated by the same motives and doing the same thing. In fact, the Russian Government has just done in this matter what so many crooks have done in business in this country, when they incorporate a company to do their dirty work for them and then say when the company is exposed that they are not responsible for it. I agree with my hon. Friend that I may have appeared too optimistic in believing that these people really were going to change their methods, because through the whole of the records of the Third International we find that it has been persistently stated that a world revolution is their object.
Perhaps we may find some explanation why trade has not increased under our arrangement in the statement which Bukharin made only the other day, that
612
to Bolshevise the world was their task, and in that connection it was their object not to admit any revival of trade. Increased commerce, increased prosperity in the world would militate very materially against the destructive theories of which they are the protagonists. Acordingly, instead of helping to revive trade, even under our stipulations with them, their object is rather to create political trouble than to do anything in the way of advancing commerce. We have had a most recent example, and I confess that it has made a great change in my attitude toward the whole question. This House knows that I have been one of those who have constantly advocated this trade position in regard to our relations with Russia and that I have constantly raised my voice against taking any sudden action in the way of breaking off trade relations with Russia, or tearing up the Treaty. That has been my attitude, as the House knows, consistently throughout a time during which many hon. Members on these benches thought that I had taken an entirely wrong position, and that I was acting against the best interests of the country.
I have always thought that this was a matter which must be dealt with after a long period of patience and after adequate deliberation. How long are we to show patience? To what limit of time is our deliberation to go? I confess that I felt that we had rea-3hed our limits of endurance when I observed what was going on in connection with Russian efforts against us in China. There we have the most specific instance of their attitude, and they have made no disguise of what they were doing. We find Russian money distributed throughout China, and for what purpose? For anti-British propaganda. We find the Russian Government supplying munitions of war and arms to China. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where? How?"]
Mr. BECKETT: How can they do it, when there are no railways available?
Sir R. HORNE: Hon. Members ask me where. To the Cantonese Army, let me say, if it pleases anyone to know.
Miss WILKINSON: How, when there is no transport?
Sir R. HORNE: It does not alter the point of my argument. When we read of the purpose for which these moneys are being supplied, what do we find? There is never a suggestion of helping in the erecting or constructing of a better China; it is always done with a view to destroying Britain's position in China. There were many expressions of gratitude from the miners in this country to Russia for the funds which were supplied last year. I wonder what the miners of this country thought when they read the Resolution of those who were supplying the money, as to their reason for affording it. They said that this money must be supplied and the people must be compelled to give it. Why? Not to assist the people who were in distress in this country. Their words are on record, and I can give them to anyone who wants them. Their words are on record to the effect that the object in supplying that money was to create a revolution in Great Britain, and not to help the miners. That is the Russian attitude throughout the world. The whole of these great adventures in which they take part are not undertaken through any beneficent attitude towards the people who are getting help, but with the idea of creating disorder in the world, creating world revolution, and because they see that we are the most stable nation in Europe who stand most in the way of their destructive theories, their attack is made upon us.
If I may cite a witness upon this matter, I need only mention the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wrote an article the other day in which he described the attitude of Russia in China and said that the proper and natural aspiration of the Chinaman towards freedom was being exploited by Bolshevists, not for the Chinaman's sake but for the purpose of doing injury to Great Britain. If after five years of a Trade Agreement, such as we made; if after the Leader of the present Opposition's Government took Russia into diplomatic relations; if after being treated by us better than they have been treated by any other Government in the world, they still show towards us this implacable hatred, has the time of endurance not been reached? There have been a variety of Notes sent to Russia. There was the somewhat, shall I call it,
614
flamboyant Note which the late Lord Curzon sent in 1923. There was the much more incisive Note which the Leader of the Opposition sent in 1924, and now we have the more serious document, the more serious dispatch, sent by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. There is language in that Note such as I have never seen in any document from the Foreign Office, not in the nature of an absolute ultimatum. It talks of flagrant violation of the stipulations: it talks of warnings in the gravest terms, and it ends up with a paragraph in which the Foreign Office and the British nation, as represented by the Foreign Office, requires certain things. I have never seen a Note of that kind issued from the Foreign Office of this country without its being regarded as the last word upon the topic which was being dealt with. I accordingly judged when I read it, and I hope that I am not wrong, that this was the last word of the Foreign Office. I took it to mean that if the things are not done which the British nation requires, steps will be taken. If that is not so, then it would have been far better had the Note never been dispatched.
There were two possible positions for this Government to take. One was to say: "These things have been going on for a long time. We are not any more impatient than we were before." In that case all that would have happened, and I for one should like to make this perfectly clear—the hon. Member opposite seems to assume that I have identified myself with what is called the "die-hard" movement—no one can say that I have been a "die-hard"—
Mr. J. JONES: No, a lie-hard.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must at once withdraw that expression or leave the House.
Mr. JONES: I will certainly withdraw the expression.
Sir R. HORNE: I have been content to let my own judgment be ruled by the judgment of the Foreign Secretary on this matter. There are obvious considerations to take into account before you break off relations with Russia. We are told the effect it would have on our trade, and that seems to oppress the hon. and gallant Member opposite. When Russia is selling us more than we are selling them it is perfectly obvious that

615
it would do more harm to them to break off negotiations than it would to us. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look into the character of the articles we get from Russia he will find great difficulty in finding suitable markets where Russia could sell these goods with equal advantage. I am as much interested in the trade of this country as my hon. and gallant Friend, but my belief is that we are not going to suffer at all in trade by any breach with Russia. She has shown that she will trade wherever it suits her, although she regards others with contumely; it will not make any difference to us even if we do happen to tear up the Trade Agreement.
But there are other considerations which are much larger, and of these the Foreign Secretary is the best judge. There is the condition of Europe. He himself has put to his credit one of the greatest achievements in the way of bringing about peace in disordered Europe, and one is perfectly conscious that he, of all men, would not like anything to be done which would have the slightest effect in injuring the results of that Treaty. I accept that. It may be that the conditions in Europe would be aggravated by bringing Russian pressure on Germany or Poland. We all know that Russia did her best to keep Germany out of the League of Nations. There may be considerations of that kind which weigh with the Foreign Secretary, and put an impediment in the way of breaking off relations with Russia. But he and the Government must have taken all these things into account before he issued that Note. It was impossible to view the future in the attitude that this Note would create no effect at all. It was a statement of the position of Great Britain, and we could not possibly depart from it without loss of prestige, which would injure us, not merely with Russia but throughout the world.
I read a speech of the Noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead who, with his great knowledge, referred to the repercussion of European politics upon India, and he stated that it was of infinite importance that our prestige in the East should be maintained. But, I ask, what is going to be the result if Russia persists in doing the same things now that she has been doing before the Note was sent; and His Majesty's Government do
616
nothing? It will be advertised to China, India and Egypt, that the Russian Soviet is more powerful than we are, and that our words count for nothing. I would like, as the hon. and gallant Member opposite has referred to foreign opinion on this matter, to indicate the views of the French Press. These are things of which I imagine the Foreign Office takes notice. The French Press, almost unanimously, including the Labour paper, refer to the Russian reply to the Foreign Office as insulting, and "La Liberte," which is no friend of England, says Litvinoff is not only insulting, but indecent, and it goes on to make a gibe at England:
"England having appealed to all the world to come to terms with the Soviet she cannot count on any Power to support her in case of a rupture with them."
Then "Le Matin," a paper which is not friendly to us, says:
"The Reply summed up means: break with us if you can, and if you care. But you do not dare."
That is the French interpretation of M. Litvinoff's reply. If you go to the Russians themselves, you find Stalin, in a speech made on an interpolation on Anglo-Soviet relations, saying:
"Why do not the English Conservative Ministers break off relations with us? It is because their hands are too weak. Therefore England only sighs, and speaks about breaking off relations wish us, but does not dare to do so."
That is the result of a Note upon which you do not mean to act. For my part—and this is my last concluding sentence—I am right on this matter, as it does not require any argument—I am hoping that the Government is prepared to do what is incumbent upon them to do, if their requirements are not met. I hope, indeed, to that effect, although I have been warned to the contrary. In my judgment much greater injury accrue to the cause of peace and reconstruction in Europe by the loss of our authority in the councils of the nations than would ever be the case as a consequence of breaking off relations with Russia.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I intended to rise immediately after the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), and join with him in defending the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne)

617
against himself, but after the speech to which we have just listened, a speech which I for one profoundly regret and whose only effect either at home or abroad must be mischievous, I think it my duty still more to say to the right hon. Gentleman that his past is very much better than his present. This country can never cease to be grateful to him for effecting this trade agreement. To him belongs the credit, and even his own ruthless hands cannot deprive him of it. He saw that the situation of Russia was such, and the danger it afforded to Europe was such, that the best way to handle the situation and deal with it was to begin by coming to a trade agreement with that country. Now, says the right hon. Gentleman, all my hopes and expectations have been dashed to the ground. "Trade has not been so good as I thought it would be, therefore, let us tear it up altogether."
Sir R. HORNE: I gave many other reasons.
Mr. MacDONALD: I will include all the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave, hut the conclusion is—let us tear it up altogether. The right hon. Gentleman is not very sure of his own ground. He talks about this trade agreement as though from 1921 to the present moment agreement had characterised our relations with Russia. That is not the case. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that from 1921 to 1927, the ordinary diplomatic relations between Russia and ourselves have never given that trade agreement a proper chance. He knows that in 1921 he had to face a Russia that was full of resentment and suspicion against us; and he faced it courageously. That suspicion was owing to the fact—no hon. Member on the other side can deny it—that this country officially and deliberately, and of set purpose, had spent in round figures £100,000,000 in order to upset the Government with whom he was dealing. The Government, our Government of that time, may have felt it was justified in doing so. But leaving that out of account, the right hon. Gentleman is not only a, man of business, he has a knowledge of men, and he must surely understand that that memory was a very bad memory for his Trade Agreement. He has quoted from the late Lord Curzon's Despatch. He knows that after his first
618
Trade Agreement was come to the relations between Lord Curzon and the Soviet Government were anything but cordial, and let me make this point now, as it is exceedingly important in view of the end of his speech, that so long as Lord Curzon was vague in his representations nothing was done, but the moment Lord Curzon put down specifically his points of complaint, then those complaints were dealt with, and dealt with satisfactorily.
5.0 p.m.
Then came an interregnum. My hon. Friends and myself became responsible for the Government. Our stay was brief and we were followed by the present Government and the present Foreign Secretary. From the end of 1924 up to the present we have had attacks made upon this country from Russia, attacks in-the Press, attacks by men absolutely insignificant and attacks by men of considerable significance. We have had rumours about the activities of Russia in other foreign countries, ending up with the present statements about the activities of Mr. Borodin in Hankow, Canton and elsewhere. And alongside that we have the same thing in this country in regard to Russia. I sympathise with the Prime Minister very much in the task in which he found himself in answering a question to-day. A very important colleague of his only this week made a statement regarding the Russian Government which, if it had been made by a Russian Minister, regarding us would have been rightly resented by every man in this country who believes that Russia has no business to interfere in our affairs. During all those years that the Trade Agreement was in operation that Trade Agreement has never had a chance of producing the fruit that it can produce and will produce if it is properly worked, alongside of peace and cooperating diplomacy. We are talking now about the falling off in Russian trade. I know how some of it has fallen off. I had a deputation only the other week from certain important Englishmen, not merchants, but manufacturers, men who produce and men who directly employ British labour in production. They came and asked me whether I had read a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had openly threatened and told

619
them that they ought not to engage in trade with Russia except at their own risk. The whole meaning, the whole atmosphere and the whole purport of his speech was that the risk was exceedingly great.
How can anybody expect—I am not arguing as from this side of the House, but I am arguing in a way that every business man understands; I do not care whether it refers to Russia, Japan, America, or our own Dominions—if you have a. Chancellor of the Exchequer who gets up and solemnly attacks, first of all, a Government of a State with which we are doing business, and then, not content with that general attack upon the Government of that State, goes on to warn our business men against trading with that State, how can you reasonably expect that your business men are going to deal with that State? The Trade Agreement which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead produced is being killed by the propaganda of hon. Members opposite. They first of all create trouble. They first of all embark on a most mischievous and subversive propaganda—a propaganda which, if it were conducted by the Russians against us and any of us were in office, we would not tolerate for one moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "You did tolerate it!"] We did not tolerate it and we have no intention of tolerating it. During the time that this Trade Agreement has been running and during the time that the right hon. Gentleman, with paternal affection and care, was watching its results in pounds, shillings and pence, hon. Members in this House, Ministers of this Government, have gone rampaging up and down the country from one end to the other, attacking that. Government and doing everything they possibly could to hamper British trade with Russia. I regret most profoundly that the right hon. Gentleman has lent himself to this. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon comes and says, "How poor has been the result of the Trade Agreement that I made with such goodness of heart and excellence of policy?" The right hon. Gentleman has only got to look into the propaganda of his own party for the reasons.
I would like just for a few moments to take the political side of this question.
620
I am glad—I have said so, and I say it here—that the Foreign Secretary sent a Note to Russia. I think the Note was two years out of date. I think it was a great mistake that the right hon. Gentleman allowed matters to drift. I have been quoted. I am glad I have been quoted. I stand by everything I have said. Since I left office I have repeated it. If I were in office now—sometimes I am asked what I would do if I were in office, but I do not think that that is a very profitable question to put to any ex-Minister; it causes very considerable inconvenience—but I have no hesitation whatever in saying that, if I had been in office, a Note would have been sent a good long time before 1927. I do not know that the Note would have been as stiff in its language as is the language used in some parts of the right hon. Gentleman's Note, but I think it would have been stiffer in substance. Let me lay down, as a first proposition, a, proposition with which we all agree, that no country can tolerate the interference of a foreign country in its own affairs. [Interruption.] I think we are the only party that can say that. [Hon. MEMBERS: "What about China?"] Hon. Members really should not take up newspaper rumours and quote them as facts. I lay down a second proposition, but I am not quite so sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree with me in this. I think it is of the utmost importance that no statement should be made officially—let unauthorised persons speak as much as they like—but no statement should be made officially unless it has been subjected to the most careful examination and unless the proof of the importance of the statement is hell in reserve by the Foreign Office when they make the statement.
In making such a statement there should be almost a meticulous selection of the legitimate from the illegitimate. For instance, a cartoon, lampooning a Minister, is not a legitimate subject of complaint for the Foreign Office. A newspaper article, a newspaper attack, however vulgar and however strong in its language—my experience is that the strong language is always the weak idea—however strong and offensive and vulgar any newspaper article may be, whether published either here about Russia or in Russia

621
about us, ought not to be the subject of official representation. When you come to speeches by Ministers, I think you are on a, little bit more debatable ground. The difficulty of our Foreign Office in making representations to the Soviet Government because the Soviet Ministers and Ambassadors have been making indiscreet and even offensive speeches, is very great. Take our Chancellor of the Exchequer. Put a beard on him, make him talk Russian instead of English, and, behold, you have Zinovieff. Take the Home Secretary, with his style, the liveliness of his energies, and his forthrightness. It requires very little imagination for those of us who sit here and look at him there to see Trotsky,
"perfect in form and feature, face and limb."
If I may use the imagery of the prize ring, I would say this: Never try to hit the other man if you know that on precisely the same ground and with precisely the same method of fist application he can hit you equally hard if not harder.
There is another point. There are movements and organisations, in Russia or here, aimed, if in Russia, to destroy our Government, giving us difficulties in India and other parts of the Empire and giving us difficulties in foreign countries like China with which we are in negotiation. These movements, are they legitimate or illegitimate? I say that they are illegitimate. I have got a circular here in which I have been appealed to to subscribe money to a certain organisation which is called "Clear Out the Reds Campaign." It is signed by an hon. Member of this House. This is what this circular says in appealing for money:
"Largely as a result of our work "—
that is English work, the work of a committee internal to this country—
"Largely as a result of our work Zinovieff, the arch-propagandist of Russia, has been flung from power, and Trotsky, England's enemy, has been driven forth from the councils of the Soviet."
I take the view that the Third International is a matter for which the Government of the country has to bear a responsibility. There is no doubt about it. There is no use, either for propaganda purposes or for other purposes, to take any other view. But taking that view of the Third International, what view
622
ought the Foreign Office to take of this thing? It goes on to say that they are appealing for money to carry it on. They have turned out Zinovieff—a very bad day for them, because what are they going to do at the next election? Trotsky has gone. I really believe that were I to attempt the thing which I would be physically incapable of performing and were I to rifle the pockets of the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander O. Locker-Lampson), who signed this, I would find the scalps of Zinovieff and Trotsky in his pocket. And yet, from the General Election down, we find that Zinovieff has been in power and that Trotsky is still in authority, and the hon. and gallant Member, in spite of his party propaganda and his party meetings, and in spite of the poiltical harangues of his colleagues, is now trying to raise money on the pretence and on the claim that he has cleared Zinovieff out and that, owing to his efforts, Trotsky is no longer in power.
"So we have launched a campaign which has become a crusade"—
that holy word, with magnificant historical associations. The hon. and gallant Member's enthusiasm turns the campaign into a crusade—and he wants £10,000! I Peter the Hermit, was it not, who did the same thing? The hon. and gallant Member goes on to say, in order to show how detached and how correct we arc, and how careful we should be to be, correct and not to interfere with others' affairs, that someone of the name of Sir Harold Bowden
"has given us £1,000 to continue our campaign, but we need £10,000 before the end of March."
And he has asked me to subscribe! The hon. and gallant Member has one very good instinct. He is very accurate in his reading of human nature in one respect. He addresses me in this circular, "Dear Madam." The hon. and gallant Member knows the virtues of the old lady, and that if anyone is going to give him 9,000 for his crusade it must be some dear old lady who is warmed in her heart by seeing the hon. and gallant Member's name at the bottom of a circular, and sees herself addressed as "Dear Madam." But the important part of the letter to the lady is its postscript. That is:
"No successor to Krassin has been appointed, at the urgent insistence of our campaign."

623
I do not want to embarrass the Foreign Secretary, but I would really like to ask him, for the benefit of the old ladies who Are being tapped for £9,000, is that postscript true? It would be very interesting to know. This is an amusing circular in a way, but it is a very serious point. It is no use addressing great Notes in the minatory language in which this Note has been addressed. It is no use asking the Russian Government to mend its ways upon accusations which the Russian Government can duplicate in practically every case—not all, but practically every case. We have to be much more careful than that. That is not the way to handle the matter.
Now I come to a third proposition, and it is this: That our grievances should be produced. The last place in the world for keeping grievances in the dark is the Foreign Office. They become more and more shadowy, darker and darker, and more and more vague, until at last it is quite impossible to go back to the precise point which really was the sound reason for a complaint and for a protest. Let us formulate, let us present, let us challenge, let us settle, let us carry out our part and see to it that the other side carries out its part. This is a repetition, but very important—it struck me forcibly when I turned over in my own mind what ought to have been done. The one conspicuous success in negotiations with the Russian Government followed a specific statement of what our complaint was. As soon as we faced it, we came to an agreement. I am not going over the work that we did ourselves. There was the question of the White Sea Fisheries. There was a very difficult point in that. No one can appreciate it more than those who have been in the Foreign Office. That was settled and decided—and so on. The way to handle this, surely, is to put down your points perfectly specifically, see that they are really before the Russians, and see that the points against the Russian Government are not exactly the same points as they have against you, so that they can simply walk round about you without joining issue.
I will say a few words about the attitude of the Soviet Government itself. I think we are all too much inclined to
624
assume hostility on the part of the Soviet Government. It is perfectly true—perhaps hon. Members will have the pleasure shortly of seeing it in print—that I hold the view that the Third International has not given up its hopes of a world revolution. No. [Interruption]. That is all very well. It is not the business of those who are in charge of Departments, with great issues hanging upon them, to run away when they come up against a difficulty. They have to face the difficulty and to try to overcome it. But the Soviet Government, in the last paragraph of its Note, whatever it may be in the others, indicates its desire to have our claims and our case against it. Do let us remember that the Soviet Government had a Czarist inheritance. Do let us remember that the Soviet Government was founded and composed by men who had spent the whole of their lives as exiles, until the time that they came into office. Do let us remember that the political mentality of the Soviet Government was a reaction from Siberia and from the knout. Do let us remember that the Soviet Government presents one of the most magnificent examples that historians will ever have for their imagination to play round, of the truth of the proverb, "You sow the wind and you reap the whirlwind."
I am profoundly convinced that by patience—I am sorry the right hon. Member for Hillhead rather—I was going to say jeered at the word; he made rather light of it—I am still convinced that by putting down what our grievances are, by negotiating, not by firing guns from London, the balls of which are going to land in Moscow, and then their firing hack from Moscow with the balls landing in London, but by getting close up to each other, round the table, by Ministers representing Russia and our own Foreign Secretary representing us, by the appointment of an official representative in Mr. Krassin's place here, so that these things can be handled in a businesslike way—I feel perfectly certain that we can get through this transition time—it is only a transition time—when the Siberian reaction will have died down, and as it dies down our European conception of political and international responsibility will grow up and displace it.

625
As soon as that is done, our Trade Agreement will fructify in trade, and our full diplomatic relations will fructify in international peace. If that is not done do not let us make any mistake about the alternative. No. Break your relations, cut them off as they were before the right hon. Member for Hill-head came to that agreement—from my heart, I congratulate him upon what he did—cut them off and put them where they were before the right hon. Gentleman came to an agreement with the Russians, and you throw open the whole world to their activities; you throw away your arm of diplomacy. I beg of you to use your arm of diplomacy. My complaint is that it has not been used enough. You have thrown it away. Hon. Members throw it away. [Interruption.] I am not going to be led away by the interruption, because the time is short. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will not argue that the only difference between America and ourselves is that we have a Trade Agreement and they have not.
Sir R. HORNE: Not the only difference.
Mr. MacDONALD: Nor did the right hon. Gentleman say that the chief difference was that we have a Trade Agreement and America has none—not he.
Sir R. HORNE: All I have said is that America, without a Trade Agreement and despising diplomatic relations, succeeds better with the Soviet Government than we do.
Mr. MacD0NALD: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he has put up an exceedingly flimsy piece of argument. He knows perfectly well that there is a good score of reasons why American trade has been better than ours. He knows that at the beginning of my speech I indicated some of them. He also knows that there are financial reasons. He knows that there are ordinary trading and industrial reasons. He knows that there are reasons associated with banks, credits, and so on. He knows that there are reasons connected with the passing and re-passing of cash, and so on. But I do not intend to pursue that point. When interrupted I had finished what I had to say. I hope that the Note is not going to be left
626
where it is. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it cannot he left where it is. But the way to pursue it is to put down specifically — not follow my example, for goodness sake; that would be far too subversive to follow; but follow the latter part of Lord Curzon's policy—put down specifically the points, argue them out, reason them out, negotiate, and if you do not get an agreement which would be good for both of us, and perhaps better for Europe than for either of us, if you do not get that at the end, I will confess with sorrow in my heart and with absolute sincerity and without reserve, that I have been more mistaken in that prophecy than in any I have ever made.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I came down to the House to-day with the uncomfortable feeling that I was to be fired at from three sides. So far, at any rate, I have not too much to complain of in the triangular duel that has taken place. More shots have passed me than hit me. I do not know how long that will continue. I see other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen lying in wait to contribute to our discussion. They may desire that I should discharge my gun before they open fire with their broadsides. In any case I think I should no longer delay to make my position and the position of His Majesty's Government clear to the House. I take note with satisfaction and with gratitude of the repetition by the right hon. Gentleman of those principles of international relations which he asserted in the Note sent by him to the Soviet Government as one of his last executive acts when he was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. He goes further. He directly approves of the action of His Majesty's Government in sending a Note now, but he has criticism to offer.
The first criticism he has to offer is that we have delayed two years before sending it. Let me say that I have made, or caused to be made, more than once, specific protests against specific acts of the Soviet Government. We have received no satisfaction in relation to those specific protests. I have, I believe, on every occasion on which I have received a Soviet representative in this country, called his

627
attention to the fact that what His Majesty's Government had to complain of was not some stray act here or there, some breach by, it might be, an insubordinate or ill-controlled official of an Agreement which was generally accepted, but continuous and universal disregard of the first and primary object of that Agreement. It is not therefore, to be supposed that the Soviet Government have not had due notice of what we complain of, or have not had their attention called to the character and scope of the actions to which we take exception. But it would be useless and worse than useless—it would be irritating—if, week by week, as these things occurred, I put in a public protest on every occasion. If that were so, such relations as have existed would not have continued for the two years during which I have been responsible for the Government's foreign policy. They would inevitably have been brought to a close before, and I beg of the right hon. Gentleman, who knows well the ground of our complaint, who has himself stated the ground of our complaint, not to confuse the issue whilst indulging in chaff at my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Handsworth (Commander O. Locker-Lampson), or to leave the Soviet Government in any doubt that he would make the same demand of them as we have made, and that he would resent, as we resent, their interference in our domestic affairs and their promotion, wherever they can act, of world revolution, singling out this British Empire with which they profess a desire of friendly relations, against which they have promised to take no hostile action, as the particular mark and object of their animosity and ill-will.
The right hon. Gentleman does not like the selection of documents included in or attached to the Note which I delivered the other day. He thinks a reference to a cartoon which held up to execration the Foreign Minister of this country as applauding the execution of Communists in another country—gleefully applauding and gloating over their execution—which was part of a campaign suggesting that this was all the work of the British Foreign Secretary, was not a matter of which it was within the dignity of the British Government to complain. I take a different view. If he objects to my
628
Note, I will take the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him, the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), as an effective statement of what it is that he, himself, when Prime Minister, said—no Government would tolerate from another Government with which it was supposed to be in friendly and normal relations. This is how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley puts the case:
"The international intrigues of the Bolshevists are directed mainly against Britain, which is the inspirer and ideologist of capitalistic theory.' The violently anti-British character of the rising in China is largely due to Bolshevik inspiration. The Soviet Press claims credit for having provoked the trouble there, and a resolution recently passed by the Executive of the Communist International called upon Communists in all countries to concentrate on the support of the world revolution in Britain and China."
I might have taken that and put that paragraph into my Note. It states the case. It is not a speech made here or there; it is not an ill-bred outburst by an occasional individual; it is the deliberate fomenting of world revolution and the deliberate interference with the internal affairs of other nations, whether they be the internal affairs o' the trade unions of other nations, which the Trade Union Council know how to resent and resist, or whether it be the general internal affairs of this country which it is the business of the British Government to protest against and to resist. These things are of public notoriety and are admitted by those who are concerned. They not only admit them; they boast of them. What is this Trade Agreement to which we are to attach so much importance? The Trade Agreemert undertakes that each party shall refrain from hostile actions or undertakings against the other, and from conducting outside its own borders any official propaganda direct or indirect against the institutions of the British Empire or the Russian Soviet Republic respectively and, more particularly, that the Russian Soviet Government refrains from any attempt, by military or diplomatic or any other form of action or propaganda, to encourage any of the peoples of Asia in any form of hostile action against British interests or the British Empire especially in India and the independent State of Afghanistan.

629
I take the indictment framed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley. I set it beside the pledge which the Soviet Government signed, and I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite: Is there a man who would contend for one moment that what the Soviet Government has done and is doing, is not in clear contravention of the solemn engagement which they made in the Trade Agreement, and repeated in a later undertaking; and is it not the pursuit of just that kind of conduct which the right hon. Gentleman himself said would make continued diplomatic relations between us impossible? The hon. and gallant Member who moved the reduction of the Vote and the right hon. Gentleman opposite said:
"Enter into frosh negotiations; let us have another agreement."
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Cailthness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), interpreting history in his own fashion and not inspired, I am sure, by his leader on this occasion, said that when the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was the head, through the hand of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), signed the trade agreement, they never expected this condition to be kept. I do not say that any of us expected that from one day to another the whole situation would change, but we expected a change to begin. We expected it to grow steadily and we anticipated, and were entitled to anticipate, that in a reasonable time that engagement would be implemented and henceforth kept. But it never has been on the Soviet side. What is the use of my sitting down to negotiate another agreement in face of facts like that and to be told, two years hence, by the hon. and gallant Member that if I was fool enough to think that the word of the Soviet Government was to be trusted, I was alone in my folly? The hon. Gentleman made a powerful speech, but this conclusion was in defiance of his premises. I am not going to labour that point. It is admitted. It is proved out of the mouths of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I may be asked then as I have been asked day after day, month after month in this House, "How long are you going to tolerate this breach of a solemn
630
engagement; how long are you going to maintain a document which is violated daily; how long are you going to entertain diplomatic relations with a country which abuses them, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said that they do abuse them?" That is the real question. That is the only case I have to answer. The other is proved without reference to a single disputed or secret source, proved out of public utterances and public actions which everyone here has observed and knows, which are of notoriety throughout the world. Why then have we shown this extraordinary patience in face of these daily provocations? The policy of His Majesty's Government has been dictated and inspired by an earnest desire to make the peace of the world secure, to contribute to the appeasement of the feud which shook our civilisation and to eliminate the elements of disturbance and suspicion which remain from the great struggle of a few years ago. Had we to consider to-night nothing but our own domestic situation; had we to consider nothing but our own interest as affected by the trade agreement or by the exchange of diplomatic messages, I do not think I should have waited so long before asking my colleagues to take the action which the right hon. Gentleman opposite clearly indicated that he was prepared to take and would take, if these provocations continued.
Mr. MacDONALD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not drag me in in the way that he is doing. He will remember a statement he made in this House in 1925 regarding that, and I do not want to raise it again. In any event, I hope he will not assume that I am in any way content that the ending of that dispatch should be carried out after the method with which the right hon. Gentleman has handled diplomacy during the last two years.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman, while wholly unable to justify the Soviet Government, wishes to be free to attack His Majesty's present Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Misrepresentation, absolutely!"] I certainly do not want to get into unnecessary controversy with the right hon. Gentleman, but on the fundamental point we are agreed. Such conduct as his right hon. Friend has described is intolerable. Such conduct as

631
his right hon. Friend has described, on the part of a Government which is represented here by a Mission, and which affects to be on normal relations with us, is conduct that no Government in this country will indefinitely tolerate. So far, we are agreed. That is all that I wish to say for the purpose of this discussion. I do not ask him to approve my action or my lack of it. We must earn keep our separate responsibility, but in matters of foreign affairs let us at least treasure our agreements.
I was saying that if we had had only to consider the internal situation in this country, if we had had only to consider the value to us of such diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia, I do not think I should have delayed so long to take such action as I have now taken—{Interruption]—but I, as the representative of His Majesty's Government, had to take a wider view. I have said our whole foreign policy has been directed to eliminate suspicion, to take away elements of disturbance, and to stabilise the peace of Europe and the world, and we have felt that a breach between us and Soviet Russia, once we had started these relations, must have its reaction on other countries, if taken suddenly or before the world saw what was the provocation, what the inevitability of it, and before the world was in a position to place the responsibility as the responsibility will lie, whenever this conies about, on the right shoulders, the shoulders of those who, riot content to work for the prosperity or the greatness of their own country, turn the main part of their effort in fomenting revolution in other countries. [An HON. MEMBER: "Churchill and Denikin!"]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr, James Hope): I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt. The Leader of the Opposition during his speech was heard with perfect restraint, and I must ask hon. Members to show the same restraint now.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: To act before we had given time for that evidence to become clear would have a very disturbing effect upon the European situation and would add to the troubles and the dangers of the world. It is difficult to discuss all the actions and reactions of international life in public without im-
632
pinging upon the politics of other countries and without, perhaps, supplying material for those who are not working for peace. The East of Europe has not yet secured the same measure of appeasement and stability as the West. Suspicions there are still very active; fears, mutual fears, in nearly every case are very alive. The Soviet Government has sought to convince all these countries that the policy of His Majesty's Government was to stir up trouble, to use them as instruments of an anti-Sovietic policy, to combine them and the great nations of Europe in a great anti-Sovietic bloc. Nothing could be further removed from the truth. Whenever I have talked to the representative of any foreign country upon these subjects, I have used the same language: "A actente between you and your neighbours would be welcome to His Majesty's Government. Any improvement in your relations serves the policy of His Majesty's Government, which is the policy of peace. You have no reason to fear from His Majesty's Government any suspicion, any resentment, or any ill-will, if you pursue a policy of peace with your neighbours."
There is not a shadow of foundation for that suspicion, which the Soviet Government first used as a weapon of controversy, and has at last, I really believe, persuaded itself is true. But it has its reaction upon the relations of the Soviet Government with the border States and with other nations further away from Russia. It creates uneasiness in those countries. I had before me a German paper a day or two ago, which, à propos of this very Note of ours, had an article from a correspondent, in the course of which it was stated that it was evident that there had been conversations between Warsaw and London, and that the Polish Government had undertaken obligations, not only of a political, but of a military character to this country. There is not the slightest foundation for that, as there has not been the slightest foundation for the other rumours to which I have alluded, but these rumours are dangerous; they do increase uneasiness; they have repercussions which, unless you are a careful student of foreign affairs, perhaps you hardly perceive; but they are the kind of imponderabilities which Bismarck indicated as being perhaps the

633
most weighty of all the considerations that you had to take into account when you took great political decisions.
Everybody knows that Soviet Russia did her best to prevent the Treaty of Locarno being signed, that Soviet Russia did her best to persuade the Germans not to come into the comity of Europe, not to resume friendly relations with their Western or Eastern neighbours, and that they did their utmost to persuade Germany not to come into the League of Nations, but to remain outside with Soviet Russia. You cannot have, whatever the provocation, whatever your own interests, a sudden breach between this country and Russia without its having its repercussions on the whole European situation. It is for that reason that I have urged upon His Majesty's Government patience and forbearance, under circumstances of continued provocation such as we have never endured of the hands of any other nation, such as, indeed, I believe there is no parallel for in the international relationships of any other two countries. But, Sir, if I have urged patience and forbearance, if impressed, as I am, with the seriousness, not for ourselves, but it may be for others, of a termination of our diplomatic relations, I have still always felt and always known that there are limits beyond which this patience cannot be carried.
6.0 p.m.
The Soviet reply to the Note of His Majesty's Government, misses the point. We have no desire, and we have made no attempt, to interfere with them within their own boundaries; we have carried on no diplomatic campaign against them in any part of the world; we have lived up, not merely to the letter, but to the fullest spirit of the mutual engagement which we undertook with them. What we ask of them is not that they shall change their domestic institutions, not that they shall refrain from preaching to their own people that their own institutions are superior to those which are preferred by the rest of the world, but that they shall henceforth make their policy conform to the ordinary comity of nations, and abstain from the effort to promote world revolution and from all interference in our internal affairs. It is not a mere verbal acceptance that we look for or that we can accept. It is acts of which
634
we complain, and it is to acts in future that we must look, to see whether there is any redress for this long series of outrages or whether the patience and forbearance which His Majesty's Government and this country and Empire have shown have been shown in vain and are any longer possible to continue. His Majesty's Government reserve to themselves the right to judge both as to the expediency of any step that can be contemplated, and the moment that step should be taken. We thought that before we proceeded to any extremity, it was right to call the world to witness the serious nature of the complaints which we have, and to give the Soviet Government one more opportunity to conform their conduct to the ordinary rules of international life and comity.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary assumed that I was waiting to lire my guns at him. As far as I am concerned, the statement made by him of the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards Russia in the latter part of his speech, struck me as extraordinarily wise, and, in so far as I am concerned, I fully endorse and support the general lines which the right hon. Gentleman indicated in the concluding sentences of his speech. I must say that it adds to my complexity in finding the reasons for sending that Note at this moment, especially the concluding paragraph. The concluding paragraph, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) pointed out, is a paragraph which contains a distinct threat. If that had been addressed to any other Government, it would have been regarded as an ultimatum. The words "severing diplomatic relations" are very grave words to use, and if those words had been addressed to France, Italy, the United States or Germany, they would have meant, at any rate, that His Majesty's Government were contemplating war against those countries, and I cannot conceive why, having regard to the very grave and very temperate statement made by the Secretary of State to-day, a, Note was sent, not calling attention to infringements—that I can understand—but concluding, with a paragraph which practically threatened the rupture of diplomatic relations. To that extent I am in agree-

635
ment with the right hon. Member for Hillhead. Either that paragraph ought never to have been included, or it ought to have been followed by further negotiations, or by action of some sort.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in all he said in his very grave words about the danger of a rupture with Soviet Russia, having regard to the present condition of the world. It would have repercussions in Asia and in Europe of a very grave character indeed. Lord Balfour called attention to that in his great speech in the House of Lords, in July last, upon this situation, and I thought that meant that the Government had definitely made up their mind not to address a minatory note to the Russian Government. It is serious, not merely from the point of view of trade, but from the point of view of increasing the disturbances of the world. It undoubtedly affects trade. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures of the trade between ourselves and Soviet Russia, he will find how these threats are affecting the amount of business which is done by Russia with us. The right hon. Member for Hillhead—I am sorry he is not in his place—rather depreciated the value of that trade. May I give some of the figures They bear on the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. In 1920 our trade with Russia was £3,000,000. In 1921, the year of the Agreement, it ran up to £10,000,000. In 1922, it went up to £17,000,000—I am using round figures—and in 1923 it was £17,000,000. In 1924, it went up to £45,000,000, and in 1925 to £67,000,000. In 1926 it went down to £41,000,000—the relations were getting worse.
When you come to the purchases of the Soviet Government in this country, they vary according to the relations for the time being between the Government of the day and that Government. In 1922, the relations were fairly good, and in that year the Soviet purchases in Great Britain were £11,000,000. In 1923, we had considerable difficulty with Russia, and there was an ultimatum delivered. The purchases went down to £6,000,000; afterwards they went up. Last year there were difficulties again, and down come the purchases from £35,000,000 to £16,000,000. All these diplomatic4isturbances have their effect upon the course of trade The right hon. Member for
636
Hillhead said that America is doing just as good business with the Soviet Republic as we are, in spite of the fact that they have not got an agreement. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition gave a certain answer, but it was not in the course of his argument, and it was rather diverting him from his general argument. But I would like to point out two or three differences. In the first place, America has never been at war with Russia as we have been. Therefore, a, definite act of peace was essential before we could trade with Soviet Russia. The second difference is this. If the House will look at the figures of the goods which were sent from America to Russia, they will find that a very considerable proportion for two or three years consisted of famine goods. That is not true with regard to the last year, but in the previous years the goods were famine goods. That, undoubtedly, created a very goon feeling and sentiment, in Russia towards America.
The third reason is that American banks concede credit to Russia in a way our banks do not, and so, while the American Government have not recognised Russia, American dollars have recognised Russia, and have got their trade agreement with Russia. The same with regard to Germany. German banks are giving credit to Russia, and the German Government have guaranteed about 60 per cent. of that credit. There is a new credit which has been created to the extent of about £15,000,000 for the purpose of purchasing German goods for Russia inside Germany. So that, therefore, the attitude of the Governments of those countries cowards Russia has a great effect upon trade with Russia. Trade with Russia is different from trade with any other country, because practically the only purchaser is the Government itself. Your diplomatic representatives are not merely diplomats; they are also traders, and if there be ill-will and a rupture between the Soviet Government and the representatives of another country, it must necessarily affect trade.
There was one observation made by the right hon. Gentleman which, I thought, was very searching, and which, I think, it is worth his while pursuing a little further. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were mutual suspicions and fears. Now that is a side of this busi-

637
ness to which we have not given sufficient attention. It is a side of this business which we have not taken sufficiently into account. The right hon. Gentleman says that in Russia there is suspicion, and that they endeavoured to persuade Germany not to enter into the Locarno Treaty. Why? They were under the impression that the Locarno Treaty was purely an effort to get the Western Powers to federate against them. Was there absolutely no ground for that? Was there not a speech delivered by an Under-Secretary in that particular Government which practically said so? We are not distinguishing in Russia between Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries. There are some men who are more important there, and some men who are more insignificant, but when we want to quote something against Russia, we give equally the same importance to the small men as to the big men. They are probably doing the same thing there. They quote a speech by an. Under-Secretary of State here, suggesting that this was a movement against Russia, and that is published in the whole of the Russian papers. How can you complain, therefore, if they think that Locarno was simply an attempt to work up a confederacy against Russia? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether even more important colleagues of his are not responsible? At any rate, in days when some of us were responsible, including even the first Ministry of the present Prime Minister, no Secretary of State or Minister of importance made speeches attacking the Russian Government after the Agreement was signed.
That very good tradition has been departed from completely. Ministers of the greatest consequence, Ministers of great influence who have prodominant power inside the Government, have been delivering attacks, not, against Communist principles, not against Bolshevist ideas, but against the Bolshevist Government, describing the Bolshevist Government as a junta of assassins and thieves. The question is not whether they are, but whether, if you are going to have diplomatic relations with them, you ought to attack them in that way. I can understand the attitude of the hon. and gallant Member. He says, "Break with them," but if he were Secretary of State, until there was a break, he would feel that decency compelled him, at any rate,
638
not to attack them. If you are going to take up a position of that kind, your business is to put an end to diplomatic relations. You cannot invite a man to come and buy at your stores, and ask for facilities to buy at his shop, and then go into the street and call him a murderer, an assassin and a thief. The man who is guilty of conduct of that kind is a mental case.
Just think of the speeches delivered recently by men who are pretty well known in Russia. There is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has the Order of the Grand Cross for supplying the Red Army with munitions—[An HON. MEMBER: "No"]—through the White Army. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been delivering speeches which are certainly very improper to deliver against a country with whom you are officially on good relations. Those are speeches which certainly ought not to be delivered unless you break. The language is violent language, and it is obviously directed against the Government, and he says so—against those who are sitting in the Kremlin. He has said so in so many words. And so has Lord Birkenhead been delivering speeches of that kind. France has relations with Russia, Italy has relations with Russia, Germany has relations with Russia, practically every country in Europe now has relations with Russia. I put this to the Prime Minister, who is really responsible for his colleagues—I mean some of them—and I condole with him of course, I have had some experience—I ask the Prime Minister whether in the case of either France, Germany, Italy, or any of these great Powers, although they are thoroughly anti-Bolshevik, he can quote a single illustration of a Minister, high or low, making speeches in public attacking the Soviet Government?
Whatever Signor Mussolini is, he is not a Bolshevik, he has no sympathy with Bolshevism, but I have not seen a speech by him or any of his Ministers attacking the Bolshevist Government. Whatever M. Poincare is, he certainly is not a Bolshevik. Someone—I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead—said this country was attacked because it was the steadiest and the most anti-Bolshevist country in the world. That is not true. France is very anti-Communist; it has had experience

639
of Communism, and it is rooted in its memory. No speech delivered by a single French Minister has made attacks of that kind. The same thing applies to Germany, though the German Government is also anti-Bolshevik, it is a Government which, on the whole, leans to the Right. I ask the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary whether, when you get these mutual suspicions, these mutual fears—rooted in events which are not so very long ago—it is right that Ministers of the Crown should be permitted to make speeches of that kind against a Government with which we are in official relations? It is humiliating, it is undignified, it is unworthy of a great country, and it is bound to be misused, affording an excuse for anything they do. I do not know whether Trotsky is a Minister or whether he is not, but I do not agree that either in appearance or in tradition or in determination the Home Secretary is quite like Trotsky.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Trotsky is an abler man!
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He is a different type of man. His abilities are of a different order. If Trotsky were to make attacks of that kind, or M. Stalin, or any of the other Ministers in Russia, we should have a right to complain. The right hon. Gentleman quotes newspapers in Russia. Has he quoted a newspaper which is supposed to be semi-official now, the "Morning Post"? The "Morning Post" has run away from its old position now that the Government have taken up their present line. Its truculence is always the truculence of the fainthearted. When it comes right up against it, it is not going to put an end to recognition, it will not determine the Trade Agreement, but what does it propose? The right hon. Gentleman complains that the Soviet Government are under the impression that we are organising a Federation of Europe against them. Would he mind reading the "Morning Post" article this morning—if he can find time—reading the end of it? It is an appeal to Europe, practically inviting the Government to get a federation of that kind against Russia, and Russian Bolshevism. How can he complain, then, if Soviet Russia, with all its shades of revolution, and the darkness and the
640
suspicion of revolution, should come to the conclusion that we also are in a conspiracy with regard to her?
Therefore, I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not respond to the appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) in that able and powerful speech which he made. What did he suggest? Not so much a new agreement, but a response to the invitation of the Soviet Government to talk over these difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman could put all his case to them. Up to the present there is not overwhelming evidence in his Note. I have no doubt he has got a case about propaganda in China—in so far as the Press are concerned, it rests largely upon suspicion—but I am assuming that the Foreign Office have got direct evidence. All our evidence could be tabled for a discussion of that kind, and, on the other hand, the Soviet Government could put their ease, and we might clear up a great deal of misunderstanding between the two Governments. That does not mean a new Agreement, but it may mean a new spirit. One thing is quite clear, even from what is said on the other side. There is one fundamental fact in favour of peace, and that is that it is to the interest of both countries to keep on good relations with each other. We are big purchasers from Russia. An hon. Member interrupted a speech to say that the goods Russia is selling us are the goods which nobody else wants. The more we prove that the stronger the case in favour of continuing relations, because it means they have a direct interest in keeping on good terms with us. Anybody who reads their reply can see that. Undoubtedly, they say to the right hon. Gentleman, "Break your Agreement and take the consequence," but it is quite clear they do not want to break it; they want to carry on. It is to their interest to tarry on, and it is to our interest to carry on, and, if there is an interest on both sides to keep on good terms, why on earth should not we develop that until at least we get peace between the two countries, and real peace?
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary nor with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead that there have not

641
been improvements. He very fairly said that when we signed the Agreement the anticipation was that we should not get an immediate improvement, but that it would he gradual. No one can doubt that there is improvement; the mere fact of an increase in trade proves it. No business has been clone by traders with Russia where they have not been paid. I have never heard of a single case. All that is improving the relations. Why do those who are so anxious to break the Trade Agreement shrink from doing it? It is because they know the traders of this country do not want to break with Russia.
So much for the right hon. Gentleman. But what about the "Diehards"? What hats happened with regard to them? When they thought it was perfectly safe to urge the Government to break with Russia, and to get credit for appearing to be very brave, then they were gallant; But the moment they came face to face with the reply of the Soviet Government saying, "Take the consequences" they all fled. [Interruption.] Well, we shall see to-night. We will give them a chance. There are, I believe, tens if not scores of them. We know that the hen. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are rabbits. We have been told so upon high authority—from among their own supporters. We knew it before! They ran away from Evan Williams last year, and if they lied from a Welsh terrier well, naturally, they are frightened by a great red Russian bear. But what about these hon. Members themselves? They are lions. Their roar has been deafening—until recently. Now it is a little muffled squeal—the moment they come right up against it. I would like to know whether these lions will really give full expression to their views in the Division Lobby, or whether we shall see them march into the rabbit hutch, with their little white tails bobbing homage to Moscow. Div hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson), upon whose speech on the subject I had the pleasure of congratulating him, said the other day, "The Government should say to Russia, Own up, pay up, shut up!'" Now he seems to have given that order to his own friends tonight. Is he really going—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give us a chance!"] There is plenty of time; and I shall watch the
642
Division, too; that is the real test. We will see what is done there. Then there is their Press. I have never seen anything like the attacks made upon the Government. It shocked me. Such language!—by the Diehard Press, the Conservative Press:
"As a display of feebleness and 'funk' Sir Austen Chamberlain's long heralded Note.... will make the blood of every self-respecting Britain tingle in his veins…. We have heard a more formidable scolding given by an elderly lady to her Pekinese in Hyde Park."[Interruption.]
It is the "Daily Mail," the paper that broke off negotiations with the trade unions last year.
"They have talked of 'repercussions'"—
we heard it to-night—
"and 'disadvantages,' but more and more we are driven to the conclusion that it is manhood which the Government requires."
And then it says:
"Can it really be that the British lion is buried, and that our present Ministers have substituted for it as our national emblem the white rabbit?"
But as soon as the Soviet Government gave their reply, and said, "Take the consequences," this paper is just like the Pekinese referred to; it has hardly a yap left. Its only method of dealing with the Reds, which then was to turn them out, is now to say, "Put Haden Guest back!" That is the way to settle the Soviet Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite may have written it, and perhaps he will tell me what it means. There is an attack in another Conservative paper, the "Evening News" on the Foreign Secretary as follows:
"the proverbial dog with tallow legs being pursued through the nether regions by an asbestos cat is in better case than that fugitive hope."
That is brought in somehow in connection with the Government. The Government is the dog with the tallow legs and there is also the asbestos cat following them through the nether regions. Are hon Members really going to face fire, or are they going to be a wax cat and when they come in contact with fire is there going to be a shining blob? The same great newspaper, the "Evening News," a paper with a very large circulation, attacked the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. This is the paper that gave you the Zinovieff

643
letter. It attacks the Government and calls them mandarins. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman is sitting there in order to prevent the gallant Die-hard army marching across his territory to destroy the Bolshevists, and I hope he is ashamed of himself. The Bolsheviks put themselves right up against this position and said, "Break the agreement and take the consequences," and then the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman all fled. The "Daily Mail," the "Evening News," the "Morning Post," and most of those Die-hard gentlemen who have been conspiring for the last few days and months in order to intimidate this poor Government would then be doing something better than anything they have perpetrated before and that is saying a good deal. All these things have been tried and they have completely exploded these Bolshevik agitations. In this way the Government are trying to renew the triumph of the last election. The red herrings sold well then, but what is happening now? Here is a great attempt being made to renew that triumph, but they cannot do it again. You cannot recharge a cracked bomb, which is what they are trying to do. The Government are trying to put it off and off until there is a more opportune moment to do it, but the country will say when it is again attempted, "Why did you not do it at the time when you said there was overwhelming evidence, and you had all sorts of reports; why did you not do it then instead of allowing the centre of infection to remain for a couple of years?" I am glad that, for the time being, this Note has created a disturbance in Europe which is reflected in the Foreign Press, not merely in France, but in Germany and Italy as well as in Russia and in all the small countries. I am glad this has been done when it can do the least harm, because the country will realise that this is an attempt once more to repeat a triumph which was scored over a scare at the last election.
Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have listened with great interest to this Debate, and I am much obliged to the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken for the genial advertisement they have given me and my cause. I am par-
644
ticularly grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for advertising our need for money, because we do want money to support us. Ours is not an attack on sums subscribed out of patriotic English pockets, but on public moneys coming from Moscow. I am sorry that our letter which the right hon. Gentleman received began "Dear Madam," but the feminine way in which he treated the subject may have justified that. Anyhow, we are very grateful for the publicity this movement has been given, and I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr, Lloyd George) for what he has said, and he will see later on exacly how we vote. I would like to say at the outset that I shall feel happier in the Lobby with my hon. Friends opposite than with anybody else, and it is the duty of Die-hards—I am not one myself—to try to force to the front the views we hold, not with the object of destroying the Government, but in order to make known what we believe to be public opinion.
I welcome the Note, for this reason. It proves that at last the Government realises the depth of feeling produced in the country by the continuance of Soviet interference in our midst. I read that Note with a palpitating heart. I read the early protesting paragraphs joyfully hoping to find that, instead of ending in smoke this document would conclude by a deliberate breach with those who have broken with us; I confess that I was disappointed when I found that its early brave words degenerated into the feeblest of official bleats. The Soviet was invited, after unheard of injury and insolence, not to be so naughty again. If this Note was to have been sent at all then the same spirit should have breathed through every letter of it. Better have a milder beginning if you are going to have a mild end. Better a live sparrow than a stuffed eagle.
It is difficult to see exactly what purpose the Government can have thought this Note would serve. They could not have imagined that it would stop subversive propaganda. For this Note does not stand alone. After all it is only one of many. It is the Benjamin of a long brood of brothers, all of them stillborn, and to-day this Note itself is dead.

645
It is indeed worse than useless, for it revives the problem without resolving it, and in so doing it proclaims to the world that the British Empire is ready to swallow almost any humiliation lying down. Its practical and instant effect is even more lamentable. It drew out a rejoinder from the Soviet Government and once again you have started that wrangling and jangling between England and Moscow which was so notable in the days of Lord Curzon. This reply to our Note, when we look into it, is highly unsatisfactory, because there is no apology in the Note whatsoever, and no contrition even foreshadowed. It is simply an amalgam of insult and evasion, and we stand measurably and obviously more humiliated as a result of that Note and our grievances are increased. May I add also that the arguments in favour of breaking with the Soviet are greatly increased, and that we are approaching the time when we must say "good-bye" to these false friends.
I listened carefully to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other speeches in which the observations of Ministers were quoted. We were told that these Ministers had said infamous things against the Soviet. But one distinction at least, there is, namely, that whereas some of our Ministers may have used strong language against Russia, the Soviet has not only used strong language, hut has indulged in strong action against us throughout the British Empire. If hon. Members really want to know our position, they ought to remember the catalogue of her crimes against us. Alone among all our associates in the War, Russia has repudiated her debt to us of £700,000,000. She then expropriated our nationals to the tune of £200,000,000 of private property, and not satisfied with that she ill-treated and imprisoned some of them and drove many of them forth into abject and undeserved penury.
Mr. TAYLOR: Russia recognised those liabilities.
Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Russia did nothing of the sort, and she has not paid us one single farthing.
Mr. WALLHEAD: You have not given her a chance.
Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: We are going to give them a chance by turning them out, and then let them come back on the terms of the full payment of these debts. Not only that, but, alone of all our Allies, in the War, they signed a Treaty behind our backs which prolonged the War our nearly two years, and they murdered our diplomatic representative, on holy ground, in the Embassy in Petrograd.
Mr. WALLHEAD: They did not.
Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member was not there, and, unfortunately—
Mr. WALLHEAD: It was denied by a Member of this House who was there.
Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Gentleman says that a Member of this House made a speech and said he was there. That hon. Member, however, was not there at all; he was not even at the Front when we were fighting, let alone in the Embassy, where there was danger and difficulty.
Mr. WALLHEAD: Why did you not say so at the time?
Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: I did say so. I wanted to reply, but was not allowed to intervene because it was a maiden speech. I would like to rehearse those calamities; it is quite obvious how great and damaging they are. We had all these claims and all these grievances against the Soviet, and in 1921, we entered into a Trade Agreement with them. I think that showed a most magnanimous readiness for oblivion on our part. In that year, Unionists voted for the Trade Agreement, Liberals voted for it, the Labour party voted for it, and we did our best, in the belief that trade was necessary, to try to get back to friendly relations with that important State. But we know—it is no longer worth repeating—that the main condition of that Agreement of 1921, that the Soviet would not indulge in propaganda against the British Empire, has been broken repeatedly, and broken recently; and I would say to His Majesty's Government, "How many more times do you want it broken? How much longer are you going to leave England tied to this fraudulent partner? Has not the time come to rip up this

647
Agreement into ribbons?" These are my views, and, I believe, the views of more people in the country than His Majesty's Government care to remember. [Interruption.] I think that if we tested it we could prove that we have a clear majority, and I should like to see a referendum on that subject in the country.
Hardly had this Trade Agreement been entered into when the Labour party, being in office, granted even fuller recognition to the Soviet. It had already the right to bring in a representative for commercial purposes, with diplomatic rights, and that representative was given the right to bring in a body of men who could carry with them sealed bags. But all over again these same rights were renewed to other diplomatic representatives of the Soviet; twice over they were granted, and to this day those rights run in duplication. Double privileges of recognition in England are given to the Soviet. They were never given to our Dominions overseas, they were denied to our Allies, like France, but we have flung them to a fraudulent Republic that has broken its promise. It may be true, that no one has been appointed in the place of M. Krassin, and that in other ways the opportunity of a double enjoyment of those rights is mitigated: but, if His Majesty's Government have not allowed anybody to be appointed in M. Krassin's place, is not that an admission that we are right? Does it not mean that the Government agree with us? All that I would ask them is, if they agree privately with us, why should not they agree openly?
Hardly had these additional diplomatic facilities been granted to the Soviet, when the Labour Party made another suggestion. They offered £100,000,000 of hard-earned English money to the Soviet. The Soviet had abolished capital; they had told us that capital was no good at all that it was vile and vicious; and yet, apparently, the Soviet wanted some of our British capital to carry on with. That was the suggestion of the Labour Government when they were in office. As we know, the issue went to the polls and was tested at an election which returned a large Unionist majority against the grant of any more money to Moscow. [Interruption.] An hon. Member refers
648
to the Zinovieff letter. Yes, that also came in during the election, and it won for the Unionist party many votes, and quite rightly so. People say that the Zinovieff letter was a forgery. I notice that, whenever Communist documents happen to get out which are secret and which it is not desired to publish, we are always told that they are forgeries. Whether it was a forgery or not, the Zinovieff letter was identical with dozens of other documents issued by Moscow. It bore the hall-mark of Cain, and many similar documents hare been issued by similar people of note.
The effect of that was to give a large majority to the Government which is now in power. Would it not have been right if the Government then and there, after that General Election, had obeyed the desire of the country and had withdrawn recognition from the. Soviet? I would point out that they did nothing of the sort; they remained in the closest diplomatic relationship with the Soviet, and what has the result been? The result has been calamity ever since. Ever since we refused to purge England of the scarlet fever, we have suffered untold disaster. I need not remind the House of what is known as the general strike. People are afraid to talk about the general strike, but I 1111 not in the least afraid. I see that it is spoken of by some of its apostles as the first general strike. My view is tl at it was no strike at all, but an instalment of revolution. It was an act of anarchy which owed very little to tie brains or initiative of people here in England. But what a chance it was for His Majesty's Government to "turn out the Reds," to use words in common parlance. How easy it would have been then, and what a good reason there was—since a junta, if I may be allowed that expression, of self-appointed commissars here in England were trying to usurp the functions of government themselves. That was the opportunity for His Majesty's Government to cut the cable between this country and Communism in Moscow.
That strike was followed by the longest lockout in our history. I do not wish to revive, and would not dream of reviving, any bitter feelings in this relation, but we know that this struggle was prolonged by the charity of Moscow. We know that it might have ended on better

649
terms but for the influence and the interference of one man who was the tool of Moscow, and we have to ask ourselves, is it right for one country to interfere in the affairs of another? Personally, I hold that it may be legitimate for individuals to do what they like in the way of supporting friends of theirs in another country; it may even be right for a corporation to do so; but it cannot be right for one State to interfere in the domestic troubles of another; it cannot be tolerable that one State should advance money for subversive purposes, or even for a strike in another State. If people think it right that the Soviet should advance money to support miners in a strike in England, I would like to ask, would it be wrong for Signor Mussolini's Government to advance money to support mineowners in a similar contest? The truth is that it is grossly wrong in both cases.
This attack on the staple industry of coal has been shifted to another industry, that of cotton, and we see the Soviet launching a final assault upon a far-distant British outpost in China. I happen to know the frontiers of China and Russia. Those frontiers march side by side, and nothing is easier than for the Russian Government to send any troops, any propagandists, into China; but it is incredibly mean to stir up racial enmities in China. We know the position in China perfectly well. There you have an ancient State breaking down into its elementary fragments, and these not yet re-grouping into a coherent whole. Thrilling through these elements there is a longing, and a right one, for nationality and self-determination; and along come the Bolshevists and attempt to divert these national longings into an anti-English channel of hatred. It will be observed that Bolshevism is not a healer. Bolshevism is a splitter. Bolshevism goes anywhere it can to foment trouble, to nourish strife. It does not exist to placate friend or foe, nor to make men better or brothers. Let the vaguest resentment lurk anywhere, let the smallest trouble exist, there the Bolshevists will pour in their poison in order that a wound may fester, in order that a sore may spread.
But the worst element in the attack on China, is that the same red roubles
650
which have gone out to China to mass Chinese against English, are being sent also to England to subsidise the villianous campaign of "Hands off China." The scarlet hand of the Soviet is busy at one end of the earth driving innocent Chinese at British throats, and at the other end of the earth it is pulling us back and weakening our efforts to defend the homes of our people in the Far East. I think the time has come, not when we should encourage any cry of "Hands off China," but when the Government should give us a lead and go out on a policy of "Hands off England." The Prime Minister, not long ago, made a speech in defence of peace. It was a noble utterance on behalf of peace. He pleaded for peace in our time. Has that prayer been answered. I would like to point out that no prayers for peace are sufficient; if you want peace you must fight for it. [Interruption.] There is a Biblical verse beginning:
"There is no peace for the wicked."
7.0 p.m.
Indeed what right have the wicked to peace, what right has wrong-doing to any form of peace; and, when we speak of peace, what sort of peace do we mean? Do we mean peace at any price; peace at the price of British honour and prestige; peace which leaves the British Empire just the football of these fiends? Do we mean a peace which entitles every outcast of the underworld to wipe his boots upon the Union Jack? That is not the sort of peace we want. The olive branch may be an admirable weapon for communities which are civilised, but for the anthropoid apes of the Bolshevik jungle give me the big stick, yes, and the bigger boot.
Mr. LANSBURY: In the speech to which we have just listened the hon. and gallant Member spoke about using the weapons of war in order to obtain peace. He talked about people who wanted to stir up strife. I would like to know whether hon. or tight hon. Gentlemen can put any other construction on what he said to-night than that he considers that whatever the Bolsheviks try to do they are totally unfit for people of his character to associate with at all. If they are what he describes them as being, or if they are what right hon. Gentlemen opposite have described them, then it is quite right that hon. Members should

651
come here and say, "Break relationships." To expect men of whom he talks in this sort of fashion to have anything but unfriendly feelings, is to expect more of human nature than any of us are entitled to expect. There are one or two things I would like to clear up with regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He said the Russian Government, and those in control, have robbed and plundered a large number of our nationals and sent them here to live in penury and want, and that the Russian Government have made no attempt or proposals for dealing with these personal debts. I cannot help but think that the hon. and gallant Member knows that that statement is quite inaccurate. He knows perfectly well that the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Ponsonby) did, after very hard work, made ever so much more difficult because of the opposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends, arrive at an agreement to discuss with the Soviet Government how best they could meet the claims made upon them by the British nationals, and it was only by the aid of the lying propaganda of the Tory caucus that that proposition was defeated.
He has also this afternoon given utterance to the same old statement—I was going to characterise it as something worse—that all through the election the Labour Government desired to take £100,000,000 of hard-earned British gold and to give it to the Soviet Government. Everybody knows that is an absolutely untrue statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I repeat that everybody knows that is an absolutely untrue statement. No such proposition was put forward, and in no public documents could any hon. or right hon. Gentleman show that any such proposition was put before this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought really to consider a little before he makes statements of that kind. Opinions are another matter altogether. He said he would like a referendum taken on this subject. As a matter of fact, if you like to take the General Election figures, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches only represent a minority of the nation. You are a million down on the votes as counted, and it is only the accident of our electoral system that enables the Government to be in office. That is a fact also which I chal-
652
lenge anyone truthfully to deny. At every by-election at least during the last year, and all the by-elections which have been fought, the overwhelming majority of votes have been against the Government. You have no more right to take Liberal votes and add them to your's than we have. The Liberal point of view is not your point of view. We are not going to be told that there is a Coalition. The Government have been in a minority, and where seats have been won the Labour party has won them by an overwhelming majority. The Stourbridge electors gave their verdict on China and the Labour party policy.
I would like to ask the House to-night to try to realise what this country is that we are talking about. There has been a great deal of personal talk about the rulers of Bolshevist Russia, and a great many complaints as to what the rulers and others have said about the rulers of Great Britain. The question has been asked: Why is it that Great Britain comes in for so much censure and hatred, at least as expressed in words from those in authority in Russia? If you consider the history of this country, and if you consider what has happened in the relationships between ourselves and Soviet Russia since the revolution, you will get the answer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman never tires of telling us of his services in Russia after the revolution. He never takes the trouble to tell us how often the British troops were used in order to head back the Socialist revolution in Russia; how often our troops and our munitions and all the apparatus of war were used against the Bolsheviks in Russia. He has never attempted to justify, and no one else in this House up to the present has attempted to justify, the flagrant breach of international law which took place when the Soviet Government was struggling to get order in Russia and Great Britain poured troops and money into Russia in support of the counter revolution. That has never been explained, and it cannot be explained. It cannot even be defended.
It has been said that in this controversy the Bolshevist Government started out in opposition to the British Government. It was the British Government that started out in opposition to the Soviet Government. It is well known. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd

653
George) put it on record in this House, when the question came for carrying on the intervention, that no other country would stand with us in that intervention, and, therefore, Great Britain had to give it up. Great Britain was the last to go out. Then, after we came out, the right hon. Gentleman who has now left the House, had correspondence with the counter revolutionists, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, much much better than I know, poured in money and soldiers and wealth in order to defeat the Soviet Revolution. All that being so, it is nonsense at this time of day for anyone to say, "What villians these Bolshevists are," because they dislike Members of the British Government. I want to say this. I have visited Russia twice. I do not claim to have anything like the knowledge of Russia that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has, but I do have this advantage, that I was in that country when the people were suffering from the awful cordon sanitaire that was set round Russia by the civilised nations of Europe. I was in Russia when a British soldier had to undergo an operation for the loss of an eye without any anæsthetic at all, because of the cruel and bloodthirsty boycott of the Western nations. I was in Copenhagen when the first Red Cross Expedition was allowed to go into Russia in March, 1920. Up to that time, the Red Cross Society, which is supposed to be the society which takes care of the wounded and injured in any war, were forbidden to cross the frontier. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it, and when he stands here to-day and talks about the brutality of other people, it is time we cleared our minds of cant and humbug and condemned ourselves for our abominable treatment of these people. There can be nothing more barbarous than to refuse medicine to those in need of it. No one can deny that that is so. I should not speak of these things if had not seen them. I was in Russia last year, and I travelled—[Laughter]. That laughter shows the mentality of hon. Members, and, when one of their own countrymen had to undergo an operation and have his eye taken out, he was denied the benefit of an anæsthetic, because of the cordon sanitaire put round Russia by Britain and France.
Mr. SKELTON: If I smiled, unfortunately I was not listening to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. LANSBURY: That also is worthy of the mentality, and it accounts for the ignorant manner in which they cast their votes.
Mr. SPEAKER: We have listened to the expression of strong feeling from many points of view in A very orderly manner, and I think we might continue?
Mr. LANSBURY: I recall these facts to the House, because of the manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman and others denounced the leaders of Soviet Russia. Last year I travelled something like 2,500 miles in one direction in Soviet Russia. People forget that that country is one-sixth of the world, and has 140,000,000 people. We have been talking about them and their welfare tonight. We have been discussing whether it is worth while that we should have relations with them. I met peasants in the Northern Caucasus who were terrified at what was going to happen this Springtime in regard to war on the Polish frontier, and were terrified at what may happen if there comes once more the curse of war to their country. Everyone I spoke to thought that Great Britain is doing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said he knew we were suspected of doing, that is, egging on the smaller nations to combine in order to stop the development of Soviet Russia. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you deny that?"] I am not the Foreign Secretary of this Government, God forbid! and I have no authority to deny it. But I know perfectly well, from speeches made in this House and the action taken by previous British Governments, what the attitude of mind is of the Tory party towards Russia, and I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no truth in those statements.
In conclusion, I would ask the House to consider this. Russia, in my lifetime, has been accounted an enemy of this country more years than she has been accounted a friend. It is often repeated in this House what British soldiers have done. Out on the slopes of the Crimea there are the graves of British soldiers who died in a war to prevent Russia getting through to the warm water via

655
Constantinople. A few hours' journey away, on the slopes of Gallipoli—I expect this too is a matter of amusement to hon. Members opposite—there are the graves of thousands of Anzacs and others who died in order that Russia might go into Constantinople. I should like to ask the statesmen in this House, and I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson), do any of you imagine that if you restore Tzardom in Russia that will make for peace in Europe? Do any of you imagine that with a Tsar again on the throne, they will forget that in the days of the war you promised them Constantinople? Will they forget what you promised them about Poland, and do you imagine that they would allow the whole of the Baltic seaboard to be taken away from them, as it has been? You know perfectly well that the most potent measure for bringing about a big disturbance in Europe would be the restoration to Tsardom in Russia, and because that is so, you ought to find a way out with the Soviet Government. You told them time and time again they were going to be swept out. Every time you told them that they grew stronger and stronger. No one to-day imagines that there is any Power in Europe that can overthrow them. No one imagines to-day that you can replace them. I am certain they will themselves modify their system. I am sure they will themselves discover that they must have friendly relationships with the world, and my position to-night, in common with my friends, is that we are dissatisfied with the Foreign Secretary's statement because he neither breaks with them nor carries on with them. That is an impossible position. He either ought to take the advice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and tear up the Agreement or he should call Russian representatives into consultation—I hope the Soviet Government would send their very best man here to negotiate—and put before him in clear and simple language what it is we complain of, and what it is we want them to do in order that peace may be restored between us. As to debts, the right hon. Gentleman has forgiven France a huge portion of her debt. When you talk about what Russia owes, think of what all the other civilised nations owe
656
you, and think how much they have paid. I should like to see us call on the Russian people to send to this country a representative who could negotiate these things. The only point of settlement that is worth while is recognising the people of Russia. Remember that up to now at least they have acquiesced in a system that you detest but which you have no right to alter. The only way you can defeat Communist propaganda is by removing the causes that make men fall to that propaganda.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I know I am suspected in certain quarters of an illicit affection for the Soviet Government. I have no such affection, although I confess to a sneaking desire to sell them as many cured herrings as they are prepared to buy for cash. I do not see, and never have seen, why this question of Russia should be made the subject of purely party controversy in this country. I admire very much, although I do net agree with all he says, the way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Handsworth in the conduct of this campaign he has been carrying out to clear the Reds out of the country has never made a pasty question of it. Indeed most of his strictures have fallen upon His Majesty's Government. Whenever you mention the word "Russia" in this House it appears to galvanise hon. Members above the Gangway into a white heat of fury, and I could never understand why. Do they suppose that they have Socialism in Russia? If they do, all I can say is they must have a very poor opinion of Socialism. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) himself, in one of his vivid nightmares, could ever conceive of a system so fantastic as the one that has been imposed upon the wretched Russian people. They hate the Labour party as a whole, and the feelings they entertain for the Leader of the Opposition I could hardly repeat. Compared with what they think of him, they entertain feelings of warm affection for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary. Therefore I never understand, and I do not think I shall ever understand, why the Labour party should get so heated when the subject of Russia comes up. I do not think the internal conduct of Russia really concerns us except in one aspect. They really

657
must have their own Government, and deal with their own internal problems. It is no affair of ours. But we are very much concerned with their external affairs, and with all they have been doing to us in the last few years. This agitation by the hon. Member for Handsworth, and the Note, and the whole publicity that has been given to the business have cleared the mists away.
It is no good concealing from ourselves the fact that the main object of Russian policy for the past three years, a policy which they have pursued with great tenacity and determination, has been the destruction by any possible means of the British Empire and of the Christian religion, and find it difficult to listen with patience to the hon. Member who spoke last talking about Russians and the Soviet Government. With such a policy there can be no compromise. It may be the great battle of the twentieth century, and if these people are really out to destroy the greatest combination of free nations the world has ever seen, resting on a foundation of justice, freedom, and individual liberty, and the greatest religion the world has ever seen, we shall have to resist it by every means in our power, and resist it to the end. But that does not necessarily affect the question of the diplomatic methods that we ought to pursue. There are other considerations, such as the tendencies that are at work within Russia and in other parts of the world, which must weigh very heavily upon our hearts. Last year the Russians attempted to subsidise the general strike, believing it was a revolutionary movement directed against our constitution, and that is unparalleled in history. However, at the time we were too much concerned with our own affairs to bother very much about it. But since then more serious things have happened. I wonder if Members of the Labour party—I wonder if the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)—would deny that for the last nine months the Russian Government has fomented by money and propaganda and by every means they can anti-British feeling in China with the avowed object of driving our people out.
Mr. LANSBURY: I am not in a position because I have no official connection with the Russian Government, but that is certainly a question which in my judg-
658
ment the Foreign Secretary, if he believes it, should put to the representative of the Russian Government in this country.
Mr. BO0THBY: I only ask the hon. Member because I understood he was in close relationship with the Soviet Government, and that he had friends in Russia who might have denied that fact. When I was there in April, Mr. Radek told me that having abandoned his attempts at propaganda in Europe, he proposed to concentrate the whole of his attention on China, and he has formed a university in Moscow for the training of Chinese students in the gospel of Marxian Socialism so that they can be sent back to China to propagate it there, and he said we ought to abandon all our rights in China and clear out. That was his policy and the policy of the Russian Government. Obviously we are not going to agree with that policy, and it is clearly a violation of the Trade Agreement. As long as we know where we are we can argue about the merits of the thing, but it is as well to have all these things cleared up, and we had to protest and we have protested.
May I deal for a moment with the internal position in Russia as it affects us at present. There are one or two considerations I should like to ask the House to weigh in their minds before reaching a decision. The first is that we are dealing with a revolutionary Government in a revolutionary situation. Therefore, it is a wholly abnormal Government. You cannot treat them as you would treat any other Government. When the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that it was an unprecedented Note which we had sent, and one which would be treated as a very grave affair had it been sent to the French, German or Italian Government, I reply, "Yes, but we are dealing with an unprecedented people and with an unprecedented Government, and we have to deal with them in an unprecedented way." We must send them a Note of this character and we must deal with them in this way, because they are quite abnormal.
These people are actuated by many motives, and from my brief acquaintance with them I believe that their dominating motive is the reeling that they must not, be driven from power; that they must keep office at any cost. They feel that

659
they must hold on, because if they fail they will not go into opposition. I will not speculate where they will go if they fail, but it certainly will not be into opposition. Therefore, they feel that they must cling to power at any cost and use any methods to preserve their own power at home. That is their dominating motive. A second consideration is that the situation in Russia is changing with an almost kaleidoscopic rapidity. It changes from day to day. It is almost impossible for anybody to judge what the position is at any moment in Russia unless they are actually in Moscow at the time. I think that, on the whole, the tide is very slowly, with certain setbacks going in the right direction, but that is merely a matter of personal opinion. That changes are taking place in every sphere bf Russian life and that the whole position is in a state of flux, cannot, I think, be disputed.
A third point which we have to consider is the organisation of the Russian State, the Soviet State. Hon. Members know that there is at the top the Politbureau, which consists of nine of the most vehement Bolsheviks, who are in effective control. They control the Third International, which conducts the whole of the propaganda. They are in complete control of the whole situation both inside and outside Russia in regard to propaganda. They are the men who control the thing, and underneath there are the people who are actually organising and running the country itself, the Commissars, but they are not members of the Politbureau. That is a very important point to consider, because I think there is a split and a growing split between the Commissars and the Politbureau which may one day materialise into something very useful and very helpful. The Commissars who are running this enormous country, not only the political organisation but the whole trade of the country, such as it is, and the whole economic organisation of the Government, are doing it in the teeth of the monstrous system that has been imposed upo them by the Politbureau from above. The marvel to me is how they keep the thing going at all.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Moscow sees a country with enormous resources, extraordinarily rich in oil,
660
manganese, timber, grain, minerals: one of the richest stretches of country in the world, of vast extent and prodigious potentialities. He knows that there is only one thing required to develop the country and to raise the standard of life all over the country, and that one thing is capital. He knows that he could get that capital under certain conditions, but he is prevented from doing so by the Politbureau. I wonder how he can manage at all. He has to restrict exports, cut down wages, close down factories. He is compelled to do these things not of his own volition, not because of any wish of his own, but he has to do them because the Politbureau prevents him doing otherwise.
I tell the House frankly that I am basing all my hopes on the strike of the Commissars. I think they will ultimately rebel against the intolerable burden that is imposed upon them from above. Death would be preferable to the conditions under which the Commissars are working at the present time. They are working 18 hours a day. They are snowed under by an avalanche of orders which effect no purpose whatsoever. There is the remorseless clicking of a million typewriters, click! click! click! all the day. It is a case of bureaucracy absolutely run amok and achieving no purpose whatever. It is driving these men clean out of their minds; they are all overtired. They have nervous breakdowns at frequent intervals. All the while, the Politbureau sits in the Kremlin, talking, talking, talking, arguing about Marx, talking about the proletariat, setting up a new proletariat frequently. They make up for the rest, who are shot if they talk. There is a new proletariat every month, and yet they are never able to make up their minds what the proletariat are. Nevertheless, the wretched Commissars have new instructions issued to them at frequent intervals, and they have to govern the country and a new set of people every two or three months. Talk is nothing new in Russia. The Politbureau is a talking bureau, they have talked for years and years. The members of the Politbureau are the lineal descendants of the Nihilists, with whom anyone who has any acquaintance with Russian literature must be acquainted.

661
The final thing which We must remember is that these people are suffering from what the psycho-analysts call the inferiority complex. They admire us. They regard us as much more powerful and much more stable than the United States of America, and they say that we are richer. I did not contradict them. In the attitude which they are taking they resemble a dog of uncertain parentage casting an eye of admiration upon the British bulldog, overcome with admiration and fear, and indulging in yap, yap, yap! All the time, the British bulldog stands foursquare and occasionally emits a growl, and now the growl has become a snarl and, like the dog, they are getting frightened. Are they going to yap any longer, or are they going to chuck it? Are they getting a little too frightened and will they stop their yapping? That is the fundamental issue before the House to-night.
The hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) and other hon. Members have frequently urged that we should break the Trade Agreement with Russia; that we should have a rupture. I think the hon. and gallant Member made a very powerful speech to-day, but it would have been more powerful if it had been directed against the Trade Agreement of 1921. He quoted all the iniquitous things that the Bolsheviks did in 1918 and 1920. Therefore, his speech would have been a very powerful speech had it been addressed to the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir Robert Home) before he signed the Trade Agreement in 1921: an agreement which I have never ceased to regard as a profound mistake. Now, the position is rather different, and we have to think what we should gain by a break with Russia. Supposing we ruptured the Trade Agreement at the present time, we should certainly increase the propaganda against us all over the world. Let there be no doubt about that. We should also lose a little trade, but that is not a very formidable argument. I do not think we should lose much, because we have not much. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the herrings?"] I am quite easy about the herring position.
There is a very formidable argument, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs put it before us this afternoon, against a break with Russia, and that is
662
the unsettled effect it would have upon world stability, of which there has been some signs since 1914. There is the effect which a break between ourselves and the Soviet Government would have upon the Baltic States, Germany and China, where our prestige, is high to-day: it could hardly be higher. That might have a very damaging effect upon world peace. No one is better able to judge of this point than the Foreign Secretary, and we must take his advice. A break might also a check the very slight and tortuous progress that is being made inside Russia. It might have a tendency to unite the Russian nationalists and the Russian extremists, and we might see Zinoviev and Kamaneff back again, and then we should be worse off than we were a year ago. Our knowledge is necessarily inadequate in regard to these matters, and we must leave them to the Foreign Secretary. He is the only person who can form a judgment.
If, owing to the Russian attitude in China, British blood had been spilt in China, the people of this country would have risen up and would have demanded a rupture with Russia, and we could not have held it back. The reason why there has not been blood spilt in China, the reason why British blood has not been shed, has nothing to do with the Communists and the Labour party; it is entirely owing to the diplomacy of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is because of his skill, his patience and his very great courage that we have averted a catastrophe in China. In view of his record, in view of the judgment he has displayed in that way we might very well leave the judgment in this case in his hands. During two years of very heavy responsibility he has a solid record of great achievement to his credit, both in the West and in the East. In the Locarno Pact we have a rock upon which the peace of Europe may well be built, and in the Pact of Hankow there may well be peace and goodwill in China. Although in some respects he has been thwarted at every turn by the Labour party, I say in all sincerity that he has won the admiration not only of this country but of the whole world. It is long since any Foreign Secretary possessed in so great a degree the confidence of the people of the country, and we ought to trust him in this matter of Russia implicitly.

663
The British people are fundamentally trading people. In the past we have traded with every sort of men, every kind and condition of men. We have traded with savages and cannibals under all circumstances in all parts of the world. Very often we have lost, but we have also won, and that is how we have built up a great Empire. We are trying very gallantly to carry on a small trade with Russia to-day. You cannot wipe the Russian people, and you cannot wipe Russia itself off the map. Some day or another the problem of Russia will be solved, and I hope it will be sooner rather than later. In the meantime, unless our honour is seriously menaced or attacked—the Foreign Secretary is the person to judge that—we are only acting in accordance with the traditions of our people in trying to conduct as much trade as we possibly can with the Russian people.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I have listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. When I saw that he had crossed the floor of the House and come to this side and for the time being divested himself of his semi-official responsibility I did not imagine that he had done that in order that he might repudiate opinions upon the question we are discussing this evening which were published by himself about 12 months ago. I would ask hon. Members to take the trouble to-morrow to read carefully the hon. Member's speech and then turn up the files of the newspapers of April of last year, and read the report on Russia which the hon. Member made.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I would point out that every one of the things which I attacked, namely, the Soviet agitation in China and the general strike have happened since the publication of that Report. Everything that they said they would not do, they did.
Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member said that he had had an interview with Radek in Russia, who told him that he was going to concentrate his propaganda in China and in other parts of the world. I would again ask hon. Members to read the speech which the hon. Member has made this evening, and compare it with the Report which he made of his visit to Russia 12 months ago.
Mr. AMMON: Remember the company which the hon. Member is now keeping.
Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member's complete change of attitude in regard to Russia may be regarded as a result of the mesmeric influence of association with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should continue that association and if he continues to crawl along the hedge bottoms he will be an Under-Secretary before very long. I should not have risen but for the fact that certain Members of the Government appear to attach great importance to the views I have expressed on the subject now under discussion. I have never hidden my views about Communism and Bolshevism. In the first speech I delivered in this House after a temporary absence I declared that Bolshevism in theory and in practice was a rotten thing. Communism too, as advocated by the Communists, I oppose as well, and I retract not one word of what has been quoted as the expression of my views in this Debate. One thing has emerged quite clearly and that is that in all parts of the House there is a single opinion on certain matters. For instance, we all agree that a Government cannot continue to tolerate interference by a foreign State in the internal affairs of its own country. We are largely in agreement in our views upon Communism and Bolshevism, but, while we may be in agreement on these matters that for the moment is not the most important point. The question is: what are we going to do in this situation? It seems to me that there are three possible courses for us to take. We can break with Russia, we can denounce the Trade Agreement, we can expel the Soviet representatives from this country, we can leave things as they are; or we can try to see if it is possible to bring about more friendly and amicable relations with Russia.
Let me take the first of these courses, the denunciation of the Trade Agreement and the breaking of relations with Russia. Holding the views I do, and despising as I do the methods of the Communist Internationale, I believe that the most fatal thing we could do, the greatest encouragement we can give to this propaganda, would be to take that course. Ever since the interference of this

665
country by military intervention about seven years ago, I have been amazed that the Bolshevists have not been as grateful as I think they ought to have been for the services rendered them by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer supported by the Government of that day, because I have always held the view that if it had not been for the intervention of outside Governments at that time Bolshevism would have crumbled in Russia. I am convinced that if we take the course which has been suggested by hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, it would be a great service to the extreme elements in the Bolshevist movement in Russia and would be the best service we could render to international Communist propaganda. That is one reason why I do not support such a course. There are other reasons. I think it would have a very disastrous effect on international and diplomatic affairs. The right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir Robert Horne) quoted certain remarks which the French Press have made upon the British Note to Russia and the reply of the Soviet Government, but surely the House has sufficient penetration and knowledge of French policy to understand the purpose of these comments. Nothing would suit the policy of France, commercially and diplomatically, better than the course which the right hon. Gentleman recommended should be taken by the Government. If we took this course we alone should be isolated from Russian diplomacy and from Russia commercially.
I know something about the conflicting elements that exist in the Soviet Government in Russia. There is an old saying often used:
"I do not trust a man further than can see him."
There is very profound practical philosophy in that expression, and when I am dealing with a man, about whom I have some little doubt, I want to keep that man under strict supervision. If we break with Russia then we should lose all hold and all influence upon Russia, whereas every other country would be in negotiation with them. After all the main thing we are discussing is this: what are we going to do in the present situation? We cannot leave things as they are. To leave things as they are is practically the same thing as breaking off all negotia-
666
tions. We have for all practical purposes done that. There is no fully accredited Russian representative in London, and the Foreign Secretary has told us in effect to-day—that he is not going to pursue this matter further. I appeal to him, and I think an appeal of this character, coming from me, ought to carry some weight. We cannot permanently continue the present state of relations between this country and Russia. Let him, therefore, try and see whether he can open a new channel; let him wipe out the Note and the Soviet reply; let him invite the Russians to meet him, and discuss together all outstanding matters. Let them discuss debts and confiscated property and the question of propaganda. I think the Foreign Secretary might have made a much better case than he did this afternoon on specific points of the Russian breach of the Agreement. It is no use talking in a general way. Let him take particular instances in which the Trade Agreement has been broken and ask the Russian Government to discuss the matters with him.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know a single point in which it has been kept.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Surely that ought to strengthen the opinion I have expressed. The relations between Russia and this country cannot remain in the position they are. They will have to be settled one way or another. Let the right hon. Gentleman make another effort to settle all questions amicably and then if he fails he will have a much stronger case than he has to-day for asking the House of Commons to break off relations altogether. I do not think he will fail, and for this reason. The statement made at the end of M. Litvinoff's Note represents I think the sincere desire of the Russian Government. Their economic system will break down unless they can get assistance from outside They are wearing out the machinery which they appropriated some seven years ago, and they fully realise that. If the right hon. Gentleman were to make the attempt I am asking to make he will find the Russian Government in a reasonable and amenable frame of mind. That is the appeal I make to the Government. All these other questions matter very little. The Communist propaganda can best be defeated by its exposure. Hon. Mem-

667
bers, like the hon. Member below the Gangway, will never kill the Communist propaganda in this country. The only people who can do that are ourselves. Any attack on Communism coming from the quarter below the Gangway is received with suspicion by the working classes of this country. I am not at all afraid of the Communist propaganda provided it is known. It is only when it is subterranean that it is effective. Therefore, let the Government expose what they know of the nature and practice of Communist propaganda in this country.
I do not mind Russia sending money into this country to support the miners or even to prolong this propaganda, provided it is known. If it is known, then it will defeat its own purpose. I repeat my appeal to the Foreign Secretary and to the Government. Do not let things remain in the position they are. Let them make another attempt to meet the representatives of the Soviet Government, and I have every confidence that if they do that they will come to an agreement which will be mutually advantageous to both countries. We do not want to interfere with the internal affairs of Russia. I take the position stated by an hon. Member who spoke below the Gangway. If the people of Russia want to submit to such a form of Government they have a perfect right to do so, but I certainly object to them trying to impose such a Government upon the people of this country. I do not believe they-will ever succeed.
8.0 p.m.
I agree with an observation made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). It is seldom he and I agree about Russia, but I agreed with his observation when he said that, the closer are the commercial relations between this country and Russia, the more the economic system of Russia will approximate to the economic and commercial conditions of the countries with which she is in relation. I have nothing more to say. I rose simply for the purpose of putting that view to the House, and I do beg, with all the emphasis I have at my command, that things shall not be left as they are, but that the Government will make another sincere
668
effort to promote more friendly and amicable relations between this country and Russia.
Major CRAWFURD: I think the Debate this afternoon has served a very useful purpose by clearing up one or two points. It was well that we should have it stated quite clearly by the Leader of the Opposition that, to a large extent, he is in sympathy with the attitude of the present Government. I think it is all to the good that we should have had the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), in which he stated quite definitely, as indeed he has stated in print before now, that he has no sympathy at all with the form of government which obtains at the moment in Russia. Both he and the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that they do not necessarily quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary because he has made representations to the Russian Government, but that they do quarrel with him because he has not made those representations specific, and, by not making them specific, he has lessened the chances of a satisfactory solution of our difficulties being arranged. The complaint made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and which has been shared by hon. Members above the Gangway, especially by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, is that the Foreign Secretary has given no indication whatever that he proposed to take any further steps towards the solution of these difficulties. I think we are largely on common ground. If we look at the Trade Agreement of 1921, it seems to me perfectly clear that that Trade Agreement has been violated both in the letter and in the spirit. It may he argued with some truth that certain Members of the Government who are notorious, if they have not violated that agreement in the letter, have violated it in the spirit. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary himself at an earlier stage in the proceedings read the words which are contained in that agreement, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues in the Government, a Noble

669
Lord who has been notorious more than once in his career for the advocacy of hostilities in which he himself has taken no part, have certainly violated the agreement in the spirit if not in the letter. But I think there will be common ground except perhaps among a few hon. Members above the Gangway that the agreement has been consistently violated.
The hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) has made perfectly clear the position that he and his friends occupy, and it is particularly to him and to hon. Members who think like him that I want to address a few words. It has never been made, I think, quite clear, during this Debate, either from the Government Bench or the Front Opposition Bench, or from any other part of the House, that there is a very distinct difference between the Russian Government and the Russian people. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Eastern (Mr. Boothby) described something of the conditions in Russia, but I think he rather undervalued the changes which have taken place, and I think it is important, especially for Members of the party opposite and hon. Members above the Gangway, to remember that when we are dealing with Russian to-day, we are dealing with a people who have frankly given up in practice the ideas with which they started. First, they abolished the capitalist, and by abolishing the capitalist they abolished credit; by abolishing credit they abolished trade, and by abolishing trade they abolished employment, and we have had quite recently the admission that, as a result of these things, the Russian workman is to-day worse off than the workman of any other country in the world.
Mr. TAYLOR: He is better off than he was before the War.
Major CRAWFURD: I have some knowledge of Russia, and I can tell the hon. Member that that is not so. I have some knowledge of Russia before the War. Under the Tsarist Government Russia, especially in agricultural districts, was making rapid strides towards economic prosperity, but the intervention of war and then the establishment of Bolshevist regime, threw Russia back to a state very near to barbarism. Some
670
five or even six years ago the Bolshevists had already begun to give up their doctrines. I myself know cases where British manufacturers, with large interests in Russia, received offers from the Russian Government to go back and man their factories. When they said, "We cannot man the factories if you control them," the Soviet Government said, "You control them and all we will do is to ask you to pay a certain sum to the Russian Government, as the factories are nationalised." They said, "We cannot make them pay; we cannot employ the men if this extra imposition is to be placed upon us," and the reply of the Russian Government, five years ago, was this: "We want you to pay us the annual rent we ask because it is important that the idea of nationalisation should be preserved, but we will remit an equivalent amount of taxation so that you will not pay any more than you would have to pay if you had no rent at all." On these conditions, even five years ago, offers were being made to British capitalists and manufacturers to go back to Russia and resume the work with which they were occupied before the War. I want to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen Eastern, about the enormous importance of this area. It has never been developed; it was not developed before the War. With the present tendency all over the world for people to leave the countryside and go to the cities, it is very important that every corn-growing area should be developed. In Russia you have great corn-areas, you have oil and vast mineral resources, and timber resources. So long as you can bring the Russian people more and more into contact with the outside world, you will derive two advantages; you will give employment by exchanging their products for ours, and this employment is sorely needed for our people.
I am perfectly sure that it is not necessary to controvert what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). He is not here now, and I wished him to hear what I have to say. He told us that the Russian trade is comparatively unimportant, because, whereas we receive £23,000,000 worth, we only send £5,500,000 worth of goods to them. I began to wonder where the right hon. Gentleman's reputation for business acumen comes from. I have always

671
understood that he sits here as the representative of great business interests, and I notice that he is always listened to with great attention and in perfect silence when he speaks on business matters. Are we to believe that the people of Russia are making a present to us of the difference between £23,000,000 and £5,500,000 worth of goods, or must we not believe that the difference is made up somewhere by British labour or by British service rendered in another direction? It is important for us to get this trade for the sake of the employment of our own people. All those who dislike, as I dislike and all my friends dislike, and apparently as my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition 'Bench dislikes, the present Government of Russia, must realise that the more the Russian people are brought into contact with the outside world, the more we endeavour to trade with them, the more it will become apparent that the difficulty of trading is due to the system that has been imposed upon them and the more the object we have in view will be attained. Although we may agree, as the Leader of the Opposition agrees,
with the attitude taken by the Foreign Secretary at certain points, we think that things cannot be allowed to remain as they are. To break off negotiations altogether would be a calamity of the first order. We feel that, so important are the considerations from the point of view of maintaining friendly relations with Russia, that we are entitled to ask that some more definite action should be promised by the Government in that direction, but we have not had any promise of that kind I understand that, in answer to a question which was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones), it was stated that the White Paper which the Government at-to issue will only contain the Government's Note and the reply of the Soviet Government, and that we shall get no further information as to what the Government intend to do. Therefore, in these circumstances, we propose to press this matter to a Division.
Question put, "That £114,650,000 stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 146.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. RAMSDEN: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I regret very much that it is not possible for me to support a Bill which is desired by the City and Corporation of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives. If it had been what is generally known as an omnibus Bill, even if it had contained these Clauses and perhaps others with which I do not agree, if there had been in it other Clauses which I considered were necessary in the best interest of the City, I should nevertheless have supported such a Bill. This is a Bill which deals with one specific object, and that is to permit the Corporation to run a very extensive service of motor vehicles even outside the boundaries of The City. It is also desired by one Clause of this Bill to allow the Corporation to let omnibuses for private hire. I oppose the Bill because I consider that this is a demand for an unnecessary extension of municipal trading and that it will interfere with private enterprise. I also oppose it because, from what I have seen of the private omnibus owners during the past few years, and particularly the past two or three years,
676
they have not been fairly treated by the Corporation of Bradford, and I am afraid if the Corporation get the powers which they desire in this Bill, the position of these omnibus-owners will be made much more difficult.
I regret very much that on this occasion I have to differ from my colleagues who represent the City of Bradford. I regret in particular that I have to differ from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie), who backed the Bill I am afraid, however, he cannot be a very enthusiastic supporter of this Measure because he made a speech in the city council in opposition to it, and whet the vote was taken, he was among those who voted against the Measure. I do not propose to read all of the speech which he made on that occasion, but I wish to give the House one or two points from it which show that, whatever his attitude may be now, he was opposed to the Bill at that time. I find from the official record of the proceedings of a special meeting of the city council held on Tuesday, 30th November, 1920, the hon. and gallant Member said—
"He formally objected to the Bill. He took it that the Lord Mayor did not want any amendments, and he desired therefore to state his opposition."
I do not wish to read all the speech, but in the concluding passage he said—
"The Bill was seeking powers which they would never want; and they were endeavouring to run routes that would never pay."
I regret, as I say, that we are not now in agreement on his question, but I appreciate the attitude which the hon. and gallant Member is taking up. I am sure he is acting from a high sense of

677
duty to the city corporation of which he most certainly has been an honoured member. I have not had the honour of serving on the Bradford Corporation, and I feel myself in a position of greater freedom. I say quite frankly and without mincing words that this Bill is neither more nor less than a Socialistic Measure, and I intend to oppose it as much as I can Very important questions have to be deeded in this connection. One in particular is the question as to whether a corporation like this it to have the right to monopolise routes and to have privileges which are not granted to the owners of private vehicles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I hope hon. Members will not mind listening to what I have to say, and they will have an opportunity of replying to it.
The corporation in this Bill are seeking very extensive powers which would enable them to build up in time a great organisation. They refer in the Bill to certain specified routes on which they wish to have the power of running their vehicles, but the Bill is more far-reaching than the routes which are specified. If one examines it carefully, one will see that if they obtained these powers and had the consent of the local authorities and had a benevolent Minister of Transport to deal with, they could run practically all over the country. By using Clause 12, which refers to "adjacent districts," they could move from one town to the other and run North, South, East and West. In fact, it has struck me that if they obtained these privileges, we might see a service of Bradford omnibuses running down to London. They would probably start with the city of Wakefield, then probably Doncaster would become adjacent to Wakefield, and Retford would become adjacent to Doncaster, and so on right down to the Metropolis. It might be convenient for some of the Members for the City if we had a service of omnibuses to bring us down here and take us comfortably back to our own homes, but in spite of that consideration I feel very strongly that the proposal should be opposed because it is not for the public good. We have to consider the effect which this proposal is going to have on the omnibus systems already in existence. I feel very strongly that running in and around Bradford there is already a very good
678
service of omnibuses. Perhaps there might have been better services, but I can tell the House the reason why the services are not better. The corporation which is seeking powers in this Bill have put so many obstacles in the way of the private omnibus-owners that they have not been able to give as good a service as they would like to give.
Considerable capital has been invested in these services by the people who are running them. They have made efforts to build up efficient services, and the services which they are running at present are generally admitted to be quite useful. The danger is that if the corporation are allowed to enter into competition with them these services might be destroyed. One of the routes which the corporation seeks to serve is between Bradford and Keighley. It is interesting to find that particular route incorporated in this Bill, because only a short time ago the corporation said that this route was already very well served by trains and omnibuses. I cannot understand why they now desire to run their own vehicles on it. An inquiry was held into a demand by certain people for an omnibus service between the two places I have named, and one of the reasons given by the corporation for refusing to grant a licence was that the service was already good enough. Not only have the City authorities made it very difficult for private enterprise to carry on an efficient service, but once they have given licences, they have not treated the private owners as well as they ought to have treated them.
There was a case some time ago of a certain omnibus company which wished to run a service, I believe, between Wakefield and the City of Bradford. They made their application in 1924; the application was refused, and an inquiry was held, on the demand of the applicants, by the Ministry of Transport. It was recommended that the licence should be issued. The corporation refused to do so, and at the end of 1924 the whole business had to be started over again. In 1925 the applicants went through the same process. They asked for a licence, and, on the licence being refused, they went to the Minister of Transport, and requested an inquiry. The efforts, even of the Minister were unavailing, and they had to apply to the High

679
Court, and it was not until May, 1926, that the licence was granted. Even when the licences are granted, the position of these companies is very difficult.
The omnibuses that run into Bradford have to charge a higher fare than the trams or the Corporation vehicles, and it is interesting to note that the tramways are themselves their own licensing authority, which makes it very much easier to deal with their own problems. The outsiders have to go before a licensing committee, I think it is called, so that the private enterprise services are dealt with by one authority, and the vehicles owned by the Corporation are dealt with by themselves. The private enterprise vehicles are only allowed to stop at certain places, they have to run to a fixed time-table, and generally everything is done so that they shall not enter into competition with the trams. There is one rather curious thing that they do, which must certainly annoy people who happen to travel into Bradford on some of these cars, that is, instead of allowing them to proceed to the terminus in what would be a reasonable manner, they send them right round the town and make them take a journey of about a mile or mile and a-half in some cases, and they make them cross a number of roads which are unnecessary. I could cite one case where cars have to go through 11 different streets, and they pass nine different crossroads of four roads each. That is naturally an obstacle, and it is definitely and purposely placed in the way of the people who are trying to run these vehicles.
Mr. MACK1NDER: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a quotation of the 11 streets and the cross-roads in addition to the ordinary route?
Mr. RAMSDEN: Yes. The omnibuses coming in from the Shipley side and entering from Canal Road, completing the journey at Little Horton Lane, opposite the Prince's Theatre. They go to Foster Square, across Church Bank Bottom, Well Street, across Leeds Road, Vicar Lane, across Wakefield Road, Croft Street, across Nelson Street into Manchester Road, down Manchester Road into Victoria Square, up Morley Street into Chester Street, to Little Horton Lane. These obstacles make one believe that if this Bill became an Act of Par-
680
liament, the position of the private omnibus owners would be very much more difficult than now, because the Bradford Corporation would have a still greater interest in doing away with their competitors. We must remember that it is very much easier for a public body to carry on an undertaking at a loss than for a private individual In the case of the Bradford Corporation, they would have the rates to fall back upon, but if a private company ran omnibuses into Bradford at a loss it would sooner or later be bound to come to an end. The Corporation would possibly try to drive this kind of traffic completely off the road. There is one other reason why I think it is just as well to encourage private enterprise in preference to municipal or national undertakings. During the general strike, in the month of May last year, we were practically, in the Bradford district, dependent on the omnibuses that were run by private enterprise, and if the people there had had to rely on the omnibuses and trams owned by the corporation and run by corporation employés, they would not have been able to move from one place to another. I consider that we ought to keep these things in mind when we find any public authority demanding such far-reaching powers as these.
There are other objectionable Clauses in the Bill. One is with regard to allowing omnibuses to be let out for private hire. That looks a pretty little Clause, which might escape the attention of some people, who might think the Corporation would probably not dc very much with it, but I am given to understand that under its definition of omnibuses in the Town Police Clauses Act, 1889, the Corporation would practically have unlimited scope in dealing with vehicles of any kind whatsoever. They could practically let out motor ears or motor cabs or anything of the kind, and, therefore, I consider that that is an objectionable Clause. I do not know what might happen if we had the Bradford Corporation allowing cars to be let out for private hire. Some people, on going down to see the Derby, might be considerably shocked by seeing one of the Bradford Corporation cars there bringing passengers down from the city. Many members of the Bradford Corporation no doubt would be very shocked indeed if they thought that anything of the kind would take place.

681
There is a considerable amount of opposition to this Bill, not only from people in Bradford itself, from such organisations as the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Trade, but from many of the outside authorities in the districts into which it is proposed to run services. I will not go through the whole of the list, but I will mention that the West Riding County Council is definitely opposing the Bill, and, after all, that council is one of the greatest public authorities that we have got in Yorkshire. I notice that the opposition of Leeds is not very active, and I have been wondering if there is not a very good reason for that. I understand that one Clause in the Bill is to the effect that the Bradford Corporation are going to take over a trolley car system from the Leeds Corporation, and as I believe that it is a fairly obsolete form of locomotion, it is more than probable that if Leeds is not very vocal in the matter, they have very good reasons for their silence. When the matter was discussed in the Bradford Council, the voting was 49 in favour of the Measure and 24 against. Among the 24, were all the members of the Conservative party present, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Bradford. There was also that rather farcical affair, a ratepayers' meeting, at which the majority of votes was presumed to be passed in favour of the Bill. I suppose that everyone here is quite aware of the value of ratepayers' meetings. There is no hall in the city of Bradford or in England that could hold all the ratepayers of that place. But there was one preliminary meeting, in connection with the ratepayers' meeting, which certainly afforded to me and others quite an amount of interest.
On the 7th January, I think it was, at the Thornbury tramway shed, a meeting was addressed by the manager of the tramways, and it lasted from 4.45 to 5 o'clock. This, I believe, was not in the tramway men's time, but in the corporation's time, so that I suppose that during this quarter of an hour the manager of the tramways would probably be giving these people a considerable amount of good advice. I should think that probably one thing he would tell them would be that if they went to the ratepayers' meeting, and anyone got up and asked if there were any corporation employes
682
present, they were not to stand up. I understand that at one previous ratepayers' meeting, where something in connection with the City of Bradford was being discussed, there was some wide-awake individual opposed to the Measure who said: "Will all corporation employés present stand up," and there was a solid mass of them who did so. It was found necessary to adjourn the meeting to another place, with the result that the Bill was defeated. I think, probably, in this case they would be rather wiser. This Measure which they are proposing to-day is in definite opposition to a Resolution which was passed by the Council in 1923, which never has been rescinded, and which, I believe, is worth reading to the House. It is as follows:
"That the Council hereby affirms its opposition to the principle of direct trading, recognising that it is outside the legitimate functions of the corporation, and an injustice to the ratepayers with whom the corporation would compete."
Those are exactly the reasons which urge me to move my Amendment this evening, and I do hope the House will reject this Bill, because it is a flagrant attempt to extend municipal trading at the expense of private enterprise and initiative.
Sir FRANCIS WATSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Bill is exceptional in character and Socialistic in effect. If I wanted any evidence of that, I would call attention to what has happened within the last day or two, when the Labour party held a party meeting, and passed a unanimous vote to support this Bill. I believe that is the first time in the records of this House that any party has held a meeting to support or oppose a private Bill. I am supporting this Amendment for several reasons which have been set out by my hon. Friend. I think in considering a Bill of this character we must consider, first, whether the powers asked for are such as this House would grant to any authority, and whether that authority is likely to exercise them fairly in the public interest. We have had many instances given in the speech of my hon. Friend which show quite distinctly that the Corporation of Bradford have not been prepared to act fairly and honestly with the powers which they have held. They have withheld licences on many occasions, and not until there has been mandamus from the

683
High Court have they obeyed the decision of the Ministry. But in this Bill they are seeking to place themselves above the Ministry in many respects. At the present time, they do not bring their own omnibuses under the same conditions as are enforced upon the private omnibus owner, who, in the interest of the public, has to have a safety door in the rear of his vehicle for escape.
Nothing of that sort exists in the Corporation omnibuses, and every possible obstacle is placed in the way of the private omnibus owner in having to follow devious routes. Omnibuses coming from the outside are not allowed to pick up in the City unless the passenger has got a return ticket. Nothing of that sort exists with the Corporation omnibuses. If they were content to run within the boundaries of their own City, they could do as they liked about it, but they are seeking to go outside, and they are seeking for themselves privileges which they are not prepared to grant to those who want to travel within the City. They are also applying in this Bill for a number of routes, licences for which they have refused other applicants. That means that the Corporation can fix the fares to be charged upon those routes. They can make them so low that it is impossible for a private omnibus owner to make them pay, and they will make up the deficit out of the rates, until they have driven the private omnibus owner off the road. This Bill provides that this shall be part of the tramways account, and the ratepayers will never know whether any particular omnibus route is paying or not. I submit that that is not a thing which this House should countenance.
Mr. MacLAREN: What is the Watch Committee thinking about?
Sir F. WATSON: The Watch Committee have very little to do about it. The private omnibuses come under the Licensing and Hackney Carriages Committee, which has no jurisdiction over any Corporation vehicle, as the hon. Member very well knows. There is also a provision in this Bill to enable the Corporation to compete with the railways and carry goods and animals through the City. That is a most unfair thing in competition with railway companies,
684
which pay rates and taxes, and have to pay rates to make up any deficit. Among the powers which are taken to go outside the City the Corporation are asking for power to widen bridges, and widen and improve roads. They may do as little of that as possible, but by offering a sop of that kind to local authorities they may be able to buy off any opposition to which otherwise they might be subjected. One of the routes it is proposed to take is across the moors, along a road which is considered dangerous for private vehicles, and the Corporation are asking power to run public omnibuses upon it. In the opinion of the Wharfedale District Council, from whom I have a communication, the road vas only meant for agricultural traffic, and is quite unfit for traffic of this kind. Who will have to pay for the upkeep of this road? The poor farmers and residents of that district, and not the wealthy Bradford Corporation. It is not a power which should be granted to extend 17 or 18 miles outside the City as the Bill proposes.
There is another provision in this Bill which is quite exceptional. I do not think it has ever been in a Bill before. It is that the Bradford Corporation seek under this Bill to obtain powers for an adjoining borough to run omnibuses and carry on an omnibus undertaking. I do not think that precedent ought to be created. We all knew that under the Borough Funds Act any municipal authority seeking to promote a Bill in Parliament must first obtain not only a clear majority of the borough council, but must also have it supported by a ratepayers' meeting. I do not hesitate to say that putting these powers in this Bill is simply a dodge to prevent Keighley having to carry a majority of its own council, and to put the matter before their ratepayers, who have never been consulted. I consider that sufficient has already been heard by the House to justify the proposal to have this Bill read a Second time upon this day six months.
Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: It is quite true that I opposed this Bill strongly in the Council, but I come here to-night to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That seams a matter for laughter; I do not object in the

685
slightest. There was once an expert witness who appeared before a Select Committee upstairs on a certain Bill, and said one thing. Then another Bill came up, and he turned the tables and spoke something else. The Chairman opened his eyes wide, and remarked: "You said something quite different last week?" The witness replied, "Yes." Then said the Chairman, "Are there two Mr. Martimus Smiths?" Here is a big corporation, and I represent the city, and I say it is my duty to come here and endeavour to further their interests. It may be that my hon. Friend will not like my present position, because hon. Members opposite, who are generally opposed to me, are to-night with me, but it is well to have a change sometimes. It shows that one is not hide-bound, and, moreover, this is a local Bill. I ask the House to send this Bill upstairs for the reason that hon. Members here cannot possibly have grasped all its details, and because it is very seldom the House refuses a Second Reading to a Bill of this kind, unless there is something in it to which the majority seriously object.
Objection has been taken to two matters dealt with in the Bill. One is the power which is sought to let omnibuses for private hire, and. I have the permission of the authority concerned to withdraw that Clause of the Bill, Clause 10. Apparently that is one of the chief things which has incited opposition to the Measure. The other point on which criticism has concentrated is is that we are asking for powers to run a long distance. Hon. Members will see that that is dealt with in Clause 3, lines 24 to 29. I agree that here we are asking for rather wide powers for a Corporation, and that we could, as the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) said, run to Doncaster races. Personally, I have never got there, because I had no money to put on; but if I were going to London perhaps it would be a convenience to me to go to Doncaster. In order to show the bona fides of the Bradford Corporation I am prepared to say on their behalf that the House can have a limit of 15 miles, if it so desires. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where from?"] Fifteen miles from the centre of the City. That carries us as far as Ilkley in one direction and Huddersfield in the other. It would include
686
Leeds also, I am reminded, but Leeds have a very good service of their own.
What we propose in this Bill is to run services of omnibuses. I admit that we shall oppose private individuals in some cases. It has been said to-night that the private individual has so many obstacles put in his way that he cannot run omnibuses, but he is running them. He is running them from Keighley now, and the difficulty with the Bradford Corporation has been that this man gets his licence—up to a point. It was said he could not run within the City. There was a case in which we objected. What happened then? He appealed to the Minister of Transport; the licence was granted and the omnibuses are running.
The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): A mandamus had to be obtained.
Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I opposed that particular form of obstruction on the Bradford Corporation, because I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with this House putting obstacles in the way of municipal enterprise. It may be said the trams in Bradford are obsolete. May be they are. I have an idea that before long we shall have to institute omnibus services on long tramway routes, and if that has to be done and the municipalities may not run the omnibuses, what will be the consequence? There is still a balance of £750,000 owing on the Bradford Corporation Tramways. [Interruption.] I know that £1,500,000 was spent, and £750,000 has been paid off, and that leaves £750,000. [Interruption.] Even if it were due to bad management, are we to throw the remaining £750,000 away? Will that assist us?
9.0 p.m.
We ask that these powers may be given to us, and we have taken care to introduce into the Bill a Clause which, I hope, will satisfy the Minister of Transport, in which it is stated that we are to get none of these powers without the approval of the Ministry. There can be no case there of having to apply for a mandamus. We are seeking sanction to run on eleven specified routes. Does any hon. Member say that we can discuss in this House whether we ought to be allowed to have five, six, seven or eight of these routes? We should want a map and a man with a pointer to show us where the omnibuses were to run. Those details

687
can be discussed in Committee upstairs. The tribunal there is representative of all sections of this House. It weighs up everything after hearing counsel and after hearing the witnesses who are put in the box. I would say again that if, after I have offered to withdraw the two Clauses to which I have referred, the House does not pass the Bill, it will be putting the Bradford Corporation to serious expense. [Interruption.] Are the Bradford Corporation not to be allowed to bring forward any Bills at all? The next time they present the Bill, are we to say to them, "You ought not to have submitted the Bill at"? If the House is not going to take a broad view of this matter and leave the details for the Committee upstairs, we are going to kill local legislation.
Sir JOHN SIMON: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a question? If I heard him rightly, he said that, so far as the specified routes were concerned, this Bill did not seek any powers to go through any other local body's area save with the permission of the Minister of Transport. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me where I can find that in the Bill?
Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: It is in Clause 3, where it says:
"Provided that the consent of a local authority shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether or not such consent has been unreasonably withheld shall he determined by the Minister of Transport."
Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am asking about the specific routes.
Sir JOSEPH NALL: I think the specific routes to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred can be run over without consent. The Bill proposes that a number of routes, numbers one to should be run over with or without the consent of the Ministry, but that powers to run over the other routes should be with the consent of the Minister of Transport.
Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: That may be. I am not going to argue that, because I have not got the time, and I did not anticipate the question; and I think even if the necessity for that consent is not already in the Bill I can say that it will
688
be accepted. We have no desire to run without authority. I am going to remind the hon. Member for North Bradford that he is not correct in telling this House that we are seeking powers which no other local authority has obtained. It is quite true that you would not find any two Bills exactly alike, but there are already 16 different authorities who have been granted powers to run in other districts. May I point out that you cannot go into the details of precise objections in a discussion on the Floor of this House, and now that I have undertaken to withdraw these two Clauses, I think hon. Members have all the safeguards they require, and I hope they will agree to send this Bill to a Committee which will be an independent Tribunal. I claim that as a corporation we should he assisted as far as possible by the Government, and it has not been the practice ever since I became a Member of this House to turn down a Private Bill on the Second Reading because there are certain details in it with which hon. Members do not agree. For these reasons I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. PALIN: I would like to say at the outset that, in spite of what hon. Members opposite have said, I claim that this Bill is a much more modest one than the Bradford Corporation has ever put forward before in its history. It is certainly more modest than the 10 previous Bills which this House has approved of, and which have enabled the Bradford City Council to become the transport authority for the city. If the private omnibus owners, for whom the hon. Member for North Bradford has pleaded so eloquently, had been in this business for 25 years and we were trying to dispossess them without compensation, then there would he a case to put before the House. As a matter of fact, the boot is on the other leg. The Bradford Corporation have been the transport authority for a quarter of a century. Prior to that we could not get private enterprise to touch Bradford with a long pole so far as transport was concerned, and it was only when we laid down the lines at our own expense and leased them at such a, price as resulted in a deficit every year, which had to be made up out of the public purse, that we were able to get private enterprise to lay down a

689
system of steam cars which ever since have been poisoning the atmosphere with sulphur, and when the top deck is open on a summer's day the clothes of the passengers are perforated with sparks from the chimney tops.
Since then the Corporation have developed a service which no private undertaking could have been persuaded to touch because Bradford is not a city in the accepted sense of the term, but a collection of villages banded together with a municipal character, with long spaces of unoccupied land in between the hamlets and villages. The only places where you can make such an undertaking a paying proposition is where there happens to be a density of population which insures a maximum amount of traffic. The Corporation have persevered under most discouraging circumstances, and have gradually induced the population to shift from the densely populated slums on to the hill-tops where there is pure air, and they have succeeded in making these paying routes. Immediately this has been done the omnibas undertakings come along and say, "There is money in this, and we ought to supplant the Corporation." I think this House is an assembly of Englishmen animated with a sense of justice, but there are a number of hon. Members opposite who will not give to a collection of citizens what they are quite ready to give to one citizen.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie) has correctly stated that all this has been done in Bradford at a cost of £1,500,000, and there is still £750,000 to repay. That, however, is not the whole of the tale. There is not only a liability for that;£750,000 to meet if the tramways have to shut up through this insane competition, but there is also the cost of the generating plant which amounts to £54,000, and there is also the cost of the rates. The motor omnibuses do not pay one single penny in rates to the City of Bradford. There is not a single one of the undertakings which are opposing this Bill through various organisations that pays anything to the rates of the City of Bradford. The tramways undertaking has to pay rates on their depots, lines and overhead equipment, and they also have to pay for the upkeep and paving of the roads as provided for under the Tram-
690
ways Act of 1870. They have to maintain the paving between the lines and for another 18 inches on each side of the lines, and that is a very serious matter for the Bradford ratepayer to contemplate, because they have to pay all this for the omnibuses to run over without making any contribution. All the omnibuses pay for this privilege is a fee to the Road Fund. It would mean to the City of Bradford, if this insane omnibus competition goes to the point where some of ray hon. Friends opposite appear to desire it to go, the adding of from 2s. to 3s. in the pound to the rates of the City of Bradford. It is said that we are asking for powers which have never been granted before. I have here a list of various municipalities to the extent of 60 or 70 that have had similar powers granted to them. Therefore that is quite an inaccurate statement, and so many inaccurate statements have been made in regard to this Bill that that seems to me to constitute an excellent reason why it should be sent upstairs where all those statements may be investigated by a more or less impartial tribunal.
Above all, I am surprised to find gentlemen of the legal profession opposing the sending of this Bill upstairs, because that Committee is a most lucrative portion of the earnings of the legal profession. Not long ago a small urban district council of 17,000 inhabitants applied for powers to run six additional omnibuses. They got those powers to run outside their own area, powers which we are asking for under this Bill, and it cost that urban district authority £2,000 or nearly the price of two omnibuses, in order to obtain powers to run six, and consequently somebody must have done exceedingly well out of it. There are one or two other allegations Mat have been made against the Corporation. These are not only inaccurate, but I am surprised at their being made. It is, we are told, a very extraordinary thing for a party to pass a Resolution in favour of a Private Bill, but it is a most extraordinary thing for a Member of Parliament for a particular city to oppose the will of the majority of the ratepayers. If you challenge that, I may tell you that you dare not take a poll, and, therefore, you are bound to accept the decision of the city council—
Colonel WOODCOCK: It was not unanimous.
Mr. RAMSDEN: May I ask the hon. Member whether I am elected by the city council or by the electors of North Bradford?
Mr. PALIN: You are elected by approximately one-fourth of the citizens of Bradford.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I would ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to address themselves to me. I have not been elected by anyone in Bradford.
Mr. PALIN: I am pleased to think, Sir, that you are elected by an even more enlightened community. With regard to the question of unfair treatment of omnibus owners, the only thing that has been alleged as unfair treatment is that the police, acting purely as police, not under the control of the city council, but under the control of a statutory committee charged with the interests of public safety, sought to divert the omnibuses so that they did not all run along one road, but were diverted so as to run over several roads, and give the pedestrian just a little bit of a chance. I should be very sorry to think that the Ministry of Transport resented the action of the Bradford City Council in seeking the guidance of the High Court in making the law clear as to whether it exceeded its powers or not in the Wakefield case. I think a city council, without showing any disrespect to the authority of the Minister, is quite entitled to go to the highest tribunail provided by the Legislature in order to have the law defined. In going to the High Court, we certainly only took the same course that private omnibus owners have taken from time to time—
Mr. ELLIS: The hon. Gentleman did not go there; he was fetched there.
Mr. PALIN: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Ellis) is entitled to his little joke, but at any rate, whether we were fetched or whether we went voluntarily, we got me law defined, and we submitted to it. We have always been a law-abiding community. Neither the West Riding County Council or the Ministry of Transport can state any specific case in which the Bradford City Council has put itself in defiance of the established law of the land. As a matter of fact, the Corporation are not seeking unlimited powers. I think the hon. and
692
gallant Member for Central Bradford has made that quite clear. I would also say that this Bill does not contain any concealed Clause. I say that for the benefit of those who speak on behalf of the West Riding County Council. I cannot understand how the County Council gets this obsession, that, every time a municipal corporation comes to Parliament for powers to do something for its own ratepayers, it is the thin end of the wedge to secure a further extension of its boundaries. There is nothing of that kind in this Bill at all.
I am afraid that hon. Members opposite, in stating the opposition of the West Riding County Council, did not quite state it accurately. I am informed that the decision to oppose the Bill was only adopted by the Law and Parliamentary Committee of that body by a majority of one vote, and I do not think it has been submitted to the full meeting of the West Riding County Council for confirmation until this day. The House, therefore, will take the opposition of the West Riding County Council for what it is worth. The West Riding County Council, as a road authority, has always been treated with the greatest possible respect, and cannot deny that the Bradford Corporation has always carried out its obligations to them.
This is, perhaps, rather a bigger question than that. I admit that a big financial question is involved in this case. The tramways; of the country, which are supposed to be on their trial, are supposed to be obsolete, and so on, have something like £75,000,000 of public money invested in them. There is still something like £37,000,000 to repay. They contribute a very considerable sum in relief of rates, as well as in payment of rates. They carried last year 2½ times as many passengers as the whole of the railways in the country. Therefore, from the national point of view, a very serious financial question is involved. You cannot wipe out the whole of this capital, you cannot wipe out this very important transport industry, unless you place the Treasury and one or two other public Departments, including the Ministry of Transport, in a very difficult position.
I quite anticipate that we may have some opposition from the representatives of railway companies. I think they are entitled to offer opposition. I am sur-

693
prised, however, that they hay not offered opposition to the extension of private omnibuses, and am rather astonished that they should wake up so late and offer strenuous opposition to municipal omnibuses after the private omnibuses have stolen all their traffic and made their position so difficult. They are in the same position as the municipal tramways, and they are certainly entitled to consideration, but I think that a sufficient ease has been made out in favour of this Bill going upstairs for further consideration. I feel that, if this type of opposition is to be maintained against public authorities putting forward Bills of this character, it is going to be a very serious question in regard to local legislation.
We have done our utmost, through the medium of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford, to meet possible objections. It is not a fact that the public authorities in the areas where we propose to operate these omnibuses are in opposition to us. The majority are with us. I only know of three that are definitely against us, and, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) may claim to speak for the whole of his Division in opposition to this Bill, we have in our possession, at any rate, from four very considerable centres in his constituency, whole-hearted support for this Bill. At any rate, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to be a good trade unionist, to give us a chance to let his own people show what they can do, and exercise their craft upstairs, so that we may get a Bill which will not only be for the convenience of the people of Bradford, but will confer, as I believe it a very considerable benefit upon his own constituents and upon the West Riding of Yorkshire generally.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have heard the earlier stages of this Bill, but there was not quite unanimity on the opposite side of the House, and I suppose that the association of my name with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) will, in the minds of many, conjure up a new sort of coalition. I am content to believe that there are Members of this House who cannot always be wrong. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead happens to do the right thing to-night by association
694
with me, it will be something to his credit. I submit that the discussion in connection with this Bill raises a much wider issue than that of the Bradford Corporation. I not only put down an Amendment with regard to this Bill, but I put down a similar Amendment with regard to a number of other Bills. Therefore, it is not a question, merely, of Bradford and Newcastle Corporation so far as I am concerned.
I am raising definitely, specifically, and making no apology for it, the direct and special interest of the railways. There ought to be no need to apologise for that. Any Member on this side of the House who finds himself the particular and special representative of a body of men, not only would be entitled to safeguard their interests, but it would be his duty to do so, but only consistently with that interest and not interfering with or being subordinated to the interests of the community as a whole. It is only with that limited qualification that I speak. Last Monday there was a Debate in this House censuring very strongly the Government for its action in connection with the Washington Convention. An argument was then cited, with which I entirely associate myself, that the Government were making it difficult for employers in this country to compete because of the unfair conditions of our competitors. That is not only our case, but it is a case we are compelled to meet frequently from the employers themselves. In precisely the same way, in the same connection, and applying the same principle, I want that argument to be kept in mind in connection with a point I raise so far as the railwaymen are concerned. When demanding what every Member on this side believes in—a fair, equitable standard living wage for the railwaymen—it is not alone the argument of the railway companies we are compelled to meet but also that raised by the employers: look at the position of our competitors and compare their position with yours. I am sorry to hear one observation of my hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin) because I associated myself entirely with his speech. I think he was somewhat unfair in making the suggestion that this opposition, so far as the railway interests are concerned, is merely being limited to Bills at this particular stage.

695
He must be aware that for the last three years, on every Private Bill and on every occasion when this question could be raised, I have raised it and represented it from that side.
Mr. PALIN: My point was that the Minister of Transport has held some scores of inquiries and on not one occasion has the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues ever given any evidence with regard to private omnibuses. They have no need to come here for powers.
Mr. TH0MAS: That is exactly what I was afraid of in drawing attention to my bon. Friend's speech. If he had limited his observations to his own knowledge, I certainly should not challenge him, but neither the Minister of Transport nor three of his predecessors would dare get up and make the statement which the hon. Member has made. Neither of them dare say it, because it is simply not true. Not only once but on dozens of occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors know, have joint deputations of railway trade unions waited on the Minister and pleaded. I go further and say that, prior to the introduction of the Budget last year, a joint deputation of, the whole of the railway companies and the railway trade unions waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the clear and specific point I am raising to-night.
Mr. PALIN: May I explain that I was referring more particularly to public inquiries. I am not the keeper of the Minister of Transport's conscience. I do not not know what you have done with him, but I know you have never appeared at any public inquiry which the Ministry of Transport has held.
Mr. TH0MAS: That is sufficient answer to show that nothing would be more absurd than for me to raise an opposition to a Corporation Bill. I am raising this same broad general principle that is involved in this Bill, whether it be a private interest or a municipality. Let me consider the situation. Why did this House insist, from the very inception of railways, that before any extended power of any sort or kind or any expenditure by a railway company of a capital kind, that this House had to authorise it? It was because, I submit, the railways at that stage were very largely a monopoly.
696
Anyone who knows history knows it was a monopoly. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is so yet!"] That is what I want to draw the attention of the House to. Is there anyone on either side of the House, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman, who would pretend that the railways have a monopoly to-day? The hon. Gentleman said they had. I leave it at that, because I am sure he is alone in that observation. Let me see how far this is a monopoly. I dissociate myself entirely from the statement of the Seconder of the rejection that municipal undertakings fake their accounts.
Sir F. WATSON: I did not suggest that they faked their accounts. What I said was that their accounts are so kept that no one could say whether this Department was paying or not.
Mr. THOMAS: Is not that true of every undertaking? Could anyone say for the Great Western Railway or the Midland and Scottish that a particular branch was paying? It would be absurd to suggest it. You have to take an undertaking like that as a whole. The capital expenditure of the railways is roughly £1,200,000,000. Take the permanent way departments alone. To maintain the permanent way of the railway systems of the country involves an expenditure of £13,000,000 per annum. Can any private omnibus or private carrier suggest that it pays a solitary copper? Not one! That is the first point of the competitive interest that we have to make. Take the signalling departments. For maintenance and signalmen's wages £8,000,000 per annum are required. Do the roads provide a solitary copper? The policemen that you see at any road crossing do precisely the same work as the signalmen on tae railways. These people get clean away without any contribution whatever. That is point two. Then let me come to the question of the local rates. Is my hon. Friend aware that the railway companies' contributions to local rates amount to £8,000,000 per annum, and that there are 400 parishes in this country where 50 per cent. of the rates are paid by the railway companies? I have now put the case for the railway companies. I say that deliberately because it is my duty to look after the interests of my own men and to see if I cannot remove injustice. I have now

697
submitted to the House what I believe to be one of the greatest injustices suffered by any corporate body in this country.
Let me look at it from the standpoint of Labour. No one will challenge the statement that eight hours a day is enough for a railwayman, and we have succeeded in establishing a 48-hours week. The Newcastle Bill that comes on next week deals with this same problem. The Newcastle Corporation has to compete with the London and North-Eastern Railway. Both competing with private interest who are paying less than 35s. per week to their motor drivers and working them 12, 13 and 14 hours a day. What is the good of pretending that this is fair competition? It is unfair competition. It is something that ought to be definitely challenged because it ought not to be allowed to continue. Every statement and figure I have given is a statement of the actual situation today. What is the moral I draw? First take the municipalities. Is there not something radically wrong with any method that compels a municipality to come to the House of Commons and spend £2,000 in order to get authority to spend £6,000 more, especially when it is remembered that the principle involved is one that could be settled and determined by some competent authority. Take the question from the standpoint of the railway companies. They have suffered and they are suffering to-day. It is wrong, because they are common carriers and are compelled to take everything that is handy to them, whereas the other people can pick and choose and take the cream of the traffic and put the heaviest burdens on the railway companies. That is an injustice to the railway companies and they ought to be relieved of it. The view of the railwaymen is that this is wrong and unfair and likely to degrade their conditions. What is the remedy? Surely with the number of applications and the varying demands of corporations and railway companies and private companies, this House of Commons should be relieved of this kind of discussion and all that is involved and the whole question should be considered by someone in authority.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter which would involve general public legislation, and it cannot be discussed on a Private Bill.
Mr. THOMAS: I accept your ruling. I have put these broad, general principles
698
to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe it was necessary to ventilate the whole question. It cannot stop where it is. I believe there is great injustice both to municipalities and to railway companies, and for all these reasons I hope, as the result of this discussion, the Government themselves will consider the whole question in the light I have indicated.
Mr. MACKINDER: I want to support the Bradford Corporation in this application both as a citizen of Bradford, as an ex-member of the Corporation and as Member of Parliament representing the Division through which at least five of the routes specified by the Corporation will run. The Mover of the rejection quoted the case of Wakefield and the whole history that we Bradfordians know of the Bradford Corporation trying to refuse to grant a licence to an omnibus company, knowing full well that if the company were allowed to run into the town, that was the beginning and the end of the success of the Bradford tram undertaking The members of the Council understood that once they allowed private enterprise to run on the streets and roads, built and paid for by the citizens of Bradford, without paying any cost for the running of their omnibuses, it would be the beginning of the end, because the Corporation would not have the opportunity they had had to run their trams, on which £1,500,000 have been expended. The Minister of Transport has created a position that any outside omnibus company has a right to run on the Bradford roads, without paying rent for the use of those roads. That is a position with which the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) agreed.
Mr. RAMSDEN: Does not the Bill suggest that omnibuses should be run into outside districts, outside the City boundaries, and do the Corporation propose to pay a rent for that?
Mr. MACKINDER: I was going to bring that in if the hon. Member had waited. I am trying to show the position which has been created by the Minister of Transport. He has definitely laid it down, or the Court at his instigation have laid it down, that the Bradford Corporation must allow private omnibus proprietors to run their vehicles into Bradford, without paying rent for the roads

699
they are using, and yet when the municipality of Bradford asked for permission to run their omnibuses on the roads and highways of outside authorities without paying rent, it is wrong. That is the position. It is wrong for a municipality to dare to use other people's roads, yet it is quite right for private omnibus owners to use the Bradford roads. I cannot see where the logic of the hon. Member's statement comes in. He says that the Bradford Corporation dared to put down a time-table for a private omnibus company. Why should they not put down a time-table? There is a time-table for the Bradford municipal trams, and I suggest that any omnibus or tram company that has not a time-table is not worth calling a tram service or an omnibus service.
I would suggest to the hon. Member for North Bradford that nothing is gained by exaggerating or overstating a case. I learned very early in my trade union negotiations that it is fatal to overstate or exaggerate your case. The hon. Member says, with a grandiloquent air, that the 11 streets through which the omnibuses will have to go will mean a mile and a half extra to run. I know Bradford very well, I will not say how many years I have lived there, because hon. Members would know how old I am. I know the Bradford roads. I know that from Shipley to Bradford is 3½ miles. The hon. Member suggests that when the omnibuses have done their 3i miles, the Bradford Corporation puts on another mile and a half, to make things awkward. That is an exaggeration, and the hon. Member knows that it is an exaggeration.
Mr. RAMSDEN: I hope the hon. Member will be perfectly fair. What I said was that in some cases the authority compelled the private omnibus to go 1½ miles round the town before arriving at the termination and that there were cases where private omnibuses were compelled to go through a number of streets. I did not say that the distance through the streets that I enumerated was a mile or a mile and a half.
Mr. MACKINDER: At least two hon. Members besides myself understood the hon. Member to say what I have stated. He said that they were compelled to go through streets a distance of a mile or a mile and a half. It is not true. They
700
have not to go a mile and a half. The hon. Member must excuse me if my understanding is at fault. His statement sounded like that, and that was the impression which he gave to the Members of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Yes!"] We will leave hon. Members to form their own conclusions of the hon. Member's statement. It is not done through sheer cussedness. I would remind the hon. Member that there is a duty to the citizens of Bradford and a duty to the traffic of Bradford. It is not very easy to find a route along the main roads of an important city like Bradford and to congest traffic already heavily congested. Bradford is not a small place; it has nearly 300,000 inhabitants. The traffic that ordinarily came through Bradford was quite sufficient for the roads of the city, to have made the omnibuses come by a devious route. When omnibuses are running into a city like Bradford and into the centre of the city it is almost impossible, with land at the very high price that it is in the centre, to get adequate parking accommodation. Have the private omnibus companies done anything to assist the municipality in getting parking accommodation, in return for the benefits that the City of Bradford are conferring upon these private omnibus undertakings? The people who are so anxious that private enterprise shall have full fling, should at least give some little consideration to the rights of the city.
The hon. Member who seconded the Motion in opposition to the Bill spoke about the Bradford Corporation having offered to widen roads, and he suggested that they would give a small amount. May I ask what the Private omnibus companies have given to the West Riding County Council for the extra cost which they have put on to the roads? Have they widened any roads? Does the hon. Member know that when Sheffield wanted to run omnibuses into the West Riding and they offered to widen roads and main bridges, the county council said: "It will cost you something. You are not going to use our roads unless you pay some extra money." The Sheffield Corporation said: "What will it cost?" They got an estimate of what it would cost from the county council, and then Sheffield said: "It is not worth while running omnibuses, if it will cost us all this amount." Nevertheless, a private firm

701
comes along and, without asking, uses the same roads, does not widen the roads or the bridges, and does not pay anything, and the hon. Members who are supporting the opposition to the Bradford Corporation have not a word to say about the extra cost to the county council.
Colonel ASHLEY: I think the hon. Member forgets that these private companies pay very heavy motor taxation into the Road Fund.
Mr. MACKINDER: If the Minister of Transport is going to raise the question of motor taxation, I may retaliate and say that for many years I rode a motor bicycle and sidecar, and I know the amount of tax that I paid. I know that it would take more than 200 motor cycles and sidecars to do half the damage that one omnibus would do?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think this is getting a long way from Bradford.
Mr. MACKINDER: I am trying as far as possible to show reasons why the Minister of Transport and the hon. Member for North Bradford ought to be fair to the citizens of Bradford, and to give us in that city the same privileges to run omnibuses outside the municipality that they have given to private enterprise to run omnibuses inside the municipality. The Bradford Corporation look like losing about £75,000 a year as a result of omnibus competition, and as a result of the omnibuses taking traffic from the roads that we have built. The Corporation have to build the roads, and the Corporation tramways have to bear the cost of paving the roads on either side of the track, and then along comes somebody who has never paid a farthing towards the rates, and does not intend to do so, and they get through the Minister of Transport powers to run their omnibuses. I know that the Shipley Council and the Bingley Urban Council are anxious that the Bradford Corporation shall have the opportunity which they seek.
The hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Sir F. Watson) who has opposed the Second Reading said that the Corporation of Bradford is wanting benefits which it will not give to anybody else. That is not true. Bradford only wants to have advantages which it is prepared to give to any other municipality, as witness the
702
Clause in the Bill which is going to allow Keighley to have running powers into Bradford. I regret that the opposition to the Bill is not based on any consideration for the good of the public. Bradford people have to pay these enormous sums, and the opportunity of getting the money is to be taken out of their hands. Our rates are high, and we have to pay for the tramway systems which are there. This House ought to look at this problem from the point of view of the common man in the street, the passengers who will he carried by these omnibuses and trams. The Bradford Corporation ought not to be flouted by the House of Commons in this way, when it is only seeking powers which other municipalities possess. I hope the House will pass the Second Reading of the Bill arid allow it to go to Committee, where these small differences can be thrashed out. The legal argument can be put, but the House ought not to go to the point of refusing the Bill a Second Reading.
Sir J. SIMON: I entirely agree that the House ought not to decline a Second Reading to a Bill of this sort, unless there is some large question at the basis of the Bill on which at this stage the House can come to a fair conclusion. I would not oppose the Second Reading merely because some one of the local authorities in the area I represent holds an adverse view to it, but I think it is right that their point of view should be shortly stated to the House. It has sometimes been distressing to me to learn that persons, who otherwise claim to be well educated, do not know exactly where Spen Valley is. The River Spen may nut be one of the largest and most picturesque rivers in the kingdom, but, like some other rivers in history, like the Barn of Bannock or the Rubicon, it is more famous in political than physical geography. My excuse for intervening is that the constituency I have the honour to represent, called by the beautiful name of Spen Valley, is, infact, a very important district of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The ancient capital is Cleckheaton. To Cleckheaton have been added other areas, and you may roughly define its boundary by saying that it is bounded by the satellite towns of Dewsbury, Bradford, Huddersfield and Leeds.

703
10.0 p.m.
I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) that the great Corporation of Bradford, and the citizens whom it tries to serve, have rights in this matter. So have other local authorities, and what I notice about this Bill is that it is merely a Bill to give power to the Bradford Corporation to run omnibuses outside the area of the Bradford Corporation. There may be cases where that can be justified, but surely it is an extremely strong order to introduce a Bill which provides that the Spen Borough local authority, the importance of which I am not in the least disposed to surrender to the Bradford Corporation, which has done its duty in the public interest in this matter, shall be completely disregarded and the House of Commons should be asked to affirm the principle that one local authority (A) is to be entitled to ask for powers to run its omnibuses in the area of local authority (B) without so much as asking its leave. I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie) why he told the House that these powers could only be exercised by leave of the Minister of Transport. It is not so. It is a Bill to provide that the omnibuses of the Bradford Corporation shall be sent along the routes numbered 3 and 4, which run right through the Spen Valley and the adjoining towns, without so much as asking the leave of the Spen Borough authority and without any communication whatever with the Minister of Transport. I have not heard anyone suggest that the Spen Valley is not in this matter properly administered and reasonably served.
Mr. MacLAREN: Page 7, line 24.
Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid my hon. Friend was not here earlier when it was pointed out, what is very plain if he will only read it again, that line 24, page 7, only applies to the general claim to run over other routes. I am referring to routes Nos. 3 and 4, in reference to which this Bill very coolly proposes that the omnibuses of the Corporation of Bradford shall not only go outside the boundaries of the Corporation but shall invade neighbouring local authorities and go along a defined route without ever asking the leave of the other local autho-
704
rities or the Minister of Transport. I am informed, and the information agrees with my own observations, that these routes are, as far as the local inhabitants are concerned, adequately served. The Spen borough local authority is, of course, a licensing authority and exercises, as I conceive it ought, in its own area the power to control the running of omnibuses. There are trams and omnibuses there, and I want to ask the House of Commons, in the interests of the Spen Borough Council, is there any real reason at all for treating this local authority in the area I represent as though they are to forfeit the right of exercising their judgment as to what in the interests of that locality should be the traffic arrangements and surrender the whole thing to the undoubtedly great, important and public-spirited Corporation of Bradford? I do not myself see any reason for it.
I listened with great sympathy to the appeal of the hon. Member for Newcastle West (Mr. Palin), but in this matter we must try and do justice all round. I am not in the least concerned with some abstract case about the exact limits of municipal trading. I am concerned with this particular Bill. This particular Bill, instead of being a Bill which gathers together a whole series of provisions, one or two of which may be disputable while the others might be approved, is a Bill which is simply for the purpose of authorising the Corporation of Bradford to go outside its own area and to invade the area which I represent, and I know that the Spen Borough Council have had three meetings on the subject, including a meeting which was specially called, to discuss it, and it is the unanimous view of the council that the provisions now made for motor transport are adequate, and that, if this authority is given, it could only mean the undue congestion of streets which are none too wide. But the House of Commons is solemnly asked to say that the Bradford Corporation is to be allowed to run this service outside their own area.
Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that all these things could be dealt with when the Bill reaches Committee stage, where all the parties who are concerned can be heard?
Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite appreciates that, so far as I am concerned, I am making the Spenborough ease heard now. Is there any good principle involved in the claims of local authority A to ask that they should get, in principle, approval for the view that they should run omnibuses over the area of local authority B? I have not heard a word said by those who are supporting the Bill for this case, and, on that simple ground, although I should be sorry to see any private Bill stopped at this stage if it had good in it, I would have thought there was abundant justification for challenging it. It is, in fact, only a special example of what is a far bigger and more difficult problem. If the rejection of this Bill did anything to bring the House of Commons up against the real problem, that will do a great deal more good than would be done by conceding to some particular authority—it may be a public-spirited authority and one which desires to do the right thing—privileges which are quite exceptional and which can only be granted on terms which deny the plainest justice to a neighbouring community.
Mr. J. HUDSON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has put forward a certain point of view, as a representative of one of the areas within his division, and that enables me to contrast it with another view which is held by the authority that I have the honour to represent. The Huddersfield Council is concerned with the running of omnibuses from Bradford to Huddersfield. The Huddersfield authority, indeed would have been glad to arrange for a service of its own, as I think the Minister of Transport recollects, right through from Huddersfield to Bradford. The position, as we see it in Huddersfield, is this. In the long run, the municipal services either to Bradford or to Huddersfield can have a very effective influence on behalf of the public in our areas in keeping fares at a point which will serve the general convenience of the public. I feel that, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) could have looked at it from the point of view of the people who live in Spenborough, rather than from the point of view of the abstract rights of the local authority in Spen-
706
of their development. I am not quite borough, he might have come to the same view as is held by the Huddersfield municipal authority.
I also want to say something about what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has said regarding the railwaymen. I would agree that, if the railwaymen's case were really that which was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, it ought to weigh very considerably with us, and would weigh with us on these benches, but personally I do not think that the ease as he put it is really the railwaymen's case at all. The difficulty is that the railway companies at the present time are not giving to us the service, particularly in matters of local transport, that they ought to be giving. The other Sunday afternoon I wished to go from Huddersfield to Bradford, and arriving at Huddersfield from the south by 20 minutes to 2, I found I could not reach Bradford till after four in the afternoon; but, by using the municipal omnibus at Huddersfield, and by going along one of the routes referred to in this Bill, and ultimately using the Bradford municipal tramways, I was able to get to Bradford shortly after three o'clock. The railway companies have failed to keep pace with the times. They have been slow in electrifying their local routes; they are missing chances with regard to cheap tickets; they have allowed year after year to pass since the War without bringing in the facilities such as existed before the War, and municipalities or someone will have to take effective steps if the needs of the community are to be served. I see in this Bradford Bill a means whereby the railway companies may be spurred on to serve the interests of the community, and for that reason I cannot feel that it is at all in the interests of the railwaymen that we should put an obstacle in the way of the Bill. To do so, in the long run, will work out not in the interests of the railwaymen, but in the interests of omnibus companies who pay those very low rates of wages that my right hon. Friend referred to.
It is clear to me that the position with which the municipalities to-day are confronted is this, that the transport arrangements which in the past have been effective, through the use of tram-

707
way cars, seem to have come to an end sure whether the figures I have collected would be entirely satisfactory, but they are the best I could obtain. I see that, taking the tramway cars of the country generally, there has been practically no increase in the total numbers of tramway cars that have been licensed by the transport authority. I got these figures from the Annual Report of the Department for which the Minister of Transport is responsible. They show that, in the last five years, there has been no increase whatever in the number of tramway cars running on the road, while motor transport has increased by leaps and bounds. The figures that I have collected from his Report indicate an increase of some 30 per cent. in general motor transport during that period. Unless the municipal authority is to have full freedom to develop the motor omnnibus, complementary to the tramcar, it is going to he placed at an exceedingly great disadvantage in the development of its service against the severe competition that the private companies are bringing to bear. In the long run, it will be to the disadvantage not only of the municipalities, but of the dwellers in the country areas, that this municipal development should be prevented.
I heard the other day from a very prominent authority in the West Riding that one of the reasons why he fears the the development foreshadowed in Bills like this is that, in the long run, the municipality will drive off the roads the private omnibus companies, and that the country areas then will be victims of the monopolies, that the municipalities will possess. I suggest that that argument leaves entirely out of account the fact that the omnibuses are used both by the dwellers in the county boroughs and the dwellers in the municipal boroughs and that if the municipal council were to drive up the price beyond what could be realised as the cost of production of the service, in the long run that municipal council would have very serious electoral difficulties within its own area. But as things are now, it is the omnibus services of the private companies that are developing, and these practically nobody can control—neither the dwellers in the county areas nor those in the municipal
708
areas. It is for that reason that I hope the House vvi give favourable consideration to the Bill. I assure hon. Ambers that by so doing they will serve not only the interests of Bradford, but—I can speak for the whole of the municipal authority in the district that I represent—they will be serving also many other municipal authorities around the area of Bradford.
Sir R. HORNE: I think we shall all agree that the discussion has been both informing and interesting. While I disagree with the conclusion at which the last speaker arrived, with many of the views which he expressed I am in entire agreement. I have no knowledge of the local conditions of Bradford, nor am I able to take up such a position on this Bill as that of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I do not propose accordingly to touch upon any of those more intimate questions I would like, however, to say something on the general question, because I am sure that many Members who have listened to the Debate must have come to the conclusion that there is a very large question at issue, with regard to which the legislation of the country is in a state of confusion. The time will come when the House will require to look into this matter more closely and to, see whether more general devices can he obtained to better our procedure. I am led all the more to say that because of a report of the London and Home Counties Inquiry Committee, which came to the conclusion that, as things are now, nothing but inevitable war was going on between the various forms of transport, and that this was involving the country in the waste of enormous sums of money.
That view is greatly reinforced by a very lucid article by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) in a recent journal, where he points to the enormous waste which is brought upon the country now because of these competing forms of traffic—a waste which does not get any justification in the results that the country thereby obtains. I wish to speak on that particular theme in its application to the particular subject with which we are dealing. This is not the only Bill which is coming before the House asking for considerable powers of this kind. There are, indeed, 14 Bills of the same kind

709
promoted by 14 different corporations or local authorities asking for the same kind of powers. This particular Bill, even in the narrow limits which one of the hon. Members for Bradford put upon its Clauses, would involve possible connections by omnibus between Bradford and such important towns as Leeds, Huddersfield, Wakefield and Dewsbury. As the House will readily appreciate, that must necessarily form a very severe competition or "inevitable war," if you choose to use that phrase.
Mr. PALIN: The competition of omnibuses is there already. The Bill would not increase competition in the least.
Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. Member will agree that the competition will be emphasised particularly when the most recent omnibus owner if this Bill passes will be the municipality which has the rates behind it. That makes a great difference in the question of competition and I think the situation is only going to be confusion worse confounded, if you are to have internecine war in forms of transport between railway companies, private omnibus owners and a large variety of municipalities all running their own fleets of omnibuses. I think that is a situation which this House will not wish to arise, if it can be avoided, and in my view this is a matter which calls for close scrutiny and inquiry. I would add my voice to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) in asking the Minister of Transport to take this Debate very seriously into his consideration and see whether such an inquiry cannot be made to take place at an early date.
May I draw the attention of the House to one extraordinary anomaly which would follow upon the passing of Bills such as the present Bill? The railway companies are entitled by Act of Parliament to have rates imposed by the Rates Tribunal which will bring to the railway companies a revenue equal to that which they enjoyed in a particular year. Observe what the result would be. If you have competition between municipalities and railway companies with the result, let us say—and if the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) is right this would follow—that the railway companies are serious injured in their own traffic by what is done by the municipalities, the result will be that the rail-
710
way companies will have less and the only method by which revenue can be raised to the figure which Parliament allows will be by imposing heavier rates. That is a very serious question because you are going to have, on the one hand, the municipality with the rates behind it, sanctioned by Parliament, and on the other a body which, by Statute, is entitled always to have its revenue made up to a particular figure. Is not that a ridiculous position in which to leave this great transport question? Observe the result upon the trade of the country.
Mr. HARDIE: Carry it a little further.
Sir R. HORNE: I will carry it further. Among the other powers sought by these Bills, there is one for the carrying of goods and merchandise. Observe what is going to happen under that system. It is going to leave only the heaviest material to be carried by the railways with the result that the very trades which are hardest hit by heavy rates, that is the heavy trades, will have to bear an additional burden. I would like to reinforce the argument which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby put before the House. He has not painted in any too lurid a light the burdens which the railway companies are suffering to-day, the disparate burdens, as compared with any other ratepayers and organisations in this country, and the picture of their fortunes as exhibited by the reports during the last, few weeks is a sufficient indication of the difficulties which they are having in meeting the obligations which at present press upon them. Accordingly, I suggest, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, that disaster to the Second Reading of this Bill would not be too high a price to pay to get the whole matter cleared up.
Colonel ASHLEY: The Debate this evening, of a very interesting character, has divided itself into two parts, one dealing with general principles as to what the relationship between road transport and railway transport should be, which, I submit, is in order on this Bill, and the other dealing with the merits of the Bill, which part of the Debate has been somewhat discursive. I want to say a few words, as is only right and proper, in deference to the two right hon. Gentlemen who have raised the question, with regard to the railway problem and road

711
transport. No doubt that is a very difficult and insistent problem. It is one of those questions that come upon the country from time to time, and just as the advent of railways disorganised road transport and caused great unemployment and distress among those engaged in it 120 and 100 years ago, so now the wheel of fortune has been reversed, and roads are coming again into their own.
Mr. THOMAS: The wheel of misfortune!
Colonel ASHLEY: That depends on the angle from which you view it. The roads are coming more and more into their own again, and, naturally, the railway companies are feeling the effects of that competition. It is perfectly true that I have received deputations with reference to this question representing all interests in the railway world, and I may point out that the Government did take very important steps to redress what might be considered to be a grievance by imposing a very substantial increase in the taxation in the last Budget on the heavy vehicles which use the roads, so substantial an increase indeed that many serious and bitter complaints are reaching the Government that that taxation is too high. Then the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) comes here and complains that the railways are not being well treated and that the Government are doing nothing. I would point out to the House that we have done something, and probably we have done just about the right thing, as both sides are not satisfied with what we have done, but it is a problem that undoubtedly will have to be tackled sooner or later.
As the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has observed, we have now got three reports from the Committee which deals with the traffic problem of London, a problem that is very complex and very difficult to solve, dealing as it does with many material interests, many political interests, and many municipal interests. Whatever solution is offered by the Government will surely be opposed by large and important sections of the population. That does not mean that it will not be tackled, and it will have to be tackled,
712
but it seems to me that co-ordination on these lines will have to be followed sooner or later by some authority, which will have to be set up not only for London, but, possibly, for the country as a whole. In this respect I must bear out the right hon. Member for Derby because he was attacked by, I think, the hon. Member for Newcastle West (Mr. Palin) and asked why, when the Minister of Transport held public inquiries, he did not appear and state the railway case for the railwaymen. The answer is perfectly simple. He had no locus standi at all. The only people who can appear are the applicant company and the responsible local authorities, and no representatives of the railways or other interests.
To come more particularly to the Bill which we are discussing, it is not usual for a Minister on a Private Bill to offer any definite advice to the House of Commons as to how it should deal with the Measure. It is his duty, very briefly, to outline what the position is, and what the usual custom is, and it is then for the House of Commons, in its discretion, either to give the Bill a Second Reading or not. As far as I understand this Bill at the present moment, the promoters, with the concessions or Amendments which they have offered, ask that they should be allowed to run on 11 specified routes, and, in addition, should be allowed, with the consent of the local authorities, and with the consent of the Minister of Transport of the day, to run 15 miles from the centre of the city of Bradford. They have offered to withdraw the Clause with enables them to let out vehicles on hire. Now the usual custom, as I understand the model Clauses, is to deal with it in three compartments. You usually allow a corporation to run inside its own area without any restriction. Outside the area you either allow it to have certain definite routes and/or allow it to run a certain distance from the centre of the town, with or without the consent of the Minister of Transport, and sometimes the Committee say it may run five miles from the centre of the town without any consent of the Minister of Transport, and at other times, they say it may run 10 miles, but with the consent of the Minister of Transport and the local authorities.

713
Having pointed out what the usual custom is—and the custom seems to be very varied—it is for the House to decide what they should do regarding the Second Reading. But I must point this out to the House—and, believe me, I do it not with any feeling of resentment against the Corporation of Bradford, but simply to state the case—the Corporation of Bradford the year before last refused definitely to allow any private omnibuses to run inside the city, even though those private omnibuses offered to run at a very considerably higher fare so as not to compete with the tramways. The corporation refused in any circumstances to allow them in, and thought it my duty, in order to see fair play between private and municipal services, to take it to the High Court and get a mandamus. Therefore, it is for the House, having heard the facts, to consider whether it should give a Second Reacting to this Bill.
Mr. FENBY: I have se'dom listened to a Debate on a private Bill which has kept so far away From the subject of the Measure. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport talked about or hinted at the traffic problem of the City of London. He had no contribution to make towards the traffic problem of Bradford, and its immediate neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir It. Horne) talked about the difficulties of railway companies and the competition that municipalities were offering. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would have liked to continue with suggestions for dealing with the whole problem, and that may be all right at the proper time, but it only points the moral of what I have said, that the discussion has kept away from the particular merits or demerits of this Bill. While the competition which railways are suffering from municipalities was discussed, nothing was said about the difficulties of municipalities because of the lack of enterprise of railway companies both at the present time and for a good many years back.
The Minister said that it is not his custom to give advice to the House on a private Bill. Putting the best interpretation on that remark as regards the
714
present Bill, I think it means that there is a custom in this House that when a private Bill comes up it is usual for it to go to Committee upstairs in order to have the rights and wrongs of the question thrashed out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) spoke for a particular locality in his own constituency contiguous to Bradford, but surely the point he put is a purely local one, which should properly be dealt with in Committee and not here. It may be that the local point of view is quite an erroneous one. That can only be decided in Committee. We are dealing with a question of transport, and everybody knows, and no-one better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, that when the railways were first constructed certain local authorities contended—as some local authorities are doing to-night—that they had ample transport facilities without the railways. I know of one particular case, and no doubt instances could be multiplied, where a local authority appealed that a railway station should not be within a mile of their town, because already they had sufficient transport facilities.
With regard to the objections to the Bill, although I recognise it has a good deal of good in it, there are some parts of it which are open to criticism; but the proper place to deal with that is upstairs. Objection has been taken that the Bradford Corporation are asking powers to run outside the city boundary without the consent of the authorities through whose area they pass. Is that a new thing so far as this House is concerned? The Bill is seeking to establish no new principle with regard to that matter. I could give the House a list of Bills passed in 1925 giving the very provisions for which the Bradford Corporation are asking. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) is supporting the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill. I did not expect to see him in the Division Lobby opposing this Bill, because I would like to refer him to a speech which he made on Friday last dealing with a Bill which had certain proposals in it which he said did not touch completely the evil with which the Bill sought to deal, but nevertheless he stated that he thought the Bill should go upstairs in order that it might be improved.

715
That is all I am asking the House to do now, because the proper place to deal with what is wrong with this Bill is in Committee upstairs.
Major HILLS: I can assure the House that I said nothing of the sort, and I do not know where the hon. Member gets his information.
Mr. FENBY: I was referring to a Bill which the hon. and gallant Gentleman supported on Friday, and therefore my statement is quite correct.
Major HILLS: Yes, but that Bill enshrined a most excellent principle.
Mr. FENBY: I wish to point out that the Labour party held a meeting and decided to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I should have thought that the Conservative party and the Liberal party would have done the same thing. Do not let hon. Members opposite, Who may have tender consciences with regard to the intentions of the Labour party, trot out the bogy of Socialism with regard to this Bill, because it has not any Socialism in it. The critics of Socialism often assert that the evil of the Socialist theory is that it does away with the principle of competition. This Bill does nothing of the kind. This Bill simply lays down that a municipality is suffering from severe competition from an omnibus combine, and the Bill is asking that the corporation may have ample facilities to meet that competition, and that is the actual position. I can quite understand what are the interests of the railway companies represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, and other interests may come in who have not been seen or heard on this subject, but we are not now discussing the merits of this particular Bill. I ask hon. Members to take the Bill as they find it, because it introduces no new principle whatever. All the Measure asks is that the Bradford Corporation may have their own undertaking safeguarded by legislation in order to protect them against certain evils, and to give them certain powers to enable them to complete their transport arrangements. By rejecting this Bill hon. Members will do a very serious injury to the City of Brad-
716
ford. We are not asking the House to accept this Bill as being right from the first word to the last, but we are asking that it should go to a Committee upstairs where the Minister of Transport and others will be able to see that justice is done to the various authorities who can show that they have a grievance under the Bill as it stands at present.
Mr. BALFOUR: I only intervene for a very few moments. I think that on the whole I thoroughly agree with and endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby), that, as a general guiding principle of this House, Private Bills ought to be sent upstairs for full consideration by a Committee, and I think it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that on many occasions I have put forward in this House a plea for sending Private Bills up to the Committees in order that their provisions might be fully explored. On more than one occasion, I have put forward such a plea when it was well known that I was personally and in a business capacity wholly opposed to the Measure in question. This, however, is one of the very few occasions during my fairly long experience of this House when a Bill has been presented to us that is capable of being judged by the House on its Second Reading—a Bill containing and dealing with only one simple issue, which is a matter of public policy that can be decided by the House on the Second Reading. In my judgment, for the reasons which have already been advanced and which I shall not repeat, I think it is the duty of the House on this occasion to decide as to this Bill on the Second Reading, without sending it up to a Committee, as there is no detail whatever for the consideration of a Committee beyond the principle elf public policy, which can be decided here and now in this House.
Mr. WILLIAM HIRST: As one of the representatives of the City of Bradford, whose Corporation are promoting this Bill, I desire to say a few words upon it. There is one point which I think we can reasonably put forward, and on which, perhaps, a wrong impression might have been obtained from the speech of the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) in moving the rejection of the

717
Bill. The hon. Member tried to create the impresson, I think, when the House was not quite so full as it is now, that there was a division of opinion in the City of Bradford in regard to supporting this Bill. I think, however, the hon. Member will at least concede that every tribunal which has considered the Measure up to the present has at least recommended that it should come here for its Second Reading. When one analyses the representation in this House of the constituencies of Bradford, one finds that three of the four Members for the City constituencies are speaking and acting in support of the Measure, and that, surely is representative of the opinion of Bradford that they are desirous that this Bill should have a Second Reading. Moreover, the representation is by no means confined to one part of the House. We have a representative on these Benches, we have on the opposite side the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and we have below the Gangway my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby); and all of them are speaking with the mandate of their constituents that at least the Bill should have a Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) started with the argument that at least a Private Bill, on its Second Reading, should usually be given the opportunity of receiving consideration in Committee, but he went on to suggest that there were special features about this Bill which made it possible to diagnose it easily to-night. I would say to the hon. Member that he will be committing a grave injustice on the great Corporation of Bradford if he does not allow this Bill to go upstairs and be further considered. I would suggest to him and to the House that at least the Bradford Corporation has a very honourable reputation. I think the Minister of Transport would be the first to admit that the Bradford Corporation, generally speaking, have at least promoted legislation that has been a credit to the city and to the community generally, and, in view of that reputation, I suggest that it would be an injustice to the Corporation if the House decided, by the Division which is now about to take place, that this Bill should not have a Second Read-
718
ing. I suggest to the House that at least the reputation of the Bradford Corporation is such as to merit the support of this House in any legislation that the corporation may from time to time promote. A great injustice is going to be done. Financial interests have been from time to time mentioned. The Seconder mentioned the capital expenditure which has been involved and the debt which remains to be taken in hand by the city itself.
I have been privileged, along with the Mover of the Second Reading, to be a member of the Tramways Department of the Corporation for 10 years, and I do not think I am overstating the case when I suggest that the time is approaching when the tramways and their management are going to prove extremely difficult. Unless they are to be given fair play to meet the responsibilities of that great city and also outside the city, it seems to me that justice and fair play is not going to be meted out to our Corporation. May I suggest also that every municipality in the past has received some consideration by Act of Parliament which has made it possible for it to develop its tramway system up to the present point. In view of that consideration which has been given, is it too much to suggest that the time has come when this House, might be indulgent up to the point of allowing the Bill to go upstairs? I join with Members for the City of Bradford in asking that they will allow at least that to take place and not deny the possibility of the Bill being explored and the good points admitted and the bad rejected. Let the Bradford Corporation have the opportunity of not creating further debt and make it at least possible for the Department to improve its position and for the citizens generally to enjoy prosperity. I beg of Members to let the Corporation have this Second Reading, and they will find that fair play will be extended upstairs. We will seek to demand only justice, and that is what we ask from this House by the approval of the Second Reading.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 203.

Division No. 31.]

AYES.

[8.15 p.m.

Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Butt, Sir Alfred

Ellis, R. G.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.s.-M

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow. Centr'l)

Campbell, E. T.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Carver, Major W. H.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Apsley, Lord

Cassels, J. D.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. w.

Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Fermoy, Lord

Baldwin, Rt, Hon. Stanley

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Ford, Sir P. J.

Balniel, Lord

Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Foster, Sir Henry S.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Chapman, Sir S.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Christie, J. A.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Bennett, A. J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Gates, Percy

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Berry, Sir George

Clarry, Reginald George

Glyn, Major R. G. C,

Bethel, A.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Gower, Sir Robert

Betterton, Henry B.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Grace, John

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Boothby, R.J. G.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Grant, Sir J. A.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Cooper, A. Duff

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Cope, Major William

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Brass, Captain W.

Couper, J. B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

Briggs, J. Harold

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N )

Grentell, Edward C. (City of London)

Briscoe, Richard George

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Brittain, Sir Harry

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Hall, Capt W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Hammersley, S. S.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

Hanbury, C.

Bullock, Captain M.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Harland, A.

Burman, J. B.

Dixey, A. C.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Hartington, Marquess of

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Skelton, A. N.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Merriman, F. B.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Smithers, Waldron

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Soar. & Wh'by)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Hills, Major John Waller

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G F. (Will'sden, E.)

Hilton, Cecil

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Storry-Deans, R.

Holland, Sir Arthur

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Neville, R. J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Hudson, Capt. A.U. M. (Hackney. N.)

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Huntingfield, Lord

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Hurd, Percy A.

Pennefather, Sir John

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Hurst, Gerald B.

Penny, Frederick George

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Iliffe, Sir Edward M

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Waddington, R.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Wallace Captain D. E.

Jacob, A. E.

Phillpson, Mabel

Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

Jephcott, A. R.

Ramsden, E.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Watts, Dr. T.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Wells, S. R.

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Remer, J. R.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairympie.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Remnant, Sir James

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Loder, J. de V.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

Looker, Herbert William

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Lougher, L.

Ropner, Major L.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Rye, F. G.

Withers, John James

Lumley, L. R.

Salmon, Major I.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

MacIntyre, Ian

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

McLean, Major A.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Wragg, Herbert

Macmillan, Captain H.

Sandon, Lord

Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Savery, S. S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.}

Malone, Major P. B.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Dennison, R.

Hirst. G. H.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Duncan, C.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Dunnico, H.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Ammon, Charles George

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Forrest, W.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Baker, Walter

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Gardner, J. P.

Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Barnes, A.

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Kelly, W. T.

Batey, Joseph

Gibbins, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Gillett, George M

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Bondfield, Margaret

Gosling, Harry

Kirkwood, D.

Briant, Frank

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lansbury, George

Broad, F. A.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Lawrence, Susan

Bromley, J.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Lawson, John James

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lee, F.

Buchanan, G.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lindley, F. W.

Cape, Thomas

Groves, T.

Livingstone, A. M.

Charleton, H. C.

Grundy, T. W.

Lowth, T.

Clowes, S.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Lunn, William

Cluse, W. S.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R. (Aberavon)

Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Mackinder, W.

Compton, Joseph

Hardie, George D.

MacLaren, Andrew

Connolly, M.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Cove, W. G.

Hayday, Arthur

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Crawfurd, H. E,

Hayes, John Henry

March, S.

Dalton, Hugh

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Maxton, James

Day, Colonel Harry

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)

674

675

Montague, Frederick

Sinclair, Major sir A. (Caithness)

Trevelyan, Rt Hon. C. P.

Morris, R. H.

Sitch, Charles H.

Varley, Frank B.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Siesser, Sir Henry H.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Mosley, Oswald

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Naylor, T. E.

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Oliver, George Harold

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Palin, John Henry

Snell, Harry

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Wellock, Wilfred

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Spoor, Rt, Hon. Benjamin Charles

Welsh, J. C.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Stamford, T. W.

Westwood, J.

Potts, John S,

Stephen, Campbell

Whiteley, W.

Purcell, A. A.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Wiggins, William Martin

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Sullivan, J.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Riley, Ben

Sutton, J. E.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Ritson, J.

Taylor, R. A.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Rose, Frank H.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

Windsor, Walter

Scrymgeour, E.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Scurr, John

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Sexton, James

Thurtle, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Tinker, John Joseph

Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Fenby.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Townend, A. E.

Resolution agreed to.

Division No. 32.]

AYES.

[10.56 p.m.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ammon, Charles George

Hirst, G. H.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Scurr, John

Baker, Walter

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sexton, James

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Barnes, A.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Batey, Joseph

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sitch, Charles H.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Siesser, Sir Henry H.

Bondfield, Margaret

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Broad, F. A.

Kennedy, T.

Snell, Harry

Bromley, J.

Kirkwood, D.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Lansbury, George

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Buchanan, G.

Lawrence, Susan

Stamford, T. W.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Lawson, John James

Stephen, Campbell

Cape, Thomas

Lee, F.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Charleton, H. C.

Lindley, F. W.

Sullivan, J.

Cluse, W. S.

Livingstone, A. M.

Sutton, J. E.

Connolly, M.

Lowth, T

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Cove, W. G.

Lunn, William

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Dalton, Hugh

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Tinker, John Joseph

Day, Colonel Harry

Mackinder, W.

Townend, A. E.

Dennison, R.

MacLaren, Andrew

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Duncan, C.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Varley, Frank B.

Dunnico, H.

March, S.

Vlant, S. P.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maxton, James

Wallhead, Richard C.

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Fenby, T. D.

Montague, Frederick

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Morris, R. H.

Wellock, Wilfred

Gardner, J. P.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Welsh, J. C.

Gibbins, Joseph

Naylor, T. E.

Whiteley, W.

Gillett, George M.

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

Wiggins, William Martin

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Groves, T.

Potts, John S.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grundy, T. W.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Windsor, Walter

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Remer, J. R.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Hardle, George D.

Riley, Ben

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Ritson, J.

Lieut.-Colonel Gadie and Mr. Palin.

Hayes, John Henry

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

Grace, John

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Colfox, Major William Phillips

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Cope, Major William

Grant, Sir J. A.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Couper, J. B.

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Apsley, Lord

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N.)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hammersley, S. S.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry

Bethel, A.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Harland, A.

Betterton, Henry B.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Hartington, Marquees of

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Brass, Captain W.

Dixey, A. C.

Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Duckworth John

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Ellis, R. G

Hills, Major John Waller

Burman, J. B.

Erskine, Lord {Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Hilton, Cecil

Butt, Sir Alfred

Everard, W. Lindsay

Hohier, sir Gerald Fitzroy

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Campbell, E. T.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Carver, Major W. H.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Cassels, J. D.

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Forrest, W.

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Huntingfield, Lord

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

Hurd, Percy A.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Gates, Percy

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Jacob, A. E.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Gower, Sir Robert

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

720

721

Jephcott, A. R.

Penny, Frederick George

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Perkins, Colonel E. K,

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple]

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Knox, Sir Alfred

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Sugden Sir Wilfrid

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Philipson, Mabel

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Looker, Herbert William

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Lougher, L.

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Lumley, L. R.

Rentoul, G. S.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Waddington, R.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Rye, F G.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Salmon, Major I.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Watts, Dr. T.

Margesson, Captain D.

Sandeman, A, Stewart

Wells, S. R.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Williams, A, M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Savery, S. S.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Skelton, A. N.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Nelson, Sir Frank

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Wise, Sir Fredric

Neville, R. J.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)

Withers, John James

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Smithers, Waldron

Wragg, Herbert

Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.{Ptrsf'ld.)

Somerville, A. A, (Windsor)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Stanley, Col. Hon.G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Mr. Ramsden and Sir Francis Watson.

Pennefather, Sir John

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Second Reading put off for six months.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (By Order)—Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order).

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o Clock.

  TRADE UNION BILL.
  TRADE UNION BILL.
  EASTER (FIXED DATE).
  EASTER (FIXED DATE).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  DIPHTHERIA AND SCARLET FEVER.
  DIPHTHERIA AND SCARLET FEVER.
  INFLUENZA.
  INFLUENZA.
  PRESERVATIVES IN FOOD REGULATIONS.
  PRESERVATIVES IN FOOD REGULATIONS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ROTA COMMITTEES, STIRLING AND HAMILTON.
  ROTA COMMITTEES, STIRLING AND HAMILTON.
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (W. ANDREWS).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (W. ANDREWS).
  HOSPITALS.
  HOSPITALS.
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.
  PRICES, YORKSHIRE.
  PRICES, YORKSHIRE.
TRANSPORT.
  OMNIBUS SERVICE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.
  OMNIBUS SERVICE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.
  KENSINGTON HIGH STREET (WIDENING).
  KENSINGTON HIGH STREET (WIDENING).
MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  PETROL CONSUMPTION.
  PETROL CONSUMPTION.
  OFFENCES, SUTTON.
  OFFENCES, SUTTON.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, TIPTON, DARLASTON, AND WEDNESBURY.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, TIPTON, DARLASTON, AND WEDNESBURY.
  NIGERIA (LAND POLICY).
  NIGERIA (LAND POLICY).
  KENYA (MILITARY SERVICE BILL).
  KENYA (MILITARY SERVICE BILL).
  AMERICAN LEGIONARIES.
  AMERICAN LEGIONARIES.
  MANUFACTURE OF ARMS (CONVENTION).
  MANUFACTURE OF ARMS (CONVENTION).
  ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.
  ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.
  INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND CONVENTIONS (LATVIA AND MAURITIUS).
  INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND CONVENTIONS (LATVIA AND MAURITIUS).
  NICARAGUA (BRITISH CRUISER).
  NICARAGUA (BRITISH CRUISER).
ROYAL NAVY.
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "RODNEY" AND "NELSON."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "RODNEY" AND "NELSON."
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  SHIPS IN RESERVE (MEDICAL STAFF).
  SHIPS IN RESERVE (MEDICAL STAFF).
  MR. CHURCHILL'S BOOK (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS).
  MR. CHURCHILL'S BOOK (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS).
  JAPANESE NAVY (GUNBOATS).
  JAPANESE NAVY (GUNBOATS).
  BOARD OF TRADE (FOOD DEPARTMENT).
  BOARD OF TRADE (FOOD DEPARTMENT).
  HULL CORPORATION TELEPHONES (FOREIGN CONTRACT).
  HULL CORPORATION TELEPHONES (FOREIGN CONTRACT).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FRANCE, GERMANY, DENMARK AND SWEDEN.
  FRANCE, GERMANY, DENMARK AND SWEDEN.
SCOTLAND.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA.
  HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) ACT.
  HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) ACT.
  POST OFFICE (PRESS TELEGRAMS).
  POST OFFICE (PRESS TELEGRAMS).
  COMMUNIST MEETING, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
  COMMUNIST MEETING, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
  JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (REPORT).
  JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (REPORT).
  CHINA (INDIAN TROOPS).
  CHINA (INDIAN TROOPS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SICK LEAVE).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SICK LEAVE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EAUL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
YEADON WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think I can save time if I read a letter that has been sent to the Town Clerk of Liverpool by the Assistant-Secretary of the Ministry of Health. Your Lordships will see that three members of your Lordships' House have given notice to move that it should be an instruction to the Committee that Clause 214 [Power to buy, sell, import and deal in coal] should be omitted. The letter is as follows:—
"With reference to the Bill promoted by the Corporation in the present Session of Parliament, the Minister observes that, in Clause 214, the City Council propose to take powers to engage in the sale of coal.
"I am directed to inform you that the Government consider that this is not a matter which is suited for local legislation and that, if and when they are satisfied that action is necessary, they will deal with it as a general question.
"In the circumstances the Minister hopes that the Council will see their way to withdraw the clause."
330
That being so, the promoters have communicated with me and, I believe, also with my noble friend, saying that when the Bill reaches the Committee they will ask those of your Lordships who serve on the Committee to omit that clause.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD FORRES LORD FORRES had given Notice to move, in the event of the Bill being committed, That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out Clause 214. The noble Lord said: My Lords, while the action taken by the promoters of this Bill under the inspiration of the Government renders entirely unnecessary the Motion that I had intended to move, I should like on the Second Reading to make some reference to the principles which it is proposed to carry into legislation in this Bill. The larger portion of the Bill is, I think, unobjectionable, and I do not propose to refer to any of the points that will come under review by the Committee and will, no doubt, receive the care and attention that are always given by Committees of this House. Nevertheless, Committees of this House are small in numbers and not all of us sit upon them, and we have not therefore an opportunity of examining in detail many of the interesting points that arise.
This particular clause, Clause 214, though it is proposed to withdraw it in Committee, is still in the Bill, so far as this House is concerned at the moment, and it brings before us a question of very vital importance to the trading community and the consumers of this country. This question of municipal trading is one on which it is difficult to lay down an absolutely hard and fast rule as to how far it can be permitted. It is obvious that such matters as the supply of gas, water, electric light and so forth may be called municipal trading; but they are, after all, public utilities and are concerned with cutting up the public streets which are in the charge of the municipalities concerned. These public utilities occupy, in my judgment, a very different position from a trade in such an article as coal. In matters of trading it appears to me that private enterprise can better supply the needs of the community and at a cheaper cost than municipal trading

331
can supply them. Therefore there is no need for municipalities to undertake that branch of activity, although it may be quite reasonable that they should undertake the supply of water, gas and electricity. The two things are on an entirely different footing. And while I believe that municipal trading has already been allowed to go to some extent beyond what are called public utilities—I believe, for example, that the Legislature has sanctioned municipal trading in electric light fittings—still we have to be very jealous and very careful not to allow this policy to be generally adopted.
This power would have given Liverpool the right to deal in coal, not only in the case of a strike but also in the case of an apprehended rise in prices. Well, if Liverpool may speculate in coal because the Town Clerk and the Corporation think that there is to be a rise in the price of coal, why should not Manchester and a great many other towns also do so? We should then have the spectacle of municipalities entering upon speculations which might end disastrously and the cost of which might fall upon the ratepayer. I think the principle is a dangerous one. It was for that reason that I put down the Motion which stands in my name, but I did so on my own initiative and only subsequently did I receive representations from a number of bodies who entirely objected to this clause. I am very glad that the Government have taken my Motion into consideration and recommended the promoters of the Bill to withdraw the clause. I shall be interested to know whether they have done so on principle or because of the details of the clause, but that perhaps is immaterial at the moment. They have taken that step and therefore the object I had in view has been achieved. I wish to say for my part as a trader and merchant, that the principle suggested in this clause is one which I think is a very bad one, and I hope we shall not have it brought again before this House.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, it must not be taken that those who sit on this Bench agree with all the principles laid down by the noble Lord who has just spoken. If he wishes to see an example of what is aimed at let him look at the price of coal that is being charged by the coal merchants in London
332
to-day and compare it with the price that is being charged in Scotland. There is no doubt that somewhere or other there is a great taking of profit and adding to profits going on at this moment which ought to be checked. I quite appreciate the proposition that legislation ought to be entered into in a general fashion, but pending that it must not be taken that some of us here do not recognise the great grievance from which the public is suffering at the hands of the private vendors of coal in comparison with what might be if the sale of coal were put on a different footing. It is all very well to take this as a proposition which is concerned with Socialism, but your Lordships have already embarked upon Socialism in the case of water, light and gas, and the time will come when you will have to embark upon it in connection with public conveyance.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I quite agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Forres, with regard to Clause 214. I confess I am somewhat surprised that a Corporation with such a reputation as Liverpool should put a clause of this kind into their Bill practically containing as it does the principle of bringing Socialism into every question affecting marketing and selling—a clause, indeed, which would enable them to buy and sell coal when they think the price too high. Whether the price is high or not it will always be too high for gentlemen who are anxious to get votes. This principle is one which could be developed to any extent, and I cannot see why coal is specially selected. If you give the power to buy and sell coal, why not give it in the case of flour and meat, in fact everything that a Corporation might think was too dear? I think there is a great deal of ignorance prevalent with regard to these matters, but to give a municipality this power would be a very foolish and unwise policy on the part of your Lordships. The price of coal varies constantly and I have always found that competition is the best means of fixing its value.
I know that people are accustomed to compare the price of coal coming out of the pit with the price of coal supplied to the consumer. They are altogether different things. The price of coal which comes out of the pit is for the whole of the coal produced from the mine, containing stones, which have to be picked

333
out, and dirt, and it has to be screened to a large extent before you can supply it for domestic use. There are some cases where thirty, forty and I have even known cases where seventy per cent, of the coal is slack and small coal which has to be taken out of house coal intended for domestic use. The price of the latter is therefore altogether altered because screened coal commands a high price and small coal usually a very low price. Then you have to consider the cost of taking it to the consumer. I have had some experience of retailing coal to small people. They do not usually take a very large quantity, and a man who is dealing with 20,000 tons of coal in the year, selling by cart, has very heavy expenses. He has offices to keep up, he has rates and taxes to pay, he has clerks, and he finds that in handling the coal it is often very much broken and he has to take a large quantity of small coal out of it. All that means that there is no comparison whatever between the price paid by the consumer and the price realised at the pit for the whole of the production. It is quite impossible at the moment to give an exact figure because in every town and district the figures vary.
I am bound to say that if the Liverpool Corporation attempts to undertake this trade it will lead to very great difficulties in connection with many other matters. I am not a believer in all this legislation against profits. What is business for but to make profit? Who benefits? Of any profit that I make the Government takes fifty per cent., and I suppose when I die they will take fifty per cent. of my savings. I feel sure of this, that if you allow this clause to pass you will create many very great difficulties in other ways. Municipal authorities cannot compete with private enterprise any more than a Government can compete with private enterprise. In Newcastle we have a very good system of trams, but what has happened? The Corporation will not give a licence for a single omnibus because they know very well that if they allow omnibuses to run they will very soon have to close down the trams altogether. Omnibuses are very much more convenient, they do not stop the traffic and can be run at very much less cost, I am sure, than the ordinary tramway.
334
I do not think that on consideration your Lordships will allow this Bill to pass without giving an instruction to the Committee to remove Clause 214. Whatever may be the opinion of the Liverpool Corporation and other municipalities who intend to go into these social questions, I do hope that your Lordships, in the interests of the community at large, will not allow such a clause to pass. The community has a very great interest in this matter. Do you think that the private retailer is going to compete with a municipality which has the rates behind it and which, if it makes a loss, will be able to make it good out of the rates? As a very large ratepayer I know perfectly well that it would be extremely unwise to allow any municipality or any Government to carry on business of this kind. This is the beginning of an attempt to get hold of the general trade of the country and I feel quite sure that if your Lordships do not pass the instruction you will have a great many similar Bills brought forward by those extreme men who, in my judgment, do not quite understand these questions. I hope that your Lordships will prevent municipalities from going in for trading against the regular traders of the country. The regular traders are the people who pay the rates. I feel sure that as time goes on if we do allow such a clause as this to pass, it Will have a very serious and bad influence upon all these matters, which we are so anxious to carry on for the benefit of the community.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, as various noble Lords were not present when the letter was read by the Lord Chairman I think it would be well if I read it again. It is a letter sent by the Ministry of Health to the Town Clerk of Liverpool and is as follows:—
"With reference to the Bill promoted by the Corporation in the present Session of Parliament the Minister observes that, in Clause 214, the City Council propose to take powers to engage in the sale of coal.
"I am directed to inform you that the Government consider that this is not a matter which is suited for local legislation and that, if and when they are satisfied that action is necessary, they will deal with it as a general question.
"In the circumstances the Minister hopes that the Council will see their way to withdraw, the clause."

335
The Government understand that in deference to their wishes an undertaking has been given that this clause will be withdrawn. Therefore the general considerations which have been put forward by various noble Lords do not arise in this particular case.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to call attention to the Note recently addressed by His Majesty's Government to the Soviet Charge d'Affaires in London, dated 23rd February, 1927. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will probably remember that in the early part of last summer a discussion took place here upon our relations with the Soviet Government, and that upon that occasion my noble friend the Earl of Balfour, who I regret to see is not in his place this afternoon, made a very exhaustive speech dealing in great detail with the whole question. That speech has always served as a kind of official exposition of our relations with the Soviet Government. In that speech he did not dissociate himself from some severely critical observations which had been made upon the. Soviet Government. He expressed, in fact, general agreement with what had been said; he made it clear that his Majesty's Government were fully aware of, and were under no illusions whatever as to, the real sentiments of the Soviet Government with regard to this country. He also made it clear that they were under no illusions as to the various aliases and subterfuges under which the Soviet Government concealed itself. He expressed the opinion in so many words that the sending of money in aid of the General Strike was an unfriendly act, which no Government could tolerate.
But he wound up by announcing that in spite of the admissions which he had made, His Majesty's Government had no intention of taking any specific action. That statement naturally received a
336
somewhat varied reception. Those persons whom it is now convenient to designate as "Die-Hards"—I observe that the term "Die-Hard" is usually applied to anybody who wants to get anything done definitely—naturally disapproved of this statement, but upon the whole it was received with approval and upon the whole the Government, if I may so express it, got a further mandate for patience. Nine months or so have elapsed since this statement was made and we are now back at the original point. We are not only back to the time of the intervention of the Soviet Government on the occasion of the General Strike last year but we are further back still; we are back to 1924 at the period when the Labour Government, through the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, were impelled send a strong expostulation to the Soviet Government with regard to their intolerable interference in our affairs.
As we all know, a long protest has recently been addressed to the Soviet Government more or less on the same lines. This Note of protest on oar part is really, so to speak, a long recapitulation of the various kicks which we have received at various times from the Soviet Government. This expostulatory Note on our part has already received a reply from the Soviet Government and I do not think I am using the language of exaggeration when I say that this reply is both evasive and impudent. It denies the charges which have been brought against the Soviet Government, it repudiates with almost incredible effrontery the authorship of and responsibility for the Zinoviev letter. Perhaps I may observe parenthetically that the explanation of the repudiation by M. Zinoviev of that celebrated letter is a perfectly simple one. Obviously what happened was that we had not possession of the original but had possession of a copy. It was therefore open to him to say that he had not signed the copy and that statement has about as much importance to be attached to it as would a statement of a Member of Parliament if he were to repudiate the statements made in his Election Address because he had not actually printed the placard himself.
This Note makes no allusion whatsoever, if I am not mistaken, to the fact that they sent money here in favour of

337
the General Strike; it makes no promise whatever to modify their political action in future with regard to this country; and it concludes with a lurid threat that His Majesty's Government will break off relations with the Soviet Government at its own peril. No doubt there is a good deal of bluff in this, but at all events it shows one thing conclusively and that is that there has been, so to speak, no change of heart on the part of these people. At first sight I think it must strike everybody that on paper and in theory the case for a rupture of diplomatic relations and for the termination of the Trade Agreement is justified over and over again. I would ask the House, more particularly noble Lords opposite, whether they can recall any instance in modern times in which any Government has so persistently and so ostentatiously interfered in the affairs of another Government. I would ask them to reverse the position and to consider what would be the case if we acted in this way ourselves with regard not only to the Soviet Government but to any other Government.
I can remember, and many noble Lords here will remember, that our Ambassador in Washington, the late Lord Sack-ville, was turned out of the United States, if I remember correctly at a very few hours' notice, because he had ventured to answer a question put to him by a person of British extraction in America who wanted his opinion upon the Presidential Election. Our Ambassador was unceremoniously turned out of the country. What do noble Lords opposite think would happen if, for instance, a Labour Government in this country were found to be encouraging some kind of agitation against, let us say, Signor Mussolini in Italy? Or, again, supposing the Conservative Party were in power and a Conservative Government were found to be sympathising with, and providing encouragement and means for the financing of, a Legitimist revival in France? But I prefer to take the case of Russia. What do noble Lords imagine would be the result if they interfered in any way in the internal affairs in Russia?
I can imagine very well what would happen. I can form a better idea perhaps than other people because I can quote an instance which came within my personal knowledge. I have already
338
mentioned this case to the House, but it seems to me to be so significant that am not ashamed to repeat it. In the year 1925 some refugee Russians in Paris subscribed a sum of money to assist their former school fellows who were living in great poverty in Leningrad. They collected a certain amount of money which was sent to Leningrad. The facts became known to the Soviet Government and all the persons who received the money, including old men and old women, were instantly arrested, taken off to a political prison and shot without the semblance of a trial. This took place in the early days of July, 1925, and it so happened that I was in Leningrad myself only a few weeks subsequent to that event and when the circumstances had become known. The circumstances attending this particular execution were so horrible that even those persons who had been living in Russia under the new system were not only horrified but amazed, for they had been under the impression that the Soviet had, to some extent, reformed its system and that outrages of this kind had ceased. This episode showed how wrong they were in their judgment and what would be the fate of any person who received money from a foreign source living in Russia. Such persons would be accused of high treason and the probability is they would all be executed without any trial at all.
Apart from the question of reciprocity, it has always seemed to me that when we express indignation at the procedure of the Soviet Government we make a great mistake. We are committing a serious error when we imagine that this hostility is directed solely against a Conservative Government. I do not want unduly to pain noble Lords opposite, but I am quite convinced that the Soviet Government holds noble Lords opposite in equal detestation; indeed, I am not at all sure they do not dislike them even more than they dislike us. It would not surprise me at all to find, for instance, that my noble friend Lord Parmoor was more cordially detested in Russia than, shall I say, Lord Birkenhead or Mr. Winston Churchill. There is no class of person for whom the Soviet Government entertains such detestation as the so-called moderate members of the Labour Party in this country.
I say that not only because of what I read in the Press but because of what I have heard and observed myself. If anybody feels any doubt I would invite them to read the more advanced Opposition Press. There you will find plaintive laments from people like Mr. Snowden and Mr. Bromley, M.P., of the abuse to which they are subjected by the Soviet Government. What pains them more than anything else, what actually cuts them to the heart, is that the Soviet Government by adopting this procedure are playing what they call "the Tory game." In other words, they are blurting out the truth. The moral of all this is that if a moderate Labour Government ever comes into power in this country again it will suffer just as much from attacks from the Soviet Government as the present Government does. In fact, the only Government I can conceive of which would be exempt from attacks of this kind would be a Government formed by Mr. Cook, supposing that unhappy contingency ever occurred.
The reasons for breaking off diplomatic relations and for terminating the Trade Agreements really have been supplied by members of the Cabinet themselves. Distinguished and prominent members of the Cabinet have described members of the Soviet Government as murderers, swindlers, robbers and assassins, amongst other epithets. If this is true, and there is no reason to suppose it is not true, how can you continue to associate on so-called friendly terms with them? How can yon keep up the pretence of being on friendly and amicable terms with people whom you describe in this way? Why do you associate with them at all? Of course, I understand that there are many and weighty arguments which can be used against the rupture of diplomatic relations, although I often wonder whether the disadvantages of breaking off diplomatic relations would not be more than balanced by the advantages which we should derive thereby. We are told, and it may be true—though I have much more confidence in the Foreign Office in these matters than most people have—that if we break off diplomatic relations some vague international calamity may occur, a regrouping of powers or something equally important. I do not pretend to be sufficiently behind the scenes to know whether this is the case or not. On the
340
other hand, even supposing it is true, it seems to me that the breaking off of diplomatic relations on our part may have a quite different result.
I do not think it is sufficiently realised that the Bolsheviks are not only the enemies of this country but the enemies of all countries—that is to say, of all countries where there is a civilised and orderly Government. We have had plenty of evidence of that. There are about half a dozen countries in Europe which they have attempted to overthrow by what is called "direct action." They have tried it in Bulgaria, in Hungary, in Poland, in Esthonia, in Latvia, and they will try it in other countries no doubt if they get the opportunity. Here they have not attempted direct action. They have preferred indirect action, with the assistance of Mr. Cook and his friends. But supposing we nerved ourselves, supposing the Government decided to break off diplomatic relations, I often wonder whether it would not have a very encouraging effect upon Europe and whether our action would not be hailed with great satisfaction by other Powers. They might conceivably be induced to follow our example. At the same time I realise the objections perfectly well, and if His Majesty's Government are still satisfied that rupture of diplomatic relations is not a thing which ought to be undertaken, then what I am anxious to submit is that there is another and in my opinion a better alternative, although of a less sensational nature.
The alternative which I suggest and which has been suggested by plenty of people before me is that the Trade Agreement should be terminated. Any suggestion of that kind would be received in certain quarters with horror, but as a matter of fact the importance of our trade with Russia is greatly exaggerated. In the first place, when people talk about the trade we have lost with Russia, they do not seem to realise the fact that our trade with the old Russia was conducted principally with those parts of the Russian Empire which now form separate communities altogether, such as Poland, for instance, Finland and so forth. But, as a matter of fact, the volume of Russian trade is very insignificant. I do not think it amounts to more than 1½ per cent., or something of that kind, of our total trade. But whereas the trade with

341
Russia is of no particular importance to us it is of very great importance to the Russians themselves. The position is that we sell very little to them—I forget what the amount is but it is very small. On the other hand, they sell a great deal to us. I think they sell something like £25,000,000 worth a year to us. The greater proportion of what they sell is made up of oil and timber—that is to say, property which has been stolen from other people. Therefore what we are doing is this—and it is not much to our credit commercially—we are buying, or a certain section of merchants are buying, stolen goods. They are paying for those goods with British money, that money goes to Russia and it is used against us, not only in propaganda in this country but in financing war in China and elsewhere.
That is the net result of our Trade Agreement. So far as I know no similar Trade Agreement exists between Soviet Russia and any other Power. Yet, in spite of this fact, American trade with Soviet Russia is in a far more favourable position than ours and the United States sell at least double as much as we do. I was interested in observing that a day or two ago a speech was made by Sir Robert Horne, who negotiated the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement in 1921. He, therefore, must know what he is talking about. Sir Robert Horne stated that he had the greatest hope when he signed this Agreement that it would not only result in the improvement of our relations but would help considerably towards remedying the present economic condition of Europe. Well, he has had to admit that it has been a complete disappointment, and he goes so far as to say—and I think he would be corroborated by every one who has studied the question—that that Agreement has been a failure in almost every clause. Under the Agreement you can denounce it at any moment if it has been broken. Therefore if you wish to denounce it you can do so to-morrow. If you do not wish to take advantage of flagrant breaches of the Agreement to terminate it suddenly you can give six months' notice. Surely it is not too much to ask the Government that they should seriously consider this proposal and that if they are not prepared to denounce the Agreement at once they should give notice that the Agreement will be terminated six months hence.
What does not seem to be realised is that in this matter we have the whip hand. They are most anxious to trade with us; whether we trade with them is to us a matter of comparative unimportance. They are bound to come to us in order to get the money and it is for that reason that in the Trade Agreement we have a most valuable weapon in our possession. In addition, I might point out that, not only will the denunciation of the Agreement probably bring them to their senses, but it will enable us to effect a much more satisfactory Agreement later on. In any case it seems inconceivable that this policy of inaction should continue. Ministers seem sometimes to have forgotten that it was really Zinoviev who gave them their unprecedented majority. This Government was returned to power more for the purpose of ridding this country of Russian interference than for any other reason and I do not think it is possible for the Government to forget that fact. Not only that, but we are occupying at the present moment a most humiliating position in the eyes of the civilised world because we are tolerating, and we have already for several years tolerated, their behaviour. If no definite action is announced on the part of His Majesty's Government now, I cannot help thinking that the worst possible impression will be produced. It seems almost inconceivable that one of the greatest Powers in the world should be, so to speak, perpetually insulted and held to ransom by these people, who might almost be described as the enemies of civilisation.
The language I have used has, I am afraid, been rather forcible, but, on the whole, I do not think it is more forcible than that employed by persons occupying much more responsible positions than myself and who are actually Cabinet Ministers. I have a slight regret at being obliged to use this language myself. I have no personal grievance against the Soviet Government. In fact—I am almost ashamed to say it—I am under some slight obligation to them. I suppose I am almost the only member of this Assembly who has been to Russia comparatively recently. The Soviet authorities allowed me to go there. I asked no favours of them, but they treated me with civility and courtesy. They did not interfere with my movements and they

343
did not attempt to convert me or to infect me with their propaganda. Whether it was because they considered that it was no use or that I was not worth the trouble, I do not know. At any rate they treated me well and left me alone. Anybody, however, must admit that personal courtesy and personal civility cannot blind one to actual facts. Even the shortest visit to Russia, whatever one's treatment may be, cannot fail to make one realise the condition to which that country has been brought by its present leaders. Least of all can it remove the impression of persistent and unrelenting hostility which that Government has always manifested and continues to manifest towards us and our institutions.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I presume that few, if any, of your Lordships will doubt the justification of the noble Lord, who has just spoken, for many of his observations and- especially those founded upon the propaganda which has been carried on by the Soviet Government and directed against this country. Nevertheless, I find myself unable to arrive at the same conclusion as the noble Lord. I gather that the real question before us now is not the Note, although that is the foundation of the debate, but what action should be taken in consequence of the despatch of the Note and the reply transmitted by the Russian Government. After all, the Note has been sent. It may be doubted, and I would myself rather doubt, whether in truth any useful purpose has been served by sending it. The Russian Government, by means of those various organisations the names of which are familiar to some of your Lordships and certainly are known to all those who have had to deal with Russian propaganda, especially in the East, has carried on this system now for a considerable time. At the very moment when the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement of 1921 was concluded, or very soon after, some representations were made by His Majesty's Government directed against this propaganda.
The truth of the matter is, as the noble Lord said, that the propaganda is not directed against a particular Party. I doubt whether any one has ever imagined that the Russian Soviet Government was concerned with dealing only with the Conservative Party. The action of that
344
Government is directed against the system of government which is carried on, not only in this country, but throughout the civilised world. It happens, unfortunately in some respects, that this Government has been made the chief target, probably for reasons not very difficult to conjecture. Perhaps it is because of the might and the influence of the Empire, perhaps also because it is thought that this Empire, by reason of its vast territories throughout the world, might be more easily attacked than, let us say, the United States of America, which has not the same interest as we have in the East or in the rest of the world. It may be also that, inasmuch as democratic government, really saw its origin in this country and has made persistent progress and the system of government is more stable in this country than in many others and as stable as in any, therefore the Russian Government directed its attacks against us because its object is to spread the notions upon which its own government has been built, up and to introduce the same system of government throughout the world instead of its being confined, as it is now, to Russia and the territories over which it has influence and power.
But, when all this is said, one gets to the question of the value of the Note and of the action to be taken. That there was ample justification for indignation on the part of His Majesty's Government is beyond dispute. I do not suppose that any of your Lordships who are present would hesitate to make the same observation. I do not suppose that any member of the Opposition would take a different view. Indeed, it would ill befit him if he did, for the late Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who was then also Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, himself in 1924 addressed a very strong remonstrance to the Russian Government on this campaign of propaganda which was being carried on against our own Government. Accordingly, I think one is justified in saying that all of your Lordships must be of the same opinion in this respect.
As to the action taken by His Majesty's Government, I am not disposed to indulge in much criticism of it, because I can see that the temptation was very great to take some action, to make some representation to the Russian Government

345
which might have some effect, might produce some explanation or might possibly lead to better conditions in the future. The Note has been answered. I pass over the reply, which, in my judgment, has received quite sufficient notice in the observations made by the noble Lord who initiated this debate. Certainly he was fully justified in saying that it was evasive. It answers every point except the one upon which the Government's Note was really based, and therefore it may be said not to have met the case that was put.
Then I ask myself, in common with those who are associated with me and with the Party to which I belong, what we should gain either by abrogating or denouncing the Trade Agreement, as is suggested, or by severing diplomatic relations. It is quite true, as the noble Lord suggested—and indeed one does not wonder at it—that there is some indication of a possibility of action of this character—I do not think that it goes further than that—in the Note that His Majesty's Government has recently addressed to Russia. But to sever diplomatic relations is a very serious step to take. I do not wish to enter into any long discussion upon it, inasmuch as the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, spoke upon this subject not very long ago—I think some eight or nine months—in your Lordships' House. He dealt with this question and showed quite clearly the vast difference that there is between entering into diplomatic relations and breaking off diplomatic relations, and he illustrated the conditions that must be considered in relation to both. When you are once in diplomatic relations, to break them off is indeed a serious rupture, and I do not think that any one could easily foretell the consequences of that action.
Perhaps your Lordships will remember that such action was the precursor of the advent of the United States into the War. In February, 1917, diplomatic relations between Germany and the United States of America were broken off, and in April America entered into the War. I am not suggesting that any such consequences must ensue in this case. What I mean is that every country must realise the importance of not breaking off diplomatic relations
346
unless the conditions actually compel such action. It may be said or thought by some that the present conditions demand it. But I would ask: What is the advantage? That there is some danger no one can dispute, and not the least of the difficulties is that no one can exactly foretell what the consequences would be. That there would be no diplomatic agent to whom to make any representation of any character obviously follows, and such means as you have, poor, indeed, as I admit that they may be, of exerting anything in the nature of peaceful pressure would disappear immediately. Another consequence that would follow is that we should be acting in isolation from other Powers. We should be the only country that had broken off diplomatic relations with Russia after having entered into them, and I very much doubt whether any country would follow the example that we set. It is not desirable that we should be placed in this isolated position. I admit that circumstances might occur in which His Majesty's Government would be compelled to take this step. What I am now considering is whether this is the moment at which the Government ought to take it.
I turn to the other remedy suggested and, as I gathered, advocated by the noble Lord in his speech to-day—namely, that we should put an end to the Trade Agreement. I would ask again: What is it supposed that we shall have done when we have done that? What do we gain? What pressure shall we have brought to bear on Russia? It is true that our trade with Russia is not very large. In 1924, to go no further back, it was about £31,000,000, taking imports, exports and re-exports together. In 1925 it was £44,000,000 and in 1926 it was £38,000,000. That is not a very important amount and, as the noble Lord quite correctly said, the greater part of it represents imports. That, course, is an important factor in the argument that he was adducing. Nevertheless, it represents trade that we are carrying on.
A great deal of this trade—I am not sure that I should be wrong if I said nearly all of it—would be, or certainly might be, carried on without a Trading Agreement. America has no Trading Agreement, and yet America is carrying on trade with Russia. I do not like to

347
commit myself to the figures that the noble Lord mentioned, but I think he suggested that it was about double the amount of trade that we are doing. America carries on her trade with Russia without a Trading Agreement and, indeed, without diplomatic relations, because the Government of the United States has been consistent in refusing to enter into diplomatic relations with Russia from the time when the Soviet Government came into existence. This at least establishes that the mere fact of the existence of the Trading Agreement is not necessary for trade, but I would suggest, nevertheless, that it does help, and that it is easier for those in this country who wish to carry on trade to have some recognised authority to whom they can address themselves.
I am not for one moment suggesting that trade is the only consideration; far from it. It is one consideration, and the importance of it should not be lost sight of; but there are others. The political considerations seem to me far to outweigh all the arguments that can be brought forward in regard to abrogating the Trade Agreement. But there is perhaps an even stronger reason. I have no immediate knowledge, and I do not know what the Government intend to say or what action they propose to take, but I cannot but think that after the Note that they have sent it really is not open to them at once either to abrogate the Trading Agreement or to sever diplomatic relations. The true effect of the Note as I read it—I do not happen to have it before me, but I think I remember very well the effect of it—was to give a warning somewhat in the words that I will now use (I do not say the exact language): that public opinion would not long tolerate the continuance of the propaganda now carried on by Russia, and sooner or later would, if it continued, demand that there should be an abrogation of the Trade Agreement, and even a severance of diplomatic relations. That Note, as I should interpret it—and as I should think any one who is in the habit of dealing with documents of this character, and especially with solemn remonstrances forwarded by one Government to another would interpret it—seems to me to negative the breaking off of either the Trading Agreement or diplomatic relations immediately I do not for a moment suggest that
348
the Government may not in future take that action, indeed it is indicated that they may take it; but what is said is that if these acts continue then they will take this course.
It may well be said, and I am sure it is thought by many of your Lordships, that we have addressed remonstrances of this kind before. That is perfectly true. In 1923 the noble Marquess who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the late Lord Curzon of Kedleston, addressed a Note in strong terms protesting against the propaganda. I am myself, of course, very conscious of it, inasmuch as I was then in office in India, and naturally I had to keep a close and vigilant eye upon the propaganda that was carried on there. Then there was an answer made, and there was a Conference, or a proposed Conference, and in the end a document was drawn up which, if it had been carried out, would have put an end to the propaganda then carried on. But it really seems to have had no effect, or, if it had, only for a short time, because it was in 1924, when Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, that he had to address to the Soviet Government the Note to which I have already adverted, and which was as strong a remonstrance as could be put forward But nothing has happened. We discussed the subject, and then eventually, a few days ago, the last Note was sent.
Well, again I would ask your Lordships to consider what advantage could be obtained either by taking the one action or the other. I do not wish to repeat anything I have said in reference to diplomatic relations, but I do hope that His Majesty's Government have no intention at this moment of taking any such step, or of putting an end to the Trade Agreement. It is better, in conditions of this character and dealing with a foreign nation, and especially with the Government with which we have to contend in Russia, that we should leave our hands open, having carefully laid the ground, in case further action made it necessary to take a strong step. The Government have done all that can be asked of them. They have given the solemn warning, and, as it seems to me, they are bound now to wait and see whether effect is to be given to the warning which they have addressed to the Russian Government.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it has almost become a habit, I am afraid, with me to have to apologise for the absence of my distinguished colleagues on account of illness, but I am compelled, to my own regret, and I am sure to the great regret of your Lordships, to say that my noble friend the Lord President of the Council found himself to-day quite unable to make a speech, and therefore he has, I am sorry to say, delegated that duty to myself. I do not regret this debate, because I think it will have the effect of bringing home to the public, especially the Russian public, the unanimity at any rate of English opinion as regards their judgment of the conduct of the Russian Government. We have heard two most interesting and important speeches this evening. The opinions of my noble friend Lord Newton on this subject are very well known, and he has repeated what he has already said several times in your Lordships' House, how bitterly he resents the conduct of the Russian Government. But really, although it was conveyed in rather more judicial language, I do not think that the observations on that head of the noble and learned Marquess who has just sat down fall short in indignation at the attitude of the Russian Government.
And I have very little doubt that when the spokesman of the Front Bench opposite rises to speak he will use similar language. I say that with confidence because many of his political friends have used language of that description, and notably Mr. Snowden, whose attitude on this subject is well known. He said only this year:—
"Wherever there is a prospect of stirring up trouble they—"
the Russian Communists—
"are there."
He went on to say:—
"They have no right to interfere in the political and economic conditions in other countries, and to try and impose their ideas and their systems on others."
And finally he said, in very striking words:—
"But neither British Labour nor any British Government ought to, or will, tolerate interference with their internal affairs by an outside body."
That is to say, amongst all men except a few negligible extremists, amongst all men of good will in this country there is
350
but one opinion in reference to the attitude of the Russian authorities. And this debate will help to bring that home to them. When they read the speech of the noble and learned Marquess and the speeches, I have no doubt of a similar kind, which will be delivered in another place this afternoon, it will, I hope, be brought home to them finally.
My noble friend behind me says we are entitled to take strong action. I think the noble Marquess said so, too. Undoubtedly we are so entitled. The case is proved up to the hilt. There is no question that we are entitled to do that. My noble friend gave a number of illustrations in his own picturesque manner of how such an attitude as that which the Russian Government and those who act for them have adopted, would be viewed if repeated by other countries, and he showed, I thought quite convincingly, that the resentment would be rapid and immediate. There is no question of what we are entitled to do. The question is not what we are entitled to do, but what in the interests of our own country and of the world we ought to do. There is no other question. My noble friend spoke, I thought, rather slightingly of patience. There is no statesmanship without patience. It is the most essential of all qualities, and more especially is it necessary in dealing with foreign affairs; but that patience cannot and must not be unlimited. There is a point beyond which it cannot be carried.
Let me say one word about our interests. Like the noble Marquess I do not put the trade question very high. The trade is not a very large one, but even if it were a large one it is not the most important consideration. Still it weighs, it counts, so far as it goes. There is no doubt that in these days we do not want to chill the revival of trade wherever it may be. Still I do not put that too high. The question is not so much what our trade interests require as what our responsibilities demand. I sometimes think, as I listen to debates in this House or read speeches made outside, that some of my countrymen do not realise how great is the position of this country since the War; how overwhelmingly important its action really is. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the peace and prosperity of the world depend upon the proper conduct of the foreign policy

351
of this country. I believe it all turns upon it. Every country looks to us. Every country relies upon us not to act in haste, but with a due sense of responsibility, and upon the stability and steadiness of British policy really the prosperity of Europe and of the world largely turns.
When my-noble friend and others speak of breaking off diplomatic relations with Russia, with the sequel to which that might necessarily lead, I am not quite sure that they realise what effect that would have in Europe. This is not a subject with which one can deal at length, or very freely. I am not speaking merely of the intrigues which would at once be let loose in Europe. Those are important because they might lead to very serious consequences; but the truth is that the position which has been left by the Great War, and the Treaties which followed it, in Central Europe, is of the most delicate character. Very little would put it out of balance, and no Government, least of all the present Government, are going to take, out of pique or a sense of injured dignity, or some such triviality as that, action which might have very grave consequences. Those things we must bear in mind.
Yet, as I listened to the noble Marquess, I am not quite sure that he did not press those considerations, which were no doubt in his mind, beyond the point to which the Government would be prepared to go. It is quite clear that, although all I have said I believe to be profoundly true, yet there is a point beyond which we cannot go, and there is no use in concealing that. I am sure that it is not in the interests of the prosperity of the world, or of Europe, that we should pretend that we will put up with everything. That is not the case. It is not a trivial matter. It is a substantial matter. It is a question of whether we shall not, if we go too far, destroy the authority of this country or injure it, and there is a question whether there will not be direct damage to our interests—I do not mean merely our trade interests, but our interests as a great Asiatic Power, for instance—if we allow things to go beyond a certain point. It is necessary to show that, although we are deeply conscious of cur responsibilities, yet there is a point beyond which it is impossible we should go.
352
My noble friend says that we have reached that point. That was a matter for very grave consideration by the Government, and we have come to the conclusion that we have not reached that point. We have reached a point when it is necessary to say in very plain terms to the Russian Government: "You must not go any further." That we have said. That is the Note which has been the subject matter of the debate this evening. That we have sent. That is the warning which the British Government have given, and I think it is true, as the noble Marquess said, that having uttered that warning we are debarred for the moment from taking any further action, unless, of course, facts should come to our knowledge of which we are not yet aware. That might make a great deal of difference, but in the present state of things we are debarred from going any further, having uttered that warning. I quite agree with my noble friend that it would be an impossible policy to say: "Oh, no, we have gone far enough and cannot put up with any more," but if upon our responsibility, with all the facts before us, we have come to the conclusion that there is more risk to the prosperity and security of Europe in taking a more drastic step, than in putting up with the present condition of things yet a little longer, then I think we are right in issuing the solemn warning which your Lordships have all read.
If it should be that the Russian Government will not be guided, as we earnestly hope they may be, then of course it will be necessary to consider what further steps are to be taken. I do not attribute any importance to their reply Let them talk all the nonsense they please. That does not matter to us. It is a question of deeds, not of words, so far as we are concerned. They can curse the British Government and hold up to ridicule British public men. What does that matter? What does matter is that they should not damage our interests and authority in all parts of the world. That is what is vital, and I attribute no importance to the rubbish in their Note. If they are not guided by our solemn warning, then undoubtedly further steps must be considered. As to whether they shall take the form which my noble friend suggests, of breaking off the Trade

353
Agreement, or some other form, is a matter to be considered when the time arrives. For the moment I have tried, I am afraid very imperfectly, to place before your Lordships, in as careful language as I can command, the exact position occupied by His Majesty's Government, and I confidently leave that statement to the judgment and, I hope, the approval of your Lordships' House.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rejoice, and I think we should all rejoice, to hear the conclusion at which His Majesty's Government have arrived and which has been explained by the noble Marquess opposite. I think he is quite right in the statement which he made and I entirely agree with him that this country at the present time holds an overwhelming position on matters of foreign policy. The result of that, as everyone must admit, is that a great responsibility of a very special kind is thrown upon the Government of this country to do nothing which is likely to interfere with the progress of European peace and conciliation. Probably no one knows more fully than the noble Marquess the extremely difficult position at Geneva which has been created even under present conditions by the Russian Government. When we talk about general peace, disarmament and matters of that kind, everyone who has been to Geneva has in his mind the difficulties which arise from the isolated position of Russia, outside, as it is, either the control or influence of the League of Nations.
But what comes to my mind is this. That being our position and our responsibility, it is a matter of great gratification that the noble Marquess, speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, should state in this House that nothing has yet occurred which, in his opinion, would justify interference either with the Trade Agreement or diplomatic relations. I very sincerely regret that the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council [The Earl of Balfour], is not present to-day. He made a speech of far-reaching importance in your Lordships' House in June of last year. There is just one extract from that speech that I should like to give, because I thoroughly concur with it. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, on that occasion, as also I think on subsequent days, spoke of conciliation between this country and Russia as hope
354
less. I am using his own phrase and I am sure he knows that he used that phrase on that occasion. I am sorry that he is a pessimist upon this point. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who replied for the Government on that occasion, took exactly the opposite view, not badly expressed by what the noble Lord said to-day, "the mandate for patience," and in every direction urged the argument not only that there was no ground, at that date at any rate, for a breach with, Russia but that he thought, for every reason and from a variety of causes to which he referred, that it would be a great misfortune if any such breach were allowed to occur.
Perhaps I may quote the passage before I come particularly to the position that the Party which I represent occupies. The Earl of Balfour on that occasion said:—
"… we have nothing to fear from the contrivances and intrigues of any nation under Heaven."
I entirely agree with that. One of the reasons why I think he made that statement is the attitude throughout, although it has been, misrepresented, of the Labour Party on matters of foreign policy, and especially as regards our relationship towards Russia. What is the view of the Russian Government itself upon this point? I should like to quote it to prevent, once for all, the misrepresentations,—most unfortunate misrepresentations, I think—that are sometimes made against the foreign policy of the Labour Government. The passage which I am going to quote was disclosed in the other House from documents produced by the Home Secretary: "We must adopt," say the Soviet Government, "merciless measures to fight the Labour Party."
It is perfectly true that the Labour Party stands as an obstructive obstacle against any possibility of such action as might be either thought or taken by the Soviet Government against this country, but I regard that not as a matter of reproach against the Labour Party. I say it is all to their honour that they have stood firm, and are standing firm, against what may be called the Communist and Bolshevist spirit, and it is for that reason that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was thoroughly justified in making the statement that I have quoted that "we have nothing to fear from the

355
contrivances and intrigues of any nation under Heaven." On those points we are all at one. On the question of policy I shall have a word or two to say later.
I should like to call attention now to the statement made by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald when he was Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in the year 1924. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a word or two from it because it is of such importance. It was referred to by the noble Marquess and also by the noble Lord opposite. To my mind it summarises the attitude of the Labour Party towards this question. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said:—
"No Government will ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government by which the latter is in formal diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it, whilst at the same time a propagandist body organically connected with that foreign Government encourages and even orders subjects of the former to plot and plan revolutions for its overthrow. Such conduct is not only a grave departure from the rules of international comity, but a violation of specific and solemn undertakings repeatedly given to His Majesty's Government."
That passage was quoted, and I think very properly quoted, in the Despatch sent from His Majesty's Government to the Soviet Government in Russia. By that statement of the policy of the Labour Government we all stand—that is to say, all members of the Labour Party stand—fully and entirely and without any qualification.
Of course, a, difference arises at a later stage. I should myself deny, and do deny from the evidence that I have heard adduced and that which has come before me, that there has so far been any infringement by the Soviet Government of the principles of international comity which were there laid down as binding principles by the late Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. So far as I can ascertain the noble Marquess opposite, in substance of course and with certain reservations, has come to the same conclusion. He has come to the conclusion that there is no case, as yet, made either for breaking the Trade Agreement or breaking off diplomatic relations with Russia.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid the noble and learned Lord must
356
not read into my words, which I tried to be careful about, any gloss of the kind which he makes. There is no doubt we are entitled to do a great deal. I tried to impress upon your Lordships that it was not for the interest of the world or of this country to break off diplomatic relations, but as to our right to resent what has taken place I entertain no doubt whatsoever.
LORD PARMOOR: I should regret to put any gloss whatever on the words of the noble Marquess. Let me take the way he puts it himself, which is quite sufficient for my argument and carries my argument the whole way. He says that at the present time at any rate, whatever may be the question of right or title, in his view it is not in the interests of this country to take further steps either as regards breaking off the Trade Agreement or diplomatic relations between Russia and ourselves. I think I am perfectly accurate in what I am stating. But that carries the argument which I am adducing against the views of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that the Government are entitled to break off relations. My answer to that—and it is the same as that of the noble Marquess—is that, quite apart from questions of title or right, which after all are of secondary importance in this matter, nothing has yet occurred which in the opinion of the Government makes it expedient to put in force the views and opinions expressed by the late Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, as regards the relationship between Russia and this country. That, of course, carries the argument which I have addressed to your Lordships a very long way indeed.
Now let me come to specific matters—first of all to the Trade Agreement, and then to the question of diplomatic relations. I regret very much in speaking of the Trade Agreement that we cannot have the assistance, which we had formerly, of Lord Emmott, with all his experience in these matters and his knowledge of trade questions in this country. Your Lordships will recollect that Lord Emmott spoke with all his authority against any breach of the Trade Agreement between this country and Russia. He said it might have been a different thing if there had never been a Trade Agreement, but that to break

357
off the Agreement would create more loss in this country in the matter of breach of contract and all that kind of thing than anyone who had not a thorough knowledge, as he had, of Lancashire trade conditions, could possibly appreciate.
I am afraid I must join issue on the question of figures with what has already been said as regards trade between this country and Russia under the terms of that Agreement. I have had the figures given me for 1924–1925 (which I may call the peak year) of the amount of trade under the Agreement between this country and Russia. I find that the aggregate trade on both sides in that one year was £58,079,000. When I dissect that I find that £31,171,000 are in respect of imports from Russia and £26,908,000 ate in respect of sales to Russia. That is a very large trade. The figures which I have of the aggregate trade since the Trade Agreement came into operation show that the total purchases by Russia have amounted to £82,000,000—that is, purchases from us—and the aggregate to no less than £168,936,000. That is a very large trade. Most of the Russian purchases consist of manufactured machinery and manufactured agricultural equipment and implements. The other day I saw in a Manchester newspaper—I think it was in the Manchester Guardian, but at any rate in one of the Manchester newspapers—that 15,000 tons of factory machinery had lately been shipped by way of the Ship Canal from Manchester to Russia and there was a picture of the shipment going on at the Manchester Docks. Surely that is a very large trade interest and one which is very important at this time when the evil of unemployment cannot be remedied unless you maintain and increase our foreign markets. I do not think anybody will dispute that proposition. Where there is a large and increasing trade is it to be said—unless, of course, there is absolute necessity—that it would be a wise action to put an end to that trade and at the same time to bring about enormous difficulties, as Lord Emmott said, in the way of settling up existing contracts and arrangements?
There is one further matter which I think the noble Lord mentioned. It is true that trade is carried on between America and Russia without a Trade
358
Agreement, but as regards this country there never was one pound's worth of trade before the Trade Agreement. It is since the Trade Agreement that the whole traffic has grown up. The Trade Agreement, as has been stated, was, brought about when the Coalition Government was in power—and I think it is one of the most admirable pieces of work on their part—in order to bring back as far as possible the advantages to this country of a foreign market which in a special manner wanted manufactured machinery and manufactured equipment. The difficulty at the present time is that the Government do not allow Russia to be amongst the countries—I think it is the only one excluded—to which the Government credit system applies. Everybody knows that credit is of enormous importance at the present moment if you are to encourage Russian trade, and I would say that the more we can encourage it the greater will be the advantage to this country and the greater will be the chances that the number of unemployed will be permanently reduced.
On the other point, I do not think any one really suggests that there should be a diplomatic break. Surely at the present time nothing could be more unfortunate than that all communication, all diplomatic communication, should be brought to an end between this country and Russia. I do not think it is worth while—at any rate I do not intend to attempt it—to analyse either the Despatch from this country or the Despatch sent in answer to it by the Soviet Government. I say that because I think if you analyse either the one document or the other it will be far more likely to lead to further controversy than to real conciliation. The mandate—as expressed by the Lord President, the Earl of Balfour, on the last occasion—of patient conciliation is the right line of conduct for this country to pursue. It is in our interests to do it we want trade and we want peace, and I must say that it is with the greatest satisfaction that I have heard that there is no present thought, as I understand it, on the part of the Government of breaking either the Trade Agreement or the diplomatic relationship.
There is one other point in reference to which I want to say a few words.

359
The noble Lord went back to the many questions which have been brought to the front by the communications between Russia—I will not say the Soviet Government—and this country in connection with the subscriptions sent during the period of the mining lock-out. That matter was discussed in the House of Commons and a Motion was brought forward that action of that kind should be rendered impossible. The Home Secretary, in a very able speech, gave reasons why an attitude of that kind would neither be in accordance with international policy nor one to which the Government could give any countenance whatever, with the result that, by a large majority, the Motion was rightly rejected.
Of course, if you want to keep stirring up suspicion, if it is a question of breaking off diplomatic relations, if you rely not on facts which are relevant but on irrelevant outside considerations, then I should think with the noble Lord that conciliation with the Russian Government might be regarded as hopeless. If, on the other hand, you realise that they have as much right to their internal independence as we have, that they have as much right to decide their methods of government as we have, and that discussion and difference between them and us ought not to arise on their form of government or on what they are doing at home, but only in so far as they seek to interfere in our interests and in our country, then I believe there is ample room for conciliation in the future. I believe, too, that the mandate of patience should not be departed from and that, as the noble Marquess has said, we should give our influence on the side of reconciliation on this most important point, particularly having regard to the overwhelming position which we now hold in the foreign policy of Europe.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of commenting at any length on the remarkable speech to which we have just listened, closing as it did with such words of apparent sympathy with the Soviet Government. I think the noble Lord will agree he took that point of view. What I did rise to comment upon was the very grave misrepresentation in which he indulged as to the policy of His Majesty's Government. He began his speech by saying—I took down his words—that, in the view
360
of His Majesty's Government, nothing has yet occurred which could justify the interference of the Government with the Trade Agreement or with our diplomatic relations. He went on to say a little later that it is the view of the Government that no case has yet arisen for breaking off diplomatic relations or interfering with the Trade Agreement. I venture to think that the intervention just now of the noble Marquess, while Lord Parmoor was speaking, ought to be enough to satisfy any one that in making those statements the noble Lord was making the gravest misrepresentation of the Government's policy which it was possible for a man to commit. I hope he will express his regrets for having made this misrepresentation in as public a manner as he made the misrepresentation.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry to intervene, but I shall do no such thing. I explained the matter at the time to Lord Salisbury, and there it ended.
LORD DANESFORT: I am really astonished at the action of so experienced and eminent a gentleman, who has been assured by the representative of the Government in this House, the Leader of the House, Lord Salisbury, that, when he said that the view of the Government was that no case had arisen for interfering with the Trade Agreement or diplomatic relations, that was not true and that the statement he had made—I thought inadvertently—was not correct. I should have thought he would have withdrawn it, as is the usual custom both in this House and in the other place. However, as he does not choose to withdraw it, I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that it is most regrettable, first, that the misstatement was made and, secondly, that it was persisted in.
As I understand it, the view of His Majesty's Government to-day is a very simple one. In the first place, in their view they are fully entitled by what has already occurred, if they choose to do so, to break off diplomatic relations or, if they choose to do it, to put an end to the Trade Agreement, but they say, for reasons which have been given to-day, that the present moment is not an appropriate time for taking that step. They say that the time may come and probably will come, unless the Soviet Government

361
alter their actions very materially, when those steps, or one of them, will have to be taken. In that view of His Majesty's Government, I understand, the noble Marquess who spoke from those Benches just now is in entire agreement because the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, said that he had no doubt whatever that the Government were entitled at the present moment either to break off the Trade Agreement or to put an end to diplomatic relations or both, and he went on to argue, with some force, that the present moment was not an appropriate moment for taking that step.
Having corrected, as I hope definitely, what fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, may I express on my own behalf a hope as to the future policy of His Majesty's Government? If I understand it aright, the policy expressed in the Note and in the speeches of members of the Government comes to this: "You have violated the Trade Agreement in every possible way that you could. You have done unfriendly acts by intriguing against us all over the world, acts which would fully justify breaking off diplomatic relations with you. We give you another chance. We hereby openly proclaim to yon that, unless you mend your ways, observe the Trade Agreement, and behave in a mariner which is usual with a Power which is in diplomatic relations with us, the matter will come up for reconsideration" Although it is not said in so many terms, the inference I draw is that the action which would then be taken by His Majesty's Government is the action which we are entitled to take at this moment if we so think fit.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I find myself in almost complete agreement with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Reading and by the noble Marquess opposite as to the course which should be, taken, but I think we ought to be quite clear as to the facts of the situation. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, a little confused those facts—I do not mean intentionally—and glossed over what the, real nature of the Soviet Government is. He began by stating that the Soviet Government looked upon the Party to which he belongs, the Labour Party, as the great obstacle in their way. That, I think, is perfectly true, and indeed it is obvious
362
from the utterances in Moscow that this is so. But he concluded his speech by saying that, by a policy of conciliation, good relations might gradually be established with the Soviet Government Those are two incompatible statements. If he and his Party are regarded by the Soviet Government as the great obstacle to their aims, they will never have good relations with the Soviet Government unless they fall in with the aims of that Government.
Let us consider what the aims of the Soviet Government are. It is not, in the ordinary sense of the word, a national Government at all. It is not a Russian Government in the sense in which the French Government is French and the German Government is German. The French and German Governments, like our own, exist to promote the interests of their own countries and they do not care about the interests of other countries except in so far as those interests may affect their own. But the Soviet Government in Moscow avowedly exists for an ulterior purpose that goes far beyond Russian national aims. It exists to promote world-revolution, and the question of whether its relations with us are good or bad will depend entirely upon whether they consider those good or bad relations with us further the object of world-revolution. That will be the only test for them, and therefore, in this respect, we must regard them as Fanatics. They believe in world-revolution of their own particular kind as people have believed in religions, they exist to promote it and they will not give up that object. It follows that they are different, from any other Government with which we have to deal.
Nothing that may affect our relations with other Governments is a precedent for what our relations may be with the Soviet Government. They are a thing apart, existing to promote world-revolution, and the question with them is not one of precedent, not what we are justified in doing, but entirely what it is expedient that we should do. Expediency is the only consideration: we cannot appeal to precedent, to what would be the practice with other Governments, but only to what is expedient in this very peculiar ease. I think that the Note that the Government sent to the Soviet Government is in every way justified, but I

363
am not at all sure that it was expedient to send that Note. The Note is not going to be followed up by any action—and think rightly—but, since it was not to be followed up by action, was it altogether expedient to send the Note? What was to be gained by it? If the Note was likely to have any effect on the policy of the Soviet Government, then, of course, there would have been something to be said for it, but it is quite clear that it has no such effect.
Those of us who have followed the utterances from Moscow and the policy that has been pursued there for some years could almost, when we had read the British Note, have written, without having seen it, the reply that was sent from Moscow. It sets up the same fiction that the Soviet Government are not responsible for various things that happened, and so forth. They will always set up those fictions. They are fictions because, from all the information that we can get, the Government of Moscow is autocratic and all-powerful and things do not happen, policies are not carried out by any organisation in Russia, without the consent of the Soviet Government at Moscow. Therefore the reply of the Soviet Government consists of fictions.
But, if we do not get any advantage in the way of influencing the Soviet Government's policy by having sent the Note, that Government gains some advantage from having received it. They have been making use of the Note in Russia for a purpose that interests themselves. It has been noticeable from the references that we have seen in the Press for some time that they have been anxious to stir up the ardour of the Red Army in Russia by circulating reports that Russia was in danger of being attacked from outside, and particularly from this country. They knew, of course, that there was no truth whatever in those reports and that nobody thinks of interfering with them from outside, nor, indeed, could we interfere with their internal affairs from outside if we wished. They know that nobody was thinking of doing so, but it looked as if these attempts to raise the ardour of the Red Army by circulating reports that Russia was going to be attacked had not only failed but had had a somewhat depressing effect upon the Red Army. The Red
364
Army would, no doubt, fight if Russia were attacked, but I believe that it would be absolutely impossible even for the autocratic Soviet Government to get it to go outside Russian frontiers or to fight unless it were attacked. I am afraid that the Note has been used in Russia to strengthen this purpose of the Soviet Government by making out that there are hostile designs against Russia which are going to be applied by force. I think that the Note has played into their hands and that they have used it a little for their own purposes in that respect.
I am sure that the Government are quite right not to follow it up, at this moment at any rate, though, of course, I entirely agree that there are limits beyond which a Government cannot with self-respect remain patient. But, so far as this episode is concerned, I am on the whole disposed to think that our prestige and our reputation would have been better served, since we were not prepared to do anything, by saying nothing than by sending a Note and not following it up. I am sure that the Government is right in not following it up, and for this reason amongst other things. There has lately, I think, been a considerable increase in the stability of Central and Western Europe as the result of the Locarno Treaties. If we were at this time to sever diplomatic relations with Russia, or to take any overt step to make those relations worse, I believe that it would have an unsettling effect, particularly in Central Europe.
I do not mean that Germany or any of the Parties who signed the Locarno Treaties would be out of sympathy with us. They would probably think that we were entirely justified in breaking off diplomatic relations with Moscow. Their sympathies might be with us, but it would make their own position more difficult, and I think it quite consistent with the prestige and statesmanship of His Majesty's Government that they should recognise that our first consideration is the stability of Europe, which has been greatly improved by the Locarno Treaties, and that, even if we have just cause of complaint and technical and, indeed, substantial justification for taking diplomatic steps at Moscow, we should put as a higher consideration the interests of the other countries which were parties with us to the Locarno and other Treaties and

365
the general stability of Europe, and that we should think it not inconsistent with our dignity to put that general consideration above particular British interest of a narrower kind. That, I understand, is the view that the noble Marquess took, and I think that it is a complete justification against those critics who suggest that we should have taken further steps.
May I say one word more on the question of how we can deal with the attacks—because they are attacks—which the Soviet Government makes upon British interests? Those attacks are not made by force; they are attacks made by insidious propaganda. They are none the less attacks because they are indirect and insidious, but they are very persistent, and it is propaganda with which we have to deal. That is the real action from Moscow which affects us, and with which we have to deal. I think the real truth of the matter is that we should consider what is the best way of dealing with propaganda. In the first place, propaganda can never be dealt with effectually by force. I do not think it can be dealt with by Diplomatic Notes. If it was propaganda in this country by foreign agents working here, of course you could send them out of the country, but that is not the way it is done. The people who are carrying on propaganda in this country are British subjects, members of the Communist Party.
One way of dealing with propaganda is, no doubt, counter-propaganda. I do not suggest that the Government should engage in counter-propaganda. I think those who are most interested in creating counter-propaganda to the Russian propaganda are the constitutionally minded members of the Labour Party and the trade unions. They are the people who are being immediately attacked by the Soviet Government. The immediate object, it seems to me, of the Soviet propaganda in this country at the moment is to undermine trade unionism by Communism. I notice in the utterances in the Press and so forth in Moscow that the people in this country who are attacked by name are not so much the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, they are Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. J. H. Thomas, and members of the trade unions in this country who are adherents of constitutional methods. That is the
366
real struggle that is going on, and, if counter-propaganda is to be engaged in, that counter-propaganda would be most effective if it were organised by those who are being more immediately attacked by the Soviet Government, and whose position is the first which the Soviet Government desires to take.
I think we ought to be quite clear, and the country ought to be quite clear, as to what is going on. Do not let us imagine that the Soviet Government is like another Government which can be easily reconciled by fair words, or that you can make terms with it. I would go on. I would not denounce the Trade Agreement. I do not think anything would be gained by denouncing it. If the Soviet Government wishes to trade with British traders it will find means of doing so without a Trade Agreement. I do not see the object of having made a Trade Agreement at all, but, as it has been made, I do not see the object of denouncing it. But let us be quite clear that as long as the Soviet Government remains as it is at present its object will be world-revolution, and we shall have no satisfactory relations with it on which we can rely, however fair the words may be, until they have ceased to pursue that object of world-revolution. I do not believe that for very long a Government in Moscow can continue to spend Vast sums of money, not only in this country but in other parts of the world, in pursuing an object which is not really a Russian object; and the more we can make it plain in this country that we interfere not at all with the internal affairs of Russia, that we spend no money in propaganda, but leave them alone as far as their internal affairs are concerned and pay no attention to them, the more chance there is that after all there will be some Russian feeling arising, and that that feeling in Russia will begin to influence the Soviet Government's policy of spending money all over the world for an object which is not a particular Russian object, when Russia is being left alone by other countries.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed, although I have no right of reply, to say that the result of this debate leaves me in a state of deep depression. Everything that I have said has been agreed to, not only by the

367
Government but by noble Lords opposite There seems to be a common determination on both sides to do nothing, and to continue to suffer in patience. The only tangible suggestion that I have heard towards terminating this difficulty emanates from the noble Viscount who has just sat down. His remedy for what appears to me a hopeless position is that Mr. Henderson and Mr. Thomas and a few other so-called moderate Labour people, should be turned on to organise propaganda against the Soviet Government. Of all the inefficacious methods ever suggested to combat a real evil I
368
think that is one of the worst. I can only hope that next time this subject is discussed—and it is bound to be discussed before very long—some more practical suggestions will be made, and some more definite action taken.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODOR: I did not suggest that the Labour leaders should be turned on; my point was that, as far as counter-propaganda was concerned, it seemed to me more their affair than anybody else's.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.