I beg to move, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday next."

The reason for this Motion is that Standing Order No. 24, which relates to the week-end Adjournment, only operates when the Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means are set up. Those Committees are not yet in existence, and, therefore, this Motion is necessary in order that Standing Order No. 24 may be operative.

Question put, and agreed to.

:I understand that the Foreign Secretary is being detained at a meeting and will not be here until a little later, and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) proposes to wait until the right hon. Gentleman is present in order to put various questions to him. I should like to make a few observations and ask one or two questions with regard to the particular part of the King's Speech which deals with foreign affairs. I wish to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs upon his accession to an Office, which, I think, is the most interesting of all the Under-Secretary ships in the whole of the Government.

I am glad to think that in recent years the Foreign Office has been more or less outside the arena of party politics. I think that we all realise that every thing that is said in this House, or a great deal of what is said in this House, on foreign affairs is immediately telegraphed all over the world and very often constructions are placed upon our statements which lead to a good deal of misunderstanding, and sometimes to a great deal of international bitterness. Therefore, I feel that it is very important, if possible, to treat foreign affairs from an international and not from a party standpoint. Also, I feel that it is very important that there should be, as far as possible, a continuity of foreign policy from one Government to another. I am glad to recognise that the present Prime Minister during the last Parliament did adopt this attitude, and I believe that no one would recognise that fact more than my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I hope that nothing I shall say on this occasion will run counter to that principle.

The first part of the King's Speech which deals with foreign affairs touches upon the question of the evacuation of the Rhineland. I am quite sure that everybody in this House, on whichever side and in whichever quarter he may sit, is desirous to see the evacuation of the Rhineland by the British troops as soon as possible. After all, it is an aftermath of the War, and we want, if possible, to get rid of every single vestige which looks anything like war. I would remind hon. Members— I am sure that they do not really require reminding— that very large reductions have already taken place. The three different zones are gradually being evacuated automatically one after another, and, in addition to that, the recent and very heavy reductions which have taken place have reduced the present number of troops to a very small character indeed. May I remind hon. Gentlemen that these reductions have all taken place in collaboration and in agreement with the two other Powers who were our allies during the War— France and Belgium. I very much hope that collaboration with those two Powers is going to continue. I hope that when we withdraw our troops from the Rhine it will be a withdrawal simultaneously and in complete collaboration and agreement with France and Belgium. In fact, I very much doubt whether the German Government themselves would like to see a separate withdrawal by this country, leaving the other two Powers in possession.

The next portion of the King's Speech deals with the question of disarmament. I rather resent the attitude of some people who try to make out that no disarmament has 'already taken place. A great many people went about the country at the last election trying to make out that we had done practically nothing in the way of disarmament. The very contrary is the truth. This country has done more for the cause of disarmament than any other country in the world. We have reduced the expenditure on our Navy enormously. We have reduced our naval tonnage since 1914 by very nearly half. In 1914 the Navy cost a little over 24 per cent, of the whole of our Budget. That expenditure has now been reduced to as low as 6 per cent, of the whole Budget. We have reduced our Army in numbers, and we have greatly reduced our Army expenditure. I should like to remind the House that we have done this while other countries have been increasing their armaments. I am not criticising, but it is a fact that the United States of America, Japan and Italy have increased their naval personnel since 1914. The United States of America, Germany, Italy, France and Russia have increased their expenditure on their armies during the last few years. The late Government, on the other hand, did their utmost, not only to decrease armaments, but also to make war more merciful and less horrible and cruel than it has been in the past.

In that connection I should like to refer to " The Labour Speakers' Handbook." [An HON. MKMBEE: "A very good book, too!"] It may be good in parts. "The Labour Speakers' Handbook," which, after all, was an official document published by the Labour party at Transport House, Smith Square, was used by, I suppose, every Labour candidate and by hon. Members opposite at the last election. In page 167, there is a heading, "Convention on Chemical Warfare," and the statement runs thus:

:You have not ratified it.

On the contrary, on the 29th April last we announced our decision to ratify. Therefore, it is a complete misstatement. I do not suggest for a moment that it is a deliberate misstatement. I put it down to ignorance. Before these documents 'are issued, the people who publish them ought to get up their case better. It is the duty of the heads of the Labour party to see that the case is got up better before these documents are issued to the public, with the object of convincing the electors. On page 169 of the handbook there is this statement:

I will now deal with the paragraph which relates to the question of compulsory arbitration and the Optional Clause. I hope very much that the Government will not be in too much of a hurry in signing the Optional Clause. May I turn again—it is the last time that I shall do so— to the Labour party's hand-book. I notice that on page 152 there appears this statement: in 1924, the present Prime Minister used these words, a copy of which can be found in the Library:

I hope that the Government will consider very carefully the question of the reservations they are going to suggest in respect of the Optional Clause, before it is signed. The present Foreign Secretary hinted not so very long ago that certain reservations would be necessary. Speaking on the Draft Protocol in September, 1924, he said, referring America, the authors of the Kellogg Pact, do not yet admit the principle of compulsory arbitration. It is all the more important, because the interests of this country are infinitely more complex than the interests of any country in the world, and we have half a dozen Governments of the Empire whose interests we have to consider, and whom we have to consult.

I sometimes think that the importance of the Optional Clause is very much exaggerated. The Optional Clause seems to have the same effect on the minds of some people as the old word "Mesopotamia" had on other people in former days. The reason why I think that the importance of the Optional Clause is very greatly exaggerated is that an immense amount of ground has been already covered by separate arbitration treaties. I presume that we shall always be ready to sign an arbitration treaty with any country whenever we think that it is desirable to do so. There is only a very small amount of ground not covered by existing arbitration treaties.

Disputes arising at sea.

I am talking about the arbitration treaties that we have already got with different countries, and I say that there is very little ground so far as different nations are concerned which is not already covered by arbitration treaties that we have already got. I also hope that we shall not be forced by the general sort of opinion that now exists in the Labour party into trying to settle our international disputes by one method, and one method alone. We have to remember that Article 12 of the Covenant of the League of Nations lays down a very important alternative to arbitration for the settlement of international disputes, and that is, an inquiry by the Council, which has proved of immense value in the past, as I know my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary will agree. It would be a great pity if we gave up using machinery which has been specifically laid down in that Article of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and which, sometimes, has proved infinitely better and more adequate than the machinery of arbitration. The procedure of alternative methods for adjusting disputes was clearly laid down by the last Assembly, and I hope the House will allow me to read the Resolution which was passed by the Assembly of the League of Nations. It is the last quotation with which I shall trouble the House:

The last part of the King's Speech on Foreign Affairs deals with the question of Russian relations. I am perfectly certain that no one in this House has the slightest quarrel with the Russian people and would be only too glad if diplomatic relations could be resumed at an early date. But in the past the Soviet Government have made it very difficult indeed. Their organisation for world revolution is so inextricably mixed up with the Soviet Government itself that it is often impossible to tell them apart. Often we do not in the least know whether it is the hand of the Internationale, the Comintern or the hand of the Soviet Government. In fact, some of the chief officials are on both bodies. It may be that the Soviet Government have learnt wisdom during the interval— I hope they have— but I rather doubt whether they have learnt complete wisdom when I think of the propaganda against this country which has been going on in India. I hope, before we resume diplomatic relations, that we shall lay down one condition, and that is that if we admit them once more to this country they will treat us like any other civilised country treats another civilised country, and that they will cease interfering with our internal affairs. Unless we can be perfectly sure that that condition is going to be observed, we had better postpone the time when we resume diplomatic relations with them.

There is one point to which I attach special importance, and perhaps the Under-Secretary of State when he replies will give me an answer. I take it that if we resume diplomatic relations with Russia we shall have to negotiate a new trade agreement. The old trade agreement of 1921 fell to the ground when diplomatic relations were broken off. In the old trade agreement of 1921 there was a clause giving extra-territorial privileges to Russian commercial agents. That is an immense privilege. When you give diplomatic or extra-territorial privileges it means that where that person works is no longer a piece of this country, but a piece of a foreign country. It is an immense privilege, and I do not think that these extra-territorial privileges ought to he given to anybody except diplomatic representatives. They are not given to any other country in the world. Diplomatic representatives have enjoyed them; I am glad they have, and as a rule they have treated these privileges as they should, but it is an enormous privilege, and in view of what transpired a short time ago, I do not think it is a privilege which ought to be extended more than is absolutely necessary. If these agents under a new trade agreement are admitted and given various privileges, which they ought to have, and behave themselves, I am quite sure that they will have nothing of which to complain in the treatment they receive in this country. I attach great importance to this matter, and I hope the hon. Member will he able to give me a definite reply.

There is one more question before I sit down; it is not mentioned in the King's Speech. I refer to the question of the Boxer Indemnity. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Act of 1925, which arranged for the disposal of this fund, has been a dead letter for several years; and for two reasons. In the first place, there was no central Government in China to deal with it, and, in the second place, owing to the changed conditions in China it was felt than an amendment of that Act was necessary. Since the Act was passed in 1925 the Chinese have been promised by the Government here that they should have a fuller authority over the disposal of this fund than they have had under that Act. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary how the negotiations are proceeding in this matter. Has it yet been decided what is going to happen to the accumulated fund and what is going to happen to the instalments which have not yet been paid? Is legislation going to be introduced to deal with it, and, if so, when is it going to be introduced? Personally, I have always believed that the time has come when the Chinese ought to have a greater control over the disposal of this fund than they have under the Act of 1925, but I hope we are going to get definite assurances from the Chinese as to the destination of these moneys. The Advisory Committee under the Act of 1925, composed as it was of Chinese and British, laid it down that this fund ought to be spent to the mutual benefit of this country and China in various educational objects and various constructive undertakings, like railways. I do not want to see these sums frittered away in the future in China. They amount to a very large sum indeed, about £12,000,000, and, therefore, before handing these sums over to the Chinese Government I hope we shall get definite assurances in regard to the manner in which they are going to be spent. That is all I have to say on this part of the King's Speech, and I shall be grateful if I can have a reply to these two points, especially the question of granting extra-territorial privileges to commercial agents when they come to this country.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) on succeeding to the most interesting Under-Secretary ship in the Government. I think he would also agree that, while it is the most interesting, it has been up to now almost the most impotent of the Under-Secretary-ships in the Government. I hope that his plea for continuity will not extend to the impotence of the Under-Secretary-ship for Foreign Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman was always willing to help. I honestly believe that his heart was always in the right place. But, alas for good intentions! How little was he able to sway the foreign policy of the late Government! It is because his speech today was a plea for continuity that I want to put in a plea for discontinuity. Only the other day, fortunately before the election, there appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" a leading article which, I believe, embodied the views and the exasperations of hundreds of thousands of people in this country. The leading article was called "The Nightmare's End." The nightmare which has been weighing, not merely upon Liberals who read the "Manchester Guardian," but upon the mind of every man of progressive ideas in this country for the last five years, has been the right hon. Gentleman the late Foreign Secretary.

In passing, let me say that we who stand up for what I believe to be the old British traditions in foreign affairs, owe a debt of gratitude that we can never pay to the constant fight that has been kept up by C. P. Scott against the Tory Government and its principles. My old colleagues of the Liberal party will forgive me when I say that the passing of the Liberal party would not be as serious as the passing of the spirit of the "Manchester Guardian" now that the editorship has changed. But what has been this nightmare whose end we hope has come? It has been that the old traditions which have guided British administrations in the past throughout the centuries have been dropped. The late Foreign Secretary puts safety first. His predecessors did not put safety first; they put justice first; they put the support of the oppressed first; they tried to preserve British traditions, and they had a vision, a better vision than his, of what British interests really wore. We have seen the right hon. Gentleman, afraid perhaps of a new war—I do not know what his fear was—taking his orders from the French Government. It has humiliated us. We have seen him hobnobbing with every dictator throughout Europe. What is known of England in Greece to-day is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman allowed himself to be entertained by the dictator Pangalos.

Where?

In Greece.

I was never in Greece during the dictatorship of M. Pangalos during the whole time I was in office.

Just as bad is what is known in Spain. The right hon. Gentleman consented to have the Council of the League of Nations held in Madrid in order to give character to another dictator. What is known in Spain is that documents, papers defending liberty, are seized in Gibraltar under the direction of our Foreign Office, lest they should get into Spain. The people who are being persecuted under these dictatorships in Europe, the people who are suffering far more than the old Liberals suffered in Italy under Bomba, or in Hungary under Metternich, are our comrades, Socialists every one. They are the people who are filling the gaols in Buda Pest, in Kovno.

In Moscow they are Baptists.

In Moscow, too.

There they are Baptists, not Socialists.

I do not confine my ideas of tyrants to those of Fascist colour. There are just as bad ones in Moscow to-day. These prisons are full of our comrades, and our Ministers and our Secretary of State were shaking the hands of and consorting with the people who are binding our brothers down. I hope that there will be no continuity in the attitude of a Labour Government towards Labour men who are 50 or 100 years behind us but are still trying to fight the fight that we have carried on successfully in the last 100 years. That is where we want less continuity, where we want the nightmare's end. When Palmerston stood up for the victims of tyranny in Austria or Italy, when Gladstone spoke and saved the victims of tyranny in Italy and in the Balkans, they had not such good weapons behind them as we have to-day. England was not so all-powerful as she is to-day. They had not got the League of Nations and a Peace Treaty which provides a special weapon for those who wish to stand up "for the oppressed. There was no minorities clause and no minorities treaty for them to refer to in order to establish Britain's right and Britain's duty to stand up for these people.

We have got a weapon in the minorities clause. We have not used it. In spite of the pressure from other countries, other countries like Estonia, who have taken our place in the League of Nations in pressing for the most liberal interpretation of those treaties, in spite of suggestions from them, in spite of suggestions from our own fellow-countrymen in Canada, to make it easier for the big Powers, through the Council of the League, to protect the victims, the minorities in Russia and in Rumania, in Hungary and in the Tyrol, instead of developing an effective scheme for securing to all these minorities the justice to which they have a perfect right, we have seen a committee set up by the League, upon which the late Foreign Secretary had his place, putting forward a scheme which could not possibly satisfy the minorities and could not, if put into operation to-day, ever secure for these minorities the just treatment to which they are entitled, and the peaceful development which is essential if those minorities are ultimately to amalgamate with the people among whom they live.

Continuity! I think there has already been too much continuity. The Council of the League of Nations met at Madrid, after the right hon. Gentleman had resigned office and after the Labour Government had come into office. It appears that no instructions were sent to our representatives at Madrid as to the Adatci Committee. I hope we shall hear something on that question to-day. I hope we shall have some indication from the Under-Secretary that the policy of continuity will not be applied to this question of our duty in the League of Nations towards the minorities of Europe who at present are getting no sort of justice from the clauses in the Versailles Treaty which were meant to safeguard them. The first thing to do is to secure publicity for their complaints. The first thing is that the complainant should at least be told what is the case against him, and whether his complaint has been accepted or refused. At present it is like the Venetian Bocca. A complaint goes in, and an anonymous secret tribunal judges in silence. Ultimately the people who suffer seem to be those who make the complaint, but who have no opportunity of discovering what action has been taken by the League on the question.

The nightmare has been, not merely the action of His Majesty's late Government towards the other European Powers or towards minorities or towards Germany— though I would ask the Under-Secretary, when he speaks about the evacuation of the Rhineland, to remember that, if you really want to find out whether Germany would like the British troops to be evacuated if the French troops are not, the way to do so is very simple. You had better ask Germany. That step has never been taken. It has always been left as a useful excuse for refusing to consider the question of withdrawing our troops that we would not do so unless the French Government agreed with us on that matter. I said that the real charge against the late Government is that they have injured British prestige throughout. They have injured our prestige and destroyed our old traditions because they wanted to preserve the old Entente, and they have omitted to see that, even from the point of view of "safety first," it was our obvious duty and interest to get into the closest possible touch, not with the old European countries, but with our own fellow Anglo-Saxons across the Atlantic. The peace of Europe depends upon England and America being firmly united together, and not upon England and the old Entente being firmly united together. Not only the peace of the world, but the alternative aim of Great Britain— not "safety first" but "justice first"— depends upon England and America being together. I am thankful for one thing that the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister did. I am thankful that we paid our debt to America in full. It seems to me that that was not merely the first fine pledge of our viewing of financial matters through the same eyes of complete honesty, but that it also opened up the possibility of that future co-operation of England and America which I certainly believe is the only chance of permanent peace in the world.

If the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had spent half the time visiting America that he spent in visiting Geneva, we should be in a far safer position to-day and I honestly believe that British tradition would have been better maintained, minorities would have been better supported and justice would have been more constantly the aim of the British Government. But I do want to say that we have put an end to the continuity as far as America is concerned. I am glad that that the first act of a Labour Prime Minister has been to declare that he— the first Prime Minister in all time to do so—is going to America to get into touch with the American President. That is a departure which we all urged on the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs but he never did it. I am glad that the first visit abroad of our Prime Minister, and I hope also an early visit from our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, will take the direction of Washington and that at Washington it will not be merely a question of putting an end to the race of armaments but a question of putting an end to all those questions which at present keep apart England and America. Reduction of armaments is all well and good, but are we not attaching too much importance to the reduction of armaments? I want to reduce the cause of the armaments. Everybody on the other side of the House, as well as on this side, knows perfectly well that, come what may, we, in this country, could never go to war with America. We might just as well go to war with Scotland. [HON. MEMBEES: "Why not?"] Because most of the Scottish are in this country. The world is gradually growing up, and just as the duel came to an end and has become inconceivable, just as war between England and Scotland or war between England and South Africa has become inconceivable so war between England and America has become inconceivable. It is conceivable that they might possibly think of it in America. It is not conceivable here because we know that we would be beaten and in plain language England never puts her foot on a rotten bridge.

If it is certain, and if it is the absolute determination of every person in this country never to go to war with America why then, had we not better arrange these small questions such as the right of seizure of private property at sea, before bad blood is created and before America sends us an ultimatum to say that we have to do it? The late Govern- ment started the question of disarmament, but I wish they had carried it further and dealt with the question of getting at the root of this problem and putting an end to our squabbles with America. They did start considering how it would be possible to settle at a round-table conference between England and America— not between all the nations of the world— the question of the freedom of the seas, and what their interpretation of it was, and what it was by which we must stick. For my part, I regard the freedom of the seas as being a curse to England. We in this island take the view that everybody even in time of war has the right to send us foodstuffs and raw materials, but people can look at it from either side. The only question we have to realise is that if the Americans take a different view from ours, they can enforce it, and we cannot. Therefore, in the interests of all concerned, to make disarmament not merely possible but really popular, you have to remove that cause of difference which alone renders this new competition in armaments possible.

I have always said, and I say it over again, that I regard every warship that is built by the Americans as an additional security to the people of this country, not as an additional menace, and I am certain of this, that if the Labour Government can put our relations with America on the basis on which they ought to be, of co-operation rather than competition, we shall be able to see that our fleets are no longer rival fleets, but that the use and service of those fleets is to be directed towards maintaining those great principles of this country, of justice between nation and nation, standing up for the oppressed, those principles which have been built up through the centuries, often departed from, but always returned to, those principles built up not only by Great Britain, but by America also. Almost alone you have these two unegotistical Powers. I know it is regarded as being almost offensive to speak of your own country's fine record, but everybody knows we have a fine, though chequered, record, quite unlike the struggling, fearful, and often very egotistical records of other Empires; but the Americans have the same record, and if England and America together, with a joint fleet, can then con- tinue and improve upon the old traditions of justice and peace, absolutely secure against any possible combination of foreign Powers, why then we shall secure, not only the peace of the world, but a peace perhaps better than the Versailles Peace Treaty, a peace that can be supported and that can endure without doing injustice to any man.

:The sympathy which I and many others felt with the right hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down on account of his exclusion from the present Administration, and which was expressed by my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer a couple of days ago, is, I must say, now mixed with a feeling of relief that he will, at any rate, have no hand in guiding the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman began by expressing his great satisfaction that foreign affairs had passed away from my control. It is natural and not a subject of complaint that he should take that view, but for a moment I must draw the attention of the House to the particular charge which he made against me and which, in his opinion, made me unfit to be the holder of that office. He said that I had received the hospitality of General Pangalos when he was the ruler of Greece. He was mistaken, but that is a detail which is not of much consequence. He said that I had received hospitality from or offered hospitality to the Marqués de Estella, the Prime Minister of Spain. He might have added that I had received hospitality from, or offered hospitality to, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister of other States whenever I had had the good fortune to meet them. What is the complaint? It is that as the Foreign Secretary of this country I cultivated the best relations that I could with the rulers of foreign States, and I do venture to say that if any Foreign Minister is going to adopt a different policy, he will not advance the peace of the world or that sense of security and goodwill upon which the peace of the world ultimately rests.

I was surprised and shocked the other day when I saw it announced that the present Secretary of State, the right hon.

Gentleman opposite, had contributed to a French journal an article in the course of which a violent attack was made upon the head of a friendly State. I made some inquiries, and I believe I am correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman made no such contribution and authorised no such publication, but that some previous utterance of his, made a year ago in different circumstances, has been republished— whether accurately or not, I cannot say— as if it were a contribution made by him at the present time. 1 venture to say that on this matter there is only one wise attitude for any British Government to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal spoke the other day with force and conviction upon the importance of our understanding that the Dominions of the British Empire were self-governing and autonomous, and that we had no right to interfere with them or to dictate a policy to them. That is true, and all of us recognise it, but if that be true of sister Dominions of the British Empire, it is at least as true of foreign nations—[An HON. MEMBER: "Russia!"]—of all foreign nations. I will come to Russia later to satisfy the hon. Gentleman opposite, if he will allow me to speak in my own way. That is at least as true of foreign nations.

The business of our Government is not to indicate to a foreign nation what Government it should have. It was long ago said that every nation has the Government that it deserves, and that is a sufficiently democratic sentiment to rally all sides of the House. It is not our business to indicate to another nation what Government it should have or to frame our policy, whether we are drawn from one party or another in the House, according to our party likes or dislikes for the particular form of government which a foreign nation has adopted. The business of the Foreign Secretary and the business of the Government is to preserve peace by securing the respect and good will of, and as much influence as they can with, all foreign Governments, however they are constituted and in whatever way they are chosen. I hope that will be the policy which the right hon. Gentleman pursues. I have sometimes speculated in these years what are the causes now at work which might, in unhappy circumstances or under unwise guidance, provoke a new conflict in the world, and I venture to say that one of those which must come first to the mind of any thoughtful person, one of the most dangerous, is that we should allow our domestic party prejudices to cross the frontiers of international life and interfere in the relations of Governments and countries one with another. That is all I think it necessary to say on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway.

There is one matter not mentioned in the King's Speech about which I should like to address an inquiry to the right hon. Gentleman. It is known to the House that His Majesty's Minister in China has recently been at Shanghai engaged in conversations with representatives of the Nanking Government, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether there is any announcement that he can make in regard to these conversations or the progress of negotiations. I put it purely as a question, and I am quite certain that he will not wish to withhold any information that can properly be given, and I am not going to press him to go an inch beyond what he thinks desirable or possible. I assume, however, in making that statement, and I think I assume rightly—but perhaps he will confirm it— that His Majesty's Government will base their policy upon the principles laid down in the British Declaration of December, 1926, and the further document which followed it, I think, in January of the next year. If that be so, I should hope that between the two sides of the House there will be no difference as to the policy to be pursued in circumstances which are difficult, having regard to Chinese aspirations and to the need for a clear understanding of the reforms and changes which are necessary before those aspirations can be completely realised.

I would add nothing to what the late Prime Minister said about the negotiations with America. We on this side of the House, being then in office, welcomed most cordially the statement made by Mr. Gibson at the last meeting of the Preparatory Commission at Geneva, which has been, as we understand, further developed in the conversations which have since taken place between the Ambassador and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. That statement by Mr. Gibson, and that mention of the new yard stick which the President of the United States has introduced into the discussions, seemed to us full of hope and of good augury for the future, and we earnestly desire that the negotiations in which the right hon. Gentlemen are engaged should come to a successful termination. I believe that we can best contribute to that result by refraining from interfering by public discussion at this stage in matters which must be treated privately in the first instance if they are to produce good results. I, therefore, confine myself to wishing the right hon. Gentlemen, from the bottom of my heart, success in the task which he has before him.

I turn now to two other matters mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. The first is the consideration which the Government are giving to the signature of the Optional Clause. My right hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs made some very pertinent and useful observations on this subject this morning. I would reinforce the appeal made by my right hon. Friend not to act with undue haste in this matter, or without having given full attention to the various difficult questions which it inevitably raises. We are committed doubly and trebly to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. We are committed by the Covenant of the League; we are committed by individual treaties; we are committed by our signature of the Kellogg Pact. The question that any Government have to put to themselves is not whether they are in favour of the peaceful settlement of disputes, it is not even whether they are in favour of the widest extension of arbitration to all questions which can best be settled by arbitration, but it is whether they should sign an engagement in advance to arbitrate a particular set of questions before a particular court, excluding all other means of friendly and peaceful settlement in those cases. I would beg to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the speech which was made on this subject by my Noble Friend Lord Hailsham in another place on 1st May. To-day I will only suggest one or two matters for consideration.

At present there is no definition of justiciable disputes. If, therefore, you sign an engagement to refer all justiciable disputes to this particular tribunal, you are taking an indistinct and undefined engagement. If you sign, you do not remain judge of whether a dispute is justiciable or not. If there is a disagreement between the parties to the dispute upon that point, you agree that the question whether the dispute is justiciable shall itself be resolved by the tribunal. May it not be well that we should know a little more exactly what will be held to be a justiciable dispute before we agree that every dispute which may be so considered shall go to this particular tribunal, excluding, for instance, recourse to the Council of the League, excluding, if the Americans were also parties to the Optional Clause, recourse to that Tribunal of Conciliation which is established as between the United States and ourselves by the Bryan-Spring-Rice Treaty. In my view there are a large number of international disputes, and even some of the gravest, where political interests and political considerations are so closely interwoven with, or even overbalance the justiciable questions at issue, that a political tribunal like the Council of the League or like the Tribunal of Conciliation provided for in the Bryan-Spring-Rice Treaty, has a better chance of settling them equitably and to the satisfaction of the two parties, than a strictly legal tribunal which takes account of nothing but the rules of law.

I desire to speak with all respect of the Permanent Court of International Justice, and nothing that I say is to be taken as in any way a criticism of it. It is a matter of fact which, I think, we have to consider. In the first place, international law itself is a very indeterminate thing. It is only to a small extent the result of definite international conventions by which all parties have bound themselves to be governed for the future. It is, in the main, and on the most important questions, the recognition at a given moment that at that time certain principles have become of general acceptance in the world. It is, therefore, indeterminate in the first instance, and in the second it is a changing law. That which would be found to be the law at one period of the world's history would, without any new document having been signed, without any treaty consecrating the change, be found, owing to a change of international conscience, of international ideas, no longer to be a true statement of international law at another time. You cannot therefore say that you are submitting yourself to a known and determinate body of law.

How important that is can be shown by two illustrations of arbitrations, in both of which we have been engaged with the United States. I take first the Alabama case. The United States refused to go to arbitration on that question until we had agreed that that which they contended to be the law had been the law at the time the alleged offence was committed. Our position -was that it was not the law. We first changed our domestic law so as to make it the law for the future, and we then agreed, preliminary to the arbitration, that the arbitrators should be bound to proceed from the assumption that that which we had just made the law as far as our own citizens were concerned had always been the law and had been the law at the time the Alabama case arose. In other words, the Alabama case, except as to the amount of money to be paid, was settled by the terms of reference and not by the arbitration. Take the other case, the Venezuela boundary dispute. There the late Lord Salisbury, at that time Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, declared that Her Majesty's Government could not consider arbitrating out of their rights British citizens who had been in undisturbed occupation under British protection for a period exceeding 50 years. He did not assent to arbitration until it was agreed by the United States that the terms of reference to the arbitrators should make undisturbed possession of 50 years an indefeasible title. Again, therefore, a very large part of the subject matter in dispute was determined by the terms of reference; and the parties were led to that because international law was so indeterminate that they could not take the risk of going to the arbitrating tribunal without safeguarding themselves on a particular matter which they thought vital. You can do that, and still go to arbitration, when you have not undertaken in advance that every question of this kind shall be referred compulsorily and automatically to arbitration. If you had agreed to compulsory and automatic arbitration the United States could not have raised their contention in the Alabama arbitration except before the tribunal, nor could we have raised our contention, except before the tribunal in the other case.

That fact brings you at once to consider the immense authority which the court will exercise in matters which are indeterminate, about which perhaps no one can advise, or in which equally competent authorities take entirely opposite views. The court will be the sole arbitrator and judge. Yes; but upon what conception of law will the court proceed. In these matters there are two great schools of thought, going far back into history. One is the Anglo-American school, closely associated in spirit, often inspired by and everywhere profoundly interested in English Common Law. The other is the Continental school, proceeding from an entirely different conception of law, drawing its inspiration from entirely different sources, and often taking a profoundly different view from that of the Anglo-American school. I say without hesitation that if we had a dispute with the United States I would sooner have an Anglo-American tribunal, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States as President with a casting vote, than send that question to a tribunal of which every member except the American judge and the British judge would belong not to the Anglo-American school of thought but to the Continental school of thought. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to declare the policy of His Majesty's Government. Indeed, I would beg him to give himself and his colleagues time to think out the implications and the consequences of such matters as I have briefly sketched to the House, and to discuss them fully, as the Government have announced their intention of doing, with the Dominions before they declare a definite policy upon the subject. Mention of the Dominions in that connection leads me to say at this point that it is of course an elementary duty of His Majesty's Government to consult the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions before taking any final step in a matter of such consequence to us all.

A recent decision.

No, that was a rule of the late Government. There is a record at the last Imperial Conference of an agreement by all the Governments that the time had not yet come to sign the Optional Clause and that they would take no action in regard to it without common consultation. The hon. Member has, for the moment, made me forget what I was saying. It is all-important that in these matters we should act in close consultation with the Dominions. My right hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary recalled to the House that the question of signing the Optional Clause had been before the last Government. It had also been before the Coalition Government and before the last Labour-Socialist Government. Our own attitude has been explained by me in this House and by my colleagues elsewhere so that our decision not to sign the Optional Clause was not to be taken as a permanent decision for all time. It was understood that the matter would be reconsidered from time to time in the light of changing circumstances, and that it would automatically come up for consideration at the next Imperial Conference as it did at the last.

What was the reason why the other two Governments did not sign? The Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown advised the Coalition Government that the constitutional relations of the British Empire, such as they are— they are unlike anything prevailing in any other nation in the world; and they are an experiment of our own creation and require our constant care and good will on all sides in order to make them work smoothly and effectively—made it inexpedient. That was the view of the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Coalition Government. It was also the view recorded in a Minute by the Lord Chancellor of the last Labour Government who drew attention to the fact that the British Empire was not a unit and that it would be extremely grave for us to take a large and indeterminate engagement which the constitutional relationship of the different parts of the Empire might prevent us from fulfilling at some subsequent time. But the recent developments of the particular international relationships of the Dominions and ourselves make it all the more important and necessary that in matters of this kind we should always act after consultation with them in order that the unity of the British Empire may not be impaired and that the influences which the British Empire can bring to bear on the world may not be lessened by internal differences and dissentions.

Now I come to my last topic. There is a passage in the Gracious Speech which says:

We were dealing with the existing situation.

So were we. The difference is that the right hon. Gentleman is fortunate in having the Experts Report in time for him but not in time for us. I think it should bring about the evacuation of the Rhineland and I want to say that in my opinion it should be a real evacuation of the Rhine-land and the freeing of German soil from occupation by foreign troops. Unless it is an evacuation in that sense you have gained nothing. The withdrawal of the British troops if their places are taken by French or Belgian troops would not advance and might impede the pacific progress of the world. There are difficulties arising out of the Experts Report and other difficulties not mentioned in their Report, but I will refrain from saying anything on that subject at this stage because I am anxious for the success of the negotiations which the right hon. Gentleman is going to enter upon, and I am afraid that even by calling attention publicly to certain problems I might embarrass the Government in their negotiations. I would like to say, however, that I think that a mere withdrawal of British troops from the Rhineland, leaving others in occupation, would be a failure of British policy and not a success. In my view no withdrawal can be successful unless it is the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Rhineland.

There is a paragraph in the Gracious Speech from the Throne which says:

Now I would call the attention of the House and of the Government, though I am quite sure they are well aware of it, to the need— the present and immediate need— which there is for securing definite guarantees for the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman himself laid down as essential to diplomatic relations before he renews the relations which have been broken. I am not go- ing to say anything about the very grave statements made by the Grown Prosecutor in the Meerut trial, because they are sub judice, nor is it necessary for the purpose of the present discussion; but I hold in my hand the translation of a manifesto issued by the Third International and published in "Pravda" of the 27th March. The date is interesting because, unless my memory deceives me, it was the eve of the arrival of that unofficial representation of British trade which went to see what business could be done with Russia. I wonder whether any of them were able to read it for themselves, or whether their Russian friends translated to them this document. I will not read the whole of it, but will read the beginning and the end. It begins:

"For the support of the revolutionary movement in India.

Militant support of a revolution in India will strengthen the world anti-imperialistic front.

To the proletarians of all countries; to the oppressed peoples of the world.

"Proclamation of the Executive Committee of the Communist International."

There are several pages of it; the House will forgive me, I am sure, if I do not read the whole. I come to the last page:

Hear, hear!

Do not cheer too soon. It goes on:

"To all toilers"—

Is this from the "Morning Post"?

No, it is not; it is from "Pravda." It goes on:

Though I may claim to be an old Member of this House. I confess that I have never risen with greater diffidence to address it. Whatever may have been the difficulties of my colleagues, after some three weeks of experience in their Departments, in having to come to the House to state or defend a position, anyone who has any idea of the ramifications of the Department with which the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us has been so long associated must be prepared to give me their indulgence. I think I have already come in contact with the representatives of between 50 and 60 countries. I have been immersed in, not scores, but, I should say, hundreds of documents; and having, at the end of three weeks, to come and reply to all the points that may he raised in a Debate of this character, I think it would be nothing short of sheer affectation were I to pretend to be able to give full and complete answers to the points that may be raised.

I have nothing to complain of in the presentation of the case to which we have just listened by the right hon. Gentleman. He made a very brief reference in his opening remarks to an article that had been ascribed to me in a French journal. He was good enough to inform the House that he had heard that I had given no authority for such an article, and I would only confirm what he said by making this statement. I never saw the article. I gave no authority, either by interview or by any other method, for such an article to be published, or for my name to be associated with such an article. What has happened, I think, is that a speech I delivered at an international conference a year ago in Brussels has been taken hold of, and a paragraph or two, suitable I suppose for the purpose of the writer of the article, has been extracted and made into an article and made to appear as though it was issued by me even since I was appointed to the Office I now hold. I will not weary the House by saying more on the point. The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I want to make only one brief reference to that. He laid down a thesis with regard to co-operation between nations which appeared to have been challenged by my right hon. Friend. I think in nearly everything he said as to the importance, and even the wisdom, of having all the contact possible, all the co-operation that can be secured between ourselves and the other nations I could not but be in whole-hearted agreement.

He made one or two inquiries in regard to the Chinese negotiations. I can only say here that the right hon. Gentleman knows much more about the Chinese negotiations than I do myself. These negotiations had been proceeding when I followed into the office he has just left. He is aware, I have no doubt,, that the conversations had been recently conducted by Sir Miles Lampson, His Majesty's Minister at Peking, and the Chinese authorities. Several important issues were raised in those conversations, such as a commercial treaty between the two countries. Other questions were the rendition of Weihaiwei, the future utilisation of the British share of the Boxer indemnity and the question of extra-territoriality. The right hon. Gentleman must also be aware of the general lines of the instructions upon which Sir Miles Lampson has been acting, since those instructions were formulated on his own authority before he left office. The present position, as I understand it, first of all with regard to the commercial treaty, is as follows. He will remember that a Draft Treaty on commerce and navigation, prepared on the usual lines of such treaties, had been submitted. The Draft Treaty made allowance for the special conditions existing in China, and this was submitted to the Foreign Secretary of China, Dr. Wang, on 2nd June. A reply has been received from the Chinese Government in which they have sent a counter draft to the Government's proposals, and this was handed to Sir. Miles Lampson at Nanking on 22nd June. The draft indicates that there is considerable divergence of opinion between the British and the Chinese—a difference of view as to what this treaty should contain. At a perusal of the draft, Sir Miles Lampson suggested to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that experts should be appointed by both sides to meet shortly at Shanghai in order to discuss the question and see how far common ground between the two parties could be reached, and this proposal, made by Sir Miles Lampson on behalf of the Government, has been accepted by the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is the position with regard to the commercial treaty.

As regards the rendition of Weihaiwei, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that this was one of the first subjects raised by the Chinese Minister when Sir Miles Lampson reached Shanghai at the end of May. The offer to restore the lease was made at the Washington Conference in 1922, and the Draft Agreement was negotiated with the Chinese Government at Peking in 1924. Unfortunately the subsequent civil war made it impossible to implement that proposed agreement. Sir Miles Lampson therefore proposed to Dr. Wang that negotiations should proceed at once on the basis of the 1924 agreement. On 22nd June, Dr. Wang put forward a list of modifications and amendments which will require very careful consideration.

With regard to the Boxer indemnity, this has also formed the subject of discussion between Sir Miles Lampson and Dr. Wang during his visit from 20th May onwards. The question was discussed with a view to taking early action on the basis of the Report submitted by Lord Buxton's Anglo-Chinese Committee in 1926. The Chinese have put forward the suggestion that the indemnity fund should be applied for the rehabilitation and construction of the railways, and that any interest accruing therefrom should be used as an endowment for educational purposes. The question was discussed in detail, and Sir Miles Lampson submitted proposals on 25th June which are now the subject of consideration between the parties.

One word on the question of extraterritorial rights. I wish to inform the right hon. Gentleman that this was directly discussed between Sir Miles Lampson and the Chinese authorities during his recent visit. The Chinese Government addressed a note on the subject to the Powers concerned on 27th April, when the right hon. Gentleman was still in office. This note has been published in the Press. I wish to inform the House that none of the Governments to whom the note was addressed have yet replied, but their replies are under consideration and will be forwarded to the Chinese Government in due course. That is all the information I can give with regard to the Chinese negotiations.

The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the American conversations, and I only wish to say one word of appreciation of the very generous way in which he brought this subject before the House. The major portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was taken up with references to the Optional Clause, and he very kindly referred me to the speech of the Noble Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor, which was delivered just before the close of the last Parliament, in another place. I may say that I read carefully the whole of that Debate before proceeding to take up the question of the signing of the Optional Clause, and while I recognise that with all the learned Lord's knowledge he made out a very good case for acting with caution, I did not reach the conclusion that he was altogether opposed to full consideration being given to the Optional Clause in order to see whether any value could be derived by it being signed on behalf of this country. I did, however, notice one reason he adduced of which I might remind the House, as it has some bearing on the position which the present Government have taken up on this issue.

Towards the end of the Noble Lord's speech he said: That was one of the reasons—he gave others—why his colleagues should not accept the Motion which had been moved by the Noble Viscount Cecil of Chelwood. That, however, cannot apply to this Debate. We are in the opening days of what, I hope, will be a fairly long Parliament, as far as I can see, and in the Gracious Speech from the Throne we have endeavoured to show that we wish to make, in the realms of foreign relations, a good start. We are not taking the step of signing the Optional Clause without weighing up all the implications involved, as the Gracious Speech from the Throne shows, and it seems to me that both on this issue, and on the question of opening up normal relations with Russia, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman laboured a little unnecessarily the suggestion of keeping contact with the Dominions. The Gracious Speech from the Throne clearly shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the very first steps that have been taken both with regard to the signing of the Optional Clause, and of entering into normal relations with Russia, were to place the matter before the whole of our Dominions. We thought it wise and prudent to take that course, first of all, because in the decision of the last Imperial Conference I think a very clear and definite understanding was reached that that course should be followed. But even if there had been no such record on the Minutes of the Imperial Conference, yet, personally, I think I would have given serious consideration before I should have agreed to take such an important step as this, without, at any rate, trying to secure the whole-hearted association in our efforts of the whole of our Dominions.

1.0 p.m.

I say that because I spent six weeks at Geneva in 1924, and I want to inform the House that we made no move, we took no steps that I can remember in which we did not first of all collaborate with the whole of the representatives of the Dominions who were present at that meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations. Therefore, I say that for these two reasons which I have advanced, the House and the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that this committal in the Gracious Speech from the Throne was not entered into without our having had regard to that very point he was good enough to stress before the House.

May I intervene to say that I thought the Socialist party fought the General Election on the statement that they were going to sign the Optional Clause? There was no question, as I understand, of their asking the Dominions.

I do not think it was necessary for us to put in our election literature that we were either going to follow or to depart from the normal machinery of action. I thought I had told the Noble Lady of the course we adopted in 1924, when there was no election in sight.

:I am talking of what happened in this election—what was said in answer to a questionnaire.

Why this alarm? Does the Noble Lady and those who are associating themselves, even on the Front Bench, with what she says, think that we were going on the lines of signing this without considering its obligations

The right hon. Gentleman asks a question, and we must answer it. I say that it was very unfair that during the election we were supposed to be against the Optional Clause, and the Socialist party not against it. Many of us feel as keen about the peace of the world as hon. Gentlemen opposite do, and it was a very unfair position to put us in.

No one is questioning the Noble Lady's attitude towards the peace of the world. That is not the issue with which we are dealing. I want to ask: Did those who had to commit themselves or express themselves with regard to the signing of the Optional Clause say they would go to the length of signing it without consulting the Dominions

They did.

I never saw it in any election manifesto. It has been my business to follow the speeches of the leaders of the party of which the Noble Lady is a member. I never saw it mentioned in a single speech. If we declared in our election literature, and in our speeches, as we declare in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, that we were going to sign the Optional Clause, that does not prevent us from consulting with the Dominions. I never said we were going to abandon our position if a single Dominion could not see eye to eye with us. If we were consulting them, then I thought hon. Members opposite understood really what that involved.

Does this mean that if the Dominions disagree with regard to the signing of the Optional Clause the Government on their part will abandon the signature?

I think that I have dealt with the position. Hon. Members might have the courtesy to wait until I have finished my speech. I have dealt with the position fairly fully, and in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) I think that he had better wait and see. I only want to make one further remark in reference to the point put forward by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the legal aspect of the Optional Clause. I want to do it in this way. We consider that Locarno and the Kellogg Pact ought always to be taken into consideration in any move with regard to the method by which you are going to stabilise the peace of the world. I am not sure whether I am not compelled to conclude, having regard to the speeches of some of the Opposition leaders, that while they tell us about Locarno and the Kellogg Pact they do not appear to be prepared to go forward and take what we believe to be the next step. Unless we advance very much further, taking Locarno and the Kellogg Pact as our basis, I venture to say that both these instruments will not be as influential and as effective as they might be made if we would take further steps in regard to such questions as the Optional Clause. May I also say that the Optional Clause is not the only step which we ought to take; very far from it. I want to impress that on all sections of the House. It is a first step whether it be signed with reservations or without reservations. If I do not answer that question to-day, I think that my right hon. Friend opposite will quite appreciate the fact that we could not decide our position finally until we have secured the replies from the Dominions with whom we are communicating.

The next point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the question of the evacuation of the Rhineland. With all he said on this point I am in very close agreement. I believe that we all want to see the evacuation carried out. I believe that it is essential that it should be carried out. I believe that it is only-fair to the German Republic that it should be carried out. They have carried out, as far as I have been able to see, the whole of the conditions imposed upon them by the signing of the Treaty. That being so, the evacuation should be carried through as expeditiously as possible. I have to examine very closely what has taken place between the several ex-Allied countries at different periods. I have to examine the conversations that took place between the right hon. Gentleman as the representative of this country and the representatives of several other Powers at Lugano. I have to examine the very important conversations that took place on this subject at Geneva, and the very definite conclusions reached on this subject at Geneva in September last.

I have come to the conclusion that it is of the greatest importance that we should make it unmistakably clear that we are anxious that the evacuation should take place at the earliest moment, but I am convinced, as the right hon. Gentleman is convinced, that it will not be in the interests of the peace of Europe if this has to be taken, as it were, by degrees or by stages. I think that we ought to try to get both the French and the Belgian Governments to co-operate and to take this step with "us. I would like to say this, that I am not sure that the German Government themselves would desire to see what I would describe as a piecemeal evacuation. I think they would be disappointed if the evacuation were delayed, but I think that they would be equally disturbed if the evacuation had to be of a piecemeal character. In the correspondence that has taken place during the three or four weeks that I have been at the Foreign Office, I have no reason to believe that any inseparable difficulty is going to be placed, either by the French Government or by the Belgian Government, in the way of complete evacuation. Hon. Members in all parts of the House and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite may feel assured that every- thing that we can do, all the moral influence that we can bring to bear, especially at the coming conference which will deal with the experts report, will be brought to bear in order to try to bring about a speedy and a unanimous decision in favour of evacuation.

The last point which the right hon. Gentleman raised upon which I would like to say a word was the question of Russia. I have already reminded the House that the Gracious Speech from the Throne shows that we are anxious in this matter to keep the Dominions very fully informed. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman himself reminded the House of his past attitude on this question. Had he not done so, perhaps it might have been necessary for me to have engaged the attention of the House much longer on the Russian question by quoting some of the most interesting statements that he made, and not so very long before relations were broken off. I have often been puzzled in my mind, in the light of these declarations which he so repeatedly made, why he came to be a party to the subsequent proceedings and the breaking up of trade relations. I think that on this point I ought to say—because I believe there is a good deal of misunderstanding—that my legal advisers inform me that diplomatic relations have never been severed. That is a very important point. What we are seeking to do, as, I think, is to resume normal trading and commercial relations, recognising, as I have already said, that diplomatic relations have never been disturbed. I think that in our desire to resume normal trading relations as expeditiously as possible we are supported by a great volume of opinion in this House and the country quite irrespective of party.

I read a very interesting speech, only a few days ago, by the chairman of the most recent trade delegation, and a very important trade delegation, which went to Russia just before the General Election, during the period when my right hon. Friend opposite was at the Foreign Office. Some heed must be paid to the declaration of the chairman of a deputation of such a representative character in trade and industry, and the impression that was made upon my mind by that speech was that there could be no justification whatever for maintaining the present strained, relations between the Soviet Government and the Government of this country. There could be nothing more paradoxical than the fact that while the Russian people are in a position to supply us with the things that we need, we have our workers languishing, as it were, and suffering from serious hardships and privations when they could be engaged in our factories and mills sending to Russia, in exchange, the very things that we ourselves can make. Everything that we can do will be done, and done speedily. We are awaiting the replies from the Dominions. One or two replies have been already received, but we are not taking action until we find out either that the replies are on their way or that we are not going to receive any replies whatever. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by a reference to an article in "Pravda," the Russian Communist newspaper.

The document was published in "Pravda," but it is not an article of the newspaper; it is a manifesto by the executive of the Third International.

I did not know whether it was a leading article that had been quoted or an actual manifesto. If it is a manifesto, well, of course, it is not the first manifesto that the Communist party have issued. As the right hon. Gentleman read the quotation it reminded me very much of some election literature that, during the many elections that I have had to fight, has been put up against me from the headquarters of the party with which the right hon. Gentleman has been so long and honourably associated. Are our relations with a great people like Russia to turn upon the issue either of a leading article in " Pravda," or quotations from a manifesto from the Third International? I hope not. Therefore, I hope that we shall approach this matter on very much higher grounds than what "Pravda" may say or what the Third International may say. We on these benches have no responsibility for what the Third International cares to issue. I repeat, in the presence of this House, that we as the Labour party have no responsibility for anything that may be issued by the Third International. We have no contact with the Third International. We have no asso- ciation with the Third International, and we never had any. Therefore, I think that entitles me to say that we should not be influenced too much to-day by anything that may be printed in "Pravda."

I accept for myself the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, denying all connection between His Majesty's Government, not merely now but in the past, and the Third International. But the point of my observation was that, as the Prime Minister pointed out, the Third International is but an organ of the Soviet Government, with which you are proposing to negotiate.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I had not finished. I have not touched closely the question of propaganda as raised by him. I should have thought that it is quite unnecessary for any further reference to be made in this Debate to that subject, having regard to the very definite statement made by the Prime Minister in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the opening day. I do want to say this, that the only step that we have taken up to now is to get into communication with the Dominions. I want that to be clear to the House. We have only done that as the first step. As to the method that we shall adopt, that will depend to some extent upon the replies which the Dominions send to us.

The question of propaganda ought not to be a subject of Debate. In 1924, I think the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of that date made it unmistakeably clear that we were not going to tolerate any form of propaganda that interfered in the internal affairs either of this country or of any of the Dominions of this country or of any part of the British Empire. I have no hesitation in saying that that is our position to-day, and that it will continue to be our position. If our Russian friends have profited by the experiences that they have had in the last year or two, and if they are exceedingly anxious to get into normal trading and commercial relations with this great British Empire, or this great British Commonwealth of Nations, whichever way we care to put it, I should imagine, unless I am very seriously mistaken, that they will be prepared to give the most definite undertaking that they are capable of seeing carried out. If they do so, we are not entitled to expect more. I hope, therefore, that there will be unanimous opinion in the House that we should go forward on the lines indicated in the Gracious Speech from the Throne and see if we Cannot get into normal trading and commercial relations with that great country.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that diplomatic relations with Russia had not been broken off. Will he tell me what has happened? We used to have a Minister in Russia and Russia had a representative in this country. I never supported the breaking off of relations with Russia, because I thought that we kept a Minister there for the purposes of our country and not of the Russians. Will he tell us what has happened.?

I have already intimated that my legal advisers tell me that diplomatic relations have not been broken off, as the recognition of Russia has never been withdrawn. That is the position. If the right hon. Gentleman desires further explanation of the position and he will put down a question, I will again take the matter up with the legal advisers of the Foreign Office and give him a more detailed answer.

The right hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the late Government delivered, I understand, a speech while I was absent. I want to apologise for not being present during the delivery of that speech. I was away on public business, attending a Privy Council, and could not be here. I had arranged to attend the Privy Council meeting before I knew that this discussion was opening this morning. My Under-Secretary heard the speech, and I think that I have covered some of the points that were raised by the right hon. Gentleman, because they were duplicated by the late Foreign Secretary. If any points have been overlooked, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will speak later in the Debate, and state the position.

In the closing sentences of his speech the right hon. Gentleman has made a statement of very great importance, to which I should like to draw the attention of the House for a few moments in order that we should clearly understand what the position now is. If I understood him aright, the right hon.

Gentleman said that on a resumption of diplomatic relations with the Government of Russia, that is a formal as well as a technical resumption, there would follow as a condition that the Third Internationale would have to cease such forms of propaganda as my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary has referred to in the "Pravda"; that a cessation of such propaganda throughout the British Empire would be an understood condition of any resumption of diplomatic relations between us and the Soviet Government of Russia. Am I right in that assumption?

I do not propose to repeat what I have just said.

Then I presume I am right in also emphasising the point that unless the Third Internationale cease their propaganda there will be no diplomatic negotiations between the Government Front Bench and the Soviet Government?

If the hon. and gallant Member is not sure what I said he should wait and read it in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT.

I am putting a perfectly fair question to the right hon. Gentleman on what is an extremely important matter.

I have answered it.

It is a question which any Member of this House is perfectly entitled to put even to a new Foreign Secretary. We have the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will not enter into negotiations with the Soviet Government unless the Third Internationale cease their propaganda. In a few months' time hon. Members opposite may take a rather different view of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and they will do well to restrain their hilarity until they are satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is as able to restrain the Third Internationale. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has not grasped the nature of our criticism of his attitude towards the Optional Clause and the evacuation of the Rhineland. Our complaint is that during the General Election we were represented as being very half hearted in our desire to sign the Optional Clause and that on the other hand as soon as the Socialist party came into office they would rush in and sign it. Where is their signature 1 It is not there. They propose, first, to consult the Dominions. That is precisely what the previous Government were doing. When a Conservative Government do it is wrong; when the right hon. Gentleman does it is right. It is exactly the same with the occupation of the Rhine-land. We were denounced on the platform of the country and in this House because we did not immediately withdraw our troops from the Rhineland, quite irrespective of what our French allies or anyone else might do. The right hon. Gentleman, arrives, takes his place on the Front Bench; and does nothing. He says: We do not withdraw our soldiers unless we can get agreement with the French. Quite right now; but quite wrong a few weeks ago. Quite wrong on every Socialist platform in the country throughout the last General Election. I hope the country will take note of the wide gulf which differentiates the professions and speeches for political purposes of the party opposite and the actions and speeches of the Foreign Secretary. Our complaint is not that the policy is wrong—it is right—it is our policy—but that, during election time criticisms are made and policies denounced which are practised by the right hon. Gentleman as soon as he obtains the opportunity. I do not blame him, indeed I heartily congratulate him on his conversion.

The right hon. Gentleman made some interesting references to the policy in China, and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) would perhaps have been a little fairer if he had paid a tribute to the work which the late Foreign Secretary did in that part of the world at least. Instead he seemed to quarrel with my right hon. Friend because my right hon. Friend did not quarrel with every single Government in Europe which did not happen to share his own political views. I never felt more grateful that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has no connection at all with our foreign policy. He is more dangerous and bellicose than any Junker Prussian at his worst and although we all feel a great friendship towards him in this House we are devotedly thankful that he has nothing to do with our international affairs.

We all profoundly welcome the work to which the Foreign Secretary has set his hand in trying to further improve the relations between this country and the United States of America, and thereby further international disarmament. Every successive Government in this country has done something to further international disarmament, and I am glad that the present Government is following in the same path. We all wish the Foreign Secretary every success in the work he proposes to do. May I enter one word of protest against the attitude which is sometimes adopted by hon. Members opposite in suggesting that the late Government did nothing to assist Anglo-American relations. It did a great deal more than appears to be understood in some quarters of the House. One of the problems which for many years was a constant source of difference of opinion between us and the United States of America was the settlement of Anglo-American war claims. That settlement was not effected by the Coalition Government or the Labour Government, but by the last Government two years ago, and it removed from Anglo-American relations a very potent source of possible misunderstanding in the future. That is often forgotten, but it is an important step which has made possible the work which we hope the right hon. Gentleman will shortly undertake. I was equally glad to hear the Prime Minister say that he did not believe any remarkable result could be achieved in a short time, and that he was not going to be hurried. When I first read the stories of night journeys and gatherings in the Highlands, and saw all the photographs which were published, I began to be a little nervous that we were in for a sensational and romantic phase which could never result in anything good. I am glad that there is to be nothing like that, and I am also glad to see that the well-informed correspondent of the "Times" at Washington says it is also the view of the American Government. We cordially wish the right hon. Gentleman every possible success in the work he is doing, but may I remind him that it is grossly unjust to suggest that the late Government did not do a great deal, perhaps not visible on the surface, but nevertheless effective, to improve relations between this country and the United States, and he cannot do better than consult the speeches of Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Davis; he will find there their view as to what was the real state of Anglo-American relations 18 months ago. It is not the picture which is sometimes drawn on the platforms of this country for the sake of getting votes.

I desire to refer briefly to one other matter. The Prime Minister seems to have modified his judgment slightly on the handling by his predecessors of Anglo-American relations since he came into office, and no doubt he will modify his views on the subject of minorities as well. We have all read, I confess I did so first, in the foreign Press, the article which appeared in the "Sunday Times" under the signature of the Prime Minister dealing with the subject of minorities. We all accept, of course, the explanation, and my object in raising it now is not to emphasise it but rather to say that we accept the Prime Minister's explanation that the article was written long ago without any intention of its being published when he was Prime Minister. But that is most valuable in allaying the uneasiness, to put it mildly, which that article certainly caused in many parts of Europe. Yet does it not rather make our charge against the Prime Minister even more serious than it was before? What in reality he did was to write an article which was intended to embarrass his predecessor but has actually come to book and embarrassed himself. If the Foreign Secretary were to re-read that article, I think he would agree that had my right hon. Friend been still at the Foreign Office, that article must have proved most embarrassing to him, for it would be more difficult to find a series of sentences more nicely calculated to offend—not only calculated to offend, but revealing a truly extraordinary ignorance of the real facts of the problem.

I sincerely trust that as the Prime Minister has crossed the Floor of the House he, as well as the Foreign Secretary, has modified the views with which he filled either the Press or the halls of the country during the General Election. I do believe, taking the world as a whole, that the present Foreign Secretary, to whom we all wish well, has fallen upon a heritage happier than the lot of his immediate predecessor or of his predecessor in the last Socialist Government I believe that in the world at large there is a greater measure of security than these post-War years have known, and that my right hon. Friend the ex-Foreign Secretary played his part in producing that result—a part for which the country owes him a debt of gratitude. We would record these facts. I believe that we can go forward now with greater confidence, and we wish the Foreign Secretary every success in the vital work to which he has put his hand.

I am sorry that the ex-Foreign Secretary has to leave the House, because I listened with the greatest attention to his speech and I have one very short observation to make upon it. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, showed very plainly to all my new colleagues on the Labour Benches the reason why so little was done for the cause of peace during his long tenure of the Foreign Office. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has apparently benefited, like the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), from contact with the electors, but he does not seem to have quite recovered from the experience. I hope that the contact has done them both good. I gather that they are now in favour, whatever happens, of the immediate signing of the Optional Clause. May I ask a question of those two distinguished Members? Why have they sat silent during all these long years of the tenure of office of the ex-Foreign Secretary 1 Why did they not urge immediate signature on the Government? I have no doubt that they did so privately, for I am sure that in their sincerity they were not entirely silent.

Do I understand the point that the hon. and gallant Member is trying to make is that we were supposed to be against the Optional Clause? We were in exactly the same position as the present Foreign Secretary. Hon. Members opposite went about promising that they would sign it, but they never said a word about the Dominions, and that is our complaint.

If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whom I take the first opportunity of congratulating on the assumption of his great office, signed the Optional Clause without consulting the Dominions, he would be attacked from the other side of the House, whereas now that he has consulted the Dominions there is no right or justice in him according to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Here you have my right hon. Friend, who has been three weeks or less in office and has hardly had time to go through the most recent of the documents left by the last Government, and he is attacked in so many words by his predecessor, and by the former Under-Secretary in rather a more gentlemanly manner. Before we have parted with the King's Speech my right hon. Friend stands arraigned by the representatives of that Government whose going out of office was hailed with delight by every peace lover in the world. If the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had his way, this would be the last speech that I would make from these benches. I hope very much that that is not the case. I do not, however, intend to be very long. I have a suggestion to make to the Foreign Secretary. We all welcome the steps that have been taken without loss of time to reach an agreement with the United States. Whatever else can be charged against the present Government it obviously has not gone to sleep on the job. The first steps are satisfactory. Nevertheless it is necessary, with the approach of the hot summer season and the fact that Washington will be cleared, and in view of the fact that there are, on both sides of the Atlantic, many enemies of an understanding between London and Washington, that the creation of the right atmosphere should continue.

When the previous Labour Government was in office, one of the finest things that it did, and a thing which had a great effect in the City, was the dropping of the construction of the Singapore base. I note that the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) has on the Paper an Amendment dealing with the subject. The dropping of the construction of the Singapore base was what in modern jargon is called a gesture, but it was extraordinarily valuable. It created profound satisfaction in Japan; no one was a penny the worse and the taxpayer was very much the better. There is a similar step that could be taken now with no harm to anyone, and I believe it would have a profound effect on public opinion in America. I shall raise the matter with the First Lord of the Admiralty. We have reduced the Jamaica dockyard to a care and maintenance basis, but we still maintain a Royal dockyard at Bermuda, and the enemies of peace in America are always making propaganda of the fact that a few hundred miles from their coast, within a few hours' flying, there is a great British arsenal and dockyard and fortress. As a matter of fact it is a second-class dockyard. It is, of course, useful and it is a pleasant health resort for the North American and West Indian squadron. But it can be pointed to as a menace to New York, and all that kind of thing; pictures can be painted of aeroplanes taking off from it to bomb coastal towns and cities, and in that way it is a cause of mischief.

If, without any suggestion except from our own people, this dockyard also could be reduced to a care and maintenance basis the effect would be very good indeed. We have only four cruisers on the North American and West Indian station. They are now refitted by native labour imported from Jamaica, which is not very efficient and rather expensive. These ships could just as well cross the Atlantic to be refitted and repaired in our own dockyards, giving employment here and affording a welcome relaxation and a chance of leave to the crew. We could have our care and maintenance party in Bermudas, and, as I say, nobody would be a penny the worse and there would be a considerable saving to the British taxpayer. It would of course be unpopular in certain quarters. It would mean reducing the number of posts for Admirals and other high officials, but we have the pledge of the Prime Minister that, in bringing about necessary reductions in armaments, those who have done their duty in the past and are altogether free from blame, shall not be allowed to suffer. This reduction cannot be made without some hardship, but the hardship can be reduced considerably by wise action in advance and that I understand is the policy of the present Government.

Having, I hope, carried the House with me in agreement so far, I wish to say something which may be very unpopular indeed in certain quarters. If we really want to bring about conditions of peace, we have to act. It is all very well talking about comparative tables and about reducing armaments but you must have moral disarmament. Men can fight even if they are completely denuded of weapons. Indeed, the weapons of the chemist and the bacteriologist are in the future, we are told, to be far more deadly than the old weapons which, with their conservative traditions, War Offices and Admiralties maintain. If we want moral disarmament we must cease recognising and encouraging propaganda for war and militarism. This is where I am going to tread on a few toes. We have to-day a growing system of tattoos, reviews, and Air Force pageants—all a glorification of warfare. I am not making any complaint against the Government because of what has taken place in the last few weeks, and what will take place in the next few weeks or months. Preparations have been made by the devoted officers who have organised these great spectacles. They are popular with the public—that is where they are so dangerous. The profits made by them go to naval and military charities. We all understand that and it takes time to bring about a change, but in the future, and as soon as possible we must return to the position of 20 or 30 years ago, when these things were far more rare, and when the organisation of these spectacles had not reached anything like its present pitch. It was not possible indeed with the means of publicity and transport then available. The last suggestion, that the Navy should have its tattoo, will, I hope, be frowned upon by those in authority.

In these matters of approaching the great republic on the other side of the Atlantic, or trying to settle outstanding differences with Russia, what is needed is good will—the preparation in advance of an atmosphere of good will. When it comes to implementing those policies which we hope will result from the tenure of office of my right hon. Friend, we, in our turn, have to help in educating public opinion to a great change, and to a break with the tradition that war is not only inevitable but so fine and picturesque. We must make people understand that war is horrible and detestable, just like duelling, and can be as easily outlawed. I hope my right hon. Friend and the Under Secretary will remember that the veiled attacks from the other side are what they may expect and are really complimentary to them. I beg of them not to be put out by attacks from any quarter. Let them take their time. They have a very difficult task, and a complicated tangle to clear up and they will have the good will, irrespective of party of, many people in this House, whose good will may surprise them, and of many millions outside who are not nominally supporters of our party.

During four Parliaments I have been interested, in season and out of season, in a relatively small matter compared with the questions of high policy which have been de-dated this afternoon. I refer to the question of passports. I am afraid I have almost reached the position of being a periodic bore on this question. The passport nuisance is one which, in the course of the year, causes an enormous amount of discomfort to a vast number of His Majesty's subjects. Ministers when they go abroad are received on the other side of the water by friendly Customs officials who take them through the custom house without any trouble, and they possibly forget the miserable conditions under which ordinary persons land in France and get through the Customs. I hope that this Government will be more amenable than was the last to the necessity of ameliorating the conditions of Continental travel.

We want to have the whole passport business brought to a pre-War condition. All this fuss about passports, photographs, visas and one thing and another is a horrible nuisance, and fulfils no kind of real valuable function. I am not sure whether it was the Home Office or the Foreign Office which stood in the way of a more drastic reform of the system previously, but I hope, whichever Department it may be, that the present administration will tackle this passport job and do the business thoroughly. We want it made easier and cheaper to get a passport; we want the passport made to last longer than it does now and we want the whole organisation of the issue and use of passports simplified. There ought to be no difficulty in getting a passport in any part of the country. It ought not to be necessary to come to London. The police in any part 01 the country are perfectly capable of saying whether a man is one to whom a passport may be given or not. There is no special inspiration in the passport office in London to secure that undesirables shall not be allowed to have passports.

There is one special point with which I want to deal in detail, and that is the question of the visa with the United States of America. The United States charged 10 dollars for a visa. That was their fundamental charge for entering the United States, and we correspondingly charged American visitors a like amount. The United States took the initiative with a view to introducing reciprocal facilities and reducing the fee, and up till June, 1928, 27 countries had made arrangements with the United States in this matter. Eleven had agreed to abolish visas altogether or to have no visa charge in the case of ordinary tourists, and the remainder reduced the visa charges from 10 dollars to sums varying from four dollars to one dollar —in the majority of cases to about two dollars. The countries which have come to an arrangement with the United States are Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and Mexico, and since then France also has come in. The French continued to charge the 10 dollars on visitors from the United States because it was practically impossible for tourists from the United States to avoid France, and she, therefore, was able to levy this capitation fee without damaging herself.

But Great Britain is not in that condition. We have gone on levying this £2 fee, with the result that United States visitors coming to Europe for a short time tend to leave out Great Britain and to go straight to Cherbourg and the Continent of Europe; and they are supposed to scatter something like 600,000,000 dollars in travelling, on their holidays for the most part, over the countries which they visit. We are extremely anxious to develop our tourist trade. We have a great asset, and a very undeveloped asset, in the interest of our country to foreign tourists, and we want to develop that asset, especially with Americans. There is a vast multitude of English-speaking people across the Atlantic who want to come to Great Britain some time or another, and we want them to come. We have societies engaged in propaganda to get United States citizens to visit this country, and then we charge each one of them £2 before they can come in. That is absurd, but I hope it will be done away with at once.

2.0 p.m.

The argument was that we must have total reciprocity in this matter. The United States are perfectly willing to let visitors off the payment of this visa fee, but they claim the right to impose it upon persons going into the United States and intending to settle there and become citizens of that country. If any subject of His Majesty the King wants to go to America and become an American citizen, I do not see that we need trouble whether or not he has to pay a visa fee. What we want is that our own people who go to America as tourists should not be charged this extraordinarily useless fee, and that Americans coming to this side should have their visits to this country facilitated in every possible manner. I need not elaborate the matter, because I think it is well known and understood by most Members of this House and by the public generally. We want this whole business of visas done away with, and we want passports simplified, cheapened, and made more easy to get. People who are going for a week-end or a few days to Paris, many of them teachers who have saved up their money and are going to have a week or ten days abroad, having about £5 to spend on a trip of that kind, are charged 7s. 6d. and put to any quantity of inconvenience in order to get a passport, and in addition they have to pay for having their photograph taken. It comes to, say, 10s. in all, which is a very considerable fraction of their £5, and it is exactly those people whom we wish to help to go abroad—teachers and people like that, who have not had much opportunity of seeing the world. It is an enormous advantage to us that they should go and broaden their outlook by foreign travel. Therefore, for all these reasons, I trust the present Government will see its way to simplifying these passport arrangements and obliterating what I can only describe, with, I believe, common assent, as the passport nuisance.

I hope I may crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments, because this is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing it. I should like to say, first of all, that I was very glad to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway), in connection with the regulation of passports. In view of the fact that when one passes from this country to the east of Europe, one has to cross over something like four or five frontiers, anything which would tend towards simplifying and making that travel easier would be good, not only for those who are able to travel often, but for those who are not able to travel, except on very small salaries or on money which they have put by. Everything of that nature would tend towards improving international relations. Moreover, there is one aspect to which the hon. Member just referred but did not develop. I will not develop it in detail, but it is a fact that our foreign trade balance is to some extent rectified by the amount of money which is spent in this country by foreigners, particularly by visitors from the United States, and anything which would tend to redress that balance would be a move in the right direction.

I would like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden), as to the resumption of relations with the Soviet Republic of Russia. In general, the arguments of hon. Members opposite seem immensely to exaggerate the power and importance of the propaganda of the Third International. I venture to say that the propaganda which it is carrying on in Asia and other parts of the world is little more than a bogy and that hon. Members opposite are using it as a bogy, for political ends, and not always the best ends. Perhaps it has not occurred to them that the collapse of the Third International's policy in the Far East and China was in no way influenced by anything which they did in this country. In other words, I do not think that the sending away of the Russian trade delegation in London was in the least degree responsible for the collapse of the Third International's policy in the Far East, because that is what has happened. It took place about the same time. If one looks over a term of years, one sees that the Third International is losing influence over certain parts of the world, and there is no reason to stop a resumption of the fuller relations which we had before 1922, for, after all, it is not a question of what the Third International may publish in some foolish manifesto; it is far more a question of developing the economic relations between this country and Russia. It is only by re-establishing the position that existed prior to 1927 that we can hope to do what we ought to do in this respect. The German Republic has a stronger Communist party that we have, or are ever likely to have, and yet Germany has not been afraid to establish the fullest diplomatic and commercial relations with the Soviet Republic. The result is that Germany's exports to Russia are continually increasing.

One point in the Gracious Speech referred to the Report of the financial experts which the Government are to consider, and it expresses the hope that the settlement would make it possible for the occupying Powers to evacuate the Rhineland. I sincerely hope that it will be possible to do this in the very near future. If there be difficulties, I will go as far as to say that I would like to see this country evacute alone, although I would far sooner see evacuation take place by all the occupying Powers. I hope that it will be possible, by keeping in touch with the public opinion and the Government of Germany, to find out whether they prefer that we should stay along with the other occupying Powers or whether we should evacuate alone. I am sure that opinion in Germany would be that of regret to see one occupying Power leave and not another. I know that the fair sex in the Rhineland would regret to see the British troops leave. At the same time, I would sooner see one dagger in the heart of Europe than two. I, therefore, hope that it will be possible to do everything to bring about evacuation at the earliest moment.

Another point which concerns the experts' report has not been referred to in the Debate. That report sets up something which is quite new in international affairs—an International Bank. That is a matter of the greatest interest and im- portance. It may be, it is true, an instrument of danger, but if it be well controlled, and if it be controlled by those who are exerting a policy towards stabilisation of prices and the rationing of the gold reserve, it may be an element of progress in international affairs, and it will be of importance towards solving our unemployment problem. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) referred yesterday to the great importance of maintaining the stabilisation of prices and of preventing the systematic deflation of commodity prices which has been going on in recent years, which he rightly claimed to have been partly the cause of our unemployment. If the International Bank be controlled by those who are aiming at preventing any further deflation in prices, if they try to base the currencies of the world upon what is generally known as the gold exchange standard, they will do something to contribute very largely towards assisting the solution of the unemployment problem in this country and elsewhere. There is no doubt that that problem here is partly due to the deflation of prices which has been going on in recent years.

In this respect I need only refer to the fact that British coal has to meet the competition of foreign coal in the neutral markets, and it has been in a far worse position to meet that competition since deflation has been, going on than it was four or five years ago. As one who represents a constituency where there is a large mining industry I can say that that is a very important matter, and one about which those who represent mining constituencies are very much concerned. The question of the regulation of hours in coal mines does not, perhaps, concern a Debate which deals with international questions, for it may seem a national question. In the long run, however, only on international lines can we come to any solution of it. Ever since the War, we have seen a continual see-saw and ding-dong going on between the coal-producing countries of western Europe, and there have been complaints, first about one country and then another, that we could not meet the competition from that country, and that is made an argument for lengthening hours and shortening wages. That question can be solved only by an international arrangement. Those on this side of the House are glad that the Government have made an important gesture which we understand will lead towards the ratification by this country of the Washington Eight Hours Convention, and I hope that we shall continue in this direction by working for other conventions of a more specific nature. I hope, too, that it will be possible through the International Labour Office at Geneva to get a convention between the principal coal-producing countries of western Europe to stabilise and regulate the hours of labour in mines. Only by that means shall we be able to solve this distressing problem and do justice to the miners of this country. I can assure the Government that we who represent mining constituencies would be very grateful if it is possible to take steps in this direction.

I, too, wish to claim the indulgence of the House as a new Member to speak on the important matter which has been referred to by the previous speaker. I hope that the Government will explore as thoroughly as they possibly can all the possibilities for arriving at international arrangement, not only in connection with peace, but also in connection with economic and industrial subjects. I have had the good fortune, the privilege and the honour to work for nine years in the International Labour Office at Geneva, and although I was very doubtful at the outset whether the experiment would be successful, after nine years' intimate relationship with all departments of that office I left it with the conviction that it is doing an enormously important and valuable work, not only in connection with the subjects with which it is directly concerned, but also in building up the necessary foundations for peace, for which, I hope, every Member of this House is working sincerely and conscientiously.

In this connection I wish to say how much I welcomed the remark made a few days ago by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that in his experience it was necessary, in order to weave if I may invent a phrase, international tissue, not to rely upon written documents, but on personal contract, and for that reason he heartily welcomed the proposal that the Prime Minister had made that he, the Prime Minister', should go to America. While we were at Geneva we came to the same conclusion as the Leader of the Opposition. We rejoiced from time to time to hear that the leaders of the British Governments which have held office since the War were coming to Geneva. I remember, for instance, the delight of the British members of the staff when we heard that the right hon. Member for Carnavon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was coming to the City of Calvin and Rousseau. We were delighted because of his driving force, because he had been one of the creators of the League, and for what I may describe as a literary reason. We knew the great influence of his speeches. We knew how he had stirred audiences> with a wonderful vision which he symbolised by the rising sun appearing over Welsh mountains, and we were most anxious that he should have an opportunity of building up a still greater peroration by seeing the sun rise in full effulgence over the greater height of Mont Blanc. We knew that if he saw that vision, as some of us had seen it, symbolising the rise of the sun of peace over Europe, he would go back to make still more eloquent speeches.

Then I remember that the right hon. Gentleman who now leads the Opposition was expected at Geneva from time to time, but he only fluttered on the borders, and we were disappointed again and again. The one occasion on which a real effort was made at Geneva by the leader of a Government to weave by personal contact what I have ventured to call international tissue was when the present Prime Minister went there in 1924. I can assure the House that that Assembly was the most interesting, the most exciting and probably the most fruitful of all the Assemblies which have met at Geneva, because we felt that our own country was for the first time taking its proper place in the great council of the nations. Therefore, I heartily welcome the proposal that the Prime Minister will himself go to Geneva, for at least a part of the time, because the great thing which we as a nation have to create among the nations which attend that great Council at Geneva is the feeling that we really sincerely believe in the possibility of that Council doing the work which has been imposed upon it. One way of showing our sincerity is for the leader of the nation to devote a few days to giving a message of hope and cheer to the Assembly and to laying before them proposals which have the backing of the British nation.

The International Labour Office is connected with the International Labour Conference held each year. That Conference does not loom so large in the public eye as does the Assembly, though I think that some day it will, because it gives an opportunity not only for members of different Governments to deliberate together, but also for members of the employing classes in every nation and representatives of the working classes from all over the world to come together; and I suggest that that Conference is a sufficiently important one for us to be represented—and by us I mean the British Government, as representing the British nation—not merely by Civil Servants, however distinguished they may be, but by Members of the Government, even though they may not be Cabinet Ministers. That was the practice during the last Labour Government, and my final word, if I may address it to the Members on the Treasury Bench, is to beg them to remember that a Labour Government did well in sending members of its Government to the International Labour Conference and to the governing body of the International Labour Office. I hope they will continue that practice now that a Labour Government is again in office. I am sure they will find that it will have most fruitful and profitable results for this country.

I think I may congratulate myself that it has fallen to the lot of one who has spent many years of his life watching international affairs to congratulate the last speaker, who is somewhat in the same position as I am, and who has been nine years a representative at the Labour Office at Geneva, on the interesting brief and lucid speech which has fallen from his lips. To all the Members of this House a speech from one with such a long experience will always be most valuable and useful for our future labours. It was not my intention to speak during this debate on the King's Gracious Speech, but it seldom falls to the lot of one who has served this country for so many years abroad as I have done to have an opportunity of saying a word in this House on foreign affairs. I think there are few occasions upon which the service in which I was engaged has been represented here, at any rate by any one of long and deep experience. For that reason it behoves one to be extremely careful because that experience might lead one to make observations which might be interesting to the House but which, for obvious reasons, it is very difficult for me to make.

It is necessary to exercise a certain amount of discretion in order to prevent one making observations which had better not be made. I was not inclined to speak in this Debate because there has been throughout the House a pleasant spirit and comparatively little criticism. There are, however, one or two striking things which have been said which have impressed themselves upon me. I do not think there is time for me to deal with more than one of them to-day. What I have more particularly in mind is a sentence which fell from the Prime Minister when he said that in present circumstances he should be very glad to think that certain questions in this House might be treated rather as matters to be dealt with by a council of State rather than in a debating sense. I think that is more important in regard to foreign affairs than any other question. The Prime Minister has shown a very honorable record in maintaining continuity of policy, and continuity in foreign affairs is very essential. Of course, circumstances change and the relations between countries change; consequently absolute continuity cannot always be maintained. Nevertheless, continuity is most essential in the main.

I listened almost with consternation to certain observations which fell from a right hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway at the beginning of what was otherwise an extremely sympathetic speech, in which he expressed regret that the Foreign Minister showed no disposition to return to the methods of Lord Palmerston in the middle of the last century. There is a considerable change in the method which diplomacy is bound to follow at the present time. There are two points which I almost hesitate to put forward for fear of appearing to be in any way didactic, but I wish to give to them a little touch of personal experience. All that is said about another country in our national assembly makes a profound impression, but in my long ex- perience, what is said in other Chambers does not as a rule make anything like the same impression on the Continent as the utterances made in this ancient and venerable mother of Parliaments. There is a tendency in modern days, where groups arise in national assemblies, and where there are a great number of leaders, for those leaders to express opinions which they know, and which their hearers know, they would never advance when they were in power. That has very often an unfortunate effect upon the action of our representatives abroad, because it conveys the impression that a change of Government will bring about a change of policy.

Recently we have had a new phenomenon presented by a number of organs of the Press, controlled perhaps not by a single intelligence but by a single proprietor of the group, and opinions are expressed in those organs in regard to which people on the Continent are not aware of all the circumstances. Those opinions very often are the mere expression of a single individual published in a number of different organs of the Press, and they are construed abroad as being the opinion of the British nation. I put this forward as one of the difficulties with which our representatives abroad have to contend, because it is their business to convey to foreign countries the real opinion of the country they represent.

For these reasons, I think there is very great value in the suggestion which was put forward by the Prime Minister that such questions as the one we are now discussing should be as far as possible dealt with in a Council of State. I do not say that the opinions on either side of the House, as we have had them expressed to-day, are in any sense essentially divergent, but certain safeguards are looked for by hon. Members sitting on this side of the House, and we want assurances that those safeguards have been kept in view by those sitting on the other side of the House. I should like to feel that these questions might be treated in that sense, and that there should be no provocation which would call forth expressions which may have 'a repercussion elsewhere, the danger of which those who have lived in foreign countries fully appreciate. I should like to touch upon many subjects, but I feel the hour is so far advanced that the House will have heard as much as they would care to put up with today. Therefore, I will leave the question of the Optional Clause and our relations with Russia, and refrain from any longer delaying the discussion.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd) need never fear that any contribution he makes on subjects upon which he can speak with unrivalled experience will be regarded in this House as superfluous; indeed, it is one of the greatest misfortunes of the House that we have not more prominent representatives to enlighten us in our Debate in the atmosphere of caution which the right hon. Gentleman has exhibited this afternoon. I rose with the object of speaking very briefly on three subjects. In the first place, I want to say with what complete agreement and satisfaction those who are associated with me in the House have heard what has been said by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the subject of our relations with America, and the steps which they are about to take to enable an understanding with America to take a more general, one might almost say a more human form than was possible by the interchange of despatches or even the intervention of Ambassadors. That in itself we have heard with the greatest satisfaction; but we would also like to add that, in so far as this intimacy between England and America is fostered, we hope that nothing will be done which will give to any of the other great Powers the feeling that they are excluded from understandings which may be reached. Anything of an exclusive nature might do more harm than good. I am sure that those who at present represent the Foreign Office will keep this very strictly in view in whatever conversations they may have with representatives of America on either side of the Atlantic.

The next point on which I should like to say a word is with regard to the Optional Clause. To be quite frank, the caution with which a good many people have approached the Optional Clause has had little or nothing to do with the Clause itself; it has far more to do with the Tribunal. I say nothing whatever on that subject, except that we are bound, if we are to go into the atmosphere of arbitration, to take certain risks, and one of the risks must be the constitution of the Tribunal. I think that, if there has been any difference between my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary and the Labour and Liberal parties in the House, it was that he went too slowly. I do not believe that his direction was wrong. I think he was marching to the ultimate end. But there was an undoubted impatience in the country, to which expression was given during the Election, and of which all of us who had close contact with democracy were very conscious, that the right hon. Gentleman's pace was too slow, that he was too apprehensive as to the class of subject which might go before the Tribunal; and, as I said just now, it is quite likely that he had some misgiving as to the exact constitution of the Tribunal itself.

That is a very difficult matter to discuss to-day, and I doubt very much whether anything would be gained by our discussing it, but I would like to say quite emphatically that, as far as we are concerned, we think that the less delay there is in the signing of the Optional Clause the better. I have no doubt that it is absolutely necessary that we should carry with us the whole of the British Empire, but do not let us overlook the fact that Canada has already taken steps in advance of the mother country, and the opinion which has been expressed in Canada may quite easily be duplicated from Australia, South Africa and New Zealand in the near future. In any case, do not let us put our decision entirely into the keeping of other people. We are bound to take responsible steps ourselves, and I doubt very much whether we should do anything to injure by a single jot the harmony of the British Empire if we made it perfectly clear from the beginning that it was our intention at the earliest possible moment to take full advantage of this new judicial machinery.

The only other subject on which I want to say a word in this Debate is with regard to Russia. It would be absurd of us to shut our eyes, no matter in what quarter of the House we sit, to the kind of atmosphere in which Russian questions are discussed. Trade between Russia and England is discussed in Russia in a political atmosphere; here it is being discussed more and more in a commercial atmosphere. The two are incompatible. It is absurd to imagine that there are any responsible persons in this country who wish to refrain from trading with Russia. Russia has rye, or wheat, or hides, or horns to sell which we want to buy, and I do not know of any business man who would be such a fool as to say that he would not buy them because he disliked the political opinions of the Soviet Government. If we had machinery here which the Soviet Government wanted to buy, I doubt very much whether they would be so foolish as to take inferior machinery from another country either because they dislike the attitude of the late Government or because they love the attitude of the present Government. The truth is that, immediately you try to mix up politics and business, you make a mess of it.

There are a great many of us who are extremely anxious to see trading relations with Russia resumed to the full. I myself have had very grave doubts, ever since the breaking off of diplomatic relations with Russia, as to whether that had any thing whatever to do with the decline of Anglo-Russian trade. I think it is probably due far more to the exhaustion of Russian resources, and particularly Russian credit, than to the breaking off of diplomatic relations. I was somewhat interested, indeed, to hear the Foreign Secretary say that in strict-legality there has been no breaking off of diplomatic relations. I was surprised at that, because I know of a good many instances in a private capacity where questions have arisen between Russia and England, and where the proceedings could not be conducted between Russians and Englishmen, but had to be conducted through Norwegians. In those circumstances I am a little surprised to hear that diplomatic relations have not been severed.

The best way of testing whether or not you have diplomatic relations is to know whether you have diplomatic representatives. There is no British diplomatic representative in Moscow to-day; there are no Consuls in Russian ports; and, if our seamen get into trouble in a Russian port—and there are still some British ships which trade in Russian ports—they have no one to fall back upon there. I must say that, from the point of view of those who wish to see British trade re- sumed in Russia to the full, one of the things which is most necessary is that, in case of any dispute between our representatives—either commercial travellers, or seamen, or captains, or engineers, or those who are attempting to place contracts in Russia or undertake great public works there—they should have someone with the backing of the British Government behind them to represcent them. To that extent His Majesty's Government can certainly help us now in the expansion of British commercial relationships there. I think it would be rather a new idea to the herring fishermen of Scotland, the North-East Coast, Cornwall or Devon, to learn that the reason why they could not sell their herrings in Russia was the breaking off of diplomatic relations. The real reason why they could not sell their herrings there was that they could not get payment for them.

There one comes to one of the great difficulties with which His Majesty's Government are bound to be faced. Immediately they make an attempt to resume active diplomatic relations with Russia, they will find themselves faced with a demand for credits. Russian credit is very bad. It is true that the Russian Soviet Bank has business relationships with Lloyd's Bank and other big institutions in the City, but those relationships are on a very strict business basis; it is credit which is backed by security, and, unless it is backed by security, none of these great financial institutions are prepared to undertake to do Russian business. His Majesty's Government will be faced with that demand. Have they yet made up their mind whether they are going to use British credit to support Russian credit? As soon as they do make up their mind one way or the other, it will be not only instructive to the House but valuable to the business community to know exactly what has been decided.

Of one thing I can assure them, and that is that, so far as one can ascertain the business opinion of this country, they will be delighted to do business in Russia if they can get payment. They will be prepared even to give comparatively long credit so long as the cash payments are adequate to begin with. They will be very pleased to enter into negotiations with any representatives, either of the Russian Government or anyone else, without inquiring into their political doctrines. The only chance there is of prejudice being aroused against a resumption of Russian trade will be if those engaged in Russian trade as the representatives of Russia attempt to interfere in our internal affairs. We have had a definite assurance this afternoon, both from the Prime Minister and from the Foreign Secretary, that interference in our internal affairs will not be tolerated from Russia or anywhere else, and with that we express profound satisfaction.

May I say, in conclusion, that it was a great pleasure to me to see my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his place representing, not only the British Government, but, in face of the whole world, representing the United Kingdom? He is my oldest political friend. When I was a mere boy, and he was little more than a boy, we were Liberal colleagues in Newcastle together. I little thought at that time that I should see him Foreign Secretary, and, indeed, until very recent years, it seemed almost impossible. From my long knowledge of him, I believe he will support the interests of his country with dignity and ability.

I crave the indulgence of the House in addressing it for the first time. I should like to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I was associated with him and his friends for a considerable number of years. In the course of time I felt it my duty to take a step forward which they were not prepared to take. From indications which have been given in speeches already addressed to the House from that bench, it is not unlikely that within a comparatively short space of time the step I took will be repeated by them, in particular the speech yesterday made by my old colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), at whose return to the House delight was expressed on every side. In listening to his speech I thought I detected accents which might more fittingly have been expressed from these benches, and in his particular case I feel certain that the day is not far distant when he will feel it his duty to join us here.

Perhaps you will join us here.

I have given the most careful consideration to that contingency and have been compelled to dismiss it. I wish to make a general observation on certain points in the Gracious Speech, and in particular to the references to the American negotiations. I understood the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs rather to deprecate references at this stage to the American conversations. While I am perfectly prepared to take advantage of his advice, I suggest that just now we can help the new Government in the enormous task on which they have embarked by discreetly and temperately making references to this great transaction. I entirely agree with what has been said by others, that the resolution of existing difficulties between ourselves and America will be the sure foundation of international peace, and while I accept that limitation on the discussion, although I do not wholly adopt the view of the right hon. Gentleman, when he proceeded to deal with the Optional Clause he made some observations on which I should like to address a comment to the House.

As I understand, it is designed to bring within the area of international arbitration certain issues which are now excluded. It was the great aim of the substitution of law for force which was held out to the world as the foundation of a new order which the Governments of the world have since, at Geneva and elsewhere, endeavoured to assist. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Covenant of the League of Nations, for reasons which 1 do not wish to enter into now—there may be more appropriate occasions—at present only partially covers the likely area of international disputes. Various other instruments which the right hon. Gentleman and the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs enumerated have been framed, and designed to narrow still further the area of international disputes, so that if they unfortunately arise they can be resolved by judicial process rather than by the arbitrament of force. I interrupted the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs by reminding him, as I now desire to remind the House, that the whole series of international arrangement for the resolution of disputes by arbitration rather than by force up to this moment includes no engagement for the peaceful resolution of disputes arising at sea. I do not wish to trench upon the matter unduly in view of these important conversations which are beginning, hut I want to make this comment on the observations which; the right hon. Gentleman directed to the situation with which those conversations are intended to deal. I understood him to suggest that there were certain questions of dispute likely to arise between ourselves and other nations which must be excluded from the purview of international law. I apologise for dealing with such a large matter on this occasion. Outside the House I have engaged in it for some time, and that is my excuse.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to allege that there are certain British interests which cannot safely be left to the determination of international law through any tribunal. He contemplates, as I understand, certain reservations being attached to this acceptance of the Optional Clause which are designed to exclude those interests from arbitration. I am aware that this House dislikes disquisitions of a technical legal character, and I would not for a moment weary it with any such exercise. Where an individual or a nation has to deal with other nations the regulation of its associations must be determined in the last resort by stipulations and agreements which have the force of law. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to invite the Government to concur in his view that there are reservations which at all times must be attached to agreements with other nations. If I may venture to point a direct finger at what I believe is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, I desire to say, with the greatest possible respect, that the contention that Great Britain has at sea special interests not shared by other nations is a contention which cannot be established. My submission to this House is that the high seas of the world are the highways of the commerce of the world, and cannot be claimed for the benefit of any particular Power. The user of these high seas must be regulated by some principle of law, so that if disputes arise there may be available some law to which the complainant may refer and some tribunal to which the complaint may go.

3.0 p.m.

The general description of the area and operation of international law must be carefully borne in mind in these discussions which are opening with the American Government. I do not venture now to go into more details in this matter, but I beg my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs —whom I should like to congratulate on his appointment to so important an office —to assure this House that whether or not the right hon. Gentleman entertained that reservation against the operation of international law, he will assure us that His Majesty's Government will certainly not countenance it. If I am doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, I apologise, but the matter is too grave a one to be left alone. I beg the Government to remember that whether at Geneva or at whatever place the discussions with America proceed, they should not countenance the view that Great Britain, when her interests clash with the interests of other nations, will not be ready to refer them, where necessary, to reasonable arbitration and conciliation. I submit that is the general method on which our relations with other nations must be conducted. I hope, with my Friends on these benches, that no time will be lost by the Government in recommending and pursuing the adoption of these international efforts, for thereby we shall strengthen the operation not so much of international law but of that assurance which must prevail throughout the world if peace is to continue. I must not be understood as reflecting in any way on the services which the British Navy has performed. No one at all informed on the matter will doubt those services. My respectful submission to the House is that in days when the principles which regulate that work have to be merged into international co-operation, the recollection of those services will steel us in our endeavours to participate in that great undertaking. It is fitting that a new Member should bear testimony here to the principal motives which in his observation inspired the electorate. It was said yesterday by the right hon. Member for Darwen that international peace was the first consideration which, in his observation, moved the electorate in the recent contest. I should like to endorse that testimony. My observation was that what stirred countless thousands of men and women living in back streets in industrial areas and unfamiliar with the general topics of debate, was that such a catastrophe that led to the death of their boys might never occur again, and they look to any Government, of whatever party, to strengthen all the safeguards against a recurrence of that terrible catastrophe. Coupled with this determination to assist in the bringing about of international peace was the desire for social justice, for a reconsideration of economic and social arrangements so as to assure them of the full protection of the natural rights which they should enjoy. These, in my observation, were the two main motives, which moved the electorate and this Government has been returned to carry them out. The Gracious Speech from the Throne is the earliest testimony which the Government can offer of their intention to pursue these aims, and in that pursuance I desire to give them my humble support.

I should be wanting in my duty if I did not offer to the hon. Member who' had just spoken my sincere congratulations upon an eloquent and well-informed maiden speech. I am sure we shall look forward with great pleasure on all sides of the House to his intervention in future Debates of this Assembly. I do not wish to detain the House for more than a very few moments, but I should like to say that, like other hon. Members, I was delighted to see the references in the Gracious Speech to the Government's intention to restore trading and diplomatic relations with Russia. But, before dealing with the specific point which I wish to place before the House, I should like to make some reference to the statement made by the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman). He ventured to express the opinion that the decline in British exports to Russia since the break in 1927 was not due to a reluctance on the part of Russia to buy our goods, nor was it due to the breaking off of the former trading relations, but rather was it due to a decline in Russian credit.

Those who are in an excellent position to judge of the essential facts in relation to this matter are all pretty well agreed that one of the great reasons for the decline in British exports is the definite attitude taken up by the Russian buying agencies to the effect that they will make no purchases whatever of British goods or machinery when alternative sources of supply are open to them. It has been the general experience that whenever these alternatives have been available business has been diverted to other countries. I would remind my hon. Friend that since this change took place there has been an enormous increase:n the exports from both Germany and the United States of America to Russia; more particularly from Germany and more especially in the form of the very classes of machinery which Great Britain can manufacture as well as any other country in the world. Also, it would seem perfectly clear that at least £10,000,000 worth of orders were definitely lost as a result of the break, because, as my hon. Friend knows, the arrangements that had been fixed up between Sir Allan Smith, representing the Engineering Employers' Federation, and a group of financiers would have resulted in this country receiving £10,000,000 worth of orders mainly in the metal and engineering trades. To that extent it can be clearly shown that the decline in our exports is not due as much to the decline in Russian credit as to the definite political attitude of Russia in relation to purchases in this country. It is a first principle of international trade, where operations take place involving long term credits, that unless you have a reasonable measure of political stability in the relationships between the two countries it must of necessity prejudice the development of trade.

I am very happy to see that the Government propose to remove this barrier at the earliest possible moment. We are delighted that the Government have seen the necessity for consulting the Dominions in a matter of this kind. It is becoming more and more necessary that Empire policy as a whole should be based upon a common measure of agreement and that the Dominions should be taken into our confidence in matters of this kind. While that might involve a little delay, probably the time would prove to have been well spent from the point of view of promoting a lasting and a fruitful settlement. We were glad to have the assurance of the Foreign Secretary and of the Prime Minister that these steps are to be taken as speedily as possible in order to clear up the unfortunate position that has formerly existed between Britain and Russia.

I want to appeal to the Under-Secretary to convey to the proper quarters a request to give consideration to a proposal which I am about to make. It would he exceedingly unfortunate if we were to create a certain amount of misunderstanding in the Russian mind by approaching the settlement of the problem in such a way as to indicate that our material well-being was our only consideration in seeking a new atmosphere and a new understanding between the two countries. I would suggest to the Government, as a demonstration of goodwill, which will cost the country nothing but will immediately benefit certain classes of people who- are engaged in Anglo-Russian trade, and help to promote employment in this country that, without waiting for the complete working out of the difficulties existing in a real settlement, they should at once, by administrative action and without any legislation, remove the barrier against Anglo-Russian trade transactions that has operated through the administrative control by the late Government of the machinery of the Export Credits Acts. The only possible excuse for the use of the credits in that way has been the principle that it would enable us to divert to Great Britain orders that, in the normal course of events, might be expected to go elsewhere. That is the primary purpose for which those Acts were placed upon the Statute Book. The Government might very well agree straight-away to remove the political barrier erected by their predecessors against commercial transactions between British exporters and Russian buyers. The applications under the machinery of these particular Acts of Parliament in relation to export credits have to come before a small committee of experts, who deal with the proposals purely from the business and commercial point of view.

All that I am asking the Government to do in this connection, is to place the British exporter who desires to complete a transaction with a Russian buyer in exactly the same position that he would be in if he was selling, say, to Poland, Austria, Hungary or any other country. There is nothing whatever, as far as I know, in the Act of Parliament which excludes the use of these credits for the purpose I have mentioned. By administrative action, the Government can do an immediate and very great service in promoting the development of trade and employment. We are not asking that British credit should be loosely used, or that anything should be done to impair our financial stability. We are asking simply that the barrier should be removed, so that a transaction between this country and Russia may be treated on a commercial basis, and if the transaction is considered to be sound by the Committee of Experts, we should be able to carry it out and use the power of the State to assist our export trade with Russia, just as if the export was for any other country.

I can assure the Under-Secretary that this is a pressing matter. There are at the present time in the engineering trade a number of very substantial orders which might be brought to this country if this ban were removed, whereas if the firms are left to their individual resources, and the judgment of the banks, it will be impossible to take more than a small proportion of what might otherwise be brought to this country. In view of the necessity for getting every unemployed man to work as quickly as possible, I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this proposal. It is, obviously, very much better for the State to use its resources to promote employment where the capital, the technique of employment and the men are already in existence, and where the productivity of the worker in the occupation to which he is accustomed is very much higher than it can be in connection with any schemes in the nature of palliatives which are indicated by the relief works carried out by the various municipalities. I hope the proposal will receive the favourable consideration of the Government.

These are early days, and although I do not ask for the same degree of indulgence as is accorded to an hon. Member making a maiden speech, I do ask for a slightly less degree of indulgence in respect of a maiden speech from this box in the office which I now hold. We shall, no doubt, have many further opportunities for debating foreign affairs during this Parliament. I imagine that I shall not be expected to answer all. the questions which have been put this afternoon, but 1 will do my best to answer certain of them which it is in my power to answer at the present moment. As far as the policy of the Government is concerned, its main lines were laid down in what, I think, is quite unmistakeable language both during our election campaign and in the passages dealing with foreign affairs in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. The main lines therein laid down bind our actions, and we are determined to travel along those main lines. The details we are working at now.

There is much talk of continuity in foreign affairs. The right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd), who for so long represented this country with distinction in foreign capitals, used more diplomatic language when he said that he was in favour, not of continuity un qualified, but of continuity in a broad sense. It would be idle to pretend that there are no differences of opinion be tween supporters and opponents of His Majesty's Government in this House on foreign affairs, and there is a danger, I think, of this talk of continuity de generating into what is really hypo critical lip service. There was not too much continuity when the right hon. Gentleman opposite succeeded the pre sent Prime Minister as Foreign Secretary in 1924. Those who remember the terms of the Geneva Protocol.—

That had never been accepted by my predecessor. He had been forbidden to sign it.

I do not want to go off on a side track, but if I did I think one could argue around that point for some little time. The point which I am concerned to maintain is this: Do not let it be said that we have no differences of opinion with hon. Members opposite, and that they have not in the past shown differences of opinion with us. There are certain questions in the realm of foreign affairs upon which we may have too much continuity. Discontinuity is sometimes highly desirable. There are other aspects of discontinuity which have shown themselves during the past few weeks. We have listened, for instance, this afternoon to a number of well-informed and in- teresting maiden speeches from the benches behind me. We have brought into this House, and it will become more and more evident as debates on foreign affairs multiply themselves, a large reinforcement of hon. Members well qualified to make their contribution to these discussions, not exclusively upon these benches but perhaps in a majority upon these benches, and I am sure they will be a welcome addition to the resources of the House in debates on foreign affairs.

Let me say a word about the Dominions and our relations with them in regard to foreign policy. I am a little surprised that it should have been thought curious by some hon. Members opposite that we should be pursuing the policy of consulting the Dominions on all important questions of foreign policy. It is the intention of the Government to continue that plan. Again, perhaps, we are not pursuing too pedantically and over too long a period a policy of continuity. There shall be no Chanaks in our time. By that I mean that there shall be no rushing of the Dominions to a point at which it is necessary for them to protest that in matters of great importance, touching their own welfare and their own interests very deeply, they have been put by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom into a position about which they were never consulted.

Furthermore, with regard to the Optional Clause, it is remarkable how much greater illumination one can obtain from the study of papers in the Foreign Office than by putting questions to a Secretary of State from the Opposition Benches. The right hon. Gentleman the former Secretary of State very skilfully conveyed to me and to other hon. Members in the last Parliament the broad impression that in the matter of the Optional Clause and in certain other matters, it was the Dominions who were —shall I say 1 —retarding progress and preventing the attainment of unanimity, and making it difficult for His Majesty's Government to adopt a more helpful attitude with regard to the jurisdiction of the International Court.

indicated dissent.

I said that the right hon. Gentleman managed to convey a broad impression to that effect. So far as I am concerned, I am very anxious to be able to say at once that, from the study of the papers on the matter which I have been able to make in the short time that I have been at the Foreign Office, I am most delighted to find that the policy of the Dominions on several questions was very considerably in advance of that of His Majesty's late Government, in the direction of peaceful development of the world, and I have reason to hope that in the months ahead we shall not find it a difficult task to advance four-square with the Dominions along the path of international peace, cooperation and constructive understanding. That is my belief and hope. The right hon. Gentleman the late Under-Secretary of State urged us not to go too fast with regard to signing the Optional Clause. There is no danger of that; 22 States have got in in front of us already. An interesting question is whether, with the additional impulsion which we may be able to give to the matter, we may succeed in being not quite the last State member of the League of Nations to sign this document. I prefer the counsel of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), who urged us not to be too slow. That counsel contained the larger sanity. I hope that we shall not be too slow. The question of reservations has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said, and I repeat, that we are now carefully studying the question of what reservations, if any, we shall attach to our signature of the Optional Clause. We are ready to sign the Optional Clause, but bow soon we shall be able to do so, and with what reservations, if any, after consultation with the Dominions, we shall attach our signature, I cannot yet say.

The late Under-Secretary of State made one or two special points. He asked a question about the status proposed to be given to trade agents connected with the Soviet Government, whether it was our intention to confer extra-territorial privileges upon such persons in the event of our negotiating a treaty with the Soviet Government. He will not think it unfair of me if I reply merely that that is obviously one point among a large number of points of detail which will have to be considered, 'and that it is not now possible to say more than that we shall bear in mind the observations that he has made on the matter. We quite recognise the anomalies of their status on the last occasion, but in certain important and relevant respects the economic arrangements of the Soviet Union are without parallel. Perhaps I may be allowed to say no more about that point than that we are bearing it in mind in connection with the prospective negotiations. With regard to the Boxer Indemnity, the Secretary of State dealt with it 'at some length, and I cannot do more than say that negotiations are proceeding. Some indication was given by the Secretary of State as to the recent development of negotiations. We hope they may come to a successful issue, and, if they do, I am advised that some legislation would be necessary in order to give effect to their probable provisions. The right hon. Gentleman is a great expert in this matter and gave it very special attention while he was at the Foreign Office. Quite frankly, I have not yet been able to study it so carefully as to be able to give a fuller reply than I have given.

The hon. Member for 'the Combined English Universities (Sir M. Conway) and also my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Price), in a very able maiden speech, raised the question of visas and passports. I am able to say that we are already looking into the whole question of visas with a view to seeing whether we cannot sweep away a number of those obstacles, which still exist, to international travel and intercourse with other countries. We are going into the matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement on it in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. Taylor), who speaks with great authority on Anglo-Russian trade matters, raised a point about Export Credit regulations in relation to Russian orders. It would be, I suppose, improper for me to say that I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view. Therefore, I will stop short of saying that, and will merely say that I shall submit what my hon. Friend said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. With regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) about naval bases in the Caribbean, I think it would have to be passed on to the Admiralty. I will see whether we can pass it on with some observations of our own, but I do not know what those observations will be.

I was not referring to the Caribbean. The bases there have been reduced to care and maintenance parties. The point 1 raised was as to the Bermudas base.

I was not in the House when my hon. and gallant Friend spoke, but I will read his remarks in the OFFICIAL REPOKT and do what I can to see that they receive attention. I have dealt with most of the points raised, in so far as they were not dealt with by the Secretary of State. As I say, we shall have other opportunities of debating foreign affairs in this House. I" hope and believe that, even at this stage, we have succeeded in giving some slight impetus already to the course of a better understanding between nations and a more secure foundation for international peace. The new Government has had a mixed Press. All Governments, I suppose, whether new or old, have that, though sometimes, towards the end of their days, they may have an almost un-mixedly hostile Press. We have had a surprisingly encouraging Press in certain quarters, where that was not altogether to be expected, and I hope this is evidence of the fact that there is a very large body of opinion, both in this country and other countries, which has become thoroughly impatient at the very slow progress towards the new era of constructive peace and international cooperation—impatient of the very slow rate of progress which this country has been recording in the past few years. I hope, therefore, if the present Government should be able to speed up that forward march, that it may be able to count upon support, not only from its own habitual supporters, but from other sections both of this House and of opinion outside this House, and indeed of sections of opinion outside this country altogether, which have been longing for a change of Government here and of a new outlook in this country upon international affairs.

I myself hope and believe that we are now entering upon a new and hopeful phase of history. At a very critical time. more than 10 years since the ending of the War, when new generations which knew not the experiences of war are growing into manhood and womanhood and into a condition of political influence, I think we have now an opportunity to go forward which, if we miss it, may not come again in our day. Therefore, I hope and believe that we shall be able, in the months and years that lie ahead, to make a forward movement in the direction of arbitration, disarmament, the better economic organisation of the life of the world, and the general establishment of reconciliation between old enemies and firmer friendships between old friends. I hope and believe that the time when a strong British lead will be of decisive importance in international affairs is now at hand; and 1 hope and believe, finally, that this Government may be the instrument destined to regain once more the moral leadership of the world for this country and to give that strong lead and impetus which are so great a necessity in the international life of to-day.

We have now only 29 minutes more for the general Debate on the Address, because next week we pass to other matters, but I think it is of interest at this stage to consider how this King's Speech has been received in different parts of the House. We are moving a Motion of thanks to His Majesty for the Gracious Speech, but it is notable that the quality of the thanks in different parts of the House varies a good deal. From hon. Members opposite the thanks have been sincere, mainly caused perhaps by the relaxation of fears of very much worse things. From the back benches, we have even had positive thanks for the good things that we are doing. From below the Gangway opposite, the thanks have been in a tone of relief that they are free from obvious embarrassment. From this side, the tone of the thanks has been less easy to judge. In regard to the matters about which we have been talking to-day, there is no doubt that the King's Speech is a complete and unqualified source of satisfaction to Members on these benches. We have believed that the advent of the Labour party to office would mean a new era in our foreign relations. If hon. Members opposite will permit me to say so, one of the reasons that made me leave their party in 1924 was that they failed to keep the Labour Government in office to continue the good work which they were doing in foreign affairs. All the Members on these benches rely on the Government to carry on that good work to a much higher stage of perfection.

There are points about this Speech on which undoubtedly there is not on these benches, quite such unanimity of gratitude. In domestic policy, as revealed by this Speech, it is obvious to everybody that the Speech does not attempt to fulfil the hopes of many of those who support the present Government. Among those who supported us at the last election were a great many who had been frightened by the terrors raised by hon. Members opposite, and who were shivering on the brink, nervous of what this Government might produce. We endeavoured to persuade them that if, instead of shivering on the brink, they would take the plunge, they would find the resulting swim in cool and pleasant waters both refreshing and invigorating. They took the plunge. They read this speech, and discover a tepid bath. Our more enthusiastic supporters quite frankly regarded the continued dominance of the Conservative party as a sign of old age in the heart of the Empire, recollecting that that party had been in full control of this House for 10 of the years that have succeeded the Great War. I really think that a great many people were beginning to feel that we were getting rather an old country, and they looked to the Labour Government for a restoration of youth in the heart of the Empire. The King's Speech introduces us to an atmosphere rich in the virtues of later middle age. That is not really good enough for a great many of us, were it not that we believe that the Front Bench has quite deliberately adopted a policy of saying less than they mean [Interruption. ]

So have the back benches!

In early days I remember my teachers taught me that there was a literary figure by which those who composed documents say rather less than they mean that being the opposite of exaggeration. If that is true of this document, I welcome it, because I would always rather politicians say less than they mean than more than they mean. From the point of view of the great mass of Members on these benches, there are omissions in the Speech. The first is education. We had the assurance yesterday that the raising of the school age to 15 was before a committee dealing with unemployment. Really, that is not the way to deal with that problem, for it is not primarily an unemployment question. The condition of employment gives an admirable opportunity for introducing the reform to which we on these benches are overwhelmingly pledged on quite different grounds, and instead of submitting it to a committee dealing with unemployment, what ought obviously to have been done was for the Cabinet to have issued instructions to the Board of Education to go ahead with a scheme as fast as they could.

The process of raising the school age is a lengthy and gradual process. I remember in 1915, in conjunction with the Minister of Education, we improved the powers of authorities to raise the school age. That has never been adequately taken advantage of, and an energetic administration could at once proceed to persuade authorities without any fresh legislation. Instead of doing that, they have submitted the matter to a committee primarily interested in unemployment. That is not the right method, and that is not the method by which we on these benches expect the Front Bench to fulfil their promises. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheer up ! "] We on this side know perfectly well that we have inherited four or five years of gross neglect by the party opposite, and we know quite as well that no Front Bench can do everything at once, but what we do want is a reasonable assurance that the Front Bench is going to proceed, within the limits of its powers, and we know that its powers are limited in this House, to carry out those reforms to which all of us are absolutely pledged.

Let me take another example which has not yet been referred to in these Debates. Slum clearance is a subject upon which the whole House is pledged as deeply as a House can be. I suppose it is rather especially the function of one who has been absent from this place for 11 years to try to recall the virtues of old Parliaments. Before, in 1914-18, when we in this House willed a thing we got it done. We did not wait for years and years and indulge in circumlocution, but we got it done, and I hope to revive something of that atmosphere in this Parliament. In order to do that I will quote from a sentence which expressed our ideas about 1916 or 1917 on the question of slum clearance. It is from one of the Ministry of Reconstruction pamphlet's: 1 Succeeding Parliaments havehardly cleared a single slum. [Interruption.] You have built houses; yes, but every local authority knows that those houses have not touched the slum problem, for the very simple reason that the rents payable on those houses are quite unpayable by those who live in slums. The necessary procedure, if you are going to clear slums, is to begin by building houses at rents which the slum dwellers can pay. When you have those houses you have some place to which you can transfer the slum dwellers, and then you can clear the slums. So the process is, firstly, an administrative process. You first build houses. I will now read a short extract from the Gracious Speech from the Throne: Could language less fully convey what we who are keen on slum clearance really want? If you really mean to carry legislation you do not simply " propose to introduce it." Why should they not have said: " We will attempt to carry legislation?" In the second place, you do not need to begin by legislation, you ought to begin by administration. While these houses are being built you can easily make such necessary amendments as are required in the existing slum clearance law to make it possible to clear slums when you have somewhere to put the slum dwellers. We all know of local authorities who have been attempting to clear slums and after having produced their schemes they find that they cannot turn out the tenants because there is no accommodation for them. These are instances in which the King's Speech does not satisfy the requirements of those of us who are so keen about getting such reforms carried out. I look to the Government for a better performance on this question than that which is foreshadowed in the King's Speech. I do not ask the Government to proceed with Measures which, obviously, are out of the range of this Parliament, but I ask for a speedy and an efficient administration of existing powers, and I hope the Government will show a willingness to use all the machinery they possess in order to get things done.

We are told that everything comes to him who waits, and I am sure those who wait long enough will be fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye. It is my duty to offer congratulations to the hon. Member who has just made his first speech in this Parliament. We all recognise that the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) is accustomed to address this assembly, and he has given, the impression that his confidence is very much greater in the Government than one would imagine from the remarks he has made. The hon. Member has shown a determination to get things done, and he has exhibited a provocativeness in regard to the Government which we shall be very keen in the future to help him to develop. We welcome the intervention of the hon. Member in this Debate, and more particularly on the question of slum clearances.

I wish to refer to the passage in the Gracious Speech dealing with slum clearances but as applicable to our "Slums of the Sea." I have before me an article on this subject which was written by the Foreign Secretary. Judging from the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman has made this morning, 1 do not know whether I can assume that these remarks are genuine, for he told us that a recent article in the French Press attributed to him was not authentic. If I may, I will read the following lines from an article which appeared in the "Seafarers' Record" for 11th May, 1929, under the title, "Labour will help the Seamen";

During the War there was an agreement between the Controller of Shipping and the people interested in shipping with regard to the conditions as to accommodation, and standard ships were built in which the conditions were very greatly improved; and the seamen then thought that a beginning of new times was at hand. Unfortunately, however, since that time the same rate of progress has not been maintained, but, on the contrary, there has been some slight setback, and, although I would not like the House to think for a moment that I am stating that the owners of British merchant ships are behindhand, that they are not anxious to do the best they can for their people, yet we must recognise that there are a certain number of ship-owners who do not give that care and attention to the conditions of their men that they should, and, as in all legislation, it is necessary to legislate for the recalcitrant and the backward. We find, from inquiries which have been made at some of the largest ports in this country, that some of our foreign competitors pay more attention to these matters than we do. The "Regulations and Instructions for the Survey of Ships," issued by the Board of Trade, which is the guiding principle, has the fault that it simply makes suggestions, and is not compulsory. It says, "We advise this," or "You should do that," but it does not say "You must do it." In Australia, and also in Norway, they have Acts of Parliament which make these things compulsory, and by that means, and that means alone, they are gradually but surely stealing ahead of this country in the accommodation they are providing for their seamen.

In Australia, they have medical men whose duty it is to supervise the hygienic accommodation in these ships. We have nothing of that kind in this country except in the Royal Navy, where, on the staff of the Director-General of Medical Services, there is an officer whose duty it is to see that in our warships there are proper hygienic conditions for the men. Surely, if that can be done in Australia and in the Royal Navy, we could do the same through the Board of Trade in conjunction with the Ministry of Health. It would probably astonish hon. Members, in spite of the Board of Trade regulations, if they saw or knew how chaotic are the arrangements made. Shipowners who apparently follow these regulations interpret them in very different ways. May I read one or two reports regarding ships which were recently examined? A recently inspected 1928 vessel, quite good in ordinary equipment, houses sailors and firemen in the forecastle, and partially adopts the recommendations as to washing accommodation and shower baths, but has only one wash-house basin and shower for all sailors and firemen, 20 in number. Another up-to-date vessel provides the sailors with a mess room in addition to the sleeping-room, but both are in the forecastle. Again, a vessel with a large crew and a doctor has no hospital. It is a remarkable thing that it is not compulsory to provide a hospital on these ships.

Another thing which I am sure will be astonishing to the House is that it is not necessary to provide sanitary accommodation on a ship unless the owner wishes to count that space for a reduction of dues for tonnage. That is to say, you offer the owner a bribe and say, "If you provide sanitary accommodation for your sailors and firemen we will allow you a certain reduction in your tonnage, which means that you will have to pay less when you go into port for port dues." "We have done something for the slums on shore. We think of the people on shore, but it never seems to enter our heads that these men, who bring food to this country, who help to keep us alive, who during the War were regarded as heroes, can now be regarded as men to whom sanitary accommodation and proper hygienic accommodation are of no value. I think the Government have the fullest desire and intention to help these men all they can, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench will inform the President of the Board of Trade of my suggestion that there should be an inter-Departmental Committee to inquire and report to this House.

May I, by leave of the House, make a statement arising out of the discussion in the earlier part of the day? It will be remembered by those who were present when I last spoke that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) raised the question as to the actual position with regard to Russia. I have since been in contact with the legal adviser to my department, and I thought it would be to the interest of all if I made this statement. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom accorded de jure recognition to the Government of Soviet Russia in 1924. From that time the Government of Soviet Russia was entitled to be recognised as the Government of a State, and is still so recognised by His Majesty's Government. It follows that the reciprocal rights and duties which international law recognises as incumbent on States in their relations with one another continue to subsist between this country and Russia. What the rupture of 1927 did was to suspend the normal machinery of diplomatic relations. It is that machinery which now requires to be re-established. I thought it was in the interest of clarification that I should have that statement on the records to-day. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity.

Motion made, and Question "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.— [Captain Slargesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, until Monday next (8th July), pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day. Adjourned at One minute before Four o'clock until Monday next, 8th July.