BRITISH PARLIAMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 5 March 1927, Page 2

BRITISH PARLIAMENT.

COMMONS DEBATE. (Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.] LONDON, .March 3. In a debate on Russian relations, Mr Horn said he was not ashamed of his own efforts to improve Anglo-Rus-sian relations in 1921. but every hope had failed to materialise. Tic had always advocated restraint and opposed i the sudden breaking off of relations, but how long were we to be patient. The limit of endurance had been reached by (lie Russian agitation against us in China. lie added: “In my judgment much great injury would accrue to peace and reconstruction of Europe by the loss of our authority in the Council’s nations than would result of breaking off Anglo-Russitm relations.” -(Ministerial cheers.) A Mr Ramsay MacDonald charged the , Conservatives with niiscliievious subversive propaganda against Russia. Though the trade agreement was operating Ministers and members had gone t up and down the country attacking tho Russian Government and doing everything to hamper trade. Everyone was over-willing to assume Soviet hostility. The Soviet’s reply to the Note could not he left where it was. If we the specific points of complaint an<t negotiated thereaneut, if no agreement were reached advantageous to both countries, lie would admit being more mistaken than he had ever been in his lifetime.

Sir A. Chamberlain said the previous . specific protests had not produced sat—isfaetion. The basis of complaint was not isolated acts of insubordinates but the universal disregard of the primary, object of the trade agreement. It was the deliberate fomenting of a world revolution, the deliberate interference with tho internal affairs of other nations. The Soviet was guilty- of the very sort of conduct which Mr MacDonald when Prime Minister, declared made diplomatic relations impossible. An Anglo-Russian breach must react to other countries and might have a most disturbing effect on the European situation. He had therefore urged Government patience and for hear alley. despite a greater provocation than Britain endured from any country, but there were limits beyond which patience could not be carried. (Cheers.) They asked Russian henceforth to pursue a policy confirming the ordinary comity of nations, to abstain from efforts to promote a world revolution and front interference in our international affairs.

LONDON. March 3. In the Commons Sir Philip Sassoon, in answer to a question, said it was too early to stiite even an approximate date when the air service to India would be extended to Australia. The Government of India was taking preparatory steps for surveying it mute front Calcutta to R. ill goon, Uildf the Commonwealth was similarly arranging for flights to Singapore.

Air Griffiths in the course of a question obviously aimed at Mr Churchill's war hook, suggested it should ho a condition of acceptance of miuisteiiLil office that confidential information gathered while in office should not be used subsequently in press articles for money.

Mr Baldwin stated the present practice was to preclude Ministers from practising journalism in tiny form, but the prohibition did not- extend to the authorship of books on literary, historical, scientific, philosophical or ro- . mautic subjects for which there were., numerous land respectable precedents.

The Colonial Office attitude towards the Lang-De Chair dispute is absolutely unchanged since MacTieraan’s visit. Mr Aniery emphatically refused to intervene in the State’s domestic polities.

LONDON. March 3. In the House of Lords Lord Newton drew attention to the Soviet’s reply to the British note. He expressed thK opinion that the drawing off of diplomatic relations and the cancellation of the trade agreement had been justified over and over again regarding, which he said he saw no advantage in either course. He dot:btt?.d whet-hey any other country- would follow oily example. Our hands should be left free for further action, if and when _ necessary. Lord Halsbury said the peace and prosperity of the world depended on Britain’s proper conduct of foreign affairs. She must not through pique, injured dignity or some triviliaty take an action capable of great harm. Viscount Grey said every line of Britain’s note was justified, but he doitl;' the expediency of sending it. The Soviet was only using the note to imbue the Red army with the idea that Brit) tin purposed to attack Russia. Our prestige and reputation would have been better served bysilence said Lord Grey. “The onlyway to meet propaganda is with counter propaganda. Government could not undertake this but constitutional- ( ly minded Labourites and Trade Unionists who were the people immediately attacked by the Soviet ought to do so.” The House then rose. LONDON, March 3. The following precedes Sir 11. Home’s speech in the Commons. Mr Baldwin announced the Budget would be delivered on March' 11th. On the civil service vote Sir Sinclair moved to reduce the Foreign Secretary’s salary in order to draw attention to the Anglo-Russian relations. He pointed out that British trade with Russia during the last three years amounted to thirty-one millions, forty-four millions and thirty- ■ eight, millions sterling respectively. It was impossible to stop propaganda by rebukes or force. The nlaintcnance trade relations was gradually and steadily undermining Bolshevism. Russia was producing revival but the severance of relations would plunge us into isolation and it would ruin the substantial trade and imperial peace of Europe. Sir A. Chamberlain in despatching the note had been torn between his own better judgment and the dictates of the Conservative die hards.

Sir A. Chamberlain said a verbal acceptance would not he enough, acts „ must show whether there was going to be a redress or less of the series 1 of outrages. The Government reserv--2 ed the right to judge the expediency - and time for any further steps. 5 “AVe thought it right to take the world to witness the serious nature of our companions and give the Soviet another opportunity to conform with the ordinary rules of international life and conduct.” a Air I Joy’d George condemned the t Ministers speeches. He was aghast at the actions of a Government with which we had official relations. An 5 attempt should have been made by the representatives of both countries fo solve the difficulties. This might not mean a new agreement but it might mean a «iew spirit. Commander Oliver said that Britain’s note belonged to a long brood of brothers, all of whom were still born. It was announced to the world the degree of humiliation the Empire was ready to swallow lying down, the Soviet’s reply, which did not contain an apology or contrition. It was an amalgam of insult, evasion and lurcher 'humiliation. Ho advo- ™ rated the “big stick and bigger boot fr nntrophohaid apes of tbo Bolshevik jungle.” Air Snowden said an Anglo-Russian breach would only encourage Communist propaganda which he detested. Let Sir A. Chamberlain try to open a new chapter of Anglo-Russian relations. Russia would be reasonable because without outside help the Russian economic system would break down. The motion was defeated by 271 to 4 46