http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1934/jul/25/russia
HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1930s → 1934 → July
1934 →25
July 1934 → Lords
Sitting
HL
Deb 25 July 1934 vol 93 cc1097-1171097
§LORD CHARNWOOD had
given Notice to call attention to
information circulated in this country upon apparently good authority
according
to which the systematic policy of the Russian Government has
recently caused
widespread starvation among the population of grain producing areas in
Russia,
and is likely to do so this year through the measures taken for the
rapid
introduction of collectivist cultivation and the enforcement of a law
transferring property in the produce of agriculture to the State, and
through
the removal by the Government of grain for purposes of exportation, and
for the
supply of the Army, without regard to the needs of subsistence of the
cultivators of the grain; to ask His Majesty's Government
whether they have
information which tends to confute this allegation against the Russian
Government; and to move for Papers.
My
Lords, on a point of order,
before the 1098noble
Lord moves
his Motion. I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the terms of
the
Motion which he is about to move. The undesirability of discussing in
Parliament the internal policy and concerns of foreign nations has been
generally admitted and such a Motion as this would certainly
not be allowed
on the Order Paper in another place either as a Question or as a Motion.
While the Government may, and indeed should, have information with
regard to
all public proceedings in other nations, there are domestic matters
over which
it can have neither control nor responsibility and the discussion of
which may
cause embarrassment and even mischief.
So
far as I am aware, there is no method in your Lordships' House
of controlling the Motions which may be put down on the Order Paper for
discussion,
and this matter, as indeed all matters of order, rests in your
Lordships'
hands. While discussions have, of course, taken place on matters such
as the
German debt situation or the obligations of Germany under the Treaty of
Versailles, in that case we had a responsibility. Discussions years ago
took
place on the question of Rumania which may have been interpreted as an
internal
concern of the Ottoman Empire, but we, as protectors of Christians in
the
Ottoman Empire, had a, direct responsibility. I dare say occasions have
arisen
in your Lordships' House where what I am trying to put before your
Lordships
has been contravened. I think my noble friend Lord Marley did put down
such a
Motion and I called his attention to it, and I hope he will not offend
again.
I
think it is clearly undesirable that we, especially in the
present state of Europe, should have discussions on internal matters in
foreign
countries for which we have no responsibility whatsoever. I feel sure,
if the
noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House were to intimate his
concurrence with the view I have expressed, he would receive the
general
support of your Lordships, and he would prevent the establishment of a
precedent which, if extended further, might lead to grave abuse and be
seriously
embarrassing to the Government of the day. In the event of the noble
and
learned Viscount taking the view which I am trying to present to your
Lordships
now I feel sure that the1099noble
Lord, Lord
Charnwood, would not proceed with his Motion.
My
Lords, as the noble Lord
opposite has said, these matters are, in your Lordships' House, not the
subject
of a ruling from the Woolsack and are not the subject, so far as I
know, of any
express Standing Order. On the other hand, it is quite plain from
precedent
that your Lordships have always exercised, and no doubt are still in a
position
to exercise, a control over the Questions and Motions which appear on
the Order
Paper. There are precedents. The noble Lord was good enough to tell me
that he
was proposing to raise this matter. Therefore I looked into some of
them, and I
find, for instance, that in the year 1883 there was an occasion when a
series
of Questions was put down containing the very gravest imputations
against a
distinguished member of the Indian Civil Service. The course adopted in
that
case was for the Leader of the House to move "that these Questions be
not
put and that they do not remain on the Minutes of your Lordships'
House,"
and that was carried. Therefore there is power to control Questions if
any
noble Lord brings before your Lordships a matter which is thought
undesirable.
There
are other methods which are sometimes less dramatic but more
effective. For example, in the year 1906, there was a Question of which
Notice
was given with regard to the action of a particular club in London
towards an
eminent public person in connection with an election. That Question was
thought
undesirable, and the Clerk of the Parliaments in those days
communicated with
the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition and,
ultimately, the
noble Lord who had given notice of the Question agreed that it should
not
appear on the Order Paper and it disappeared. There is no doubt that
there is
full power in your Lordships' House to control these matters. The
question then
arises as to the circumstances under which that power should be
exercised, and
I think your Lordships will probably all be agreed that, while it is
eminently
desirable that we should retain, and should assert our retention of, a
complete
discretion, at the same time it is plainly a discretion which must be
exercised
with very considerable restraint and care because we do not desire that
any
noble 1100Lord
should be
unduly fettered in bringing before the House any matter with regard to
which he
thinks that discussion would be useful or valuable, unless the Question
was in
itself offensive or in itself dangerous to the interests of this
country.
The
noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition referred to what I
think is the most recent, as well as perhaps the closest precedent.
That was
the Question which was put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord
Marley, but
which was in fact asked on his behalf by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
It was
a Question calling attention to
the disquieting information now being received from Germany with regard
to the
treatment of political prisoners, particularly the treatment of the
leaders of
the suppressed political Parties, and to ask whether His Majesty's
Government
has any information as to the allegation that the Reichstag Deputy
Torgler is
being kept in chains in prison. The
noble Lord has said that is undesirable. It may be he is right but at
any rate
no objection was raised at the time and, without wishing to make Party
capital
out of it, I cannot help noting that noble Lords opposite are more
tender when
it comes to Russia than they seem to be when Germany is the country
which is
involved.
So
far as the present Question is concerned I think it is quite
true to say that it is not probable that His Majesty's Government will
be able
to give to the noble Lord who raises it very much information. On the
other
hand I cannot myself see that we can properly say that it is not a
Question
that might be asked because, among other reasons, your Lordships will
remember
that under the Covenant of the League of Nations to which this country
is a
party, we are bound, under Article 23, to endeavour
to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men,
women and
children, both in their own countries"— that
is, in our own country— and
in
all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations
extend, and
for that purpose will establish various
organisations, and so on. I do not think it is quite right to say that
it is a
matter with regard to which we have no concern at all, although it is
perfectly
true, as the noble Lord said, that it is a matter on which we are not
likely to
have much information, with 1101regard
to which we
cannot, as a Government, accept any responsibility, and with regard to
which
we, as a Government, should not think it right in any way to attempt
intervention.
As the Question is only directed to obtaining information, I think it
hardly
fails within the category of Questions which your Lordships would not
allow to
be asked, although, for reasons I have indicated, I do not think it is
a
Question which will admit of any lengthy discussion or in reply to
which the
noble Lord can hope to receive very full information.
My
Lords, the reason why, with
your Lordships' permission, I am raising this certainly very
disagreeable
Question is a simple one. All the people that I know who are in a
position to
judge at all assure me of their belief that some amount of
definite good is
done to unfortunate persons in Russia from time to time by the
manifestation of
interest shown in other countries, more particularly in this country,
in regard
to certain matters which prima facie are
the domestic concern of Russia. At the present moment, and in
the
particular case to which my Question refers, there is some special
reason for
thinking that good results are not at all unlikely to follow. That
being the
best advice that I can get, I was not willing—except in compliance, of
course,
with your Lordships' opinion on the point just raised—to keep silent.
May
I add one further word of preface? I, at any rate, do not
approach these matters with any rooted or bitter prejudice against the
Communist idea as such. On the contrary, hopes, however visionary, of
somehow
producing a much more equal distribution of wealth and a more equal
state of
society do, I confess, arouse in me a very decided sympathy. I am quite
aware
that many Russian Communists in particular, have been pursuing these
objects,
however visionary, with sincerity and with self devotion. But, my
Lords, if in
that pursuit they are led, an my Question plainly suggests, into a good
deal of
action which from our point of view seems actually atrocious, I should
in
imputing that merely be imputing to them the consistent practice of
principles
which from first to last every one of their leaders has proclaimed or
preached—principles
which I do not want to de-1102scribe
in harsh
language, but which are directly contrary to those principles and
sentiments of
compassion with suffering humanity as such which we are glad to know in
this
country permeate our own Socialists through and through.
But
if I am to ask a Question at all I must give as fairly as I
can a somewhat dry statement of what the information is to which I
refer. I
want to ask the Government whether the knowledge which they have runs
contrary
to what is so widely circulated. I would like to say that I have
carefully
avoided even looking at information which I thought might possibly be
coloured
by any political aims in regard, for example, to the independence of
the
Ukraine. Your Lordships know quite well the difficulty of
naming publicly
those authorities on whom reasonable persons in this country most rely
for
information, inasmuch as they are men of business in Russia or
travellers there
to whom it would be highly inconvenient that their names should be
published in
this connection. I refer only to one or two authorities. I think I have
done
pretty well all I can to put the Foreign Office in full possession of
my
sources of information and I should be willing to give them privately
to any of
your Lordships who are interested.
The
first of the sources of information I would like to mention
to-day is the statement widely circulated in this country by
an
interconfessional committee of which the President is the Cardinal
Archbishop
of Vienna. This consists of leading ministers of various denominations,
not
only of the cardinal's own Church but Lutherans also and, I believe,
Jews whose
congregations in countries bordering on Russia have constant relations
with men
of like race and religion in that country. It would be ridiculous, I
think, to
suggest that statements coming from a source like that, statements from
an
organisation of which so important a personage as the Cardinal
Archbishop of
Vienna allows himself to be the principal spokesman, constitute
evidence of a
negligible kind. They are also supported—to mention only two other
printed
sources of information—by articles which have lately appeared in the Christian Science
Monitor of
America, an
able paper, from the pen of a Mr. Chamberlin and articles from the pen
of Mr.
Mug- 1103geridge,
a
Socialist gentleman I believe, whose articles appeared in the Morning Post. I have
made inquiries about both these
gentlemen and there is no question that they are publicists of very
high
standing, singularly well informed. Last, but not least, of my sources
of
information there are the Decrees and other pronouncements of the
Soviet
Government.
There
is at this moment, and there has been for some months past,
very grave fear entertained as to a possible failure to a considerable
extent
of the actual harvest in Russia. There are many indications of that,
and with
the weather of the world as it is, it seems in itself not improbable,
though
recent information at any rate has not come my way as to how the actual
growing
crops are at this moment in Southern Russia, Southern Russia being the
whole
grain-producing area of Russia. Even a very slight failure of the crop
would be
likely to produce the most terrible consequences unless something were
done
very different from what was done last year. Even in the absence of any
actual
shortage of crop, the experience of last year makes the prospects of
the rural
inhabitants gloomy enough. During the year 1933 all
authorities concurred
that there was famine on a quite terrible scale, presumably not
absolutely
everywhere but throughout vast tracts in almost all parts of Southern
Russia.
I
ignore the largest figures of deaths from
famine that I have heard mentioned by quite reasonable men, and content
myself
with an estimate derived from what I personally think is the most
reliable
source at which I could get, which puts the deaths from famine alone in
Southern Russia during 1933 as being 3,000,000 at least, and possibly
several
millions more.
That is enough. On the surface of all that we know this famine
appears to have been purely artificial. In the early part of 1933 of
course it
was the grain which remained unused from the previous year that
mattered. I
believe it was not up to the average. I have not seen it suggested at
all that
the crop was a very bad crop. The crop of last year, though at first
the amount
of it was over-estimated, is known to have been a very good one,
allowing for
some considerable wastage that may have occurred in the getting of it
in. Yet
the famine went on through the whole of last 1104year,
as far as I
can gather. During the early months of this year, as I know from people
to whom
I have talked who have been travelling in Southern Russia and have come
home
during the last two months at the outside, the agricultural population
generally was quite manifestly suffering from insufficient nutrition.
Now
how did that happen? I think it is necessary for me to trouble
your Lordships with something of a survey of the events of the last
five years.
For some years previously to 1929, as your Lordships may know, the
Soviet
Government encouraged peasant proprietors, many of whom throve
enormously, I
believe, under that policy. Suddenly in 1929, without any one
in this
country knowing anything about it, their whole policy was reversed, and
the
Government began the process of driving the rural population into large
collective farms. These now cover the greater part of the grain area.
There
is a minority of individual farmers remaining on sufferance, and about
them I
would only say that they are under heavy taxation, to be delivered to
the
Government in grain. At the same time modern American tractors and
other
machinery have been rapidly introduced, and with their introduction old
and
accustomed methods of cultivation have been prohibited. There are
stringent
regulations establishing control by the Government of the whole
produce, and I
need not mention that the whole trade in corn and the whole transport
of the
country is completely in the Government's hands. There are stringent
regulations to enforce delivery to the Government of all grain that it
claims
for use elsewhere, leaving what is supposed to be a stated proportion
of the
whole on the farms for distribution as wages. Of course, the welfare of
the
cultivators always depends on whether in the end that actual proportion
supposed to be reserved for them is left there at all, a point to which
I shall
later refer.
This
revolutionary change, as your Lordships will imagine, met
with stubborn resistance, and that resistance was met with unhesitating
ruthlessness. The greater part of the resistance was vapidly
damped down to
very slight proportions. There were great numbers of people shot, and
innumerable whole families were deported to labour camps, the
conditions of
which appear to be very various 1105indeed.
In all
cases the inmates are what we should call slaves. Not only
that, but in the
grain-growing district there has been the removal from certain villages
of the
whole population bodily to regions in the north, where they can hardly,
if at
all, raise a subsistence for themselves. All that has gone on, and by
that
means undoubtedly all the most vigorous element of the rural population
has
been simply eliminated, and the remnant live in what is evidently a
state of
mutual suspicion and of penetrating espionage and terrorism everywhere.
For the
running of this whole system of the organisation of labour, the
utilisation of
the new machinery and, above all, ensuring the delivery to the
Government of
all the grain that they want, the Government expressly rely not only on
strictly Government officials, as we understand them, but equally—and
here I am
quoting—on "Party organisations," "secretaries of provincial
Party committees" and on "Party cells" on the farms,
"chiefs of political departments" and so on. Those are a few of the
phrases by which the Government themselves have described the agency
upon which
they principally rely for running the whole system.
The
Party to which I have referred is itself repeatedly purged to
get rid of "alien elements who have worked their way in" and "to
secure iron proletarian discipline in the Party and to expel from the
Party all
unreliable, unstable and selfish elements" of any kind; also "to
achieve a higher ideological standard among Party members," and,
finally,
to ensure "accurate fulfilment of grain deliveries." The workers are
roused by the Government to a due state of Party fervour by national
conferences and by exhortations of Comrade Stalin, quoted in Government
publications. I notice in a circular, which happens this time to
concern
railway workers in particular, that they are to be "inoculated with a
sense of revolutionary watchfulness" and that they are cautioned
against
"blindness and naïve tolerance to wreckers and other class enemies."
That is the standard mainly required of persons who are responsible for
the
running, in this case, of the transport system.
Last
year these local agencies were reinforced—I am going to the
same set of authorities—by sending "thousands of trained Bolshevist
organisers to the 1106villages
as
members of the political departments attached to the machine and
tractor
stations." What in practice has resulted very naturally is the shooting
of
a great number of people without trial, for such offences as wrecking
machinery, a thing which no doubt has happened, or may happen, but
which is
indiscriminately suggested as the natural and common practice of the
whole
wretched population concerned. Particularly there have been
shootings for
what is called grain stealing, where men have been trying to keep back
for
their families some small portion of the grain which they themselves
have
grown, and which they have been led by long custom to regard
as their own
property. These shootings are not, so far as I know, recorded in any
official
publication of the Russian Government.
There
is, however, a result of that policy which is recorded in
the same Decree of last January. After the famine of 1933
there is a result
recorded by the Russian Government with satisfaction—namely, that in
1933
"the grain deliveries were fulfilled before the time, and in full."
I refer to this because it is I believe the fact that early last year
there
were exaggerated estimates of what the grain produce was going to
amount to,
and then what quantity was to be given to the Government and what
quantity was
to be reserved on the farms was fixed in accordance with that
exaggerated
estimate. That the estimate was exaggerated was very soon known, but
what then
happened? The Government got the deliveries which they had demanded in
full,
and the whole shortage fell upon that portion which was supposed to be
reserved
for the sustenance of the people who grew it. The Government on that
result
congratulated themselves upon the success of their agrarian policy,
making no
mention of facts which in other countries are becoming notorious.
Therefore I
need not ask very closely how the grain was disposed of. The
cultivators at any
rate did not get their proportion of it.
I
have in my Notice mentioned exportation because the committee I
have referred to attaches importance to it. For all I know to the
contrary the
exports may have ceased since that mistake in the estimates of the
harvest was
made. 1107I
therefore am not
anxious for the Government, unless they happen to have information, to
deal
with that question of exports. Then, of course, the food of the
industrial
population in the towns is a very large object for which the Russian
Government
require their portion of the grain. Observers note not, indeed, great
prosperity but comparative comfort on the part of the industrial
population of
the towns, and, broadly speaking, I have found no suggestion anywhere
of famine
touching the towns such as ravaged the agricultural districts. There is
one
other class of people who do not go short, and that is, of course, the
Army. I
mention this because the most marked point in stories by recent
travellers in
Russia was the contrast between the famished state of the agricultural
workers
and the markedly well-cared-for condition of all soldiers. I find that
it is
the opinion of the most weighty authorities that the one primary object
of the
Soviet Government throughout is to see that they keep in good fettle
what I
understand to be the second largest army in the world. The
bulk of it, I
believe, to be stationed in a very remote part of the Russian Empire,
for
purposes which, good or bad, are distinctly Imperialistic, and are only
remotely connected with the welfare of the producers of the grain in
Russia.
Anyway the Government got their full share and the rural population
which
produced the grain did not, but to a large extent, on the contrary,
died from
famine.
I
want to make this quite clear, that there seem to have been some
recent regulations on the part of the Government of Russia connected
with these
matters which do appear to be aimed, so far as they go, at making
better
provision for the peasantry than last year. As to the effect which they
are
going to produce—and what I am going to say now is largely the reason
for my
Question—it is going to depend upon the spirit in which, and the energy
with
which, these regulations are carried out. It will necessarily be long
before we
get news of what happened in that matter, but many people in the
civilised
world will watch with anxiety to see whether, in the season now
beginning, the
human claims of this great mass of the subjects of the Soviet
Government have
at last begun to count with the Soviet Government as a matter of
first-rate
importance. 1108I
have purposely
avoided any horrifying details which may be exceptional; I have tried
to be even
dry in my treatment of this matter; I know I have been
moderate in my
summing up of the results; and I apologise for delaying your
Lordships so
long. I beg to move.
THE
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My
Lords, I think those of your
Lordships who have been able to follow the noble Lord will feel that he
had
some justification for calling your attention to this most painful
matter. As
one who may be regarded in some sense as a representative of Christian
public
opinion in this country I cannot be wholly silent on this occasion. It
is an
extremely distasteful thing to criticise in this House or anywhere the
domestic
affairs of another country, but I think that the Parliament of this
country
would be a very different place from what it has been in the past if it
were
afraid to raise a voice of protest against what seem to be violations
of the
ordinary instincts of humanity, whether they occur in a small country
like
Liberia or a great country like Russia.
I
know that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in the remarks with
which he prefaced this discussion, was animated entirely by his
vigilant care
for the traditions of this House and the purity of Parliamentary
procedure, but
I cannot refrain from saying that I am sometimes surprised to notice on
the
part of some of those commonly associated with him that, while they are
most
eager to defend workers and peasants in this country who are alleged to
be
exploited by capitalism, they seem so extraordinarily averse from
considering
peasants and workers in Russia who are exploited by a powerful
capitalist
bureaucracy. And I must say I am sometimes surprised—because the noble
Lord
knows that I share to the full his care for any in this country who are
living
under conditions of misery and poverty or in distress—that they seem
always to
resent any attempt to lift the veil which is so carefully placed over
foreign
observers by the Soviet Government and to realise the appalling misery
which
over vast areas of Russia lies behind.
I
am not going into any details—the noble Lord has done that quite
sufficiently—I can only give you the impression left upon my mind after
a long
and 1109full
study of an
immense mass of documents and evidence coming from all quarters, partly
from
impartial foreign observers who have penetrated the far recesses of
Russia,
particularly in this matter of Southern Russia from eye-witnesses of
scenes,
and in many cases from sufferers themselves, some of whom have escaped
from
Russia and whom I have examined, and as to whose trustworthiness and
freedom
from party bias I can have no manner of doubt. The impression
left on my
mind is that the condition of things last year in Russia, particularly
in the
Southern parts of Russia, was appalling; that there was going on a
famine of a
degree of severity which has hardly ever been known. I think the noble
Lord was
most moderate, as he was in all his statements, in saying that the
number who
perished in the famine was about 3,000,000. I think it would be much
nearer the
mark to put it at 6,000,000. I know that in one town of
240,000—because it
was not merely confined to the country districts—no less than 40,000
died of
hunger. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, your Lordships will
understand
that not even here can I quote the names of my informants or even the
places
where these things occurred, because, in the event of the most distant
allusion, all-vigilant eyes will find the means of tracking out the
informants
and visiting them with death, or with expulsion to a labour colony, or
will let
them loose in the wastes of Siberia.
I
think there is no question as to the
reality, and indeed the extent, of this appalling famine, and, even as
to the
living, they have been for a large part of last year subsisting on dogs
and
cats, and horse flesh was a luxury.
In some places the advent
of mice in the spring was regarded as almost providential as a means of
securing food. I do not want to exaggerate, but I fear there
is no doubt
that at the beginning of last year there were even cases of
cannibalism in
what is regarded as a civilised country. I have seen photographs
myself, the
authenticity of which it is impossible to doubt, of corpses lying in
the
streets, and other bodies lying simply waiting for death on the
pavement, and
the people of the town passing by as if there was almost nothing
particular in
it to notice because it had all become so customary, 1110and
bodies have
been carried off the streets in lorries and buried anyhow.
I
do not think it can be said that the harvest last year was from
a natural point of view conspicuously bad. It was that the conditions
imposed
by the policy of the Government were such as to make it almost
impossible for
the grain which was there to be brought in. It was a case of demanding
bricks
without straw. The workers even in the collective farms had not really
enough
on which to live, much less to work. No wonder that the results
disappointed
expectations when you had a whole agricultural population ill-nourished
and
broken in spirit and in heart. As the noble Lord pointed out,
there were
many cases where the peasants concealed grain in the hope that they
might be
able to get some of it for themselves and their families, and when it
was
discovered they were either shot or sent at once to one of the labour
colonies
in the North. Therefore it was exceedingly difficult for
these people, when
there was any harvest at all, even to reap enough on which to live.
It
may be said that all that refers to the past. I earnestly hope
that some of these appalling events do belong to the past, but there
cannot but
be apprehension about the future. How is this vast population of
Russia, who
went through that experience last year, to be fed and kept alive in
this
present year? In one part of Russia which used to be the richest
granary in
Europe there are now forests of weeds, and I am assured it will take a
campaign
of four or five years to clear this rich ground of the weeds which have
been
allowed to accumulate. It is impossible for these peasants, under the
conditions in which they live, even to work as ordinary peasants might
on the
land. Who are to clear the weeds? I am informed that in large parts of
Russia,
further away than foreigners are allowed to travel, the men have
largely
perished or been banished and the work is left to be done by the women
and
children, ill-nourished as they are, and horses and oxen, also
ill-nourished
and scarcely able to carry a load. As for the hope of multiplying the
use of
tractors on which the regulators of this policy in Moscow depend, you
cannot even
work them without good will and intelligence and keenness on 1111the
part of the
people. As in many cases the people are broken-spirited, ill-nourished,
and
apathetic, it has become necessary to send droves of young workers from
the
various towns, but their ignorance of machinery and agricultural
conditions is
so great that no wonder the machines break down; and then it is not
these
workers but the unfortunate peasants who are punished for the sabotage
of
tractors and the like.
There
is some apprehension that even this
year there will be export of grain from Russia. I hope that is not
true. I hope
there will be no further export of grain from Russia until it is clear
they can
feed their own people.
I hope it is not true that ample grain is
only secured for the bread and food of the Army and for the privileged
town
workers. If the Government are able to give us some assurance that that
is not
so, or that these accounts have been exaggerated, no one will be more
thankful
than myself. How can any one but be thankful if these statements are
exaggerated when we realise what they mean in terms of human life, and
therefore
if the noble Lord can give us any assurance that these things are
exaggerated
it will be welcome. Perhaps he may be able to give us also an assurance
that
the Soviet Government are taking strenuous steps to see that the
conditions of
last year are not repeated. If so, that also will be some alleviation
of
anxiety.
My
hope is that if the Government make some inquiry as to
statements of this kind at Moscow it will be an indication to the
Soviet
Government that public opinion in this country is gravely concerned
about the
things that happened last year. I have said more than I meant, but the
matter
is really very terrible, having in view this mass of destitution, often
veiled
from inspection by the most careful system of superintendence. I
rejoice
that Russia is showing a new desire to enter into friendly relations
with other
countries. I desire to see Russia inside the League of Nations.
I have no
objection myself to the trade arrangements that are being made, but, if
Russia
is to be welcomed in the comity of nations, I venture to say it must
necessarily depend on how far its Government shows that it has for its
own
people, the masses of 1112its
peasant
people, that care which civilisation and the common instincts of
humanity
demand.
My
Lords, I do not want to keep
your Lordships more than a few minutes, but I should like to say with
what
pleasure I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, was drawing
attention to
this matter. I have been in a position to hear a great deal
lately
concerning the appalling conditions in the Ukraine where, as it so
happens, the
largest portion of the Catholic population of Russia is to be found. I
have
heard authentic accounts of the treatment of Bishops and clergy and
others in
the Ukraine, and of course they are only one portion of the population.
Incidentally, I have seen also all the photographs and information to
which the
most reverend Primate has alluded, describing the appalling state of
affairs in
the streets and in the country generally. I do not want to hurt the
feelings of
noble Lords opposite, but we have to remember that all this is being
brought
about by the deliberate policy of that bloodthirsty and callous system
which
has been practised over there for the purpose of forcing the population
into
doctrines of Communism. There is no getting away from that fact.
With
regard to the reluctance of noble Lords opposite that this
House should pay any attention to these matters, I do not know
whether your
Lordships are aware that in the House of Representatives in the United
States
in May there was a Resolution submitted which was ordered to be printed
and
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and this Resolution
called
attention to the fact that: Whereas
several millions of the population of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic,
the constituent part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, died
of starvation
during the years of 1932 and 1933; and Whereas
the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, although
being fully
aware of the famine in Ukraine and although having full and complete
control of
the entire food supplies within its borders, nevertheless failed to
take relief
measures designed to check the famine or to alleviate the terrible
conditions
arising from it, but on the contrary used the famine as a means of
reducing the
Ukrainian population and destroying the Ukrainian political, cultural,
and
national rights; and Whereas
intercessions have been made at various times by the United States 1113during
the course
of its history on behalf of citizens of States other than the United
States,
oppressed or persecuted by their own Governments, indicating that it
has been
the traditional policy of the United States to take cognisance of such
invasions
of human rights aid liberties: Therefore be it Resolved,
That the House of
Representatives express its sympathy for all those who have suffered … I shall
not read the whole of it, but
it is rather a striking Resolution to have been brought up in Congress
in the
United States, and it shows at all events that on that side there are
not such
delicate feelings as some people have on this side.
In
the Party of noble Lords opposite there are many who show the
most extraordinary sympathy with the perpetrators of these iniquities.
Let me
mention Lord Marley, who, I regret, is not here to-day. I
should like to
have called the attention of Lord Marley to a report by the
correspondent of
the New York
Times, quoting
the words
of the noble Lord in the course of a broadcast discussion on
disarmament
between him and Rear-Admiral Yates Stirling, of the United States Navy,
in New
York on March 1 this year, when he said:Russia is the only country on
earth
where there is any justice"— a
nice thing to come from a Peer and a member of your Lordships' House. I
should
recommend Lord Marley to pay some attention to what appeared in the Daily Telegraph a few
days ago. A telegram from Moscow
appearing in that newspaper called attention to a speech made by M.
Krilenko,
Commissary for Justice, in which he chastised the judicial officials
who had
been making a mockery of justice through the sentences they had been
passing in
so many cases in Russia. At all events it is hopeful of a better
feeling in
Russia that the Commissary for Justice should have been moved to call
attention
to that matter. Among the sentences of ten years in a concentration
camp quoted
by the Daily
Telegraph are
these: Peasant,
for stealing 2 lbs. of grain; Peasant,
for openly taking a handful
of peas, when hungry after a long day's threshing; Aged
watchman on a collecting farm,
for eating three potatoes after being left at his post forty-eight
hours
without any food. 1114I
think if Lord
Marley would pay more attention to such things he would have a
different
opinion as to whether there is any justice to be found in Russia or not.
My
Lords, I had no intention of
intervening in this debate had it not been for the speech of the most
reverend
Primate. I would only say, with reference to the noble Lord who has
just
spoken, that it is usual and courteous in this House to give warning to
a noble
Lord if you intend to refer to him, to attack him or to quote him. The
most
reverend Primate has illustrated precisely what I meant when I said it
was
undesirable to discuss the internal affairs of foreign nations. The
door has
been opened. The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House
described
the situation with regard to these Motions perfectly accurately, and I
was
quite satisfied with the reply he gave to me, but I would ask him now
whether
there was not some justification for my protest.
We
are discussing Russia to-day. We may be discussing Italy next
week or when we resume; we may be discussing Austria and what goes on
in
Vienna, and discussing what goes on in Berlin, and what goes on in the
United
States or any other country; and then the most reverend Primate is
going to get
up and make one of those most eloquent, pleasant speeches telling these
foreign
countries how they ought to behave and pointing to the wretched
condition of
their citizens and their cruelty to them. It makes me perfectly hot to
think
that our Parliament should assume a self-righteous rôle of that
sort. This is precisely what I
thought would happen and it has happened, and it is the most
undesirable thing.
It makes me wish more than ever that I Was back in another place where
the rules
would prevent anything so undesirable, so mischievous as this from
happening.
May I remind the most reverend Primate, when he accuses my Party of
only having
compassion that has a Party bias in it, that people in glass houses had
better
not throw stones and that the position of the Anglican Church—
THE
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
May
I interrupt to say that
what I did was to express surprise that sometimes that impression had
been
created?
That
is the way the most
reverend Primate emphasises some things, by putting them in the mildest
possible terms. The fact remains that the Anglican Church is
pre-eminently in a
glass house because it is pre-eminently on the side of authority. What
authority does has to be praised, and what other people do has to be
distorted.
I do not remember the most reverend Primate getting into a state of
indignation
about the appalling atrocities that were committed under the Tsaristrégime, and
which were brought out with documentary evidence rather than with the
amount of
hearsay we have in the charges made against the Soviet Government
to-day. But
the Anglican Church is those days was perfectly silent. Not a word was
said,
because it was authority.
THE
LORD ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
I
do not want to interrupt the
noble Lord but I remember myself taking part in a most strongly worded
attack
upon the authorities in those days for their persecution of the Jews.
I
withdraw if the most reverend
Primate made a protest against the persecution of the Jews, but there
were many
terrible persecutions in those days, and I do not seem to remember the
Anglican
Church being particularly articulate on the subject. But I rose to
register my
protest, and the protest of those who act with me in this House, at
these
opportunities being taken to lecture foreign countries, to tell them
how they
ought to behave, on very insufficient evidence to give catalogues of
crime and
instances of hardship when, as we all know, if we had research into
other parts
of the world we might receive information which would rouse us to great
indignation. I am sorry to say that if we had investigations into some
of the
cruelties that are taking place in our own country because of the
poverty and
malnutrition and destitution that exist we should find that perhaps our
eyes
had better be turned at home before we find fault with our neighbours.
Famines
have the most terrible consequences. There have been famines in India.
In the
United States to-day the Middle West is in a very parlous condition. It
is not
the business of Parliament in this country to point the finger 1116of
scorn at other
countries, to deride and attack them for maladministration of their
affairs. We
on these Benches very much regret that this opportunity should have
been taken
to turn this debate in the direction which I did my best to prevent
when I
intervened at the beginning.
My
Lords, my noble friend the
Leader of the House intimated to your Lordships that my reply would
necessarily
be brief, and I think the noble Lord who initiated this debate realised
that
that would be the case. I am not, of course, going to follow the noble
Lords
who have just spoken into the many points they have raised. I would
merely
remark in passing that I do not think it is necessary for this House to
take
its example from the Legislature of any foreign country, or indeed from
another
place. I think we are capable of looking after ourselves. His Majesty's
Government are familiar with a great deal of the information which has
been
given to your Lordships both by the noble Lord who put down this Motion
and by
the most reverend Primate. I think I recognise some of the sources of
the
information which has been given.
But
it is not the business of the Government to enter into
discussions on the subject of the internal affairs of foreign
countries. It
does not collect information for that purpose, and there are,
therefore, no
Papers which I can lay. Nor have the Government any material for
contradicting
the information given by noble Lords except that which has been
published
through the official propaganda of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics.
That, of course, is available to your Lordships, and your Lordships are
aware
that it does not correspond with information which comes from other
sources.
Your Lordships are fully capable of deciding which of those sources of
information you think is the more reliable. I have no other information
which I
can lay before your Lordships, and as I have no Papers to lay I am
afraid that
that is the only contribution I can make to the debate on the subject.
I hope
that the noble Lord will not accuse me of any lack of courtesy in that
my reply
is so brief.
My
Lords, I am much obliged to the
noble Earl for his 1117reply.
I am quite
aware that if there were any Papers which might be laid he would be
very ready
to lay them. Perhaps I might be allowed to recall the extreme patience
and
courtesy with which, when he was Foreign Secretary, Mr. Henderson met
those
interested in similar questions a few years back, and the pains he took
to
satisfy them as to what Papers could possibly be laid. I well remember
the
courtesy and straightforwardness of Mr. Henderson on that occasion and
I am
perfectly certain that the noble Earl would not fall behind him in that
respect. I would like also to remark, on the speech of the most
reverend
Primate, that whatever defects my speech may have had he has more than
amply
made good. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rebuked the most reverend
Primate in
a very authoritative manner. I think I may leave him and the most
reverend Primate
alone, because I recollect that when two or three years ago the most
reverend
Primate made a powerful speech, amply well informed, replete with
sufficient
evidence, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, got up and rebuked him in
tones of
very serious admonition for the rashness and inexperience which he had
displayed. The noble Lord had then been a member of this House, I
think, for a
period of about three months.
I
do not think I need take upon myself the charge of defending the
Archbishop, but I must be allowed to make one remark and I make it
without the
slightest wish to be personally discourteous to the noble Lord. He
spoke like a
man who, seeing a cruel thing being done and seeing another man trying
to
intervene, rebukes him for his self-righteousness. I am convinced at
the back
of my mind, absolutely convinced, that the noble Lord himself is a man
of
humane instincts, but since he came to this House it has been appalling
and
distressing to me to see how readily and how consistently he has
stepped into debates
connected at all with this subject—on which he invariably remarks ho
has no
information—in the pose of a man steeped in abnormal callousness
towards human
suffering, towards oppression, and towards human woe. I beg leave to
withdraw.
§Motion for
Papers, by leave, withdrawn.