THE EMPIRE.

HL Deb 21 July 1942 vol 123 cc933-77

VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to draw attention to the vital importance of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British Empire; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, may I begin by saying that the British Empire until recently covered over one-quarter of the earth's surface, and that this area contained over one-quarter of the population of the world. A small but very valuable portion of it was recently wrested from us by the Japanese, but this we will regain after the defeat of Japan, and the British Empire will be reconstituted again as it was, both in size and in population. Let me begin by giving a brief survey of the constituent parts of our Empire and of their attitude to this war. And may I, by way of preface, remind your Lordships that the British Empire consists of the Dominions, forming the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Indian Empire, and the Colonial Empire—truly a loosely-knit combination, but elastic in action, and determined in defence and offence when attacked?

Taking our Dominions first, Canada is not only the oldest but the biggest Dominion, being larger than Europe and even greater in size than the United States of America. Canada was the first overseas Dominion to be constituted under the Grown, and it has ever been a staunch and loyal unit of the British Empire. Apart from men and resources of all kinds, Canada's outstanding contribution so far to this war has been the provision of numerous air training centres, to which not only young Canadians have flocked, but young men from all over the Empire. Those training centres, working under the British Commonwealth Air Training Scheme, have produced air pilots and crews in their thousands, and the Empire Air Force thus created will constitute the foundation of our final victory in the air. Canada's achievement in this way will, moreover, be of inestimable value after the war in assisting the maintenance of world peace. And for civil purposes also the air as a means of transport is bound to become as common as the road, the sea, or the railway is to-day. The Empire air routes and air links will then become more important and vital than ever, and it is certainly more important to think about and prepare for them now than about any air routes to adjacent countries of Europe.

Let us turn to the other Dominions—Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, all of whom are fighting so gallantly alongside of us. It was largely due to South African troops under the command of that famous general and statesman, General Smuts, who has rendered such remarkable service both to his own country, South Africa, and to the Empire, that Abyssinia was wrested from the hands of the Italian aggressors, and has already been restored to her Emperor and people. South African troops and airmen are still fighting valiantly in the Near and Middle East, and are at this moment engaged in a life and death struggle against the aggressors in Libya and Egypt. Australians are now principally engaged in the heavy task of defending their own country from the Japanese aggressor, and resolutely and bravely fighting to recover from the Japanese the territories taken by them in the adjacent areas in the Far East. They are also fighting, as we know and have learnt quite recently, valiantly alongside other Empire troops in Egypt. But long before it was thought that Japan would join the Axis Powers in their conflict with the Allied countries, at the very first call both Australia and New Zealand sprang to arms, and with indomitable courage and fortitude placed all their resources at the Empire's disposal. At this very moment the New Zealand force are fighting brilliantly alongside ours in the grim battle of Egypt, and are displaying a spirit of courage and determination that has never been surpassed in war.

Then we come to the self-governing Colony, Southern Rhodesia. It will always be to her great credit that at the outbreak of war Southern Rhodesian troops were the first to go outside their own territory to defend another British Colony from Italian aggression, and since then she has placed all her resources at our disposal, and her soldiers are playing a brave part on the battlefield of Europe and the Middle East. Southern Rhodesia has also established air training centres in the Colony, and these are proving of great value indeed in the Empire air effort. Apart from India, to which I shall refer later, there are numerous British Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories scattered over the Seven Seas, all of which in their various ways have made very loyal and willing contributions to the common cause. If these contributions have not, generally speaking, been through military effort, let me remind your Lordships that it has never been the policy of Great Britain to militarize the native peoples of the Colonies, native troops being used principally for police purposes and generally on a small scale compared with the size of their populations. On the contrary, it has always been our object to teach them the arts and blessings of peace, leaving it largely to British arms to defend them against outside aggression. Criticism, therefore, of the native inhabitants of Malaya for not defending themselves against the Japanese are quite unjustified. It is, moreover, well to remember that our Protectorates in Malaya and elsewhere voluntarily placed themselves under our protection for the purpose of being defended by us, and that we formed them into Protectorates acknowledging these very conditions.

What are the bonds that hold us as an Empire and British Commonwealth so closely together? Firstly, there is the common allegiance to the Crown and loyalty to the King. Secondly, there is the bond of kinship and language. Thirdly, there is the bond engendered through centuries of freedom of thought, of action, and expression, of self-government, and religious liberty. These are the bonds and ideals which bind us together, which we all understand and for which we are willing to fight and to die. It is in the pursuit of these democratic ideals that the Empire will keep united both to-day and in the future. In the past, when suggestions have been made to the overseas Dominions for any form of Federation, these suggestions have always been a source of irritation, and have invariably been met with resistance and resentment on the part of the peoples of the Dominions. The late Earl Balfour, as Chairman of a Committee appointed by the Imperial Conference of 1926 to report on questions affecting Inter-Imperial Relations, knew how strong feeling in the Dominions was against any form of Federation, and together with his Committee he issued a simple formula which laid down the relationships for the future in clear and forceful terms. In my opinion that formula will ever remain the surest foundation for Imperial relationships.

It is to be found in Command Paper No. 2768 containing the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926, and this is what it says. Great Britain and the Dominions are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Having made that definition the Report went on to say—and this is very important: A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British Empire by the aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual co-operation easy. And then, after a short paragraph, the Report adds: But no account, however accurate, of the negative relations in which Great Britain and the Dominions stand to each other can do more than express a portion of the truth. The British Empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its life-blood. Free co-operation is its instrument. Peace, security, and progress are among its objects. Aspects of all these great themes have been discussed at the present Conference; excellent results have been thereby obtained. And, though every Dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled. Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our Inter-Imperial Relations.

Lord Balfour's declaration can rightly be regarded as the political charter of the British Common wealth of Nations, and it has subsequently found expression in the now famous Statute of Westminster. In its fulfilment, I believe, lies the strongest foundation for the maintenance of unity within our Empire and for a bright future fraught with great benefit to the world.

Let us turn to another side of the relationship between the overseas Dominions and the British Colonies. In this case, although I have not yet spoken of India, I should like to include India. I have no hesitation in affirming that reciprocal trade agreements such as those entered into at Ottawa have been of great practical value in maintaining Empire solidarity. Apart from the ordinary benefits derived by the participating units of the British Empire, these agreements were of the greatest assistance in creating reserves of foodstuffs and raw materials before the war, and are proving exceedingly helpful in the prosecution of the war not only to ourselves but to our Allies. They will, moreover, prove invaluable when it comes to succouring the starving peoples of Europe after the war, because this will be one of the bounden duties of the Empire. I suggest, therefore, that the critics of these reciprocal Imperial trade agreements should pause before seeking the abolition of them when the war is over. I agree that it is more than probable that they will require modification to meet the new conditions brought about by the war. These new conditions are perfectly obvious. The great advance in secondary industries in all the Dominions, and all the other matters which have changed the conditions since these agreements were entered into, will require that they should be modified wherever necessary. But I believe their complete cancellation would be a great mistake, and I sincerely trust this will rot take place.

Let me refer in this connexion to one of the most difficult post-war problems now being discussed, and that is how to ensure that under-consumption in the world will be rectified so that all persons, whatever their circumstances, will get a sufficiency of food to live on. Many schemes are being considered for organizing consumption so as to achieve this object, but I have nowhere seen any suggestion for organizing production and distribution as well as consumption, although the one is governed by the others and cannot be solved without the others. The Ottawa Conference, over which my noble friend Lord Bennett presided with such distinction, did on the other hand largely organize production and distribution within the British Empire, covering, as I have said, nearly one-quarter of the earth's surface and containing over one-quarter of the earth's population. This was decidedly a step in the direction which we are all seeking to-day. Let us, therefore, rather build upon this foundation and do not let us destroy it. Let us see rather whether we cannot dovetail what we have already done in this connexion in such a large portion of the world into the wider world schemes for the organization of production, distribution, and consumption on the broader and more humane lines desired for the future. Having started over, that large area with that great population, surely it is better to try and extend what has already been achieved by adding other things to it, when and as others are willing to join, rather than by destroying what we have done and beginning all over again.

Now let me refer to another matter. Here in this our own country we have much depreciation and criticism of the manner in which in the past we have administered our Colonies and carried out our trusteeship for them. This was common Nazi propaganda before the war, and still is. A great deal is also being talked and written here about internationalization and denationalization of our Colonies, and of obtaining the assistance of other Colony-owning countries in governing them. Indeed, these criticisms and suggestions are inculcating the view in the minds of many of our British Colonies overseas that we do not understand their problems, and they are causing much irritation. But if our administration had been so inefficient as is suggested could our Empire have grown in its strength and have been developed to the extent that it has? Had our policy really been so bankrupt, would it have produced four independent self-governing Dominions and a varied Colonial Empire with populations of many colours and creeds all voluntarily, enthusiastically and loyally ranged alongside us to-day fighting for the same cause and ideals as ourselves? The answer of course on both points is "No." Moreover, these results seem to me to indicate that for so long as we in Great Britain stand by our Empire, for so long will our Empire stand by us.

The idea that the denationalization and internationalization of our Colonies would assist and facilitate the issues of freer trade and wider economy in the world, I regard as absolutely fallacious and mischievous. This thesis was originally formulated before the war by Nazi propagandists and is now supported in this country by Little Englanders who seem incapable of appreciating the importance to us of our Colonies and the loyalty of the Colonies to the Mother Country and the Empire. Surely, there should be absolutely no difficulty in making the raw materials of our Colonies freely available to all nations for legitimate use by them, whilst at the same time maintaining their status within the Empire. The mere fact of internationalizing them and of taking away from them what most of them regard as their birthright, will not help this object in any way whatsoever.

The suggestion which has recently been ventilated in a leading newspaper that our British Colonies require international attention after the war, and that the more barriers that are broken down and national destinies linked up or merged in the world of the future, the more the British Empire will be fulfilling itself, is very attractive no doubt to those theoretical internationalists here who have not the vision to appreciate the pregnant part the British Empire as at present constituted still has to play in the settlement of world problems. But it is not practical politics or practical common sense. It reminds me of the ill-starred League of Nations after the last war, set up under similar good intentions, to which we as an Empire conformed in full faith only to find ourselves twenty years afterwards in the critical situation in which we arc to-day, once more struggling for our very existence both as a nation and as an Empire. Do not let us be so foolish as to repeat this fatal mistake under another guise, and let us at least be sure, before we adopt any measures however seductive in their idealistic and theoretical outlook, that world peace is fully secure for the future. The running of the risk of a second Geneva would be a piece of criminal folly which would probably lead to a third World War.

Let me now speak to you briefly about India. My view is that both in administration and in the results of our policy our government of our great Indian Empire with its 390,000,000 inhabitants has been one of remarkable success. Can your Lordships imagine India, if she had been left to herself, being to-day in the position in which she actually is, of a country aspiring to self-government and independence? Rent as India has been, and still is, by racial quarrels and religious differences, we have nevertheless given her internal peace and progress for over two centuries, whilst to-day we are willing to give her, if she can amicably settle those differences, the opportunity to acquire Dominion status and of taking her place under the Crown as an equal and independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. What better proof of our honesty of purpose in the pursuit of our democratic ideals, and what better proof of our application of those ideals can there be, than that India, through our system of government, should have reached a state when, notwithstanding her racial and religious differences, she wishes to practice those ideals and to apply them to herself?

It may be argued that we have, in this country, on our part, benefited by the large amount of trade and commerce we have over the course of time done with India. Of course, we have benefited, and no sensible person wishes to deny it. On the other hand, we have given back much to India likewise through trade and commerce, and also in many other ways, such as through honest and progressive administration and internal material developments which will be of lasting benefit to that country. We in this country have no reason to wear the white sheet of penitence over India. We can be proud of our record and achievements there, and the time will come, I believe, when India herself will be proud of her membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In the meantime she is contributing enormously in men and resources. Her soldiers are fighting valiantly to defend the common cause against the aggressor, and have shown great bravery and courage in the many stiff battles in which they have taken part, and we are most grateful to them.

It is universally accepted that after the war we shall all have to face new conditions and that a so-called "new order" will emerge as a result of this world-wide war, not the "new order" contemplated by Hitler of brutal, bestial tyranny and world domination by Germany, but a new order dictated by the United Nations based upon human liberty and religious freedom. In the creation of this new order the British Empire will have a great and an onerous part to play, and in this work our principal collaborators will be the United States of America and Russia, who to-day is pouring out her soul in agony against the Nazi aggressors. Confronted by a common danger and by acts from aggressor nations there has grown up between the United States and the British Empire—that is the English-speaking peoples—a form of such close collaboration in the provision of men and money and military equipment as would a few years ago have been laughed at as a dream and as an utter impossibility. It must be our endeavour for the sake of future generations to maintain this close collaboration, if not on the same lines, at least on such a basis as will enable us to act together with a common policy in assisting in the settlement of the many acute problems that will arise after the war and in maintaining world peace. Together with the United States of America and with Russia, we must supply the requisite air and armed forces necessary to keep the peace until Germany is re-educated and the aggressor nations have acquired the arts of peace.

I do not for a moment overlook the assistance in this matter that will be and must in due course be rendered by the other Allied Nations, and when possibly an International Police Force may come into being, but, to commence with, nearly all those nations, including possibly Russia herself, will have their hands full with vital problems in the restoration of order and peaceful conditions in their own countries. It will therefore necessarily fall to the United States and the British Empire to form the initial strong nucleus of any fighting forces required to keep peace and order in the world. With a view to pursuing the close collaboration necessary for that purpose between the United States of America and the British Empire, various ideas are being discussed on both sides of the Atlantic for a closer political association between them, but I venture to suggest, with some considerable knowledge of the many difficulties and problems involved, that, whatever the future may bring forth, the wisest form of collaboration at any rate at the start will be that which maintains the political freedom and independence of both the United States of America and the member countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

I believe, moreover, that it would be of great advantage if the countries composing the British Commonwealth of Nations were to consult with one another and act together in all matters in which such collaboration is concerned, also for carrying out the vital principles and ethics of the Atlantic Charter. There appears, indeed, to be no good reason why, owing to close collaboration between the United States and ourselves, there should be any disintegration of the British Empire. On the contrary, this welcome collaboration seems to me to provide a good reason for strengthening its unity and not for weakening it. I go further. I wish to urge that when the end of the war is in sight, there should assemble in one Imperial Conference the representatives of the British Commonwealth, India and the Colonial Empire, and that this Conference should fully discuss the major problems with which the Empire will be faced and endeavour to reach a common policy upon them. The Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, once informed Parliament that we had this in view, and I take this opportunity of emphasizing its vital importance.

My task is finished. My object in raising this Motion has been to arrest any tendency there may be to regard the British Empire as a dissolving force, to deny this and, on the other hand, to point out that the British Empire has reached a stage in its history and development when it is more than ever important to hold together and when it will be required to take an even bigger and more responsible share than ever before in promoting democratic ideals and in settling world problems. For our Empire is not merely an acquisitive organization of countries and peoples but rather the spontaneous and natural result of the principles of liberty and self-government and freedom, and to play its full and appropriate part in the world development it must remain united. There are dark clouds all around us. Our Empire's safety is menaced in every direction. No part of it is immune. In fact we have lost a part of it, but we shall recover this. On every battlefield and at sea and in the air the blood of our Empire peoples is commingling in the common cause and cementing our aims and kinship. The road before us is still lined with many unknown dangers and disappointments and we cannot yet see clearly where it will lead us. But of this I am convinced, that we shall be victorious and that with faith in ourselves and our future the British Empire, united in thought and in aim and in action, can be a principal factor not only in winning the war but in winning a peace that will bring rest, tranquillity and freedom to an unhappy, weary, war-torn world. I beg to move for Papers.

VISCOUNT BENNETT

My Lords, I am sure we are all very pleased that this question has been raised. I propose to confine myself largely to the Motion as it reads—"the vital importance of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British Empire." I think he would indeed be a bold man who did not see that these are menaced at this moment. It is idle for anyone to say that the British Empire was created by force. You have only to look at the great Dominions to realize that Australia came into being as the result of discovery and settlement and colonization, and that the same can be said of New Zealand. It is true that in South Africa we did have a war, but in Canada only a small portion of the country can be said to have been won by battle. British Columbia came to us by discovery and the remains of Vancouver rest in a churchyard not very far from here.

I would rather disagree, however, with what was said by the noble Viscount as to our present position. We do not owe that position to the Balfour Declaration. We owe it to the sacrifice of gallant men on the battlefields of Europe, in France and Flanders. Long before the Conference of 1926, the Imperial War Conference of 1917 declared just what was said in the Balfour Declaration, almost word for word. They said: They deemed it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in common policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine. That is the basis of Dominion status. It was brought about by the Imperial War Conference that met here in 1917, and which was attended by all the Prime Ministers, except that the Prime Minister of Australia was not able to arrive in time and the Prime Minister of South Africa was represented by General Smuts.

It is only fair to point out that in 1921 they had intended to have a constitutional conference to settle the relative powers and positions of the overseas Dominions. But in 1921, it having been stated with great clarity that what had happened in the meantime had established the position of the Dominions as having equal status with this country. They had an equal voice at the Peace Conference with this nation—though protests were made by foreign nations—and this nation having established their position in this country and internationally (as was pointed out by the then Prime Minister), it only remained for it to be recorded at a meeting of the Imperial Conference. This was done in 1926, as has been indicated by the noble Viscount who has moved this Motion. Then followed the Conference of 1930, to which I shall presently refer, and the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Now those countries are bound together by cords as delicate as one can conceive of, and yet very powerful and strong. It is stated in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster, as indeed it was stated in the Resolutions in 1917, 1921 and 1926, that they were united by common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Now I would direct attention to the words which state that they are united together and that they are freely associated. They are not held together by force but by free association, and association does not mean separation. But the point to which I would direct attention to-day has to do with the carrying into effect of the terms of the Statute and the Resolutions, It is obvious that if we are to have a Commonwealth of Nations we must in many matters have a common policy. That is obvious. It must be a common foreign policy. How that is to be brought about is, I conceive, a problem of the first magnitude. Mr. Lloyd George said that henceforth consultation must be a reality and must not be illusory. There must be continuous consultation. In other words, no step must be taken by any one member of the Commonwealth that involves any of the others, without the others having full knowledge and notice of it. We must have, by some means, a series of consultations that will ensure unity of purpose, action and policy.

That, it seems to me, cannot be said more clearly than it was said by that great statesman the late Lord Grey, speaking at one of the Imperial Conferences, a Conference at which, if my memory serves me aright, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was present as a representative of His Majesty's Government. Lord Grey said: It is possible to have separate fleets in a United Empire but it is not possible to have separate fleets in a United Empire without having a common foreign policy which shall determine the action of the different forces maintained in different parts of the Empire. If the action of the forces in different parts of the Empire is determined by divergent views on foreign policy it is obvious that there cannot be union, and that the Empire would not consent to share an unlimited liability the risks of which it could not gauge, because this liability would be imposed upon it by different parts of the Empire hiving different policies. Therefore, the first point I want to make is this: that the creation of separate fleets has made it essential that the foreign policy of the Empire should be a common policy; if it is to be a common policy it is obviously one in which the Dominions must be taken into consultation, which they must know, which they must understand, and which they must approve. That was the position taken up by Lord Grey. It is the position to-day, and I think we night find in it the solution to that problem which has now, in my judgment, to be dealt with by British statesmen.

I conceive it to be very serious because in the overseas Dominions there is no longer that unity of thought and purpose in connexion with this war which is essential. Why it has been so it is not my purpose to inquire at the moment. But in Canada, for example, you have sharp divisions of opinion with respect to conscription. A statement was made in Parliament which indicated that a certain section of the population is very strongly opposed to engaging in European conflicts. In Australia, too, there has been criticism—to use a mild term—with respect to the Government of this island which is on an equality of status with that of Australia. Even in New Zealand, which is practically speaking purely British, in that 98 per cent. of the population is of either English or Scottish descent, there were some criticisms which it is true were less violent than those uttered in other places. In South Africa we have had during this very war a Motion introduced to the House looking to the establishment of republican institutions. Notwithstanding all that has been done there, it is fair to realize that but for the genius of one commanding figure the situation would be vastly different from what it is. In those circumstances, is it not our duty here in this country to inquire whether or not everything that could be done has been done to militate against any such impression getting abroad as that the dissolution of the British Empire is impending?

There are certain matters to which reference might be made, but to which I will not refer because it is not meet that that should be done at a time of stress and strain such as this. But I do say that it is highly important that we should establish beyond question that every policy entered into that affects the life and well-being of the overseas Dominions should only be entered into after the fullest possible consultation—consultation that is real and not illusory. I am bound to say that in some cases—and I speak with some experience in that regard—it is only to be expected that great policies must be initialed by this the most important of the partners in the Commonwealth of Nations whose population alone is 60 per cent. of the white population of the Empire, while within this very City nearly 25 per cent. of that 60 per cent. is living. So that it is quite clear that where John Bull sits is the head of the table so far as foreign policy is concerned, and it is for him to initiate measures that deal with our common concerns. But the problem, as it seems to me, is this; how can you maintain autonomy in the sense in which that term is used with respect to the British Dominions, and at the same time secure that unity of purpose and action that is an essential attribute of the Commonwealth of Nations?

I am bound to say that the history of the movement to that end has been very, very difficult to follow. There were the days of Imperial Federation, the days when we sought to set up a Federation of the British Dominions. A distinguished Canadian, Sir George Parkin, was appointed to make lecture tours throughout the Empire to deal with the question of Imperial Federation, the Federation of the British Empire. There were those who believed, as I did in my younger days, that that Federation might express itself through a Parliament dealing only with Imperial affairs and with nothing else. I recall that, on the occasion of an early visit to this country, in the House of Commons one evening I met the now distinguished Minister of Economic Warfare, who was then a member of that Chamber, and he entertained the views which were so dear to me at that time and which, speaking in his personal capacity, he referred to a few days ago. I had a communication this morning from Australia expressing the strongest possible approval of the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in his personal capacity—and I think that a Minister has always the right to express his personal views with regard to any matter which affects the welfare of the country as a whole.

The effort to establish Imperial Federation fell by the wayside, together with the effort to form an Imperial Parliament, and in its place there came the decentralization movement which culminated in the Statute of Westminster. Both a once said that he believed the keynote of the Imperial Conferences was "autonomy and liberty." In 1905 Mr. Alfred Lyttelton endeavoured to bring about continuity of the Imperial Conferences by setting up a Commission to ensure continuity of purpose and of thought between these Imperial Conferences, which were held at irregular intervals. In 1911, Mr. Harcourt endeavoured to set up a Committee which would ensure continuity for the purposes of the Imperial Conferences, and in 1937 some discussion of the matter took place, but nothing came of it, because certain representatives felt that it would impinge upon responsible government. The result was that no such continuity was established, by the setting up of a Committee or otherwise, and the Imperial Conferences have been held at irregular intervals, and there has been very great difficulty in maintaining that consultation which is so important.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier realized that in 1911, and, while he was opposed to the attitude taken by Sir Joseph Ward, of looking towards the establishment of an Imperial Council of State, he did propose that there should be set up a Royal Commission to investigate the resources of the Dominions and report. That Commission was appointed in 1912, and sat until 1917, when it made a very voluminous Report. It had taken evidence in many countries, it had held many meetings and had examined some 800 witnesses, and, if your Lordships care to consult the Report, you will find that it is an encyclopædia of the resources of the British Dominions. The Commission recommended the establishment of an Imperial Development Board, which was to act in an advisory-capacity to the Imperial Conferences. With that astuteness which characterized him so often, Sir Wilfrid Laurier realized that, having taken the position which he did in 1907 and 1911, it was desirable that something should be done along the lines which I have indicated, and so he proposed the setting up of this Advisory Committee to the Imperial Conferences, thereby maintaining some measure of continuity in their proceedings.

Arising out of the results of the establishment of equality of status and the recognition of the equality of the Dominions with this country, it became essential that the Dominions should negotiate treaties and appoint Ministers, and, as is well known to your Lordships, they in fact sent Ministers to various foreign countries and they exercized their right to make treaties. It is always in my mind that the late Sir John Macdonald, than whom no greater Britisher ever lived, said at the time that the Treaty of Washington was negotiated that he almost felt impelled to give up his position, because he was being urged so constantly to make sacrifices on the part of Canada in the interests of the relations between the United States and this island. But he remained, and, as your Lordships know, the Treaty of Washington was approved by the Canadian Parliament, but not by the American Senate.

We are now faced with this situation. We have these great self-governing Dominions enjoying almost all the powers of independent States, but united together by common allegiance to the Crown, and, in the language of the Statute, freely associated as members of a Commonwealth of Nations. They are naturally concerned with every act which takes place in this kingdom which affects the Empire as a whole. They are interested in every matter of common concern, because I believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier put the matter properly when he said "When England is at war, Canada is at war, and every part of the Empire is at war." It does not follow, however, that every part of the Empire participates in the war, and indeed it has been pointed out that, in the Boer War, Canada permitted volunteers to go from her shores, but she paid no part of the bill. We did not participate to the extent of paying for the soldiers who went, and participation in the war certainly involves the approval of the Parliaments of the overseas Dominions. It is well known that one of the Dominions mentioned in the Statute of Westminster claims to be neutral in this war. It is known that two others of the Dominions contemplated neutrality, but public sentiment was too strong, and they are now active participants in the war. My own view is that there is no such thing as neutrality on the part of any one of the nations of the British Empire when any one of them is at war.

I need hardly say that this House is the Court of last resort in matters of law. As long ago as 1905 a question was considered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in a case which arose out of the Boer War and which came from New South Wales. A citizen of New South Wales joined the second contingent from New South Wales to South Africa, and the Government of New South Wales agreed to pay him 10s. a day from the time he left New South Wales until he returned. He went to the war, he survived, and he returned home; but, while he was in South Africa, he received from the Imperial Government—that is, from the taxpayers of the United Kingdom—4s. a day. When he came to adjust his accounts with the Government of New South Wales, they took the position that they would deduct that 4s. a day from the 10s. which he had been promised, because the contract was for 10s. a day. He took the view that he had a right to the 10s. from New South Wales, they having made the contract, regardless of what was paid to him by the Imperial Government.

The case went to trial, and it was tried before a distinguished Judge, who found in favour of the soldier from New South Wales. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court of that State, and, as a result the judgment of the trial Judge was sustained. There was then an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That Committee was presided over by the late Lord Halsbury, then Lord Chancellor, and the Committee, as I think every legal member of your Lordships' House will agree, was a very strong one. It consisted, besides the Lord Chancellor, of Lords Macnaghten, Davey, Robertson, Lindley and Sir Arthur Wilson. Lord Halsbury delivered the judgment of the Committee in these words: The plaintiff was in the service of the Crown and his payment was to be made by the Crown. Whether the money by which he was paid was to be found by the Colony or the Mother Country was not a matter which could in any way affect his relation to his employer, the Crown. The learned Acting Chief Justice, in giving his judgment in this case, said: 'The King has no concern with payments for services rendered in this Colony. The obligation is with the Government of New South Wales.' And, so far as their Lordships can understand, this is the ground upon which the judgment rests. But, with great respect to the learned Judge, this is entirely erroneous. The Government with relation to this contract is the King himself. The soldier is his soldier, and the supplies granted to His Majesty for the purpose of paying his soldiers, whether they be granted by the Imperial or the Colonial Legislature, are money granted to the King. And the Appropriation Act, whenever an Appropriation Act is passed, simply operates to prevent its being applied to any other purpose. Under these circumstances money paid was money paid for the services rendered to the King, and no other payment could possibly be due upon the contract declared on. That is an authoritative statement of what I conceive still to be the law. The Statute of Westminster does not affect that question. The Crown is the Crown. It is the Crown in Canada, it is the Crown in Australia, it is the Crown in South Africa, and it is the Crown here. The service of the Crown, as pointed out, is to be compensated for by the supplies voted to the Crown, and every Supply Act, as every one of your Lordships knows, is directed to the King. The supply is granted to the Crown to make good the requirements of the public service, and the Appropriation Act is merely to appropriate it to particular purposes. An examination of a Supply Bill in any one of the overseas Dominions will show that it is practically in the same form as it is here.

That judgment, in my poor opinion, is a clear statement of the unity of the Crown in every part of the King's Dominions, whether it be Canada or Australia or here. That being so, it seems to me to be quite impossible to speak of neutrality, for one can speak of participation in a war, but not of neutrality. There are within one of the Dominions mentioned in the Statute of Westminster a Legation of Italy and a Legation of Germany. Can anyone for a single moment say that that does not contravene the provision of the Statute of Westminster by which we are freely associated for the purpose of helping one another? What country involved in war as a part of the British Empire, including this Kingdom, is not concerned with the injury that is done to the whole by the maintenance of these two Legations in what is called a neutral country? Can there be a neutral country under the British flag? Can there be a neutral country that is part of the British Dominions? Car there be a neutral country within the Statute of Westminster? These are questions which the Lord Chancellor may answer, but for which I find no satisfactory answer at all, none whatever. That is all I have to say in respect of that particular point.

But now I desire to apply what I have said to a concrete case. Recently we made a Treaty with Russia. A Committee of the Imperial Conference in 1930, presided over by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, dealt with the question of treaties between any one of the King's Dominions and foreign countries. These are the words of the Report: Previous Imperial Conferences have made a number of recommendations with regard to the communication of information and the system of consultation in relation to treaty negotiations and the conduct of foreign affairs generally. The main points can be summarized as follows:

1. (1) Any of His Majesty's Governments conducting negotiations should inform the other Governments of His Majesty in case they should be interested and give them the opportunity of expressing their views, if they think that their interests may be affected.
2. (2) Any of His Majesty's Governments on receiving such information should, if it desires to express any views, do so with reasonable promptitude.
3. (3) None of His Majesty's Governments can take any steps which might involve the other Governments of His Majesty in any active obligations without their definite assent."

I will not further read from the Report of Lord Sankey's Committee dealing with these points, because it would be an unfair trespass upon your Lordships' time, but we made a Treaty in this country on May 26, 1942—a few weeks ago—and Article III of Part II reads:

1. "(1) The High Contracting Parties declare their desire to unite with other like-minded States in adopting proposals for common action to preserve peace and resist aggression in the post-war period.
2. "(2) Pending the adoption of such proposals, they will after the termination of hostilities take all the measures in their power to render impossible a repetition of aggression and violation of the peace by Germany or any of the States associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe."

Then comes Article IV: Should one of the High Contracting Parties during the post-war period become involved in hostilities with Germany or any of the States mentioned in Article III (2), in consequence of an attack by that State against that Party, the other High Contracting Party will at once give to the Contracting Party so involved in hostilities all the military and other support and assistance in his power. That is war.

The question that I intimated to the Leader of the House that I thought he might deal with in his reply is to what extent the Dominions were consulted with respect to that paragraph and to what extent was it made known to them that one part of the British Empire—namely, this country—will be at war under the conditions mentioned in Article IV? The very words "military and other support and assistance in its power" indicate war. That is a pertinent and important question, for if, as I think, the effect would be, if there were a war launched under that paragraph, that some of the Dominions at least would plead that they were to be neutral—which in my judgment they cannot be for the reasons I have given—that would at once raise a question of the utmost importance and of the greatest magnitude. Statesmen in the Dominions have dealt with it, but no sufficient answer has yet been found. Statesmen here are constantly dealing with it, and it is a matter of some satisfaction to know that the Leader of this House and Secretary of State for the Dominions has set up an organization within the office that will do much to lessen any possible friction with respect to a matter of this kind. But this is a concrete case about which I think there should be the fullest possible explanation, for if in some parts of the King's Dominions it were known that under certain eventualities they might themselves again be at war, it would not be pleasant to contemplate the attitude of mind of the people of those Dominions.

I conceive that to be a matter of great importance. It is not a question of theory. It is an actual reality, and in my judgment it should be dealt with as such, especially in view of the fact that at the Imperial Conference of 1930 it was established by a report written by a member of the United Kingdom Delegation that there should be no treaties made that had any effect upon any other country in the British Commonwealth of Nations except with the definite assent of that community. These are not theories that I am presenting to your Lordships. They are matters of vital concern, as was said by a Canadian Prime Minister, the late Sir Robert Borden, on more than one occasion, for if we are to have adequate consultation, if we are to have united action, if we are to have a clear understanding, in the words of the late Lord Grey, of the whole implication of our actions, then it follows there must be an improvement in the present methods of communication and consultation.

I am very hopeful, in view of the improvements that have been made in the air service during the last few years, that it may be possible at least twice or thrice a year for the Prime Ministers to meet at the various Capitals for the purpose of discussing these matters of common concern—in Canberra, in Delhi, in London, in Ottawa, or in Wellington. They might meet and discuss these matters of common concern twice or thrice a year because, in 1921, when they passed their resolution indicating that it was no longer necessary to have a Constitutional Conference, they said they should meet annually, or more often, as was found possible. That comprises all I desire to say on this particular point. If the solidarity of the British Empire is to be maintained, if its unity is to be maintained within the terms of the Motion now before your Lordships' House, it can only be done, in view of what has transpired, by making it a part of the responsibility of everyone in these Dominions, including this country, to agree upon whatever policy is to be given effect to. Matters of common concern must therefore be dealt with or we fall. There is no alternative. All you have to do is to study the conditions from day to day in the Press of the overseas Dominions to realize the soundness of what I say.

There I shall leave the matter, but there is one further thing I wish to say—it was referred to the other day by my noble friend Lord Elton—and that is the lack in this Kingdom of knowledge of, and pride in, the Empire. I believe Canadians are prouder of the British Empire than it seems to me people are in this Kingdom. When I think of its achievements, of what it has done for mankind, especially for the right of men to worship their own God in their own way without any man saying them "Nay," one cannot understand this talk of an international patriotism rather than a patriotism of Empire. Part of our difficulties to-day arise from the fact that, for some strange reason I cannot describe, men of some importance in the State urge that we should not be bothered about patriotism of Empire, but rather concern ourselves with an international patriotism, that we should frown upon joining the Forces rather than assist, and that various things so many of us hold dear as life itself should be treated as mere trifles and baubles and unimportant.

This British Empire has been built up by great sacrifices, and by men in this Chamber who gave their lives, as Pitt the Younger did, in defence of everything we hold most dear, and his father the Great Chatham practically died in your Lordships' House. You have a long tradition of great names of men of the past who made such sacrifices and gave their lives for us that we might survive, not, as I said the other day, by accident, but for a great purpose—a purpose that is felt in every part of the world to-night. The people who are concerned about our fate are not only people who live within the narrow confines of this island, but people who are scattered throughout every part of the world and are not even people who live under our own flag only. They realize the contributions we have made to world freedom and to the enjoyment of those things we hold most dear—dear as life itself. For what would life be to any of us within the British Empire if we had to live the life of those who live in Germany to-day, for instance? Can we contemplate it? And yet that is the alternative. That is the reason I feel so greatly concerned about the implementing in the fullest and to the last detail of all those obligations which we have assumed at Conferences jointly with one another, that we might be indeed freely associated, owing allegiance to one Crown, and as one united Commonwealth making not only for our own peace and happiness, but for the peace and happiness of all mankind.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, I feel that anything I may say to your Lordships must appear something of a bathos after the brilliant eloquence of the eminent statesman and sturdy Imperialist to whom we have just listened. I am not equipped to deal with the matters of high politics and of outstanding constitutional importance to which he has referred, but I would only venture humbly to endorse at the outset the view that we as an Empire must have a common foreign policy. This, I also concur, must be founded not upon dictation by the Mother Country, but by the free expression of opinion of what are, after all, now self-governing nations, possessing absolute equality of authority, and after full and free consultation between them and the British Government. I particularly welcome what he has said about the prevailing ignorance that exists between this country and its people and the overseas countries of the Crown. That is the subject to which I was going to ask your Lordships particularly to turn your attention. As the noble Viscount indicated, there must be a better exchange of view between the Heads of States as well as a more thorough knowledge on the part of the peoples of these States of each other, their ambitions, their outlook, and the purposes of the bond of Empire.

The question that is down on the Paper is one that concerns the unity and solidarity of the Empire, both now and in days to come. So far as the present solidarity of the Empire is concerned, I for my part have no fear. After all, it is conspicuously demonstrated by the loyal co-operation and splendid heroism of the men who belong to our Fighting Forces from every part of the Commonwealth of Nations. But when we study the important question of how that unity and solidarity are to be continuously maintained, I submit, without any fear of challenge, that they must depend mainly on a greater knowledge of Empire countries, their peoples, their ideals, and their outlook on life, on the part of our own Ministers of the Crown in this country, the civil servants who guide and instruct them, and the general British public from whom the human material for both is derived. Otherwise you are bound to have the prevalence of a continuous element of insularity and myopia which is so absolutely false to any possible ideals of Imperial progress. This knowledge of the Empire, now so deplorably and in my judgment dangerously scant, can only be derived from two main sources—namely, education in our schools and travel or residence in Empire countries. It is true that there is a third source, and a valuable one, but it is temporary and transient—namely, the war-time intermingling of our fighting men drawn from all parts of the Empire.

As regards education, I too had intended to refer to the remarkable and eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the debate which I, unfortunately, could not attend, that took place in this House last Wednesday. Ignorance of the Empire is, I submit, due to lack of instruction in bur schools, and a lack of knowledge on the part of their teachers. Not one school in ten in this country has a map of the British Empire on its walls, or indeed a map in which Empire countries are clearly emphasized by colour or otherwise. I happen to be president of what is known as the Empire Day Movement, and in that connexion an effort was made some four or five years ago to provide maps of the British Empire for all the schools, primary and secondary, in this country. I am bound to say that the map makers demonstrated considerable interest in the scheme and were prepared to produce those maps at no more than cost price. Unfortunately the Empire Day Movement had not the financial resources itself to do anything in the matter, and the scheme has, for the time being, been deferred. But surely that is a matter that the Government of this country might take in hand. At any rate it is by visual instruction that you can evoke some interest on the part of our young people in the great Commonwealth of Nations of which they will some day find themselves the trustees.

I am bound to say that the ignorance of children on the subject of the Empire in our schools is unpleasantly significant. I took some little trouble after returning from New Zealand in 1935, to visit a few schools in my own county, and with the leave of the headmaster catechized the children as to the location of certain Empire capitals. In two schools that I visited I asked any child who knew the right answer to my questions to hold up his or her hand, and in both schools not a single answer was correct. According to them Melbourne was in South America, Bengal was in China, and Ottawa was in the United States. My noble friend Lord Bennett must agree that that is not very encouraging. I went so far in those schools to ask the headmaster whether he had heard of Waitangi. I may remind your Lordships that but for Waitangi and its Treaty New Zealand would not be part of the British Empire but would belong to France. Neither of those headmasters had the faintest idea where Waitangi was, or knew anything about its Treaty.

I do not think, if I may venture to say so, that our English Press helps us very materially in developing an interest in Empire affairs. By contrast two-thirds of the whole of our very well-edited and conducted New Zealand papers contain full information about the Old Country and its doings. Shortly after I returned from New Zealand in 1935 I met one of the most eminent statesmen of Australia then in this country and he put to me this question: "Cannot you, Lord Bledisloe, having been lately Governor-General of one of our Dominions, induce some of your British newspapers to give a little more news about Empire countries and their affairs? "He went on to say that he had made a careful study during the previous year as to the column space devoted to Empire news and to the news of foreign countries respectively, and as a result he discovered that in the case of one newspaper at any rate the affairs of one single European country, which shall be nameless, occupied more space than the whole of the British Empire put together. I am going to venture from my place in this House to make an appeal, if I may be allowed to do so, to the British Press to help us, as they can very materially, in this matter.

I hope I shall not be treading on too delicate ground when I suggest that our ex-Pro-Consuls, and ex-Prime Ministers of our Dominions, when they honour us with their presence in the Old Land, be utilized in an advisory capacity by the Government and their advisers. No representative of the Crown who resides for five years continuously in an Empire country, in intimate contact with its inhabitants, its institutions, its industries and economic problems and its general outlook on life, can fail to be at least something of an authority upon its right and wise treatment at the hands of the Imperial Government; and yet these people are hardly ever consulted by the powers that be in this country. They naturally are reluctant to force their views officiously on those possibly less well-informed if they do not themselves seek them. Within six months after my return from New Zealand in 1935 I asked six of the most eminent ex-Pro-Consuls in this country whether, and to what extent, they had been spontaneously consulted about the affairs of the territories over whose administrations they had presided, and the reply of them all was the same, "Not at all." In some cases and on some specific subjects, it is perfectly true, they had themselves tendered unsolicited their opinions or advice.

I hope sincerely I shall not be misunderstood. In what I say I am reflecting to some extent, I think, the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, when he suggested something of the same sort in the last debate upon Empire affairs about two months ago. He indicated the advisability of setting up a Colonial Advisory Council. Personally, I should much like to see the establishment of an Overseas Empire Advisory Council of which ex-Governors-General, ex-Governors and ex-Prime Ministers of our Dominions should be ex-officio members. It would, I am sure, bring fresh vitality based on knowledge and experience into our Governmental solution of pressing overseas problems.

In this connexion I cannot help comparing the interest displayed by the Dominions and their Governments in each other, which to my mind is a greater and more live interest than is sometimes displayed by this country in any one of its grown-up daughters. I paid a visit to South Africa in 1936 as the guest of the Union Government, and before I left after a month or six weeks tour, which I thought was all too short a period in view of the request that was made to me, I was asked by the South African branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association to deliver an address upon similarities between New Zealand and South Africa, under the chairmanship of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and in the presence of my good friend General Smuts. I had, I may say in passing, to give as the answer to that particular question that I could find no similarity whatever, except the warmth of hospitality, the almost continuous sunshine, and the fact that nine-tenths of the farms were subject to a heavy mortgage. However, I only mention that incident as showing the obviously keen interest on the part of some of the Dominions in the affairs of the other Dominions of the Crown.

May I also indicate what I think is a little bit unfortunate and is largely due, I think, to the lack of travel or residence in other parts of the British Empire on the part of those who are responsible here for guiding Empire policy—namely, the inaccurate views which are so often expressed in both Houses of Parliament in regard to the outlook, the ambitions and the prudent treatment of native populations? I do not think the average native in our tropical and sub-tropical countries overseas has any great interest in representative government or the political development of the various tribes that arc to be found in those countries. I am bound to say that I think members of both Houses of Parliament overrate the intelligence and the standard of development of many of those for whom they purport to speak. When four years ago I was acting as Chairman of the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission, many native Chiefs came before us for examination and cross-examination, and I found that the average native Chief was utterly apathetic upon the particular subject upon which we desired to have his opinion. What he was far keener about than anything else was to have a sufficient number of cattle to purchase more wives.

To show your Lordships how very difficult it is for us in this highly developed democratic country to visualize accurately the outlook of these people in an early stage of development, I would mention one little incident that occurred in Nyasaland. The purpose for which I and my colleagues were sent to South Central Africa, was to report as to whether Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland were to be amalgamated. I asked a paramount Chief what were his views about amalgamation. "Oh," he said, "'amalgamation'—that is what my brother was sent to prison for." It turned out that his brother had been sent to prison for stealing amalgam when he was employed in one of the mines in Southern Rhodesia. It may be said that this is trifling with a great subject, but what I am trying to show is that we in this country, in the absence of travel, education or residence, do not sufficiently visualize the conditions obtaining in many parts of our overseas Empire.

The noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, spoke of that delicate cord which binds different parts of the Empire together—sentiment, tradition, ideals and the like. I should like to say that for my part, after visiting all the Dominions and certain other parts of the Empire and residing for five years in the most distant of them, I am perfectly certain that if we try either by the Balfour Declaration or by some statutory enactment to bring about the greater solidarity of the Empire we are almost certain to fail. It is a loosely-knit organization which is far better left alone to develop by a sense of brotherhood and by the commonalty of traditions and outlook, than by attempting to fasten anything in the nature of statutory shackles upon it. Of that I am convinced.

May I in conclusion quote what I thought was a perfectly admirable letter addressed to The Times on April 13, 1940, by a great Imperialist, a gallant gentleman and one who was in his day a distinguished Pro-Consul—namely, Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes? He said: The British Empire can be made the greatest instrument of civilization in the world and the most varied and united of free human associations. Here is a faith and a hope big enough for all to share and supremely worth fighting for against enemies abroad and laggards or critics at home. The time and the opportunity are now when the men and women of the Empire are welded into a single spirit of resolve and endeavour. I do not think that I could possibly better those words, and with those words I should like to support—so far as I feel justified in expressing an opinion—everything that has been said by the great Imperialist who preceded me.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil)

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has raised in the Motion which he has put before your Lordships the whole question of the future of the British Empire. I must confess that I, personally, have approached this debate with some trepidation for the future of the British Empire is a subject in dealing with which Ministers must walk as delicately as ever did Agag. Not very long ago one of my colleagues indulged in some brief speculation on this subject, and he found himself very violently attacked both in Parliament and in the Press. He was quite wrongly attacked, I think, and I am very glad to have the very powerful support of Lord Bennett for my view. Whether all noble Lords agree with my noble friend or not—and noble Lords very seldom agree with a speaker on everything—it seems to me that we should all agree that he stimulated consideration of these problems, and that, at the present time, is very valuable. One will never get anywhere by behaving like an ostrich and burying one's head in the sand.

With that experience before me it is perhaps natural that I should have felt a certain anxiety when I knew that I was required to make a speech on the whole future of the British Empire. I do not complain that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, should have raised this subject for, as I have already said, in my view the more we think about this question the better. But noble Lords have raised, in the course of their speeches, a number of fairly controversial subjects, and I am quite certain that they, in their wisdom and experience, and the House as a whole in its wisdom and experience, will not expect a detailed answer to all of them. But, at any rate, I think there is one proposition with regard to the British Empire which can be made without fear of contradiction. It is not a static institution. It is dynamic in character. It is a living organism. The relationship of the component parts has changed fundamentally during the last decades, as Lord Bennett has shown, and is likely to continue to change and develop in the years that are before us. In this respect I think the British Empire is different from most of the great Empires of the past. They were rigid in character, and, what is more, they were imperialistic in the worst sense of the word. That is to say they were predatory—based upon a principle of exploitation. These earlier Empires consisted nearly always of a dominant nation and subject nations who were kept down by an elaborate machinery of armed force, secret police, and so on, for the benefit of the dominant Power. We have had many examples of that. To a certain extent I think it was true of the Roman Empire, and to a certain extent of the Napoleonic Empire. It is certainly true, in the most extreme and atrocious form, of the Third Reich as we see it to-day.

Our British conception has, I think, always been entirely different. The Empire has been compared to a family. My right honourable friend Mr. Macmillan, referring to the structure of the Empire in another place the other day when the Colonial Estimates were being considered, rightly pointed out that to try to draw such an analogy exactly would be fallacious for, as he truly emphasized, in a family parents die, and are succeeded by their children, That is not true of nations. I very much hope that it is not going to be true of Great Britain. But with this essential exception I think a certain comparison can be drawn between the family and the relationship of Great Britain and the Dominions and Colonies. There is, for instance, the same alteration in the relationship as the children grow up. In the early days of the family, children are young and inexperienced, and not able to face problems of life for themselves. Therefore they have to be protected and educated. But gradually they grow up and begin to take their own line—to think for themselves. Eventually they become independent entities, independent personalities, and, finally, if they are worth anything at all, they become self-supporting. They are no longer dependent upon their parents, but they remain members of the family still bound to each other by ties of affection, and still having a responsibility to help and protect each other. They all benefit, and they know that they benefit, from that mutual relationship.

That I think is the experience in all well-conducted families, and I think it is equally true of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The successful operation of this conception, of course, puts a great responsibility on the Mother country herself. She has got to recognize that her family are growing up, and that is always a very difficult thing for any parents to do with regard to any children. They always tend to try and keep their children on leading strings too long. Such a course leads finally to friction and alienation of the child. Indeed, the child may—and in a number of cases does—break away entirely from the family, though the passage of time nearly always softens and even wipes away bitterness in later life. We, in Great Britain, have had salutary experiences of this kind. I do not wish to go into those experiences, but they may have been almost worth while if they have taught us an essential and invaluable lesson. I think that they have, that we have taken advantage of it, and that it has ever since been our aim to make the links between ourselves and the daughter nations not rigid and intolerable, but as flexible as possible.

The furthest stage which has yet been reached is the Statute of Westminster, which has been referred to in the debate to-day. That Statute recognizes the Dominions as self-governing nations and as arbiters of their own fate. It is our public recognition of their maturity. It is a very far-reaching document. It seemed to me at the time—and I think we should all believe it so to be—essential and wise. I think it has already been justified by events which have happened since. So far from the links between ourselves and the Dominions and Colonies having become looser, they have grown closer. They have stood the strain of two of the greatest wars in history. From either of these wars, from the second of these wars undoubtedly, the Dominions could constitutionally have stood aside had they wished, but, with one exception with which your Lordships are familiar, they have not done so. On the contrary, they have thrown all their energies and resources into the struggle in a way which constitutes a complete justification, I think, of the policy adopted in the Statute of Westminster.

The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, at the beginning of his speech paid a noble and eloquent tribute to the heroic contribution of the Dominions in the present struggle. I suppose there is no one who knows more than I do of what the Dominions have done, and I do feel that it is a thrilling thought that men and women should have come, as the people of the Dominions have done, from the very ends of the earth to fight for the principles in which they believe. I echo everything that the noble Viscount said about the Empire training scheme, one of the greatest institutions for war which has ever been devised. I also echo everything that he said about the valour of the Dominion and Colonial troops. Nothing which we can say can possibly do justice to their courage, to their constancy and to their passionate loyalty to the cause of liberty, for which the British Empire stands. If, however, that happy situation is to continue—although, of course, the constitutional relationships may alter—it is essential that we should have a very close collaboration in the future, and if possible an even closer collaboration than in the past.

On the last occasion on which I addressed your Lordships on this subject, which was on April 2, 1941, and which was also in answer to a Motion by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, I described the machinery which had at that time been built up to ensure this collaboration. I said that there were three main channels of communication. There are first of all the United Kingdom High Commissioners in the Dominions, who maintain, as your Lordships know, the very closest contact with the Dominion Prime Ministers and Governments. Secondly, there are the Dominion High Commissioners in the United Kingdom, who perform the same functions in this country; and, as your Lordships know, their task is now greatly facilitated by the daily meetings which they have with the Dominions Secretary in the Dominions Office. This enables them to keep in constant touch with the events of the day, and with the deliberations and decisions of the War Cabinet.

It would perhaps be convenient if, in this connexion, I said a word about the question of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, in his very powerful and moving speech. The noble Viscount rightly emphasized the importance of a common foreign policy between the United Kingdom and the Dominions, and in that connexion he asked, as I understood him, what the position of the Dominions was with regard to the Anglo-Soviet Treaty. As your Lordships know, the Anglo-Soviet Treaty does not directly involve the Dominions; that is to say, it is a Treaty between the United Kingdom Government and the Soviet Government, and it does not bind the Dominion Governments. We all know, however, that they are vitally interested in it, and I should like to make it quite clear—and I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so—that the Dominion Governments were in fact consulted at every stage of the negotiations. It is quite evident, from statements which have been made by those Governments since the signature of the Treaty, that the Treaty had their full approval. I shall not quote those statements, because I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but I can assure you that they are both whole-hearted and unqualified. The same is true of the Mutual Aid Agreement; there the Dominions were fully consulted in the preliminary negotiations, and I understand that it has their full approval.

I do not pretend, and I suppose no one would pretend, that the task of securing an identical foreign policy for the whole of the British Commonwealth is an easy one. It is a very difficult one indeed, when we consider that the different members of the Commonwealth are faced with rather different conditions, and with different geographical conditions, apart from anything else. Clearly, however, it is most desirable to attain it so far as possible; and that is the value of the machinery for consultation which has been built up, very largely since the war, and which is being further developed, as I hope to show in a moment. I do not think that even now that machinery—if one may use such an expression about machinery—is entirely watertight, but I see no other way, apart from consultation, by which unanimity may be sought, and no other way, at any rate, which is consistent with the complete independence of decision which now exists in the British Commonwealth.

I have given your Lordships some account of two methods of communication between the United Kingdom and the Dominions. There is, of course, a third method, the method of direct communication between Prime Minister and Prime Minister, and that is resorted to whenever circumstances require it, although it is not the normal method of communication, the normal method being through the Dominions Office. In addition, there have been since the beginning of the war, as your Lordships know, periodic visits by Dominion Prime Ministers and Ministers to this country. Since I spoke on this subject in April, 1941, we have had immensely valuable visits from Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, and from Dr. Evatt, the Australian Minister. I believe that those visits from Ministers constitute a method which is almost more useful than any other means of communication, because the Ministers keep in touch with both ends. They see the situation here, and they then go back to their own country and know the situation there. That forms a very realistic type of link between the two countries.

That was the machinery which existed when I spoke just over a year ago, but since then it has been both improved and developed. To-day, for instance, the Dominions Secretary is a member of the War Cabinet, which was not so at the time when I spoke last. Clearly he ought to be a member of the War Cabinet, for he is one of the most important members of the Government, by virtue of his position. In addition, the representative of Australia to-day attends the meetings of the War Cabinet; and I think that both we and Australia are very fortunate in having such an immensely able and experienced man as Mr. Bruce as the representative of Australia. He has a lengthy knowledge of politics and of international affairs, both as Prime Minister of Australia and as Australian representative at Geneva, and there is no one whose advice could be better worth having at the present time. These facilities, of which Australia has availed herself, are, of course, open to any other Dominion which wishes to take advantage of them.

In addition, we have evolved additional machinery for liaison at a lower level. In recent months, the Dominion Governments were told by His Majesty's Government here that we were prepared to agree to the appointment of Service liaison officers, to keep in touch with the Chiefs of Staff organization. The purpose of that was that these officers should be able to let their own Governments know about strategic plans during the formative stage, in case the Dominion Governments should wish to make any comments on them. I think that that is a very important step, and already more than one Dominion has taken advantage of it. A similar arrangement has been made with regard to foreign affairs. There is now a senior officer of the Foreign Office who is appointed specially as liaison officer with the Dominions. He attends every daily meeting of the High Commissioners at the Dominions Office, and he is always available for consultation on individual problems which may affect one Dominion or another. Finally, the closest co-operation is maintained in the field of production, supply, the assignment of finished munitions, the allocation of raw materials, and so on, and the machinery set up under the combined United Kingdom-United States organizations is such as to ensure that the fullest account is taken of Dominion and other Empire interests in the matters coming before the various Boards. These are just examples of the constant growth and development that are taking place in Imperial relations.

Up to now I have dealt entirely with what I may call the grown-up children, the self-governing Dominions, but I have said nothing about the non-self-governing Colonies, with which I myself am to-day principally concerned. I did this deliberately, because we have had a good many debates in this House in recent weeks upon Colonial questions, and I do not think that there is anything that I could very usefully add at the present stage. I should like to emphasize, however, that the same principles apply to the Colonies as apply to the Dominions. It is true that they are not yet grown up, it is true that they are still in a state of tutelage. Some are more advanced and some less advanced, but everywhere our aim is that the people of a territory should play their full part in the government of the country. That is bound to be a gradual process. It is a question of political evolution. But that is our aim, and I see no reason why any British Government should depart from it.

The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has asked me about the future. Of this, as he will appreciate, it is not very easy for me to-day to speak. The question of a development of inter-Imperial machinery is not a matter for a unilateral declaration by one member of the British Commonwealth. The noble Viscount in his speech, I think, said that there were three main bonds that united the Empire. The first was common allegiance to the Crown; the second was the bond of sentiment arising from a common kinship and language; and the third was freedom of thought, action and expression. I myself would add a fourth, the bond of mutual interest. Together the members of the British Commonwealth can have, I suppose, the greatest influence for good of any great Power in the world to-day. Their importance in the solution of the far-reaching problems of the post-war world, problems both political and economic, problems such as the problem of under-consumption, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, spoke—their importance for that purpose so long as they remain together cannot be overestimated; but if they once became separated into their component units, then they would find that all their influence was gone. They would be merely a number of comparatively unimportant States, without power and without authority. Now I think it is essential that neither we nor the Dominions should forget that fundamental fact.

What we need now is not only to strengthen but to multiply the bonds that unite us, bonds political, economic, social and educational, to which reference has been made to-day. Both the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made the point about education, I thought with very great force. They rightly stressed the need for education in the schools as to what the Empire means to us, and I am afraid we should all of us agree that there has been a lamentable shortcoming in education with regard to Imperial questions in the past. It has been a great gap in our educational system. The House may, therefore, like to know that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education is at present taking an active interest in increasing the study and knowledge of the British Empire. The question of providing suitable text-books at the present time, as noble Lords will well realize, is not a very easy one, but it is being tackled, and I understand successfully tackled. Also he proposes to set up a course for teachers in the history of the English-speaking peoples, which will, of course, include primarily the Dominions, but also the United States as well. It seems to me that we need more and more contacts between the members of the British Commonwealth. That is, I think, the main point which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who speaks with great personal experience, made, and I am quite certain it is true.

Lord Elibank asked whether there would be an Imperial Conference at the end of the war. Well, I think we may be quite certain there will be an Imperial Conference at the end of the war: there can hardly be any manner of doubt about that. But I would add this. Imperial Conferences undoubtedly have a vital importance in the machinery of the Empire, but in the nature of things Imperial Conferences can only take place rather seldom. The next generation is probably likely to have to face strains and stresses such as the British Empire has never had to stand up against in the past.

The Empire is coming to a period when unity will be absolutely essential for it if it is to survive, and it seems to me—and I put the point to noble Lords with great deference—that we want to make our mutual protection—because it is a mutual protection—a coat of mail composed of innumerable links, strong and subtle, of affection, sentiment, mutual interest and so on, both in our public life and in our private life. The machinery which has been set up during this war, I think, does mark an important stage in creating this coat of mail, and I hope very much—I think we all hope—that that machinery will be not only maintained but further developed after the war. And perhaps this sort of machinery which we have set up here may be set up in the Dominions as well. Personally—and I am speaking entirely for myself—I should like to see Dominion civil servants in United Kingdom Government offices and United Kingdom civil servants in Dominion Government offices; I believe that would make for mutual understanding and knowledge. But that, of course, is a matter not only for His Majesty's Government but for the Dominion Governments as well. As I think Lord Bledisloe said, unity really depends, and depends almost entirely, on mutual knowledge. I certainly think that the knowledge that Governors have gained during their Governorships should be taken fully into account when these Govenorships come to an end.

In conclusion I would just say this. I do hope that other nations—not the British Commonwealth—will make no mistake about the present position. The British Empire is not dead, it is not dying, it is not even going into a decline. So far as it is suffering pains, or has suffered pains, I believe them to have been growing pains, and if those pains are properly and sensibly and sympathetically treated, as I am quite confident they will be, I feel that the British Commonwealth will emerge from our present trials stronger, wiser and more united than it has ever been before in our long history.

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD

My Lords, I feel that at this somewhat late hour some of you deserve very hearty commiseration in that I am asking you to listen to remarks from many of which I am afraid you will differ strongly. I can only say two things in explanation. The first is that I feel that many of the things which I am about to say do need saying in the interests of the Empire; the second is that some of the remarks that your Lordships deliver cause me quite as much mental pain as I am afraid that some of mine will cause you. For the promotion of the unity and solidarity of the Empire I feel that two things are essential. The first is that the Government should make their plans well in advance, taking into full consideration even the most unpleasant and unwelcome possibilities. If they are determined, as they appear to be, not to end the war until they have conquered Europe and a great part of Asia, they should decide how this can be done, even if things again go badly in Africa, and even if they go badly in Russia and China as well, and if they are obliged to come to the conclusion that the conquest of Europe and a great part of Asia is impossible without the help of a Continental Ally, then they would do well to explore the alternative policy, which I suggested on the last occasion when I spoke in your Lordships' House, and in the interests of all concerned they would do well to do so while all our Allies are still in the field.

Politicians would do well to remember that there is nothing heroic about talk of fighting in the "last ditch" if they themselves do not intend to occupy that most unpleasant cavity. They would also do well to remember that there is nothing wise about fighting in the "last ditch" if, after the battle, defeat is probable—defeat which might have been avoided by a negotiated peace. There is also a good deal of unreflective talk about the need for national unity at this time. Now the right kind of national unity is a most necessary thing, but it has got to be unity in pursuit of a sensible objective and behind the right kind of leaders. The Gadarene swine were united in purpose, and presumably had confidence in their leaders, but as the latter were pig-headed in every sense of the term, the result of their leadership was disaster to the herd.

The other essential thing is that we should rid ourselves for good and all of wishful thinking and optimism which is not grounded on sure foundations. During the comparatively short time I have been a member of your Lordships' House I have been much struck by the spirit of courtesy and friendliness which exists here, and by the tolerant hearing which is usually given even to the expression of unpopular and unusual opinions; but I am afraid I must add that I have been literally appalled at times by the extent to which many of your Lordships seem to be living in a cloud-cuckoo-land of complete unreality with regard to very important events which preceded the war, with regard to the military situation and our chances of victory, and with regard to the character of foreign statesmen. Some of the latter are treated as absolute devils, whose sins are quite unforgivable and with whom it is unthinkable we should ever have any dealings. Others, with a very similar record of cruelty, tyranny, and aggression, are readily forgiven and are welcomed as good friends and allies.

There is also a similar tendency to wishful thinking with regard to the attitude of many of your Lordships towards our own political leaders, and especially towards the Prime Minister. I am aware that in criticising the character and ability of the Prime Minister I am treading on dangerous ground. I do not wish to be unjust to any one, nor to hurt any one's feelings unnecessarily, and I would therefore ask you to look at this question from what is, perhaps, a new standpoint. None of us—and here I include myself—like to have to confess we have made fools of ourselves. It is particularly hard to do so if many innocent people have suffered as the result of our folly. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that I should be right about this war and the majority of your Lordships should be wrong. If all the people who have been killed in this war ought not to have been killed and need never have been killed, and if you by your support of the war are partly responsible for their death, that would be a very terrible thing, and a very difficult thing for which to admit responsibility. If all the people who have been maimed, blinded, and driven insane by this war ought not to have been injured and need not have been injured, and you by your support of the war are in some measure responsible, that again would be a very terrible thing to have to admit. Therefore, when any prominent man says, "This war is right," your whole emotional nature, your whole natural instinctive desire to be on good terms with yourselves and to retain the respect of your fellows, rises up in vehement but quite unreflective approval. It is much the same thing with the stories of German and Japanese atrocities, real or imaginary, which are such a very potent reason for the continuation of the war. These atrocities——

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, may I be permitted to ask a question with regard to what the noble Duke is saying? On a point of order, may I ask your Lordships whether it is not the custom of the House in some way to relate one's speech to the Motion before the House? The noble Duke's remarks do not seem to have any relation whatever to the Motion, and therefore I would ask your Lordships, especially the Leader of the House, what steps we ought to take in order to induce the noble Duke to relate his speech to the Motion before the House or to bring it forward at some other date.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, as your Lordships know, we do not in this House always strictly adhere to the terms of the Motion before the House, but it is a general expectation that noble Lords who take parts in debates will try to make what they say relevant to the purposes of the debate. I think that is all I can say on this occasion, and I hope it will be remembered that, as far as possible, while desiring to give complete liberty to every speaker, we ought as a matter of courtesy and order to relate ourselves to the terms of the Motion before the House.

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD

My Lords, may I say that I feel that what I am saying is exceedingly pertinent to the maintenance of the unity and solidarity of the Empire, because in my opinion the continuation of this war in a reckless manner is, of all things, most calculated to bring the Empire to an end, particularly if the leadership be not the kind of leadership that is required? I submit that the Prime Minister is the living embodiment of that spirit which declares that this war is right, and it is for that reason, and not because of any qualifications for leadership which entitled him to guide the nation and the Empire at this period of crisis, that you accord him your whole-hearted and quite uncritical support. If you consider his record in the last war, he was in a great measure responsible for our failures at Antwerp and in Gallipoli. He was also responsible for the foolish and disastrous expedition against our present Soviet Allies. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he was responsible for our financial policy, which reduced this country to unreasonable poverty and unemployment; and again in this war he has had a great measure of responsibility for our failures at the Skaggerak, at Narvik, and at Namsos. He undoubtedly was responsible for the exceedingly futile expedition to Greece, which in turn is the cause of most of our serious difficulties in Africa. Again he is responsible in a very great measure——

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, on a point of order, as the mover of this Motion, I think the noble Duke should at least stick to the terms of the Motion. He says nothing about the Motion at all. He is making a direct attack on the Prime Minister of the country without any regard to the Empire whatever. I am sure your Lordships have listened to a very long debate. In ordinary circumstances I would not have made this intervention, but I do feel that the noble Duke, having once been asked to speak to the terms of the Motion, might at least have conformed, and allow us to get on with the debate in which we are concerned.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, you would not wish to deny the noble Duke his right to criticize the Prime Minister upon a proper occasion. The extent of your Lordships' tolerance and traditions would allow that, but I have already expressed my opinion, as Deputy Leader of the House, that the noble Duke should endeavour to speak to the question before the House.

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD

May I say then that I feel that for a very long time past members of this House, as indeed people in the country generally, have, in a manner exceedingly dangerous to the welfare of the Empire and to the future of the Empire, acquired what I may term the mentality of a greyhound engaged in the pursuit of electric hares, which is continually starting enthusiastically after a new hare unmindful of all the other hares it has failed to capture? The technique whereby these hares are presented is becoming all too familiar to thoughtful people. A wonderful victory is announced from some theatre of war, and for a time the theme of this victory is developed with enthusiasm. Then if the victory turns out to be a defeat, or at least a very modest success, the news from that theatre of war is very judiciously damped down and a new hope of a new victory is announced from somewhere else. During the past few months we have had the Kerch hare, the Kharkov hare, the Cologne hare and the Midway Island hare, and, more recently, the North African hare. Still later men, planes and petrol have been wasted on the Bremen hare, night raids on Germany being the last resort of a strategic bankrupt.

Then I would particularly warn your Lordships, if you have any real regard for the future of the Empire, not to place undue reliance on the amount of help which you think you will get from America. The American war effort and our war effort are very closely united, and I do not think anyone in this House can dispute that the welfare, the security and the solidarity of the Empire depend on the result of that effort. There is, in the case of American help, the serious barrier of ocean distances. There are the very serious shipping losses; and remember that it is not merely a question of landing an Expeditionary Force on the Continent, it is a question of keeping that Force adequately supplied. Remember also that there are very serious difficulties with regard to adequate war supplies in America, particularly, of course, with regard to the supply of rubber. And politicians who send an Expeditionary Force to the Continent—our last hope, perhaps—inadequately supplied, are guilty of something very like murder, and I would say, if I believed in capital punishment, which I do not, that they would richly deserve to be hanged. It makes no difference whether the inadequacy of the supply is due to decisions made three years ago, to shortage of materials due to the fact that the enemy commands the main sources of supply, or to the lack of shipping, the result is the same. The men are killed and the Empire suffers perhaps irretrievable disaster.

There are also the corruption and selfishness of the great American armament firms. Some little time ago a report was published dealing with this question which reveals a very serious and startling state of affairs that received very full publicity in American papers and exceedingly little in our own——

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, on a point of order. As the oldest Peer present, and as the noble Duke declines to obey the Deputy Leader of the House and be relevant to the debate which is before your Lordships, I beg to move that the noble Duke be no longer heard.

Moved, That the Duke of Bedford be no longer heard.—(Lord Gainford.)

LORD STRABOLGI

I hope, my Lords, this Motion will not be persisted in. I disagree with every sentiment the noble Duke has expressed; at the same time I have heard many speeches in your Lordships' House which were not very relevant to the subject under discussion. With a little more Parliamentary experience the noble Duke could have brought all his remarks within the scope of this Motion. I could have made the speech he has made by relating every argument to the Empire. In the interests of a very small minority of the country, and a still smaller minority in this House, for which apparently the noble Duke speaks, I hope this Motion will not be persevered with. If we do go on with it, we shall be helping the cause of those who are out to make mischief and weaken the war effort of this country. We shall advertise and make much of the attitude of this very small group for whom the Duke of Bedford speaks, and, therefore, in the interests of the country, I trust that this Motion will not be proceeded with.

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord who has just addressed us was not really paying particular attention to what the noble Duke was then saying. I know he is a most astute debater, but I think even Lord Strabolgi would have found it impossible to relate bad practices of armament firms in the United States of America to the question of the well-being of the British Empire. In no circumstances whatever could that be regarded as in order in the other House of Parliament, and both Houses do attempt to follow the same general rules of order. I must be permitted to say, after an experience of forty years of Parliament, that I have never heard a speech so utterly remote from the subject before the House as that to which we have been listening. I have a question to ask afterwards in which I take a lively interest, and it is a matter of some concern to me to hear the noble Duke going on and on as he has been doing. I submit with all respect that I have never heard a speech so utterly remote from the Motion before the House.

VISCOUNT BENNETT

My Lords, might it not be possible for some of your Lordships who have had much experience in this House, to suggest to the noble Duke that he might put down a Motion for Papers that will enable him to discuss the conduct of the war and everything else he wishes to discuss? But, out of respect for the traditions of this House, I hope he will have regard to the general attitude of the House, which has been shown in the discussion, and accept the suggestion which has been made to him, so that there need be no recourse to such severe action as is embodied in the Motion of Lord Gainford.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, the House would be reluctant to be compelled to vote the noble Duke down, especially when he is giving utterance to sentiments that are most unpalatable to members, because we are anxious that this should be a very free debating assembly. But I would make an appeal to the noble Duke to bear in mind that the speech he has prepared is not really a speech on the Motion which relates to the vital importance of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British Empire. Would he not think it better and more courteous to the House to conform to your Lordships' evident general desire that he should make his speech on a more relevant occasion?

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD

My Lords, may I say I have no wish to oppose the House? If it is the general opinion of the House that the result of the war has no important effect on the unity and solidarity of the Empire, if that is the decision—and it seems to be the decision of most noble Lords present—I shall be very pleased to follow their wishes and speak on another occasion.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, that the Duke of Bedford be no longer heard, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, at this late hour I wish to say only a very few words in reply to the debate. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for his reply. From the terms of that reply I feel that he is fully impressed with the necessity for maintaining the solidarity and unity of the British Empire, and I think that so long as he is at the head of the Colonial Office, we can leave it to him to look after those interests. I should like also to thank particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, for their contributions to the debate. They have made very valuable suggestions. I was especially impressed by the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, that with the much quicker communications by air which we have to-day and will have after the war, it might be possible to have Imperial Conferences attended by the Prime Ministers of different parts of the Empire three or four times a year. In that way we might be able to obtain that common policy for defence and on foreign affairs which will be so vital to us after the war. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.