§ That is not the danger. The world is going to pieces. A very keen observer who has just come from Central Europe said to me, "I have seen a world going to pieces—men helpless, half-starved, benumbed; no fight in them, no revolution, because the men have no heart." Two British soldiers crossing a square in Vienna saw a hungry child. They took out a biscuit, and cast it to the child. You have seen when you throw a bit of bread on the ground how birds flock from every part, birds that you have never seen before. Well, hundreds of children came from nowhere; they clawed for that food, and it was with difficulty that these two British soldiers escaped with their lives!
§ Commander KENWORTHYThe blockade?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat which I have described is the real danger. The gaunt spectre of hunger is stalking throughout the land. The Central Powers and Russia have overtaxed their strength in the conflict. They are lying prostrate, broken, and all these movements of Spartacists, and Bolsheviks, and revolutionaries in each of these countries are more like the convulsions of a broken-backed creature, crushed in a savage conflict. It is in these conditions, and with this material, that we are making peace. Nations with military ambitions have received a cruel lesson, nay, Europe itself has suffered more in the last five years than ever in the whole of its past history. The lesson has been a sharper one than ever. It has been administered to vaster multitudes of human beings than ever. The 2956 people have a more intelligent appreciation of what it means than ever. For that reason the opportunity of organising the world on the basis of peace is such a one as has never been presented to the world before, and in this fateful hour it is the supreme duty of statesmen in every land—of the Parliaments upon whose will statesmen depend, of those who guide and direct the public opinion which is the making of all—not to soil this triumph of right by indulging in the angry passions of the moment, but to consecrate the sacrifices of millions to the permanent redemption of the human race from the scourge and agony of war.
§ Mr. ADAMSONMy first sentence in what I desire to contribute to this Debate is one of congratulation to the Prime Minister on the good form in which he is to-day. The House, and the country, have been looking forward with intense interest to the statement from the Prime Minister, to which we have just listened, and I am certain that I will carry general assent when I say that we have not been disappointed. The keen desire for information, as to the happening behind the closed doors at the Peace Conference in Paris, was a very natural one. The vast and complex issues which were being weighed there, so full of possibilities for the future peace and happiness of a war-weary world, were bound in the very nature of things, in the absence of detailed information, to strain the patience of all sections of our people, and were bound to raise all sorts of rumours and misgiving as to whether the proper steps were being taken to safeguard the interests of this country and lift the world out of the wreck and ruin inseparable from the great struggle in which we were engaged for nearly four and a half years. These doubts and misgivings were increased as time went on and no inside information was being given to the public of this country, and they found expression inside and outside the House, and prominence was given to the particular aspect of the great problem of most interest to this country by the source from which these doubts and misgivings emanated.
As the Prime Minister has already stated, in certain newspapers his pledges were being printed on front pages, evidently with the view of bringing pressure to bear on him to stand up to his pre-election pledges so far as peace terms were concerned. Questions were being raised and even telegrams drafted and sent from 2957 Members of this House with the same object in view. Paragraphs were appearing in certain newspapers warning the public that the eagerly-awaited speech must not take the form of another dose of soothing syrup. These doubts and misgivings were coming principally from the friends of the Prime Minister himself, and as the day drew near for his speech to be delivered we were getting accustomed to headlines, somewhat in the following terms: "The Political Bloc." "We are going to have a General Election this year," "A Bid for Labour," "The Prime Minister likely to form a new Centre Party." We have heard at last the long-expected speech, and while it has been of a very eloquent, interesting, and instructive character I am not at all sure if it will satisfy entirely all the Prime Minister's friends. As must be expected at this stage in the important negotiations which the Peace Conference has in hand, the information which he has given us has been of a general character, and there has been a complete absence of the details that I fear were expected by many of those who were giving expression to these doubts and misgivings. I am personally aware that it would have been a great mistake on the part of the Prime Minister if he had dealt with these negotiations in detail in a manner which would satisfy all those who were questioning the line that he was taking in Paris. At the same time there are certain aspects of the proceedings at the Peace Conference as to which I would have liked the Prime Minister to be in a position to give us more details.
I have already referred to the publication of the Prime Minister's pledges in the front pages of certain newspapers. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, has been dealing very effectively with that matter, but in dealing with it and in explaining as far as he possibly could the position that he has taken up at the Peace Conference, he carefully avoided telling us whether it is his pre-election speeches to the British people or his pledges on behalf of the British people, that were given fully a year ago, and again in November, to which effect is being given in the peace terms, these pledges being in complete agreement with the terms laid down by President Wilson. Again, dealing with the terms that have been agreed to by the Allies so far as Germany is concerned, the Prime Minis- 2958 ter has not told us whether the indemnities that are to be exacted from Germany were based on the pledges given to the British people or the pledges given on behalf of the British people. As he well knows, there is a considerable difference in the amount that would have to be paid by Germany under the one set of conditions as compared with the other. He has also very carefully refrained from telling us whether the peace conditions agreed upon, that are to be presented to Germany now very soon, will be irreducible terms, or again if they would be presented to this House for consideration before they are ratified.
The Prime Minister has dealt at considerable length also with the question of the League of Nations, and I am certain that those who are associated with me on those benches were delighted to hear the sympathetic way in which he dealt with this phase of the question. From newspaper paragraphs that have been appearing from time to time we were led to believe that some sort of struggle was going on in Paris between the policy of a League of Nations and the old ideas of foreign policy. I am quite pleased to have the assurance of the Prime Minister that such has not been the case, and that steps have been taken that will result in a League of Nations being established at an early date. Another point I want to question the Prime Minister upon with regard to the League of Nations is whether this is to be a real League of Nations that will embrace all the countries of the world, or whether it is to be a League of Allied Nations? I am perfectly aware that, before the enemy countries can be taken in they will require to give some guarantees as to carrying out the terms which the Allies are seeking to impose upon them, and that they will have to establish some stable form of government before they can be fully recognised; but, as soon as ever they have given proper guarantees as to fulfilling their obligations, and establish a stable form of government, then, I think, it would be a grievous mistake if the enemy countries were to be kept outside the League of Nations. As a matter of fact, we would be failing in our attempt to establish a real League of Nations.
We were also very much indebted to the Prime Minister for the very exhaustive explanations he gave us regarding the position in Russia. The only point to which I want to draw his attention in that 2959 connection is the fact that there is in the minds of nine-tenths of the people of this country an intense dislike to any of our soldiers remaining in Russia, and to suggest to him that he and his colleagues in the Government would be well-advised to take steps for bringing back our men from Russia at the earliest possible moment. In putting that aspect of the case before the right hon. Gentleman, I do not suggest that our men who are there, and may be in danger, are to be deserted. They may have to be relieved by the help of other men being provided, but, once that object has been accomplished, then the Prime Minister will remove one of the dangers of serious trouble in this country if he immediately withdraws both the rescuers and the rescued. If our men are to remain in Russia, as he pointed out, until order is established in that country, then there is room for serious trouble arising in this country regarding that matter. I think he will be well-advised to follow out the maxim, which he himself laid down in the course of the eloquent address to which the House has just listened, namely, that the settlement of permanent conditions that are to obtain in Russia ought to be left to the sons of Russia alone.
I want frankly to state that the Prime Minister, in the course of his address, has dealt very fully with most of the points that I had marked out. Consequently, my speech has been considerably shortened, for which I am not one little bit sorry. Another of the points, however, to which I wish to draw his attention, is one to which he also referred, namely, that the Labour Charter, which has been under consideration and has received, I understand the personal supervision of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. G. Barnes), is to be incorporated as part and parcel of the machinery of the League of Nations. If that is done, I think we shall be removing many of the difficulties that we are from time to time discussing on the floor of this House. Even during the Prime Minister's absence we have been discussing various aspects of tariffs, Free Trade and things of that character, which, to my mind, would be very much affected if part and parcel of the machinery of a League of Nations contained the Labour Charter, on which my right hon. Friend 2960 the Member for Gorbals Division has been working so zealously during the last few months.
The last point I want to bring under notice is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that they were justified in taking some time. I entirely agree with him. We expect, and we hope, that a good job will be made by the Peace Conference of the vast, complex and intricate problems that have been under their consideration. At the same time, I want him to recognise that in the present condition of the world, time is the very essence of success. Unless you can get the world back to work quickly, then I fear in more parts than in Central Europe you will endanger the stability of government. Unless you can get the world back quickly to work there is a great danger of universal disaster, and, while I do not want to see slipshod work done by the members of the Peace Conference, I would strongly urge upon the Prime Minister the great necessity for making haste, with a view of saving the world from a worse fate than has yet befallen it. I hope that when the proceedings of the Peace Conference have been concluded, there will be a brighter future in prospect for the whole world; that those ideas, for which at least nine-tenths of our manhood took up arms and entered into this great struggle, will be given effect to; that small nationalities will be much securer in the future than they have been in the past; that the principle of self-determination will be extended to them to a far greater degree than ever has been the case up till now; and that inside the various countries of the world, democracy will have better conditions, and a greater share of the wealth they are producing, and so ensure happiness and harmony to a greater extent in the future than ever we have experienced in the past.
§ Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSThe Prime Minister, in his speech, dealt very fully with the points that were raised on the Adjournment which I moved last Wednesday, and I should like to say just two things with regard to his statement. First of all, I am perfectly certain that his repudiation of the idea of any recognition of Bolshevism will give gratification among the law-respecting people in the whole of the civilised countries; and, secondly, his definite statement that there was going to be no attempt to abandon the loyal elements in Russia who have helped to fight, 2961 will also be welcomed, and will give considerable gladness to our Allies in that great country. I am not quite certain on one point, and probably a member of the Government who will speak at the end of the discussion may touch upon it. He said that it was the policy of the Government to supply munitions to the loyal Russians in different parts. I did interject a question as to food, and he said that he was under the impression that they were sufficiently supplied with food. As I understand, the position has been represented by distinguished and leading Russians who are likely to know the facts. I understand that the whole question of the recovery of Petrograd by a loyal Russian force is entirely dependent at the moment upon an undertaking by the Allies that food will be available as soon as the military operation of retaking Petrograd had been completed. There have been very careful inquiries. I think there is no doubt in military quarters that the force of volunteers there is sufficient for the purpose if the population can be fed immediately afterwards. It does seem to me that, in combination with the policy which the Prime Minister said had been determined upon with regard to Russia, does promise to do more to deal effectively with the Bolshevik sore, by recapturing the capital of Petrograd, than anything else, and I am perfectly certain, on the whole, there will be considerable gladness amongst the loyal elements in Russia by the general declaration of the Prime Minister with regard to Russia to-day.
Lord ROBERT CEOILI should like to be allowed to make a few observations on the general subject which has been raised on this Debate, and, before doing so, I should be glad if the House would allow me to explain exactly what is my own personal position in the matter. I have been in Paris during the last three months practically continuously. I went there at the request of the Government, after I had left the Government, to be their mandatory—to use a word which has become fashionable in another connection—in connection with the question of the League of Nations; and while I was there, after I had been dealing with it for some time, the Prime Minister was good enough to ask me also to deal with the economic questions which were arising upon a body which was called into existence, and named the Supreme Economic Council. I wanted just to make that short explana- 2962 tion, because I wish it to be quite clear that in the observations I am about to make I am not speaking in any sense as a member of the Government. The Government are in no way responsible for anything that I shall say, and though I have no reason particularly to think they will disagree with it, it is only right that that should be made clear. I speak as a Member of Parliament, having had some opportunities for studying certain aspects of international affairs, and only in that capacity. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party made some observations just now about the League of Nations. He asked one or two questions, and I shall be glad to reply, as far as I can, and to give such information as lies in my power with respect to those questions. The House will recollect that as soon as the League of Nations Commission had concluded its first labours, it published to the world the draft of the Covenant upon which it was proposed to agree for the constitution of the League. The object of that publication was to secure that the world at large, and those who were interested in the subject might have an opportunity of considering the proposals in detail, and of making such criticisms as they thought right upon them. The result has been on the whole, I think, fully to justify the course which we then thought it right to take. The criticisms have been quite numerous, but they have been on the whole very encouraging.
In the first place, there has been no criticism of the general structure or principles of the League. The general idea that you should have a permanent organisation, that you should have, in addition to that, the assemblage from time to time of a larger assembly representing ail the members of the League and a smaller assembly which should deal with the current business of the League, and the general principles on which we proposed to try and safeguard the peace of the world—all these have been generally accepted, and no criticism, so far as I know, has been made on the general principles underlying them. More than that, I think we may claim that the friendly criticisms have, on the whole, as the proposals of the Commission have been studied, become more friendly, and that the unfriendly ones have become less unfriendly. I should like in that connection to answer the question put by the right hon. Gentleman as to the Labour Conven- 2963 tion. He asked whether under the proposals for the League it was quite clear that the Labour Convention was to be part and parcel—I am not quite sure whether those were the exact terms—of the organisation of the League. The Labour Convention, as the right hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware, provides that those who sign the Convention shall be members of the League of Nations, and that the members of the League of Nations shall be the signatories of the Labour Convention. And the Covenant of the League provides in express terms that the members of the League accept the Convention for the improvement of the conditions of labour and the necessary organisation for the purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was quite clear that the League of Nations was really to be a League of Nations, not merely a league of Allies, and on that point also I think I am in a position to reassure him. I had the honour of presiding at two conferences representing the neutral Powers. There were thirteen Powers represented, and the conferences were of a most friendly description. Certain criticisms were put forward, and certain suggestions for amendments were made. Those were very carefully considered by the League of Nations Commission, and a good many changes have been suggested for adoption by the Conference in consequence of those suggestions. Throughout the two meetings nothing could have been more friendly or more well disposed than the representatives of all the neutral Powers, and since they have taken place we have received from one Power—Spain—a definite statement that she is prepared to join the League as soon as she is permitted to do so. The Covenant will, I hope, contain a provision by which all those friendly neutrals, if I may put it in that way—all those neutrals who from their presence at those meetings have shown a friendly spirit towards the League—will be invited to join the League immediately after the signature of the Covenant, and I have no doubt myself whatever that the great majority, if not the whole—I hope the whole—of those neutral nations will become members of the League in the course of a very short time. I confess I attach great importance to that, and very much for the reasons put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. For us belligerent nations who have been en- 2964 gaged in the storm and stress of war, it is natural and inevitable, and it is perfectly legitimate, that we should look at all the various questions which arise from a belligerent point of view, and that we should tend to judge the League as it would have operated had it been in existence during the late War. That is perfectly legitimate and perfectly right, but it is not the complete view, and cannot be a complete view of the operations of this great organisation if it is really to be a successful instrument of the world peace. We do not want to secure justice or even to secure safety for those who have been engaged in this War. We wish to provide means of a general pacification of the world, and to secure co-operation between all the nations of the world.
It is quite clear that if the League is to be a success, if we are really to hope for a new era in international affairs, we must have a just and durable settlement of the present War, and that involves—and this is really the main topic on which I wish to make these observations—not merely an adequate dealing with the territorial questions which have arisen. They have necessarily occupied a great deal of public attention, and quite rightly. They are of enormous importance, undoubtedly, for the future of the world, but, important as they are, I do not know that they are more important, or certainly not more urgently important, than the economic questions which at present face us throughout the whole of Europe. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the urgency of the economic position of Europe at the present time. I must really confess, having had some opportunity of hearing the facts on the point, that I could not say otherwise than that I regard the position as one calculated to create great anxiety, if not alarm. The causes are obvious. We have had, on a scale which has never before been equalled in the history of the world, slaughter and destruction throughout all countries in Europe. It is not only, though that has been terrible enough, the actual loss of life and health which has resulted to some of the most vigorous populations in Europe, but there has also to be considered the tremendous psychological effect of the War. We see it in every country. It is not only in those countries that have been most ravaged, but in every country we see an attitude of mind which makes it very difficult to settle down to 2965 sober and unexciting exertion. We have seen some of it, perhaps, even in this country. I have certainly seen something of it in other countries, and everyone who comes back from the Central European countries gives you the same account. They say that there you have this situation—vast masses of the population in the greatest want, a considerable amount of work to be done, and yet no power apparently being able to induce the people who can work and whose work is wanted to set to work. No doubt there are physical reasons as well, but I am satisfied that one of the main reasons is what we have called in the War "war strain," and the condition of uncertainty and suspense which must exist until peace has been finally made. Then, of course, in addition to that, there has been the vast destruction of actual material, not only by the direct operations of war, but by the indirect operations in the wholesale dislocation of industry. There has been the failure properly to till the land, and there has been the destruction of rolling stock. All these things and many, many others are producing the same result, namely, the complete arrest, or the very nearly complete arrest, of all industrial and social life in those countries.
The Prime Minister referred in one of his most eloquent passages this afternoon to the want of food, and that is no doubt one of the chief effects of the state of things which I have been trying to describe. I saw a lady who has recently come back from Czecho-Slovakia. She told me that, according to the information given to her, out of a population of about 12,000,000, 5,000,000 were seriously underfed, and many of the districts in the more mountainous and poorer parts of the country were in the greatest want and the greatest distress. I have heard before the story which the Prime Minister told of the biscuit in the Vienna streets, and I have heard also that another distinguished statesman going through Vienna in his train naturally stopped there for some time and heard round his carriage all the children crying for food. I saw another man who had recently been through Bavaria. He told me that there was the greatest possible distress in the northern parts of Bavaria. He said that the women and children in that part of the world were undoubtedly approaching starvation, and in his judgment almost all the children were tuberculous as a consequence.
2966 3.0 P.M.
I do not desire to "pile up the agony" in any way, but I have heard the most terrible descriptions of refugees from the eastern parts of Poland going back to Warsaw practically starving, and almost destitute of sufficient clothing to stand the very rigorous climate. These are terrible things, and they are not over yet. As a consequence you have unemployment, idleness—call it what you will—on an enormous scale. I saw a calculation that in. Budapest something like half the able-bodied men are doing nothing, and the proportion is not much different in many of the cities in Central and Eastern Europe. The reason is simply not only the want of food and the psychological effects of the War—though these contribute very largely to the same result—but in addition to that there is the complete dislocation of industry. I would like to give some instances descriptive of what is happening in the textile industry of Poland. There you have round the town of Lodz a large textile industry. The old course of trade was that the raw materials were manufactured in those mills and sold either in Poland itself or in Russia, and if sold in Russia, Russia exported corn in exchange for the cotton which was imported into Russia. Of course, all that has absolutely come to an end, and the only way in which you could set that industry going would be in some way to supply cotton to Poland. But Poland has no means at present whatever of paying for the cotton; she has no exports of any kind, and the only way it could be done is by supplying the cotton on credit, either by lending the money to Poland for the purchase of the cotton—and that is, in effect, what would have to be done—or by providing it in some other way. I take that as one instance, and the same thing is true of every district in every country in Europe, and to some extent even in this country.
Everywhere you have this kind of paralysis of exchange. You have it in the Allied countries, more or less, and you have it, of course, completely in Russia, and right through the Eastern and Central countries until you come to the Allied countries and to this country. It is impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of the crisis, and it is impossible to exaggerate the urgent need for dealing with it, and the only way in which it can be dealt with is to provide in some way or another the credit which can set the whole 2967 thing going again. The machine has stopped, and you have got to set it going somehow. It is to my mind a most urgent and serious condition of affairs. The difficulties are, of course, increased by the political question. For instance, in the new countries, in what used to be Austria-Hungary, there are political divisions now which prevent those countries exchanging goods with one another. You find, taking whatever it may be, goods from Poland not being sent into Austria, where they are urgently needed, or into Bohemia, where they are urgently needed in exchange for coal, because there is a dispute between the countries as to the possession of the coaling district. So it goes on, and those difficulties are, I am afraid, inevitable, and add very considerably to the urgency of the situation. You have also—and this is a very important matter—the almost complete breakdown of transportation in the whole of those countries. You will find some countries—I could name them—in which coal urgently needed in the interior is brought to the ports, but cannot be properly distributed because the transportation system of the country has so entirely broken down. That is due to two causes. It is partly due to the wearing out of the railway rolling stock which has not been replaced. In one country, out of 900 locomotives, only 200 are in working order, and the proportion is not very different in many other countries in that part of the world.
In addition to that, there is a great want of coal. Many of the coalfields of Europe itself, for one reason or another, are out of action. There is the district, to which the Prime Minister referred, of Teschen, which contains some of the best coal in that part of the world, and which, unfortunately, has become the subject of a political dispute between the two neighbouring nations, and I understand that coal production there has almost entirely ceased. So, to a large extent, the coal production of the great German coalfields, without having entirely ceased, has enormously gone down, partly owing to lack of food, partly owing to the psychological effects of the War, and partly owing to political disturbances. If I were to say what is most needed, and what would be most desirable if one had a magic gift to supply what was wanted in those countries I would ask first, I think, to be allowed to 2968 supply coal. I have been very much struck by the very serious crisis—and this shows, how delicate these things are—that was created very largely by the unrest in the coal trade here, and which dislocated for the time being the coal commerce of the world. These things spread to unexpected results from causes which no one would think would have those consequences. I want, if I may, to try and impress on the House that it is owing to the great energy and generosity of America, assisted as far as possible by ourselves, that very considerable quantities of food have been sent in to those countries. It is a commentary on the state of things that Vienna, about which the Prime Minister told the story, perfectly true as I know, is a town to which we are sending food at this present moment and have been for some weeks past. Yet even so, it is so insufficient as to produce the result which he described.
§ Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHYWhen was it sent?
§ Lord R. CECILI could not tell when the first consignment was sent, as to go into those matters would make my statement rather too detailed, but it has been going on, I think, for several months. Food by itself, however, is only a palliative. It deals with symptoms; it does not deal with the disease. If we had unlimited supplies and ships—and it is the ships that are really the controlling factor as to the amount of food which can be sent to these countries—we should still be dealing only with the effects of the disease, and not with the disease itself. It is no use feeding these people unless you can set them to work. That is essential. You have to set the machine of industry and commerce going. That is the great task which lies before us if we are to save Europe from the greatest disaster which has ever overtaken it.
I am not going to attempt to describe to the House in any completeness what is the remedy. But I say personally, and most important of all, we want peace! I was delighted to hear what the Prime Minister said this afternoon as to the prospect of a very early peace. It is impossible to exaggerate its importance. People will not set to work again till they see something like a normal and stable condition of affairs restored to their country. I am not going to discuss it, because I have not the knowledge, but we want the question of indemnities settled. At the 2969 present time it is producing a most unhappy effect, economically, over the whole of Europe. It is not only that the Germans do not know what they will have to pay. It is not only that neutrals hesitate to trade with the Germans. That is the economic aspect. But that is not the only thing. Countries which are to receive the indemnities are themselves waiting to see how much they are going to get, and until they know how much they are going to get they are not prepared fully to take the necessary economic measures to meet the crisis in which they are engaged. I am quite sure it is of the greatest possible importance to get that question settled and out of the way as soon as possible. In the course of the speech of my right hon. Friend he was interrupted by an hon. Member who mentioned the blockade. I quite agree with the hon. Member. It is essential to get rid of the blockade completely, and at the earliest possible moment. I hope the House will not take it that the blockade exists to any great extent at this moment. Except in respect to Germany and Hungary, there is no blockade at all. In respect to Hungary, but for sudden disturbances it would have been, I think, removed from the blockade. Those who control these things thought rightly that till you were assured that there was going to be a stable govern-men in Hungary it was no use removing the blockade from that country.
§ Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHYWhat is the difference between the embargo on exports to neutral countries and to blockaded countries?
§ Lord R. CECILI can only say there is no question of blockade. It is not a question of embargoes. But until you have decided to remove the blockade from Germany completely you must maintain, if you wish to keep the blockade complete, a certain control over the trade of the neutrals. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had had the unfortunate experience I have had in dealing with these blockade questions he would have known that the most difficult and the most harassing part the only real difficult and harassing part of the blockade—was the question of food and other commodities going through neutral countries into Germany. It is precisely in order—it is necessary on military grounds, to maintain the blockade of Germany. It is almost impossible to relax control of the trade in the neutral countries adjoining. That is the difficulty. No one feels more strongly than I do—
§ Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHYMay I ask the Noble Lord—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not interrupt. He will have an opportunity later should he wish.
§ Lord R. CECILNo one feels more strongly than I do the necessity for abolishing all these restrictions, from an economic point of view, as soon as we are assured that can be done safely. I trust it will be done. I should like to point this out: Supposing you make all the Channel as free as possible, you will not do everything; you will not do very much. You may make it possible to trade. But you would not only have to put your machinery into something like good order, you would have to supply the motive power to set it going. In my judgment there will have to be made a very great effort on the part of all the nations of the world—certainly of the nations of Europe—to estabish industrial conditions in these countries.
I have often wished I were an eloquent man, but never more than on the present occasion. I cannot conceive anything which would be more worth while to apply eloquence to than to convince the people of this country and, as far as one's voice can extend, to the people of the world, of the urgency and vital importance of this question. We all believe we are on the threshhold of a new era. It is so. There is no doubt some great changes are going to happen. What is that era to be? Is it to be gradual and gradually increasing chaos in these countries, until they have engulfed the whole fabric of Christian civilisation? Or by a supreme effort are we going to, start on the road of international confidence and co-operation? That is really the issue before us. If I may venture to do so, I would appeal to all in this country alike—to the workman as much as to the employer, to the rich as much as to the poor—to make a great effort—as great an effort it may well turn out as any we made during the War. But I am bound to say that great as the effort may be, by ourselves we cannot succeed. All the countries in Europe are exhausted by this long War. Our own energies are diminished. Our own resources are very much restricted. If Europe is to be saved it will be saved by the united efforts of all those countries which were associated in the War. It is useless to suppose that in this world you can accomplish anything worth having except by sacrifice. In no 2971 other way does one really do anything worth doing. I venture to appeal, not only to my own countrymen, but to all the Anglo-Saxon race throughout the world. I do not base my appeal merely on the ground of self-interest—though that is strong enough. If Europe should collapse the repercussion on this country and on America must be of a very serious kind. I venture to appeal to a still stronger motive. It is not the first time the world has had to appeal for assistance to the Anglo-Saxon race. Never has the appeal been so urgent as it is now. The whole fabric of our civilisation is in danger. Unless we can really get the conditions of Europe back to normal, unless we can succeed in getting Europe at work again, and commerce and social intercourse once more established, it is impossible to exaggerate the danger that may be before us. I can only say that in my judgment humanity is waiting for our decision, and I express the earnest hope that it will not wait in vain.