§ Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ 12.14 p.m.
§ Sir E. GRIGGI was saying when our proceedings were interrupted from another place that the title of Wagner's great music-drama should not be "The Ring "alone but" The Ring and the Sword', and that the whole plot throughout the four dramas is concerned with making the world safe for Wotan, the old, blinkered Nordic god, by means of the sword. One has to realise that, although a world safe for Wotan is certainly not a world safe for democracy, it is about such a world that the German people are once again dreaming. The light has been thrown upon the hilt of the sword, as in a famous act in "The Ring", and the sword-hilt is now blazing before the eyes of German youth. Or, to take a metaphor from a later drama, the sword, which was broken in pieces, is being forged anew and forged very rapidly. No wonder that the issue 1509 of security dominates all (minds in Europe at present. It is, then, pertinent to ask what is our attitude on this question of security? Certainly, in the long run, the success or failure of any disarmament policy will turn on that. I am not going to press the Government for any declaration on that subject to-day. It would, obviously, be premature. But I think the time has come for us all to realise that there are really only two alternatives before England and the Empire. We must either face a policy of isolation and' all it means, or we must be prepared to enter into some system of collective security which gives a real guarantee. The absence of a clear policy, whether we like it or not, will lead to isolation. If we are indifferent to other peoples' security, they in due time will be indifferent to ours. It is true that we are not indifferent; it is only, I think, that we are uncertain in our minds just now.
The speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council on the Locarno Treaties did immense service in Europe at the time it was made, but we have been busy ever since explaining in different parts of the country that those treaties do not mean quite as much as they seem to mean, and undoubtedly there is great uncertainty throughout Europe as to what our attitude may be. If that uncertainty continues, only one result, in my belief, can ensue. We shall find that Europe consists of one or two Powers which are profoundly hostile to us, while the rest are indifferent. If we mean to face a Europe of that kind, let us realise what it means. It means immediately, as it seems to me, very heavy expenditure in armaments and a crippling burden upon us, but at least such a policy would command respect in Europe, and would enable us possibly to intervene, though perhaps too late, if peace were really threatened. Personally, I hope that we shall exhaust every means of arriving at a system of collective security before we face isolation of that kind. If possible, let us have a system of security by which all Powers are bound, but, if we cannot get that, let us have at least a system of security by which democracies 3tand to protect themselves against attack from any source.
I am not going to detain the House any longer by discussing this subject, but I should like to call the attention of hon.
1510 Members who may be interested in the subject to a pamphlet recently published by Lord Howard of Penrith, a very distinguished diplomat, whose experience in the United States as well as elsewhere, I think, lends great weight to his views. The pamphlet is called, "The Prevention of War by Collective Action," and it is issued by 'an organisation called "The Friends of Europe." I hope that some Members at least will find time to study it. As I said, I am not asking to-day for any statement on this subject from the Government, but I hope that such a statement, and a clear statement, will be made early in the New Year before we have to discuss the Service Estimates.
§ 12.10 p.m.
§ Mr. MABANEThe hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) ended his speech by suggesting that in the New Year a clear statement of our position ought to be made. I too hold that such a clear statement ought to be made, but in rather an opposite sense from that which he has envisaged. We are talking this morning about the Disarmament Conference, but it has appeared to me as I have listened to various Debates on the Disarmament Conference since 7th November that we are missing the real issue. The real issue is not the armaments possessed by the nations of Europe, but the post-War settlement which prevents Europe disarming. It appears clear that Europe is divided into two camps—those who desire to preserve the status quo established by the Peace Treaties of 1919 and 1920, and those who see the only hope of peace in a revision of those Peace Treaties. There has been a substantial change of opinion in this country. We remember very well that on 14th October, the day that Germany withdrew from the League of Nations, there was at first a reaction in this country very hostile to Germany. The country appeared to take a pro-French point of view. A few weeks passed, and it became evident that the country felt that, after all, Germany had not had a square deal. The change of opinion was evident in the "Times" newspaper. Three leading articles were published in the "Times," one on 16th October, one on 15th November, and, finally, one on 23rd November, which indicated this change of attitude from a pro-French point of view to 'a pro-German or pro-revisionist point of view.
§ Mr. MABANEA change in the people's view. I think that there can be no doubt whatever that the people of this country do not desire the Government to pursue a pro-French policy, but are definitely anxious that they should adopt a revisionist policy in Europe, and that a clear lead should be given.
§ Mr. MABANEVery well, I will quote from the "Times" of 23rd November. The "Times" is a great newspaper, which may be said to represent the point of view of a substantial number of people in this country:
It becomes plainer with every successive phase of the Disarmament Conference that no substantial progress is likely to be made until the question of revision is boldly faced and settled in one sense or another.I have travelled about Europe a good deal in the last few months, and I have been driven to the conclusion that on the Continent of Europe the various countries desire to know, first and foremost, where this country stands on the important matter of revision. Are we going to adopt the point of view of the French, the Little Entente and Poland, who desire to maintain the status quo in Europe, and who, in my view, have in no small degree used the Disarmament Conference as a means of maintaining the status quo in Europe, or are we going to take the opposite point of view of a sane and sound revision of the Peace Treaties which will bring pacification to Europe? Peace in Europe can, of course, be maintained by strong armaments in France and by maintaining the armaments of the Little Entente and Poland. But mere peace is a different thing from pacification, and I want to see pacification. Europe cannot be pacified until the nations of Europe are satisfied with the post-War settlement which they have to accept. A dictated peace was imposed upon the countries of Europe, and as long as it is maintained, so long, I believe, will there not be pacification in Europe.The hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) has suggested that the Government should give a clear lead. Moreover he and some of his colleagues on the benches opposite have been in- 1512 clined to criticise the Government for not giving a clear lead. I am not at all inclined to join in that condemnation of the Government, but rather should I be inclined to condemn this House. This House has not given a clear lead. We have in this country a peculiar method of control of foreign policy. It appears to be uncertain whether the final authority rests here in this House, or in the Executive? If it rests as, constitutionally it should rest, in this House, I feel that the House ought to decide finally and firmly which policy it wants to pursue. Without that there must be uncertainty, and, on the Continent of Europe there is, as the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham said, great uncertainty as to what we shall do. No one for example knows precisely what policy we shall be adopting in a month's time. No one knows on the Continent of Europe. In every capital you find statesmen wondering what we are going to do. They do not know. This House, which ought not to control foreign policy in detail—it would be futile to do so—ought, on the other hand, to control in principle and should quite definitely make up its mind whether it wants the foreign policy of this country to be directed for or against Treaty Revision. Until that declaration is made, the prestige of this country, which, as has been said, is very high on the Continent at the present time, will be in danger of serious decline.
§ 12.25 p.m.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYMy hon. Friend opposite, apparently, would concede to Herr Hitler what he was not prepared to concede to Dr. Bruening. My only excuse for intervening in this Debate—it is the first time I have intervened in any debate on foreign affairs—is that I have visited the Continent of Europe every year for the last 10 years, and have watched, to some extent at first hand, the situation gradually developing. I agree with the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) that our potential influence on the Continent of Europe is perhaps greater to-day than it has ever been. I think our influence may prove to be decisive. But I submit, with due respect, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that at the moment our influence on the Continent is almost negligible. Why? Because we have not got a foreign policy. Not for the first 1513 time in our history, I think, we must confess that during the last few weeks, critical weeks, we have been trying to some extent to have it both ways. We think that we can safeguard peace by merely talking about it, and without ourselves incurring any obligations. I do not think that is possible, in the long run.
I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he replies, to tell us what are the principles which at the present moment are governing his actions. Surely, at this critical time, we must proceed upon certain basic principles and certain basic assumptions. I should like to mention one or two assumptions which I think will be treated, and must be treated, by all parties as basic. The first is, and it is vital, that society is not likely to abandon the use of force altogether in our time. Secondly, we do in fact, and the Labour party does, concede the use of force in a society of individuals. But we arm the law and not the litigant. If we concede the use of force in a society of individuals, surely it is logical to concede the use of force in a society of nations. The League of Nations is in a bad way at the present time. Some of its rules are no doubt in need of revision; but it is a societ yof nations, and it is the only society of nations. Moreover, it still commands the support of the democracies of the British Empire, and the democracies of Europe, and that is a very important fact.
The collective organisation of peace can only be carried out by the League of Nations, because there is no other institution capable of doing it. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) stated definitely the other day that, so far as he was concerned, he was prepared to use force on behalf of what he described as the collective organisation of peace. The question therefore arises: Are we prepared to use force on behalf of the collective organisation of peace? What is the alternative? For Europe, the final collapse of the League of Nations, re-armament, and ultimate war. For ourselves, re-armament and isolation, which my hon. Friend opposite wants. There would be something to be said for the latter course if we could maintain it, but can we maintain isolation? I submit that under modern conditions, particularly under modern condi- 1514 tions of transport, we cannot maintain isolation in the world to-day. As a matter of historical fact, we have not been able to maintain isolation in the past. If we could not do it in the past, how can we do it to-day? It is not possible. The whole implication of the Treaty of Locarno is that isolation from Europe on the part of this country is impossible. The conclusion in the matter is irresistible.
There is a type of professional pacifist in this country who spend their whole time shouting against armaments, but who will not shoulder any obligations, or countenance the use of force in international affairs in any circumstances. They are the worst menace to peace, for they deceive other countries as to their intentions, and humbug their own country into a false security. Ultimately, they find themselves morally bound to go to war, as in 1914, with inadequate forces. If the Labour party are going to countenance, and to continue to countenance, the shady tactics of East Fulham, following upon the speech of the Lord President of the Council at Birmingham, in which election that speech was used ruthlessly and most unscrupulously in order to frighten the electors into the belief that we were going to go to war—because my right hon. Friend took a stand on behalf of the collective organisation of peace—then their responsibility for war in the future will be very heavy. But it will be brought home to them. This should not deter the Government from pursuing a resolute foreign policy, based on the League of Nations, the Pact of Paris, and upon sanctions to enforce the Pact of Paris.
I cannot think that the Secretary of State is going to serve a useful purpose in his well-intentioned attempt to act as honest broker between Germany, France and Italy. He will never get disarmament by mere phrases. The Germans have not forgotten what he said and what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said from 1907 to 1914, and what in the end they were compelled to do, and therefore I do not believe that the Germans will ever again listen to mere phrases from this country. That is another reason why we should make clear what our foreign policy is going to be. Also I cannot but regret the Secretary of State's forth- 1515 coming visit to Rome. It must tend still further to diminish the influence of Geneva, which is the proper place for international discussions at the present time, if the League is to survive.
A few words on the subject of Germany. Unlike some hon. Members, I am a profound admirer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, but I admire him as the author of our social system rather than as the author of the Treaty of Versailles. I suggest that it is a bit late in the day for him to come forward as the defender of the Germans, and particularly of the present German régime. I have watched the Hitler movement growing in Germany year by year, very largely owing to the Treaty of Versailles. It is the fashion to defend that Treaty nowadays, but, taken as a whole, the Treaty is almost indefensible. The main problem of Europe during the last few years and during the next few years has been, and is going to be, how to secure the modification of the Treaty of Versailles, without going to war. Meanwhile, it is surely clear that revision of the Treaty, as my hon. Friend wants, as I want, and as many of us want, together with disarmament, can only come out of confidence and security.
I doubt if Germany will ever attack the democracies of the world if she knows that if she has recourse to war and aggression she will find them marshalled against her. But do not let us minimise the dangers inherent in the situation. I hope the House will bear with me while I quote a short paragraph from a recent book by the founder of modern psychology, Dr. Freud. It is important, because we have to take psychology into consideration in political affairs, and hitherto we have not done it sufficiently. Dr. Freud says:
The fateful question of the human species seems to mo to be whether and to what extent the cultural process developed in it will succeed in mastering the derangements of communal life caused by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction. In this connection, perhaps the phase through which we are at this present moment passing deserves special interest. Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this—hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension.1516 I regard that passage as hopeful. Indeed, the best hope for the future is to give the League of Nations, which in fact and in practice is international law, sanctions sufficient to stave off war, until the weapons of war have become so frightful that no one will dare to have recourse to them. This seems to me to be the best hope awaiting this country; and I wish that the Foreign Secretary would take his courage in both hands and say that we are prepared to apply sanctions, not necessarily military sanctions, but sanctions in the broadest sense of the term, in defence of the collective peace of Europe and of the world.There is only one other matter upon which I wish to touch. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will say a word upon the subject of how our negotiations are going on with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I am not speaking now on behalf of my constituents, or in defence of the Union of Soviet Republics. We do not like their system or their methods, but I repeat what I have said on former occasions: there they are, they are a fact, and we cannot ignore them; and, furthermore, they are potentially the greatest market in the world for capital goods of all kinds. There may be good reasons for the continued delay in these negotiations, political reasons, which must be explained to the people of this country; but, on the other hand, if the people of the North and North-East of England and Scotland imagine that merely because of political prejudice negotiations, which would assist them in finding more employment and more trade, are being held up they will not forgive the Government, and they should not forgive. If the Foreign Secretary can give us any indication as to the progress of these negotiations, I am sure we shall be grateful.
§ 12.37 p.m.
§ Brigadier-General SPEARSSo far we have had some extremely interesting speeches, and I would like to endorse the observations of the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays), the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) touched on a very dangerous topic when he urged Treaty revision. Treaty revision can only take place in an atmosphere of confidence, 1517 and to talk of Treaty revision now is very much, like throwing matches into gunpowder. We must not forget that most of the new countries in Europe owe their existence and their frontiers to the Peace Treaties, and they are not prepared to allow their frontiers to be altered without recourse to force. I regret to have to say so, but, candidly, the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government has made me desperately anxious. It seems to me that we have gone past the amber light; we are now disregarding the red light, and soon we shall be in the ditch. What on earth is the use of talking about disarmament conventions when, if we go on as we are doing, Europe within a very measurable space of time will be an armed camp again as it was in 1914.
The hon. Member for North Bristol said that it was still possible for this country to give a lead. If we give a lead, which the nations hope we shall give, we can prevent a catastrophe; we can save the League of Nations and prevent the danger of war. But when are we going to get that lead from the Government? Europe has waited, and the people of this country have waited, but we were so shaken by the noise that Germany made when she banged the door and left Geneva, so exhausted by our efforts to hang on to her coat tails, that nothing whatever has happened. As we did nothing, Italy stepped into the breach. The Fascist Grand Council made a declaration of policy that the League of Nations must be fundamentally altered. Neither before nor since have His Majesty's Government made any statement except to give some vague assurance of support of the League. Are we going to allow Italy to drag us back into the condition of pre-War Europe, when you had ill-assorted groups of nations jealously watching each other. If we do, if we allow these groups to be formed, we may be sure that they will be armed to the teeth.
The Italian proposals amount to a complete reversal of post-War philosophy. Modern Europe is largely composed of small States which, as I said just now, owe their frontiers and their existence to the Peace Treaties. The small countries have had their say at Geneva and the part they have played has not been an inconsiderable one, though they have not challenged the position and responsibilities of the greater Powers.
1518 Are they going to allow themselves to be set aside; is it to our interest that they should be set aside? I say no; it certainly is not to our interest that such a thing should happen. Furthermore, I do not believe for a moment that the people of this country would tolerate such a blatant return to pre-War conditions as is pre-supposed in the Italian proposals.
There is one thing which always strikes me, and that is that you can judge of our position in Europe by watching Italy. At the present time the Italian attitude gives us the measure of our supineness in foreign policy. We are actually watching in real life Aesop's fable of the ox and the frog. Italy is swelling herself out to fill the place that we have vacated, but she is neither strong nor independent enough to do so. But the fact that Italy has climbed into the place we have vacated proves that that place must be filled. Nature abhors a vacuum and in Europe a vacuum in the place that we ought to occupy is an impossibility. I for one hope most sincerely that the Foreign Secretary will enjoy his holiday. Capri is the place for dolce far niente. I hope he will gently do nothing there, but for goodness sake let the shade of Tiberius inspire him to action when he comes home.
I do not want to say much more about that subject, but I do trust that the Government will give a lead. We have been given the impression that the Government will act only under the pressure of public opinion. Surely this Debate will have given the Government some indication of what the country requires. The country, I feel certain, is prepared to go a very great distance for the maintenance of peace, if it can only be told that the sacrifices asked of it will in fact be effective. We must maintain our position of detachment as regards other nations. We are clearly not pro-French or pro-German, or indeed anti-French or anti-German. I am often accused of being pro-French. I certainly am to the extent that I believe it is in our interests not only to be on the best of terms with our closest neighbour, but that our democracy and the French democracy can, if they stand united, maintain peace in Europe. I only wish sometimes, when people are so apt to criticise, and sometimes cruelly to criticise, our French neighbours, that 1519 they would think what our position would be if France were not peace-loving and friendly towards ourselves. The position then would be one of extreme danger. I do beg the Government to take the lead in these very important matters—to take the lead that Europe expects of this country and that the people of this country expect the Government to take.
§ 12.48 p.m.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon)The day when the House adjourns for a period of vacation is naturally chosen to raise questions of great urgency and difficulty, and it is therefore perfectly natural that notice should have been given by the Opposition that they would like to use this occasion for raising the question of foreign affairs. It does not, of course, necessarily follow that because this is the day when the House is to be asked to adjourn for a short time, it is the day when it is convenient or appropriate to make an important declaration. I make those observations because, as I have told one or two hon. Members privately, while I am very willing indeed to arrange to be here—I had intended to leave earlier, but have made a new arrangement—it was the idea that this was the moment when there was to be some deliberate declaration of substance and in detail made on this subject from this Bench. Indeed the moment would be very inappropriate.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) has been good enough to say that from the moment Germany banged the door at Geneva nothing whatever has been done. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, of course, has his own sources of information. I can only inform the House that there have been at any rate very prompt and vigorous efforts made from more Capitals than one since Germany's deplorable withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference took place. The decision that was then reached, not the decision of this country or of this Government, or of this Foreign Secretary, was the decision reached by the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference, which consists of the representatives of 17 States, and it was a unanimous decision to the effect that in the situation 1520 in which the Conference found itself, the best thing to be done was to suspend the sitting at Geneva, and to give an opportunity for what were called "parallel and supplementary efforts" to be carried on between various Capitals, and largely by the diplomatic method. I am not so sure whether my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle approves or disapproves of that course. At any rate, since it was unanimously decided upon, it is not for this country to give a lead by resisting it. What has since happened I will state to the House.
Some of these matters are, of course, public knowledge, in that they have been the subject of disclosure in public newspapers or by declarations in various Parliaments. One of the most important things that has happened is that Chancellor Hitler has been making some public declarations, both by the use of the wireless and by other means, which, whatever we may think of their content, are undoubtedly of very great moment to all concerned.
§ Mr. THORNEVery serious.
§ Sir J. SIMONThat is a very proper remark to make. Chancellor Hitler's declaration was of special interest, of course, to France. I quote the words which he used almost at the same time as Germany withdrew from the Disarmament Conference. He said:
It will be of the first importance for the two nations, Germany and France, once and for all to ban the use of force from their common life. No further territorial conflicts exist between the two countries, as far as Germany is concerned, once the Saar is returned.My hon. Friend opposite said that it was important to consider how far that declaration should be regarded as 'having a serious purpose. I agree with him. I was asked what the Government have been doing. We have been concerning ourselves very anxiously to ascertain what was the real intent and purpose of this declaration. We have been most careful to make it plain that in making such inquiries we were not expressing approval of some of the proposals that have, been thrown out so easily. It did, however, appear to us that it was certainly our duty to do our utmost to clarify these proposals and find out what was behind them. I am now in a position to tell the House that these in- 1521 quiries have been very actively conducted. The House is aware that our own Ambassador in Berlin was asked to come back and see the Government. There have been very useful conversations. It is obvious to the House that this investigation is in process of taking place, and it would therefore be doubly unwise to make any public declarations about them. This I can say: it does appear that on the political side—as distinguished from the technical question of disarmament—Chancellor Hitler has made propositions which are certainly intended to be formal proposals; that the declarations which have appeared in certain public prints to the effect that he was suggesting non-aggressive compacts between Germany and her neighbours were justified. As we understood it, his proposals under that head do not confine themselves to one particular neighbour, but are proposals put forward for consideration by all the neighbours of Germany.That at least is a very necessary piece of clarification, and I will only say that in dealing with it we have been very careful to indicate that we have not forgotten the obligations which rest upon members of the League of Nations. Therefore, any such compacts of non-aggression will have to be considered in view of the undoubted obligations which the Covenant puts upon those who are parties to it. The House will observe that the Government have been in very close contact with those who are best informed on the subject in France. My hon. Friend who has just spoken—and it is a natural attitude—said that the situation was very grave and that every sensible person must feel anxious. I will not say desperately anxious, but it is very natural indeed that we should relieve our feelings by saying: "Why does not somebody give a lead? Why does not Britain have a policy? Why does not Britain adopt the policy which is suggested by me, even though it happens to be directly opposed to the policy suggested by you?" There is such a thing as bearing in mind that the object for which we are all striving to the best of our ability is not to make some gesture which would indeed give great satisfaction to a certain circle here, but, if we can, to promote and secure agreement. It does not always follow that the best way in which to promote agreement is to take any and every action 1522 to nail one's colours to the mast and say: "It must be exactly like that, or else there can be no agreement at all."
The result is that these inquiries and discussions between various Governments and capitals have been held and are being continued. It is a fact that, though my own holiday is a real holiday, I shall see the French Foreign Minister in Paris—not indeed this afternoon but possibly to-morrow. I am very much looking forward to seeing him, because we are in constant communication, and it is extremely important that we should get as close together as ever we can in understanding how the suggestions put forward by the German Government stand in regard both to the policy and to the requirements of Germany's neighbours. It would surely be a very foolish thing if anybody taking part in this Debate on the Adjournment of the House of Commons made general declarations when discussions of this sort are manifestly not concluded, and are still being pursued. I may point out that this is not an attitude of indecision or unwillingness to communicate them. There is a moment when undoubtedly these political inquiries must be gathered together for the purpose of seeing what results they produce. The Disarmament Conference adjourned for the express purpose of these inquiries being made. They hope and intend to resume in the month of January, and in the month of January, according to the present plan, there must be assent not merely by this Government but also by other Governments to what has been the result of the efforts that have been made. The House will excuse me if I do not take the present occasion to raise such questions as the occasion when some declaration should be made. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate took up a perfectly considerate and reasonable attitude; he provoked, perhaps, a comparison with that famous character in fiction, Miss Rosa Dartle, who at various moments in the course of the story of David Copperfield was found saying: "I am only asking for information." I am obliged to my hon. Friend, because I think that that was a perfectly fair way in which to put the matters which he wanted to raise.
I have stated, therefore, what is, in fact, the nature of the communications 1523 which are going on. I cannot at all agree with an observation made by one hon. Gentleman to-day that it is a pity that we should endeavour in these matters to be in close contact with Italy. On the contrary, the more it becomes important to bring the force of British public opinion and British policy to bear, on this complicated Continental situation, the more certain it is that we desire to keep in contact with all these States.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYWill the right hon. Gentleman forgive me if I remind him that I never at any time suggested that we should not be in close contact with Italy. My only suggestion was that international discussions of this character would better take place in Geneva than in Rome.
§ Sir J. SIMONI was not in fact referring to the hon. Member, but it really would not be a very useful way of spending the time to go to Geneva, in view of the fact that the Conference has decided that in fact nothing is to go on at Geneva until next month. I agree with my hon. Friend when he said that we do not want to depart from the system of international negotiation in favour of bilateral discussion. I have never regarded this stage of bilateral communication as other than an intermediate or preliminary stage which ought to lead to a wider international approach.
There is another matter to which I would direct the attention of the House. There is reason to believe that a communication from Chancellor Hitler has been addressed, or is expected to be addressed, not only to our own Ambassador but also to the French Government, and I presume to other Governments. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that we should in our turn get into the closest touch with all those who have received it. I am not building any exaggerated hopes on what I have said is merely to be in the nature of a holiday, but I hope that by the time the House resumes we shall be in a position to give the House much more definite information as to what has been the outcome of this exchange of views.
Two very important questions of general principle have been raised in some of the speeches this morning. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) made a 1524 speech which I am sure impressed everybody who heard it, and I am sure that those who did not hear it will wish to read it. He put forward considerations on the subject of what is called security which I assure him are by no means lost sight of by those who have studied this immensely anxious situation. It is a very difficult thing to transform mere phrases and even the ideas behind phrases into a practicable and a workable shape. The circumstance that Chancellor Hitler in a recent communication lays so much emphasis on political arrangements which are calculated to promote appeasement is, I think, in itself an indication that that aspect of the matter of which my hon. Friend spoke is one that is present to the minds not only of people in this country but of all responsible people in other countries as well.
A question has been asked as regards the inspection of arms, and I will give an answer and I hope a definite answer. My understanding is that the German Government, as part of their general scheme and outlook, are prepared to contemplate the establishment of international inspection and control in respect of the armaments of all countries operating periodically and automatically. One of the matters upon which undoubtedly there has been an advance in public opinion generally is this matter, because at one time it was thought that the utmost that could be done would be to provide that upon the complaint of one country the permanent disarmament commission might institute inspection of the arms of another country. That was a matter open to a good deal of objection. Among other things, it would be an extremely invidious business to make accusations of that, sort based upon what might be imperfect information. That is not the form of control and supervision which, as I understand it, is contemplated in the discussions which have been proceeding recently. On the contrary, it is in the nature of automatic and periodic control which, of course, would be applied universally. The last thing which anybody would seriously think likely of acceptance would be some specific and special régime applied to a particular country. On that point, I think there is some definite progress towards agreement.
§ Sir J. SIMONI think it is very likely that it was, but, although we cannot travel too far afield in this limited discussion, I may as well say that one has unfortunately to test the probability or possibility of a scheme being generally adopted by considering this very case of Japan, and of course there are other cases as well—we had better face it. But while it is perfectly true that there is a degree to which this country might by its mere declaration give substance and it might be even general approval to a policy, still there are limits to that and as a matter of fact the only result which is in the end going to prove of advantage to anybody is not to be got by individual or unilateral declarations but is only to be got if, ultimately, agreement can be reached between different States.
As to our attitude towards the League of Nations I do not think we are open to any reproach in that regard. Every opportunity has been taken to state in the most specific form the policy of this country, which from the very beginning played so large a part in the foundation of the League—my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is one of the few survivors of those who were the principal architects of that tremendous work—every opportunity, as I said, has been taken to make it clear that the policy of this country, not only of this Government but of all Governments in this country, is unswervingly to stand by and support the League of Nations. It is just as well to remember that the building up of that structure involved the most delicate balancing of what might have been mutually destructive forces and the thing itself is the result of a delicate balance of opinion. Therefore common prudence would show that you should not proceed to pull the thing to pieces unless you are pretty sure that you have something to put it its place.
While we have all observed some declarations made in foreign countries which indicate a desire for the revision of the Covenant, I am glad to say that we have no reason to suppose that definite propositions are being made. I, at any rate, do not know of any. I would make one further observation which is only quoting what was said the other day by M. Avenol the Secretary-General of the League in an address within the walls of these Houses 1526 of Parliament. It has to do with what is called the rule of unanimity. Taking the point that the rule of unanimity operated as a very serious bar to territorial changes—and it does—M. Avenol pointed out that, if you look at the rule of unanimity in its proper aspect, it is really in the nature of a protection of the sovereignty of a particular country. If a majority of votes could by itself automatically change the map it would really mean that you would be inviting people to join an association and to' agree to what would be to them the risk of being outvoted on a point which they might regard as absolutely vital to their own independence. Consequently, I can well understand that when this structure was put together those who tried to get agreement found themselves obliged to support this conception of unanimity. I make no positive assertion as to there being any way of revising or amending it and no positive suggestion has been made so far as I know—
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEDo I understand from the Foreign Secretary that there has been no definite proposition put forward by Italy beyond what has appeared in the Press—the general suggestion that the Covenant of the League ought to be amended? Were there no detailed propositions?
§ Sir J. SIMONThe right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There have been no propositions put forward, and I am not using merely official language, I am speaking the full content of my mind when I say that I am not aware of any concrete proposals in the nature of amendments having been put forward by any country. On the other hand, I think we have to realise two other things. The first is that all human institutions are, and ought to be, subject to reconsideration for purposes of adjustment and revision. Secondly, the Covenant of the League itself contains provisions by which amendment might be made. The actual situation at the moment is that this country has not received, so far as I know, from anybody proposals which are in the nature of definite or concrete suggestions for amendment. I am well aware that what I have been saying is not to be regarded as in the nature of a dogmatic or definite fresh declaration of policy, but I hope that I have satisfied the House that we wish to deal perfectly 1527 fairly by hon. Members, and I have made these observations to show them that there is really no justification for speaking of His Majesty's Government in this matter as though they were caring nothing whatever about what is beyond all question the most tremendous problem that faces the world to-day.
For the rest, I agree that it is true, as one hon. Member said, that this country does enjoy great prestige and authority, but it is not, in my humble judgment, true to say that prestige and authority are best exercised on all occasions by the making of premature declarations. I believe, on the contrary, that a very great deal of the authority of this country depends on this, that both the Government and the country are known throughout the world to be sincerely devoting themselves to the cause of peace, firmly supporting the League of Nations, earnestly desiring to promote international agreement, and prepared both to give and to take everything that can be done to produce such an effect.
§ Mr. ATTLEEBefore the right hon. Gentleman sits down, can he give the information for which I asked, as to what is the present position with regard to China, Japan, and the League of Nations?
§ Sir J. SIMONAs I say, there are really three points, apart from the general international question. My hon. Friend opposite asked a question about the position of the Russian negotiations. I am glad to be able to say that those negotiations are really proceeding in a way which is definitely encouraging. I have communicated with a colleague of mine who is specially concerned, and he tells me that he thought that such language was abundantly justified. There are outstanding difficulties, but I do not believe that they are such as to prevent an agreement being reached, and I am very glad that that is so.
A question was asked about Austria, to which I will only reply, in a sentence, that the policy of His Majesty's Government is and remains directed towards doing all that we can, by our influence and by our advice, to sustain the integrity and the independence of Austria. We maintain most strictly the rule, the only wise rule, that it cannot 1528 be any part of our business to interfere with the internal government of another country, but at the same time the independence and safety of Austria are an essential object to which British policy is directed.
As regards the Far East, I have a very elaborate note prepared on a number of points, which I have been studying to see if there is any specific thing which I ought to say to my hon. Friend, but I think I must content myself with saying that, while there are some rumours of new movements in that area—there is an allegation that there has been a crossing of the Great Wall again—it is by no means established that that is so. Our own official information does not make it clear, neither is it clear whether, if such a movement has taken place, it is a movement towards eliminating bandits or whether it has a more far-reaching purpose. If a question is put down on this subject, I shall be glad to see if I can give an answer to it.
§ Mr. ATTLEEMy question was not immediately addressed to the situation in Manchuria, but as to whether anything was moving in the counsels of the League of Nations and the world generally with regard to the situation that a large part of China is occupied by Japan against the will of the world.
§ Sir J. SIMONI have no new information to give the hon. Gentleman about that. The Committee at Geneva is certainly not sitting at the moment. The Committee is in existence, but I cannot give any information as to anything specific having happened in that Committee, and I do not think it has. I thank the House very much for their good wishes, and I would only say, in conclusion, that a holiday is a good thing to have everywhere, even in the island which was once occupied by the Emperor Tiberius.
§ 1.20 p.m.
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has put off his departure in order to attend this Debate, and I shall not misunderstand the position, if he has to leave while I am speaking. There is one matter to which I think some allusion ought to be made in this House, which has not been touched upon by any of the previous speakers, and I 1529 should like to say a word about it before I come to those topics which have occupied our attention to-day. I saw with profound regret, not unmingled with indignation, the revival in the papers to-day of something which calls itself a commission, and which has met in this country to investigate a matter which has been and still is the subject of pending proceedings in Berlin. That seems to me the grossest impertinence that the citizens of one nation can commit in regard to a friendly State.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI think some protest ought to be made against the abuse of our country for the holding of what purports to be an international inquiry prejudging the decision of a foreign court.
§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVANAnd such a court.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI would only ask: What should we think if the same action were taken in regard to any pending proceedings in our own courts? To proceed, however, I certainly should never press the Foreign Secretary to make a declaration before the time at which he thought it was in the public interest that such a declaration should be made, and I am content to wait as regards negotiations now pending or which may subsequently be undertaken for the time when they have reached such a point that the Minister immediately responsible feels that he can make such a statement as this House would desire to have without any injury to the prospects of the negotiations or the public welfare. But I wish the Government could have thrown a little more light upon what is now past. I think this Debate has illustrated a fact, of which we must all have been conscious in the last few months, that not only is there a great uncertainty prevailing in foreign countries and foreign nations as to exactly what our policy is, at what point we are going to stand, and within what limits we can negotiate and concede, but that there is a great uncertainty among our own people, who are restless and unhappy because they do not know the principles upon which our policy is based.
I hope that, when the Foreign Secretary is considering a declaration which he may 1530 make when we reassemble in some five week's time, he will consider also whether he could not lay papers as to what exactly did happen in October, and what is the case for the British Government, I believe that great injustice is being done to His Majesty's Ministers and to our country because, for some scruple or some difficulty in getting assent elsewhere, they have never given a full disclosure of exactly what passed. They are accused of partiality to one side or the other where, I believe, they showed no partiality. They showed a readiness to adjust the scheme which they had propounded for discussion to the feelings and sentiments which were disclosed in the discussions which they invited. I beg my right hon. Friend the Lord President to press the Foreign Secretary to give us a little more information as to the past when we meet again.
That leads me to say, after hearing utterances from both sides of the House as to being pro-French or pro-German, that I hope we shall be neither one nor the other. The only proper pro-anything for this House is pro-British, and we should consider our policy in relation both to France and Germany as that policy affects ourselves. That does not mean isolation; it does not mean without regard to the feelings and sentiments and the hopes of either of those nations. The determining fact for every House of Commons, for every Government, for every Foreign Minister in this country, should not be some altruistic motive and the entering on some crusade in which we have no interest; it will be, I hope, a correct apprehension of the friendships which are necessary to this country and the policies which, pursued in this or that quarter, help to maintain peace, which is the first of all our interests. Our attitude to this or that country will not, I hope, be pro-German, pro-French or pro-Italian, but will be dictated by an apprehension of the part that Great Britain has to play in the counsels of the world and by the reactions of world affairs upon the interest and safety of Great Britain and the British Empire. It is from that point of view I have always approached consideration of foreign affairs, as I always shall.
I do not think it was necessary, but perhaps it was useful, for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to reaffirm 1531 in explicit language the allegiance of this country and of the British Dominions to the League of Nations. Any foreign country which wishes to connect its policy with ours to a greater or lesser extent must recognise that that is a fundamental principle of British policy, and that hostility to the League would at once place this country in antagonism to it. It is not necessary to say that no improvement can be made in the Covenant of the League itself, still less that no improvement can be made in its practice. We have been told by the Foreign Secretary that the Italian Government has made no proposals to our Government for the amendment of the Covenant. It is impossible to express an opinion upon proposals which have not been made. Do not let us condemn them in advance. Do not let us assume that they are animated by hostile motives to the League. That would be quite unlike all that I knew of Signor Mussolini's mind in the years in which I held office as Foreign Minister.
But there are problems which arise in the day-to-day working of the League, and perhaps they have been illustrated in recent happenings. The League is a league of great and small Powers. Both are represented on the Council, but proportionately the greater Powers have been numerically a larger portion of the Council than they have been of the Assembly. Before the law every member of the League is equal, but they do not all bring the same support to the League or incur the same responsibilities or the same risks. I think it is very important that that distinction should be borne in mind by the smaller States as well as by the greater, and I think that anyone who tries to spread jealousy between the two or to rouse the smaller States against the greater Powers does the League a very ill-service. The Council is a small body of 17 members, and it meets four times a year. It is renewed, in so far as it is renewable, by sections, so that there is continuity of policy and purpose. It gets an esprit de corps which is most helpful in its deliberations, and leads those who sit upon it to seek methods of agreement which, but for that close association, but for their common respect for the Council and the League, and but for their common pride in being members of the Council, might 1532 not be found in an exchange of despatches or of speeches. I venture to think that the more difficult questions are remitted to or kept within the purview of the Council until the Council has worked out an agreement which can be submitted for the approval of the Assembly, the greater will be the prospect of success.
This is very germane to the question of Disarmament. Looking back on the international disputes with which the League has had to deal, I am inclined to think that the two out of which it has come with least success are the Corfu incident and the Sino-Japanese trouble. The Corfu incident was carried at once before the Assembly. The Chinese chose to make their appeal against the action of Japan, not to the Council, but to the Assembly. It turned from a body capable of dealing with the matter in council to a public meeting to settle the dispute. A re-consideration of the Covenant is really required from the point of view of the part to be played by the Assembly and the part to be played by the Council. Such consideration might give some very fruitful results; for in proportion as the work is prepared by the Council will be the success of any operations which the League undertakes. The Treaty of Versailles contemplated that the Council would make proposals for Disarmament. In the early days the Council, for weighty reasons, transferred the duty to a conference—not to any League body—to a conference held under the auspices of the League but extending, of course, beyond the League, and without the League having it directly in its charge.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINYes, it was essential to have the United States and Russia in these deliberations; but we are not improving the possibility of the solution of Disarmament to-day by remitting it to an assembly of 67 nations instead of to the Council of the League of Nations, even if, for that purpose, we had added, as we might have tried to do, the United States and Russia. I am quite sure the success of the League in the settling of delicate international disputes will not be promoted by the kind of discussion which is apt to take place in the Assembly, where representatives 1533 of some of the Powers not at all in the forefront are loudest in urging action which others will have to take, and loudest in denouncing conduct which they expect others to punish, and whose Governments, when asked afterwards whether that represents their view, hastily disclaim their representatives and thus destroy the value of the proceedings of the Assembly. All I say is, do not let us take up the attitude that the Covenant is the sacrosanct, that it is the last word of wisdom. Surely we may learn something from experience. But let us make it quite plain from the first that we will be no party to any alteration in the Covenant except with the purpose of rendering it more effective and making the League stronger, and that we will resist to the utmost any attempt to wreck it under the guise of amending it.
I come for a moment to the allied question of boundaries. As I listened to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) I wondered whether he really appreciated how tender were the spots on which he laid such rough hands. It is very easy to criticise the Treaty of Versailles, and call it a dictated peace. Will my hon. Friend tell me what treaty following upon a war was not a dictated peace?
§ Mr. MABANEI was quoting from the "Times."
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINBut it was not the "Times" that invented the phrase. I want my hon. Friend, if he will be good enough to do so, and I want other people, to go behind the phrase and ask what substance is there in it. Every treaty at the close of a war is a dictated treaty—every treaty. This is merely a bit of German propaganda, caught up by the "Times" and other newspapers as a convenient phrase to describe a situation, but it becomes misleading by repetition. It is used as if it distinguished the Treaty of Versailles from all other treaties, and put it in a class by itself, a class which is entirely indefensible. Every treaty that follows war is a dictated treaty. I do not say that the Treaty of Versailles was a work of superhuman wisdom; I do not say that it may not have been capable of revision, and that it may not be desirable that it should be revised. But what has been going on ever since but revision of the 1534 Treaty of Versailles? The evacuation of the occupied territories did not take place in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles; it took place in advance of the period fixed. Reparations have been revised, revised and revised, until they have disappeared. We are revising it all the time.
What is talked of here is revision of frontiers. The purpose of my right hon. Friend who was then Prime Minister of this country, speaking with the authority of this House and of the country behind him, was to translate into a treaty and into a fact the claim for self-determination for nations corresponding with the feelings of the people who compose them. Some mistakes were made, but, broadly speaking, how can you draw a line anywhere marking frontiers and not leave some minority on one side or the other? Minorities were on the other side before 1914, and they would have remained there but for the declaration of war by the Powers who were ultimately defeated. When it came to drawing the lines afterwards they were drawn, in the main, as fairly as racial arrangements and the geographical arrangements of the population enabled them to be drawn.
But some mistakes were made, and those mistakes might be remedied; they might be remedied with good will and by consent on certain conditions. In the first place the revisionist Powers must make it clear that they are not seeking to reverse the whole situation and to take back all that they have lost on the hazard of war, even though the principles for which we fought and on which we attempted to draw the Treaty run counter to such a return to the pre-War settlement. They must make it clear that there is a reasonable and moderate compromise which would settle for them once and for all the question of the boundaries, and that if this compromise were made it would be the end of the question and not merely the beginning of a new campaign. I have seen no sign of such a spirit in the revisionist countries, and to talk loosely or lightly, until we have an assurance from them—I do not mean an assurance in a phrase, I mean in their whole attitude, and the expression of their policy and of their national life—that the compromise which you contemplate would be accepted as final, and not merely fire ambitions which are bound to 1535 be disappointed and may lead directly to war, in which not only the countries immediately concerned but others—perhaps our own—may be involved. I appeal to the Government to be careful how they treat this situation and to make it clear what are the limits beyond which we cannot go.
If you had the kind of confidence which I have predicated as a condition of revision you would also have gone a long way in securing disarmament. It is the absence of confidence; it is fear, the livid fear, of men who have seen their countries invaded and desolated, of mothers who have seen their children slain, maimed and suffering; it is that impending fear which makes disarmament so difficult. I have watched with profound interest, and with desire to attach to them all the value I can, such assurances and statements of Chancellor Hitler for instance as that which was quoted by the Foreign Secretary. I would like to take that at its face value. I am inclined to say that it is offered by Chancellor Hitler perfectly sincerely. To some people it may seem that I am very naive to take up that point of view, but I say to myself that if that be the policy of Germany and not merely of Chancellor Hitler, what is the meaning of all this propaganda? What is the meaning of these revised school books? What is the meaning of this revision of history? Revision of history—perversion of history! What is the meaning of the suppression of everything that might guard them against making that vital mistake as to the reaction of their own words and deeds in foreign countries which brought them to the ruin of 1918?
It is not merely an assurance by the Chancellor, however sincerely spoken; it is not merely the signature of a pact and least of all a pact with a time limit of 10 years. I do not know whether there is any truth in that; I saw it in the papers. What is the use of a pact not to go to war for 10 years? It is less than the obligations which we have all undertaken already in the Kellogg Pact. It is a diminution of them. It is not an increase of security, but a reduction of it. That is no good. It is not either declarations or pacts but a national attitude, a national state of mind towards that nation's neighbours and towards the moral 1536 problem of international relations, which will decide whether it is possible to go forward hopefully towards peace, or whether we are going back to 1914.
§ 1.50 p.m.
§ Major LLEWELLINI only want to keep the House for three minutes, and I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for allowing me to come in. I rise for the reason that I am desperately alarmed when I hear such a large number of hon. Members advocating automatic sanctions in any event, for this country. I am convinced that the people of this country are not prepared to back up those automatic sanctions, and to take part in them, on behalf of collective peace or whatever it is. I am in the position of being able to speak on this with some feeling, because I am one of those who, if this House and this Government decided to take part in another war, would appear in khaki again on that very day. Some hon. Members who advocate automatic sanctions ought to put themselves in that position also, if they are going to advocate those sanctions up and down the country.
I am certain that the people of this country are all for peace—peace for this country first, and peace abroad second. Our position as Members of Parliament, responsible to our constituencies, should be, first of all, to see that we do not get this country into another war in any way whatever, and then, to the best of our abilities, to try to see that we use our influence in other countries not to go to war. We must put first things first. I would also remind hon. Members who advocate automatic sanctions for the preservation of what they call the collective peace system, that those sanctions become the more dangerous the more we reduce our own forces. If we had overwhelming naval, military and air forces, those sanctions might never have to be put into effect, because everybody would know that we would come in with overwhelming force in any event; but the less and the smaller our force becomes, as compared with other nations, the more risky are those sanctions.
I am putting in this word, because I hope that Members of the Government will not think that they are going to get a great deal of support from this House, or from the country as a whole, for going 1537 into large schemes of automatic peace sanctions. The Treaty of Locarno, for which my right hon. Friend was responsible, went as far as this country is prepared to go in that respect. If there is a breach of frontiers between Germany and France, or Germany and Belgium, it might bring war so close to our own shores as to constitute a vital matter for us, but anything further afield than that I very strongly oppose. I am certain that the vast and peaceful masses of citizens in this country would oppose it too.