INTERNATIONAL SITUATION. (Hansard, 19 January 1937)

§ Mr. Grenfell
I am extremely anxious that this war in Spain, with all that it entails, should be brought to an end. We have spoken of the balancing of military forces. We have not mentioned the one ever-present spectre that has remained with me from the time that I went to Spain. I believe there will be a shortage of food on a very large scale. I am convinced that hundreds of thousands of people—I cannot estimate the number—may easily die from famine in the next few months. Transport is disorganised and food is being held up over large areas and the situation is terrible in the extreme. I want the right hon. Gentleman to ask the League of Nations to make a pronouncement on this. I should like the League of Nations to make a demand on Germany and Italy that they should refrain from further Government assistance. I am sure there is power enough in the French Government and here at home, if we apply it, to stop the heavy supplies of material and large numbers of men on Spanish soil who are going to prolong the war and cause inconceivable misery before it is finished. I should like to see non-intervention carried into effect. The people of Europe must realise that this kind of intervention must lead to war. Then, peace having been restored, and Spain left to herself, the poverty and economic dislocation which is manifest in every European State must be tackled. I will subscribe to every word the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I hope, having treated the House of Commons to a very lofty appeal, he will make an equally lofty and straight-forward appeal to the League of Nations itself.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne)
There have not been any radical alterations in the situation since my right hon. 162 Friend addressed the House before the Christmas Recess. I think that some of us wish that there had been, but there have not. In fact, this Debate is not one of those which we sometimes have arising from critical events in some foreign country, but it has come merely from the very natural desire of the House to have the very latest information. They knew that my right hon. Friend was leaving for Geneva and they wanted him, before he left, to give them the stop-press news. He has given the stop-press news, and he has given it very fully, and there is not really a great deal that I can add to what he has said. Moreover, not many new points have been made during the Debate.
I do not know what has struck other Members, but it has struck me that it is the most biased Debate I have ever heard. I do not think that there has been a single speech which has not started from a parti pris. Some hon. Members have said, "I hate Communism," and others, "I hate Fascism." On that they have based not merely their arguments, but their facts. There have been one or two exceptions. The speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) was an exception. In his views he was, as he always is, scrupulously fair in debate. There have been other cases. I think the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. H. Mitchell) was a very fair speech. It is remarkable that both are Members who have actually been on the spot and have seen the facts for themselves, which some others have not had an opportunity of doing. Members of His Majesty's Government, whatever other Members may do, cannot afford the luxury of extravagance of language or action. Melodramatic phrases may be very attractive, but they are very often not very wise, and the same applies to melodramatic action.

§ Mr. Maxton
And it is the same with romanticism.

§ Viscount Cranborne
I think that if on occasion the action of His Majesty's Government is not sufficiently spectacular in the view of some Members, that does not necessarily prove that it was not right. My right hon. Friend in what he said at the start of the Debate, as was perhaps inevitable, devoted himself principally to the affairs of Spain. There were, however, one or two other questions raised in 163 the Debate, and perhaps it will be convenient for the House if I say a word or two upon them now. There was a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) with reference to Germany. The right hon. Gentleman said that for the co-operation of Germany in the community of nations disarmament, in his opinion, would be a requirement. I think that the right hon. Gentleman added that there should be agreement to submit disputes to third party judgment. It was a mere omission by my right hon. Friend and I think there is no difference of view between the two right hon. Gentlemen on that point. Then there is the question of the Anglo-Italian agreement of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness disapproves, or at least I understood him to disapprove of it, rather strongly. He made great play with an interview by Signor Mussolini given to a newspaper in which he fiercely attacked democracy, and he was shocked by this, and said that we ought not to come to any form of agreement with him. I would only like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, although he was so shocked, his remarks on this particular interview came in the middle of a most extreme attack he was making upon Fascism, and he was absolutely unbridled in what he said. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is to be tolerance there must be tolerance on both sides.

§ Sir A. Sinclair
I spoke of Mussolini's intolerance.

§ Viscount Cranborne
Because the right hon. Gentleman thinks that Mussolini is intolerant that is no reason why he should be intolerant. If the right hon. Gentleman wants Signor Mussolini to be mild while it is open to Communists and others to ramp and rail against Fascism, that will not make for tolerance in the world. He complains of the Anglo-Italian agreement. It is an agreement which has been welcomed by the French Government, the Turkish Government, the Yugoslav Government—a very important Government—and the Greek Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no interest in the agreement at all.
The main debate inevitably centres on the Spanish question. If I am asked 164 whether we are satisfied with the situation in Spain, I reply that we are not. Nobody in their senses would be satisfied with the situation. As long as this trouble goes on and as long as there is intervention, there can be no satisfaction for any of us. The right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. 'Attlee), who opened the attack on the Government, complained that the Government always treat both parties as equals in Spain. He quoted a speech in which M. Blum said last December that there was only one legal Government in Spain and that the other was not a legal Government.

§ Mr. Attlee
He said there was only one legal Government.

§ Viscount Cranborne
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has read a more recent utterance of M. Blum. Here is a statement made on 15th December in introducing the Bill in regard to volunteers. He said that although the Bill might offend some by placing the Spanish Government and the insurgents on the same plane, the essential thing was to save Europe from war, and that was only possible if Spain ceased to be the goal of alternating migrations. Therefore M. Blum is treating both parties on the same plane in the Bill. He has learnt during these months to look at essential realities, but the right hon. Gentleman and his party have learnt nothing. They are like the Bourbons, if not worse. That is what is wrong with them. They are utterly and completely divorced from realities.
We have been blamed by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland for the Anglo-Italian agreement, and the right hon. Member for Limehouse also blamed the Government for the German naval agreement, although it actually led to a limitation of armaments which would not have been got otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman was not concerned with the result of that agreement. What annoyed him was that we should have made any agreement with Herr Hitler. That is not common sense. The main thing is to get limitation of armaments and to that purpose the Government are devoting their attention.
Much as we admire and respect the right hon. Gentleman, I must say he did 165 not show at his best this afternoon, and suggest that he should emulate M. Blum, judge by experience and look at the facts; and then, I am sure, he will come to a different conclusion. At any rate, M. Blum has modified his views, and with the views he expressed on Saturday His Majesty's Government are in perfect agreement. The Government's view has been made clear so often that I do not wish to emphasise it again. We think that the Spanish civil war is a matter for the people of Spain, a matter of internal policy, and that no other nation ought to be concerned in it at all. We believe that in this view we have the support of the overwhelming mass of British public opinion, and that our policy is in complete harmony with British policy in the past. It is often said that if you are to come to a wise decision you must look not only at the present but at the experience of the past. May I quote one or two passages from a State paper written early in the 19th century by Lord Castlereagh, when he was Foreign Minister, relating to events which were then happening in Spain? The situation then was oddly enough not very different from what it is to-day. The army had revolted against the Spanish Government. Some foreign Powers were anxious to intervene, principally Russia and to a certain extent Prussia, and they were anxious to carry Great Britain with them. This is what Lord Castlereagh said in advising a policy of non-intervention: In this country at all times, but especially at the present juncture when the whole energy of the State is required to unite reasonable men in the defence of our existing institutions. … it is of the greatest moment that the public sentiment should not be distracted or divided by any unnecessary interference of the Government in events passing abroad over which they can have none, or at best but very imperfect means of control. That is the situation to-day. He also said: What could the Allied Powers look to effect by their arms, if the supposition of an armed interference in the internal affairs of another nation could be admitted? Perhaps little: Because in supposing them finally triumphant, we have the problem still to solve, how the country in which such interference had been successful was to provide for its self government after the Allied armies shall have been withdrawn. That is the case against non-intervention to-day. They are wise words and will command agreement in all parts of the House, and they represent the views of 166 the Government. Spain, if we can possibly organise it, must be allowed to work out her own destiny. We shall continue our efforts. Hon. Members opposite have suggested no alternative, All they have said it that something must be done, and they wisely stop there.

§ Mr. Grenfell
Speaking for myself, I say that if there is to be aggression in Europe in one country after another, this country should take its courage in its hands and do its utmost to stop it. I believe that we should tell Germany and Italy that they must not commit these acts of aggression against the Spanish Government.

§ Viscount Cranborne
The hon. Member did not really ask a question. What he said was that we ought to do something, and tell the Germans they must do it; but if the result meant war, would the hon. Gentleman and his friends follow that course of action? [HON. MEMBERS: Yes!"] The Government did not think that to involve Europe in war at the present time would be justifiable. If intervention by this country might involve war, would hon. Members opposite take that action?

§ Mr. Attlee
The point I made, and to which the Noble Lord has not replied, is that during the whole of this period, while professing to stand for non-intervention, the Government have allowed intervention by the Fascist powers throughout, with the result that the danger of war is as great as it was.

§ Viscount Cranborne
I am afraid that is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government are allowing intervention. What I asked was, If it were necessary, in order to stop intervention, even to have recourse to war, would the right hon. Gentleman and his friends go to war?

§ Mr. Attlee
In a situation such as we are in at present, there is a danger of war. Is it the view of the Government that the danger of war is so great that on every occasion they should do precisely what Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini want, because of the danger of war?

§ Viscount Cranborne
I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question. The right hon. Gentleman has not got an answer to my question, and therefore adopts the very old dodge of asking me one.

§ Mr. Attlee
I have stated again and again in this House that we recognise that there is a danger of war that has to be faced. Any Government may have to face it. I stated quite plainly that these dangers must be faced, and that if you are never prepared to stand up to them, you will be running all the time, and you will run into war. Is there any occasion on which the Government are prepared to take a risk of war, and will they obey all the orders of Hitler and Mussolini?

§ Viscount Cranborne
In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower said that he personally would be willing to go to war. He did not tie anybody but himself. I put the question to the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Attlee
Is there any occasion on which the Government—

§ Viscount Cranborne
I asked my question first, and I have had no answer.

§ Mr. Attlee
I am not going to allow the Noble Lord to get away with that. I stated plainly this afternoon that I believe that the democratic States have to stand together. I recognised there was a danger of war. I said the time has come when you must not run away the whole time, but must face a danger. I now ask the Government whether there is any occasion on which they will face a danger.

§ Viscount Cranborne
There are occasions, of course, but the Government equally made their position absolutely clear in this matter. They have said the Spanish dispute is an internal affair of the people of Spain, and the Government's object is to prevent it spreading beyond the borders of Spain. That has been the Government's policy throughout, and I say again that it is a policy which has the complete support of the people of this country.

§ Mr. Attlee
Do I understand that whatever happens, no matter whether Mussolini laughs at you and continues to go on, he can be quite sure you will never stand up to him?

§ Viscount Cranborne
I will proceed to deal with other main points which have been raised. There is the question of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which has undoubtedly aroused strong feelings among 168 certain sections in this country. My right hon. Friend has explained fully the circumstances in which the Government took their action and I believe that those are circumstances which fully justify that action. There was definite evidence that young boys and other people who were going to Spain were being enlisted for that purpose in direct violation of the existing law, and it was for that reason that the Government found themselves obliged to take action.

§ Mr. Maxton
When the hon. Gentleman refers to these young boys, is he aware that all these fellows going to Spain are over the age at which people are accepted for recruitment in the British Army.

§ Viscount Cranborne
Many of them are minors. I have been astonished, and I think some other people may have been astonished, at the intense anxiety of hon. Members opposite on this question. I understand they say that this recruiting is essential to the preservation of democracy or at least important to the preservation of democracy. That is certainly a view which has been expressed by some hon. Members, though I would not say that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has done so. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite who express that view, draw a direct distinction between recruitment for the services of democracy abroad and at home. We have had quite a number of Debates lately on recruitment at home and I have never heard a single hon. Member opposite make such an appeal on those occasions. I must confess that it is odd—remarkably odd—because, after all, England is a democracy, and the appeal for recruits at home is made by a democratically-elected Government; and the only conclusion to which I can come is that hon. Members opposite who take that view have a different method of defining democracy. Louis XIV is supposed to have said "L'Etat, c'est moi." It is possible that hon. Members opposite take a similar view and that the Leader of the Opposition would say, "Demos, that's me," and that that is the only sort of democracy in which he believes. But the complete lack of logic which we see in their convictions does undoubtedly detract from the force of their arguments.
In conclusion, I would say, to return to the main issue of the Debate—the main 169 issue, not the only important matter—that in the Government's opinion, and, I believe, in the opinion of the country, the policy of non-intervention has been fully justified. We regret as bitterly as any hon. Member opposite that the policy has not been more completely carried out. But we still think that the policy which was initiated by the French Government, and firmly supported by His Majesty's Government, has prevented the spread of the war into other parts of Europe. M. Blum said in the Chamber of Deputies on 15th January, in the course of the speech from which I have already quoted, that the action of the French Government in introducing their Bill was proof of their desire for peace and their readiness to do everything possible to 170 prevent the Spanish trouble from producing a general conflagration; and in response to his appeal he received, as hon. Members know, the unanimous support of the French Chamber. The motives which have inspired, and will continue to inspire, every action of His Majesty's Government with regard to this dispute are the same as those which have inspired the French Government, and they hope with confidence that they may receive in this House, and, with even more confidence, in the country, an overwhelming measure of support for the policy which they have adopted.