Lords Sitting of 27 July 1938

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Ashburton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PERTH AND KINROSS EDUCATIONAL TRUST SCHEME, 1936:

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King:
  "I have received your Address praying that I will withhold my approval to the Combined County of Perth and Kinross Educational Trust Scheme, 1936, in so far as it may affect or refer to the MacDougall Bursary Fund. In conformity with your Lordships' advice and with advice which I have received from the other House, I will withhold my approval from the Scheme."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl whether he can make any statement about the business of the House.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who has been detained elsewhere, may I give the following notice about business? The Government propose that Parliament shall reassemble after the Summer Recess on Tuesday, November 1. It is expected that Parliament will be prorogued during that week and that His Majesty will open the new Session on Tuesday, November 8. The Motion for the adjournment for the Summer Recess, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has already announced, will be made on Friday. It will contain the usual provision to empower the Lord Chancellor, on representations being made by the Government, to call your Lordships' House together at an earlier date if such a course should appear necessary in the public interest. There is no business on the Paper for tomorrow
1204
(Thursday) and the House will probably not meet to-morrow. The House will meet on Friday at eleven o'clock to consider the Appropriation Bill and for the holding of a Royal Commission. Then the Motion for the Summer Recess will be moved.

NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
PENZANCE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MID-STAFFORDSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they have ordered, "That if in the next Session of Parliament, a Bill shall be presented, entitled 'A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Mid-Staffordshire Joint Hospital District,' then, provided such Bill shall be the same in every respect as the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Mid-Staffordshire Joint Hospital District) Bill as passed by this House during the present Session, such Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and to have been ordered to be read the third time, and shall be recorded in the Votes as having been read the first and second time and as having been ordered to be read the third time, and that no new fees shall be charged."
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RATING AND VALUATION (AIR-RAID WORKS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RATING AND VALUATION (AIR-RAID WORKS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
HOLIDAYS WITH PAY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask your Lordships' leave to postpone my Motion for Papers in regard to the serious state of British interests in China resulting from the war, until after the
1206
Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Snell. I am doing this at the desire of the noble Earl the Leader of the House and of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and for the convenience of debate, in order to enable my noble friend Viscount Halifax to reply not only to my Motion but to that of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, and to the Motion moved yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. As I understand it, the result of your Lordships agreeing to this will be that the Motion by the Lord Bishop of Chichester will be taken first and the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, will reply. Lord Snell will next move his Motion, and after him the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, will speak as Leader of the Liberals. Then I am to speak to the Motion which stands in my name without actually moving it. The debate then can roam over the general question of international relations and over the question of China, which stands in my name. With that explanation, I beg to ask your Lordships' leave to carry out that arrangement.
Moved, That leave be given to the Viscount Elibank to postpone his Motion until after the Motion of the Lord Snell.—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REFUGEE PROBLEMS.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the serious international problems created by the plight of post-War refugees, and to ask for information as to the outcome of the Evian Conference, and the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the refugee question generally; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have asked leave to call attention to the serious international problems created by the plight of post-War refugees, for two reasons: first, the increasing gravity and importance of the subject; and secondly, the recent holding of the Evian Conference, which is to be resumed next week. My Motion deals with refugees in general terms. The scale of the post-War refugee problem, including refugees from Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Spain and many other places, is one of the most extraordinary

1207
phenomena of post-War years. The whole subject, including the great work of Dr. Nansen, has been brilliantly and most thoroughly treated by the Report, the preliminary Report of Sir John Hope Simpson, which was published by Chatham House. Sir John Hope Simpson points out that amongst other causes or concomitants of the refugee situation is the pandemic national exclusiveness now current, as both causing expulsion from a territory and militating against absorption in any other territory. He also calls attention to the general exchange of rigidity of population for the pre-War fluidity, and of a closed economy within the nation for a comparatively free economy.
But, while we recognise the immense variety of refugees, and the complications and difficulties which that variety causes, there is a particular department of the problem which, by common consent, is more urgent than any other at the present time. It is that which was caused by the inauguration of the National-Socialist State in 1933 and its extension to Austria last March. I wish to avoid rhetorical language in speaking of the actual facts and the overriding cause of the German refugee problem, but it is necessary to call attention to the basic element—namely, the figment of an Aryan race. The word "Aryan" has some relation to language but has no relation to biology, and it is a pure fantasy for which there is no scientific justification whatever. But the result of this fantasy is that those who are called non-Aryan, especially those of the Jewish race, cannot be counted as Germans, cannot be members of the German State, and must be deprived of every part in the German State and in many cases expelled.
I think your Lordships will agree that there is something terrifying in this attack on a tiny minority of non-Aryan people in the country. The total population of Germany is 66,000,000. Taking the Jews only, for the moment: at the beginning of 1933 there were just over half a million of Jews—that is, less than 1 per cent. of the whole population. It is not denied, of course, that, as in any section of any population, there were some unsatisfactory elements, but for the most part the Jew was a healthy, industrious and wealth-producing partner in the common
1208
life. It is, however, important to notice that the question is not only a Jewish question. There are and will be religious and political refugees, and in particular I wish to emphasize the importance of what are called the non-Aryan Christians—that is to say, the Christians who, according to this racial theory, lack German blood. They are of various categories. Those Christians with three Jewish grandparents or one Jewish parent are disqualified as though they were Jews. There are other categories which are less disqualified, but for some posts it is required that a man be possessed of full German blood back to 1800.
The non-Aryan Christians are worse sufferers than the Jews. While the Jews have the great Jewish community behind them, the non-Aryan Christians are neither German nor Jews from this point of view, and their claims on their fellow-Christians throughout the world have not, I am sorry to say, been brought home in the way they should be brought home to the Christian Churches. Their number is large, but there are no full statistics and accuracy is therefore impossible. I am told, however, that 500,000 is a modest estimate.
The persecution of the non-Aryans of all kinds has become increasingly severe. It began with a disorderly victimisation in 1933; it was continued in a kind of codification in the Nuremberg laws of 1935. But, since the Anschluss with Austria, the events of five years in Germany have been concentrated into five weeks in that country, and it would be difficult to exaggerate the terror for racial and political nonconformists in Vienna during the last few months. I know and have seen those who have lately lived in Vienna as well as those who have been there as visitors, and the situation is so cruel that it is commonly said, not by S.S. and S.A. men but by Governors and Ministers of State, that all must go and go at once, that if non-Aryans cannot find a country that will receive them there is always the Danube, and there are plenty of cemeteries to be filled by December.
I do not argue that this is against the spirit of Christianity, because such an argument would presuppose some sympathy with the Christian religion; but I speak as an Anglo-Saxon simply, and in terms of the

1209
ideals of honour and courage which are held in common by Northern people. I cannot understand—and I know many Germans—how our own kinsmen of the German race can lower themselves to such a level of dishonour and cowardice as to attack a defenceless people in the way that the National Socialists have attacked the non-Aryans. I do not think there is any period in civilised German history where German rulers have acted in such a spirit. Such conduct must remain a blot on the honour of the German race.
I happened to be staying in Germany in 1935 when the Nuremberg laws were passed, and National Socialist friends told me that they would not work out quite as badly as I feared, for under the Nuremberg laws the non-Aryans would become a minority, with the rights of a minority, and as a minority would be entitled to protection. I would only say, in comment on that, that it is strange that a nation which oppresses a minority within its own territories in this way should be so zealous in claiming rights for a minority in another State—namely, in Czechoslovakia, which could not by any stretch of imagination be thought to have grievances comparable with the grievances of the non-Aryans in Germany.
I have already said that the question is a limited one, and it is limited in my mind, at this moment, as an urgent question of the existing or potential refugees from Germany and Austria, that is to say, those German or Austrian refugees, whatever their religion, to whom residence in Austria or Germany has become impossible or intolerable. The question which we have to ask is, what can we do to help them? The League of Nations has, as your Lordships know, taken an active interest in the welfare of the refugees all these years, and the two High Commissioners, Mr. James McDonald and Mr. Malcolm, have done excellent work for which everyone is grateful, but the High Commissioners and the League of Nations are powerless to deal with the source of the problem, and the functions of the High Commissioner have been lately defined as mainly juridical. There have also been, and there are, private organisations, the Society of Friends, the Academic Assistance Committee, and some smaller committees,
1210
and I would especially speak of the unparalleled generosity of the Jews. But the plight of the refugees in Austria and Germany is quite beyond the resources of private organisations, especially now that Austria has been added.
It is vital that the Governments of the world should act, and act together, if the work is to be done. That is why the initiative of President Roosevelt and the American Government is so welcome, and it is expected that the Permanent Organisation which commences next week in London will have the full support of the Governments. The Evian Conference was a beginning, and there are certain tangible gains already manifested. First, the United States is publicly committed to an active part in international work for the care of refugees. Secondly, the Inter-Governmental Committee is competent to deal with the refugees before they have left Germany and Austria, and therefore is in a position to convert the exodus from a disorderly flight into a planned migration. Thirdly, Inter-Governmental machinery has been set up with a specific task, whereas previously, for the most part, the refugees service was incidental to the general work of the League of Nations, and the direct responsibility of the Governments was not immediately engaged.
But this beginning must surely be vigorously followed up, if the gains are to be of use, by positive and energetic action by the Governments concerned. Those who have given the deepest and longest thought to the refugee problem are of one mind on the point that there must be German collaboration, that there must be, naturally, a willingness to allow machinery to work in Germany for all grades of refugees, the non-Jewish as well as the Jewish. The fundamental point may be put in this way, that the refugee problem of Austria and Germany cannot be solved unless the non-German Governments can secure some concessions from the German Government, by which the refugees can take a proportion of their property with them into emigration. At present the German Government both expels its unwanted subjects and robs them of their goods. That is an action that cannot be justified on any ground of morality or honour. Thirty nations came together at Evian to try to devise plans by which the "involuntary migrants

1211
from Germany" can establish themselves elsewhere. It is surely asking little of Germany that she should co-operate in these plans, to the extent of allowing those migrants to take with them some property which will give them a fair chance of starting life anew in a fresh country.
I would ask for the very particular attention of His Majesty's Government to this point. I would ask that His Majesty's Government should declare at the proper time in unmistakable terms that it regards this as one of the items calling for settlement in any plan of general appeasement in Europe, and I would make an emphatic point of German co-operation here. The American initiative was responsible for the Conference at Evian. The French Government offered hospitality to the Conference and has already sheltered an immense number of refugees. The Committee meets in London next week. It is not too much to say that on the constructive and practical co-operation of the British Government at this stage the future of the Austrian and Germany refugees in a very large measure depends.
Everyone is grateful to the Government for what they have already done and for the concessions or arrangements announced by Lord Winterton at Evian. I note especially (1) the decision of the Government to ratify the Convention of 1938 defining the juridical position of the refugees; (2) the promise to endeavour to absorb the refugees already in England; (3) the promise to allow a limited number of fresh refugees from Austria; and (4) the promise of consideration for settlement of refugees on the land in certain East African Colonies. I also take the opportunity of expressing gratitude for the notably humane and sympathetic administration of the laws regarding aliens by the Home Office officials. But by themselves these things only touch the fringe. Something more ample is required, something to indicate what new things the British Government are prepared to do. It is not an exaggeration to say that in this particular department all eyes are on Britain. If the British Government give a generous lead and show that they really mean to find a solution, the British Government will get far more from America than America has yet offered, and many
1212
other countries of Europe will respond accordingly.
What does giving a lead involve? There are two points on which I hope the Government will be ready to declare their willingness to go further on present lines: first, increasing facilities for training and apprenticeship of younger Germans and Austrians in this country; and, second, more precision regarding the distance to which the British Government are prepared to go in opening the door in Colonial territory, something more than a purely general statement about Kenya or Northern Rhodesia. Are the Government prepared to facilitate the settlement, not of a few hundreds but—what I am told on excellent authority, Northern Rhodesia is able to bear in the way of European settlers—a considerable number of thousands—50,000 or 100,000? The question of Palestine is a different question and a very difficult question, no doubt. That also comes into the picture.
But there is another point, which I believe to be a very important point for non-German Governments generally. In my humble opinion the passing out of Germany of an appreciable stream of industrious, intelligent, able-bodied Germans ought to be a great positive gain to other countries. They could bring in new wealth and new work, and they could help to check the alarming fall in the net reproduction rate from which the principal countries of Western and Northern Europe are suffering, as also the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The refugees can be considered as a special kind of migration. I should like to quote a passage from a leading economist who has written upon population trends and international migration. He says:
"There are, of course, only two ways of increasing the population in a given area. People may move in, or those already there may have large families. We know, however, that even in the New World, where the opportunities for additional workers are undoubtedly most promising (if we take a fairly long view), the population is already barely reproducing itself. Using the measure suggested by Dr. Kuczynski in the present volume, we know that mothers in Australia and New Zealand are not producing enough girl children to keep up the number of future mothers, and that they are barely doing so in the United States, and that in Canada only those of French extraction are reproducing themselves at that rate. Unless the trend of the birth-rate is reversed, migration alone will make possible the development—in so far as it depends upon a larger labour force

1213
—of these regions which offer the human race—both those who settle and those who trade with them—a better life."
The noble Duke who represents the Dominions in this House last Wednesday called attention to the serious fall in the birth-rate of this country, and he said that unless the present tendencies are reversed there must be a sharp drop in the total population. And I quote from the Report of the Oversea Settlement Board:
"Both in the United Kingdom and the Dominions the birth-rate of the British stock shows a downward trend, and the population is growing older in its composition. The seriousness of this situation is obvious from the point of view of the social and economic life of the community and of defence."
That, I suggest, is a good reason in itself for facilitating migration into this country of suitable younger men and women of an assimilable stock, and I do not hesitate to say that a reinforcement of our population from younger able-bodied refugees of both sexes from Germany and Austria on a pretty large scale would be to the great advantage of this country. The argument that the number of immigrants necessarily increases unemployment is not to be sustained. A well known economist says that:
"The notion that a bare reduction of the number of residents would serve to reduce the number of unemployed, and an increase to increase unemployment has always been regarded as crude in the extreme by those who have given any thought to the problem involved."
And I am informed on excellent authority that the existing German refugees in this country have provided employment for a number of British workmen at least quite as large as the number of refugees.
I realise that the manner of bringing them in needs care, and that there must be a proportion between the Jewish and non-Jewish sections, but there is no reason, I suggest, why a real opening of the doors should not be welcomed by the public provided it is made clear by the Government that it is part of a farsighted and therefore patriotic policy. After all, these Germans are good men and good women—they are not vagabonds. I would also point out that a reinforcement of British stock by foreigners has been part of the tradition of British policy until comparatively recent years, and I hope we shall not yield to any racial heresy which may prevent us from renewing it. Any one who will take
1214
the trouble to read such a work as Cunningham's History of Alien Immigrants into England, knows how great is the British debt. He says:
"It is clear that for the whole of our textile manufactures, for our shipping, for numberless improvements in mining, in the hardware trades, and in agriculture, and for everything connected with the organisation of business we are deeply indebted to the alien immigrants. Their influence on other sides of life is less easy to assess and trace; but it is none the less real."
And may I add as regards the origin and character of the non-Aryans, when we remember that the largest part of European civilisation is derived from non-Aryan sources, it is impossible to pretend that the so-called non-Aryans are not a part of European humanity.
My last request to the Government concerns consultation with the Dominions. I realise that the whole responsibility for migration into the Dominions is a matter for each self-governing Dominion itself, but the change in the centres of pressure of population throughout the world is of deepest significance for the British Commonwealth. Russia's population is growing rapidly—175,000,000—and the net reproduction rate is enormous. Other countries in Southern Europe are growing, and there is pressure from Asia. But the birth-rate in the Dominions is falling rapidly. The population composition is steadily ageing, and if the position is to be strengthened by migration from suitable stock—I quote the Report of the Oversea Settlement Board—there is no time to be lost. Last Wednesday, several members of your Lordships' House recalled an extract from that Report dealing with reinforcement by foreign settlers, not as separate colonies—that would be hopeless—but by absorption:
"The incorporation of assimilable settlers, whether of Northern or other European extraction, would itself be not only a source of permanent enrichment to the life of the Dominions, but would at the same time increase their capacity for absorbing migrants from this country. It should, moreover, lead to increased trade between the countries from which the migrants go and the countries in which they settle, and should thereby make a contribution towards what we regard as the urgent need of the world to-day, the more open door to trade and population."
Whatever may be thought of certain sweeping statements concerning great empty spaces, it is commonly agreed that each of the overseas Dominions is capable of supporting a substantially larger popu-

1215
lation than at present. Professor Carr-Saunders, a specialist in world population, estimates a population based on corresponding rainfall areas in the Western States of America of 29,000,000 in Australia. I may be told that this is quite unreasonable. The present population is 6,500,000. It may well take a century (and why not?) to quadruple it. But the population of England and Wales was quadrupled in little over a century. It was 9,000,000 in 1801. If anyone living then had been told that it would be 41,000,000 in 1938, he would have said it was incredible. I should like to quote from the present Prime Minister, who as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech in another place in 1935, referring to the birth-rate, said:
"I have a feeling that the time will not be far distant when the countries of the British Empire will be crying out for more citizens of the right breed and when we in this country will not be able to supply the demand."
Finally, there was a dinner at the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House on June 21 at which the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, made an important speech. He was followed by a very distinguished Cabinet Minister from Australia, the Right Hon. R. G. Menzies. In his speech Mr. Menzies spoke of the importance of the representatives of the Dominions keeping in constant touch with one another, and said that the Foreign Secretary is the guiding hand in foreign policy for the British Commonwealth. He said that foreign affairs were not European but world affairs, and there should be one voice of the British people and not six voices. I call special attention to these words in his speech:
"From time to time there is a great deal to be said for the English statesman who said, many years ago, that he had 'called the New World in to redress the balance of the Old.' I should like to think the people in these islands more frequently turned their eyes outward to that New World and said to themselves more frequently, 'What is the consequence in the affairs of the world of this new British world which is to be found in all the Seven Seas?'"
I suggest that one great world matter in which this new British world, found in all the Seven Seas, may redress the balance of the Old World is this problem of the refugees.
Accordingly my request to the Government is to ask whether they will announce
1216
at the proper time that they have decided to call the Evian representatives into consultation, either before or at the next meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee in London, so that the Committee can be informed in some detail as to what share the British Empire will take in receiving refugees from Germany and Austria. The whole problem of refugee work is vast and difficult, and I realise that its handling requires immense care and immense patience, but I claim that it may be solved if the Governments of the world will act. On the British Government, in particular, because of its position in the world, lies a great responsibility. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate in his sympathetic and cogent speech has taken a comprehensive survey of this wide question. For my own part I propose to limit myself to only a section of it. During the last two or three years I have been closely connected with one of the voluntary organisations which have been endeavouring to cope with this problem, and I will offer to your Lordships a few observations based upon that experience. I think, however, I shall be speaking in the name of all the voluntary organisations in this country and elsewhere when I express the gratitude which we all feel to the President of the United States for his initiative in summoning the Conference at Evian, and also to Mr. Myron Taylor, the principal American delegate, for the energy and efficiency with which he conveyed that initiative at Evian. Further, we feel a great debt to Lord Winterton, the principal Government delegate, for his efficient and useful service.
The chief value of the Evian Conference perhaps is this, that it has brought out clearly before all the world the fact that this question of the refugees is not merely a matter of domestic moment to Germany, but is also of importance to all countries which may be directly or indirectly affected by the flood of humanity that has been poured out from Central Europe. At the beginning, when the persecution started in Germany five years ago, there was a headlong flight of about 50,000 people who threw themselves upon the hospitality of the neighbouring countries, and since then there has been a more gradual emigration of about 100,000 people from Germany. Now the events in

1217
Vienna have pressed out a further great body of people. Indeed, the German administrators in Vienna seem to have deliberately endeavoured to create a feeling of panic and terror among the Jewish population in Vienna and the smaller population in the Provinces, in order to compel a speedy emigration and to arouse such feelings of sympathy in the rest of the world that the emigrants will be accepted. Hundreds, indeed thousands, of arrests have been made in the last few weeks, quite indiscriminately, amongst the Jewish population of Vienna. People have been in prison for short periods or sent to concentration camps, and pledges have been extracted from them that they will leave Austria within a fixed number of months, or even of weeks. The Consulates of Britain, the United States and other countries have been surrounded by crowds of hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of people in the streets clamouring for visas to enable them to escape from this terror.
This, as I say, and indeed it is obvious, constitutes not merely a local problem but affects all the countries of the world that may be countries to which these people would go, for they are placed in this dilemma: are they to harden their hearts and shut their doors against these people who are seeking refuge, which will be contrary to their own feelings of humanity; or, on the other hand, are they to throw open widely their doors and allow in perhaps a great flood of indiscriminate emigration, numbering tens or hundreds of thousands, with perhaps serious effects upon the economic situation of their own people? It is quite true, as the right reverend Prelate has said, that emigration, if it is gradual and if it is of persons carefully selected, would not embarrass but would enrich the country which accepted it. It may not cause increased unemployment, but may diminish existing unemployment. As the right reverend Prelate has said, here in England this present emigration has unquestionably given fresh employment in certain trades to British people. Exact statistics are difficult to obtain, but an answer given by the Government in another place some time ago shows that undoubtedly immigrants from Germany have succeeded in founding a number of new industries that have employed British people certainly to the extent of thousands, though how many thousands
1218
it is difficult to ascertain. And similar information points to a like result in Holland, where some statistics have been obtained.
Furthermore, among these refugees are a number of men of eminence in science, in medicine and in other walks of life who are of value to the countries to which they go. There has been some discussion recently whether this country would be wise to open its doors to doctors from Vienna. Well, it is well known that some of these men have world-wide reputations. People from all over the world go to specialists, sometimes in Germany or Austria or Switzerland. Many of these belong to the Jewish race, and if we can attract some of these people to London surely that is not a disadvantage to London. Rather it will be of value to our population in improving the facilities given here for the highest skill in medical and surgical science. Do not let us, out of excessive patriotism, he like the character in the play who said that he had so much confidence in his own doctor that he would rather die under his care than be cured by anyone else.
And, indeed, all through history there are many examples of countries deriving great advantage from immigration of this character. One of the chief dates in the history of European civilisation is 1453, when Constantinople was captured by the Turks, with the result that men of learning and of science were driven out of the Byzantine Empire to other countries, to give an immense stimulus to the progress of human thought and human activity. To-day, by a strange coincidence, some of those who are now being driven out of Germany have gone back to Turkey, where they have been welcomed in the universities and in the professions. And so we have the converse of the movement of five centuries ago. To India also, and other parts of the British Empire, individuals have gone, and to the advantage of those countries. Here, also, a number of emigrants have come who will be of great service to this community. I would endorse what has been said by the right reverend Prelate as to the sympathetic attitude that has been adopted by the present Home Secretary, and by the Home Office generally, in dealing with the difficult problems that arise in this connection.

1219
But after all, my Lords, those who can be accepted in these various categories in European countries are only a fraction of the whole body who are being driven out from Central Europe. We must consider in addition other ways of handling the problem. Of course the principal and simplest remedy would be if the persecution were to be stopped, but that perhaps is too much to hope for. Germany in this matter has quite deliberately and consciously stepped down to a lower level of civilisation. We have the strange phenomenon of the publication of that newspaper Der Stürmer, which brings so much disgrace, not upon the Jews, but upon Germany, the publication of which is not only permitted but is officially encouraged, special frames being placed in the various towns for its exhibition in order that the public may read it freely. The publisher, Herr Streicher, has been given the place of honour at the right hand of Herr Hitler at important public ceremonies in Germany. Indeed, it is not only the Jewish community in Germany and Austria which is subject to persecution. As the right reverend Prelate said, there are the so-called non-Aryans who number some hundreds of thousands, and there are those like Pastor Niemöller who stand up for religious liberty and free expression of the faith which they hold, who also are subject to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
I have been reading lately a book which some of your Lordships may have seen, called Germany Speaks, which contains statements, by many of the leaders of different departments of the German State, of the Nazi point of view. While it has a section in which it points out that Germany under the new régime has respect for the principle of law, and that courts function and are bound by the Statutes of the country, it does not mention, it says no word of the concentration camps and of the arbitrary arrests and imprisonment without trial. Pastor Niemöller, for example, having been acquitted and released by the court of law to which he was subjected and before which he had open trial, was immediately re-arrested without charge and without trial and has been in prison ever since. In those circumstances we cannot hope or expect that persecution will stop at the source. The only remedy is emigration, so far as that can be effectively organised.
1220
About forty thousand of the Jews who have left Germany have gone to Palestine, but in Palestine now, owing to events with which we are all too unhappily familiar, there is a refuge for only an exceedingly small number.
This is not the occasion on which your Lordships would desire a general discussion of the Palestine situation. Perhaps such a discussion might be desirable a little later in the year, when the Report of the Boundary Commission has been published and the political situation has thereby been clarified. May I be permitted, however, to make a very few observations with regard to the present situation in Palestine? I revisited that country last March and came away with a somewhat pessimistic impression. I felt it my duty to communicate to the Secretary of State for the Colonies my view that the situation there was very bad—which was obvious—and that it was not likely to show improvement but more likely to deteriorate. That, unhappily, has proved to be the case in recent months. I fear that the present situation offers little prospect of early improvement. When this matter was debated in your Lordships' House a year ago on the Report of the Peel Commission, I ventured to express my view that the main recommendation of that Commission for partition was a wrong one and would not bring peace to Palestine. I very much regret that it should have been precipitately adopted by the Government without any opportunity being given for either of the two great communities concerned to express their views and say whether they were prepared to accept or reject that solution. The results during the past year have been most lamentable.
For my own part, I am still convinced that the present policy is not one that will be successful, and I still adhere to the alternative which I ventured to lay before your Lordships' House in some detail a year ago. I am convinced that it is essential that both sides should make some sacrifice—that the Jews should realise that in the presence of Arab opposition they cannot obtain 100 per cent. of their demands, and that the Arabs must realise that they cannot stop the movement to establish a Jewish home in Palestine, but may be able and are entitled to safeguard their own legitimate position. An accommodation therefore is called for between the two sides. Mean-

1221
time there is great loss and great suffering in that country. British soldiers and policemen are called upon to sacrifice their lives and abominable crimes bring death and mutilation to many innocent people. The whole situation in the Eastern Mediterranean is adversely affected by the present situation. In this connection the result has been almost, though not entirely, to close that outlet for the persecuted Jews from Germany and Austria.
I have had opportunities of seeing many of these persons—manufacturers, merchants, shopkeepers, doctors, architects, scientists, men of irreproachable character, intelligent, efficient, who had added to the resources and welfare of the community to which they belonged. Now their families are broken up, their sources of livelihood are closed, an honourable existence is denied to them, and they are cast upon the world, forced out indiscriminately. In the endeavour to cope with this situation, the Committee with which I am connected and its allied organisations have raised in this country by voluntary subscription a sum which now exceeds £1,000,000. In other countries similar organisations and other sources have collected further sums, the combined total being estimated at more than £5,000,000 during the past five years. In addition to that sum these people have been able to bring out some of their own resources, and many of them have received financial help from friends and relatives in America or in other countries, so that in general the sum that has been raised is very considerable. All this has been done during the last five years.
These moneys, so far as voluntary organisations are concerned, have been devoted, first, to urgent questions of relief in Germany, in Austria or in countries of immediate refuge; to retraining people for other occupations where they belong to professions already crowded in which there is no demand for their services, and to the expenses of emigration, and of settlement on the land or in industry in other countries. Many people ask why an effort should not be made to bring out the people wholesale by the hundred thousand and plant them in some one country. Many countries have been suggested in different parts of the world. No doubt here and there some measure of
1222
collective emigration might be permitted, but our experience is that the cost of such measures is enormous and renders these schemes impracticable. To settle a family on the land in a country which is not already prepared for colonisation costs on the average at least £700 per family and even more than that. Consequently, if you have £1,000,000 you can only settle fourteen hundred families or thereabouts. No doubt something can be done in this direction. The right reverend Prelate mentioned Kenya and Northern Rhodesia. These schemes have been and are being carefully explored, and I believe something can be done in that direction; but I fear his estimate that it may be a matter of fifty thousand or of one hundred thousand is, on account of the cost, excessive. You would need many, many millions for an undertaking of that character.
At the most the immigration into countries of Europe or land settlement in other countries can only deal with hundreds of cases, whereas our problem is a question of hundreds of thousands of cases. Consequently the conclusion to which those of us who have been devoting our time and attention to the problem in the last few years have come is that the main resource must be found in the possessions of these people themselves. A good many of them fortunately have been in fairly comfortable circumstances. They are eager now to find new lives in other countries. If only they were allowed to take with them the property that belongs to them, they would be able to make homes and new livelihoods for themselves in other countries. The poorer classes could be helped partly by them and partly also by voluntary organisations in other lands. The main difficulty of the situation arises from the fact that in Germany that is precisely what has been stopped.
At first people who left the country were permitted to take 75 per cent. of their property, leaving behind 25 per cent. as a special tax. Then the proportion that they were allowed to take out was reduced to 30 per cent., and then to 10 per cent., and now in effect it is reduced to nothing at all. First they are stripped of their possessions, and then, in effect, they are ejected from the country. Those

1223
countries to which the emigrants may go are surely entitled to protest against a policy such as this. Indeed, the Conference at Evian, in its final act there, included this paragraph:
"Considering that if countries of refuge or settlement are to co-operate in finding an orderly solution of the problem before the Committee they should have the collaboration of the country of origin, and are therefore persuaded that it will make its contribution by enabling involuntary emigrants to take with them their property and possessions and emigrate in an orderly manner."
That at least may be demanded. If persecution is not to be stopped, at all events let the conditions be such as to enable people to leave in an orderly fashion and with some prospect of being able to be accepted in other countries and to make a livelihood there.
The matter was well summed up in a sentence in a leading article in The Times a few days ago:
"A policy of merciless confiscation is unworthy of a great country, and the unloading of forced migrants in a destitute condition is an offence against humanity and the community of nations."
If that concession should be made by Germany, then perhaps this problem can be solved. If it is not made, I am bound to say that in my judgment the problem is absolutely insoluble. The Evian Conference, I think, came to a wise conclusion in providing for the establishment of an organisation to be set up here in London to continue its work and to give it practical application. I should have preferred that this organisation should have been under the auspices of the League of Nations had it been practicable; but in view of the fact that America is supplying the initiative and driving-power in this matter, and that Germany is the country with which it will be necessary to have negotiations, and in view of the fact that neither America nor Germany is a Member of the League, it must reluctantly be admitted that some fresh organisation is necessary. I think that all of us who are concerned in this matter are glad to know that the new organisation will have a distinguished American as its chairman, and an American, also of experience and capacity, as its director.
That is all that I wish to address to your Lordships. Strangely and unexpectedly in this modern age, the spirit of persecution has again lifted its
1224
monstrous head. Governments and peoples of nations where justice is still regarded as a supreme principle, and good will among men as an object worthy of pursuit, if they cannot stop the persecution that is now proceeding, may at least do much to soften and palliate its most cruel effects.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, I have asked permission to be included in the list of those who address your Lordships on this subject this afternoon for a quite specific reason, which I will explain in one moment. But first I think it worth while noting the significance of the fact that this debate on the Motion of the right reverend Prelate precedes a debate on the wider issues of foreign policy. I for one believe that this subject of the persecution of the Jews in particular and the problem of refugees in general may well turn out to be one of the most influential topics governing the whole subject of the pacification of Europe. It is quite right and proper that the debate should be used for the purpose of submitting to His Majesty's Government constructive proposals, both with regard to finance and with regard to the technique of migration, so far as these unhappy refugees are concerned. But I venture to hope that it will not be thought unseemly if I use the occasion of this debate for a slightly different purpose.
The Evian Conference, as was quoted by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, referred to the necessity of some collaboration in this matter from what are called the countries of origin. I venture to hope that it will not be thought improper if I use the debate in your Lordships' House to make an appeal to the German Government that they will consider to what extent it is possible to modify their procedure in this matter and to collaborate so far as the solution of this terrible problem is concerned. I venture to make that appeal, because I happen to be among those in this country who for nearly thirty years have been under the indictment of being pro-German. I make the appeal not merely on humanitarian grounds; I make it for reasons of political wisdom. I believe that this issue will have repercussions in the very near future upon the negotiations towards a new peace settlement that are taking place in Europe.

1225
If this country and Germany should ever drift apart again and should ever find themselves upon the brink of war, I personally do not believe it will be due to some breach of contract or breach of law. It will be due to our discovery in the course of the negotiations that there is a disparity of outlook between our two countries, so far as humanity and cruelty are concerned, and because of the discovery of that disparity of outlook there will be an absence of confidence which will make it exceedingly difficult to carry through to success those negotiations which both Germany and this country so ardently desire.
It is for that reason, the reason of political wisdom, that I venture to urge the German Government to respond to the Evian Conference, and become a collaborator in solving this terrible problem. One has no right, when appealing to Germany, to forget that this problem of the post-War refugee is by no manner of means confined to troubles which have originated in Germany. Russia, a country which we believed was building up a new social order, based upon social idealism, has been the country which has been foremost in bringing back into Europe the evils of persecution and has been one of the principal obstructors of attempts to deal with the problem of refugees.
I look back to the various stages of Anglo-German relationships. I can remember that before the War some of us were admiring and extolling the culture and achievements of the German people. I can remember that we pointed to the geographical position of Germany, situated as she was in the very centre of Europe, and we realised that that geographical disability had affected her history in the past, and must affect it in the future. We realised that Britain, situated as she was, protected by the sea, had been able, because of that security, early to achieve mature political wisdom, and to gather round herself a commonwealth of free peoples. We realised that Germany had desired what we in this country had desired, but had faded in that achievement. Consequently, when the War came I can well remember that under the leadership of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald some of us protested against the proposition that the sole responsibility
1226
for that War rested upon the German nation. In 1916 we pleaded for a peace by negotiation, rather than a peace by a knock-out blow, and at the time of the Versailles Treaty we protested, not merely against the terms included in the Treaty, but against the manner in which the Treaty was being negotiated, for we realised that you could not build up the peace of Europe upon the foundation of a humiliated nation. Thereafter when the War was over we pleaded for the inclusion of Germany from the beginning in the family of the League of Nations, instead of five years afterwards, as was the case; and at stage after stage of the Disarmament Conference, in your Lordships' House, some of us begged most earnestly for the end of the discrimination and of the inequalities that were imposed upon the German people. Finally, even when Herr Hitler introduced into Germany a régime which some of us found difficult to understand, and which if I may say so was contrary to our British way of looking at the art of government, we have continued to plead for good will and understanding between Germany and this country.
I have ventured to say these few words about the past, simply in order that I may shape my contentions with regard to appealing to Germany about the present. I believe that if Germany continues the policy which she is now pursuing with regard to the Jews and other refugees she will bring about an impediment to that peace which we all desire to see established. The moment at which she is carrying on that policy is strangely unfortunate. During the last few years there has grown up amongst every grade of opinion in this country a longing for conciliation with Germany. The British people have realised, and realised with some measure of shame, their part in the responsibility for the last few tragic years, and just at that moment, when good will was apparent, Germany has seen fit to impede that growing good will by this new barrier of misunderstanding. America was the principal agent in bringing about the calling of the Evian Conference. That reveals the attitude of American opinion, and it will be indeed a misfortune if American and British opinion should be driven away again from Germany.
Germany is not only impeding friendship but bringing dishonour upon herself.

1227
Perhaps there I should check myself, because no country has a record, so far as minorities are concerned, which is entirely a clean one. Even our own nation, not in the remote past but as recently as the period of the Black and Tans in Ireland, has upon its record incidents of which it is ashamed, and I have already referred to Russia as the country standing for social idealism which again has a record much to be deplored. It does seem to me infinitely tragic that Germany should start upon a course of persecution which is dishonourable. Why do I venture to use that word "honour"? It is because it is a word which to a German means a very great deal. Germany is peculiarly sensitive in her conception of honour, but the persecution which she is now carrying on has a peculiar quality of wickedness about it. We all understand that every Government, every nation, will at times impose suffering and persecution upon its political opponents, particularly upon opponents who may seem to it to be guilty of a violent and seditious policy. Persecution of political opponents is something common to all countries. I have myself known what it is to be the guest of His Majesty's Government in this country for quite a considerable period of my life, and therefore I have reason to understand that all Governments see fit at a certain time to consider certain members of the community to be out of order. But the persecution which is being carried on in Germany is not that of persecuting opinion, but of persecuting blood.
I have known myself, as a guest of the German Government, what it is to be taken through the lovely countryside in Germany, and then to feel the profound discomfort which comes from seeing those placards of hatred against the Jews which encounter you as you pass through that country. Some of us have known in Germany, even when we have been the guests of the German Government, what it is to have in our hands the hand of a little German child, a child which in school has been compelled to sit upon benches separate from its school-fellows, an object of contempt, for no other reason than that it is the child of its Jewish parents. I cannot conceive anything more cruel than to try to stir up hatred between child and parent. That is not a persecution of opinion, that is not an attempt
1228
to put down sedition, that is persecution of blood, from which there is no escape; and, for a child to be brought under that form of persecution, I think must stir the heart of anyone who has passed through that experience in Germany.
Germany has said that British democracy is degenerate. Well, I for one was never more proud of British democracy than when Professor Freud, that great scientist, aged and infirm, became an exile from his country and was welcomed within our shores. There was taken to him as an invalid the register of the Royal Society in order that he might inscribe his name therein, an act which I believe has never been carried through in this country except for members of our Royal Family; and thus degenerate democracy linked an exiled and distinguished Jewish scientist with members of our own Royal Family. That seemed to me a cause of pride, and not a sign of degeneracy. I hope I have not spoken too unrestraintedly, but this whole attitude of the Germans, with whom we are so longing to see a peace settlement, is affecting issue after issue which comes directly within the purview of any settlement that will have to be made.
Take the question of German Colonies. I think most British people realise that when those Colonies were taken from Germany they were taken not strictly in accordance either with the spirit or the letter of the Fourteen Points of President Wilson. I believe that most schools of thought would be eager and anxious to bring about some readjustment of the Colonial problem as part of an all-round peace settlement. But do not our German friends realise that just as we have become conscious of an old wrong they now confront us with the dilemma of facing a new wrong, and that we cannot overlook the consequences upon native populations in those Colonial areas when we see the tragic evils which are being perpetrated in Germany so far as German minorities like the Jews are concerned. And so I have ventured to use this debate to plead that there may be some response from Germany to the desire of the Evian Conference for collaboration.
May I say, in conclusion, one word so far as our own Government are concerned? I join in the words of gratitude which have been addressed to the

1229
Government, not only for their efforts at the Evian Conference, but for the humanity of administration which all of us who have had contact with the Home Office know to exist under the guidance of the present Home Secretary. I feel quite confident of this, that this new problem of our time, the refugee problem, is going to grow in scale rather than to diminish. I have my doubts—and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will forgive my expressing them to one who is so much more experienced than myself—as to whether so vast a problem is likely to be solved by what is called infiltration. I believe that we are going to be faced not only with the problem of refugees from Germany and Austria, as we have been in the past from Russia, but possibly by a problem extending into other countries in South-East and Central-Eastern Europe, and the scale may become immense. I cannot therefore but feel that it will have to be dealt with as a problem of resettlement rather than as a problem of infiltration, and that there will have to be set up a conference or committee representing the Governments of many nations, who will deal with this subject from the point of view of settlement rather than from the point of view of infiltration.
But whatever may be the rights and wrongs of that complicated issue, the British Empire is vitally involved. We cannot avoid our history. We are the owners, directly and indirectly, in this Commonwealth of ours of one quarter of the whole of the earth's surface, and we cannot continue to talk about law and the protection of law and of law-abiding procedure and remain in possession of a quarter of the earth's surface, unless we begin to think of how we can collaborate internationally to use that vast area to meet a problem such as that which we are discussing this afternoon. It must impose sacrifice upon us in some shape or form. We, the British Commonwealth, will be compelled, as I think, to share some part of the suffering which at present rests upon the shoulders of the unhappy Jews and other minorities. The Jewish people are returning right back to the centre of the world stage, and I believe that that problem of the Jew is going to affect the geography of the British Empire, the economic prosperity of the Empire, and also the morality of our Empire.
1230
The Jewish people are a people to whom civilisation owes an enormous debt of gratitude. They are a people who can bring, with their genius, great gifts in return for great understanding; and I feel that, far from our losing as an Empire, we should gain in the end by restoring to the Jew the dignity which he ought to possess by liberating his spirit with some measure of happiness after these centuries of persecution. And I believe that if the Empire will respond, despite all the difficulties, we shall have cast our bread upon the waters and it will be returned to us a thousandfold. I hope I have not spoken too unrestrainedly in making that appeal both to the Government of Germany and to our own Government.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should have hesitated to follow in this debate my noble friend Lord Samuel who has given so much time, experience and wisdom to seeking a solution of this problem, if it had not been that perhaps I too in a different way have had contacts which may enable me to make some small contribution to your Lordships' debate. In any event, I confess that I should have found it difficult to be silent in a debate upon this particular topic. For, after all, the reason why this problem of refugees is occupying your Lordships' minds to-day is to found in the propagation of a doctrine, systematically conceived and ruthlessly applied, which seeks to degrade Jews without distinction below the status of citizens of their country, and almost to expel them from the category of human beings. The Jewish community in this country has, as my noble friend has pointed out, striven to make its own contribution to the work of alleviation, and it has been my task to be Chairman of the special appeal which was made earlier in this year on behalf of Austrian Jewry. Ever since that fact became known in such little as survives of the Jewish Press in Germany and Austria, I am not exaggerating when I say that it has been with dread that I have turned at each post to my letters, knowing as I do that infallibly there will be amongst them appeals as poignant as they are genuine, to most of which, unfortunately, we are impotent to reply.
I do not propose to harrow your Lordships or take up time by giving individual instances. As to the circumstances which have produced this situation I say no

1231
more than this, that an ancient, proud, and gifted community such as was that of Vienna does not clamour to be uprooted in a state bordering upon destitution from what has been its home for generations unless conditions of life in that country have been made intolerable. Further than that, if perhaps Jews may claim one virtue for themselves, it is that they have a strong sense of family life. Yet you have now the spectacle of parents begging that their children may be taken away from them, realising that they themselves cannot get out of the country, begging that their children may be taken away, that their family life may be shattered, so that at least their children may be enabled to start a fresh life, albeit in a strange land where they will lack the guidance and protection of their parents just at the age when they are most in need of them.
Your Lordships will not perhaps wonder if those of us who are intimately concerned with this problem feel sometimes that it is, perhaps to a disproportionate extent, over-clouding and obsessing our lives. But there are brighter spots. Reference has been made to the attitude of the Home Office in this matter, and I only desire from my own personal experience to add a word of gratitude. Realising as we do that the paramount duty of that Office is to preserve the interests of the people of this country, at the same time we deeply appreciate their efforts, consistent with that duty, to adopt a sympathetic attitude to those who apply to them. May I also, in all sincerity and humility, say that we have been deeply and gratefully moved by the action of the most reverend Primate in setting aside a recent Sunday, with a gesture transcending all barriers of creed, to be a day of intercession for those who are persecuted? Memory of action of that kind does not quickly pass.
And then there is Evian itself, and the humanity and idealism which promoted its calling together. May I say one word—and it will be a very brief one—on one aspect of Evian? There were not a few countries, largely South American ones, which laid emphasis upon their willingness only to take such immigrants as were prepared to work upon the land, and there may have been some amongst your Lordships who thought that that restriction would operate largely to exclude those
1232
who were Jews. If illustration were required of the inaccuracy of that view, it would not be necessary to look further than Palestine, where some 25,000 Jews are actively working on the land and, together with their dependants, constitute an aggregate of 56,000 persons directly dependent on the land for their livelihood, or almost one in seven of the Jewish population of that country. Nor is it confined to Palestine. In addition to agricultural communities in Poland, Rumania, and Czechoslovakia, there have been established by a body with which I happen to be connected, acting as trustees and administrators of a large sum of money left now many years ago by a Jewish philanthropist, seven colonies in the Argentine Republic where there are now some 15,000 persons—Jewish immigrants into the Argentine—working on the land, and some 10,000 engaged in supplying the needs of these colonies, staffing the co-operatives, and generally indirectly connected with that work. Something like half of the colonists have, in the course of years, purchased their own land and are independent landowners to-day.
With the repayment that they have made it has been possible to establish other persons on the land, and it is not too much to say that these colonies, established as they were in remote and virgin territory, have been a striking success and give no little hope and promise for the application of such schemes as we have had adumbrated for Kenya or Northern Rhodesia. We have striven with all our power to see that there should come out from Germany and from Austria, not untrained and haphazard refugees, but trained and organised emigrants. But the cost of establishing families upon the land is enormous. In the Argentine experiment to which I have just referred the cost of one family is little under £800—half for the purchase of the land and half for the provision of the necessary livestock and implements. These figures are, as has been pointed out already, obviously far beyond the sphere of any private benevolence; nor can we in fairness ask those Powers who were represented at Evian themselves to furnish the necessary funds.
Therefore I come back to the only solution that presents itself again to me, the solution of persuading, even now, the German Government to reverse their policy of confiscation, and thereby to

1233
withdraw the officially authorised presumption upon which that confiscation is based—namely, that any money in Jewish hands must have been criminally acquired. It is perhaps singular that during past generations the taint upon that money has escaped all those non-Jews in Germany and Austria who have worked happily for Jewish employers and who have benefited from Jewish charity. Evian has in my view realised all but the most extravagant hopes. It was admittedly only a beginning; it could be nothing else; but it has already had the result of establishing this permament Committee in London. It has, I believe, built enduring foundations of hope in many countries, and it has at least demonstrated that the conscience of mankind neither slumbers nor sleeps.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I speak with some discomfort this afternoon because I am aware chat a great many of your Lordships are anxious to get to the further stage in this afternoon's proceedings which has been arranged by those in authority. I am not unaware of the difficulties of arranging business in your Lordships' House, but I am inclined to think that we are supercharged, so to speak, this afternoon in those aspects of international affairs which we are assembled to consider. It is only my knowledge that the discomfort of the refugees is greater even than our discomfort this afternoon that leads me to intervene in this debate. I shall, however, confine myself entirely to the subject of the Motion and not stray into other international matters which will be dealt with subsequently in this House. The Lord Bishop of Chichester, I think, does deserve gratitude for the very moving way in which he spoke this afternoon in bringing forward his Motion, and I would join with those who have thanked him as well as with those who have expressed gratitude to President Roosevelt for yet another humanitarian move in a distracted world.
The reason for my intervention is that I happen to be the only member of your Lordships' House who attended the Evian Conference. I propose to confine myself, therefore, mainly to the actual occurences in that Conference in order that we may see what the Government have done in co-operation with other Governments, and what they still might
1234
do to further the problem before us. That Conference, as has already been pointed out, was attended by representatives of about thirty Governments, and, in addition, a large number of private organisations sent delegations. The object of the Conference was to deal with Jews and non-Aryans who are still in Germany and Austria but who are being compelled to leave. The attempt was made to secure that that should be the only consideration of the Conference, and that those who have already left Germany and the other types of refugees who have been referred to should continue to be the object of the organisations already in existence, such as the Nansen Office dealing with Russians and Assyrians and Armenian refugees, and the League High Commissioner for refugees who deals with non-Jews and Jews who have left Germany.
That High Commissioner's work, which was referred to by the Bishop of Chichester, has been done with very limited resources, and has consequently not been as great a success as we should have hoped. Many of your Lordships will recall the retiring letter of Mr. James G. McDonald, the first High Commissioner. He said his task was hopeless because he had no resources. The Nansen Office, dealing as we have been reminded, with Russians, Assyrians, Armenians and others, has itself deteriorated very seriously since the death of Nansen. There was a very interesting letter by Major Johnson in The Times of July 14. Major Johnson was the League Assistant High Commissioner for Refugees and the Secretary-General of the Nansen International Office for Refugees. He pointed out that after Nansen's death political considerations were allowed to dominate the refugee work, and refugee factions controlled the direction and even the day-to-day administration of the Nansen Office, with the result that Governments antagonistic to those elements insisted on the liquidation of the Office. Now the fact of the matter is that that has gone on, and there has been considerable friction. There is now a proposal to amalgamate the High Commissioner and the Nansen Office.
I am particularly anxious that the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, should deal for a moment or two in his reply with the proposals for this amalgamation. What is needed is a person of the outstanding personality of Dr. Nansen, a person of

1235
international authority who will command the respect of the whole world. Secondly, we want to avoid this refugee control in future; I mean avoid the putting in of the refugees themselves into the various offices in different cities and countries, so that we shall avoid this antagonism which has been referred to by certain Governments who are involved. I think it is most desirable also that we should recognise the temporary character of the work of the High Commissioner and of the Nansen Office, because in the course of nature many of these refugees die, and many of them become absorbed, and, particularly in the countries where most of these refugees are, their children no longer are refugees because they take up the nationality of the country in which they are born. That then is the position with regard to other refugees.
As regards the Evian Conference the difficulty it had to face was that it had to avoid giving support to suggestions or decisions which might encourage a growing pressure on Jews in Poland and Rumania, who might be forced out of those countries if too great ease were shown in receiving masses of refugees. That was one of the factors behind all the deliberations, and it is very necessary to realise in this country the pressure of what I might call potential refugees who will burst out if it is too easy to find a place for mass or large-scale settlement. The other factor that has to be watched is the possibility of such large-scale settlement causing a rise in anti-Semitic feeling in the countries for which the suggestion of settlement is made. There is no secret of the fact that many people are perturbed by the rise of anti-Semitic feeling in a large number of countries at the present moment, and nothing should be done in my opinion to exacerbate or cause a rise in that very dangerous state of mind.
The speeches of most of the delegates were very guarded. They were not exactly optimistic, yet I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that the mere existence of the Conference did raise hopes of increased efforts. The British Government are to be congratulated, I think, on being the only Government which sent a full-fledged Minister as head of their delegation, certainly the only Government
1236
that sent a Cabinet Minister, and I believe he was the only actual Minister who attended. That gave the British delegation a position of considerable advantage in dealing with the problem. Lord Winterton made a very good survey of the general position, and I thought that if it was not exactly constructive at least it was sympathetic. His reference to East Africa was valuable. Perhaps I might remind a previous speaker in this debate that Britain does not own a quarter of the world. It is a common mistake to imagine that we own the Dominions. We do not. The Dominions are autonomous regions of precisely equal sovereignty with Great Britain. We do not own a quarter of the world, and therefore we are not in a position to dictate to the Dominions what they shall do as regards those they desire to receive or not to receive inside their areas.
The problem was first of all the countries immediately bounding on Germany and Austria, what I would christen "transit" countries—countries where a very large number of refugees come in, not for the purpose of settling, but for the purpose of being translated, so to speak, into another country. Particularly, of course, France, Switzerland and Holland are in that category. The next type of country was the highly industrialised country, rather like Great Britain, which is clearly not a country of large-scale immigration, and of course the third category was the countries of settlement, such as the largely undeveloped countries of South America and other parts of the world.
I attended this Conference not for the purpose of supporting quantitative settlement, of large numbers, but of what I may call "qualitative" settlement, which means what has already been referred to by a number of speakers in this debate: the raising of the quality of the refugees so that, instead of being useless persons coming into a country unable to do anything, they shall have been trained and shall be fully capable of contributing something to the industrialisation or the agricultural development of their country. This type of work has another effect, because if these training schools, industrial and agricultural—in which I am particularly interested—are established in large numbers in the countries of what I might call potential emigration, such as

1237
Poland and Rumania, they will have the effect of dealing with the refugee problem at its foundation—namely, of preventing people from becoming refugees. That, after all, is a most important factor, because Poland and Rumania together have some 4,000,000 potential refugees as compared with the mere 500,000 which we have heard is the total in Germany. Therefore the training of these people in the industrialisation which is growing in these countries should, I think, be encouraged by the Government in every way possible by doing what they can to secure support for the organisations which are doing that work, because it kills at the base this potential refugeeism, which will add so enormously to the problem in the world and, in fact, make its solution, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, impossible.
Then, of course, these training schools must be established in countries where the emigrants go—training schools in industry, training schools in agriculture in transit countries such as France, where they have already been established; training schools in the countries to which the refugees will go, such as the Argentine, and training schools, in so far as is possible, in Germany and Austria. Already one such school is doing excellent work in Germany, training in industry these young boys so that they will become welcome immigrants wherever they may end. Sir Neill Malcolm, the High Commissioner, made a very masterly survey to the Evian Conference, and in the course of his remarks he used these words. He said it would be far easier for both the Dominions and other countries to receive considerable numbers of aliens if they were introduced as individuals capable of finding occupation and becoming affiliated. Infiltration was therefore likely to produce better results than a mass migration. That means that the quality of these immigrants is more important than the consideration of quantity, because good quality diminishes the opposition to the immigration of future refugees after the earlier refugees have become valuable settlers in the country.
Finally, in this connection let me say that I consider that the mere existence of the Conference was an indictment of what is going on in Germany and Austria. The human problem has already been referred to, and we were particularly
1238
moved by the stories told to us by the representatives from Vienna, particularly Professor Heinrich von Neumann, that famous specialist, who had himself undergone a suffering almost incredible if he had not told us of it. The problem in these countries has been made worse by the thousands upon thousands who are applying for visas to get out of the country. The American, the British, the French Consulates are overrun with these applicants for visas; so much so that it is interesting to know that the authorities in Vienna have established offices for the issue of forged visas to France for which the refugees are being asked to pay. I do not know whether there are forged visas for this country, but certainly that has been done as regards France.
What can the Government do in this matter? In the first place I should like to ask Lord Plymouth whether it is possible to do anything in connection with the Oversea Settlement Board. I see that the Board, which was appointed in February, 1936, was asked to consider and advise on any matter relating to oversea settlement which may be referred to it by the Secretary of State. Is there any reason why this Oversea Settlement Board should not have referred to it some of the aspects of the problem which we are discussing this afternoon? I hope that we may have some sort of assurance on that matter. Earl Winterton in his speech said that the Government intended to ratify the 1938 Convention. I should just like to ask Lord Plymouth to confirm that that Convention, the gist of which is in Command Paper 5780, will be ratified at the earliest possible date—namely, August 9. One other point: I turn to page 30 of that document and I see this recommendation:
"The Conference recommends that countries which have not yet taken any steps of this kind, should consider the institution of an advisory committee to examine the situation of refugees, or should put into practice an appropriate method of co-operation with private organisations assisting refugees."
I should particularly welcome a statement from the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, as to whether in fact such an advisory committee has been set up or will be set up, and, if so, who will be in charge.
Another point which Lord Winterton raised was in these words. In his speech to the Conference he said:

1239
"Facilities have been freely given to young persons to undertake a course of education or enter industrial enterprises for training or retraining."
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, if the Government, considering this country as a transit country, will in future increase these facilities, and particularly will the Government allow training in agriculture? We heard from Lord Reading a few moments ago that some of the South American countries wanted their recruits to be trained in agriculture. Will the Government do something to ensure the possibility of the training in agriculture in this country of these transit refugees who will arrive here and then leave to settle in some other country?
I should also be interested to have from Lord Plymouth some information as regards the attitude of the Government to certain problems facing the new Inter-Governmental Committee. I would like to know whether the Government have any ideas with regard to the measure of co-operation between that Committee and the League of Nations. I should also like to know whether the Government are consulting with the United States Government so that they may have a common policy on the Inter-Governmental Committee. I believe that to be very important. I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that a separate Committee was inevitable, for the reasons which he gave, and I also agree with him with regard to the possibility of bringing some capital out of Germany.
Let me remind your Lordships of a very touching letter written by a Conservative Member, Commander Locker-Lampson, which appeared in The times a day or two ago. He said:
"The exiles have been stripped and despoiled of their possessions by a policy of plunder. But there is one form of capital of which even Nazi extortion has been unable to rob them—the capital of the creative mind."
That is the capital which makes it advisable and necessary that this country should do all in its power to aid the refugees. Earl Winterton recognised this in his speech when he said the traditional policy of Great Britain
"has been to offer asylum to persons who for political, racial or religious reasons have had to leave their own countries."
And he went on to say:
"The United Kingdom has never yet had cause to regret this policy, and refugees have
1240
often enriched the life and contributed to the prosperity of the British people."
Bearing this in mind, I hope the Government will make a far greater contribution in the future than was outlined at the Evian Conference. I am certain that, if the Government are able to do rather more on these lines, it will not only be a help to the refugees but will have far-reaching results as an example to other countries in the world who may be persuaded by that means to do more in this matter.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the subject which has been raised by the right reverend Prelate is one in which we know he takes the very deepest interest. It is a matter of the very greatest and immediate importance. At all times the people of this country have shown a very great concern in regard to it. I think it will also be admitted that His Majesty's Government have always approached this problem of post-War refugees with the very greatest sympathy and with a whole-hearted desire to do everything they could to assist in its solution within the limits of what appeared to be possible. The difficulties that stand in the way are only too obvious and have been referred to by a number of speakers. I wish to say this before I go any further, that I do not think that anybody who had the privilege of listening to the speeches we have heard this afternoon, could have failed to be very deeply moved by them. Because we feel that this is a difficult problem, and at the same time one with regard to which the people of this country feel very deeply, I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government will give the very closest attention to what has been said by various speakers this afternoon in a desire to help to solve it.
I had thought it possible, after having perused the actual terms of the right reverend Prelate's Resolution, that he might have referred in greater detail to the more general question of the post-War refugees than he actually did. He did make a passing reference to the work of Dr. Nansen in this direction, and quite rightly paid a warm tribute to him with which I, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, would wish to associate myself very closely indeed. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Marley, made reference to

1241
the work that was being done by the League of Nations on this matter and he asked me if I could confirm what he understood to be the position there. I can most certainly do so. The position at present is that both the Nansen Office and the mandate of the High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany and Austria will terminate at the end of this year. As a result of the Soviet Government withdrawing a difficulty which they raised at one time—action which we certainly appreciate—the Council of the League of Nations have proposed that one single organisation should be constituted after the end of this year in order to take the place of the two existing organisations. That matter will come before the Assembly in September, and it will be for the Assembly to reach a final decision and to make final proposals.
But in view of the fact that this aspect of the question has only been lightly touched upon, I feel I can perhaps more profitably make use of the comparatively limited time which I consider to be at my disposal, by referring to the more immediate aspects of the situation and the situation which has been created as the result of what has developed in Germany and Austria mainly in recent months. I think, therefore, that being so, I had better, in the first place, give His Majesty's Government's version of what actually occurred at Evian. I do not think there is much misconception about it, but I think for clarity's sake it would be advisable that I should do that. Your Lordships naturally know that the meeting was called by President Roosevelt to consider the question of emigration from both Germany and Austria. When he made this proposal His Majestys' Government very warmly welcomed the initiative that he had made and expressed themselves as desirous of co-operating most wholeheartedly and fully with work to give effect to that proposal. I think it might be as well if I remind your Lordships of this point.
This invitation to a meeting at Evian was given on three separate conditions. First of all, it was made clear that, as the result, the countries who participated in that meeting should not be asked to modify their existing legislation in regard to the question of immigration. Then there was a second understanding, and that was that the finance of any new action that was taken—that really requires
1242
qualification: financing any new schemes, I think, puts it more correctly—should remain the concern of private organisations, as I think it was almost entirely in the past. Thirdly, the United States Government wished to make it quite clear that it was not their intention or desire to interfere in any way with the work of existing agencies, such as those referred to, who were concerning themselves, under the auspices of the League of Nations, with aspects of this problem. There were actually present represented at this meeting thirty-two delegates from different countries. The Chairman, as we know, was Mr. Myron Taylor from the United States, to whom tribute has already been paid to-day for the extremely sympathetic and efficient way in which he carried out his duties. His Majesty's Government were represented, very ably, as I think it will be recognised, by the Chancellor of the Duchy, Lord Winterton, and Sir M. Palairet. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland sent delegates to the meeting. The Government of the Union of South Africa sent an observer.
The meeting ended on July 15, and, as your Lordships now know, complete agreement was reached on the subjects under discussion. The meeting had two principal objects in view. The first was to put in motion machinery which would in the long run alleviate the gravity of this problem, and it arranged for the regular meeting in the future of representatives from those countries who had sent delegates to Evian. The second object was to enlarge the facilities for the admission of emigrants from Germany and Austria to countries of permanent refuge and settlement. May I be allowed to say a word about the second point first? The meeting appointed a technical sub-committee to exchange in confidence statements on the immigration laws and practices of participating Governments, and to consider statements of the number and types of immigrants which it was prepared to receive and the question of administration. As a result of the deliberation of this committee, the meeting was able to adopt a resolution which noted with satisfaction that the report held out prospects for increased reception of refugees qualifying for admission under the immigration laws and practices of receiving countries; that certain countries had indicated their desire to consider plans for settlement of refugees in their

1243
territories when such plans were presented by an official or private organisations; and that countries bordering on Germany, while unable, in existing circumstances, to make any substantial addition to their present efforts, might continue to make an important contribution to the solution of the problem by affording facilities for vocational, technical, or agricultural training to refugees to whom temporary asylum had been given. The committee recommended that the Governments should continue to study, in a generous spirit, the problems raised in their sub-committee's report.
Then, as Lord Samuel has already pointed out, a general resolution adopted by the Committee, after drawing attention to the serious problem created by involuntary emigration of large numbers from their countries, laid down the principle that if the countries of refuge were to find orderly solution of this problem, they should have the collaboration of the country of origin, and that involuntary emigrants should be enabled to take with them their property and possessions. The right reverend Prelate, as well as other speakers, has laid particular emphasis on this question, and I admit that I am not surprised that he has done so. I think it is quite obvious that unless collaboration in this direction is forthcoming, the problem, already difficult, becomes immeasurably complicated and is possibly rendered insoluble. It is perfectly clear that no thickly-populated country can be expected to accept persons who are deprived of their means of subsistence before they arrive; nor can resources of private societies be expected to make good losses of emigrants. We therefore greatly hope that countries of origin will assist in creating conditions in which emigrants can start life in other countries with some prospect of success. I can assure your Lordships that this particular aspect of the matter will be one which will be constantly kept in mind in dealing with the whole problem by His Majesty's Government.
The resolution then made a series of recommendations. In the first place, it recommended that the persons coming within the scope of the activity of the Committee should be persons who had not yet left their country of origin—Germany, including Austria—but who must emigrate on account of their political opinions, religious beliefs, or racial
1244
origin, and persons so defined who had already left their country of origin but who had not yet established themselves permanently elsewhere. That is a point of importance, because it enlarges the scope of similar activities beyond what they had been before. A second recommendation was to the effect that the Governments participating in the Inter-Governmental Committee should continue to furnish it, for its strictly confidential information, with details regarding such immigrants as each Government might be prepared to receive under its existing laws and practices, and details of these laws and practices. Thirdly, that the Governments of the countries of refuge and settlement should not assume any obligations for the financing of involuntary emigration. A recommendation was also made in regard to the provision of documents for persons desiring to emigrate.
The Committee also recommended the establishment in London of an Inter-Governmental Committee consisting of representatives of Governments who sent delegates to Evian. Broadly speaking, the function of this Committee was to continue and to develop as quickly as possible the work that had been commenced at Evian. This Committee is to have a Director, a man of standing and authority, whose chief duties will be, first of all, to undertake negotiations to improve present conditions of emigration and to replace them by a system of orderly emigration; and, secondly, to approach the Governments of the countries of refuge and settlement with a view to developing opportunities of permanent settlement. It was further laid down that the Committee should co-operate with the refugee services of the League of Nations and the International Labour Office, whose work His Majesty's Government recognise as having been so valuable in the past. As your Lordships know, this Committee is to meet on August 3 here in London.
I would merely like to say, after this short review of what occurred at Evian, that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom accept the recommendations of the Evian meeting, which your Lordships may take to imply an obligation felt by them fully to co-operate and to assist the work of this Committee in the future. I ought now to add that in the course of the meeting the United Kingdom delegate gave some indication

1245
of the contribution which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom might be able to make, both in respect of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies, to the solution of the problem before the Committee. In regard to the Colonies, he referred in particular to the possibilities which might exist in certain of the East African territories for the settlement of a limited number of refugee families. He mentioned the case of Kenya, where plans for the acquisition of land for the purpose of small-scale settlement are actually under consideration at the present time. He made it clear that, whatever plans might ultimately take shape, the process of settlement must in any event be a gradual one, and that there could be no question of mass immigration or of disturbing land allotted for native occupation.
I cannot go into these matters in any detail, but I may say in general terms that the United Kingdom delegate made it quite plain that there was every desire on the part of His Majesty's Government and of the Colonial authorities concerned to render any assistance that might be found practicable. I am not at the moment in a position to give more precise information in regard to the prospects of settlement in East Africa, but, as I said, the matter is under active consideration, not only in regard to Kenya but also in regard to Northern Rhodesia. I think your Lordships, however, will agree that reasonable time must be allowed for the consideration of what obviously is a complicated problem, and one that means very much to the inhabitants of those particular countries.
Then, as the noble Viscount said, the United Kingdom delegate also referred to the question of Jewish immigration into Palestine, and explained why in the opinion of His Majesty's Government that question stood upon a footing of its own and could not usefully be taken into account at the present stage in connection with the general problems before the Evian meeting.
The right reverend Prelate made reference to the position of the Dominions, and laid stress on the importance of the closest co-operation between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Governments of the Dominions. As the right reverend Prelate himself admitted, the question of the admission of
1246
immigrants into the Dominions and of their subsequent employment there is entirely a matter for the Governments of the Dominions concerned, to be considered in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time in the community for which they may be responsible. But I can certainly assure your Lordships that, both in the preparations for the Evian meeting and at the meeting itself, His Majesty's Government have acted in the closest consultation with the Dominion Governments. This close consultation will certainly be continued in regard to the Committee which is to meet shortly in London. I might add that the four Dominion Governments who were represented at the Evian meeting will be asked to send representatives to the London Committee.
Then again, the right reverend Prelate referred to other matters, such as the facilities which are provided for training emigrants in this country, and also the effect upon the general problem of the falling birth-rate in this country and elsewhere. During the course of the discussion of these problems a tribute was paid to the liberal attitude which had been adopted by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in regard to the administration of the immigration laws, and therefore I think it is only right that I should be guarded in my statement in regard to these particular aspects of the problem, which are chiefly the concern of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. I can say, though, that His Majesty's Government are anxious to do everything within their power to assist refugees from Germany, including Austria, who come to this country to enter factories, workshops and business enterprises for the purpose of receiving technical or business training to fit them for emigration to some other country where they can be permanently settled. The noble Lord opposite raised specifically the question of training in agriculture, but I am afraid that at the moment I am not able to say whether facilities of that kind can be provided or not. I will note the point and inquire into it.
A considerable number of refugees have already had a course of training of this kind, and have been successful in finding openings overseas, and His Majesty's Government will continue to afford facilities to refugees of this type. His Majesty's Government are also prepared to agree to the employment of suitable refugees in this

1247
country, but owing to the unemployment situation it is obvious that the number of such persons who can be placed must be limited. I do not wish to pursue that question further. The right reverend Prelate has expressed certain views which for my part I can only say that I accept with a good many reservations, but it is an aspect of the problem which clearly has to be taken into full account in formulating a final policy. The extent to which refugees can find employment must, in the first instance, depend upon the work of the Co-ordinating Committee for Refugees, whose constituent committees must find places in industrial and commercial enterprises which are not already overcrowded and competitive.
The policy of the open door is not one which would commend itself to His Majesty's Government, and I understand that even the voluntary organisations are opposed to the unrestricted admission of refugees from Germany, including Austria. It was with the object of substituting an orderly for a disorderly exodus from Germany and Austria to the United Kingdom that His Majesty's Government set up in May last a system of visa control whereby persons who, for political, racial, or religious reasons wish to come to this country from Germany and Austria, can be admitted in such numbers as circumstances permit and within the ability of the voluntary organisations to deal with the persons so admitted. The number of visas granted in Vienna during May and June reached a total of approximately 2,800, and the most recent advices from the Passport Control Officer in Vienna indicate that the number of visas granted in July has been maintained at the same level as in May and June.
The question of the falling birth-rate and the possible need of encouraging immigration to meet the situation of a smaller population, which the right reverend Prelate raised, is obviously a very large and very complicated one. It certainly raises issues of a much wider character than are contemplated in the terms of the actual Motion, and would, if pursued, undoubtedly carry the debate into fields which are not perhaps immediately relevant to this refugee problem. In the circumstances I merely feel unable to say anything on that aspect of the situation at the present stage.
1248
There are, however, one or two points I wish to emphasize in my closing remarks. First of all, I should like to draw attention to the harmony and good will in which the proceedings at Evian were conducted. There was a complete identity of views and purpose on the part of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and indeed all other delegations as well. I want also to point out a matter which I know the right reverend Prelate feels is of importance. That is that the meeting concerned itself not only with Jewish refugees, but of course with all refugees, both actual and potential, from Germany and Austria. Then great emphasis was laid during the meeting on the fact that, if an orderly solution was to be found, it was essential that the country of origin should enable intending emigrants to take their property and possessions so that they could start life in another country with some prospect of success. It was specifically laid down that there should be the fullest cooperation between the London Committee and its Director on the one hand, and the refugee services of the League of Nations on the other.
I should like to sum up by saying that the Evian meeting was not only able to lay down a method of inter-governmental action which promises practical results, but also was able to record a general willingness on the part of the participating Governments to place a liberal interpretation on their immigration practice with the object of admitting a greater number of refugees from Germany and Austria than they have been prepared to do in the past. This problem of involuntary emigration, even in the case of Austria and Germany, is not one that can be solved in a few days or indeed in a few weeks, but I venture to claim that the results of Evian are a good augury for the future. Undoubtedly the collaboration of the United States Government will lend incalculable prestige and authority to the work of the London Committee. This work, while breaking fresh ground, will at the same time reinforce and supplement the work which the League of Nations has done and intends to continue to do in regard to this problem. I can assure the House that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will, as far as circumstances permit, continue to promote and encourage both in London and in Geneva inter-governmental action

1249
to mitigate the sufferings and unhappiness to which this problem inevitably gives rise.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the sympathetic answer he has given and for the careful consideration which his speech shows of the various aspects of the refugee problem. I am very grateful to him indeed, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a statement as to the foreign relations of this country and the international situation generally; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have placed upon the Order Paper of the House the Question which stands in my name in the belief that before Parliament rises the Government may have some statement to make, and in the hope that what they have to say will send us away comforted and encouraged. A special responsibility falls upon any Opposition in Parliament which has, with a continuous regard for the public good, to subject the policy and the actions of the Government to the closest scrutiny and criticism. There may, however, be occasions when the public good is better served by restraint than by that unfettered and fierce delight which is always associated with Party recrimination. This may be one of those occasions, and as my contribution to the needs of the hour I shall place upon myself an unusual restraint; but I ask the Government not to take advantage of this painful act of self-suppression by withholding from Parliament any information that it has the right to possess.
I should like to begin these remarks on a non-controversial note—a note of extreme satisfaction and pleasure which we associate with the visit of Their Majesties to Paris and to the French people. The nation is indebted to Their Majesties for their triumphant participation in a very great event, the importance of which we cannot at the moment measure. It is unusual to bring the name of His
1250
Majesty into any of our discussions, but I hope I may assume that our common obligation to him on this occasion makes it permissible for me to do so. I should like also in this connection to pay a word of sincere tribute to the French people for the way in which the British King was received among them, with that grace and enthusiasm of which they appear to possess the secret, and for the care and comfort with which they surrounded the visit of our King. I hope, in saying that, I have the approval of the whole House. We will not attempt to-day to measure what the diplomatic results of that visit may be.
I should like to ask His Majesty's Government some questions about foreign affairs. First of all, in relation to Germany. What is the immediate outlook? Are relations between the German nation and ourselves improving? I should like also, with some hesitation, to ask if any particulars can be given of the visit of Herr Wiedemann. I say "hesitation" because a distinguished German visited the noble Viscount in the privacy of his own home, and no one has any right to inquire what conversation took place between the noble Viscount and his guest. At the same time there is a general belief that Herr Wiedemann did not go to Eaton Square to talk about the weather or to exchange ghost stories with the noble Viscount. Therefore, if he does possess any information that will help us to a proper understanding of the European situation, we should be glad to know. We should like to know whether negotiations are going on with the German nation about better conditions.
Your Lordships know that my admiration for the German system of government has never been expressed in language that was extravagant or exaggerated, but whatever misgivings I and my colleagues have in regard to German policy, we are and always have been wholeheartedly in favour of negotiations. We do not want to see the encirclement of Germany; we do not want a world organised without her co-operation; and we do not wish to withhold from her any right which she is entitled to possess. On the contrary, we want her to resume on the basis of equality—not Germany above everybody else in the world but Germany with everybody else in the world—her old place as one of the great creative forces of modern

1251
European culture. In any effort that Germany makes in that direction she will always have the support of the British Labour Party. We feel that she could begin the effort immediately and to her own honour. We do not force our system of government upon her, and we have the right to require that she shall not force hers upon us. Her citizens are always welcome as honoured guests in our midst, but we do not want her Gauleiters using a British visa to spy upon and intimidate law-abiding Germans who live in our own country; and I would venture to ask her, as her contribution towards a real desire for her co-operation and good fortune, to reconsider her anti-Jewish policy, so unworthy in itself and so unworthy of her best traditions.
I should like to ask about Czechoslovakia. Can anything be said about the outlook there? Are the signs encouraging or are they depressing? We read day by day in the newspapers suggestions that a one-sided pressure is being brought to bear by our Government on this problem, that pressure is being brought upon Prague to make every possible concession, and we should like to know that equal pressure is being brought upon Berlin to co-operate in equal measure. If this pressure is not equal, I warn His Majesty's Government that they will not carry the country with them. The current propaganda seems to suggest that all the obduracy, all the provocation, lies on the side of the authorities in Czechoslovakia. I personally do not accept that point of view. In recent interviews that I had in Czechoslovakia with people entitled to speak for their nation, I gathered that there was no concession that the Czechoslovakian Government would withhold for peaceful relationships short of doing a real injury to the future safety of their State.
Now it is true that speeches have been made by both sides that contain phrases that we could sort out and regret, but there have been very few speeches that are perfect. Speeches are always inclined to bear the colour and temper of the place and the time at which they are uttered. For instance, Kettering is a place to which no future Prime Minister will return, and it may be true that speeches have been made both on the German side and the Czechoslovakian side which we had better
1252
not remember. Our responsibility is to try to get the average temper of these people and to try to use it for the good of both. At the same time, before I leave this field, I would like to express my own doubt as to whether any concession that the Czechs can make will satisfy the Governors of the Reich. With such memories of the philosophy of Sturm und Drang that one has, it is difficult to believe that any pact that Germany may make is more than a temporary suspension of a programme of systematic encroachment. We have no right in this country to require of a Czech Government any concession which we ourselves would not give if we were in their position. I personally do not believe that the Jewish minority in Bohemia will welcome it as a day of deliverance if they are transferred from the Czech Government to that of the Prussian Junker.
In this connection, before I pass from it, I would like to ask one or two questions about the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. It is a most interesting experiment. To attempt to build a bridge over the gap that divides two peoples whose tempers are strained must always be a useful and commendable thing. To approach a problem with a balanced and unbiased mind; to advise, to interpret, to clarify; to encourage people when they are depressed, to calm them when they are impatient, is a task that will require all the faculties that a man possesses. It needs patience, it needs endurance, it needs composure, and above all it needs faith—belief that the thing can be done. Lord Runciman is known to all of us and respected by us. He has great experience; he has proved capacity, great power of lucid exposition, great knowledge of affairs and of the ways of men, and we on these Benches wish him well in his mission. But I should like to ask precisely what is his status. Is he, for instance, under any obligation to report to the Government or to any one what he may say and what he may advise? I feel that it is necessary to safeguard ourselves against any official responsibility for any advice he may feel it right to offer. But if he is to act as a bridgebuilder—and a great Londoner once said, "Blessed are the bridge-builders"—I hope he will build a bridge on which there is traffic both ways, and not merely a one-way traffic of concession from Czechoslovakia to Berlin and no con-

1253
cession on the other side. I hope that Parliament itself will be consulted if any problematical solution is arrived at.
I will say almost nothing about China, because of the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. I would merely ask whether His Majesty's Government's decision respecting the proposed loan is final or whether it may be reconsidered, or whether some alternative help, such as an extension of the export credit facilities, will be granted. I should have liked to ask for information about Palestine, but I will only say that the subject gives to many of us increased anxiety, and the day will come, when the House reassembles, when we shall have to ask His Majesty's Government quite definitely what their record is and what their policy is to be. I should like to ask whether Italian propaganda and bribery have been stopped in Palestine and in the near East; and many other questions relating to that I must pass by.
Finally, I want to ask something respecting Spain. What is the present position? Again we view with increasing anxiety the situation in that unhappy land. On the Labour Benches we never feel that His Majesty's Government have treated us with the frankness that this subject demands. We have urged over and over again the right of the Spanish people to obtain the means for their self-defence, and the only reply has been the endless repetition of a formula of words which were intended to enchant but which really increased our distrust. We have learnt in sorrow that words like "intervention" and "non-intervention" are among the most equivocal in the whole vocabulary of diplomacy. We think that our position is about as commendable as that of a strong-bodied man who stands with his hands in his pockets while he sees two bullies beat up a more or less helpless child. The Government look on while this struggle proceeds, seeing this beating-up take place, and at the same time the victim has one arm tied behind his back. We do not consider that to be in accordance with the best traditions of our nation. It is not cricket; it is not even darts; it is altogether, as it seems to us, unworthy of our position.
I am aware how difficult the situation is, but it is our business to escape from difficult situations and not merely wait
1254
for things to happen. The other day, in hours of glorious uncertainty, a young American airman was not able to distinguish the difference between the Atlantic Ocean and the Alleghany Mountains, but he at least had this excuse, that he was alone. His Majesty's Government are not alone. They have had advisers and critics in this matter through the years in which this business has been taking place. I should like to ask, in conclusion, how the matter stands to-day. After two years of frequent and joyful prophecies of the early triumph of foreign mechanism over more or less ill-armed men, there is no sign of these poor men being beaten. They have put up a most heroic resistance against the might of two military nations, and to me at least it has been one of the greatest and the most moving things in modern times, destined, as I believe, to be recorded among the great events of history. I offer to them to-day a humble tribute of homage and respectful admiration. On the other hand, whenever victory comes—if it does come—to those who have sold themselves to the purposes of other nations, they will have the shame in history of having placed their once free country in foreign chains. I have dealt very quickly with many things that I wished to say, in order to save your Lordships' time, and I now beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name, and to move for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the Question which has been asked by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, so briefly and with such conspicuous moderation, covers an amazingly wide field. It almost invites your Lordships, in the well-known line, to "survey man-kind from China to Peru." So far as China is concerned I would like first to recognise the courtesy of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Elibank, in agreeing to transfer as he did his Motion from the place to which it would ordinarily have been entitled. On that subject I would only just refer to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, on the question of a possible loan to China, to which reference was made in another place and a reply made by the Prime Minister. It seems to some of us that the mere fact that such a loan could not be regarded as a gilt-edged security by the Exchequer would not necessarily be an overriding consideration if the political

1255
arguments in its favour were strong. In another place the Prime Minister mentioned other possible forms of assistance which were under consideration. I do not know whether the noble Viscount opposite will be disposed to dot the i's of that statement any more forcibly, but if he can I have no doubt it would be a satisfaction to your Lordships' House.
The other country, Peru, is not in the foreground of the landscape at present, but Czechoslovakia, of which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, spoke, is, and I would pause for a moment to say a word about that. We all, I think, recognise the extreme difficulty and complexity of the subject. The creation of Czechoslovakia by the Peace Treaties was the putting together of a very artificial piece of machinery. Like many delicate articles of that kind it does not stand rough handling, and it has been of late receiving very rough handling. I feel sure that M. Benes, as I think would be agreed by everybody who knows him, is too experienced a statesman to suppose that, although the Western Powers are determined that Czechoslovakia shall receive the fullest measure of justice in the sense that its complete independence continues to be secured not only on paper but in fact, the Western Powers would give a blank cheque to any of his more extreme supporters who might desire to go further in purely Czech interests than he would himself think possible.
I feel sure also—and I was glad to note what fell from the noble Lord with regard to this—that the country generally will welcome the selection of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, as a missionary, if that is the proper word, to Czechoslovakia. Perhaps as a senior colleague of Viscount Runciman in very old days, I may be allowed to express the opinion that his experience both in the offices he has filled and in the management of his private affairs may make him in a case like this, where many material as well as moral issues are concerned, a more fitting emissary than could be found by the intervention of a man acting purely on a system of political theory or one merely versed in the ordinary practice of diplomacy. I am sure, therefore, that the country will join in what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in wishing the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, every
1256
possible success in his expedition. Perhaps I might also be allowed to back the question which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, asked, so far as the noble Viscount is able to answer it, as to the precise nature of Viscount Runciman's mission. We understand that he is not invested in any sense with diplomatic powers, but I suppose it may be presumed that his reports made to His Majesty's Government will be of some use to them as an important guide to any action that they are able to take.
That subject brings me to another quite different reflection which I hope may not be altogether inapposite in this debate. It is sometimes, I think, too freely concluded that British diplomacy depends upon the examination and the management of our relations with foreign countries, either taken singly or in the mass, so that not enough attention is paid to the diplomatic possibilities of assisting good relations between different foreign countries. On that I would touch for a moment on France, regarding which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, made such a graceful and acceptable allusion to the shining success which has attended Their Majesties' visit to Paris. I should like to say a word on what I conceive to be the fact about the relations of France with some other countries. So far as the United States are concerned, as we know there is a friendship which almost amounts to romantic attachment, dating from a record of history, between France and the United States, and I am quite certain that our Foreign Office will do all that is possible to foster that. But when you come to Europe the relations between France and Germany, though, as I believe, in every way scrupulously correct, cannot be expected to be altogether cordial. There are too many historical memories for that. Leaving the late War out of the question altogether, there are hundreds and thousands of French men and French women who remember 1870 and 1871; and, on the other hand, Germany has, I am sure, never been able to get rid of the memory of Napoleonic tradition and has, therefore, tended to take an erroneous view of French character and very often of French ambitions.
Then I come to Italy. There is no reason that I can conceive why the relations between France and Italy should not be in every respect friendly. There are none of those memories of hostility which

1257
I mentioned a moment ago. In 1854, in 1859, and in the late War, French and Italian soldiers fought side by side. Nor is there in fact, in a real sense, any Mediterranean problem which ought to keep these two countries apart. So far as Africa is concerned it is quite true that both we and France went ahead of Italy in acquiring influence and territory in Africa. But that is because, although in those days there was a country of Italy, there was no Italian nation which could vie with other Powers. But since then the Italian Government has got a large and important footing in Africa, and therefore in the absence of anything which could be called a Mediterranean question, such as might cause animosity between the two countries, it remains a puzzle to me why their relations are not more amicable than they are. I venture to think that the noble Viscount opposite, and the Foreign Office, could do no greater service to the peace of Europe than by encouraging in every possible way the establishment of better relations between France and Italy.
I pass for one moment to the kindred subject of the Spanish conflict, which also may be taken as a cause of difference between France and Italy, because I think it may be assumed that the great majority of the French people, though by no means all, are inclined to favour the Government's side more than that of the insurgents, whereas, as we know, the Italian Government look in the opposite direction. That is a cause of difference of opinion, but there is no reason why it should be more than that, and before I sit down I want to make only this one observation about the Spanish conflict. I cannot help feeling that in years to come this Spanish revolt or civil war, whatever you desire to call it, will take an infinitely smaller place in history than it occupies in the thoughts, and more particularly in the Press, of the world at this moment. It is probably not unnatural that it should be so, because the horrors of the war there have been accentuated, as they have been in the war in China, by the diabolical use which science has enabled warring nations to make of modern invention, and therefore the newspapers are full of heartrending accounts of massacre and carnage, not only of soldiers but of harmless civilians.
It is, therefore, not astonishing that the minds of men and women all over the world should be directed towards news of the conflict. But I repeat that in my
1258
opinion it will not in itself, in any history written in the future, take at all the same place as it now occupies. I think in one sense it will be like "a mist that rolls away." Spain, as I firmly believe, will emerge from it, and will in some way work out her own destiny—in a way which I for one shall not see, but not, I believe, a destiny which will make her subservient either to the principles of Rome or to the principles of Moscow. I have an intense belief in the firmness and depth of the Spanish character.
As I say, in what form it will emerge I cannot pretend to predict. But I must just say this, that if I am right in thus attempting to reduce the dimensions of the conflict, that does explain and defend the attitude of His Majesty's Government in going very far—sometimes some of us think too far—in taking action to avoid extension of the war. Because we all agree that if the war were to spread and become in any way general, then it would be a war which in the history of the future would obliterate the memories even of 1914. That, as I say, may be, probably is I think, the defence which His Majesty's Government would advance. Whether in carrying out this policy they have always acted either with complete adhesion to principle, or with circumspection, or with complete evidence of that restrained courage which is the highest mark of statesmanship, I do not pretend to say. History will have to write about that. But in closing what I have to say I would put that forward as suggesting that when the end of the Spanish conflict does come the effect of it will pass away far sooner than many observers of to-day appear to dread.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to preface the few remarks I have to make by saying that I am not in a position now to move the Motion which stands in my name; I can only speak to it, having postponed it until after Lord Snell's Motion. I propose, however, to pass right to the subject of that Motion, and to speak with regard to the State of British interests in China, a matter which has not been touched upon so far by the noble Lords who have spoken. Since February last when I raised the same issue in your Lordships' House matters there have been going from bad to worse, and it is for that reason that I put down a Motion to-day, in the hope of eliciting from His Majesty's

1259
Government a statement as to what they are doing in order to meet that situation.
Your Lordships will expect that I should give you some facts as to what is happening there. On the last occasion the principal theme of my speech was concerned with Shanghai, and in that place things are still very bad. I should like to give one or two instances of that. The inland waterways and creeks radiating from Shanghai normally carry a very large trade in launches and barges of all nationalities. To-day the foreign vessels have been excluded together, and there are plying on those waterways some 160 commercial vessels of Japanese nationality, which are taking all the trade which is to be had. This applies also on the Yangtze River, where British ships have been prevented from going to Nanking and beyond, although Japanese ships are plying there freely. There is another matter, what is called the Whangpoo Conservancy. The Whangpoo Conservancy is an international service which keeps the River Whangpoo continually dredged. The dredgers and equipment of the Conservancy have been seized by the Japanese, that river is gradually silting up, and large vessels are not able to go alongside many of the wharves.
The Japanese, it is understood, envisage a concession of their own lower down the river, and it is probable that they would like to see the foreign Settlement left high and dry. In Hongkew and Yangtse-Poo, which constitute the northern and eastern districts of the International Settlement and contain the most vital parts of Shanghai, that is, the greater part of the mills, factories, go-downs and wharves, these districts are entirely occupied by Japanese, and they are obstructing in every way they can the foreign industry there. The Municipal Council is not allowed to function, the British Tramways Company is prevented from running its trams, whilst on the other hand a fleet of Japanese motor 'buses has been started and is running regularly. Certain British factories have been closed down altogether, whilst a few hundred yards away Japanese mills are found in full operation. And that is happening inside the International Settlement. Then there is another notorious scandal, and that is the quantity of Japanese goods that are entering Shanghai on the pretext of being military cargo,
1260
whereas at the same time these goods are underselling those of foreign competitors. This shows how wide an interpretation is being placed upon the term "military cargo."
Let me turn to North China. In the wool and sheepskin trade in North China, which was entirely in the hands of British firms in the past, competition is now excluded. Japanese firms have taken control of this, and, with the help of the Japanese military authorities, are doing all the trade that there is. Before the War by far the greater part of Chinese coastal and riverine trade was carried by British ships. What is happening to-day? The Japanese are now planning a Corporation which is to control all coast and riverine shipping on monopolistic lines. We find that at Tsingtao, a very important seaport on the east coast of China, no British ships are allowed to go alongside the extensive wharves at all. No passengers or officers of British ships are allowed to land at that port, and no residents in Tsingtao are allowed to visit British ships. On the other hand, Japanese ships are enjoying all facilities, and if any German vessels visit that port they are granted facilities as well. Surely there is a case here where perhaps one or two of His Majesty's men-of-war might visit that port and obtain fair play for our shipping, as well as for the shipping of other nationalities.
Then there is another very important matter. A Federal Reserve Bank was established by the Japanese in connection with their puppet Government in Peking, with a nominal credit in Japan of 100,000,000 yen. The notes of that Reserve Bank are not convertible into yen for, if they were, an intolerable strain, leading to grave inflation, would ensue. The Japanese evidently hope to buy Chinese banknotes with the Federal banknotes and exchange them for sterling so as to exhaust China's foreign exchange and thus provide the Federal Bank with solid backing. Since June, however, the Japanese have been forcing the Chinese to use the Federal Reserve Bank notes only, thus causing infinite confusion, but it clearly foreshadows an attempt to link North China's currency with the yen, as was done in Manchuria. In Manchuria a recent law has made the purchase of any foreign exchange except the yen practically impossible. The maximum foreign exchange obtainable is 1,000

1261
dollars—about £40—and special permission has to be sought even to obtain that.
The effect on British import trade under these conditions can be imagined, and the British in North China are seriously afraid of a similar attempt to impose the Manchurian law in North China. If the notes of the Federal Reserve Bank can be successfully imposed it will be impossible to save merchants' profits and savings in China. Those who have lived in China and made their lives there, and hope to retire to this country and end their days here, will not be able to leave because they will not be able to withdraw their savings. What do the Japanese say? They say that there is no state of war in China at all, that they are doing all these things in order to protect their own interests, that it is merely because the Chinese are resisting what they regard as a natural act on their part that they are using the means and methods they have adopted in order to get their own way. What has actually happened is that the Japanese have placed nearly one million men in China, that these soldiers are marching through the country, decimating it, destroying it with bombs, and taking possession of it when and how they can, and incidentally, through their Press and other organs, are announcing their intention of not ceasing their efforts until they have subjugated China entirely.
While we may deprecate, as we sincerely do, the ruthless manner in which Japan is waging war upon China, and while we may feel nevertheless that we have no status for direct interference, at least I consider we have a right to protect our own interests wherever they are assailed and to take every legitimate measure to that end. If the Japanese will not listen to reason—and we surely have no desire to fight them in the military sense—then I suggest we should concoct other measures to this end. We have, for instance, an economic instrument which we could use and which could become very crippling to Japan. The Japanese are doing a large export trade with the overseas Dominions, India, and our Colonies as well as with this country. I should like to see the Governments of the British Empire arrange a plan under which, unless Japan respects our interests in China, we will, through import duties and other
1262
means, reduce her export trade within the British Empire to a limit which would make her understand that two can play at that game.
We might, for instance—and I throw this suggestion out to His Majesty's Government—give notice of repeal of the Anglo-Japanese Import Duties Act of 1911. Twelve months' notice is required for repeal of this Act, and perhaps His Majesty's Government might consider giving notice of repeal with a view to further consideration of what might happen at the end of that time. In addition, Japan is expanding her commercial shipping in the Orient enormously at the expense of British shipping and trade. This is a matter we should take very seriously in hand by subsidies to British shipping from India to Japan, from Australia, and so on. All these acts of the Japanese in China against us are done in the name of "military necessity." Some of the points I have mentioned show that no military necessity is there at all. Take the case of the Whangpoo Conservancy, the general conduct of municipal affairs in Shanghai, and the position at the port of Tsingtao. I do not wish to stress this matter, but what I do wish to point out is that, whenever we have stood up to the Japanese, they have given in, such as at Tientsin last December and in the very recent case of the seizure of the British steamer "Tatung."
I have very little more to say, but I submit that I have presented a case which has amply justified my raising this matter to-day. I am fully aware that the Government have an immensely difficult and delicate task, and if they have not achieved as much as many of us would have liked, I attribute little blame to them but rather to a set of circumstances over which they have very little control. I nevertheless would urge His Majesty's Government to continue to use every form of diplomatic and other pressure to induce the Japanese to see our point of view. I observe that there are certain conversations which will be taking place very shortly between our Ambassador in Tokyo and General Ugaki, and I would ask the Foreign Secretary, if these conversations come to a head during the time when Parliament is not sitting, in the next two or three months, that he will convey publicly through the Press, or in some

1263
other way, to those who are interested and affected by Chinese affairs, what is happening in regard to them.
There are two Parties in Japan. There is the military Party which would carry all before it irrespective of international complications or international consequences. There is also another Party, the civilian and moderate Party, which has a wider vision and realises some of the disastrous results of the policy which is being pursued by Japan in China to-day. It is in the ultimate intervention by, and predominance of, this second and moderate Party that I place some hope for the future. As Japan becomes more exhausted through excessive outlet of men and money, this moderate Party will come more and more into ascendancy, and I hope its ideas will prevail. It is to that time that I look forward for a resumption of a better feeling between our two nations and to the possibility of financially assisting China's reconstruction and restoration to normal conditions. I do not believe that this is the time when we can make any loan to China. I believe we might be able to consider something in the nature of export credits or something of that kind, but until we know exactly how things are in China I do not see the practicability of supporting a loan to that country.
British interests in the Far East were not created yesterday. We more than any other nation have helped both China and Japan to grow in power and economic development. Our interests and theirs have been interwoven so long that this connection cannot now without serious injury be suddenly snapped asunder. Business men of all three nations realise this, and I venture to suggest that no stone should be left unturned to recreate the spirit of friendliness which in the past was so fruitful in good will and co-operation.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships will allow me to say one word, because I was in Paris last Sunday, to add my testimony to what has already been said as to the enormous enthusiasm with which Their Majesties were received in Paris. My French friends were full of it. They assured me that not only was the official and formal reception great, but
1264
what struck them was the immense and spontaneous enthusiasm of the people in the street. We have the advantage among others in this debate of having had recently an expression of the policy of the Government from the Prime Minister. I believe I am not allowed by the customs of this House to say where that was made. The Prime Minister expressed himself as being a moderate optimist. If he meant that he did not think there was likely to be a European war in the near future I respectfully agree with him. I do not think there has been the slightest real danger of a European war at any time in the last ten or fifteen years, and certainly not recently, not because of any particular action of this country or that country, but simply because those countries which were the only countries that were likely to provoke a war were too exhausted to do so. But if the Prime Minister means that there is a general improvement I have my doubts. As long as the race in armaments continues it does not appear to me that there is any solid improvement in the condition of Europe. I believe, whether armaments produce war or not, that they are an excellent indication of the sentiments and feelings of the countries that spend vast sums in providing them.
But it was not on the general aspect of the matter that I wanted to say a few words, but on the Prime Minister's statement about the League of Nations. He said that there had been no effective and active intervention of the League, for which he was very sorry. He went on to explain that in his view the use of force by the League appeared to be impracticable. Well that seems to me a very serious statement, because if it is true, and if it goes on being true, it means assuredly the decay and possibly the destruction of the League. He added that it was quite true to say that the League had a wide usefulness, and it is on that part of his speech that I want to comment. He thinks that if this wide usefulness is exerted there will be a return of those Members that left the League because, as he thinks, they did not agree to the use of force. With great respect to him, I do not think it had anything to do with that at all. They left the League because they did not agree to the use of international co-operation, and for that reason only. Therefore, I am afraid that I am not hopeful that his policy will

1265
produce a return of those who have left the League, and I feel very strongly that if we are to abandon the League it means simply a return to the old pre-War system, with the consequences which that system brought upon us.
May I just run through the most common questions of the day to see whether in point of fact the Government are taking any action to build up the League again by allowing it to exert itself in cases which do not involve the use of force? Some of their actions seem to me to be excellent, except for the fact that they entirely ignore the whole machinery of Geneva. There is, for instance, the mission of Lord Runciman to Czechoslovakia, a new thing, a new and more active form of intervention in European politics. But I see no harm in that if it is going to produce, or assist in producing peace. The only thing I do venture to press upon the Government is that this talk about Lord Runciman going out, as it were, just as a private individual, and the belief that is apparently being spread that his action will not involve in any respect the responsibility of the Government, seems to me an illusion. It is plain that if he takes action and persuades one of the parties to adopt a proposal which is rejected by the other, that will involve a very serious responsibility on the shoulders of the Government.
Though I do not at all regret that, or disapprove of it, I hope that the Government are looking at it from that point of view, and are not buoying themselves up with the idea that they can send out Lord Runciman and that if he succeeds well and good, and that if he does not succeed then their responsibility will not be increased. I am quite sure that is an illusion. Of course, if it had been possible for him to have gone out as a representative of the League of Nations the situation would have been different. As he goes out as a representative of the Government it is the Government, and the Government alone, that must bear the responsibility of what happens.
I want now to touch upon Spain for a moment. I attended a big meeting in Paris, and I was immensely impressed with the vehemence of the feeling about Spain. I think I was not deceived. It was an almost formidable state of feeling, and I want the Government to look into that and consider it. The object
1266
of their policy, as I understand it, is to avoid the Spanish war extending itself beyond Spain. That is all right; but if they produce a state of feeling in some of the countries, and particularly in France, that they are being asked to hear the intolerable weight of what they regard as unjust treatment of the Government of Spain, that will not contribute to the peace of Europe. It will only, on the contrary, create a very grave danger. I know that the Government are very anxious to put an end to the fighting, which is the only real security we can have, but I understand they do not see any prospect of any mediatory action.
I saw a gentleman to-day who had come back from Spain, not an Englishman, not a Frenchman, but one coming from one of the northern States of Europe. He gave me a most terrible description of the sufferings that are being endured, probably on both sides, though he only saw one. It is really terrible. He seemed to think that in the side that he was on not less than 400,000 children were in danger of starvation, apart from the adult population. When I asked him, "How then does the fighting go on?" he said: "Well, of course, the fighting goes on because, under the conditions in which war is there being waged, if they do not fight they will be shot. If they were to give in, there would be a wholesale slaughter." I am interested to observe a passage in a newspaper with which I do not generally agree, the Evening Standard, which rather confirms that view:
"Truly, the Republican resistance is remarkable, and no doubt it is the resistance of desperation. Those engaged must believe that the fate awaiting them on the day of surrender puts peace proposals out of the question. As for General Franco, his advance is made at heavy cost. Indeed, the question arises, how long can he stand such fearful losses? "
Those few sentences surely give a picture of the kind of horrors that are going on in Spain.
I cannot think that it is either our interest or our duty not to make some desperate effort to put a stop to this state of things. I do not know if this is part of the wide usefulness in which the League might be asked to take a part. I should have thought it was. I should

1267
have thought that proposals from the League, offering on the one hand some kind of guarantee of safety if peace were made, and on the other hand some promise of the effective financial assistance which would be absolutely essential if Spain were to get on its legs again, might produce some result even on minds which are consumed with the blood-lust which I am afraid exists to a great extent in that unhappy country.
Then there is China. My noble friend Lord Elibank has just made a speech in which he has described how terrible it is that a great deal of money is being lost by British concerns and British interests—which mean British financial and commercial interests. That is a very serious matter, no doubt. Still, I cannot think that is the most serious issue that is involved in the Chinese war. If any of your Lordships happens to have read a description of the way in which the Japanese are making war in China, he well think that a loss of even thousands of pounds is relatively a trifle to the incredible horrors that are being perpetrated in that country. I think there are other and stronger reasons for trying to put a stop to the war than those which my noble friend adduced; yet I agree with him in thinking that we have means of action, particularly if we can take it in common with other countries, which would be very powerful to induce the Japanese to reconsider their enterprise. My noble friend is not here, I am afraid, but I rejoice in, and I would congratulate him on, a step which I hope means that he is going to become an active member of the League of Nations Union. At any rate he has represented the view which I hold, certainly, very strongly: that we have not yet exhausted our powers of putting a stop to the Japanese war.
I cannot think that we have a right to sit quietly. We have promised to do everything we can to help them. We profess at intervals that we desire to do that, and yet we do contribute in fact to Japan the means of carrying on the slaughter of the Chinese. I cannot think that that is right. I venture to hope that the Government will reconsider even now their policy in this matter and that they will go to the League of Nations and suggest a definite policy of excluding or diminishing exports from Japan to this country and to the Dominions so long
1268
as the Japanese continue their war. Something has been said about financial help to the Chinese, and there, too, I hope that the Government will find means of doing something. Personally, however, I would much rather see the war stopped by some kind of measures against the Japanese than by giving the Chinese power to fight more vigorously than they are fighting. Both are right, but it seems to me that the pressure on the Japanese is more right and more likely to be effective than the assistance to the Chinese.
I have only one more topic on which I want to say a word, and that is the question of refugees. I confess that I do not take a very hopeful view of the result at Evian. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that those who see in it a great awakening of good will on these subjects are right. But what is it? We are merely creating a new committee of Government representatives, a very large committee, which is to act, we are told, through a smaller committee. I have seen a good deal of these Governmental committees; indeed, I served on one for a considerable time, and I came to the conclusion that of all the useless human devices they were the most useless. Nothing was done. When any proposal was made, the members of the committee immediately said, "We can come to no decision; we must refer to our Government," and nothing was ever done. Under American chairmanship—we had an American, by the way, as High Commissioner—it may be that you will get more results, but I do not see how you can, from the very nature of a Government committee. I should much rather have seen a committee of experts in this matter—there are numbers of them, admirable people—formed to draw up a really good plan of how the whole refugee question ought to be dealt with, its extent now, and the extent it may be expected to assume in the future, how far it can be dealt with by infiltration—and remember, as my noble friend Lord Allen very properly pointed out, there is great danger in carrying infiltration too far—and how far it can be dealt with by some means of mass settlement in less occupied countries.
I hope that something on those lines may yet be developed. I feel that it is rather reckless, after the immense effort which the Government themselves have

1269
made to secure unification of machinery in order to deal with this refugee question, that we are now, having secured the unification of Geneva, going to set up an entirely fresh organisation outside Geneva. That seems to me a very bad plan. It may be inevitable; I know the difficulties; but it seems to me to be simply going back on everything that we have been trying to do and the Government have been trying to do for the last two months. I hope very much that these fears will turn out to be exaggerated or unfounded. Certainly I fully recognise that our only duty now is to do our very utmost to make this plan a success. I confess that I cannot help feeling that in this matter, too, in spite of the excellent reasons that have been referred to against that course, it would have been better to stick to the League and the League machinery. Anyway, that seems to be the Government policy. It is not only in these contentious matters, not only in the question of sanctions, but inevitably, I think, if you say to the League that they are not going to interfere in the major questions, and if that policy is pursued, it means ultimately the destruction and abandonment of the League, which seems to me, I confess, a very grave and serious result.
I still believe that you can make this great experiment, the greatest experiment of the kind that has ever been tried, a success. I am told I am a wild visionary, guilty of midsummer madness (as I was once told) for holding that view, and yet others far better qualified to judge have held the same view. My noble friend Lord Arnold, the other day, was good enough to cite the late Lord Salisbury on the other side. I am quite sure he did it in absolute good faith, and I have no complaint to make of his having done so, but having looked at the passage I am satisfied that he interpreted it altogether wrongly. The late Lord Salisbury on that occasion was dealing with a proposal for a special alliance between this country and another country which was to be carried out secretly, and he rightly pointed out that that would not be a policy which would be likely to receive the support of the country. I then told my noble friend that I was aware of another passage two or three years earlier in which the late Lord Salisbury took a very different line on the question of some organisation to
1270
maintain peace amongst the Powers in Europe. He was speaking of the Concert of Europe, and since the passage is only one of three or four sentences perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read it.
It is not controversial so far as the Government and I are concerned, except that the Government will not do what they say they do. Referring to the Concert of Europe, the late Lord Salisbury said:
"Remember this—that the federation of Europe is the only possible structure of Europe which can save civilisation from the desolating effects of a disastrous war."
He went on to say—and this might have been written yesterday:
"You notice that on all sides the instruments of destruction, the piling up of arms, are becoming larger and larger, the powers of concentration are becoming greater, the instruments of death more active and more numerous and are improved with every year, and each nation is bound for its own safety's sake to take part in this competition. These are the things which are done, so to speak, on the side of war. The one hope that we have to prevent this competition from ending in a terrible effort of mutual destruction which will be fatal to Christian civilisation"—
which did, in fact, happen less than twenty years later, in 1914—
"the one hope we have is that the Powers may be gradually brought together to act in a friendly spirit on all questions of difference which may arise until at last they shall be welded in some international constitution which will give to the world as a result of their great strength"—
collective security, in fact—
"a long spell of unfettered and prosperous trade and continued peace."
That opinion, no doubt, must have been in my mind, though I was not aware of it when I began to take an interest in these subjects. Of course it has been confirmed by great authorities since then—by the late Lord Grey and many others who have given great attention to these subjects. I still remain of opinion that it is the one hope, and that there is no other. If we go back to the old system, as I am afraid the reasoning of the Prime Minister indicates, we are going to have another desolating war which will be the end of Christian civilisation.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, although the fatal hour has arrived I can assure the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I do not intend to say more than a very few sen-

1271
tences. I have not had any definite information with regard to a banquet, but I do not imagine that I shall take up very much time. I always want to agree with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, because he puts things so nicely, but I cannot manage it. His criticism of the Government to-day with regard to non-intervention I thought was unfair. It is all very well to say that non-intervention has failed. The Government never expected that it would succeed. The object of continuing the policy of non-intervention was to prevent a European war, and that, anyhow, it has so far succeeded in doing.
I want to join in the congratulations to the Government on the appointment of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. It is a wise move, an original move, and, judging from my knowledge of Viscount Runciman over many years, I consider the choice is an admirable one. If there is any man with a judicial mind it is Viscount Runciman, and that is what is wanted in this contingency. But I agree with the noble Viscount who has just sat down that we should like to know more of the relationship between Viscount Runciman and His Majesty's Government. I saw that when Viscount Runciman was approached he "gladly accepted." I thought that was wonderful on his part, but I should very much like to know exactly what his position will be, because it is a little bit difficult to think of a private individual intervening in negotiations between two countres. Although it may be successful I do not think that he ought to be placed in too difficult a position. On that question I should like the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to tell us, if he can, whether the Sudeten Germans have agreed to this function that Viscount Runciman is to fulfil, as I understand the Czechoslovakian Government have done, because of course it is a sine qua non that agreement must come from both sides if Viscount Runciman's mission is to be satisfactory.
I must say that I do not consider the Government during the last year or two could have had more difficult situations to deal with. In almost every country difficulties have cropped up in regard to which it is very necessary to keep one's head and to avoid what is so common in the discussion of international affairs,
1272
that is, laying the blame on some particular nation. I think people in discussing foreign affairs are far too apt to do that. My association with foreign affairs may lave been brief and intermittent, but it was sufficient to make me learn the positive lesson that no nation is completely to blame in any situation, especially when you have got a complex situation such as we have to-day when nations are closely drawn to one another. When I hear people inveighing with great violence against His Majesty's Government or any other particular Government, saying they are solely to blame for the situation, I believe that is entirely unfair.
Just one word with regard to Spain. I agree completely with what the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said just now. He very often sums up with the historical view the situation of to-day. When he said that the Spanish situation would not loom so large in the future as it does to-day with all its horrors I am sure he was speaking the truth. These situations arise, and inevitably to-day they arise in a very cruel form. I was reading some correspondence of the early 'seventies—and I really had to rub my eyes—when there was a Spanish Revolution, atrocities in Spain, the autocratic behaviour of Bismarck, his suppression of the Church, troubles in Paris, war in China. It might have been to-day. Spanish Revolutions have taken place two, three, four times in the last century. I do not think it is a good way of managing the affairs of a country to substitute a revolution for a general election, but they do that, and horrible as the time is now that has to pass before the fighting is over, it will pass, and those who want General Franco to win make a very great mistake if they think that the conclusion of the war is going to be the finish. It is not. He has then got to begin to govern Spain, and if he thinks that he makes it easier if he exterminates his fellow countrymen he is in error.
I rose only to put one plea before His Majesty's Government, and I hope the House will be patient if it has heard it before. The nations are arming as they have never armed before in the world's history. The burden laid on the backs of the people in the various countries is borne and accepted because they are deliberately inspired by fear of being attacked with modern weapons of war.

1273
Leading statesmen in all countries know that arms are no remedy and no solution, but leave matters worse than they were; yet the competitive race in armaments continues. His Majesty's Government are honestly anxious for appeasement, conciliation, and negotiation. Do the Government realise that the armaments on which month by month they are learning more strongly to rely, so far from being a help must be a hindrance to any lasting settlement in the long run? Why? Because the extent of your armaments is the exact measure of your mistrust of the people with whom you want to deal. But of course it will be said: "We are not alone; we are doing simply what others are doing." That is the time-honoured excuse for wrongdoing on which the weak always fall back to excuse their vices. Disarmament is not going to come from any simultaneous agreement between the Powers. It is going to come, and it will come some day, from following the example of the nation which first proclaims its distrust and abhorrence of the whole method of warfare, more especially taking into account what that means to-day. Ministers of the Crown here to-day frequently express their distrust and abhorrence of war to us, but they go on just the same. Let them proclaim it to the world, and have the courage to leave off.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord who leads the Opposition for having given to the House an opportunity of taking a general review of foreign affairs before we separate for the Recess, and for having given to me an opportunity of making certain observations in reply to the speeches that have been delivered in the course of the debate. If I am not able to deal with all the points that all your Lordships have raised, it will only be because I am rather conscious that the ground I would have to cover is so wide that I might unduly strain your Lordships' patience.
I will begin, as the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, also began, with the Far East, and say something about the speech which was made by my noble friend Lord Elibank. In the Far East, during the last year, events have been happening that have deceived the hopes of all those who had looked forward to a better era in
1274
the history of the world. Your Lordships are sufficiently familiar with what has been passing. By their acceptance and by their support of the League Resolutions in this matter His Majesty's Government have joined in passing a moral judgment on the conflict in the Far East; but it will also be within your Lordships' recollection that the Conference in Brussels in November last showed fairly clearly that no agreement was to be expected for any proposals which would amount to intervention in the conflict. There is, however, the other aspect of events to which my noble friend alluded, and, although I agree with the noble Viscount opposite that it is truly to be held subsidiary to the main question of the moral right and wrong that is involved, it is nevertheless true that His Majesty's Government have had for more than a century important interests in China. The Japanese Government claim that the action which they are taking is in defence of their interests in China, and we have every right to expect them to recognise that if they have certain interests to protect we have the same, and are not unmindful of our responsibilities, which we have every intention to discharge.
I can assure my noble friend that we are quite ready to consider, and are indeed already considering, the possible action open to us if we do not get that consideration for our interests and rights which we have a right to expect. The noble Viscount spoke of several matters, such as the navigation of the Yangtse and inland waterways, the Whangpoo Conservancy, access to British property in certain districts of Shanghai, and British interests in the railways. All these matters are at the present time under discussion between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, and pending the outcome of these discussions, which quite obviously touch very closely British rights and interests that the Japanese Government have promised to respect, the noble Viscount will not expect me to go into precise details, but I shall bear in mind the wish which he expressed that at the earliest moment the result of these discussions should be made public. Then he spoke of the position at Tsingtao, and with regard to that His Majesty's Government are satisfied that there has in fact been discrimination at Tsingtao,

1275
and on instructions His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has made strong representations on that matter to the Japanese Government. From a recent report it appears that the Ambassador at Tokyo hopes for early remedial action, if indeed this has not already been taken.
Then my noble friend raised two other questions, the evasion of Customs Duties by the Japanese, and the question of the North China currency. With regard to the first, up to now it has only been possible to induce the Japanese to agree that regular Customs Duties at Japanese-controlled wharves should be paid on all Japanese commercial cargoes provided the examiners are of Japanese nationality. With regard to the second, His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the difficulties of the situation and of the dangers that they involve for British trade. The introduction of these Federal Reserve bank-notes would appear to have been a very ill-advised decision from every point of view, including that of the Japanese Government themselves. The Japanese Government have frequently stated that it is not their intention to place any unnecessary obstacle in the way of British trade in the parts of China which they at present occupy, and it is not necessary to point out that any attempt to impose in North China the same kind of restrictions as exist in Manchuria would be entirely inconsistent with those assurances. On the larger question it must be the hope of us all that these hostilities, through which such cruel damage is being done to human life and also to Chinese culture and economic life, may soon end.
Several of your Lordships have referred to the question of a loan to China, on which my right honourable friend spoke in another place, and in regard to which he explained that in present circumstances it had not been found possible by His Majesty's Government to meet the wishes of the Chinese Government for such a loan. He pointed out, moreover, that there was no certainty that the loan would in fact achieve its object of maintaining the Chinese currency during the war. Several of your Lordships have also said that you hoped that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider other proposals that might be advanced, proposals, for example, on the lines, I think my noble friend said, of export
1276
credits. I can readily assure your Lordships that we shall be entirely ready to consider other proposals of that kind on their merits, as and when they are made to us. At the Brussels Conference there was manifested a general desire to offer good offices if and when those might appear to be helpful; and for their part His Majesty's Government will be entirely ready to contribute their effort in every way whenever they can see a hope—of which I confess I do not see much to-day—of profitable result.
I turn for a moment to make a few observations in regard to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who is not here to-day but who kindly excused me from answering him yesterday, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, to-day, with regard to the League of Nations. Almost exactly two years ago I had the honour of making a speech in your Lordships' House on the same subject. At that time the League had by its withdrawal of sanctions against Italy acknowledged its incapacity in that instance to stop a war. As a result of political developments since the foundation of the League it has, I venture to suggest, become clear even to the most loyal League supporters that a system which not only provides a code of international behaviour but which also seeks to enforce that code on the world, cannot possibly be expected to function in all cases successfully unless one primary condition be fulfilled. That condition is that all the principal Powers should wholeheartedly be in it, and that all should be subject to a general system of limitation of armaments.
I remember that on that occasion I repeated two or three quite simple platitudes, which I think it is worth while to remember, and the noble Lord who has just spoken indeed referred to one of them. Until you could get a system under which all nations were in fact prepared to forgo an element of their sovereignty and to accept universal arbitration it was impossible for Lord Davies's court of equity securely to be expected to function satisfactorily; and all that could not happen unless all nations were disarmed and therefore my noble friend Lord Davies's International Force had the field to itself. Moreover, if you had those two things happening on paper, you would not have solved your problem unless every nation believed that every other nation was in fact keeping the

1277
rules. It is not necessary for me to point out—it is obvious to all—how the world to-day is not in fact ready to make those things that are the ideals of us all actually real at this present time. The question accordingly arose (which is the one that I think is constantly between the noble Viscount and myself) whether it was better to preserve on paper a general and wide obligation, although you may know that, when the test comes, it might well not be found capable of fulfilment; or frankly to recognise the facts and make the best of them, not laying greater burdens on nations than nations are in fact willing to sustain.
If that was the situation—and I think it was pretty clear—two years ago, I venture with great respect to suggest that it is much clearer to-day, and the League is in fact now faced with the necessity of taking a decision that will affect its whole future. The noble Viscount who spoke last but one spoke very pessimistically of the future of the League, and if I thought the League was done I should also be a pessimist. But in this matter I am disposed to be more optimistic than he is, and for this reason, that I do not believe it is beyond human ingenuity to devise means whereby the ideals of the League are preserved, and while on the one hand its practical limitations are recognised, as you must recognise them, on the other hand the way is left open to make the fullest use that you can, now and in the future, of its immense potentialities as an instrument of peace.
May I in a few sentences lay down, as I see them, the principles that must underlie such a solution as that? The prime object of the League is to prevent war, but that is a negative way of stating it. The positive way of stating it is that the League should provide means of depriving any State of what it may deem legitimate excuse, if legitimate excuse there can be, for resort to force. Therefore, in the second place, we should do all we can for the establishment of the rule of just law, by a strengthening of the machinery for the examination and adjudication of disputes. And, thirdly, we must find means for removing potential causes of disputes and redressing injustice through the ventilation of grievances and the active pressure of public opinion. We all of us have constantly stated, and I hope constantly think, that human affairs can never remain static. But any
1278
change that may be both natural and right must be effected by peaceful means if the cure is not to be 10,000 times worse than the disease. It is to the attempt to make these principles effective that this country stands pledged, and by that obligation we intend to stand to the limit of our power because we know that on the acceptance of that more excellent way which these principles enshrine the future of the world does in fact depend.
From that I pass quickly to a word—and it is only a word—about Spain. The noble Lord opposite who introduced this debate spoke critically of non-intervention. He spoke of victory being imposed on the defeated side by what he called foreign mechanism. Anyone listening to the noble Lord would have supposed that foreign intervention had been on one side, and one side only, and that of course is far from the truth. The other reflection that I made but with which I do not expect the noble Lord to agree any more than he expected me to agree with him, is that the conclusion of his argument on that point really was that the non-intervention plan was bad, it was unworthy of this country, and it ought to be scrapped. Therefore on the whole, so I concluded, he is in favour of intervention. We are not, and that for the reason that was very fairly stated by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, because as I have said over and over again in this House, if you embark on that policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also recognised, there is no saying where you may not end. So the policy of His Majesty's Government remains to push on with non-intervention. We have received the reply from the Spanish Government, and I hope we shall shortly receive the reply from the authorities at Burgos. We are confident that, with good will on both sides, there need be no great delay in the making of real progress.
I turn from that to say a word or two about a question to which the noble Viscount referred, the question of the possibility of bringing the war to an end. I entirely share the feeling that he has. As one contemplates the Spanish people entering upon a third year of this slaughter, with all the hatred, dissension, and bitterness that it has evoked, there is not one of us who must not hope and pray that in the course, I was going to say of this year, but in the course of early weeks or months, it may be possible for

1279
them to compose their differences and join hands in the building up of the country that, separate, they have so largely shattered. Both sides know that, if at any time it seemed possible for the services of His Majesty's Government to be usefully invoked for the establishment of an armistice, these services are at all times at the disposal of the Spanish people as a whole, and would be most willingly made available to them.
Let me say one word about Anglo-Italian relations, inasmuch as the Anglo-Italian Agreement is, as your Lordships know, closely linked with the Spanish problem. It has been a matter of great regret to His Majesty's Government that the pre-requisite governing the entry of that Agreement into force still remains unfulfilled. It may be arguable that it was a fault in the Agreement itself that its coming into force should have been made dependent on circumstances over which, prima facie, neither Government could exercise full control. The fact, however, remains that this condition, which arose out of the fact that the Agreement was designed as part of a general world appeasement and is a matter on which His Majesty's Government have given definite pledges to Parliament, is not one which His Majesty's Government can abandon. I may point out that, so far as concerns the letters exchanged and the verbal understandings reached at the time of signature, we have carried out our written undertaking to take steps at the League of Nations in regard to the question of Italian sovereignty over Ethiopia. We, on the other hand, have welcomed the good faith of the Italian Government in reducing their garrison in Libya and in abstaining from propaganda. That is a partial answer to a question the noble Lord did not put. We have been gratified, too, by the collaboration of the Italian Government upon the Non-intervention Committee.
On the other hand, we have never concealed our regret—and this is relevant to what fell from the noble Marquess opposite—that the signature of the Anglo-Italian Agreement has not resulted in an improvement in French-Italian relations, for one of the principal objects of our own Agreement was to re-create an atmosphere of international confidence in the Mediterranean, and until French-Italian relations are restored to cordiality this
1280
great purpose obviously cannot be achieved. It may be that there are powerful forces in the world which are unwilling to see the old friendship restored between this country and Italy. Mischievous suggestions have been made that the Agreement is designed to loosen the Berlin-Rome axis. In other quarters it has been hinted that the real object of it is to try and drive a wedge between the French and British Governments. If I may speak quite bluntly, a policy based upon the hope of driving a wedge between Berlin and Rome would be as futile as would be that of attempting to divide Paris and London. I find it very difficult to believe that any serious-minded or responsible person to-day can think in terms of either of these irresponsible hypotheses.
If hostile forces are at work, it is of great importance that neither we nor the Italian Government should be diverted by them from our main object—the bringing into force of our new Agreement. If either of us has doubts or difficulties we can at any time give full and frank expression to them through the normal channels which are available to us. In international as well as in private relations, incalculable harm may be done by the unnatural suppression of suspicions or by reluctance to strain friendship by frank speech. If a friendship is not capable of standing such a strain it is not worthy of the name of friendship. If His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government are able, as we hope, to invoke this spirit of confident patience to bridge the period which must elapse before the Agreement can come into full force, I see no reason why such delay as may be inevitable should at all impair the understanding that it was the principal purpose of the Agreement to restore.
I must turn for a few moments to Czechoslovakia, on which the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, spoke yesterday and in regard to which several of your Lordships have made interesting contributions this afternoon. Through all the developments of recent weeks and months the single purpose of His Majesty's Government has been to impress in all quarters—quite impartially, let me assure Lord Snell—the necessity and urgency of reaching an agreed solution of an issue that might gravely menace the preservation of European peace. The problem is not a

1281
new one, for the historic provinces of Bohemia and Moravia have long been one of the great nerve centres of Europe. It is in these provinces that contact between Slav and German has been most intimate and where the problem of their relationship has been most acute. There was indeed a time in the middle ages when, under the King of Bohemia who became the Emperor Charles IV, a harmonious blending of German and Slav culture and tradition appeared capable of realisation. But that promise was unfulfilled, and to-day the racial sell-consciousness, and the rise of fierce national ideals that our own day has seen, reinforced by the violent clash of philosophies that perplexes the modern world, have now, within the old political frontier of Bohemia, bred the still sharper antagonism which we know.
The problem is, as we all know, to find by peaceful means within the political frontier and without destroying the integrity of the Czechoslovak State, a way to confer substantial rights of self-administration upon the German-speaking population, and with them upon the other populations, such as the Polish and Hungarian, who live within the Czechoslovak borders and possess Czechoslovak citizenship. The problem is a very real one, and of a kind in regard to which we ourselves are not without experience. Accordingly His Majesty's Government, in close accord with the French Government, agreed in response to a request made by the Czechoslovak Government, to take the action that was detailed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday, and His Majesty's Government, as we all know, have been fortunate in enlisting the assistance of Lord Runciman. The noble Lord who spoke last asked me whether I had information as to the acceptance by the Sudeten leaders of the services of Lord Runciman. I am in a position to assure him that they received the idea favourably, and I hope, therefore, so far as we can at present judge, that the way seems to be clear for Lord Runciman to proceed upon his most public-spirited and patriotic mission. We feel that Lord Runciman does indeed bring to his task of independent investigation and mediation many qualities which those who have had the opportunity of working most closely with him are in the best position to appraise. The noble Marquess opposite
1282
spoke of them, and they are sufficiently well known to his fellow-countrymen to secure for him all the good wishes for which the noble Lord who opened the debate asked.
Several of your Lordships have asked what precisely is his status when he goes to Czechoslovakia. His status is one of complete independence of His Majesty's Government, and, with all respect to the noble Viscount, I think that that is not a very difficult status for either him or us to maintain. I have made it quite plain to him, and quite plain also to all those concerned, that he is in no way acting as a representative of or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, nor do we take any responsibility for the suggestions that he may make. His achievement, as I see it, will be to inform public opinion not only in this country but in a great many other countries, and, more important than that, he can as mediator bring the two sides together and explain perhaps where there is misconstruction and conceivably make new suggestions and the like. Perhaps I might, without breach of confidence with Lord Runciman, tell your Lordships what Lord Runciman said after I had so lucidly explained to him what his functions were to be. He said: "I quite understand; you are setting me adrift in a small boat in mid-Atlantic." I said, "That is exactly the position."
There is one other thing I think that I must say before I leave Lord Runciman and it is this. We cannot but feel that any public man of British race and steeped in British experience and thought may have it in his power for this reason to make a contribution of peculiar value. The British people, both at home and in the Dominions, have repeatedly found themselves confronted with the problem of reconciling the unity of the State with the position of men of a different race included within the body politic. The British Commonwealth itself is the outstanding example of the attainment of single unity through great diversity. It may be, and no doubt is, that the particular problem that faces the Czechoslovak Government is not strictly analogous to those with which the British Government have had to deal, but it is of the same order of difficulty, and requires the same kind of genius for its solution. It, therefore, naturally occurs to British thought that the solution of the problem

1283
created by the position of different nationalities within a single State is most likely to be found through the application in some form appropriate to local conditions of the principle of partnership in self-administration, by which our own problems, not totally dissimilar, have been so happily resolved, and that in a form which has, through the contentment so brought to many different races, been the seed of greater strength to the whole community of which they form part.
It is the earnest hope of His Majesty's Government that through the application of some such principles as these the way may be found at once to strengthen the foundations of contentment within the Czechoslovak State and to relieve Europe of a great anxiety. For reasons with which we are all conversant, upon the handling of this problem depend the interests not merely of Czechoslovakia herself but those of peace, and it is this fact which both entitles and compels this country, with others, to be interested in the treatment of it. We recognise the justice and the necessity of change, but it is none the less our desire to see it effected by peaceful means. The lesson of history must surely be that such an achievement would have greater chances of survival than any settlement imposed by force, which must inevitably create more problems than it solves.
Your Lordships will no doubt have seen the recent speech of M. Daladier in which he defined the position of his country in relation to these questions, and repeated the obligation that in certain events would rest upon it to fulfil its undertakings. Of that obligation the French Government can alone be the interpreter and judge, but your Lordships will have noticed with no less interest that M. Daladier asserted in clear terms his refusal to believe in the inevitability of war. By that opinion I would wish definitely to range my own. During the last few days, as your Lordships are aware, there have been certain contacts between His Majesty's Government and the German Government, which His Majesty's Government have warmly welcomed and which lead them to hope that peaceful means will be found to an agreed solution.
The noble Lord who opened the debate asked me whether I thought that I could
1284
properly tell him the matters that were discussed between Captain Wiedemann and myself last Monday week. I do not know that I can go quite as far as that because, as the noble Lord remarked, those discussions were necessarily confidential, but I can tell him, and am glad to tell him, that it was an opportunity that I think we both welcomed of exchanging views on matters of common interest to both our Governments. The effect of our conversation was to show that, however much we differed on some matters of internal interest to both countries, it was evident that both nations were anxious to lose no opportunity of establishing the better relations between the two countries of which the noble Lord opposite spoke.
I do not believe that those responsible for the Government of any country in Europe to-day want war. Every Government must know the great desire for peace among the people of every nation, and every Government must reflect upon what would be the consequences to all the fairest hopes they cherish for the future of the millions that are entrusted to their charge. His Majesty's Government believe that a just and reasonable settlement is capable of attainment if the problem is handled prudently, with a spirit of restraint and a spirit of accommodation on all sides. Here I should like to express a hope. I think that everyone will agree that it is only reasonable that Lord Runciman should be enabled to carry out his delicate mission in an atmosphere of calm and of confidence. I trust, therefore, that all those concerned, both within and without the frontiers of Czechoslovakia, will do all they can to help to create this atmosphere and thus assist Lord Runciman in the difficult task that he is willing to undertake. Above all, if this work of mediation is to proceed smoothly and successfully, it is clear that the less there can be of recrimination or threats in the Press or elsewhere, the better. Since we are pressing the Czechoslovak Government to be generous and conciliatory, we confidently count on Germany to give similar advice, where she may, with a view to avoiding a deadlock, the consequences of which might be incalculable.
A problem which in one form or another has challenged solution for five hundred years cannot be suddenly resolved, and provided always that those who are seek-

1285
ing for a settlement are animated by sincere intentions, it cannot fairly be made a cause of reproach that matters so closely affecting the structure of the State should be handled with due precaution and, as far as may be, with the assent of all concerned. Given such sincere and honest intentions, His Majesty's Government are anxious, as we have tried to prove, to lend any help within our power, and I feel bound to say plainly that public opinion in this country would quickly declare itself against any action which, whether by obstructing reasonable compromise or by rendering impossible its fair consideration, might imperil a settlement and jeopardise the cause of European peace.
May I refer for one moment to a question of some importance that was raised by my noble friend Lord Davies? He spoke of a defensive agreement recently concluded between His Majesty's Government and the French Republic, and asked His Majesty's Government to include some explanatory statement in regard to it. I think there is in Lord Davies's mind some misapprehension which it is important to dispel. But perhaps your Lordships will pardon my making a digression, for it is impossible to speak of France, and of the relations of this country with France, without first saying something of that which is of necessity uppermost in all our minds, and of which the noble Lord opposite spoke first. The whole country, as he said, and the whole British Commonwealth followed the visit of the King and Queen to France last week. That visit must have left on those who were privileged to accompany Their Majesties an impression that will not easily be forgotten. France seemed to prove once more that great power is not incompatible with gaiety and grace. The links forged by geography and history which bind our two countries are, of course, sufficient to account for the closeness of our relations with France, but the visit of last week seemed to add some new quality to this natural intimacy. The warmth of the welcome that was accorded to Their Majesties, a welcome which began from the moment that they set foot on the soil of France, with the many thousands who waited in the fields to see the passage of the Royal train, and which was taken up, as the noble Viscount has said, by the crowds who thronged the streets of
1286
Paris, must, I know, have touched Their Majesties' hearts, as it will have touched the hearts of millions in every part of His Majesty's Dominions.
What may we think to be the larger meaning of which that outward emotion was symbolic, and what seemed to invest it with particular significance? To me it seemed to speak of the deep conviction felt by the people of France that they are at one with us in regard to the ultimate value of individual human life, and that we share with them a common faith in the abiding forces by which human life is illumined and enriched. But, while the feeling between the two countries has received, as it did, such happy and such notable expression, the obligations of this country to France, apart from any that may result from the Covenant of the League of Nations, remain only those assumed in the Treaty of Locarno of 1925, reaffirmed in the Arrangement drawn up in London in March, 1936. The friendship between our two countries does not, however, depend on bits of paper, but rests, as I said, on a real community of thought and of purpose, and that in turn springs from the determination that we both share to join our efforts for the peaceful adjustment of international differences and for the orderly development of international life. Moreover, when nations are conscious of their strength, their efforts for peace are not likely to be misconstrued. France and Great Britain, therefore, remain at one in the determination so to act and work together that justice and reason may be established among nations and that the nightmare of fear may give place to understanding and content.
I apologise for keeping your Lordships so long. I have attempted to make a fleeting review of the more important of the problems by which the Government and the Foreign Secretary are constantly perplexed. If all the unrest and the discontent with which we are confronted are held to be the legacy of the Great War and of the settlement that followed it, which was necessarily negotiated in the warlike atmosphere, that surely must be sufficient proof of the hopelessness and stupidity of war as a solvent of difficulties. But perhaps it is not right to blame too much the framers of the Peace Settlement, for they at least believed that they had provided a machinery for the constant adjustment of the world as they left it

1287
to the shifting strains and stresses of events. Either that machinery, like most human products, was imperfect and waits to be designed anew, or we must all share some measure of blame for the mishandling of it. At the moment the machine, as I have dared to confess, does not wholly work; but that does not mean that the principles on which it was designed were at fault.
In an earlier passage in my speech I tried to give those principles some definition. The one guiding principle is that there should be accepted and, if possible, elaborated some sure system for the reasonable discussion and remedy of grievances without resort to the stupid and disastrous arbitrament of war. That way madness lies. But if every country prepares itself to get or to keep by force what in its own judgment it considers its due, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that there can be little hope for our civilisation. The attempt to impose a complete system for ensuring observance of the law and maintenance of the peace may not have succeeded. There is another method which, if slower, may be more sure: that of building on precedent and practice. That method happens also, I think, to be more traditionally English and in keeping with our principles. Every effort that we can make, each peaceful settlement of difficulty that can be devised, helps to lay the foundation of a structure of law which we shall strive to maintain and which may, in my judgment, prove a stronghold against the many and great dangers with which the world is beset.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Viscount for his very courteous and most important and interesting reply. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I did not move my Motion, but I wish to thank the noble Viscount for the very full and satisfactory and courteous reply that he made to my remarks about China.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, so we shall adjourn until Friday morning, when we shall receive the Appropriation Bill and then await the Royal Commission.