HL Deb 04 October 1939 vol 114 cc1295-330

4.52 p.m.

LORD SNELL rose to call attention to the statement on the situation made yesterday by the Leader of the House; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when yesterday I ventured to express the belief that the period of docile and silent acquiescence had ended and that we might enter on a period of some criticism, I prophesied in a better sense than I knew. We have already had to-day considerable discussion, some of which would appear to pass over into the sphere of the statement which was yesterday made. The fifth statement of progress made yesterday followed rather closely the lines of those that had previously been made. It did not add very greatly to our information, but it was welcomed as presenting rather more frankly than before the mind of His Majesty's Government in relation to the immediate situation. I do not propose to inaugurate any routine criticism of its contents, which were doubtless a careful and balanced view after all the factors had been taken into account, but at the same time I would remind your Lordships' House that the Opposition in this House is under no monkish vow of silence in regard to these matters, and it may perhaps also be a service to His Majesty's Government if I take this opportunity of reminding them that we are not in a state of stupefied adoration of the way in which the war is being conducted. Those matters, however, must be reserved for a more appropriate time, but in some short period some criticisms will have to be made.

The first remark I would like to make concerns Poland. The fact that dismemberment of the soil of Poland has taken place and that it has been divided between the Prussian eagle and the Russian bear, does not mean of necessity the end of the Polish nation. A nation is not a piece of territory merely, but a people, and, so long as a people have one spirit and one purpose, that nation remains. I believe that Greece, in ancient times, was wherever her people found themselves, just as we like to believe that Britain exists in our Dominions and in many other Colonies as well as in these shores which we inhabit. So the Polish spirit is not destroyed, because the principle of nationality is too strong to permit that to take place. Therefore we can welcome the declaration that was made yesterday, that the purpose for which a war was undertaken is not now meaningless in the face of what has taken place.

I would like to make a brief comment upon the question of peace. The statement reminded us that certain peace feelers have been put out, and also told us that, when the time came to consider them, it would not be possible for us to forget the character of the people with whom we had to deal; the proposals, if ever they came, would be tested by reference to that fact. That seems to be inevitable, but I would like to believe that they will be considered also upon their own merits as apart from the source of origin. We are bound to see to it that, when peace comes, it is a real peace and not merely a truce during which anybody who wished could rearm himself and prepare himself for new acts of aggression. We have no reason, unhappily, to suppose that Nazi Germany has in the least degree changed its mind and its purpose. It remains to-day what for some time it has been, the scourge of the modern world. So in regard to these peace feelers let me say it is so characteristic of the Nazi Germany of to-day that its trumpeted rudeness should even be associated with a feeler after peace negotiations.

Now, either Nazi Germany wants peace or it does not, but if does, it is surely bad psychology to present it with a velvet glove in one hand and a loaded pistol in the other. If by chance Germany wished to do the right thing and to seek for an honourable peace, she is almost certain to choose an offensive way of doing it. Germany has lots of brains—nobody doubts that—but she has no understanding, and Germans cannot comprehend why other nations distrust them. But it is because they appear to us, at any rate, to be the proud defenders of a new philosophy which enables them to believe that whatever will serve Germany is right in itself. I say that we have to be careful in dealing with this matter, for a return to the status quo would not be a return to peace. We do not want to continue to live under that strain and apprehension under which we have been living during the last year. So I would beg the real Germany to speak, the kindly, peace-loving men and women whom many of us have known and whose friendship we have enjoyed. Let the world hear their voice in this matter and not merely the heel-clicking voice of the persons who at present oppress the German people themselves. Having said that, I want to say on my own behalf that I hope our Government will never refuse to listen to what looks like a real proposal for the restoration of peace in the world, taking care only that it is a real and not a false peace when it comes.

The only other thing I would detain your Lordships to say would be in regard to the Home Front. I will not to-day discuss the "Ministry of Irritation," because that has already been done adequately. I should like, however, to say that I think there is a field of activity at the head of that organisation which is of the very highest importance. "Propaganda," as the noble and learned Lord reminded us, is an unsuitable word, but we have to make the world understand that we are not merely making war for war's sake, or merely to suppress something that we think is a danger to the world. We want our propaganda to say something about the abiding values of our British civilisation. We are fighting, it is true, to resist aggression, but we are also fighting to relieve men's hearts of the haunting fear that their sons are to be brought up to be merely munition power, to be used and sacrificed to defend the world against organised evil. We want to show that, in addition to being a nation of shopkeepers, we are also a nation of pathfinders of the way to a durable peace for all men and for all nations.

I will not go into the details of such matters of foreign policy as were indicated in the statement made yesterday. I am not a specialist in that field and I am afraid to enter upon it. I do permit myself, however, the liberty of saying that in my judgment our attitude to and our relationship with Sweden, Norway and the other Scandinavian countries are of first-class importance, not only because of our long and friendly relationships with them but also because of our high regard for their civilisation and our desire to be on good terms with them. I think, therefore, that we must increasingly see that they are not the neglected victims in a quarrel which is not, at any rate immediately, their own.

The final subject I will mention is India. I am very glad to note that the Viceroy has seen the Congress leaders, and I have some hope that, by conference and understanding, difficulties there may be lessened. As far as I understand the Indian mind it is very desirous to help in the fight for freedom and for democracy, but it wants to feel that it is itself a democratic partner in the enterprise. The con- tribution that India made in the last war is known to your Lordships: it was of the greatest value, and we ought to see to it that no false pride on our part prevents India from making a contribution of equal value at the present time. I beg to move.

5.5 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will agree with Lord Snell that it will be useful if from time to time this House discusses the great issues of these days and does not limit itself, as hitherto, merely to brief acknowledgments of the statements made periodically by His Majesty's Government. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that Lord Snell himself to-day has initiated such discussion with his accustomed clarity, eloquence and force. Many of us will remember the well-known lines in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera: The House of Lords throughout the war Did nothing in particular, And did it very well. In this war I trust that the House of Lords will not be limited to that function but will be able to contribute in some degree both to the expression of public opinion and perhaps sometimes to its guidance.

The general course of this country and Empire has been set, and it has been set with almost universal national agreement. The declaration of the Government yesterday shows that the policy is unchanged. Had it been otherwise, had the statement of yesterday been of a different character, I am sure that many of your Lordships would have been prompt to speak their minds. As it is, the discussion may perhaps be brief and limited. For my own part I desire, so far as international affairs are concerned, to refer only to some of the factors that have lately arisen. Without doubt the most important of them is the anxiety that is felt owing to the uncertainty of the attitude of Russia. I do not know whether it would be possible for the Foreign Secretary to say anything on what all of us must recognise to be a difficult and delicate matter. Hitherto, however, the Soviets have declared their neutrality, and it seems to the general public that there need be no reason to assume that that policy will change. The important point is that His Majesty's Government declared in their statement of yesterday that, whether Russia does or does not change her policy, Britain and France will not depart from theirs but will pursue their declared purpose to the end.

Consequent upon the recent course of action of Russia, there has been some concern on account of the negotiations that have taken place between Turkey and the Soviets. I trust, however, that the people of this country will view those negotiations with understanding. Turkey, from her geographical situation, has great interests in the Black Sea and in Asia which would lead her to cultivate friendship with the Soviets, as she has done in recent years; while at the same time she has great interests in the Mediterranean which would lead her to value the good will and, if necessary, the assistance of Britain and France. It should be, it would seem to many, our task to help the Turkish Government to avoid any clash between those two real interests, which might at times appear to be somewhat incompatible. We may recognise that Turkey is right in her own interests to cultivate friendship with all her neighbours, and we need not see unfriendliness to ourselves if she seeks to preserve those friendships while maintaining her engagements with France and with Britain.

As to the division of Poland that has lately been proclaimed by Germany and Russia, we may well feel confident that that will not stand. That matter is not to be decided by those two Powers at the present time; the Peace Conference at the end of the war will deal with it. We may all of us recollect how in March, 1918, there was another treaty between Germany and Russia, signed after long negotiations at Brest-Litovsk, followed by a treaty on similar lines between Germany and Rumania—both of them very advantageous to a triumphant Germany; but events decided otherwise.

One thing stands out quite clearly in the existing situation. There is one prospect which is utterly intolerable, and it is this. When the war is ended, whether it be late or soon, when the conference has been held and terms of peace have been agreed, and the smoke has cleared away, it would be intolerable if one fact were to remain in the eyes of the world and in the face of history—namely, that Herr Hitler should be found once more to have achieved by violence all, and more than all, that he had set out to obtain, that the Czech people had not been redeemed and that the Poles had been added as new victims, and that, by another resounding triumph, the Nazi régime had been fastened yet more firmly upon the necks of the German people and of Europe. That that should be the net result is a prospect not to be borne. That that should be the legacy which this generation of ours should leave to posterity, is a thought that would be unendurable. All of us, of course, would rejoice if the war could be ended in a month, but if the ending was such as to leave the situation no better than before, but worse, with the peoples subjected to the continuous strains that have marked the last few years, with international treaties made more worthless even than before, and with further wars ever impending, then the respite could be bought at far too high a price. I believe that the British nation, with a sound instinct, and the French nation as well, feel that now we are in it we must go on and finish it.

These observations, I gather, meet with a considerable measure of approval from your Lordships. Perhaps what I have to say next, turning to questions of domestic affairs, may not quite be equally approved. A Chinese sage said of one of his disciples who used to accompany him in his wanderings, "So-and-so gives me no assistance at all; he admires immensely everything that I say." Well, we on these Benches are not debarred in that way from rendering assistance to His Majesty's Government. In the first place, I think that the country is disappointed with respect to the composition of the War Cabinet. That view has been expressed already this afternoon by the noble Viscounts, Lord Astor and Lord Elibank. Everyone welcomes a smaller War Cabinet, but neither the lines on which it has been constituted—its present numbers—nor its personnel really satisfy the wishes of the nation. I do not wish to pursue that further, because it would raise questions of too great delicacy. But one point stands out very clearly—that the present War Cabinet is weak on the financial and economic side. One does not see in that body a real grasp of all the great questions of that order on which the success of this contest will ultimately in very large measure depend. Many of your Lordships will, no doubt, have seen in The Times yesterday a most able article by Sir William Beveridge, dealing with these matters. He makes there many cogent criticisms and presents practical proposals, with which I would express my humble agreement, and which I trust will receive the close attention of the Government.

The second ground on which the Government are subject to general criticism, I think, has been the delay in setting up the Ministry of Supply. Again and again in recent years many members of your Lordships' House—some of those with the closest knowledge of the questions at issue—have urged upon the Government the immediate necessity of establishing such a Ministry, but until recently we had no more than the famous formula uttered by the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland—"sooner or later, perhaps." When the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, spoke in this House after the September crisis last year, he said: "I would mobilise our industries to-morrow." Many wondered why they have not been mobilised before, but they have not been mobilised yet in all their fullness. The Ministry of Supply has very limited functions. It is perhaps not through its own fault, but it has not yet won the confidence of the nation. It has not been able, perhaps it has not got the power, to grasp the whole situation comprehensively, that is to say, the mobilisation of all the industry of Britain for the war effort and the proper planning of its output.

Furthermore, still dealing with the economic side, the Commercial War Risks Insurance Scheme was received with general disapproval by the commercial community, but still it has not been changed in accordance with their desires. With regard to war damage compensation, the public are left altogether at a loss to know what action will be taken by the Government to carry out their declared policy of relieving the individual who suffers from any damage to his house or property resulting from war action, instead of leaving him to bear the whole burden of what should be a communal charge. As long ago as January 31 the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that this was a matter which the Government ought to take up, that it was one which required legislation, and that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible. That was at the end of January, and still no steps have been taken. That this matter should not have been pressed on with before the war is cause for blame for the Government as a whole, and for the Treasury in particular.

With regard to the Ministry of Information, that has been so fully discussed this afternoon that it is unnecessary to add a further word. The Government have recognised that the scheme prepared beforehand has proved completely unsuitable, and they have now abandoned it. But it is necessary to urge upon His Majesty's Government—a view that has already been expressed by some noble Lords this afternoon—that adequate steps have not been taken to maintain the tone of the nation. The war drags slowly, perhaps inevitably. On land, on the Western Front, it has taken the tedious form of siege warfare. On the seas it is a matter of patrols and skirmishes. In the air, hitherto, it has been the same. These methods of warfare demand magnificent qualities from the individuals engaged, and have given opportunities for the display of heroism which must command the admiration of everyone, but to the public at large the war seems going slowly, and apparently the end can only be found, unless there are some striking changes in one direction or another, in the gradual process of the economic exhaustion of Germany.

In 1914, before conscription was introduced, when we depended on voluntary recruitment, it was necessary for the Government and for all the leaders of Parties to go down to the people and hold great meetings in all the centres of population in order to explain the purposes of the war, to stimulate and maintain enthusiasm, and to recruit the great armies of millions that were then being raised. Now that is not necessary in the same way. The noble Lord, Lord Macmillan, speaking a little while ago, said it was proposed to mobilise all the means of publicity in the country, and he mentioned first the platform. Possibly some member of the Government may be able to tell us to what extent and in what way it is proposed to do that.

Now there is a method that did not exist 25 years ago—broadcasting—which enables the leaders of the people to speak directly to every household, and there one cannot but endorse the complaints that have been made this afternoon by Lord Strabolgi, Lord Astor, and the noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Birdwood, that the broadcasting programmes of the B.B.C. are inadequate to the times and to the promotion of the strenuous effort which is required from the nation. They are uninspired and uninspiring. As Meredith said, "England is a muffled drum." That is characteristic of the broadcasting of to-day. That is why the whole people welcomed with so much enthusiasm the spirited and resonant speeches in Parliament and on the wireless of Mr. Winston Churchill. Lord Macmillan told us to-day that he had to devote himself hitherto to reforming the structure of his Ministry, and that it is only now that the Ministry is able to get on with its real work of disseminating information and carrying on legitimate propaganda. It is a sad thing that, during this critical month, time should have been wasted and, according to the Minister of Information himself, the Ministry should have been immobilised for its real purpose by the initial defects in its own constitution.

There are many suggestions that might be made by members of this House and members of the other House which it is not expedient to make in open session. For my own part I desire to support the proposal which was initiated by the leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, and has been supported here by Lord Ponsonby and Lord Noel-Buxton already, that there should be Secret Sessions of Parliament, if not now, then at no distant future. Members cannot criticise or comment freely on certain matters without doing harm. An example may be found in Mr. Lloyd George's speech yesterday—a speech which, if made at this juncture, should have been made in Secret Session, and which appears to many to have been untimely. That is my view; others may think differently. During the last war there were Secret Sessions which I well remember, and it is true that they caused some disappointment among members of Parliament, because it was anticipated that the Government would be able to give information about the strategic situation and the state of national preparedness which, as a matter of fact, Ministers could not give. It would no doubt be the same to-day. If there is even a distant risk of information on any strategic or military matter leaking out and reaching the ears of General Staffs who are eagerly listening for every whisper, however distant that risk may be, it cannot be faced, and no Government charged with these great matters could face the danger of a breach of secrecy.

But Ministers can give a great deal of information about home conditions which it might not be expedient to publish to the world, and it is not only a question of what the Government can tell members, but also a question of what members can tell the Government. It is very necessary that Ministers should be kept in touch with the movement of public opinion, particularly in days like these, when there are no by-elections to be held except what may be called freak elections such as the one pending in Scotland. It is true that it would hinder the successful conduct of the war if certain things were said in public, but it is also true that it may hinder the successful conduct of the war if these things are not said at all. They cart be said much more effectively in Parliament than privately by members to individual Ministers. It is, of course, a matter on which the House of Commons should take the initiative, but if Secret Sessions are held there as they were during the last war, no doubt here also they will take place as happened on that occasion.

All these are comparatively minor points. After a month of war, the important salient fact is that the substantial unity of the nation is unshaken, and we all stand behind the Government to secure the successful waging of the war. We all see clearly that the essence of the matter is this. Czecho-Slovakia and Poland are only symptoms. There is a deep-seated disease in the centre of Europe, and it is a disease of the mind. This is a war of ideas. Ideas determine action. As a German philospher said, "Ideas have hands and feet." They strike, they march, whether for good or for ill; and a nation which allows itself to fall subject to men who take a cynical view of life and of politics, who have no religion, who are not aware that such a thing as international morality exists, such a nation brings on itself certain disaster and on its neighbours great suffering. The Germans might have learned better from the uniform teaching of all history. They have not done so. They have to learn afresh in the school of hard experience. That seems to me the essence of the matter.

5.29 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships for a few moments on this subject because I happen to have rather more contacts than I expect have been possible for many of your Lordships with two groups of people who, as it seems to me, are of peculiar importance in this connection. The first is the great mass of our young people so far as these are represented by students in universities with whom I have had the good fortune to have a great deal to do for many years. There is something very marked in the outlook that is most common among youths, no doubt only finding expression among the more thoughtful and the more articulate, but those are the members of this group who for the same reason exercise chief influence among their fellows.

Some time back a good deal of dismay was caused by the passing of a resolution in the Oxford Union to the effect "that this House would on no account fight for King and country." If I mention the history of that resolution it will illustrate what I mean. The President of the Union of that day at first put down a motion "that in the opinion of this House armed force should be subject to international control." He was unable to secure any effective opposition to that motion at that date. He then went gradually to work, and later brought up the resolution which gave so much offence when it was published, but those who voted for the resolution, so far as they were doing so in anything other than undergraduate high spirits and for the sake of shocking their parents, did so because, although they were not against the wording of what the President at first put down, they had an aspiration after an order of things in which the perpetual wars of nations might be brought to an end. Now that is still an exceedingly prevailing movement among these young people.

I am perfectly certain that there are numbers of them serving their country at this time in the Forces with pure conviction who do so because of the hope in their hearts that the issue of this war is going to be something much more than the small negative result of putting an end to the recent series of German aggressions. There is a spirit of real dedication among them. And it is not only dedication to their country; it is much more than that; it is a dedication inspired by the thought that their country is to be dedicated to the service of something beyond itself. What they fear may be put in this way. They fear a repetition of 1914 to 1918, followed by a repetition of 1919 to 1939, and above all a repetition of 1939 itself. It would be worth a very great deal both for their confidence and consequently also for the energy of their services if they could have an assurance that some of the mistakes made in 1919 are really fully recognised and that there is no danger of a repetition. If we must go through 1914 to 1918 again let us at least not go through 1919 to 1939 again.

Now it has been clearly laid down as part of the aim of our nation in this war that we should destroy Hitlerism, and I imagine that means that on no account would peace be made with Herr Hitler Dr with a Government representing his ideas. We must regard this worship of violence characteristic of that Government as not merely incidental to the position in which it has found itself from time to time, but as inherent in its philosophy of life and of statesmanship. From the horrible Beuthen telegram of 1932, a year before the Nazi revolution, right down to the last episode the story is the same within Germany and without. And if I may for a moment refer to a subject that has engaged your Lordships' attention earlier—namely, the leaflets we are scattering in Germany—they would seem to me in many cases to have been occupied with the theme that we cannot do with Herr Hitler, but it is much more eloquent to rub in why they cannot decently do with him. Similarly, and if there is to be another calendar, may I suggest it be a calendar of Hitler's internal crimes rather than of his crimes towards other nations?

Now is there any way by which it is possible to give the kind of confidence of which I spoke? Naturally I can only offer suggestions as one who does not know in the way in which members of the Government know the actual factors of the situation, but I think one may put the question broadly in this way. Is our analogue going to be Paris or Vienna? Shall we go more closely by the procedure adopted at the end of the last war or that adopted at the end of the Napoleonic war, which after all did inaugurate a very long period of European peace? There is a factor in this situation which encourages the adoption of the analogy of Vienna—namely, that we are quite specifically fighting an evil Government and the philosophy behind it. In the war against Napoleon we were fighting the French Revolution as it came to be embodied in him, and our statesmen were able to take the view that since the Bourbon Dynasty had been restored and we had been in many ways fighting for the sake of the Bourbon Dynasty there were no enemies left and we were all friends together and could make peace. Accordingly I do not believe that such firm realists as Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington would have taken that line if they had not also believed it to be good for the future of Europe, and that the introduction of the Legitimists was much more an excuse for a policy which they would anyhow have adopted than the real cause of their action.

But we have much the same excuse here. Supposing it should become true that the German people would throw off the present Government and introduce something much more fully representative of the longer traditions of Germany, stretching back not only to Bismarck but also beyond him, we should have a ground for saying that here is a nation with which we can enter into negotiations not as conquerors over a vanquished foe but as colleagues in the system of Europe. In other words we could say that, while there can be no peace between this country and the present German Government, between this country and a Germany which has taken to itself a Government of another hue and another tradition there should be a freely negotiated peace and not in any sense an imposed one. That, I believe, would bring great confidence to the younger people in our country.

That brings me to the other special contact which I have had and to which I attach very great importance, though I think it indicates a similar line of action. I have had the opportunity in these last years of rather frequent intercourse with leaders of the German churches; more particularly I remember a most moving conversation with Dr. Zoellner, that really great Christian, who endeavoured near the beginning of the Nazi movement to harmonise the various traditions of German churchmanship with the demands of the new State, and of course completely failed and died of a broken heart through his failure. I remember his saying in 1934 that they had every reason to be grateful to Hitler who had made the German nation again a reality, that they had in those past years lost their sense of unity, that they were no longer a people, but that now they were once more a German people. Only, he said, the way in which it had been done filled one with anxiety for what was going to be the result of it.

Well, there are men like that—I will not mention any who are living, mention of names is dangerous—who exercise a great influence and it is known that their influence happens to be particularly strong in the old German Army, who are dismayed and horrified at the crimes with which the record of the Nazi Government is stained. If they could have the assurance that, supposing that Government is overthrown, there is in store for the German people a settlement not only free from vindictiveness but satisfying to the pride of a great nation, I believe that we should have set in motion forces that would secure that result and bring about the downfall of this evil thing in Germany through the action of the German people themselves. It might come quickly. More probably it would take longer, but it is surely the most desirable result to which we can turn.

Therefore, while welcoming all that was said on the subject of our purpose in the war in the statement to which reference is made in the Motion, I am asking whether the Government will consider supplementing that by some assurance of the kind for which I have asked for the future—that while there can be no peace with Hitler, there can be, and we desire there should be, peace with Germany honourable to that great people, and, above all, that in doing this we should pave the way for a new and positive organisation of peace in Europe so that our young men, in all that they are called upon both to endure and to inflict, should have the inspiration of knowing that they are not only serving their country, that they are not only extirpating a menace from the life of Europe, but that they are in a real sense looking to a free future, saving civilisation.

5.42 p.m.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, I have a few things to say and I will say them as briefly as I can. May I begin by saying that I find myself in great sympathy with the suggestions made, I think yesterday by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, and approved today by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I believe by some other noble Lords who have spoken, that there should be at some time or another a Secret Session of your Lordships' House? The Government say "We could not say much more in a Secret Session than we can in open session because the things we cannot say are military secrets and we cannot say them in the House of Lords even in Secret Session." I can well understand that, but the House of Lords does contain a number of people who have some experience in foreign affairs and a number of others who have given a great deal of attention to them. I think that on certain questions, for instance as to what is to happen at the end of the war, a free discussion by those members of your Lordships' House might be of value to the Government and would, at any rate, be some satisfaction to some members of your Lordships' House who would like to hear these things expressed in a way in which they cannot be expressed in a Public Session. I hope the Government will consider that aspect of the matter because I really do believe that something might be gained by a Secret Session of that kind.

I want to say a word to-day which is difficult to say because one feels that a chance observation might easily do harm, and may not very probably do any good. Still I feel that I ought to say it. We have been told through the usual channels of information, that the German Government are probably, though not certainly, about to issue some kind of proclamation of the terms on which they would make peace. The Government have said, very properly and rightly, that any statement of that kind would of course be carefully considered. They have also said, I think very properly and rightly, that if it is to take any such form as has been indicated in the Press—namely, a recognition of the German conquest of Poland—it is quite impossible for us or our Allies to look at it. I find myself in complete agreement with the Government about that, and with a great deal which my noble friend Viscount Samuel said on that topic. But I do not feel quite sure whether that is enough, whether it is right simply for us to say to any such proposal, "No, we will not have that" and no more. I am afraid that would be an unfortunate result.

I have seen letters from various countries, from Norway and from the United States, and although I have not the same means of information as the most reverend Prelate about the feelings of the young, yet I have had information which entirely confirms everything that he said. There is anxiety to know exactly what it is that we are fighting for, what it is we hope to gain, what it is we hope to achieve by these tremendous sacrifices which we are very rightly and very willingly making at this moment. I cannot help feeling that it will be a great pity if we receive whatever statements are made by our enemies with a simple negative and without any alternative proposals of our own. I do not know whether I am right about that, but that is the feeling I have, and I cannot help feeling that if we lose that chance we might do a great deal to discourage perhaps some of our most valued supporters in this country, perhaps some people in allied countries, and I feel sure a good many people in neutral countries. I think we should miss a great opportunity for demonstrating to the German people, so far as we can get it over to them, that what we are demanding is just as much in the interests of the German people properly considered as it is in the interests of any other people in the world. I quite recognise, of course, the extreme difficulty of going into detail in such a matter as that and the extreme care which would have to be displayed in any statement on the subject, but I cannot help thinking there are some general propositions which we might put forward which would help in this matter.

It is said that we must fight, and of course I agree—in a sense completely agree—to destroy Hitler and Hitlerism. Well, let us be a little careful about that way of putting it. Of course we want to destroy, and prevent the possibility of the renewal of, the external policy with which the present Nazi Government is identified. But do not let us put it too much as a destruction of one man and his system. I cannot help feeling that we carry that too far. I hope I shall not be thought as in any sense an apologist for Herr Hitler. It is no use indulging in violent invective, but if there is any subject on which I am tempted to do so it is on the character and achievements of that man. But all the same it is not only him—and that is the point that I think we must realise—it is not only him whom we are fighting. We are fighting the ideas which he represents. It is essential that we should recognise that I will not attempt to go back into history beyond what I have lived through myself, but I can remember something of foreign affairs for upwards of half a century. There has always been in Prussian policy this note that Germany stands before all—not only stands before all in a sense that many patriots would say of their country—namely, stands before all private interests—but stands in the place of all morality and all principles; that to serve Germany is a sufficient excuse for almost any villainy that can be contemplated. That is putting it very strongly, but just look back.

We complain, and rightly complain, of the impossibility of trusting the present German Government. But let us look back. I remember—we all know—the well-known phrase of Dr. Johnson about his enemy the Scots—a very unfair and even libellous statement—in which he said that a Scotsman would need to be a very stern moralist to prefer truth to Scotland. That is a gross libel, no doubt, on the Scots, but I am not sure that if you put "German" instead of "Scotsman" it is not literally true. Look at these men; Bismarck, William II, Bülow, Bethmann-Hollweg, Ludendorff, as well as Hitler. There is not one of them who would not have thought it perfectly legitimate to say any falsehood in the world if he thought it would serve his country. That is a serious and very important fact that we have got to recognise. Of course, I know perfectly well that the most reverend Prelate is absolutely right in saying that there is another Germany which has many splendid men in it, men whom we should all delight to honour. Of course there is, and it is a great misfortune, as I have heard Germans themselves say, how often it has happened to their country to be represented by people who are really quite unworthy of the confidence of their country.

But still, there it is at the time; we have got to face that; and though I most heartily and entirely agree with the most reverend Prelate, when he said that we must have a freely-negotiated peace, that we must avoid the kind of mistakes that were made at Versailles—I believe that is absolutely true—I believe most firmly that we must recognise, in any terms of peace that we make, that all nations have equal rights and must be treated with equal fairness. But when all that is said and done, we have got also to recognise—and this is the fact that I do beg the Government to bear in mind—that we must do something effective to put an end altogether to these renewed aggressions which are plunging the world into war, as they have plunged the world again this time into war. We must do something to prevent them. I am quite sure, if I may say so to the most reverend Prelate, that that is what his young friends want more than anything. They want some guarantee that at the end of this war we are going to do something to put international affairs on a sound basis, so that they need not fear constant reiteration of these horrible events.

There are many things that might be suggested, but I will not trouble your Lordships with suggestions at this point. I think we have got to make some constructive suggestion. I think also we have got to make it quite clear that we entered into this war with no desire for territory or trade or anything of the kind. We entered into this war, as the noble Lord, Lord Macmillan, very truly said, on ideological grounds, and we did well to do so. We have nothing to gain by territorial arrangements with Germany; we have nothing to gain by destroying Germany's trade; on the contrary, whatever differences there may be on economic questions, I think all are now agreed that the prosperity of each country is a help to the prosperity of all. For those reasons I cannot help feeling that we have a great opportunity, in answer to whatever is to be put forward from Berlin, for giving hope to all these people who are looking to us to see what we really are fighting for and whether they can genuinely and hopefully support us; and I do hope the Government will have the courage not to miss that great opportunity.

5.58 p.m.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

My Lords, I was very anxious that the debate on the statement made yesterday would allow members of your Lordships' House to speak very fully and frankly, and that was why I asked that there might be a Secret Session. I think that the Government will see the value of a Secret Session as time goes on, and I would suggest that they should make it not on occasions only, so as to excite comment outside, but should make it the normal procedure after they make their weekly statement. There are many members of your Lordships' House who are very independent; in fact I would venture to say that this House is still one of the most independent institutions that exist just now, because I think the Press is dragooned and the House of Commons, by very stringent Party rules, is largely dragooned, but in your Lordships' House there are many who have independent views which, if contributed, would be valuable for the Government to hear; but I think there are many also who are so diffident that they will not speak openly in an open Session.

I regard the statement made yesterday as marking a very crucial moment in the very difficult situation which exists in the world to-day, and I am glad of this opportunity to speak. I will try to be judicious and reticent; if I am not, it is the fault of the Government for not giving me a Secret Session. But I certainly think that there are things to say now which, so far, in the speeches I have heard, have not been said. The speech I favoured the most was that delivered by the noble Viscount who has just sat down. But I think the other two or three speeches showed a tendency to continue almost verbatim in the lines laid down during the last war. I want to get away from that altogether. I do not speak as any sort of supporter of the Nazi régime, of the outrages and persecutions that have taken place inside Germany, or of its methods of diplomacy. We are dealing with a situation, however, which necessitates a very careful retention of our sense of proportion, and I think the problem before us can be put in a very simple way: can we depend on Hitler's word for peace, and if not, is it right to take the opportunity of continuing the war with the question before us, can we secure a just peace by fighting to the end?

The most reverend Prelate the Archbishop of York seems to be hopeful that, while we made mistakes in the last war and since peace was declared, this time we are going to correct them. I see no prospect of that at all. The same cries are going on: the "knock-out blow," which seems to be advocated by my noble friend Lord Samuel; and the same idea that by a great victory we are going to attain permanent peace. This is not going to be a war to end war, any more than the previous one was, and it is an absolute illusion to suppose that it can be. The factor that has altered the situation very much now is Russian diplomacy. Not many weeks ago I ventured to say in this House to the Government that you have to get up very early in order to know what the Russians are after, and that it was not our habit to do that. I must say that I think they are very good diplomatists. They do not get on the high horse and talk about defending civilisation. That is an outrageous phrase for us to use; no wonder it sets people's backs up. They do not do that sort of thing. Stalin very seldom talks, even; he just goes and does the thing he wants to and leaves us all guessing. By that means the situation is changed; the situation is entirely different.

The First Lord of the Admiralty in his broadcast said that the expansion of Germany to the East has now been stopped. Then what are we going on fighting for? Do His Majesty's Government think that the expansion of Germany towards the, East has been stopped by Russia, and if not, can they not restrain—I have advocated this before—the First Lord of the Admiralty? Can they somehow arrange that he does not speak for the Government but he speaks for the Admiralty? He speaks very well indeed and everybody listens to him with great attention, and when he speaks for the Admiralty everybody likes to hear put in such graphic terms the splendid services of the Navy. But when he goes and talks policy, he must either be representing His Majesty's Government or else he ought not to say what he does.

I do not think we can take it for certain that Russian diplomacy means that. I do not know what it means; I will not venture to guess, and I am sure it gives the Foreign Secretary many sleepless nights. But I should like to say a word about our pledge to Poland. I objected to that very much in this House on more than one occasion. I think it was really disastrous that we should have made a pledge to a Central European State when we knew perfectly well that from a military point of view we could not implement it. The poor, unfortunate Polish people, whatever their Government may have thought, were firmly under the impression that by some miracle British forces, either in the air or on land, were going to come to help them. Might I ask the Foreign Secretary to ask the Prime Minister to remember what he said on March 17 at Birmingham? It is only a small paragraph and I am not going to quote it. It begins "Really I have no need to defend my visits to Germany," and in the subsequent lines of the speech, if you substitute the word "Poland" for "Czecho-Slovakia," what the Prime Minister said was absolutely, literally and permanently true.

There is a tendency—and I agree with my noble friend below me here—which always arises in every war, to personify the nation; and there is a greater tendency to do it now because the chief culprit is a dictator. We cannot come to terms with any of the chief rulers of Germany. We could not with Frederick the Great, we could not with Bismarck, we could not with the Kaiser, and we cannot with Hitler. But when we insist that the Germans should change their Government before we can come to terms with them, there I think we are making a very great mistake. If any foreign country asked us to change our Government at their dictation, I should defend even the present Government rather than acquiesce. No, you cannot ask the Germans at your dictation to change the particular form of government which they take; that is the business of the German people themselves, and if left to themselves they will deal with the dictator as dictators have been dealt with before. If you are going to get rid of Herr Hitler, do you want Ribbentrop? I would sooner have Hitler. If you do not want either of them, are you quite sure you are not going to get a Communist Government there? It is well within the bounds of probability. These highfalutin sentences that come in the perorations of Ministers had really better be dropped. Let us have something simple as a war aim that the man in the street can understand. And may I say in passing that the great enthusiasm that there is supposed to be for the war on this occasion is non-existent?

I want the Government to take into account the price of the continuance of the war. We say we have no quarrel with the German people, but we are going to blockade Germany; that means the slow starvation of German children so that they will be emasculated for very many years to come, a form of torture which is almost the worst there can be in a war. We have to look forward, as the Government appear to be doing, to three years with the appalling casualties that must take place owing to modern engines of war. We have not to take into account—and this I would stress very much—the rebuilding and carving-up of Central Europe in a satisfactory and permanent way. We cannot do that, nobody is going to do that. That is an insoluble problem: there are races, nationalities, civilisations that have changed hands and changed frontiers periodically for centuries past. Do not let us suppose for a moment that it is a possible endeavour on our part to tidy up that part of the world in such a way as to please these races and to satisfy the big nations round them.

But nearer home do let us remember that we have some responsibility for our long-standing friends, who are of a very high civilisation. I am talking of Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway: those are the people that we ought to take into account. Their defence is our business. In a war, when it rages, they are ground and powdered almost between two heavy millstones. Their trade is dislocated, their people are very often starved, their ships are sunk, and they suffer because they are small in the quarrels, in which they have no part, between the great Powers. Those are people to be taken into account—the neutrals, our Allies and our fellow countrymen. And do not let us for a moment suggest that there is any possibility of a settlement which can be worth a million English lives—young men, the greatest treasure we have got. Nothing can justify that, because we know, and it is no good pretending we do not, that we cannot settle the matter by fighting. Defend civilisation by the methods of barbarism? It is not possible. Defend civilisation by starving children and by massacring men on both sides by the million? Of course not.

I agree with those who firmly believe that our civilisation to-day is very inferior to what it was before 1914 in consequence of the war. Do let us think of the future of our own country first, of our own people, of the building up of our own ideas, our own institutions, that ought to be an example to the world, instead of bursting into this turmoil, this nightmare, which is going to throw the world into darkness for we do not know how many months or years, with no certainty that the result is going to be of any benefit to anyone, but with the practical certainty that if we are victorious, as most probably we shall be, a victorious peace is never a just peace. President Wilson said in the last war that you must have a peace by negotiation, a peace that can really be settled between peoples. I am so vividly reminded, by phrases I have heard to-day and am continually hearing and seeing in the Press, of 1914. I was among a small band in the House of Commons which stood up and tried for peace. We were laughed at and derided, but in wars it is the minorities that are generally right. We asked for peace by negotiation because we knew that that way you would not get a vindictive peace. And the same thing is going on now.

Finally, let me just put this most especially to my noble freind the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Do not let the idea spread that this, like an earthquake or a volcano, is something that is beyond the control of man. It is not. It is in the hands of our Government as well as in the hands of Herr Hitler. Do not let us out of a desire to score off and to down an individual, a very extraordinary individual, a very powerful individual, a very cruel individual, a man whom it is almost impossible to deal with—do not let us allow that to get into the public mind as a reason for the massacre of our fellow countrymen, our youth, and many thousands in Europe. Let us keep our sense of proportion. The agonies and the terrible distress, the persecutions and the cruelty which go on in Germany—well, we feel for the Germans who have to endure them, but it is their business to alter it. They can alter that. They cannot at present, because they are subjugated by this extraordinary personality. But they are going to join with him if we continue to fight him. If we can see an opportunity for reason, and not summarily reject a plan that is conceivable for the cessation of this terrible nightmare, I earnestly hope and press my noble friend that he and the Prime Minister will make every effort to take it.

6.15 p.m.

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, before the Foreign Secretary replies, I desire to make an appeal to your Lordships and to ask the Foreign Secretary to give me an assurance. My appeal is this. To (very member of your Lordships' House and to those outside, in all that we say about our war aims, what terms we desire to impose, what terms we will accept, what are our ideals, what we are determined to do, either to fight to the bitter end or to negotiate, I would implore everyone to remember, speaking now as a soldier and a realist, that there are two of us in this great business—ourselves and France. I have listened to every word of this debate. I listened to the debate in another place yesterday, but although I did not intend, in what I had planned to say to your Lordships, to say a word about the remarks of Mr. Lloyd George, I cannot allow to pass the words of my noble friend Lord Samuel with whom I nearly always agree. The speech which Mr. Lloyd George made seemed to me entirely reasonable, for he was pleading, as I now appeal, but on a different ground, that we should not make hasty decisions, that we should not hastily reject any proposals which may come. My reason is because of France. His was the neutral countries. In any case, it seemed to me that his speech was timely and, as always, fearless, and I do not regret it. But for him, without a doubt we should be now the vassals of Germany. Such a man is not likely to preach surrender to his country. I salute him now and always, whatever I may think and however much I may have quarrelled with him in domestic affairs, as the saviour of his country, as he may be again. That is just by the way, but I and my noble friend on my left (Viscount Samuel) totally disagree.

I have consulted many people, members of this House and all sorts of people high and low outside, who do not seem to understand that in this joint war France is in a most peculiar position, due no doubt to the pressure of the Navy and those who direct it. We must not forget the Leader of the House who was First Lord of the Admiralty. Due to the Navy we have won the war at sea so far, and under the direction of the noble Lord's vigorous successor let us hope and believe that we shall continue to be secure at sea. But that brings me to the point of where France comes in. We have this great natural barrier, about which Marshal Foch never ceased to dilate to me, saying: "You fortunate people in your island! You can indulge in all your high-flown sentiments with security. You have the Channel and your Fleet to defeat all corners." As I listened to more than one speech made, I was reminded of the old fable, which I commend to anyone who talks in this way about what we will and will not do, without reference to the true military situation. One creature is supposed to have said to another, "Don't forget that what is fun for you may be death for me." Here we are, secure in our island, while France, though we will vigorously support her, is exposed to that most terrible danger, land invasion.

Some people seem to think that air power has resulted in our being no longer an island, that therefore we are all in the same boat, and that it is not our bounden duty to consult France even more than we should naturally do. But that is not so. I spent part of this morning at the Imperial War Museum going through the records of what happened at the end of the last war, when the number of all these engines of destruction, including aeroplanes, oddly enough, was not very different from what it is to-day. I find that in one day on the Western Front, where France is now fighting our battles as well as her own, the British Army alone dropped 25,000 tons of explosives on the enemy, and in the nineteen days before the gigantic quantity of 250,000 tons of explosives was dropped upon the enemy. What can possibly happen to this country if by some frightful folly of mankind we indulge in a war of reprisals? Everyone knows the approximate total number of aeroplanes that can possibly reach these shores. Everyone knows approximately how much they can carry. How could it conceivably happen that we should suffer as the land Power would suffer-250,000 tons in a comparatively few days? Such a thing could not happen if people were to go on building aeroplanes from now on for 100 years. The force of gravity for one thing is an element, but, above all, let us not forget that it is getting easier and easier to intercept the projectile which is carried by air, so much so that it is probable, and indeed certain, that the total number of projectiles which may be sent here will be intercepted in an increasing ratio, so that by common consent our sufferings would be less and less. Nobody has yet found a way to intercept a shell in the air; once it leaves the gun, nobody can intercept it until it crashes to earth once more.

I make this point because it is so grossly unfair to talk as though we, and we alone, were in this plight. It is due to us, with the help of the French Navy, to say that we have made the sea secure, but in so doing we have made ourselves secure. But France, standing there valiantly, as she does now, as her brave Army is doing, a good 12 kilometres inside German territory, stands in grave peril. With our help she will overcome it, I have no doubt, but that it is grave peril we all know. Let us make this resolve, and it is for that reason I rose to ask a question of the Foreign Secretary. We do not give our conscience into the keeping of another nation, but in this hour of great peril to our friends, we will say nothing, we will make no promise, except that we will do our duty, without consulting fully beforehand with our Ally, France. If we fail to do that we shall fail in our duty, and we shall rightly be condemned by history. I appeal to my noble friend to assure the House and the country that we will not make rash promises of any kind without consulting our brave Allies the French, with whom without doubt in this matter, whatever may happen, we will fight with all our might.

6.25 p.m.

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

My Lords, I feel almost impertinent getting up in my place in your Lordships' House after all the most talented members of the House have spoken, but I have got something to say which will not take more than ten minutes. This debate has proceeded on very careful lines, and I have not the slightest intention of overstepping those lines. I want to say with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that he has been very consistent in his opinions, and has the courage of them, and he deserves very great credit for showing that courage in your Lordships' House. But in one remark he made he was a little one-sided. He talked about the slow starvation of German children through our blockade. He forgot to say that the Germans are doing their very best to blockade us in the same way. If it were not for the Royal Navy we might also find ourselves faced with starvation.

The other point I wanted to make was that I notice a very strong opinion in this House in favour of these debates being held. In the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty, your Lordships "relish" these debates on foreign affairs, but I must say I am entirely against the majority of your Lordships in that respect. I think it is a pity we should have these debates. They may do some good, at the same time they may do some harm. There is certainly one good thing that might come out of them, and that is constructive suggestion. I shall take very good care myself to remember that, up to the present, Russia has done nothing against this country or against France. Although she may have done things of which we do not approve, it would be a pity to be anything else than reserved as to what we may say about her.

But when we turn to our enemies, the Nazis, there is no need for restraint. This is a war we shall have to fight to the end. I believe that even war, as the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, said, is preferable to what we have been going through for the last few years of strain and suspense, constant menace and fear. One cannot emphasize too strongly that this horror has been brought about by a group of gangsters with a lust for power, whose word no man can trust. I admit to a lack of foresight or perspicuity, because two or three years ago I said in this House that the Leader of Germany had never broken his word. I realise now that as time goes on I, like others, live and learn.

As this debate is on, I have one suggestion which I do not think can do any harm. This is a fight to a finish. This fight will be won by the use of military force, by economic power, or by revolt from within. The two first methods we are carrying out to the best of our ability. With regard to the chances of upheaval inside Germany, there is no doubt that millions of the German people hate the Nazi régime with its lack of freedom and brutal aggression. They distrust their leaders, and they would overthrow them if they could. The Government are doing very good work, in my humble opinion, in dropping leaflets, but they do not go far enough. I am now going to touch on the same subject as was mentioned by the most reverend Prelate, but on different lines. There are people in Germany who wish to be sure that when the end of this war comes, England will help to settle their difficulties. This is what Germans in Germany, who do not belong to the Nazi Party, are saying now. They say of this country that when an emergency like war arises, we pull ourselves together and meet it, but when the danger is past, we just shrug our shoulders, turn our backs on a despairing Europe, and focus our energies on the far outposts of Empire or on our internal and infernal politics.

They further say that after the last war we gave in to an embittered France by setting our seal to the Treaty of Versailles (which to say the least of it did nothing to lay the foundations of lasting peace) and then, having done that, we left them in the lurch, and they are afraid in Germany that we are going to do that again. I am not saying this myself. That is what they are saying and I have good sources of information. All I remember is that we did give considerable sums of money to Austria and Germany. But in order to lose no chance of shortening this war we should help the Germans to help themselves by some form of encouragement. Your Lordships may think perhaps that this is rather premature, but it is not so. The chances of an internal upheaval in Germany will be greatly increased if the millions who hate and distrust the Nazis could be assured that when the war is over we shall make peace terms in which there will be co-operation between the two nations and their statesmen for the building up of a free Germany and a better Europe—terms in fact which would make for a lasting peace.

I suggest that the knowledge of what we would do if conveyed as it could be conveyed now to the German people might have a direct bearing on the duration of the war and its cost in terms of lives and misery. Up to the present the people of Germany have allowed the Nazis to continue their ruthless sway, as in their despairing fatalism they see no alternative and do not know which way to turn. If somebody of influence either in this House or in another place would rise and in simple language give the German people a picture of a future Europe with an England together with her Allies co-operating with a free Germany in her reconstruction and the reconstruction of Europe on a basis of peace, freedom and justice, I feel that a new hope would be born in that country where at present fear and fatalism combined strengthen the Nazi grip on the nation.

6.33 p.m.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX)

My Lords, in listening to or sometimes reading debates on foreign affairs I am occasionally impressed by the fact that, with all the advantages of open discussion, there is some force in what fell from my noble friend behind me, that there is in critical times a certain danger in speechmaking. The Foreign Secretary may perhaps be pardoned if he is tempted above other men to feel that silence is golden, for even if what is said itself is a model of discretion—and this House is habitually a discreet assembly—it is not necessarily immune from misrepresentation in other quarters outside.

It has been perhaps partly that consideration that has led one or two of your Lordships this afternoon to revert to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, yesterday, in regard to the holding of a Secret Session. I have nothing to add to what was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House yesterday, but I am quite sure that he will have taken in what fell from your Lordships to-day on that matter, as from my own point of view I have also done. It is noticeable, I think, that those who suggest a Secret Session on the whole are tempted to do so more for the value that it would have for members of the Government to hear frankly what members of the House think, than on account of any alleged value that might be supposed to attach to what members of the Government might say to members of the House. If that is so, I would suggest with all respect that open speech in a Secret Session is not the only channel of approach that members of either House enjoy to members of the Government. I shall, therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, not attempt perhaps to follow or to make answer in detail to everything that has fallen from those of your Lordships who have spoken, but take the opportunity of this debate, with reference to what has been said, of restating as briefly as I can the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards some at least of the questions that have been raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who spoke last but one, referred to the mutual position towards each other of this country and France, and I can most warmly endorse everything he said in this sense, that I am quite certain that we have as much confidence in France as I am equally certain France has in this country; and I can assure him that at no point that I am aware of during, I was going to say recent weeks but if I said even months and I think years it would be more true, have we given any decision or made any pronouncement—nor are we in the least likely to do so—without the fullest consultation and exchange of views with the French Government.

The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked me whether I felt able to make any observations in regard to Russian developments or in regard to Russo-Turkish developments. I do not know that I can usefully say anything in regard to Russian policy. It is a matter upon which I could certainly speculate, as of course could any of your Lordships, but I am not sure that at this stage it would be profitable for any of us to do so. With regard to Russo-Turkish relations I would only say this, that I thought the noble Viscount spoke words of profound wisdom when he urged those whom his words might reach to view with understanding the talks that Lad been taking place and were being renewed to-day between Russia and Turkey. We should certainly always be glad to see friendly relations maintained between two great neighbours, Russia and Turkey, which we believe need not in any way conflict with the closest relations between this country and Turkey or between Turkey and France.

The noble Lord, Lord Snell, said with reference to Poland that partition could not destroy the spirit of the nation. I entirely agree with him. The heroic and most gallant resistance of the Polish armed forces and all the bravery that has been shown by the Polish people will no doubt be a fresh inspiration to the Poles to regain the independence of which they have been temporarily robbed, as they will also be an inspiration to other peoples. Your Lordships will perhaps be aware that the Polish President, M. Moscicki, has resigned his functions as President, and that those functions have been constitutionally assumed by M. Raczkiewicz, a former President of the Polish Senate, and that the Polish Government is being established on French soil. His Majesty's Government will, of course, recognise as the legal Polish Government the Government so established, and I have no doubt that that Government will continue to preserve intact the spirit of Polish independence and of Polish resistance.

The reasons why His Majesty's Government entered the war are well enough known. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the guarantee that His Majesty's Government had given to Poland, and it is quite true historically that the aggression of Germany on Poland called into play the obligations which we had assumed. But our thought would be incomplete unless we had also had in mind the reasons for which those obligations were assumed. Some might say that we accepted them in our own national self-interest. I do not suppose the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, or the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, would do other than challenge any such statement, but there are many people who would be prepared to maintain the counter argument against them. And in one sense that statement is most certainly true, inasmuch as German policy, so far as this has had for its purpose the domination of other countries and the destruction of their independence, has logically enough sought to proceed by way of one country at a time, and therefore it was quite reasonable for every- body who might feel themselves threatened, as we have often said to each other in this House, to draw together in making a common effort for self-protection.

That again in itself was but a perfectly natural expression of causes that we, I think, regard as much more fundamental, and the greatest of all these causes was the recognition by men and women in a great many countries that the method and the consequence of German aggression was nothing less than the destruction of everything which for them gave life its value. Such people had watched the tale of oppression in Germany. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that that is the misfortune of the Germans and not our business. None the less people had watched it and had been impressed by it. They had seen its extension outside Germany, first to Austria and then to men of another race in Czecho-Slovakia. They feared, as has in fact been the case, that they were going to see the same treatment meted out to Poland. Each of these acts as they have taken place has resulted, of course, in the forcible alteration of the map of Europe, each has signified in the first place a continuous reversion to the way of violence in international dealing, of which the immediate consequence is, or would have been if left unchecked, to leave the weak wholly at the mercy of the strong.

But even worse than that, it has—has it not?—signified the attempt by Germany to force all who might be brought under the merciless control of a Party Government in Germany, to surrender all their liberty, liberty of life and liberty of conscience, under pain of every kind of persecution that the ingenuity of the governing elements in Germany might think it well to employ. Whatever differences there may have been, either here or elsewhere, upon issues of policy during the past months or years, there can, I think, be no difference of view among kindly, decent-living people of whatever nationality that these things do bring shame upon the Government that tries so to maintain itself in power and that if the world were to permit a continuance of these things, it would really be accepting a kind of condemnation to moral suicide, which indeed by its own acquiescence it would have deserved.

These, then, are the reasons for which this country and France have thought it preferable to fight, when the only alternative was to see all the causes and the ideals which have claimed the best human loyalty through the ages destroyed before our eyes. I found myself wondering, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, how, if he believes, as I am sure he does believe, that human progress really depends upon the maintenance of certain values in the world, human progress may be maintained if we and others who have it in our power to defend them were to stand idly by and see in one country after another those human values extinguished and destroyed. It is indeed true that the things against which we fight are surely evil, and there can be no hope for the world, as I should think, or for the free life of the nations, until the lesson is learned that that way will not be tolerated.

If, therefore, England and France have embarked on this costly and dangerous struggle it is not because they seek material profit for themselves. War cannot bring material profit to those who wage it, whether they win or lose. Nor certainly do England and France desire either aggrandisement or vengeance. But they do seek to re-establish for themselves and for others liberty under the reign of law, the right of peoples to decide their own destinies, to trade freely, and to live without fear. Surely then, we are fighting for causes that are vital not only for ourselves but also for all those everywhere who love liberty, and in which we can hardly fail to be supported by the sympathies and good will of many nations which, although they may not be called to take an active part as belligerents themselves, are not less passionately devoted to the things that we seek to defend than we are ourselves.

It is commonly suggested that peace proposals may at some moment be made on behalf of the German Government, which France and this country could only refuse at the price of being held alone responsible for the continuance of the war. I have no information as to whether this supposition is or is not well founded. Still less am I in a position to anticipate of what nature any such proposals, if they were made, would be. And certainly, on the issue of responsibility there has, I suppose, never been a case in history where the responsibility for plunging Europe in war has been so plainly attached to a single individual. But proposals for peace, whatever their nature, have to be considered with reference to three circumstances: to the conditions in which they are offered; to the Government by which they are put forward; and to the security that might be held to attach to any agreement that might conceivably be reached.

As to the conditions, it has already been indicated that proposals may be put forward under a veiled threat; and there is no more perilous proceeding than to negotiate under the threat of force. Certainly I think neither this country nor France will be moved by threats to surrender the principles for which they have entered upon this struggle. As to the Government of Germany, I will only say that we have had very bitter experience of its character and its methods. As to assurances for the future, we have seen those rulers of Germany repudiate successive international documents which they had signed, and reverse the most fundamental principles of the policy which they had for long years most vehemently proclaimed. If, therefore, in place of threats it is sought to satisfy us with assurances, it is necessary to say that assurances from the present German Government are not enough. These then are not, I admit, favourable auspices. But if and when we receive proposals, we shall certainly examine them with care, and we shall measure them against the principles for which we have taken up arms; and I certainly would not rule out the suggestion of the noble Viscount opposite, that that might be a possible and a desirable opportunity for some reasoned statement of the position adopted by this country before the world.

Nobody desires this war to continue for a day or an hour that is unnecessary. We are all, with Lord Ponsonby, profoundly aware of what it means to this country and to humanity at large. Moreover, His Majesty's Government have always made it plain that once violence and bad faith in international relations were laid aside—and that is perhaps relevant to what fell from the most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York, and the general spirit of the plea that he made—we were ready and anxious to join hands with others, including Germany, in the work of real world reconstruction. We have repeatedly stated our willingness to make our own contribution to this end, through which benefits could be brought to the peoples of all nations alike. But it is impossible to begin to make any progress to that end unless first there is security, and unless nations can be released from the perpetual fear of attack by Germany and the consequent necessity of maintaining inflated armaments for their defence. The first duty therefore remains—and I am convinced that this is the feeling of the overwhelming mass of opinion in this country and in France—the first duty remains that of securing conditions under which the rule of violence no longer operates and under which the pledged word of Governments might again be held worthy of honourable trust. Anything less than that, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Snell, said at the beginning of our debate, could only at the best afford to Europe an uneasy and an uncertain period of armistice, and in no other way, I think, can we bring the world back to any peace that would be worthy of the name.

One word in conclusion on something that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in another place in regard to the position of Parliament. Noble Lords may perhaps have noticed that he said that the Government would raise no objection to another place or, of course, to this House, having ample opportunity for seeing any proposals which may be put forward, for considering them and for hearing what reply His Majesty's Government, on behalf of both Houses and the people of this country, would be disposed to send to them. I hope, therefore, that with that assurance His Majesty's Government may feel that, in the general attitude which they hold and with which they approach these problems, they do command the overwhelming support of both Houses of Parliament to-day and, as I think, the overwhelming support of the people of this land.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Viscount for the statement that he has made in answer to the Motion that I placed upon the Paper. I think the debate has been extremely helpful and I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.