Lords Sitting of 26 October 1939

Preamble
The House met at four of the dock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.
Moved, That Standing Order NO. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) (POSTPONEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (HIGH COURT JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1939.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FAMILY PENSION FUNDS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1939.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1939.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT No. 2) ORDER, 1939.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (EXISTING RAILWAY FUNDS) ORDER, 1939.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Orders be made in the form of the drafts approved by the House yesterday.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

THE WAR: REPLY TO HERR VON RIBBENTROP.
4.3 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if they have any statement to make on the international situation.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, during the past week there have been no operations of importance on the Western Front. Minor adjustments in the positions occupied have been made and the general result is that the French and German forces are now on the line of the common frontier. The steady stream of reinforcements and reserves of material for the British Expeditionary Force continues, and the defences in the British sector are being continually strengthened.
In the air, aircraft of the Fighter Command have again been in action. The House is already aware of the attempted attacks by German bombers on the East Coast convoy on the 21st October. In the morning attack, delivered by six bombers, it is probable that two of the enemy aircraft were destroyed and in the afternoon attempt, made by two formations of nine and twelve bombers respectively, it is certain that four and probably that five were destroyed. On the following day, one of two bombers was

1551
shot down into the sea near a convoy off St. Abbs Head. None of the ships or escorts in the convoys suffered hurt, nor did any of the Royal Air Force aircraft engaged.
The work of the units of the Coastal Command is almost continuous. Occasionally it is spectacular and attracts attention, but more often it is of a routine kind and, though no less effective, passes unnoticed. This week there are certain successes to report. Mines in the path of convoys have been detected from the air in time to save the ships in the convoy from danger and seven U-boats have been sighted. Of those sighted, four have been attacked. There is good reason to believe that at least one of those attacked was severely damaged, and that another was destroyed by naval vessels directed to the scene by the attacking aircraft. Mention should also be made of the admirable work of the anti-aircraft gunners, who have been continuously at their posts from a date before the war began. It is now known that in the raids on Rosyth and Scapa Flow they brought down two German bombers and there is reason to think that they caused such damage to others as to prevent their reaching home.
In the war at sea there has been an intensification of the German submarine campaign. This intensification we have always expected; but the House can have confidence that the situation is well in hand. In spite of one or two strokes of good fortune, the enemy have not been able to attain the rate of sinking which they attained at the beginning of the war. Their submarines have been driven to operate further and further from their bases and further and further from the focal points where trade is bound to congregate. Finally, the destruction of enemy submarines is being maintained at a sufficiently high rate to encourage us to believe that this menace to our trade will eventually be overcome.
Your Lordships may, indeed, have seen that during the last few days the sinking of five British ships has been announced. One of these ships, "Stone-gate," was sunk by the German raider "Deutschland" some time ago, but information of this loss has only just reached, us. Together these ships aggregated 22,715 tons. On the other hand,
1552
a number of enemy ships have been arrested and brought in by our blockading squadrons for adjudication in the regular way. These ships are the "Phoebus" of 8,863 tons, the "Gloria" of 5,896 tons, the "Bianca" of 1,375 tons, the "Poseidon" of 5,864 tons and the "Biscaya" of 6,369 tons, all of which are now in our control, totalling 28,367 tons between them. In addition to these the "Gonzeinheim" of 4,574 tons was intercepted and scuttled herself to avoid capture. There is therefore a loss to the enemy of some 33,000 tons and a net gain to us of nearly 6,000 tons. These figures are, however, subject to the decision of the Prize Court.
One feature of the enemy's U-boat campaign to which attention should be called is the growing lawlessness. It seems now to have become the rule for merchant ships to be sunk without warning. Frequently, passengers and crew have been turned adrift in small open boats in stormy seas to suffer from cold and exposure. In the case of the s.s. "Yorkshire" in particular there was a deplorable loss of life amongst the wives and children of soldiers returning home from the East. Another flagrant instance was the sinking of the French ship "Bretagne" carrying a large number of women and children. This ship was sunk miles from land by gunfire and torpedo without warning. Fourteen of those on board are missing. No words are strong enough to express our detestation of this cowardly form of warfare.
The outstanding event in foreign affairs during the past week has been the signature of the Treaty with Turkey. The Treaty has been received with profound satisfaction throughout the Empire and in France, and it is a great encouragement to us to know that it has been widely welcomed in many other parts of the world. That is doubtless because the world sees in it a guarantee for the maintenance of peace in at least one region of the world. It is a purely defensive instrument, threatening no one and designed only to oppose resistance to aggression. We are proud to feel that, under its provisions, we now share mutual responsibilities with the Turkish people, for whose patriotism, probity and valour we have long cherished a high regard. This is a suitable opportunity of informing the House that His Majesty's Government and the French and

1553
Turkish Governments have been discussing for some time the question of financial and economic assistance for Turkey. The assistance to be given relates particularly to the supply of war material. Conversations on this subject have been taking place in London with a Turkish Military Mission, and it has been a great pleasure to us to welcome the Mission and its distinguished leader, General Orbay, to this country. The conversations have been conducted in a spirit of frankness and cordiality and are now nearing completion; His Majesty's Government are confident that they will lead to useful and practical results.
A week ago your Lordships were informed that there had been no indication from Berlin of the views of the German Government upon the issues which the Prime Minister sought to define in the statement of October 12. In the last few days reports have come from Berlin of lengthy consultations among the Nazi leaders. It may be that the speech made at Danzig on October 24 by the German Foreign Minister is the result of these consultations. It is not necessary to waste time by commenting on the many details of this performance. No one in this country will be deceived by its distortions of the truth, and there is already abundant evidence that Herr von Ribbentrop has been no more successful in his attempt to mislead impartial observers in other parts of the world. Indeed, one may even cherish the hope that, despite all suppressions and falsifications, there are still some in Germany itself who see where the real truth lies. The main thesis of the speech is that it was England and not Germany who desired and plotted for war. The whole world knows that this is not true. The whole world knows that no Government ever sought more ardently to avoid war or took greater risks to preserve peace than did the Government of this country. We have already published with complete frankness all the essential documents relating to the causes of the war. We are content to be judged by the facts and to know that the verdict of the great majority of neutral observers is in our favour.
In his final report on his mission to Berlin, Sir Nevile Henderson referred to the encouragement given to Herr Hitler in his designs on Poland by Herr von Ribbentrop, who apparently advised him up to the last moment that Britain would
1554
not fight. Yet this is the man who now asserts that the whole object of British policy since 1933 has been to concert war against Germany. One of the questions which the historians of the future will have to consider is how far the great tragedy of our times was due to the failure of Herr von Ribbentrop to comprehend either the policy or the character of the British people.
There is one other comment upon the German Foreign Minister's speech. He desires, it seems, to invite the Soviet Union to join in a crusade against the British Empire. Why, what a change is here! Let me read two sentences from Herr von Ribbentrop's address to the Press when he first came to England in 1936:
"Germany wants to be friends with Great Britain, and I think the British people also wish for German friendship. The Führer is convinced that there is only one real danger to Europe and to the British Empire as well: that is the spreading further of Communism, this most terrible of all diseases—terrible because people generally seem to realise its danger only when it is too late."
The positive conclusion which we are apparently asked to draw from the German Foreign Minister's speech is that the German Government have made the choice which, as was stated on October 12, lay before them. He has announced their intention of seeing the struggle through with all their energy and strength. If that is, indeed, their decision, there can be but one reply, and we are prepared to give it. But it is not England that has challenged Germany: it is the German Government who, by their persistent acts of aggression pursued in face of our repeated warnings, have forced us at last reluctantly to take up arms. It is the German Government who by their reckless disregard of their pledged word and of the rights and liberties of other peoples must bear the responsibility for this war and for all its consequences.
4.16 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Earl for the statement that he has made. The statement as a narrative is, of course, a little disappointing, because in the theatre of war very few dramatic events have taken place. The scene of interest appears to have been shifted to the diplomatic field. In that respect diplomacy this week has the place of

1555
honour, and we have seldom heard any declaration of this kind with greater satisfaction. After a series of disturbing diplomatic incidents that seemed to be to our disadvantage, we welcome a gain of very real substance and of fine promise. I should like at this point, if I may do so, to congratulate the Foreign Secretary upon his achievement, especially as it is a Treaty which is not an offence against other nations but is in itself a treaty of defence. Properly nurtured—if I may assume the röle of a prophet for a moment—it may have very wonderful future effects. It might be a kind of Aaron's rod that will blossom in a barren land and be a turning point, one may hope, in modern European history.
I should like to pause for a moment to say a word about Turkey as a whole. The old Turkey was known to us in the first German war, and our relations, with that exception, have always been friendly. Even then we held the Turks in respect as making courageous and chivalrous soldiers. We know that the old Turkey was strong, that she occupied a strategical position of almost decisive importance, and that she was devoted to her ancient ways and to her loyalties. The new Turkey is a creation of our own age, and it shows the importance, the enormous force of ideas upon a nation's life. We know in this country how difficult it is to persuade even individuals to modify even in a small degree their habitual practices. It is the same with ourselves. We are all of us perfect museums of outworn habits and prejudices. But to get a whole people to change its point of view in one generation is an achievement of very great magnitude and importance. That was done in Turkey as the result of the wise planning and sane outlook of perhaps the greatest of her modern sons. Kemal Atatiirk has thus bequeathed to Europe a modernised Turkey which contains something of the fine qualities of his own spirit. I think I am right in saying that we rejoice to be on good terms with that people and we can walk together with them because we are agreed.
I notice that the statement to-day says nothing about the development of extended trade relationships with Russia, but I understand that is being considered, and I will not at this point say anything
1556
more about it. The statement also refers to the speech made a few days ago by the German Foreign Minister—a speech that we cannot pass by way of merely ignoring it, but it added nothing to our information, and it contained no surprises. That it would be bad mannered was, of course, expected, and it also proved to be bad tempered. Germany seems to have stopped breeding statesmen who have command over themselves. Strong men, men with a good cause, have no need to vituperate; they very rarely lose their self-control, and seldom stoop to defaming their opponents. Well, the Danzig oration is German statesmanship in the new style. It suggests, not certainty to my mind, but doubt; not serenity, but anxiety. It may have some success in Germany because a people that will accept the leaders that Germany has will accept even the statements in that speech. But we have to note in passing what Germany's grievance is. Poor, innocent, lamb-like Germany was forced to act because a strong and wicked Poland had invaded her! We cannot, of course, compete with malicious statements of that character. For us there is only the consolation that our cause is just, that what we seek is neither selfish nor mean; and in those circumstances we have no alternative to that devotion which will endure to the end. I beg to move for Papers.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think it was at the invitation of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that the first speakers who did not belong to the most illustrious ranks of the members of this Chamber joined in the weekly debates, and I am very glad to avail myself of that offer and opportunity. First of all, I naturally join in the chorus of praise of the Agreement that has been reached with Turkey. As the noble Earl pointed out, that is certainly the biggest event of the week, and I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is the biggest success we have scored so far in the course of the war. Not the least advantage of a diplomatic victory is that it saves the need for victories on the field of battle, and that is a reason why this Agreement must give special satisfaction to all those who are anxious to secure a just and reasonable peace at the earliest opportunity.

1557
But there is one weak spot in the Treaty, and it is that weak spot to which I wish to draw attention. I do not desire to refer to the broad issues that were raised by my noble friend and Leader, but I should like to discuss for a moment the problems that are raised by the Second Protocol. This provision frees Turkey from all her obligations to the Allies if Russia should threaten to attack her for acting upon them. This is what might be called the Achilles heel of the Treaty, and my plea this afternoon is that we should make a determined and immediate effort to remove this source of danger by securing, so far as we may, the good will of that country, on which the effectiveness in the long run of this historic Agreement depends. I speak mainly as one who has given quite a lot of his spare time in the last four years to committees and public gatherings whose object has been to improve relations between ourselves and Russia. I have acted thus in the firm belief that a real understanding between Britain and Russia would make for peace in Europe, and increase our own security. That belief is strengthened by those implications of this Treaty to which I have just referred. And it is not weakened because I am regarded in certain circles as being tarred with the same brush as the members of the Communist Party.
There is no serious obstacle, I believe, in the way of a better understanding—at any rate of a lessening of the present political tension. If we look at the relations in the broadest possible way, the conflict of interests between Great Britain and Imperial Russia in the years before the Russo-Japanese war, which was manifest in the competition for spheres of influence in Persia, Afghanistan, Tibet and China, has vanished to-day with the disappearance of those ambitions from Russian foreign policy. And what is even more important as an instrument for harmonising the interests of the two countries is that the vital concerns and interests of the British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union actively coincide at certain points in Europe and in the Far East.
I do not wish to enter into any discussion that might be, controversial, and about which the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, has asked us to suspend judgment, but one thing I think can safely be said about recent developments
1558
in Eastern Europe, and that is that the extension of Russian influence in that region means a corresponding loss of German influence, and that every dimunition of German power on the Continent is a gain for the Allied cause. Against this background of common national interest so far as fundamentals are concerned, it should surely be possible to do something to improve relations between ourselves and the most important of the European neutrals. Let us consider for a moment economic relations. We should, I believe, do all we can to restore trade between this country and Russia to the pre-war level—and it was gratifying to hear the other day that a large consignment of Russian timber ordered before the war had been released from Murmansk. But we should surely all abstain from making any unnecessary and artificial impediments to trade such as delay in granting export licences to British manufacturers and the detention of British merchant ships conveying Russian cargoes to Russian ports. These incidents have occurred. They may conceivably be justified, but unless the reason was exceedingly urgent it would seem difficult to excuse something that certainly makes for friction between the two countries.
Such impediments to the natural flow of trade are all the more regrettable because they have political as well as economic repercussions. It may be objected to this that the goods we supply to Russia are likely to find their way to Germany, but surely this objection cannot apply to the restoration of normal peacetime trade between ourselves and Russia, because this is based obviously on the internal requirements of the two countries. Let us not forget that the supplies reaching Germany from Russia are primarily foodstuffs and mineral ores produced inside Russian territory. I sincerely hope the Ministry of Economic Warfare does bear that consideration in mind. It follows from this that the most effective, and indeed the only, method of filling this gap in our blockade of Germany is to buy more, not less, Russian goods and to offer higher prices for those essential commodities that enable Germany to prolong the war. We need have no reason to fear that the machine tools and industrial products we send to Russia in exchange for Russian goods will benefit the enemy, because the Germans are a manufacturing

1559
people and they already have a surfeit of such articles. This, to my mind, is the strongest of all the arguments for a considerable increase, far above the prewar level, in our trade with Russia.
I should like, if I may do so without presumption, at this point to congratulate the noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary on the initiative he has taken in regard to trade talks. At the same time it is certainly a little disappointing to observe that Germany has already concluded an important trade agreement while the British Government have been waiting to make their offer. We simply cannot afford to let a competing firm get in first every time. I do beg the Government to speed up negotiations and to see that the Board of Trade gets down to the "brass tacks" of a commercial agreement at the earliest possible opportunity. But an improvement in the distinctly thundery political atmosphere will, of course, be even more valuable than more trade. The negative condition for such an improvement was indicated by the noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary when he advised the House to suspend judgment and to refrain from hasty and possibly ill-considered criticism of Russian military and diplomatic action in Europe. One could have wished that this admirable example had been followed by other public men and by the more responsible organs of the daily Press.
LORD ADDISON: The less responsible.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The more and less responsible organs of the daily Press. More is to be expected of certain daily papers. But British diplomacy also has a contribution to make to the clearing of the air. There is still, I believe, a serious misunderstanding of our policy, and a corresponding mistrust of our official intentions, on the Russian side. We should surely make it abundantly clear, and go on making it abundantly clear, that we accept Russian neutrality as unreservedly as we accept American neutrality, and that we have no more desire to embroil Russia than we have to embroil the United States with Germany. We must dispel the haunting fear that still lingers in Russian minds that we want to drag Russia into the war and then leave her to fight single-handed against Germany. At the same time we do recognise that there are many different
1560
varieties and shades of neutrality, and we need not hesitate to say in public and through official diplomatic channels that we are as anxious to obtain the benevolence of the greatest European neutral as we are to preserve the benevolent and sympathetic neutrality of the United States.
What would do more, I am convinced, than anything else to persuade the Russian Government of our sincerity and to gain their good will would be some sort of official intimation that we have no intention now or at any future date of challenging or interfering with their new position in Eastern and North-Eastern Europe. Since it was made clear in another place that our pledge to Poland was only operative in the event of German aggression, we have no obligation of honour to resist Russian expansion in Eastern Europe, and we have no conceivable national or Imperial interests to protect in that part of the world.
LORD NEWTON: Does the noble Earl include Poland among the Northern Powers?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was referring to Poland when I said that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place had made it abundantly clear that our undertaking to Poland was to protect her from aggression if it came from Germany, and that we have no other obligations of honour in that respect.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Could the noble Earl tell us how it differs, from the point of view of a Pole, whether he is attacked from the East or the West? I understood we had promised to protect Poland against any hostile Power.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Lord has raised a very interesting question and, if I may, I shall leave the Foreign Secretary who will wind up the debate to answer it. He will do it in a way far more satisfactory to the House than I possibly could do. A short while ago the Government decided to recognise a fait accompli in Abyssinia though it had striven very honestly and very genuinely for many months to prevent its accomplishment. If that price was not too high for the good will of a second-class great Power in peace-time—I do not use the phrase in a derogatory sense, but simply in the military sense—it can hardly be

1561
maintained that a similar recognition of a fait accompli is top high a price to pay for the good will of a first-class great Power in war-time. In the long run we are bound to acknowledge a change in the status quo, and in view of war conditions it would seem that the sooner we do it the better for the Allied cause. In a word, what I am asking the Government to do this afternoon is to make a big effort to secure a détente between this country and Russia as the necessary and logical sequel to the Mutual Assistance Treaty between ourselves and France and Turkey. That is the gist of my argument and of my request.
4.40 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I could not sit still and hear the extraordinary doctrine preached in the British Parliament that after we had given our solemn pledge to Poland—that is to say, to 30,000,000 men, women and children that we would protect them from aggression—we should choose to say: "Oh, we only meant aggression from one particular side and not from any other." It would be a ridiculous thing to say, and it was not what we did say. I cannot stand here as an ordinary Englishman and allow myself to be accused of such a dreadful breach of faith. I know that every Englishman feels the same. It may be that Russia is too powerful for us to say, "Get out," but for us to say that we acquiesce in a wrong done is a thing which I cannot sit down under, and I hope no Englishman will. When the Foreign Secretary comes to speak I trust he will deal frankly with this matter and say, "Of course it was equally wrong for the invasion from the East to take place as it was for the invasion from the West." It is wasting words, saying what is not true, and being untrue to one's heart and soul to say that what was wrong from the West is right from the East. The 30,000,000 Poles suffered just the same. I may say that I have recently returned from abroad—
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord has taxed my noble friend the Earl of Listowel, but did he hear the broadcast from a member of his own Party, the present Secretary of State for War, and also another former member of his own Party, the present First Lord of the Admiralty,
1562
neither of whom took the line that the noble Lord now takes?
LORD MOTTISTONE: In this matter of honour I trust there is no difference among Parties. We gave our solemn pledge to 30,000,000 Poles that we would protect them from aggression from anyone. I do not care what anyone in any Party says, that is the truth, and let us stand by it. What is more, I am glad that the occasion has been given to me to speak, because, as I have said, I have recently returned from abroad. There I heard something of the sufferings of the Polish people which are now assuming an acute form, and I think it is just as well that the people of this country should realise the terrible things that are befalling and are about to befall the 30,000,000 Polish men, women and children in the East and in the West. What really should happen in the near future is that there should be some kind of conference of the peoples of Northern Europe in order to cope with the terrible famine that is gradually closing in this winter. There is great need of food, warmth and clothing. I am not exaggerating the horrors of what I have heard of the sufferings already beginning in that distressed country of Poland. No doubt there will be great sufferings in Russia, and a certain amount of suffering in Germany, but the great horror has begun to Poland and is rapidly approaching to a state of disaster amongst 30,000,000 Poles.
I do not know how we can help them, but I implore your Lordships not to make things worse for them by telling them that we never promised to help them against aggression from the East but only against aggression from the West. Let us bend our minds to discover some way in which we can help this unfortunate people. We promised to befriend and help them. It may well be that through no fault of our own we failed to defend them; but there can be no doubt that Germany is utterly in the wrong and that we are completely in the right. Of that there can be no doubt whatever to my mind. But let us look at the facts as they are to-day and think of these poor Poles. Let us try, each one of us, to whatever Party he belongs, to think out and devise some plan to save those people from the terrible catastrophe of famine which is now impending.
4.45 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, the weekly statement that my noble friend reads to the House has this afternoon given the opportunity for several speeches that have touched upon matters of great importance on which is it my duty to say a word or two. Those weekly statements that record the progress or the passage of events in the great struggle in which France and the British Empire stand side by side will prove their usefulness, I think, if from time to time they do afford the opportunity of such a review as we have had this afternoon. A reference was made—and I only make this added reference in passing—to the speech made by my opposite number in Germany, Herr von Ribbentrop, and the reflection that I made upon that, which did not find place in the statement, was that I had never seen an attempt more clumsy, if one may speak of an international colleague in those terms, to divide England and France, for that seemed to me to be the plain purpose of the speech. It left on my mind—I suppose that never has confidence between France and ourselves been more complete and more intimate than it is to-day—the conviction that, however unsuccessful Herr von Ribbentrop might have been in understanding the British people in peace, he was not less unsuccessful in understanding the joint mind of Great Britain and France. For the rest the picture which I think the noble Lord, Lord Snell, had in his mind—Germany threatened by the danger of attack by Poland, only a short time ago by the danger of an attack by Czecho-Slovakia, the victim of sinister plotting by this country!—if the whole matter was not serious that indeed would be a spectacle to bring smiles to the lips of gods and men. That, however, is by the way.
During the speeches that have been made, several matters of importance have been raised, and perhaps I might begin with the matter that was raised last by Lord Listowel before I come to the speech of my noble friend Lord Snell. Lord Listowel had a great deal to say to us in regard to what he deemed to be the general policy of Russia and to the opportunities which that policy afforded, in his view, for the improvement of relations between the Soviet Government and ourselves.
1564
In many ways, I have not, I suppose, the knowledge of some of these things that perhaps is in the possession of Lord Listowel, but perhaps also I have other knowledge that is not in his possession, and I am bound to say that, while I hope I do not underrate the importance of the considerations that he urged, I think that, if your Lordships are to have a balanced picture of the whole situation in mind, it is necessary to remember that the recent Soviet action in regard to the Baltic States has caused anxiety not only in quarters immediately concerned, and that the situation that has been created is not by any means wholly clear. It is certainly by no means clear at present what is the precise position of the negotiations in progress between the Soviet Government and Finland, and I would here say no word to make those negotiations more difficult; but it is certainly not clear what the reaction in certain circumstances would be in Scandinavian countries, and indeed outside, if deadlock in those negotiations should be reached. There should, as far as we are aware, be no conflict of interest between the Soviet and Finland that is not capable of adjustment, and for all reasons His Majesty's Government hope that the discussions now proceeding between those two countries may be brought to a reasonable conclusion.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, started a topic that brought the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to his feet; and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, having started it, was good enough to say that he would leave the further development of the case to the Foreign Secretary. As the debate proceeded between him and Lord Mottistone, I found myself, as is not infrequently the case, reflecting that they were not perhaps arguing on exactly the same point, and that what had begun by being a matter of rather academic historical accuracy was developing into a contest and controversy of high principle in which their passions might easily become warmly engaged. I do not wish to enter into that passionate struggle, but I can perhaps say a word upon what I had thought had been the issue—namely, that of historical accuracy. I understood the noble Earl opposite to say—and he referred to the statement which was repeated on the subject in another place by my honourable friend,

1565
the Under-Secretary—that, in our discussions with Poland and with Colonel Beck, it had always been understood that the purpose of those discussions, and the sole purpose of those discussions, was to provide against a case of aggression by Germany. In making that statement I am not saying anything that would not carry the whole-hearted assent of the Polish Government, past and present. But when the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggests that it would be the policy of this Government, or of any other Government that might fill our places, to recoil from pledges that they had given and from the understanding that those pledges carried, he will, I am sure, allow me to say, and I am sure that he will agree, that no Government holding our place would ever ask our country to do any such thing.
It is quite true, of course, as he says, that it makes no difference to the Poles whether they are invaded from East or West; and nobody who has any information as to what is now going on in the several parts of Poland can feel any other than a sense of the complete and utter tragedy of the suffering and want which, as he truly says, is going to grow much worse this winter and of which even to-day we have the most distressful reports. The last thing I would wish to do in this matter is to defend the action of the Soviet Government at the particular time at which they took it. But it is right to remember two things: Firstly, that they would never have taken that action if the German Government had not started it and set the example that they did set when they invaded Poland without any declaration of war. In the second place, it is perhaps, as a matter of historical interest, worth recalling that the action of the Soviet Government has been to advance the Russian boundary to what was substantially the boundary recommended at the time of the Versailles Conference by the noble Marquess who used to lead the House, Lord Curzon, and who was then Foreign Secretary.
LORD MOTTISTONE: May I intervene, as the matter is of such vital importance? Is it not the fact that the Polish Government had a sure guarantee from the Soviet Government, under the Pact of Non-Aggression which they had with the Soviet Government at the outbreak of war, that their eastern boundary should remain
1566
intact, so that, whatever happened, the advance to the Curzon line or any other line was a breach of faith?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I said I was not concerned to defend the action of the Soviet Government, or indeed of any other Government except my own. I was only stating historical facts, and I think that the historical facts as I have stated them are not capable of dispute. Then the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, led us a little bit into the sphere of economics, and it is I think true, as he said, that the Soviet Government, though their previous declarations of economic solidarity with Germany might have seemed to render it doubtful, do now appear willing to trade impartially with all the belligerents, and His Majesty's Government have, as the House knows, already taken advantage of this attitude by the conclusion of the recent agreement for the exchange of timber against rubber and tin. We are now examining the possibility of doing further trade with advantage to this country, as I hope, and without incurring the risks to which Lord Listowel referred, on the same basis of barter, which is the only basis possible in present circumstances. If we are able to do that, I think—at least I hope—that it will be of commercial value to us and may have some of the wider valuable consequences that the noble Lord had in mind.
Not quite unconnected with all that subject is the attention that is given to the question of the relations of the Soviet with Turkey. It is quite true that the visit of the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs to Moscow has apparently produced no definite result, but, none the less, your Lordships will not have failed, I hope, to observe that, after those conversations were concluded, both Governments were at pains to show that their traditional friendship and their general relations remained unaffected by their failure to achieve final agreement at that stage. That, as I ventured to say a week or two ago in reply to something that had fallen from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is a matter of great satisfaction to His Majesty's Government, who welcome and wish to see maintained good relations between those two great neighbours, Turkey and Russia. We wish that all the more now that we have concluded the Anglo-Franco-Turkish Agreement, which has put us in a special relationship

1567
with the Turkish Government and to which the noble Lord opposite referred in terms so generous.
Although that Agreement does in fact little more than commit to paper the preexisting will to collaboration between Great Britain and Turkey which has, as we all know, existed over a number of years, it does, as I think was said in my noble friend's statement, constitute a pretty firm guarantee against aggression in that part of the world, and, as he emphasized, like the other arrangements entered into by His Majesty's Government, it is purely defensive, it is aimed against no Power and it threatens the legitimate interest of no Power, and it can only be called into operation by aggression. The terms of it are, I have no doubt, sufficiently in your Lordships' memories to spare me from the necessity of repeating them. I will only here emphasize the essentially mutual character of them. Turkey and Great Britain make this Agreement as two countries meeting together on equal terms for purposes in which they have a common and identical interest, and your Lordships will observe that the statement was made in another place that while it is usual that treaties should be laid before the House for twenty-one days before ratification, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the present case it was desired that the Anglo-Franco-Turkish Treaty should be ratified as soon as possible. It is therefore proposed to submit the Treaty for His Majesty's signature at once and to arrange for the instruments of ratification to reach Angora next week. I believe that is, from the Parliamentary point of view, slightly irregular, but I have no doubt that in this House, as in another, there will be a general feeling that it was right to lose no time in making progress.
As my noble friend said, in connection with this Treaty, arrangements have been under discussion for the granting of certain financial and economic assistance to Turkey, particularly in regard to the supply of war material, and I would like to add my word to his in the sense of saying how great has been our pleasure at welcoming General Orbay to this country as a collaborator, and how much we have been impressed with the wise appreciation of all the issues with which we are dealing that he and others working
1568
with him have shown. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, was good enough to tender a word of personal congratulation to myself in this matter, but let me assure him that that is really quite undeserved, for if it is true, as it is true, to say that it takes two to make a quarrel, it certainly takes two to make an agreement, and we could never have made this Agreement with Turkey unless throughout all our conversations we had been assured, and felt assured at all points, of their loyal co-operation in the common service, as I said just now, of interests that they with us felt to be exactly common between us.
It is true, I think, that the conclusion of this Treaty has been very warmly welcomed both in this country and very far outside it, and that is one evidence of the place that Turkey holds in the opinions of the people of this country and the finest proof of the great value which this country attaches to the friendship of Turkey. The foundations for that friendship were, as the noble Lord said, laid by the master hand of Kemal Atatürk, and have been constantly developed under the distinguished guidance of his successor, President General Inönü. We have all watched with deep admiration the progress that Turkey has made in recent years and we have all without distinction of Party welcomed the important position that by merit is hers among the Powers of the world. Our people certainly have every cause fully to appreciate the high qualities and the character of the Turkish race, and it gives to all of us the greatest satisfaction that the relations between our two countries are now once more, as we hope, set on a footing of lasting friendship. That, I have no doubt, will redound to the permanent durable advantage of both countries.
It is interesting to recall the fact that it was an alliance with Turkey that formed the basis of Anglo-Turkish relations during the nineteenth century, and for historical students it is interesting to note that that Treaty, the origin of those relations, was signed in the first week of the year 1799 and contained, if you make the comparison, noteworthy points of similarity with our present Treaty. This in itself is further proof, if proof were needed, that in the Treaty which we have just succeeded in making we are acting in harmony with our traditions and she with hers, and so I hope it may continue to be for many years to come, because

1569
it is true of countries as it is true of individuals that nations and men do their best when they are true to their own traditions. As I have said, the Treaty is directed against no other Power, and implies no change in our desire to continue to collaborate on all possible occasions with other Governments which have interests in the areas which come within the scope of the provisions of the Treaty that we have just signed. I hope indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, was not drawing a bow too widely removed from the truth when he hoped that the Treaty might in truth be the parent stock of many other benefits to the world that might gradually accrue from it.
5.9 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have no intention of prolonging this debate by making a speech, but I should like to ask my noble friend who has just sat down a question arising out of what he said. I understood him to say that the Russians would not have invaded Poland if it had not been for the action of the Germans, thus implying that this action came to them as a surprise to which they felt bound to make some response. I want to ask the noble Viscount, is it not a fact, although its not generally known, that the German Government and the Soviet Government arrived at an agreement to partition Poland as far back as the summer, I rather think in the month of June or July?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I am afraid I have no precise information on the point which my noble friend has put to me. If he has any information of a certain character should be very glad to have it.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I am sure we should like to thank the noble Viscount for the explanation that he has made in his reply. The debate will have had usefulness if it has only enabled us to assure the Turkish people with what pleasure we welcome the Agreement that has been made.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
5.11 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, yesterday I informed your Lordships that I thought the meeting of this House on
1570
Tuesday next would be purely formal. Since then I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has given notice that he intends to put a Motion on the Paper dealing with the postal and cable censorship and its effect on foreign trade, and also with the machinery for export and import licences. He wishes to call attention to matters of that kind. Therefore there will naturally be a debate on that Motion. There is also a starred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, put down for that day. I suggest, therefore, that the House should meet at four o'clock on Tuesday, and there will be a Royal Commission, probably about five o'clock or a little later. On Wednesday the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester has a Motion on the Paper calling attention to the problems arising out of the evacuation of women and children, and I suggest that the House should meet at half past three that day. On Thursday there will be the Second Reading of the Prices of Goods Bill, which will have been received from another place on the previous day; and that will be followed by the usual Government statement on the international position. I suggest, therefore, that we meet on Tuesday at four o'clock, and on Wednesday and Thursday at our usual hour, during the war, of half past three. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am speaking on the Question that the House do now adjourn, if the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will permit me for one moment. I am very much obliged to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, for arranging for the House to meet at four o'clock on Tuesday. I hope it will not be thought that we are specially calling the House together for a small matter. This question that I propose to raise has been exercising my party very greatly. We are rather congested in another place, and it is of great importance to the merchants and traders of this country. I hope the debate will do some good. It is not a factious Motion, but one which it is urgent to bring before the notice of Parliament.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like

1571
to say that I have a Motion down for another day on the question of what the Government are doing to help export trade in this country.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Motion does not impinge on the noble Viscount's. It is a different matter.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord may be right, but may I just say this? The points raised by the noble Lord, as I have heard them at this moment, deal very largely with the points that I shall have to deal with on the question of export licences and so on. Export trade is bound up with export licences and so on. I only wish to ask whether it will be better if, with the permission of the House, I were to place my Motion on the Order Paper after the noble Lord's Motion, so that we may have a full debate on the whole subject.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Viscount will forgive me: his Motion is for the week after. I have carefully studied his Motion, and I am dealing with a quite different matter. My Motion only deals
1572
with machinery, and not questions of policy. I should never think of putting down a Motion on a subject that the noble Viscount already had on the Paper.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I understood that: it was only that I thought that the two might clash.
LORD STRABOLGI: There is no clash at all.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I was not aware that I made any suggestion that the Motion of which the noble Lord gave notice was a trifling one, or anything of that sort. So far from that being the case, I gave him the publicity I did although his Motion is not yet on the Paper and otherwise your Lordships would know nothing about it until tomorrow morning. I hope the noble Lord recognises that I thought it was a definitely important question, and that is why I mentioned it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.