HUNGARIAN ELECTIONS.

HL Deb 05 August 1947 vol 151 cc993-1010

4.36 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART

had the following Notice on the Order Paper: To inquire into the prospects of any real freedom in the impending Hungarian elections; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: Early in June, I spoke to your Lordships on the alarming spread of the police State in Europe. It is true that criticisms of any sort always set the Eastern bloc talking of the concern caused in democratic circles, but in the Communist vocabulary "democratic circles" are those that have been squared by the Kremlin; and although I have been told that there are some in another place, there are none such here, and so I return to the charge. I take Hungary as an example, not of the worst, but of the latest police State. I do not intend to make a long speech—it is late in the Session and everyone is tired—so I will try to confine myself to the terms of ray Motion and to inquire what are the Prospects of any freedom in the impending Hungarian elections. I shall answer my own question and say that in my judgment those prospects are very indeed, and I shall give my reason; for thinking so. I shall then invite the Government to give me their information, and I do not suppose it will differ substantially from mine.

I will begin with the "plot." When I last spoke in this House I said that the plot had been greatly magnified for political purposes. To-day I go a good deal further. I have read the Hungarian White Paper and I have seldom seen so much official rubbish served up for public consumption. I shall say nothing of the passages that are certified to be false by our own Mission, but I will pass to those which remind one of the trial scene in Alice in Wonderland. where no one knew the difference between the words "important" and "unimportant." That is the White. Paper all over. One of the witnesses, for instance, testified that the ex-Prime Minister's daughter asked him to buy a book, but he could not remember what the book was about, or what its name was, and in any circumstances he did not get it. Another testified that the ex-Prime Minister had promised to do something for somebody, but he could not remember what it was. Another testified that the ex-Prime Minister had given 50o francs to someone. Well, I hope they were not French francs, because that would be rather less than £1 on the black market, and I have never heard of a Prime Minister being "run in" for fifteen "bob"! Perhaps the more charitable assumption is that they were Swiss francs. But what plot could be run on such chicken-feed except in the realm of flamboyant make-believe which constitutes the totalitarian mind? We had an example of that yesterday. Tito had been adding some bricks to the Eastern bloc, and at the end of it he said that this would foil an imperialist plot to make a powder keg of the Balkans. Have your Lordships ever observed what an extraordinary high proportion of nonsense is talked by dictators?

The further you go into the Hungarian White Paper the more you are reminded of the cryptic poem attributed to the Knave of Hearts, precisely because it was not in his handwriting and he had not signed it: If I or she should chance to be Involved in this affair, He trusts to you to set them free Exactly as we were.

It is not even meant to make sense. There are some more serious charges than that. Some of these people had been engaged on a plan to train what they call pure Hungarians to become bureaucrats. To say "pure" anything nowadays savours of racialism, but let us look at it from a somewhat different point of view. I understand these future Hungarian bureaucrats are to take the place of Swabians. Many of these Swabians were humble people who have been expelled and scattered to the four winds of heaven, often in circumstances of superfluous unkindness, done with the full approval and encouragement of the occupying Power. There does not seem to be much to be made of training up Hungarians to take their place. Let us take this from another point of view. The German-Jewish head of the Secret Police, Herr Schlesinger, has filled that body with his own co-religionists. I suppose that in a sense is racialism too. So that if the advocates of the pure Hungarian bureaucrats are to be imprisoned, so also ought to be the whole of the Hungarian Secret Police, a course which would considerably gratify the entire Hungarian population.

There is something more serious. The accused have been making plans against the day when they would hand over power to the Communist minority and suppress the other Parties—more or less what is happening to-day. There would no doubt be, and to that extent there has been, a combination of a majority against a small and insatiable minority. If therefore the members of the majority should be imprisoned, so also should the authors of a much more successful combination of the minority against the majority; so that if the authors of a White Paper brought their argument to a logical conclusion they would end by imprisoning the whole Communist Party of Hungary—and I am sure that was not their intention.

With some of these ideas in mind I listened on July 26 to the radio debate between Mr. William Rust, editor of the Daily Worker, and Captain Poole, M.P., a supporter of the noble Lords on my left. I thought it very significant that Mr. William Rust skirted round that problem like a cat on hot bricks. He spat at it once or twice but he confined himself to generalities and Captain Poole won extremely easily. His was certainly one of the best performances on the British radio I have heard for a long time. In a surprisingly short space of time he managed to say almost everything in the defence of real democracy against the tyrannous counterfeit. I wish we could have a little more of that abroad to do something to raise our prestige. This was treasure from a source where neither rust nor moth cloth corrupt!

I come now to the Press law. It was inadequately reported in our Press, partly because the incident was raised by American and not by British journalists. The American journalists cornered the Hungarian Minister of Information and questioned him about a two year old law which confers on the Hungarian Government the most drastic power to inflict heavy penalities including the death penalty on all journalists, Hungarian or foreign, for spreading news, false or true—note that, your Lordships: "or true"—which might bring the Republic into discredit. At first the Minister denied all knowledge of that law. Pressed again, he admitted the law and denied the clause. But when pressed further he at last admitted the clause and the whole bag of tricks and said it would come into force when Hungary was again a sovereign nation—and that meant when the Treaty was ratified. I will return to that later. I am not suggesting that there will be executions of British or American journalists but I know very well that a measure of this kind will certainly be used to suppress all freedom of the Press, or real freedom of the Press, in Hungary, as has happened in all other police States. Here also the prospects are extremely black.

Now I come to the elections themselves. They will be held on August 31—I should have said the elections will be made on August 31, because in Eastern Europe, you do not hold elections, you make them. These elections will be "cooked" like all the others, and cooked to a cinder. The sole purpose is to transfer power, formal power, to the present Communist minority, which already enjoys it in fact. The existing Smallholders' majority, which has already been undermined and whittled away, will finally disappear. They are not allowed to indulge in any polemical election campaign with their rivals, and, what is more, the candidates are to be passed not by the Parties but by the national committees which are controlled by the Communists.

Even that is not the whole story. A great number of people are to be disfranchised. The estimates I have heard range from 50,000 up to 300,000. I think 50,000 is too small and 300,000 too high. No doubt the Government will be able to give me the exact figure, or almost the, exact figure. I do not want to be too exacting. It is certain, anyway, that a great number of small cultivators and ex-civil servants are to be disfranchised. The Communists, true to their principles, do not intend to allow any real opposition. For example, the Freedom Party has already gone out of commission because its leader has been debarred from the candidature, also, perhaps, I should say, because he was one of the first to denounce Szalasi, the Nazi leader of the Arrow-Cross, many of whose adherents have now been taken over by the Communists. Here perhaps I may interpolate that that practice has been very largely followed in Eastern Germany too. The transition from one totalitarian form to another only necessitates the undertaking of two commitments—one to cease abusing the Jews and the other to cease abusing the Communists. Otherwise, the transition is not too difficult. In fact, sometimes it is very easy.

Another reason why there is unlikely to be any real opposition is because the Opposition meetings have been so frequently broken by armed Communist thugs; and then Herr Schlesinger's police arrive on the scene too late, according to plan, and seem more concerned with arresting the injured than the thugs. I think I ought to add here, too, as a warning, that in all probability the next Party to be hamstrung or disrupted will be the Socialist Party in Hungary. It will not happen to-morrow or the next day but it certainly will happen, and a great many of its members know it. Most of the best have gone already and the rest would welcome even a small real opposition Party to act as a whipping boy and defer their own fate.

What is happening in Hungary is happening all over Eastern Europe. Every- where there is the same story of "phoney" plots and fierce reprisals. Everywhere it is the story of people kept in political confinement, in circumstances which are no great improvement on those obtaining 500 years ago. In that respect, at least, the clock is being put back. A few days ago I saw a film on witch hunting in Denmark in the 16th century. While I watched innocent women being tortured into confessing personal contact with the Evil One, and then being burnt, I though: to myself: This is not, after all, so very different from what is happening over great parts of Europe now, except that what is happening is on a much greater scale—it is witch hunting by the million. The other great difference is. that on the charge sheet the words "the Evil One" have been replaced by "the West." That is what we have come to, and I feel it my duty to bring this to the attention of the House, and so far as possible to the world, before we bleak up.

I will waste no further words on the fanaticisms of the 20th century, but will come to the remedy. The Hungarians say that they will be empowered to hang journalists when the Treaty is ratified. Very well: do not ratify it. The noble Lords on my left have not, perhaps, been too kind to journalists of late, but I do not think they will be able to stand by and see them strung up. Otherwise we might really feel that they did not like us very much ! I speak rather personally, as an occasional journalist myself. What goes for Hungary goes also for Rumania and Bulgaria, where die cases are even worse. Already the Government have had reason—certainly on one occasion and I think on two—to protest to the Rumanian Government against their beastly and cruel regime (which has just been intensified by the liquidation of the Peasant Party) and to tell them that if they go on with these ways they would not be eligible for decent society—that is, the United Nations. I think the Government have told then that in so many words. What is the good of ratifying treaties with people whom you have to address in those terms?

To pass to Bulgaria, which is really the worst case of the lot, there the oppression is led by a former Comintern Member, Dimitrov, who became world-famous by not burning down the Reichstag. I think he is the one person who achieved world tame by not doing something. Only the other day the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Foreign Office said in another place that this regime was not civilized. I think he is quite right, and few, if any, members of this House would dare to contradict that. I can see some point—not much, but a little—in ratifying good Treaties with bad people when you really believe they are not going to be kept. But these are not good Treaties; they are indifferent Treaties; and we have accepted them—this was stated very clearly in this House—only because they are the best we can get in the circumstances. That does not alter the fact that they are poor material, and in many respects their duration is doubtful.

Can anyone tell me what on earth is the sense of ratifying bad Treaties with had people when you know, not only that they are not going to be kept, but that they are already being broken under your nose? That is not conducive to anybody's dignity. I think you forfeit all respect by doing such things, and if we do that I think we shall also forfeit the last lever we may hold for insisting on better conduct in the future. Therefore, I am asking the Government to give me an assurance that they will not ratify these Treaties—not one of the three, the Hungarian, the Bulgarian or the Rumanian—without full further consideration of the very altered circumstances which now obtain, and of all these breaches, infringements and scandals which have already occurred. In other words, I hope that these Treaties will not be ratified during our absence—that is while Parliament is not sitting—because I feel we are all entitled to have another say in the matter. If they should be so ratified, I must now reserve to myself the right to make the strongest possible protest open to me so soon as the House reassembles. I beg to move for Papers.

4.56 p.m.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, I heard yesterday, to my sorrow, that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, had been ill for some days, and I asked my advisers in the Foreign Office what we should do about this debate if he were absent. They assured me from long experience that no amount of illness was likely to keep the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, away from the performance of what he regarded as an urgent duty. I know the House will wish to join me in expressing admiration for the great spirit which 'has brought him here to-day and sustained him throughout his speech.

I was rather sorry, if I may say so without meaning any offence, that the noble Lord dealt so fiercely with the Treaties in the concluding part of his speech. I do not propose to-day to argue their merits. As the noble Lord knows, they are the best we have been able to obtain. In our view, they contain many virtues, but it is, of course, open to the noble Lord to express the view which he has placed before the House. I would say one other word that will not be altogether in harmony with what he told the House, and then, for the most part, I think he will feel that I am travelling along with him. The noble Lord takes a very gloomy view indeed about the forthcoming elections in Hungary. As I will explain to the House, I am not particularly optimistic about those elections, but I cannot go so far as the noble Lord in pre-judging them and announcing in advance that we are certain they will be " cooked." I sincerely trust that those elections will be reasonably fair and free. The new Hungarian Prime Minister, Mr. Dinnyes, has promised that they will be, and we hope that he will be able and willing to fulfil his promise. But the House can be assured that His Majesty's Government will carefully watch the position. If the elections are not fair or free, His Majesty's Government will form their own opinions and act in accordance with the views which they form.

I feel that the House would wish to look at this matter in a fairly broad way—I am sure that it would be the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart—and will not expect from me too detailed an examination of the precise electoral arrangements. However, since the noble Lord raised the question of former electors who would lose their votes, I can only tell him that we estimate that the figure will be between 250,000 and 500,000. These will include more than 100,000 members of the German minority, who are due for expulsion. As the noble Lord informed the House, one Party—the Freedom Party—have met such difficulties that they have found it necessary to go into voluntary liquidation.

We must also—and I feel this will be the more important part of my remarks— look at the general background of the Soviet occupation of the country. The situation in Hungary cannot be considered in isolation; it must be taken along with the situation in Bulgaria and Rumania. As the House knows, the armistice regime gives the Soviet Union the right to maintain armies of occupation, but we trust that the armistice regime will soon be coining to an end. It will be brought to an end when the Peace Treaties are ratified, although in Rumania and Hungary, even after the Peace Treaties with those countries are ratified, it will be open to the Soviet Union to maintain a small number of troops to protect their lines of communication to Austria for so long as the occupation of that country continues. Of course, we hope also that before very long it will be possible for all occupation troops to he removed from Austria. Our information goes to show that in all these three countries the majority of the population, who consist of small peasants working their own land, support the local peasant Parties—in Hungary, the Smallholders' Party, in Rumania, the National Peasant Party and, in Bulgaria, the Agrarians. But for a long time, in all three countries, there has been a systematic drive to weaken these Parties and thus weaken all legal opposition to the Communist-dominated Governments.

As I told the House on a previous occasion in connexion with Hungary, these Communist Parties wield power out of all proportion to their strength in the country or even in the Parliaments. They effected this by various means, some of which have been explained to-day and on the previous occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. One of the most effective methods is the control of the secret police and the Ministries of Interior and Communications. Of course, they enjoy the support and protection of the occupying army. That process of weakening those Parties has been going on for a considerable time; but more recently action has been taken to break up and finally destroy, so far as we can see, the peasant Parties on the ground of conspiracy.

In Hungary, accusations of conspiracy began as long ago as the end of last year. On February 25, as the House will remember, the Soviet High Command arrested Mr. Kovacs, the Secretary General of the Smallholders' Party, on the charge of espionage against the Soviet forces in order to get over the obstacle of his Parliamentary immunity. Mr. Kovacs has not yet been brought to public trial, and I am hound to say that I tremble to think of the experiences he is likely to have passed through. Evidence said to have been furnished by him in secret was stated on May 29; the rest of the story was discussed in your Lordships' House the last time we had a general debate on foreign affairs and is familiar to your Lordships. Article 6 (c) of the Statutes of the Allied Control Commission in Hungary gives us the right to receive all information and documents which can interest His Majesty's Government. The attempt of the American authorities in Budapest and our own Ambassador in Moscow to find out what this evidence was met with blunt and repeated refusals. Since then numerous arrests have been made by the Hungarian authorities Especially, the police have concentrated on the members of the new Freedom Party—formerly the right wing of the Small-holders' Party—who were expelled under leftist pressure and led by Mr. Sulyak. Some eighty members of this Party have now been arrested.

As regards Mr. Sulyok, a gentleman of whom I have no personal acquaintance, I would only say this. It is true that his views are right wing, though they are democratic. To hold right wing views can scarcely be regarded as a crime, though some of us in this House (and I think the majority in the country) regard it as a blunder. But certainly none of us would wish to persecute any gentleman who held views, whether right, left or centre, in the fashion that Mr. Sulyok and his Party are now undergoing persecution. There is no question of His Majesty's Government pursuing any particular Party line. Our objection is to the fact that lawful opposition is being destroyed by intimidation, and that is not what we understand by democracy.

I would like, if I may, to break off for one moment, as I have been in Europe a good deal in the last few months, and interject a personal reflection. It is vital, it seems to me, whatever our physical means may enable us to do at any particular moment, to let it be known everywhere, and particularly throughout central Europe, what we in this country stand for. It is vital that people should realize what we mean and do not mean by democracy, and it is vital to denounce, to the best of our power, any grave violation of democratic practice.

In Bulgaria the situation is somewhat worse. One by one the Agrarians and the other Parties which formed the Fatherland Front and negotiated the armistice have been forced out of power. The Communist leader mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, Mr. Dimitrov, has returned from a long residence in the Soviet Union to become Prime Minister. By the end of April the the two main Opposition newspapers, which expressed the democratic aspirations of the Bulgarian people and had a far wider circulation than the Government Press, were suppressed. No British and American protests, I am sorry to say, have succeeded in obtaining their publication again. Since the spring Agrarian and other leaders have been arrested on the usual charges of conspiracy. At the beginning of June the militia finally arrested Nicola Petkov, the leader of the Agrarian Party, as was discussed in your Lordships' House on an earlier occasion. The twenty-three most prominent Agrarian members of Parliament were made to resign, in spite of their protests. Three have since been arrested. The Communist Party have now opened negotiations with the leaderless remnant of the Agrarian Party in the hope of bringing it to renounce its principles and its leaders, and fall behind the totalitarian regime of Mr. Dimitrov. That is the position in Bulgaria.

In Rumania the story is much the same, though the so-called "conspiracy" is of more recent date. The arbitrary and high-handed rule of the Rumanian Government has been causing alarm, not only to our own people and the Americans, but also to all responsible Rumanians. I would like to quote, with the permission of the House—though not at any length—from a Memorandum submitted in June to his colleagues, by Mr. Tatarescu, the Rumanian Deputy Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs. This Memorandum has been circulated widely in Bucharest and copies have now reached this country. Mr. Tatarescu declared that among the causes of general discontent first of all come the excessive preventative arrests. The way in which they are executed leads to abuses and causes throughout the country an atmosphere of disquiet and uncertainty and even of hate, which is continually increasing. Absolutely innocent men are being arrested for reasons which have no connexion with the safety of the state or public peace and order. The legend is being born that we are nothing but an unpopular and undemocratic regime which maintains itself by force and terror, that we are afraid of the free manifestations of the country, and obliged to chain it down by acts of violence. Mass arrests have never been in the past, and they are not to-day, an obstacle against subversive organizations. This state of discontent and distress is common to all social categories without exception. I am not perfectly informed about Mr. Tartarescu's views, but my heart warms to him as I read his Memorandum, and certainly there is hope for him if he continues along these lines. But I am afraid that this Memorandum did not deter the Rumanian Communists and their patrons. On July 14 it was announced that most of the important leaders of the National Peasant Party had plotted to escape from the country in an aircraft. These men were not even given permission to leave the country legally. Whether or not they committed the "crime" of seeking to move without permission, it is difficult to say, and is not, perhaps, very important. What matters is that these men, with their aged and respected leader, Julius Maniu, have been banished and the Government have now proscribed the National Peasant Party as a whole.

It should be remembered that there is no kind of external threat to any of these countries; and if there were it would not be any excuse. But in fact these countries have not been endangered from outside; there has been nothing to provide even the flimsiest pretext for the use of the kind of police methods I have described. Parallel with the political reduction of these countries to a Communist pattern, of course, has gone their increasing economic subjection to the Soviet Union. I cannot say that it is a matter on which one has clear and definite evidence—evidence as clear as that on other matters I have mentioned—but, so far as one can see, the peoples of these war-ravaged countries feel a very genuine disappointment that they were prevented from taking any share in the Paris discussions on the Marshall offer.

It is not difficult, with the information open to us, to discover the broad outline of the facts. It is, of course, very much harder to know exactly what is the right course to pursue in the circumstances. We have no troops of occupation in any of these countries, and our difficulties in enforcing civilized behaviour are therefore very great. His Majesty's Government—and here I come to the particular recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart—have carefully weighed the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding to ratify the Peace Treaties with these countries, and on balance we have felt that it would be better to ratify these Treaties, which have been negotiated after great efforts. When they come into force (though if am far from accepting the very severe strictures that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, passed on them I do not claim that they are perfect) they will bind these Governments to secure to everyone under their jurisdiction the enjoyment of human rights and the fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression, of Press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion, and of public meeting. The Treaties also give our representatives, with those of the Soviet Union and the United States, the right and duly to give the Governments such advice as may be necessary to ensure the rapid and efficient execution of the Treaties, both in the letter and in the spirit.

His Majesty's 'Government, after a great deal of thought, believe that these Obligations should not go by default. Also, of course, we look forward to the time when all the troops of occupation will have left these countries and their peoples once more become masters in their own house. At the same time, I will lay before my right honourable friend what the noble, Lord, Lord Vansittart, has said, though I should be misleading the House if I gave the impression that it is likely that the view that has been indicated was at all capable of being modified, except in circumstances which we cannot at the moment foresee.

I have also been asked about economic relations with these countries. We have economic interests in that part of the World, especially in Rumania. We intend to stand on those rights, and to make sure that they are honoured. We shall also be glad to trade and to expand trade with these countries. We are far from wishing to refuse all commercial inter- course with countries of whose Government we disapprove. I am afraid that at it would be rather an extreme doctrine that we could not do business with anyone unless we liked the form of their Government. Just because the peasants of those countries have had Governments of which we do not approve, we do not intend to add to the burden lying upon those peasants by refusing to buy their produce or refusing to sell them, in return, goods of which they are in need. In this field our relations are most developed in Hungary, and a Hungarian trade de legation are here at present discussing the sale of foodstuffs to this country, and collective matters, following the visit to Hungary of a British Trade Mission earlier this Year.

There is another connexion in which we are bound to think carefully about our attitude to these countries. We must consider what attitude to adopt about admitting them into the comity of civilized countries, and allowing them to become members of the United Nations. The question is a very complex one, and is deserving of much thought; and it is one on which opinions are likely to differ. As things stand, the Peace Treaties with these three ex-enemy countries have not been ratified. Until they are ratified it would be difficult to argue that the countries in question are qualified for admission. If and when the Treaties. are ratified, a new situation is created.

With the leave of your Lordships I will not say more than a few words as to the course to be pursued. We must remember that not every State that is a member of the United Nations has a Government whose internal administration conforms to the high democratic standards we should like to see practised. I would only add that we ourselves will always work for the inclusion in the United Nations' organization of those countries which in our view can mace a helpful contribution to the work of that body. For instance, His Majesty's Government were very disappointed that tae Soviet Union should have blocked the candidature of a country like Eire, on the unreasonable grounds that she was a neutral in the war and had no diplomatic relations with Moscow. I am sure that your Lordships will not charge me with dragging in the Irish question. I am an Irishman myself, but I cannot remem- ber ever having alluded to that question in your Lordships' House before. I am bound to say, though, that it would he a parody of justice if a democratic country like Ireland continued to be excluded from the United Nations, and countries whose Governments are the kind we have been discussing were allowed to enter and enjoy full rights.

I should like, to make it clear—and I speak now perhaps to a wider audience than we can easily visualize at the moment—that we in Britain are not hoodwinked by any excuses or any misuse of words. We are perfectly aware of what is going on. We are under no illusions about what is being inflicted and what is being suffered in these countries. The Hungarian, Rumanian, and Bulgarian peoples, who, we believe, are at heart peaceful, democratic and hardworking, have our sympathy in their hour of trial. History shows that these dictatorships, maintained against the will of the people, come and go. If we look back over the loth century, we see that democratic opinion in Europe was often repressed and gagged, and yet gradually, as the century wore on, our influence and our example had a very great effect in bringing about general liberation throughout Europe. We did not achieve our main effects during the loth century by force of arms; but we helped to keep the flame of democracy alive until, by one process or another, the forces of tyranny abated. So may it be on this occasion.

I am sure that your Lordships will not wish me to attempt to overdramatize a situation that is already fraught with melodrama of an unpleasant kind. I have carefully noted the various suggestions, some of them most weighty, made by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. We can all form our own views as to what exactly should be done in this situation, but I can assure your Lordships that the Government are extremely well informed as to what is happening in that part of Europe. We are exceptionally well represented there, and we intend to allow no one, whether in that part of Europe or in any other part of the world, to rest under any misapprehension as to where our sympathies lie and as to the continuing stand that we in this country shall take on behalf of peace, democracy and justice.

5.21 p.m.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, replies, I would just like to say two or three words in order to express the opinion that I believe the Government will be right to ratify the Treaties. They have certain bad elements in them but on the whole, in my view, the good elements outweigh the bad. I will give one or two particular reasons. I attach the very greatest importance to those clauses which establish human rights and freedoms. Lord Vansittart may say: "Well, but those clauses will probably be ignored." Maybe, but even so you would have a very solid ground of protest once those Treaties are ratified. You can bring those people before the great sounding board of the Assembly of the United Nations. That is a remedy which the noble Lord has himself suggested. There is one other reason; and a very important one—namely, that once the Treaties are ratified the forces of the occupying Power will be withdrawn, and that, to my mind, may be very effective in allowing the ordinary men and women of those countries more freedom, because you take away from the Communist Party one of their greatest weapons. It is for those reasons that I believe that ratification is right.

5.23 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thought that I was too severe on these Treaties. That was not my intention. When these Treaties were before the House, I made it perfectly plain and I gave all the reasons why I thought they were indifferent treaties. I myself urged that they should be passed because they were the best we could do. What baffles me now is to find the advantage in ratifying treaties which (a) we know to be indifferent, and (b) are not being kept and we know are not going to be kept. The noble Lord thought also that I was too pessimistic in regard to the outcome of the elections. He then proceeded to adduce a number of facts which went far beyond my apprehensions. For instance, his total of the people who are going to be disfranchised was well in advance of mine, which ran from 50,000 people to something like 300,000 people. His amounted to a possible 500,000. We have always been told that elections in Eastern Europe were going to be conducted "good and straight and proper," and they never have been. We are getting a little tired of these assurances. I have no confidence in them whatever any more. I should be very agreeably surprised if the Prime Minister Dinnyes turns out to be the one exception. From the noble Lord's speech, I think it transpires that he has some faint hope that between the stages of signing and ratification there will be some transformation of the soul; that I can hardly believe. If people are not bound by their signature and continue to dishonour it the whole time, I do not think the mere formality of ratification will bring about that chance of heart.

In passing I may say that I am afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, greatly overrates the effect of the withdrawal of Soviet troops, but I will deal with that point later on another occasion, if need be. In the case of Poland, every international obligation was flouted and the elections were a farce and a travesty of any semblance of decency or fair play. The result was "cooked" beforehand and anybody could have told you what the exact result was going to be. We protested over and over again and we got nothing but rude answers or no answer at all. After that, we sent out a new Ambassador, we received here forthwith a Polish trade delegation and we conferred upon them an advantageous financial agreement. Some of us would be very reluctant to drain the dregs of humiliation again. There may be a good answer in the case of Poland. The noble Lords on my left would say: "Well, we could do nothing else." True, there was no treaty pending for Poland.

But in the case of the satellites, our ex-enemies, there is something that we can do, and I think that we shall be culpable if we do not do it or at least if we do not reconsider, just as I have asked, before we finally commit ourselves. You can do something by refraining from ratification until you have some better assurance that the terms of the treaty which is now being dishonoured will be held in greater esteem and respect. If you fling away that one lever that you have in your hand without further discussion, you will be incurring a very grave responsibility indeed. It will be fair for me to point that out to this House when the time comes, but for the moment I do not wish to pursue that any further.

I thank the noble Lord most warmly for his courteous reply. I could not have expected a better one. I know from what lie said that his idea of what is happening in the world runs closely parallel with what I have described. Therefore, for the present, as time is getting on, I shall ask for your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Motion. I can only hope that there will be no ratifying during the Recess so that I shall not be compelled to speak on this subject again.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.