HL Deb 22 January 1947 vol 145 cc41-60

LORD CHATFIELD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have given consideration to the desirability of erecting an Imperial War Memorial in London, to honour all who died in the two great wars for freedom, and to commemorate the spirit in which the peoples of the British Commonwealth and Empire went to war, and the cause for which they stood; whether they will take steps to ascertain the feelings of the British Commonwealth and Empire on this matter; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in moving this Motion to-day is to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government and of your Lordships to what I feel is an important national question—that of erecting an Imperial War Memorial in London. I hope I may be able to enlist your sympathy and support and, by the aid of publicity, obtain the feeling of the country as a whole on the subject, so that if the reaction is favourable some steps may be taken by His Majesty's Government such as I shall suggest later in my speech. I should explain that I am not speaking to-day entirely for myself but for a body which I represent outside, called the War Memorials Advisory Council. In February, 1945, I brought that Council to the attention of this House and I explained its important composition, consisting, as it does, of members of both Houses of Parliament and a large number of important individuals in the country, as well as fifty societies all connected with some form of art, architecture, or other activities concerned with the beautifying of the country and the welfare of its citizens.

At that time, our work was confined to advising the authorities of our cities and villages how they could best deal with their war memorial problems and how to make their memorials beautiful, useful and clearly distinguishable in their towns or villages from any other buildings erected for another purpose. But we believed that it would also be right to have an Imperial War Memorial in London, and I explained, at that time, my own personal views at some length. The Earl of Munster, replying for his Majesty's Government—that was the National Government—gave our work the Government's encouragement and support. I mention this past history because, during the last two years, we have been able to do a great deal to help our cities and villages in the erection of their memorials to the Second World War. The authorities of hundreds of towns have written to us, and we have been able to advise them, as well as schools and many other bodies.

A year ago—last March, actually—the Government were themselves considering the matter of a central war memorial in London, and they were good enough to ask for our advice and whether we thought there was any feeling in the country, as a whole, in favour of such a memorial. We told the Government that, to our knowledge, there was no such feeling at the time nor was there likely to be. Feeling would not be aroused on such a subject, we considered, unless a lead was given, but we thought that such a lead ought to be given, and we were strongly in favour of a National, or, better still, an Imperial War Memorial in London. Apart from consultation between the Government committee and ourselves on various types of such memorials which individuals had suggested, and the conveying of the thanks of the Government to us for our help, nothing more occurred, and, as I understand the situation, nothing more will be done by the Government unless and until public opinion expresses itself. As we feel strongly that something should be done, I am moving this Motion to-day, a Motion fully representing the views of the body I have mentioned and also of a great many members of your Lordships' House who are not able to be present to-day.

As your Lordships all know, the decision was taken last year to rededicate our beautiful Cenotaph, so that it should commemorate the glorious dead of both wars. That was a natural step to take. After all, although the two wars were twenty-five years apart, time will close the gap until they will appear to posterity as one great struggle against evil. The Cenotaph means a great deal to all of us, particularly, perhaps, to the older generation, to which I belong. To us, the Cenotaph, like the Unknown Warrior's Tomb, stands mainly for the glorious dead of the Fighting Services. Especially does it stand for those terrific losses that we suffered in the First World War. It is a monument that one regards with reverence and affection. To me, it stands for the seamen who died at sea in the First World War.

But I do not think that it means so much to the younger generation—the larger part of our citizens who bore the strain of the Second World War. That is exemplified in our towns and villages where, in nearly all cases that have come to our notice, it has been decided to erect a second memorial to those who fell in this last war, rather than merely to rededicate the old obelisk or other memorial structure which was erected twenty-five years ago. I do not believe that the country as a whole will feel that the re-dedication of the Cenotaph, much as it means to us, is sufficient to express to posterity the magnitude of our effort in the Second World War and the spirit in which we fought. Nor do you find any such limited view in the Empire. To mention, for instance, the great Dominions: Canada is to erect a memorial to the Second World War, by beautifying the city of Ottawa and its surroundings. Australia, whose great memorial in respect of the First World War, costing £250,000, was nearing completion when the Second World War broke out, is to improve, to enlarge and further to beautify that memorial. South Africa is to have a second war memorial which is to convey the realization of the fundamental rights of all the nations which the war established. Similarly, New Zealand and India are to have war memorials of some type.

Can we doubt—indeed it is already happening that some of our Allies will also erect or plan to erect memorials in respect of the Second World War? Does not the inspiring work of the last six years cry out for some similar expression in this country? Have we not been put to the greatest test that our race has ever had to face? Did we not fulfil those responsibilities that we voluntarily assumed when we entered the war? It is not only the glorious dead of the Fighting Services that we must commemorate, but we must commemorate all those who died in the war—the men and women who fought the bombs; the police; the nurses; the merchant seamen who kept the seas; and the thousands of others who died exhausted by their war efforts—unknown heroes whose individual efforts can never be recognized.

Nor is it only the dead but the living who should be commemorated: this generation and all it did, the spirit in which it fought and the ideals that lay behind its work. There is surely much for which we should erect a memorial, but, above all, it is for the spirit in which we fought: the hatred of this nation of war, the struggle against evil which led us to give in 1939 a guarantee to Poland and Rumania that if they were attacked we would go to war, although we were only partly armed because we even hated arming ourselves. Why did we give that guarantee to Poland? Did we do it to save ourselves, or did we do it because the moral indignation of the British people would not allow us to stand aside any longer when evil was being done and threatened in Europe? That was the reason we went to war.

The cynic will say—he has said and he will say again—that we had to go to war to save ourselves. But we did not go to war for that reason, nor did we fight in that spirit. We did not envisage in 1939 the dangers into which we were going to run, the disasters which were to happen to us, nor did we envisage that we should be fighting in a year's time with our backs to the wall. Did we recognize on September 3 that France would fall and that our gallant armies would suffer disaster? We were not thinking of ourselves when we went to war but we were thinking of others, and when eventually we conquered, with the aid of our Allies who slowly were forced to support us, what did we do with our victory? Have we used it to enrich ourselves or to add to our territories? Rather have we sacrificed our wealth and, indeed, we have to work harder in order to maintain our standard of living and to help those who were our enemies. All these things are well known to you, but they are at the back of the case that I put before you to-day. They will be forgotten. Historians will not record them, and the historians of other nations will not be able to understand the spirit of the British people.

Nor is it only what I may call the spiritual side of our fight which ought to be commemorated. There are many other physical reasons, deeds that we ought to commemorate. There is the heroism of our youth fighting in the battlefields of the world, under all the elements, for a cause in which they believed; the sacrifices made by a united nation; the resolution not to fail in our task; the determination of the men, women and children in this country to fulfil every call made on them by their leaders, however impracticable seemed the task, however great the toil and the sacrifice. Surely it is a chapter in our national history that should ever be remembered and must not be allowed to be forgotten in the turmoil of national life. We should permanently record for the benefit of posterity those great years of our national honour. Unfortunately we suffer as a race from undue modesty. The depth of our character is not shown except in great emergency. To others we seem to have a lack of confidence in ourselves, and that gives the impression to them that they have no confidence in us. Do not let fail from any such reason to erect a memorial to the generation of to-day who fought in the war, to the spirit in which they fought, and in thanks to Almighty God that we did not fail in our task. Let me emphasize that it must be a memorial not so much to ourselves as to posterity —an inspiration, in perhaps some far distant century, to our descendants, if they are faced again with some similar task of national character and greatness.

What is it I propose that His Majesty's Government should do? I would first ask that they should express their sympathy with what I have said, and that they should give such support as they can to enable such thoughts to be put before the country. It is not easy for an independent body to do so. If we can obtain some publicity in this matter perhaps the Government can ascertain through the Lords Lieutenant, the Lord Mayors, the Mayors and other leaders and authorities in the country the general view of the public on such a subject. I cannot doubt what such a view would be. If the response were favourable then perhaps they would set up a committee to consider ways and means and the type of memorial best suited to the enduring purpose which I have mentioned. There is no time for me to go into the question of the type of memorial, but I would just say this: that a memorial must be paid for either by public subscription or by the State.

If you want a memorial which is to be something for the benefit of this generation who survived the fight, such as some scheme of scholarships or some scheme of benefit to the needy who suffered in the war, or whatever it may be, that must be paid for by the State. It cannot be done by public subscription. To me it is the essence of the whole spirit of such a memorial that it should be subscribed for by voluntary subscription. But if you call for voluntary subscriptions, then those who have subscribed want something that they can see, that they can visit, and about which they can say: "I helped to build that memorial."

My own idea would be that we should take a space of suitable size in London—it need not be very great—before it is too late to get it, and that we should beautify it as English gardeners know how to beautify a space. When time permits, when the more urgent calls for materials and labour are over—as they will be one day—we should put up at one end of that space a memorial arch and at the other end a shrine, a memorial that by its beauty and by its nobility would convey to posterity the spirit in which we fought and the ideals which lay behind us. And there would be one very essential thing: that there should be a fund to maintain that memorial always as a thing of beauty—a new idea in our care of war memorials—something that would be visited by the Empire and by the world and admired and honoured.

Can it be that any such memorial would be merely national in character? Would it not necessarily be Imperial in nature? The races of the Empire have fought side by side and have shared in our victory. They have in every way shared the spirit of the British people. I would suggest that at the proper time His Majesty's Government might ascertain from the Empire and the Dominions whether they would wish to share in this memorial. We would not ask them for money—they have to pay for their own war memorials—but we might surely invite them to subscribe in kind, in wood, in metal, in stone, with trees, or anything that would be representative in the memorial space of all parts of the Empire.

Finally, may I sum up what I have said in just these words? Let us erect in London a memorial that, by its beauty, will stand out in this city, stand out from the great structures erected for commercial or utilitarian purposes with which this city abounds—one which is likely to be remembered. Let us show ourselves and posterity that in this materialistic age we also believe in the importance of things spiritual and that those who are great in spirit can achieve everything. Let us erect a memorial in the spirit not to commemorate that we won a war but rather as a thanksgiving that we achieved our purpose, and let it be a witness to the fact that although we did realize later that the war was in our own interests, we went to war because a power in Europe was bent on doing evil to others.

I believe that if those who gave their lives for their country could speak to us to-day, they would say: "Do not erect your memorial to record the victories that we helped to win, nor even to commemorate us, but rather as a tribute to the high ideals which inspired our sacrifices." Any such memorial could not be built in a day, but do not let us expect our children to build it for us. Surely we should seize the opportunity to lay the first stone and see that the memorial is designed and built in the right spirit, and so bequeath an inspiration to posterity. I beg to move for Papers.

2.50 p.m.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

My Lords, the noble Earl, the Earl of Crawford, who is President of the Scottish War Memorials Advisory Council, is unable to be here to-day, so it falls to my lot to say a very few words on this Motion from the Scottish point of view. We have heard a most moving and most eloquent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield. He divided his speech into two parts, one telling us what the Dominions have done by "way of commemorating the 1914–1918 war, and the other a suggestion as to what should be done now by this country and the Dominions and the whole Empire to commemorate not only this war but also the 1914–1918 war.

As regards Scotland, we have already commemorated the 1914–18 war by a memorial which is, I believe, known and appreciated the world over. It is a memorial which Scots from all over the Empire and all over the world have come whenever they could to visit. All over the world they look upon that memorial in Edinburgh Castle as their memorial and as the home of all those that died in that war for Scotland, as well as for the Empire. I feel that it would be resented, not only in Scotland, but also among the Scots who live abroad elsewhere, if we were to take part in a memorial which, in some way, represents the 1914–1918 war. If there is to be any Empire memorial at the present time I consider it should be for the last war only.

As regards Scotland, we have so far thought that the best memorial for to-day is to look after the living. In one Society of which I have the honour to be President subscriptions have been received from Scotland alone of more than £470,000 towards the building of cottages for disabled soldiers, sailors, airmen and men of the Merchant Navy. Those are the lines on which we are going: that it is the living we want to help rather than the dead. After the last war memorials were put up in every village in the country. I am not quite sure whether, even if it were possible, the same number of memorials would be built now, or whether the money would not be used for other purposes. I must fully admit that the pulse of the people in Scotland has not yet been properly felt. But if there is a desire for a memorial, there is the Hall of Parliament in Stirling Castle which we feel would probably be a very suitable memorial for our country and for those Scots abroad who would like to come here and see a memorial to the Scottish race and to the Scottish Regiments.

With regard to the second part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, about a memorial for the Empire here in London, I am not certain, but I rather gathered at the start that he hoped that this would be done by public subscription. If that course were adopted the pulse of the public must be tested, to find out whether the subscriptions would be large enough or not. The noble Lord said that he did not himself think that the Dominions should be asked to subscribe money, but only timber, and so forth. That, of course, would not be enough to keep the memorial going for future years, and it seems to me that if it is to be a memorial for the Empire, and the Empire is not to be asked to subscribe to it, the only people who should erect it should be the Government. With due respect to the present Government, I cannot think that that would be the right method of erecting an Empire Memorial. I do not think that a memorial subscribed for by other people, or out of public taxation—as presumably it would be if it were done by the Government—would be at all what is wanted by the Empire. So far, in this country, we have the Cenotaph in London, the memorial in Edinburgh Castle and numerous other great memorials in the Dominions. My own view, for what it is worth—and here I am not speaking for the noble Earl, Lord Crawford—would be that what money this country can spare out of its pocket for a memorial would be far better spent, as I said before, in helping the living rather than in erecting a memorial to the dead.

2.56 p.m.

LORD CHETWODE

My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a very few minutes. I wish to support most sincerely my noble and gallant friend, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Chatfield, in the proposal which he has advanced in such felicitous terms. We soldiers are perfectly content that our dead have a suitable memorial in the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior and in the new date on the Cenotaph which His Majesty the King was pleased to unveil the other day. But surely that is not all. What we want to commemorate is the spirit of this country, and what the ordinary men and women did in that wonderful time which Mr. Churchill described as "Our finest hour." We want to commemorate the merchant seamen, to whom so far I have not heard anybody allude, the factory workers, the railwaymen, the transport and ambulance drivers, the hospital staffs and, above all, those two most wonderful classes of women, the ordinary housewife and the nurse. In my connexion with the Red Cross I myself saw what the nurses did in the worst time that we had here. It was marvellous to see those women tending the sick and wounded of the fighting Services. They offered their to-day in order that we might have our to-morrow, without any thought of the danger—and it was a very grave danger, day after day and night after night, in the big towns.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, that it is very difficult to propose the form which the memorial should take. The noble Lord has suggested a green space in London which would contain a shrine. I have heard it suggested that that shrine should be situated in the bombed area round about St. Paul's Cathedral; that the area should never be rebuilt but made into a green garden with a shrine in it. That is a very attractive proposition, but I venture to suggest one further idea which was alluded to in last Sunday's Observer. We have a lasting disgrace in this great capital of ours. There is in Europe no capital of which I know with a river running through it, which would allow what we have allowed to take place on the southern bank of this river of ours. I suppose that in the new London which is in prospect, the creation of an embankment on the south bank of the river must have been considered. Would it not be possible to have a certain part of that new embankment, say a few hundred yards from the County Hall down to the new bridge, erected entirely as a National and Empire Memorial? At the back of that embankment there might be, as there is on the northern bank in the form of Victoria Embankment Gardens, a small green space and, if you like, a shrine.

I put that forward as one suggestion. Nothing is more needed in this great city than an embankment on the southern bank of the Thames. Can we not have at any rate part of it as a National and Imperial Memorial? I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, that if we are not going to have something like that, then by far the best thing is to have something which will benefit those who have fallen by the way. In the regiment of which I have the honour to be Colonel, the Scots Greys, they have already done that. They have subscribed very large sums so that any one who has been in the regiment and who afterwards falls by the way will feel that he need not go into what is now known as an institution. I wish most strongly to support the noble and gallant Admiral's Motion.

3.1 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I am in full general agreement with the sentiments which have been expressed by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Chetwode and Lord Chatfield, and I am not going to detain you by echoing those sentiments. I would, however, like to say something about the method which ought to be adopted for putting those sentiments into practice, if His Majesty's Government accept this Motion and decide to take steps on the lines suggested by the noble and gallant mover. The Motion itself asks the Government whether they have taken steps to ascertain the feelings of the British Commonwealth and Empire in the matter of the erection of an Imperial War Memorial in London to commemorate the spirit in which the peoples of the British Commonwealth and Empire went to war. So far in this debate no mention has been made of the existence or functions of the Imperial War Graves Commission, and it is on that point that I want to say one or two words.

Your Lordships all know that the Imperial War Graves Commission was formed after the last war as a result of formal agreement between His Majesty's Government in this country and His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, for just the purposes to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, referred. That machinery has been in existence from the end of the 1914–18 war up to the present time, and I think your Lordships will agree that it has functioned in a wholly admirable manner. After the 1914–18 war, tablets were erected by the Commission, on behalf of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions, in Westminster Abbey and also in certain cathedrals in France. I feel, therefore, that in the face of this established machinery it would be quite wrong if His Majesty's Government, in putting such an idea into practice, were to ignore that machinery and were to handle the business in any way other than through the Imperial War raves Commission, which is the practice which has been agreed with the Dominions.

Your Lordships all know what are the resources of the Imperial War Graves Commission in advice, in the execution of the work and in the care and supervision of monuments once they are erected. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount who is to reply to this Motion will give an assurance that if the noble and gallant Lord's suggestion is adopted, one of the very first steps will be consultation with the Imperial War Graves Commission. I am quite certain that the Commission itself—although I cannot speak for it—will be only too ready to assist in putting into practice suggestions on the lines of those which have been put to your Lordships to-day.

3.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies for the Government may I say something on one point which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, on the question of a war memorial in Scotland? He mentioned the possibility of the restoration of the Hall of Parliament at Stirling Castle. That may be very admirable in itself, but there is an alternative which I hope the committee presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, will take into consideration, and that is, the restoration of the chapel at Holy-rood. That is a beautiful work of art and one which is certainly worthy of being restored. I believe that the restoration of that chapel was considered some twenty or thirty years ago, and I think the expert opinion at that time was that it could hardly be restored without serious damage. Since then methods have greatly improved, and I am told on very good authority that such restoration could take place. If it were possible, I feel certain that it would be a memorial worthy of Scotland and of all the Scots people who died in the war. I hope, therefore, that the committee I have mentioned will take that alternative into consideration.

3.7 p.m.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL)

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are extremely glad, as I am, to see the noble Lord back in the House after his recent indisposition. I trust that he is now fully restored to health. The Government are grateful to the noble Lord for initiating the present debate, since the subject is one of great national interest. I am anxious at once to reassure noble Lords, especially those who have taken part in the debate, that His Majesty's Government share to the full the feelings and sentiments which have been so movingly and ably expressed by the noble Lords who have spoken. No praise is too great, and no memorial, whatever its form or cost, is sufficient to indicate the full appreciation of the Commonwealth for the great sacrifices of the dead and the living—Service and civilian. I am sure that those great sacrifices and that service will be regarded for all time as a noble example and an inspiration for all who are to follow.

In replying to the points which have been raised in the discussion this afternoon, I should like first to refer briefly to what is already being done to commemorate those who gave their lives in the recent war. The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, referred to the inscription which has been placed on the Cenotaph. This inscription, appropriately, now commemorates those who fought and died for freedom in the last two wars. When it was first erected, and, indeed, at the present time, the simple beauty of the Cenotaph kindled the imagination of the whole Empire and it has remained a lasting source of inspiration and remembrance. I am confident that your Lordships will agree fully with me when I say that nothing should be done to detract from the value of, and the general feelings of the people to, this symbol which is still the scene of our annual pilgrimage in homage of those who fell in the Great War of 1914–18 and, as was indicated by the numbers of those who attended at the last celebration there, of those who similarly fell in the recent war.

Then there has been after the recent war, as after the war of 1914–1918, a spontaneous movement for local memorials of one kind or another, not only in this country but in the Dominions and the Colonies as well. Local memorials, by virtue of their close association with the dead and their relatives and friends, make an appeal of a kind with which no memorial on a wider scale can compete. In this connexion the Government, and indeed the people of this country, are deeply indebted to the War Memorials Advisory Council, of which the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, is the distinguished Chairman, and to the Scottish Advisory Council, for the sound guidance they have given to local authorities and others who are planning war memorials. The booklets indicating suitable forms of memorials which were prepared by these bodies have done a great deal to direct local initiative along the right lines.

Then apart from these local memorials we have the memorials which have been, or will be, erected in schools, by industrial firms and associations of all kinds. They too preserve the memory of the sacrifices which were made by those who gave their lives in the war. As in the war of 1914–1918, Service memorials are being erected both in this country and on the site of hard-fought engagements. In this connexion His Majesty's Government are indebted to the continued assistance which the Imperial War Graves Commission has afforded. I would like to convey to the Imperial War Graves Commission a full appreciation of what they have done, and to assure the noble Viscount that if His Majesty's Government at any time initiate or take part in any scheme, the Imperial War Graves Commission will, of course, be kept in very close consultation.

An Inter-Service Committee supervises the work done under this head to ensure that all that is done is kept in harmony. I may perhaps, with your Lordships' permission, mention by way of example that there are two Admiralty Committees examining this matter from the point of view of a memorial for the Royal Navy. One Committee is considering the commemoration of the names of missing personnel who have no known grave, and they are examining during the course of their investigations the extension of existing memorials at the home ports by the addition of the names of men missing in the 1939–1945 war, In addition, this Committee is examining the establishment of further memorials in other places. The second Committee was appointed by the Board of Admiralty to consider the provision of a Naval war memorial to be provided from non-public funds, and their proposals will shortly be examined.

The question which we have been discussing this afternoon is whether all these particular memorials and the Cenotaph should be supplemented by some more general memorial erected in London to honour all from the Commonwealth and Empire who died in the two Great Wars for freedom, and to commemorate the spirit in which the peoples of the British Commonwealth and Empire went to war and the cause for which they stood. No such memorial was erected after the last war. I mention this as a fact rather than as an argument one way or another. But much would depend on the form which an Imperial War Memorial might take. It must commend itself to all the various races and creeds of the Empire and also meet a need which is not already covered by the existing memorials.

His Majesty's Government are not aware of any representations so far, from either the Dominions or the Colonies, that any modification should be made of the conclusion which was reached at the end of the 1914–1918 war. Some of them are proceeding with their own form of national memorial, as was outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, in the course of his speech. As I have indicated to your Lordships, had indeed any such view been expressed, much would depend on the form which an Imperial War Memorial could take. In the course of speeches this afternoon three different forms were suggested, which indicates that it would not be easy to find another form of memorial, tangible or intangible, which could be regarded as honouring all who died in the two Great Wars and, at the same time, commemorating the spirit in which the peoples of the British Commonwealth and Empire entered into conflict and the cause for which they stood. It may, in fact, be that no physical memorial could be created which would do full justice to so tremendous a theme and fully reflect the glory and tragedy of the two World Wars.

A number of suggestions, apart from those made today, were made when the subject was last debated in your Lordships' House on February 14, 1945, and other suggestions have been put forward since, such as the re-designing of Trafalgar Square, a fresh lay out of Parliament Square or of the area round St. Paul's. There have also been schemes for travelling scholarships, a new residential university, a technological college, the education of children of Service men killed in the war, homes for the disabled, a national park, community centres and playing fields. These projects make a special appeal to those who are interested in them, but the Government, when it examined the matter some months ago, reached the conclusion that no scheme had so far been put forward which would make a wide enough appeal to the people not only of this country but of the Dominions, India and the Colonies. Many of the other schemes put forward have not measured up to the magnitude of the cause which they were intended to commemorate.

The suggestion that there should be a National War Memorial has been before the country since October, 1944, when the War Memorials Advisory Council published a suggestion, made at a War Memorials Conference summoned by the Royal Society of Arts, which supported in principle that there should be a National War Memorial in London. Your Lordships will be aware from the speech which the noble Lord delivered in this House on February 14, 1945, that the Survey published by the War Memorials Advisory Council which included this suggestion was given a wide circulation. It would be interesting to know whether any response was evoked from the authorities to whom the Survey was sent. So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, there has been no response to the suggestion, nor have there been framed individual schemes which have fired the imagination of the nation and created a demand for a National or Imperial Memorial.

In the absence of specific projects likely to make a national or an Empire-wide appeal, His Majesty's Government do not at present see the way clear to consult at this stage the Dominions, India and the Colonies on the lines which the noble Lord has suggested in his Motion. All that is good and enduring in this difficult post-war world is in a very real sense a monument to the sacrifices made by the dead and the living in the two great conflicts we have come through. Whether we can and should attempt to give tangible form to our feelings is a difficult question on which the Government have taken no decision; but they are of the opinion that no scheme has so far been put forward which is adequate for the purpose.

If at any time an expression of public opinion of sufficient magnitude to warrant further consideration of this matter should emerge, together with a scheme which could be regarded as a suitable National War Memorial, His Majesty's Government would then be prepared to give further thought to the question. I regret that it is impossible to accept the Motion in the form in which it is on the Paper, but I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government will give very careful consideration to the points which have been raised in all speeches.

3.21 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, before the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, replies, may I make one or two observations on the interesting speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall? Apparently the Government expect public opinion to manifest itself and to make a demand for such a memorial as has been outlined in speeches made to-day. With great respect to my noble friend, I really think that he is asking too much. In a matter of this sort it is surely for the Government to give a lead, and I believe I am speaking for thousands of people when I say that after the First World War the opportunity was lost to put up a worthy memorial. The Cenotaph is a specialized memorial, fulfilling a special purpose, and after the first World War the opportunity was lost of putting up a great monument which would have lasted for centuries and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, suggested, would have been an inspiration for generations to come.

We have another opportunity to-day. I do not believe that public opinion would be satisfied in the future with travelling scholarships, new universities or hospitals, or with anything utilitarian at all. What is wanted is something sentimental, noble -and magnificent; and the best example I can think of at the moment is the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. That is a magnificent example of a national memorial, put up by people proud of the great exploits in a war which it must be remembered they lost in the end. The Arc de Triomphe is the admiration of everyone who visits Paris. We have not in London, or in the other great cities of this country, many notable monuments, as there are in other countries; but here we have an opportunity of putting up a great monument, unlike anything in the world but expressing the spirit anti determination of the British people in the greatest ordeal through which they have passed. My noble friend says the Government are still considering this matter. I hope they will consider it again and continuously, and that they will not wait for an upstirring of public opinion, because in a matter of this sort it is very difficult to get an up-stirring of public opinion. They will have to take the lead, and there is an opportunity in the next fifteen or twenty years, at any rate to lay the foundations and to draw up plans for a monument of which our successors and descendants can be proud.

3.24 p.m.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

My Lords, I would like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said. I was also disappointed with the reply made by the noble Viscount. Nothing can be done by the public in this matter without a lead of some kind. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that a great opportunity was lost after the last war. The main proposal put forward then was for the building or rebuilding of the ancient cloister of Westminster Abbey which stood in front of the entrance to this House and which might have been a memorial to every corps and regiment, and every Force from every part of the Empire. Unfortunately that proposal was put forward too late. By that time so many individual schemes had developed that this was not done.

I doubt if that stage has yet been reached on this occasion. There is an opportunity, I suggest, in which the Government should take a lead, for erecting a memorial here in the heart of the Empire. I believe this is the only great capital which is so indifferent to the surroundings, for instance, of its main Government offices and Departments that there is no purlieu of Westminster. Surely there ought to be a purlieu of Westminster under the control of the central Government and not merely of the local authority. That suggestion has been put forward already and it is being considered. I hope the idea might be revived of building a new cloister of the Abbey in which all parts of the Empire, all corps and all regiments and Services might be commemorated.

3.27 p.m.

LORD CHATFIELD

My Lords, I know there is important business awaiting the House after this, and I am going to say only a few words before asking leave 'to withdraw my Motion. I thank the noble Viscount who replied for the Government in that he spoke sympathetically about what I said, and I feel that he at heart feels there is a great deal in my ideas and of those whom I represent. I am disappointed that he has nothing more to offer to-day on behalf of the Government than he has done. With the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Altrincham, I feel, as I said in my speech, that it is really for the Government to give a lead to the people. It is a great pity that in this debate the principle of whether you should have a memorial or not has been confused with what type of memorial you should have. The two things are entirely separate. We first of all should decide whether we want to have a memorial and then whether it shall be something of benefit to us in this generation, such as the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, advocated, or whether it shall be something which we can hand down to our descendants as an inspiration and as a record of what we have done.

It is forecast that millions of money are to be spent on improving, and rightly improving, the social lot of the people of this country and of this generation, but nothing is being done on the spiritual side to hand down to others the best part of our national character—what we give as opposed to what we are trying to get. My Lords, I am glad that I have moved this Motion. I feel certain that something will happen. Anyhow, the opportunity is here and it cannot be said that we never thought about it. Is it to be said that the nation refused to take any action? I do not believe that that is possible. It may be that we are too close to the war and that we are thinking too much on the wrong lines. But posterity will undoubtedly erect a memorial one day in gratitude for what has been done for them. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.