HL Deb 05 November 1947 vol 152 cc466-502

2.42 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART had the following Notice on the Order Paper: To move to resolve, That in view of the persistent violation by the Soviet satellites of their obligation to secure the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of Press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting, the Treaties recently concluded with them should now be reconsidered.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that I have imposed upon myself to-day a pretty thankless task. I raised this subject eight mouths ago to-day, on March 5, in this House and I got nowhere. I think your Lordships will understand that, when I look at what has happened in Europe since that date, I realty feel it a matter of conscience to try again, and I therefore hope you will bear with me. The truth is that for a long time past now, consciously or unconsciously, we have all been involved in one of the greatest spiritual struggles of all time. It began officially in A.D. 1933 but it really began a good while before that. Now rival doctrines can co-exist, but there is one difference between the democracies and the totalitarian systems which seems to me unbridgeable. It is that Christianity and democracy teach that the individual matters and that human life is sacred, whereas all totalitarian systems override those fundamental tenets.

That accounts for the close kinship often apparent between Communism and Nazism, a similarity by now becoming a commonplace, in such matters as an expansionist foreign policy or the use of improved communications for increasing human hatreds. But there is one point of similarity which is all too frequently overlooked and that is that totalitarian do not keep treaties. For a long time past, in pre-war and post-war days, we have engaged in concluding treaties with people who have neither kept nor meant to keep them. If we go on with this policy we shall ultimately reach a situation where the whole treaty system will be discredited; and so I am trying again to-day to find some remedy for this really grave situation. I hope to show that there are remedies, and that they can be found without too much drama and disturbance. In any case, I ask your Lordships to agree with me in saying that in the long run it is impossible to go on with a system whereby the faithful are always bound and the faithless always free.

Since the exercise of human liberties, as we understand them, is barred in the totalitarian States, we were certainly optimistic in concluding with some of those States treaties which provided for the exercise of just those liberties. Long before the period of ratification came it was apparent that those treaties were not only being broken but were going to be even more broken after we had ratified them. It may be within the recollection of your Lordships that before we rose in August I begged the Government not to ratify until there had been some further review of the situation. But because we did not seem yet to have found a long-term policy which necessarily involves a moral basis, we did ratify; and that led to one of the most tragic mistakes I can remember. On September 15 we ratified a series of treaties. On September 16 Petkov's appeal was due to be heard. Eight days later he was hanged. If I had had my way—I know the idea is preposterous—I would have liked to say to those concerned: "If you intend to proceed with this infamous course, which is the clearest possible breach of the treaty, there will be no ratification." For once we had the whip hand—and we grabbed a pen!

Petkov is dead. But I do not think he will perish, because he holds a high place in an innumerable array of ghosts who are the victims of sheer evil, and those ghosts will not be laid. I am not going to dramatize the case in any way or to over-state it by one iota. There is nothing unusual in the Petkov case, and that is exactly the whole tragedy. Petkov's case was simply one instance in the totalitarian technique of elimination. That elimination takes two forms. It is done in the mass, as the Nazis destroyed the Jews, or as the Communists liquidated the Kulaks. You can find other instances easily enough if you wish, such as the deportation of the unfortunate people in the Balkan States.

Then there is the other aspect, the systematic extermination of all critics, particularly of constructive critics. Of that technique the examples are now far too numerous to relate; and I shall confine myself to quoting just a few of the most recent ones. Thus we have had the cases of Professor Farlan and Dr. Jovanovics in Yugoslavia. They got very long terms of imprisonment, which may easily mean a life sentence, on grounds so trivial as really to amount to no more than that they had an acquaintance with the West. In Poland we have the case of Mr. Mikolajczyk, with which I shall be dealing faithfully later on. But for the moment I will confine myself to the cases, among others, of Mr. Augustynski, the Editor of Mr. Mikolajczyk's paper, who got fifteen years on the same kind of charge, and Professor Tarnawski, the famous Shakespearean scholar, who got ten years for having a good acquaintance with English literature. In Hungary there was the case of Bela Kovacs, the Secretary-General of the Smallholders Party. He was done to death in prison. His widow was just told that she "need not send any more parcels." The Nazis used to send round some ashes in a box. In Rumania you have the case of Dr. Maniu and Mihalache and their colleagues and, after the Agrarians it will be the turn of the Liberals; and so it goes on. It does not really matter very much whether a man is slowly strangled on a gallows or whether he is still more slowly suffocated in prison. In any case, all opposition is extinguished. Thus, you have in Poland and Bulgaria the situation that the real Peasant Parties have been wiped out. As I said just now, in Rumania the Liberals and the Agrarians, and in Hungary the Smallholders, have been virtually liquidated. Already the turn has come to Pfeiffer and his People's Independent Party. Next it will be the turn of Barankovics and the Catholic Democrats, and next the Socialists. I see no future for the Socialist Party in Hungary. Indeed, for the Socialists everywhere in Eastern Europe the lights are slowly to be put out. In Poland again many of the best of them have been arrested. They are not allowed to exist at all in Soviet Germany. A great many of them have just disappeared and, if you listen to the concerted and brigaded venom of the Eastern bloc directed against the leaders of the Social Democratic Party in Germany, it is practically an incitement to murder; it stops little short of that. In Hungary they are either ostracized like Peyer or betrayed by Szakasits. In Rumania they have been fused by their intimidated headmen, Voitech and Radaceanu, and from now on they will have little more to say than "Grotewohl" in Soviet Germany.

Now we have an open declaration of political war directed against all the most respected Socialist leaders in Western Europe by the Comintern, the only body that has enjoyed resurrection without ever suffering dissolution. Here they are all again, just the same old lot as before, man for man and woman for woman. They are, in fact, the very natural successors of Herr Bohle and his Auslands-deutsche. You remember the institute for Nazis abroad which was supposed to be run from Stuttgart but which was really run from Berlin. Now we have an institute for the Communists which is nominally run from Belgrade but which is really run from Moscow. The totalitarians find difficulty in not echoing each other.

What is the origin of this apparently implacable hatred of the democrats in general and Socialists in particular on the part of the Communists? I think it is because fundamentally Socialists are possessors of a rival doctrine and, above all, of a kindlier doctrine, and that word "kindlier" is the operative word. A little while ago one of the supporters of the noble Lords on my left—I think they may be proud of him—a Mr. George Orwell, wrote a most excellent book called Animal Farm. It was a story of a farm that was only too anxious to be socialized, but the animals had reckoned without "Old Squealer," the great hog, the commissar who hogged everything when he got on top and divided up the pie with his henchmen. He started off with the slogan "All animals are equal" but, once on top, he changed that slogan to "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." That is a very admirable definition of the Communist hierarchy in a society that professes to be classless and of the Communist tyranny such as is being exercised in Europe now.

But Mr. George Orwell has now written another book called The English People. There is a passage in that book in which he puts his finger even more inexorably on the spot. He says: The outstanding and by contemporary standards a highly original quality of the British people is their habit of not killing one another.

There you have it. Totalitarians do kill when the technique demands, and one of their great grievances against Western democracy is that it does not, like Saturn, devour its own children. If I may be quite frank, they regard men of the type of the noble Lords on my left as a sort of, if I main coin a composite word, "labourgeoisie." They eliminate them as and when they can. That is all in the day's work. One of the reasons why I have dwelt on this point to-day is that I want to ask the Government, even though I fully understand their difficulties and sympathize with them, whether they are resigned to seeing their colleagues gradually blotted out in Eastern Europe, or whether they think there is something further which they could do; and, if that is their mood, I should like to offer same suggestions, because I do not think that that game is up yet; something can be done.

Let me begin by explaining in a little further detail what we are really up against. For that purpose, I must say a word about Dmitrov. Dmitrov was accused by the Nazis of something which he had not done and he has survived. You might have thought that that would have made him more compassionate towards other innocent men. Not at all. He hanged Petkov mercilessly. It is just the technique at work again, the technique of elimination, and it must be seen in that light and in no other, like all the ether cases which I quoted earlier in ether countries. Perhaps it may bring home the point a little more clearly to your Lordships if I take an example nearer home. Almost on the morrow of the murder the Dean of Canterbury went out to Bulgaria and, to quote the Sofia radio, expressed his sincerest admiration for Dmitrov. That may seem to some of us rather an odd brand of Christianity. I confess that at first sight it would seem so to me, but it is not really nearly as odd as it sounds, because the Dean also believes in the technique of elimination. If anyone here doubts that, he has only to read a little book called Christians in the Class Struggle, issued with the approval and patronage of the Dean and some other distinguished ecclesiastics, in which this technique is approved. Indeed in that pamphlet is also set forth "Old Squealer's" contention that the people who have done the job must be privileged compared with those who have not. So there is nothing very surprising in that. There is, it is quite true, in the eighteenth Chapter of St. Matthew, a parable about a steward which says quite clearly what Christ really thought about people who, having got mercy themselves, refused it to others, but that appears to have been forgotten in favour of the technique.

Now, I feel bound, incidentally and in passing, to say just a few words about Mr. Mack, M.P. He was on the scene of the murder before the Dean. It seems to me that he went there to satisfy the vanity which was apparent in the speech he made in another place on October 22, when he said that his reception in Bulgaria was an event unparalleled in Bulgarian history, and that no one in history had ever done more than he to raise British prestige. Then he came home and he said that Petkov was rightly hanged. I am bound to say I feel he got away with that rather lightly in another place, and if speeches of that kind can be made with such relative immunity there, I think it is rather a good argument for the existence of your Lordships' House. What again, on the other hand, are we to say about Mr. Solley, M.P., who is reported by the Rumanian radio at the end of last month to have said, before the man had been heard, that Dr. Maniu was probably guilty? Utterances of that kind by people in responsible positions do nothing to deter, and a good deal to promote, the tendency towards judicial murder in those unhappy countries, and I am grateful for the patience and courtesy by which your Lordships have allowed me to point out that very essential truth.

Now I come to the treaty which we have concluded with technician Dmitrov. That treaty has been grossly violated from the start, and it always will be, because what I have been trying to point out to your Lordships this afternoon is that the terms of the treaty are in conflict with the technique of elimination, and that technique is always going to pull more strongly than the terms of the treaty. If we have not realized that yet, we have realized nothing. Well, then, what are we to do? Again I say how grave I consider the situation, how disastrous I think will be a policy of drift, and yet how fully I sympathize with the Government in the enormous difficulty in which they are placed, because nobody has ever had to deal with people quite like this before.

Eight months ago to-day I raised precisely this question, and I have only raised it again because the situation has deteriorated, as I expected, so badly in the interval. In that speech I urged very strongly that the whole of this subject of treaty observance should be referred to the United Nations. That suggestion met with no favour. I will not weary the House with the reasons for which it was rejected. But I still think that it should be first choice among our list of remedies, and so I am taking it upon myself to ask the Government once more and very earnestly whether they will not reconsider that decision and whether, in view of all that has happened, and is happening, they will not refer it even now. If they still say "No," I must take "No" for an answer again, and I must try to think of something else; and I have tried to think of something else. I repeat that it is impossible to go on with a system whereby one side is always tied into knots; that only handicaps the good, whereas the perfidious have a free hand.

It seems to me possible that something might be done on this line which would, perhaps, give a minimum measure of security in dealing with the ever growing police States who do not keep their word. Could we perhaps introduce a new principle into international relations, the principle that all violated treaties become automatically invalid at the option of, and to the extent desired by, the aggrieved party? I hope your Lordships may see some possibilities in that. The aggrieved party would then be able to reflect at leisure and with dispassion as to how far he wished to carry that interpretation. In many cases he might not wish to exercise his regained liberty at all; in others he might wish only to exercise it on one point. It would, perhaps, have this further advantage, that there is no need for any denunciation of treaties. And I would like the Government to be quite clear to-day that I am not asking them to denounce these present treaties; I am trying to find something more sensible and practical than that. You would not need to denounce, you would not need any rupture or break of relations, and you would not have to recall your Ambassador and instruct him to ask for his passports in the old-fashioned melodramatic phrase. You would simply consider how far you wished to take advantage of your regained liberty.

It is easy enough to see how that would work in the case of bilateral treaties, but in the case of multilateral treaties it is more complicated. Even so, it would work quite simply in practice, I think, if you once adopted that principle. In the case where you did not wish to exercise it, of course, nothing further would happen; but if you thought that on one particular point you, yourself, should be no longer bound you would naturally and loyally consult your co-signatories and, if they agreed, you would act accordingly. If the majority of them were against you the principle would remain, but it would not be operative in that particular instance. I want to be perfectly fair even to myself and say that it might be urged against that suggestion that that would act as a precedent for the police States to do likewise—to trump up charges against us and break off treaties. That looks like an objection, but it is not really because the police States break the treaties anyway. It is very much simpler for them to go on breaking them and banking on us doing nothing than to pick a quarrel with us beforehand and risk going to the United Nations and having a row about it. They will not go out of their way to change it, and even if they did, it would alter nothing in practice. What I have said is a possible suggestion. I do not put it forward as a panacea and, indeed, I should be very grateful if anybody else could find something better. I hope indeed that somebody will find something better to-day.

Now the Government may have some difficulty in acting on this moral basis. Again I want to make things as easy for them as I can. Even if they do take that line, that need not deter them from repudiating people like Mr. Mack and Mr. Solley, or the Church from repudiating the Dean of Canterbury. After all, the Archbishops found no difficulty in repudiating the Bishop of Birmingham the other day on account of some of the features of his doctrines. But the Bishop has never included the totalitarian technique of the elimination of his fellow-Christians among his doctrines. Or again, if one wishes to do something, there is the case of Mr. Zilliacus and his seven colleagues who have just returned from a complimentary tour of the Comintern or Cominform—whichever you prefer—and have declared war on Mr. Attlee and Mr. Bevin. Well, my Lords, in our British language we have two Christian names which belong to both sexes. They are epicene—Clare and Evelyn. And now we have a third, not wholly indigenous, Konni. Epicene Konni appears to belong to two Parties, the Socialist Party and the one that persecutes the Socialists.

I feel prompted to ask what is the opinion of the Government on the following point. In long past years, friends of the noble Lords on my loft were frequently, and, as I thought, very rightly, condemnatory of the people who went out to Party rallies at Nuremberg. It is a matter on which I can speak with a good record, for I succeeded in preventing any official attendance there at all until Sir Nevile Henderson beat me. Therefore, I feel entitled to ask what exactly in your opinion is the difference between the people who used to go out to Nuremberg and these new people now who rustle round Europe belauding the new jackboot. I should think that if there is one thing on God's earth that experience and common sense have taught everyone except fools and "fellow-travellers," it is the enormous danger of encouraging expansionist totalitarians to believe that they enjoy widespread sympathy in our own ranks. I believe that people who do that sort of thing deserve the severest censure from every man and woman in this country who wishes to preserve his or her own life.

I freely admit that these matters of discipline in State or Party are in one sense absolutely no concern of an Independent like myself, but in another I think they concern us all. If no notice is taken of these things a false impression is bound to be created in Europe. In the second place, it will be no good for Party or Church to fold their hands and say that they can do nothing. There is always something that can be done. That, if I may quote myself, is what I said in my last speech in this House—there is always something that you can do. I can carry it even further to-day.

Under these treaties which we have ratified, the Bulgarians owe to the Greeks £11,000,000 sterling in reparations. So far, they have paid them practically noth- ing in restitution even of what they owed under the Armistice. And so far from feeling obligated to pay any reparations they are complaining the whole time and even wanting to take Greek territory instead. Your Lordships may be fairly sure that when the time comes there will be plenty of bilking there. Are we going to be prepared for that? I say that we should be, and there is something very simple that can be done if you are prepared to exercise your rights and to treat these treaties as a whole. Under these treaties Italy owes Yugoslavia £31,000,000 sterling. If the Bulgarians do not pay the Greeks why should not we be able to announce that so far as we are concerned we absolve Italy from this obligation to pay the Yugoslavs? If the Russians will not compel their satellites to honour their obligations all the treaties must be reconsidered. So far they have not only not urged their satellites to do as they are pledged to do, but they have actually encouraged them to defy us when we have asked for the fulfilment of our own elementary rights. That has got to stop.

I now come to the case of Poland. Be it remembered that under the Potsdam Agreement we are obligated to pay out a sufficient proportion of the dismantlings in Western Germany to give satisfaction to Poland via the Russians. Let us look at what has happened. Let us take the case of Mr. Mikolajczyk. The case of Mr. Mikolajczyk, your Lordships will agree, is a case in respect of which none of you here and no one in this country can escape some measure of responsibility. He went out to Poland to carry out the policy of ultra-appeasement of Russia. He hoped that by consenting to the cession of nearly half of Poland to Russia, the Russians would at least leave liberty to the rest. That was the basis on which he went out and that was the basis on which the matter was discussed in both Houses of Parliament here. I was present in this House, so I am aware of that. No one could have been more entirely swindled than we have been.

I saw Mr. Mikolajczyk shortly before he went out. He knew that a very hard time awaited them, but I think what actually happened must have far surpassed his worst apprehensions, because his followers have been murdered and gaoled, persecuted and terrorized and maligned. They have been treated with every combination and concoction of fraud and force which gangsterdom can devise. Now, at last, he has had to flee the country in order to avoid being butchered like Petkov. Every one of those steps, and all his sufferings during all these past years, have been the clearest possible violation of every promise given to us not only by the puppet Government in Warsaw but by their Russian masters as well. I think I am entitled to ask: Is so much perfidy really to pass entirely unnoticed? If you will adopt the recommendation that I made tentatively in the course of my speech you will at least be able to consider—if I may again use my own words—with leisure and dispassion, whether it is really fair that we should always perform all our obligations and that other people should perform none of theirs. Is "heads we always lose, and tails the others always win," a policy or a mug's game? I say that it is a mug's game, and I would not play any more.

But, at least, if this suggestion of mine could be considered the Government would be in a position to consider quietly, in full possession of their liberty, whether they should really go on paying all this out to Poland if none of the Polish obligations to us is ever to be fulfilled. I would like, therefore, to sum up what I have been trying to convey to your Lordships to-day and to say that this present system of drift can only end in disaster and the complete discredit of the treaty system. There are three things that can be done. The first thing that can be done is nothing, and that is just the very worst thing of all. That seems to be quite inadmissible. The second is to reconsider my suggestion made eight months ago that the whole of this grave subject be brought before the United Nations. The third is the suggestion I have made to you to-day. I beg the Government very earnestly to consider these suggestions and if they like none of them to try and find something better. Nobody would be better pleased than I if their ingenuity surpassed mine. I am sure it does. I do beg them, in formulating a long-term policy, at least to equip themselves with such powers of treaty enforcement as may be available and do what they can to ensure that they should no longer be continually deceived and defied by every perjured police State. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That in view of the persistent violation by the Soviet satellites of their obligation to secure the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting, the treaties recently concluded with them should now be reconsidered.—(Lord Vansittart.)

3.22 p.m.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, we have listened, as customarily, to a brilliant speech from the noble Lord who moved this Motion, but I do not think we should allow ourselves to be carried away by his great eloquence and by his acute wit. The Motion he has moved is very carefully worded and it asks only that the treaties shall be reconsidered. I do not know whether or not the Government are prepared to accept that Motion, but I do ask your Lordships to examine for a few moments what reconsideration really implies. To my mind there are only two alternatives—either the treaties which have been so recently entered into shall be denounced now or in the near future, or they must be retained in force. The noble Lord tries to introduce a new principle into International Law. I hope I am not misquoting him, but, so far as I can understand, he suggested that we could repudiate certain clauses without a denunciation of the treaties themselves. If that is a correct interpretation of what he said, I think it is a very dangerous and a completely novel one. If you denounce these treaties it certainly is not possible to imagine that new treaties will be concluded while they remain denounced.

I agree entirely with all that the noble Lord said about the ill-faith of the countries which have signed these treaties. They are continually and deliberately violating them. The case of Mr. Petkov, to which the noble Lord referred, was perhaps the worst and most flagrant example among all these violations. It is, as the noble Lord said, simply murder. But I would like to join issue on this point: does the noble Lord really believe that if we had not ratified the treaty the life of Mr. Petkov would have been saved? I do not think he does. Supposing these treaties are denounced, what is going to be the result? I think you will have complete confusion. There will be nothing on which we could base our diplomatic protests. I know I shall be told that these protests are generally and continually ignored and they have no effect. That may be true, but at any rate we have a solid legal basis on which to stand. Denunciation, however, would certainly deprive us of our one remaining weapon, except of course the use of force, but I do not think the noble Lord wishes us to consider that in this connexion.

LORD VANSITTART

I think the noble Lord has failed to hear me. I was particularly asking the Government not to denounce the treaties.

THE EARL OF PERTH

I am trying to explain, if the noble Lord will listen, that there are only two alternatives. I have rejected the last suggestion as being incompatible with International Law as it exists to-day. If the Government think it is desirable and that the time has come when it should be done, we can at any time bring those who are responsible for the violation of these treaties before the assembly of the United Nations, that is to say, before the bar of the public opinion of the world. If that happens, the transgressors would have to justify their actions. They cannot plead that they are outside the competence of the United Nations because the treaties specifically refer to considerations which normally would be of a domestic character. Noble Lords might say, quite rightly, that to resort to the United Nations would not prove immediately effective; but I still maintain that in the long run the public opinion of the world is a factor which no country can continuously disregard.

Therefore I have rejected the third course proposed by the noble Lord. Although I have agreed with his indictment and diagnosis, I sincerely believe that the treaties should be allowed to stand, because to abandon them would be a completely ineffective gesture and would fall almost into the same category as the withdrawal of Ambassadors. Your Lordships know that that withdrawal really is a useless step and never produces any result. I do not see that we can reap any advantage from denunciation. The violations will certainly continue and we should have deprived ourselves of the weapon of intervention—namely by (a) protest by ourselves, and (b) bringing the matter before the United Nations. Perhaps these measures are not worth a very great deal to-day, but I still maintain it would be foolish to throw them away lightly.

3.28 p.m.

LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER

My Lords, I find the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, a very difficult person to speak after and a very difficult person to disagree with. I am not going to compliment him, as I might, on the extraordinary technical excellence of his speech. He would not want that, as he is far too much in earnest. But I think the noble Lord impresses us all, he certainly impresses me, as a man whose love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity compel us to pay very great attention to what he says. I do not want to begin by criticizing, whether capable of it or not, or throwing doubts on his account of the facts. I am quite confident that the main indictment against these nations is true, because it is an indictment of the system of government, and that system of government which allows no discussion and no rights is bound to produce those results. I am entirely with the noble Lord in all that. Whether we agree with his practical proposals or not, I think we ought to be grateful for the fact that time and again he recourses to those frightful things that are happening, and asks us to take them seriously. If the noble Lord had only wanted to say that the Government should reconsider their attitude towards Russia and her satellites, one could not have objected. If the noble Lord had repeated his proposal (I cannot remember whether or not it was ever a formal Motion) that those things should be referred to the United Nations, again I, personally, could not have objected. But I do, with the noble Earl who has just spoken, very much doubt whether we can do much by way of the treaties.

Of course, there is one thing which the noble Lord did not definitely propose, although he implied that he would like it done. He would like the Party represented on these Benches to make it quite clear that they repudiate Mr. Zilliacus and company. He says that nothing but evil springs from the impression produced in Eastern Europe that these people are of consequence in the counsels of this country. I myself do not think they are of any consequence in the counsels of this country; and if I may say so, speaking as a humble Back Bencher, I think it is time we said so officially. I say that quite seriously because, in my opinion, harm is done by the impression, very easily gained, when members of the Party of which I am proud to be a member so act that, for all their disclaimers, lead people to believe that they speak for England or, even if they speak for something less than England, that they speak for the Labour Party. They do not. I think the Labour Party should make that quite clear. With that—which I believe is partly what the noble Lord wanted done—I should entirely agree.

Yet I want to say certain things which I think we ought to have in mind. Are the Governments of these countries worse—hateful though they are in many ways—than the Government of Russia before 1914? Are they worse in all these ways than the present Government of China? I think not. I say that quite deliberately. I think what is sauce for the European goose is sauce for the Far Eastern gander. If we are going to take this line, we shall get into certain difficulties. That is no reason why we should not do it, but we need to be careful. There again, if all the noble Lord means is that we should reconsider our attitude, I say let us do that, but do not let us be tied down to any practical proposals. When I read the noble Lord's Motion I thought he intended certain practical proposals, but it is clear now that he does not want to prejudge the position. If I am right there, that makes a difference.

Secondly, I want to say something which is much more difficult to say, and of the truth of which it will be more difficult to persuade a good many of your Lordships. Are the Governments of these countries worse than they were before the war? In some ways, yes; but in some ways they are better. So far as open violation of individual rights and all the rest of it is concerned, these countries before the war had a certain standard of respectable behaviour. But the countries of which I know a little—Bulgaria, Rumania, Poland and Hungary—were countries governed by a wealthy minority, to the detriment of a great agricultural proletariat, very badly treated and living at a low economic level. We have got to remember that. We have to remember that since the war there have taken place in these countries great agrarian revolutions; large estates have been divided, and very largely the peasants have got the land.

The noble Lord may say: How is that consistent with the fact that it is the members of the Peasant Party who have been persecuted? I know that revolution devours its own children, and the general political doctrines which they have got from the East are so poisonous that they produce these evil results. Nevertheless, I think there must be many inhabitants of these countries who feel that, to some extent, they have gone through a liberation. We must be careful not to produce the impression that what would happen if we prevailed would be that the peasants' land would be taken away and the other people put back into ownership. I gather that that is a very common belief in these south eastern countries. Noble Lords may remember the harm that was done in Russia round about 1919, when the peasants had the land, and certain things happened which made them believe that if the Bolsheviks were defeated they would lose it. We ought to be very careful of that. I know that there is a deal of nonsense talked in calling these satellites of Russia "democracies." I have talked about that before. It is mostly "stuff," but there is a little in it. An oppressive government by the rich has been replaced by an oppressive government by the poor. That is not very much, but it is something. Therefore, one does not want to produce the impression that we are going to put the whole thing back again. We must be very careful about that.

Thirdly, I would remind your Lordships that this Motion talks about Soviet satellites. Let us remember that they are Soviet satellites. Why should we deal with the satellites, who do not very much matter and who have more or less to do as they are told? I do not know if noble Lords saw last Saturday's Manchester Guardian. It contained a very interesting translation of a document by a gentleman called Zhdanov, in which he had given instructions to what the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, persists in calling the Comintern—he may be right—but what the best people, I am told, call the Cominform. I agree with the noble Lord that there: is not much difference between them. I commend that document to your Lordships, and especially would I do so to noble Lords who sit on these Benches, and to some of their friends in another place. It contains the Russian instructions to the Conference of Communist Parties in Warsaw and denounces the Right Wing Socialists who serve their American masters to maintain—note these words, my Lords—"the grievous heresy that the criterion of true democracy is the existence of many Parties." That is a "heresy" which is now denounced. Let us realize that that has now become the official doctrine which all the satellite countries have to observe. That document also denounces—I think my noble friend Viscount Cecil will be interested in this—"the bourgois intelligentsia dreamers and pacifists who are deceived by the idea of world government."

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Who said that?

LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER

This is also Mr. Zhdanov. I do not know if noble Lords have ever read the classic passage of appeasement in the beginning of Burke's letter to a friend of the National Assembly. He says various things which I should have liked to read, but he ends by saying: There is one case indeed in which it would be madness not to give the fullest credit to the most deceitful of men when they make declarations of hostility against us. Some of us in this Party might pay some attention to that and think about it.

Lastly, I think what one has to ask is: Would actions which seem to be primarily attacks on the satellites of Russia be more likely to throw them completely into the hands of Russia or not? Are we to suppose that those countries have no souls of their own, and are we to suppose that those countries have no views of their own? We saw the other day that some of them were at least moved by the Marshall Plan and clearly wanted to share in it. I do not often like being told to be patient or to tell other people to be patient, but I think that in regard to the satellites of Russia one should try to give them a chance and try to make them believe that Russia is not their only source of salvation. It is for that reason, moved as I am by the noble Lord's eloquence and feeling, and agreeing as I very largely do with his statement of facts, that I still distrust this Motion.

3.42 p.m.

LORD SCHUSTER

My Lords, I am concerned in what I am going to say not so much with the treaties which have been concluded as with treaties which I understand will shortly be concluded—at least, I hope they will. I want to say a few words about Czechoslovakia and a few words about Austria. Both those countries in their present state illustrate in a very striking manner the thesis on which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has addressed your Lordships this afternoon. I do not know how many of your Lordships are familiar with Czechoslovakia, but it is a very highly civilized country. It is a country which, if I may say so, contains a very civil, very peaceable and very pleasant people, and it is—whatever meaning you attach to the word "democracy"—undoubtedly a democratic country. No one can say of it, if hereafter a Communist régime is substituted for that which now exists, that it has turned from being ruled by the rich to being ruled by the poor, because I do not believe there are any rich people in Czechoslovakia. It is, so far as I can see, a pure example of an over-socialized State. It looks, and desires to look—in spite of the fact that Slavonic blood runs largely in the veins of its inhabitants—for its civilization and culture to the West, and if it is allowed, it will continue to do so.

Czechoslovakia has had many shocks, particularly in the last few months. Some few weeks ago when I was in Czechoslovakia I was attending a meeting of the. International Law Association, an Association which is international both in respect of the fact that it studies international law and in respect of the fact that it draws its members, so far as it can, from every nation in the world. It has no politics and does not talk politics, except that when you are dealing with totalitarian States it is extremely difficult to keep politics out of the legal philosophy; and I imagine it contains men and women of every school of political thought. There is a Polish branch of the International Law Association. There are also Poles of the opposite political Party—learned men now resident in this country—who wished to attend the meeting, and who, I believe, obtained visas from the Czechoslovak Government to enable them to do so. The Government of Poland, however, informed the Czechoslovak Govern- ment that if any Pole from this country ventured to attend the meetings of the International Law Association, no Pole from Poland would be allowed to do so. Accordingly, the Poles from this country abstained. That is one instance of the kind of pressure that is brought to bear upon that country, and that is within my own knowledge.

The next instance is not within my own knowledge, but it is very well authenticated. Your Lordships will remember that when the invitation was issued under the Marshall Plan to the various States of Europe to meet and consider the application of the Plan, Czechoslovakia at first accepted and subsequently withdrew her acceptance. Now the Czechoslovaks believe—I do not know whether it is true or not—that when it was learnt in Moscow that the invitation had been accepted, the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia was informed that if Czechoslovakia persisted there would be a Communist rising in Pilsen, and that Russia would find it necessary to march in to preserve order, and accordingly Czechoslovakia withdrew. At present, the inhabitants of Prague are living in a very great state of dread. They do not believe—in fact it is obviously true—that they can hold out against the military force of Russia. They believe that that military force will, on one pretence or another, using the old Hitler technique, be employed, and, as one of them said to me: "All we can do now is to wait for the next war, and unfortunately we shall then be on the wrong side." It was impossible in that beautiful city of Prague, in the wonderful weather which we had, not to feel constantly among these friendly people the sense of intense depression at their helplessness and the appalling peril which hangs over them.

That is Czechoslovakia, and I pass now to Austria of which I know far more. I was in Austria for a week in September. I well remember with what high hopes we went into Austria two years before, and with what delight and relief the Austrian population welcomed us. Those hopes have vanished and that delight and relief have passed away. The-Austrians, like the Czechoslovaks, are frightened, and very much frightened. I cannot help for a moment turning aside and saying how painful it is to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, said and to suppose that in those countries there is any issue between the rich and poor, or anything of the kind. The Austrian Government is a Government of peasants, farmers and small professional men. I do not know what has happened to the people who owned the great estates.

LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER

I did not say that—

LORD SCHUSTER

I have not yet finished. It is exactly the same with Poland and exactly the same with Czechoslovakia. To represent that the change to Russian domination is a change from tyranny to—what shall I say?—freedom or rights of the common man, although I am sure it is said in all sincerity, is very painful. Let me just go on with Austria. Why is it that all these hopes have vanished? In the first place it is due perhaps to something which never could have been helped and could never have been remedied, the general food situation, the complete raptures of continental trade and the fact that Austria for so long has been a training ground for armies, and has known so many revolutions. I suppose it would not have been possible that the Austrians should have been preserved from hunger or that they could have been kept warmer, although more might have been done but for other reasons to which I will come in a moment.

We must remember that the Austrian, when he is accused, as he frequently is accused, of unwillingness to buckle to his task, has been underfed, bitterly underfed, for more than two years, and that he is never warm in the bitter winters we have had in Vienna. The second cause is the ceaseless, sturdy, stalwart, open and underground hostility of the Russian Government. Throughout the whole of our negotiations with them they have ceaselessly sought to keep Austria in a condition in which administration could not be carried on. Every effort of the Austrian Government to stand by themselves has been repressed. Austrian industry has been hampered. I would like to say a word or two at greater length about that in a few minutes. The attempt of Austria to set on foot the necessary police force, which is needed not only for individual protection but to deal with frontier incidents, has been thwarted in every way possible.

I cannot tell, and I do not think any one of those associated with me in Austria could have told, what exactly it is that Russia was then or is now aiming at. I do not think it likely that we shall ever understand the Russians and I am quite sure that they will never understand us. They credit us with Machiavellian guile and wickedness. They do so perfectly sincerely, and this accounts, I think, for their attitude towards us. I think they sincerely believe that they have in their hands a panacea for all the ills of humanity, mixed with the feeling—and here I want to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, about the Austrian Government—that has animated Russian soldiers and diplomats ever since Czarist times: that Russia is mighty and should be greater and mightier yet until she governs the whole of Europe.

But if you go as we went, not infrequently, to a great Russian feast, with blaring bands and blazing searchlights, you cannot help seeing what is the Russian view of the relations between man and man. The place blazes with generals and the generals blaze with stars. There is, I almost said, one door for the cat and one for the kitten. The grading of people, the breaking up of them into social classes and castes, is absolutely incredible to Western ideas. I may be indiscreet in making my next observation: the pleasures which they hold out to the different classes also differ in peculiar ways.

In these circumstances, what are we to do? We are about, or are supposed to be about, to conclude a treaty, together with Russia, France, and the United States, with the Austrian Republic, which would enable us and the other Allies to withdraw the troops and I suppose reduce the staffs at present in Austria to nothing much more than advisory bodies—all very desirable things to do if they can be done and if those who bargain with us will keep their word. Will they keep their word? We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, how the satellite countries have kept their word. If we go out and the Russians remain, what is going to happen to the members of the present Austrian Government? The Right Wing are in a majority of about four, and the Government are composed of peasants and farmers, small shopkeepers, small professional men, and Socialists with a few Communists. The Austrians have become accustomed to Communists in uniform and they do not like them in plain clothes. I do not know what we are going to do, and I do not even want to ask His Majesty's Government to give any reply to my question, because that might embarrass them. I want only to make clear to your Lordships' House and, if one may hope so, to this country, the dreadful peril in which these people stand, and the extent to which, quite apart from our own interests, we are committed to their protection.

That brings me to my third and last point. I do not want to attack His Majesty's Government for two reasons: first, because in all these matters it has always treated us with great courtesy and kindness, and secondly, because I am not making a Party point—I should be saying just the same wherever I sat in your Lordships' House and to whatever Party I belonged. But I think that His Majesty's Government, whatever its complexion, has to bear a very heavy share of blame for the way in which matters have gone in Eastern Europe, particularly in Austria. For weary months we screamed from Vienna, entreating His Majesty's Government to remember that Austria existed. They said in effect, "We will attend to you when we have attended to the much more important question of Germany." I do not want to suggest that Germany was not, and is not, an important question—of course it is. But Austria is a vital dangerpoint from our point of view.

It all goes back really to the muddled hurry of the Potsdam Agreement. The Potsdam Agreement is the miraculous example of the magnificent achievements of modern diplomacy, in which you do not quite know what you want to agree about or what it is you intend to say. You put it all down together somehow on a bit of paper, and then, when it has been signed, you spend the next two or three years trying to find out what is meant. It is quite impossible to attach an intelligible meaning to the. Potsdam Agreement as it affects Austria. But one thing was perfectly clear, and that was that it was never the intention that any action should be taken which would leave Russia free to take away industries and other possessions which were the property of Austrians, and thereby hamper Austrian commerce. It was undoubtedly not intended that the Russians or anybody else should take away property which belonged to the nationals of this country or of the United States. For two years now there has been a deliberate policy of pillage and spoliation. Sometimes, more usually; it has been done by force. Banks, it is true, have not been robbed by someone breaking in but by a corporal and a file of soldiers marching in and saying that, by order of the Commander-in-Chief, all the things in the vaults are to be handed over at once. Although we do not know very much about what is taking place in the Russian Zone, we know quite well that in that zone there are oil wells which are the property of British and United States nationals. We know that the Russians are in possession of them, and I have a very grim suspicion that by the time the Russians are finished with them there will not be any oil in them.

I have one last word to say before I sit down. I do not know how many of your Lordships have been in Vienna since we entered into occupation—I know some noble Lords have. Your Lordships will remember that, owing to the great wisdom of those who planned our occupation, the British Forces, or some of them, and the British civilian employees, are situated in Vienna, as it were, in prison. They are completely surrounded by Russian occupied territory through which run two roads, one through the Semmering Pass and the other through Upper Austria to Linz, along which, by the gracious permission of the Soviet authorities, we are allowed to drive if we want to visit either the Americans or our own people. But you drive along those roads and you drive along no other, or, if you do drive along another, you will end up in a Russian prison. On either side of the road there is No 1ron curtain that you can see, but you are as completely shut off from the villages and from the fields on either side as if there were a barbed-wire electric fence.

As to what happens in those areas nobody knows. Does anybody suppose that in that territory the noble sentiments embodied in the Atlantic Charter, or those spoken of this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, are practised—that there is freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of Press and publication, freedom of political opinion or freedom of public meeting? Of course there is not; and, of course, if we conclude a treaty with any nation, whether nominally free or not, which is under the subordination of the Powers of the East, we are not only going back on that which we have promised to the Austrian people, but we are making, if I may say so sincerely, fools of ourselves in the eyes of history and in our own eyes.

4.3 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate when the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, first spoke, but having listened to the very impressive speeches that have been made by various noble Lords well qualified to address your Lordships on these subjects, there are one or two very brief comments which I would like to make. I do not want anything that I say to be interpreted as implying any difference at all between the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and myself as to the misdeeds of Russia and her satellites. As to those misdeeds, which have been re-emphasized just now by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, with all the authority of recent personal experience, I agree with every word which those noble Lords have said on this aspect.

The recent events which have been referred to, in Eastern and Central Europe, are, I believe, the most deplorable development since the Dark Ages. It is, I know, a commonplace now to talk of a relapse into barbarism, in the sense of a complete collapse of civilization. To my mind, what is happening now is something much worse than that because it is the rise of a new and bastard civilization, a purely materialistic civilization based not upon any divine inspiration with the immutable principles of good faith and justice to which we have been accustomed, but upon mere man-made morals which alter and fluctuate according to the interests of the régime which happens to be in control in those countries. It is, of course, to the interests of those régimes that Communism should persist, and therefore it becomes to them morally right that they should persecute all those who are opposed to Communism. That is their justification, and to them a perfect justification, for such crimes as that committed against Petkov and the other outrages of which we have heard this afternoon. That is a really dreadful development and, unless we can regain some common standard of good faith, to my mind there is no possibility of any fruitful co-operation between the nations of the world or between those two sections of nations at any time in the near future.

I must confess that I am, at the same time, a little doubtful as to the wisdom of the definite proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, put forward this afternoon. His suggestion, as I understood it—I am sure the noble Lord will correct me if I am mistaken—is that, in the case of flagrant violation of treaties, such as we have seen, it should be internationally recognized as legitimate for the aggrieved party to repudiate these treaties wholly or in part, which is the point with which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has already dealt. I quite see the purpose of this suggestion and I agree that the mention is admirable. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, will correct me if I am misinterpreting him in any way, but I took his suggestion to be to make it possible for nations who habitually keep their word to free themselves from obligations when those other nations which have been referred to as the police States obviously and flagrantly violate their side of the bargain. The danger of this proposition, as I see it, is this. That is a game which both parties can play. If we, having; a grievance, can repudiate treaties, the same is true of the police States themselves, and they are much more likely to do it than we are. They will trump up fake grievances of that kind and will then free themselves from the obligations which are becoming inconvenient to them without laying themselves open to any charge of bad faith.

That is a very real danger to the adoption of a proposal of this kind. However good its intention may be, to my mind it may very likely make a bad situation worse. For that reason, I should like very warmly to welcome the last words of the noble Lord's speech in which he put forward an alternative suggestion, that law-abiding nations should bring all such violations immediately to the notice of the United Nations. That Organization really was set up for this very purpose, to obtain ventilation of differences of view and of international crimes and misdeeds of this character. It gives an opportunity for the full facts to be ventilated; it gives an opportunity for public opinion to come to definite conclusions on them; and I believe that the united public opinion of the world still may have some effect upon these States, whatever their personal views may be. In the comparatively early days of the United Nations, your Lordships will remember that His Majesty's Government took exactly this step with regard to Russian charges over our intervention in Greece and in Indonesia. The opinion of the United Nations representatives overwhelmingly exculpated us from all guilt, and the whole sting for a considerable time was taken out of the Russian attack. I do urge His Majesty's Government most strongly to adopt this course wherever the evil of bad faith pokes up its ugly head.

It seems to me, as I have said, that there is a danger that the actual proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, would only lower the general currency of good faith, which is the last thing we want to do. Therefore, I hope that His Majesty's Government will adopt the alternative proposal, that they should not hesitate to take every evidence of bad faith, of every international crime against obligations, to the United Nations. They should not hesitate to expose the full facts. They should speak with uncompromising frankness and should make absolutely clear all the information which they have and should lay it on the table before the world. I believe that that is the only way in which we can maintain the high standard of good faith which is the essence of civilized relations between nations.

4.10 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, it is with considerable reluctance and distaste that, in spite of the expertness of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart's pleading, and the charm of exposition to which we are accustomed in his case, I find myself, for once, on the other side of the fence. I cannot help feeling that although none of us would, I imagine, disagree with the principle of his Motion—namely, the disapproval he registers, which is shared by the last two speakers in the impressive and authoritative speeches that they have also made, of the things, scandalous to any Western mind, that are going on in the countries he has mentioned—the measures his Motion recommends are possibly not at present advisable, with the exception of something which he put into his speech, which consisted of suggesting that strictures should be made against the activities of Messrs. Mack and Solley e tutti quanti.

He has, of course, rendered the task of answering him unforeseeably difficult by attaching a very wide and special significance to the word "reconsidered" in his Motion and also by amplifying its scope by introducing countries like Poland and Yugoslavia, whereas one naturally imagined, since Italy is not yet a satellite, he would only treat of Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria and Rumania with whom we ratified the treaties in September. I have naturally no notion, no more than anybody else, of what the Governmental reply will be, but it seems to me that it may well be little different from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, on August 5, on the question of the Hungarian elections. I venture to suggest this afternoon that in any case, apart from the fact that the treaties only came into force in September and that any brusque volte face on our part may well seem to give colour to that accusation of indecision which is so often thrown at the Western democracies by their enemies, it is in this case the spirit of the law which matters, and I feel that the spirit in this case consists in profiting by the main advantages of the status quo. Of these, the greatest one seems to me that of having our chief representatives there on the spot, and of enabling them to report on day-to-day developments, as mere charges d'affaires are often not so well able to do. If we were to trust to the Press for information, certainly in the case of Bulgaria and Rumania, no degree of accuracy could be guaranteed, for the simple reason that accurate accounts would sooner or later ensure the correspondents being bundled out of the country, or else even being arrested. It is that advantage which I trust we shall do nothing to spoil.

I am, in point of fact, reasonably well informed myself on what goes on in Rumania, and I have lately managed to secure some first-hand information on Bulgarian conditions. I can assure your Lordships that in both countries they are in every way appalling so far as any question of personal freedom goes, furthermore as your Lordships know, economic problems of the grimmest nature only intensify the blackness of the picture. An article in the September Contemporary Review by a writer who would probably be arrested if he returned there, gives the measure of the frightfulness of daily Bulgarian life, life in a country once so fervently Russophil. In Hungary conditions since the elections are, as we know, politically little better than in the other two, though both there and in Finland, where the Russians seem to have behaved with a surprisingly intelligent leniency, there is an apparent degree of freedom of political speech. In Finland, indeed, this goes quite far; perhaps the Russians think they are not important enough to matter, or near enough to be easy to handle in an emergency; I do not know.

But what I want to stress is that in all these countries either the Russians or the local Communists (except, as I say, possibly in Finland), have brought about a revulsion against them, intensified, of course, by incidents like the Petkov and Maniu incidents, whose results can only be to set the inhabitants once again looking helplessly, but not altogether hopelessly, in our direction; and it is for that reason that I feel that, whatever faults it may have, it is to our advantage at this juncture not to disturb the continuity now set up, not to untie these new knots, even if they are unsatisfactory according to strict logic.

In addition to all that, it is difficult to see how we can rectify the situation by ourselves. What would be the American view of the noble Lord's proposal, I wonder. I have a suspicion that it might well follow the course that I am trying to recommend to-day. No, my Lords, if I may quote the Government's reply of August 5, and extend it to ourselves and to the public as a whole: We are perfectly aware of what is going on; we are not hoodwinked by any excuses or any misuse of words"— such, may I add, as the revoltingly disingenuous piece of special pleading by Mr. Palme Dutt, in his letter of yesterday to The Times. We know what the fate of Petkov has been; we know what may await Maniu, who, among his early admissions, has admitted that he tried to follow the course Mikolajczyk successfully adopted; and, if to-day's Daily Herald has been well informed, we know that the Leader of the Hungarian Independent Party, M. Pfeiffer, has already disappeared. And I, at least, know, for I learnt it to-day from a reliable source, that 1,500 Bulgarian families, belonging to what they call in Eastern Europe the intelligentsia and what we call the professional classes, have been ordered to leave Sofia for the countryside and the Black Sea ports, to make way for Communist families, on the grounds that the former were capable of making contacts with the inhabitants of the deplorable West.

We know that this is just one more example of this vast attempt to wipe out intelligent middle-class elements everywhere, the elements which are the essential cement of every community, and we know that what Mr. Walter Lippman has called "the cold war" is on. But I still think that, in spite of all this, it is better to temporize and maintain things as they are in Eastern Europe, if only by our continued presence there to keep ourselves informed and to put some little heart into these unfortunate victims of a system which is visibly losing ground elsewhere, but whose iron heel of the new pattern is not likely to relax its pressure there for as long as the various possessors of the boot can maintain it. I also feel that, in a sense, it is even more important for us to keep up these newly-arrived-at relations, because we are not likely to incur the envious blame that may fall to the lot of America for her championship of unbridled private enterprise, and we are and remain the ideal bridge between the two extreme versions of the rival ideologies already ranged, alas! in visible battle with each other. Nothing, however, in what I am inclined to recommend prevents us from protesting, both on the spot and here, as Lord and long and. as often as possible against the monstrous events taking place in that part of the world; and that, I feel, is the real value of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, to-day.

4.18 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

My Lords, may I recall you for a moment to the terms of the Motion? It is as follows: "To move to resolve, That in view of the persistent violation by the Soviet satellites of their obligation … the treaties recently concluded with them should now be reconsidered." There are certain countries with whom treaties have recently been concluded, and of these the countries called Soviet satellites are, I suppose, Rumania, Bulgaria, possibly Hungary and possibly Finland. Those, at any rate, are the Powers—no one would suggest that Italy is a Soviet satellite—with whom treaties have recently been concluded, and the noble Lord who moved this Motion dealt particularly with two of them—namely, Rumania and Bulgaria.

Now I want to point out that Austria is not a Soviet satellite. I do not so regard her, and I hope she never will be. Czechoslovakia I do not regard as a Soviet satellite. But whether or not you put them down as Soviet satellites, they are not Powers with whom treaties have recently been concluded, and therefore they are not in any way relevant, except by way of illustration, to to-day's debate. I mention that particularly having regard to Lord Schuster's remarks. Lord Schuster was in Austria for a considerable time, rendering most useful service as a servant of the Crown. He served us faithfully and well there. I would suggest to the noble Lord, with the greatest respect, that it was undesirable, on a Motion to which the matter is wholly irrelevant, to make—perhaps at all and certainly not without giving us notice—the observations that he did make with regard to the responsibility, the heavy responsibility, of this Government in relation to affairs in Austria.

He said, in effect, that when this matter had been referred to the Government, they said: "We have many more important things to deal with; this is a comparatively small matter." I cannot think that the Government said any such thing. Of course, it is a fact that the solution of the Austrian difficulty depended upon a solution of the general difficulty with Russia. If that were solved, everything else could easily be solved. To say that we did not regard Austria as an important matter, to say that we have not done throughout what we could with regard to Austria, is, I venture to suggest, not the fact at all. But I am not prepared to deal with the matter to-day. The allegation has been made. I cannot deal with it. I cannot deal with it because it is an allegation which is not germane to the Motion now before your Lordships' House, and when someone like myself is called upon in this House to be a "Jack of all trades" and to reply to a debate, I suggest that it is only fair to me and to the House that if this sort of statement is to be made I should receive before the debate some notice, whether formal or informal, whether of minutes or of hours, of the intention, so that I may take advice and find out what the facts are upon these matters.

I prefer now to go back to the subject matter of the debate. With regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, so far as the facts are concerned, speaking on behalf of the Government and weighing my words, I am bound to say—and I say it with the greatest regret—that, broadly speaking, his survey is correct. In our view, it is correct, and there is no doubt whatever but that most grievous things have happened, are happening and, I am afraid, will happen. Further, I think it is true to say that I see no prospect of an immediate amelioration of the situation. I see, on the other hand, a prospect of deterioration.

I am not going—for I would be very reluctant to do so without knowing all the circumstances—to express my opinion on the speeches or the writings of the Dean of Canterbury and the politicians to whom the noble Lord referred. It would not be right that I should do so unless I had read them and considered them, and I have not done so. I do not object, for one moment, to people from this country going to Russia and her satellite countries. I think it is very useful. I think it is useful that they should get to know what is going on. I am a firm believer in trying to get to know these people better. It may be that if we get to know each other better, some of this suspicion which undoubtedly exists to-day will be got rid of. Of course, what matters is what these people say and how they behave when they do go to these countries. So far as I am concerned, I am very much surprised to hear that any member of my Party expressed his approval of the condemnation of Petkov. Of all forms of murder, the one which I dislike most is that which comes under the heading of judicial murder, and that is how I certainly regard this. It was said that another member, before the case was heard, had expressed in public an opinion as to the probable guilt of Mr. Maniu. If he had done that in this country he would, of course, have been dealt with for contempt of court.

So much for the facts. Now I want to be completely realistic about these facts, as I have tried to be. What is the right thing to do? The noble Lord's Motion asks that the treaties should be reconsidered. Of course, you can only reconsider a treaty at the present time in this sense: you can make up your mind to denounce the treaty on the ground that it has been broken, and we have ample material on which to take that line, if it is the right line to take. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and also with the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, that I would not like to see introduced into International Law something which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, would, I think, agree is a wholly new principle—namely, that instead of merely having the right, if a treaty is repudiated, to say, "Very well, the treaty has gone," one should be allowed, in the event of repudiation, to hold that it has gone in part only. That would be a completely novel doctrine which has never been applied anywhere, and on the whole I think it would be disadvantageous.

The choice, as I see it, is between holding to the treaty for what it is worth at present, or saying, as we can say, "By reason of the manifold repudiations of the treaty which have taken place on your part, we on our part shall regard ourselves as absolved from all the treaty obligations." There is a third course, which the noble Lord indicated—namely, to adhere to the treaty and avail yourself of the machinery of the treaty to refer the matter to the United Nations. Speaking for myself with regard to that matter. I feel that this is a course which, obviously, we shall have to take soon. But before I take it I want to be certain that I have the best case on which to take it. There is a very simple case. Let me give your Lordships an illustration. The Greek Government have now ratified a treaty with. Bulgaria, and as soon as they appoint a Minister to Sofia, arrangements for reparations can begin. Now if the Bulgars refuse to pay the reparations which are due, then, under the machinery of the treaty—which shows the value of adhering to the treaty—we take the case to the three Heads of Mission. If they cannot agree, then the matter can go to the United Nations. And then, of course, anything is possible with regard to forcing payment, by distraint if such a method can be applied.

Therefore I want the noble Lord to recognize that we are fully alive to the desirability, in certain events, of referring this matter to the United Nations. We have that under consideration at the present time, and shall not hesitate to avail ourselves of the course which he suggests if and when we think we have a perfectly cast-iron and clear case. Of course, if it goes to the Security Council—well, your Lordships know what can happen there, and what generally does happen there. There comes the veto. If it goes to the Assembly, the Assembly can pass resolutions, and I am not, in any sense, belittling the value of the resolutions which the Assembly passes. I believe that to bring all these things out to the light of day is a valuable thing to do.

I must say the noble Lord's speech was a valuable speech to have made. We did ratify the treaty on September 15 but showed quite plainly that, in ratifying the treaty, we did not in any way condone the breaches that had up to that date taken place. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I do not think for one moment that by not ratifying the treaty we should have saved the life of M. Petkov. On September 25, ten days after ratification, we said this: Opinion in London does not consider the Governments of Rumania and Bulgaria to be truly representative of the political feelings and traditions of the people of those countries. The fact that the peace treaties have been ratified by no means implies that the behaviour of these Governments is condoned; their denial of the fundamental freedoms, their dissolution of Opposition parties, their suppression of newspapers, their numerous arrests without charge, and similar undemocratic procedures, are condemned by British opinion which has shown its most positive expression in the deep concern voiced at the death sentence passed in Bulgaria on the eminent Opposition leader M. Petkov. That was an official pronouncement made from London.

Why do I maintain at the present time that it is better to adhere to the treaty rather than to repudiate it here and now? Let me say what the provisions of the treaty are. First of all, there are restrictions on the size of the armed forces. Secondly, there are clauses dealing with the restitution of United Nations' property, reparations and commercial non-discrimination clauses that guarantee British interests in those countries. We have No 1ntention of allowing those interests to go by default. Finally there are the clauses to which the noble Lord referred as being perhaps more often broken than any other, which secure to all persons, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedom. We believe that it is an advantage to maintain diplomatic representatives in those countries. We believe it is desirable if there is to be an iron curtain, that His Majesty should have some representative on the other side of the curtain to report what is going on, to make representations and the best use of moral pressure to see if we cannot get things made a little better. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth said, the day has long passed when the appointment of an ambassador to a monarch was simply a compliment to him and when the ambassador was withdrawn if we were displeased with that monarch. I always thought that of all the foolish diplomatic steps to take, the withdrawal of an ambassador was perhaps the worst. Therefore I should be in favour of maintaining the ambassador. So much for the treaty position so far as Rumania and Bulgaria are concerned.

With regard to Hungary—Which is presumably one of the satellites; at any rate their treaty was concluded recently—when Lord Vansittart last raised the matter, shortly before the Hungarian elections, Lord Pakenham, who replied for the Government, was more optimistic than Lord Vansittart about the elections. The Communists started by disqualifying from voting a very large number of people, on the ground that they were Fascist. Having done that they saw to it that they themselves, or at any rate most of them, each had two votes. Yet, after they had done all these things, the Communists secured only one-fifth of the seats, and four-fifths were given to non-Communist Parties, in spite of the fact that Hungary was under the thumb of the police. Nevertheless, what we should regard as anything in the nature of freedom is still denied to her. As to Finland, which is the fourth of these States, it seems to His Majesty's Government that the Finnish Government are behaving in a civilized manner. They are able to carry on according to a standard which we would accept as a reasonable standard of decency, and are doing so without undue foreign interference.

Of course we could have declined to sign a treaty or to ratify it, and we are now fully entitled to repudiate a treaty. But thereby would go one of our main supports for the removal of Russian troops from inside those countries. What would happen if we withdrew and Russia then concluded a separate and definitive treaty? Would things be any better? This is a very serious and grave matter, and we have to keep our heads about it. We have this month negotiations with Russia, and a tremendous lot depends upon the success of these negotiations. I agree with the noble Earl that it is no good merely signing treaties if they are not to be observed. What I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, is that the suggestions he has made will certainly be carefully considered. In particular, the suggestion that these matters should be referred to the United Nations will again be considered, and when the suitable moment arrives—and the noble Lord will understand exactly what I mean when I say that we must select the occasion—the Government will have no difficulty in following that advice.

4.37 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART

My Lords, your Lordships were good enough to listen to me for some time when I originally spoke and I do not wish to detain you now, particularly as I am to be followed by a Motion which will interest a great many of your Lordships domestically. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that he would not be carried away by me. I have never flattered myself that I have ever carried him away. He is not easy to carry. Moreover, I have passed the age in which I wish to indulge in such athletic aspirations. It might lead to not only political but also to physical rupture! Although, under a misapprehension, he disagreed with a great deal of what I said, he did not withdraw from what he said the last time that I raised the matter, in March. He then gave me some support in referring the matter of treaty observation to the United Nations. With that I am amply satisfied.

With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, he and I are in general agreement. He raised one point whether I thought matters were worse now than forty or fifty years ago. I do not think that bears very much on the particular case I had in mind. I was attacking the situation as absolutely bad, dismissing the relative side of the question. If we are to consider whether what I may call the technique of elimination was further advanced in 1907 than it is in 1947 then 1947 wins by millions.

Lord Schuster spoke about Czechoslovakia. I did not mention that country in the list of countries to which I referred as being in grave danger of having the remnants of democracy stamped out, but as a matter of fact, there is a great deal of truth in what he said, because the Communist Leader, Gottwald, has announced that he will insist on an absolute majority for the Communists at the next elections. He is already talking of purges, which is a very ominous word. Some of the more courageous writers—Peroutka, for example—have already taken alarm at this, and said that if that once comes about it will be the beginning of the single Party again.

The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was good enough to intervene in the debate and I am grateful for his intervention. I would have liked to make it clear to him—and I hope that I have made it clear to the House,—that the suggestion I made about recovering one's liberty to reconsider one's attitude towards a treaty which had been violated by another person was only made as a kind of pis aller. I made it in fact because my previous suggestion in March to refer the matter to the United Nations had been rejected. I should be infinitely better pleased with that, and I gave that again as my first choice to-day. I am therefore grateful for what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said today which leaves me to hope that these matters will be increasingly referred to the United Nations. I hope we shall be very ready to refer every breach.

A great deal depends on the quantity. One must not let too many things pass without that reference. The purpose of that (and that purpose, I believe, has been largely added to by to-day's debate) is to give some heart to the poor people in Europe who are suffering from these terrible oppressions. The Continent is full of them—people who hate totalitarianism in any form. They look to us for some encouragement in making life bearable and giving them hope for the fu: ure. I honestly believe that to-day's debate will filter through to many of them and serve to give them fresh heart. With an expression of my gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for what he has said, and to the House; for having listened so patiently to me in saying something which I felt in my conscience bound to say, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.