HL Deb 20 June 1950 vol 167 cc831-63

4.0 p.m.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take initial steps towards the reorganisation of human society now in danger of collapse, to secure its survival; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it appears to me that it is a true saying that human society has now arrived at the crossroads and has to make up its mind whether it will continue to try and obtain its ideals in the future by war and bloodshed, which will assuredly end it, or whether it will try and find new methods of gaining those ideals. This may have been said many times before, but now the incidence of scientific invention has made it a certainty. I do not want to make this Motion a cry of panic, or in any way a lecture, or an ethical debate, but merely to make an honest and serious attempt to find some method of moving human society into a better position from the complete mess, muddle and misery it endures at the moment. The only people I venture to criticise are those who do not recognise this position, or those who think they can ameliorate it by an intensification of the methods that have caused it.

I recollect one day in July, 1946, when I brought a Motion before your Lordships in somewhat similar terms, concerning the making of Peace Treaties with recently defeated enemies; and that Motion, after being accepted by the noble Viscount who leads the House, Lord Addison, was afterwards objected to by various noble Lords and eventually was withdrawn. I realise that there are certain pitfalls in a Motion of this kind, and to-day I will try to avoid them. The first pitfall was brought about by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye (who I am sorry to see is not in his place to-day, although I gave him notice), who said that the blameworthy could expect only treatment in kind. For the purpose of a Motion such as this, if you are going to talk about "blame" you have either to level it out over five hundred years, or abolish it. Nobody believes he is blameworthy, and so, for the purpose of a Motion which is supposed to be going to reconcile human society, it has, at any rate, to be disaccentuated. This I will call an accusation of an inferiority.

Conversely, the noble Lord, Lord Cal-verley (whom I see sitting beside me), said that other nations would consider a "religious essay", as he called my speech, hypercritical and dogmatic. That I call an accusation of a superiority. However, I have drawn the Motion wider to-day, and I hope to avoid both those accusations. The third pitfall was reflected by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, who roughly put forward the theory that, everything in the world was pretty good, and if it was not, mere words—"verbiage" as the noble Lord called it—would not improve matters, as they had failed on previous occasions. The noble Viscount gave an example of an Emperor of Russia, Alexander I, I think, who made a very bold pronouncement in favour of the settlement of war by Christian methods, and then dropped it altogether. He obviously had not learned that old adage: If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again. That is a mistake which we must not make. Outside the debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has often told me that this House of Lords is a judicial assembly—

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

A legislative assembly.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY

I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, a legislative assembly—and not an ethical debating society. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury (I am sorry he is not in his place, and we all deeply regret the reason why he is kept away) and I are both gardeners, and if we saw our garden in the same state that the world is in to-day, we should know it would be no good sacking the gardeners, or even having a battle with them with hoes. We must have new principles, and new principles are what are wanted to-day. I will try to put them forward without superiority or inferiority, without seeming to give a lecture or making your Lordships' House into a debating society. There is, however, one point I want to make. A request for new principles does not imply criticism of any action by any group of parties in the past. If I may say so, politicians are apt to think that if they consent to considering something new, it means the confession of failure in something old. The point is that, whatever wrong or good has been done in the past, new principles must be adopted or the end of humanity will appear on the horizon. I appeal most earnestly that your Lordships will reconsider this subject with unbiased minds, in view of the serious situation that exists.

To reorganise human society is, to say the least of it, a tall order; but if it is going to risk its total disappearance if it remains as at present, it is a tall order that must be attacked, whatever its height. Let us look at it and examine its need. Humanity is having a brief respite between two eras of destruction and misery, the second of which appears at the moment to be inevitable and must inevitably finish it off; it will certainly be worse than the first, and the first was bad enough, in all conscience. After six years of unlimited gallantry and self-sacrifice, there is hardly a soul alive who is not bereaved, hopeless, reactionary and self-seeking. Horrible death has torn large holes in nearly every family, not only of their gallant combatant sons, but of their helpless women, old men and children. Displacement and torture have accounted for many millions more. Communism, which is a reactionary process born of misery, is in charge of half the globe; and crime, as your Lordships know from a recent debate, has increased enormously even among juveniles. Those left alive and well, and supposed to be basking in the air of freedom, are inhibited by taxes and restrictions of all kinds due to shortages of all the necessities of life.

It is impossible in a short speech to recount all the miseries from which humanity is suffering, and to indicate the despair to which those miseries have reduced mankind, but a glimpse at any morning paper shows quite plainly, without any comment from me, that the human race has by its own efforts reduced itself very low in the scale of created forms of life. No other form of created life (this is true, although it does not sound right for a human being to say it) except man has varied at all from its optimum, and man has varied so far that he is threatened with self-immolation. It makes one wonder what the many forms of efficient and beautiful created things would say of the human race if they could only speak. This is not an optimistic thought, but it is a true one.

With your Lordships' permission, I should like, in support of this somewhat airy statement, to read a small part of a letter I saw in the Sunday Times on May 14. These are the lines: But what really amuses us is that we birds should be called 'backward, primitive and disgusting' by a member of the human race. When the day comes on which we are cumbered about with ration and identity cards; when our more energetic members must purchase passports for their migratory flights: when we kill for the sake of pebbles, and tear up the surface of the good earth in pursuit of what you men term 'wealth', then we may be termed 'backward.' Until that day, we rest secure upon our ordered lives, showing our great wisdom in having no worries. Is that true or is it not? What is the great "Why" of all this? The great "Why" is surely this: that the human race will continue to believe that it can right wrongs and abolish wrongdoers— there are plenty of both—and achieve peaceful solutions by murder and battle. These solutions have been proved not to have the value of one tortured child's life, and now it is absolutely proved that they cannot effect such solutions. If right was always entirely 100 per cent. right, and wrong 100 per cent. wrong, nothing beneficial could be achieved if, in the course of trial by force, the existences of these right and wrong were both completely ruined. But as such a condition is never a fact, and as, conversely, all sides believe themselves to be completely right, how much more fatuously is it now proved that all that a trial by force can produce in the future is a debilitated and crime-ridden human race, destroyed by the incidence of revenge and rivalry generated by war, and so likely to flare up with all the frightful new scientific inventions of horror owned by the rival combatants!

Is it not time that a new basis was organised to ensure human society's survival? Is this not the one and only and last possible moment? I realise that action for peace without battle is apt to be suspect, but I hope to be able to prove to your Lordships this time, quite concisely, that action for peaceful solutions does not imply an admiration for aggressors and their policies, nor dislike for one's country, nor desire to lie down and be conquered, but springs from a firm conviction that wars should not arise, nor aggressors, and if they do it is a position to which everybody has contributed. The point to aim at is one in which they cannot exist, and in which the so-called necessity for war terminates. If there is any truth in the old adage that it takes two to make a quarrel, then everybody is, unconsciously perhaps, responsible for every war in history. For wars are man made, and not created by providence to plague poor humanity.

Therefore, with the greatest respect, I would suggest a basis for the reorganisation of human society in the following way, and I hope that a short dive below the surface may be forgiven, as it is necessary. Everything that exists, including the human race, is part of existence, the eternal plan, or anything else which, in complete ignorance of its composition, we like to call it. But the human race are the only part of existence with sufficient intelligence to think that they are soloists and can plan their actions ad libitum, according to their limited knowledge, not realising that without the aid of eternity they cannot even get out of bed, put on their trousers and eat their breakfast. The rest live attached by instinct to eternity, and therefore manage to protect themselves by obeying its rules, and remain much the same throughout all the confusion that humanity devises for itself. But the human race have had prophets and wise men who have told them the rules of eternity, and as they profess to believe in them absolutely it follows as surely as night follows day that if they had followed those rules they would have protected not only the numbered hairs of their heads, but themselves as well, from wars and aggressors and the necessity of turning civilisation upside down to deal with them.

The initial step necessary to save human society is for some nation—preferably this one—to start the world on its new role as carriers-out of the orders of eternity. I have not given notice of this, but I would most respectfully suggest that the Church might give a good lead in this. This body has definite orders from its Originator that the taking of human life is forbidden. Would its members therefore consider expressing willingness—not, of course, unilaterally, but in agreement with the other sections of their belief—to scrap Article 37, which allows believers to go to war, and be honest about this particular order which was certainly never given them by their Founder?

If they would only agree to do this, then could the politicians and people duly follow their lead, and something could be done in place of the universal negative discussions which we hear, not only in this House but in every house where things are discussed—"failure discussions" as someone described them to me, such as how to make bricks without straw, which I think is the subject which is being raised to-morrow. There is another favourite debate—How to make straw without bricks—which no doubt will be coming on shortly. There are many other debates of this kind. There is Defence and the heavy costs, and there are Power Pacts and the like, not to mention the denunciation and smelling out of criminals rather after the fashion of the African witch doctors. However well they may be executed, we might hear positively, for a change, that the hand of some nation has been stretched out in friendship—and by friendship I mean real friendship, which neither doubts nor fears—to other nations, especially supposedly hostile ones. If the orders of eternity are true and right, then these hostile nations would have to follow suit and in this way the abolition of Article 37 would be justifiably promulgated.

The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said that my ideas were mere verbiage, and I am glad to put forward a definite proposition for his assimilation. The chief bugbear of the Western world is now Communism under the ægis of Russia. I do not believe that the Russians are either all devils, as some speakers try to make out, or all angels, as other people go to great pains to make us believe, but merely human beings who, in consequence of great suffering and misery over a very long period, have adopted a hostile ideology, but who are nevertheless equally amenable to the orders of eternity like everyone else. I suggest that this country should send an invitation to the leaders of the Russian nation—get the President if you can, and if not his plenipotentiaries—and also to the plenipotentiaries of the United States, getting the President if he will come. Get them to come and stay here, and when here try and persuade them that they should stop sending each other rude notes but see that, though they may not like each other or approve each other, they should nevertheless get together and formulate some plan of peaceful co-existence in order that the peace-loving human beings of the world may regain their hope and security.

I assure you that every soul in the world, whether black, white or yellow, whether good, bad or indifferent, is craving for this at the moment. By such a happening as this the prosperity of both sections of the world could be increased. It would be in keeping with the orders of eternity and certainly would reconcile the protagonists of future strife. Of course, it must be carried into realisation against many refusals and difficulties, and be entirely unlike the efforts of the Emperor Alexander the First. I am sure the noble Viscount would agree that an action like this is better than sitting still waiting for the final disaster, and even arming and preparing for it. But if your Lordships do not approve of this, then in your wisdom and experience perhaps you can think of something else which does realise the seriousness of the situation, and perhaps devise some other plan based on the same principles. There have been encouraging signs lately. There have been resolutions in both Houses of Congress in the United States aimed at stopping the armaments race and ensuring a just peace; and there, have been the journeys of Mr. Trygve Lie and his resulting statement. I think that the comment with which this was received, which runs as follows: There is no magic with which either Mr. Lie or anyone else can remove suddenly the tensions that now exist. speaks only of the human limitation and not of the power of infinity.

If I may say a word or two to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government, I hope he will treat this Motion with the seriousness that it deserves, and that he will not fob me off and thereby risk the suicide of the human race by directing at me any of the old slogans or humdrum unilateral arguments which have been used in the past to bolster up participants in strife. I am sure he will not do that. This time there is not going to be any creditable aftermath for anybody; and it is no good raising hopes, especially false ones that nations will recoil from superior strength. That is a very great mistake. If nations are hostile they never recoil from superior strength; and nowadays science has given a weapon which in half an hour can completely defeat superior strength. I should like to give noble Lords an example of the sort of slogan which I have in mind. I took it from a letter in a Sunday paper last Sunday. This is how it reads: The only possible answer to the bully nation is for all the rest to get together and declare their whole-hearted intention of fighting to the last ditch. This may be a very fine and brave sentiment, but it does not bear the light of reason. Who is going to say who is the bully nation? Everybody thinks that everybody else is the bully nation. And fighting in the last ditch is going to involve everybody as well as the bully nation. We want the view from the first eminence, and not the myopia from the final cesspool.

I should like to say to the noble Lord that a good many of the terms used in international politics in the past will eventually become obsolete and redundant. I refer to such expressions as "Power pacts," "Power politics," "defensive treaties," "bad and good leaders and nations" and many others. They will all have to be merged in a co-operative scheme for the good of human society as a whole, to save it from being blown to pieces by atomic and other horrific methods. I repeat, the human race, human society, are enjoying, so to speak, a brief respite between two periods of destruction and misery, the second of which may annihilate them. They are spending this respite under a cloud of repressions, taxes and shortages of all necessities of life, due to the spending of world savings on war. They know full well that any prosperity they may possess at the moment is bolstered up on bankruptcy and that any peace rests upon the possibility of more horrific slaughter and scientific death. By bankruptcy I do not, of course, refer to the financial manœuvres of any group of parties but merely to the fact that the world, after spending £100,000,000 a day on non-productive war material for six years, must be now reduced to a position of extreme danger in maintaining its finances. The people of the world are sick to death of it all. They are bloody-minded and reactionary; and it is now or never for some to come forward with a new plan after the orders of their highest and greatest wisdom to restore human hope and morale and make the people really worthy of their assumed name of sapiens—not in order to produce Utopia but to make life a positive and pleasant struggle rather than an intolerable and negative one.

May I say these few words in conclusion? There is something badly needed to-day in the affairs of mankind. It is something that the hosts of philosophers and wise men never succeeded in obtaining or bringing to realisation, although their many volumes litter our shelves. The reason is that they have never discovered that the knowledge lies in the acceptance of being and in following its simple rules; something that no gallant warrior, with his guns and swords and bombs, can ever achieve, nor any politician with his Power pacts and Power politics. Because force will never find it: something that is as ununderstandable as but no less miraculous than the emergence of the oak tree from the acorn; something from the want of which all humanity is suffering and without which it cannot give its best and live its best. There is only one word that I can find, and that is security; perhaps there is another, and that is sense of continuity. Whatever it is, it is outside human ken though not outside human credibility. It may be a vast and incredibly difficult achievement to reinstate or even make a start at reinstating such security; but it has got to be done before final disaster comes; and some country has to make the start. I beg to move for Papers.

4.28 p.m.

LORD NOEL-BUXTON

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, on having ventured to raise such a very wide and deep issue. In raising such a matter, there is, of course, always a danger of incurring the charge of vagueness. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me if my particular kind of "vagueness" is different from his. In any event I shall avoid, as he has, falling into the trap. I do not quite follow the noble Lord in understanding the orders of eternity and such things, but at the same time I fully support the religious attitude towards the problems of the world to-day; and, in particular, I am sure everyone realises that some understanding should be reached between East and West.

The angle from which I wish to approach this subject is that of what might be called the land basis of society. Everyone seems to be "going to town" at any rate in most of the nations of the British Commonwealth, and there seems also to be a desire on the part of a good many other nations to go to town. I should like to know whether many of our problems are not in fact tied up with a complete unbalance between town and country interests and with a lack of awareness of the land. I know that it is an old question whether or not people in this country were happier before the Industrial Revolution. I am sure that the land basis of life is an extremely important one, and I suggest that one of the ways in which society could be saved from likely collapse is by the creation of a better balance between agriculture and industry. I know this is not an issue on the highest level of ideas; but I believe that we are very much influenced by our surroundings; and, as part of our contribution to the re-building up of society, it looks to me as if the question of population arises. Let us imagine for a moment that there was now no further danger of war in the world. Should we consider that our community was right as regards our population, our nature, our attitude and many other things? In my view, it certainly is not right. If we were all to have gardens of our own, a town like London would, in fact, reach more or less to Southampton. And what of the agricultural land? Many might say that agricultural land does not matter; that the overseas communities can provide us with food. We have had a recent example of insistence on this attitude when a certain Member of another place raised the whole question of farming costs and the needs of our people, the assumption being that all our people would remain in their present surroundings.

I do not myself feel that the present surroundings of the majority of people are such as to make for peace, even if peace, from the military point of view, were now completely secure. I do not think that a peaceful frame of mind— and, after all, individual peace is involved in this question of collapse—is encouraged by the sort of community in which we live. I know that it is not a question of going back; I think it is a question of going forward and of trying to distribute more evenly the population of the British Commonwealth. I do not want to follow that up in detail, but in relation to this subject, for I think it is relevant. I sometimes contemplate the very early history of Westminster. In a way, most probably, the inhabitants were very primitive people indeed who fished for salmon and shot wild duck round about this House. But they had a certain clear looking and a certain individuality. I think those are very important things which we are rapidly losing, in the interests, apparently, of progress. A sentence of Dean Inge seems to be very true in this respect. He says: If it is progress to turn the fields and woods of Essex into East and West Ham, we may be thankful that progress is a sporadic and transient phenomenon in history. It is a bad thing that we should run ourselves down. We have obviously made a very great contribution to the society of the world by the Industrial Revolution, but that very Revolution has created many problems which tie up with the imminent or possible collapse of society. Indeed, the noble Earl in moving this Motion indicated that we have created new horrors of war through, big industry. Now, of course, if we are interested in more open country we are: forced to go at least fifteen to twenty miles from this House to come into contact with these wild and natural things, and even cultivated things in terms of fields. We should look at it under the eye of history, which possibly has some relation to the "orders of eternity." Those are rather dangerous phrases but I think they can be meaningful. We are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, for raising this particular matter in philosophical terms.

An author who appeals to me very much is Richard Jefferies, who was essentially a country man but who also had a great feeling for London. I myself live on the edge of this town, roughly where town and country meet, and I can see the sort of conflict that exists. We are very much under the influence of cities. There is something I should like to quote from Jefferies' Nature Near London, which I think is to the point. He says: The strong influence of the vast city magnetised me, and I felt it under the calm oaks. The something wanting in the fields was the absolute quiet, peace and rest which dwells in the meadows and under the trees and on the hilltops in the country. Under its power the mind gradually yields itself to the green earth, the wind among the trees, the song of birds, and comes to have an understanding with them all. For this it is still necessary to seek the far-away glades and hollow coombes, or to sit alone beside the sea. I think we are needing a natural awareness of natural things. There are inherent qualities in the country. The whole defence of British agriculture at this rather doubtful and critical moment is not, to my mind, just an economic one. I think we should beware of trying to defend agriculture entirely on the question of costs in relation to other places. We should realise that any community in the world must for the sake of its health have a strong agricultural element, an equal balance between town and country; and that, in our case, is what we have so very considerably lost. Many countries in the world which are particularly troubled by this question of peace are countries which have done exactly the same thing. It is rather curious, but what might seem to many of us best for England might not, in fact, be so militarily. There is a very big conflict there with which I do not feel competent to deal. I realise the sort of England we want, and the arrival of that greener and pleasanter country is dependent on exactly the situation and the approach which the noble Earl so vividly demands.

As to what this Government or any Government can do, I think it must be fairly clear from my attitude that I believe a much bigger solving of our difficulties is necessary. We must be more aware of the country, and more determined that we shall not have a highly preponderant urban nation. Any Government will in fact reflect a trend in that direction, and one useful part of that trend of realisation would be a further move out from here to other parts of the Commonwealth. I do not wish to speak further. I would, finally, put in a plea for individualism as the most important possible aspect of peace. I believe that the sort of mass that is created by overweaning industry is not conducive to clear, quiet or peaceful thinking. I should like to suggest that in order to get a healthier attitude towards peace, and towards all the problems that this debate raises, we must achieve new land-awareness. I am certain that this country will not fail in appreciating where its true interest in this respect lies.

4.39 p.m.

LORD CALVERLEY

My Lords, I am looking at this Motion again: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take initial steps towards the reorganisation of human society now in danger of collapse, to secure its survival. That is an order without dimension. It is giving my noble friend who is to reply a big job. Certainly, I should have been frightened at the prospect of taking part in this debate had it not been for the fact that I understood that the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, had been looking up a speech of mine, made four years or so ago, and mentioned that I used a certain word. I have tried to find the report, and I think the word must have been used during the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who pointed out very pungently, and I think truthfully, that the Resolution as it was then introduced might be misunderstood by other nations, who might think that the House of Lords was a glorified lecture society. I had the misfortune to interpose the word "humbugs" If there is one thing of which we have to fight shy it is that either the Americans or the Russians should think that we are a self-righteous nation—a "more holy than thou" class of people.

I am all the more puzzled after listening to the speech of the noble Lord opposite, and if I had the courage I would at once resume my seat, because if his conception of the Resolution is as he states it, then I have got the wrong idea altogether. If my noble friend Lord Pakenham has to reply seriatim about what His Majesty's Government have done to save the countryside, he could go back to the noble Lord's own father and also to subsequent Ministers of Agriculture, including the Minister who occupied the post during the National Government, and he could point to the fact that the countryside is not in danger of collapse.

LORD NOEL-BUXTON

May I interrupt the noble Lord? I was not suggesting for a moment that it was; indeed, I suggested rather the opposite. But I am suggesting that a society that remains like ours, so predominantly of the town, will never give a fair showing to that virility of the countryside.

LORD CALVERLEY

I am certain there is a lot of truth in what the noble Lord is saying, and I agree with much that he has said. But I take it that the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, is asking this House to discuss a state of things which may bring about a world collapse, and he then says to my noble friend Lord Pakenham, "Now, what about it? Give us your answer." I think even my noble friend Lord Pakenham, with all his great talent, is going to be "stumped" with a conundrum of that sort.

Last Tuesday a gentleman, not an Englishman, was going out of this House with me and he pointed to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, and said, "The last time I saw Lord Cecil of Chelwood was in Geneva, when he was the first Minister of the Crown to go there officially to represent this country at the League of Nations." This gentleman heard the noble Viscount speak. Many of us have great faults, and I know that the noble Viscount does not need a certificate of character from me. Whatever faults the noble Viscount has, he has spent his life in trying to convince the world that unless we have certain ideals in our own hearts there will be a collapse of society.

If one goes into the country, either the industrial side or the agricultural side, one finds there is not that sense of awareness that we are in danger of collapse; indeed there is too much complacency. In fairness to the common man and woman, it must be said that if they examine the position as it is to-day, they, are horrified because they are called upon to raise £800,000,000 in taxation for defence; but then they say, either aloud or in their hearts, "We can do nothing else." Then they say, "But £800,000,000 is mere 'chicken feed' compared with £7,500,000,000 which is the budget for the next year or two of the U.S.S.R." It is an absolute libel to say that the ordinary people in the street are warmongers. But that is what we are told. That is the technique, at any rate of one type of Government. They go on repeating that we are warmongers, and the foolish bellwethers in this country reecho what is said in Moscow until they believe it. On the other hand, we have the other type, the extreme type in the United States of America. Let us take Colonel McCormick of Chicago. According to him, it is impossible for a mere Englishman to do anything that is right. So we are "between the devil and the deep." The average Englishman does not care two hoots about that; he simply carries on without being panic-stricken.

I have come to the conclusion that we need a greater sense of awareness in spiritual and ethical values. We need that in this country without preaching it to anybody else, and we have got to have it. On the other hand the average man and woman in a villags or town are kind-hearted folks who detest war; and I say to the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, that this is one of the few countries in the world where no Government, whatever its colour or complexion, dare go into a war of aggression. At any rate, that can be counted in our favour as righteousness. But I do not want us to be self-righteous. Last week I was with a German father whose son had just returned from being a prisoner in Soviet Russia. The war has been over five years, and that man told me through his son, who spoke English, "My son has been working with the Russians on the countryside". I agree with the noble Earl that the countryside has a great humanising influence. This man went on to say, "The people in the countryside treated my son with great kindliness and he has not a wrong word to say or criticism to make of them." But he said that he had had to watch his step with the police, or he would have made that trek which tens of thousands have made before him, and which is called, I believe, the trek to Siberia.

But let us get back to the Motion. We are, I am sure, unanimously in favour of it, in so far as it expresses the desire and the need for peace on earth in order to save civilisation from utter collapse. But I say to the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, that the common man and the common woman, not only in this country but in every country in which I have talked to them, are not "bloody-minded"—to use the noble Earl's own phrase. We cannot achieve what is desired even by having a mission for the 800-odd members of the House of Lords, unless we can induce them to go into the countryside to endeavour to convert others. It comes down to this: we have to get back to a state of greater spiritual idealism. That sounds a bit like preaching, I am afraid.

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to give this one personal recollection before I finish. I remember that during the lifetime of the 1929–31 Parliament—it was in 1929 I believe—a German journalist came to me and said that he had been making a canvass of the 193 Labour members of the House of Commons. He had been making inquiries as to their background, he told me, and he said: "The background of 90 per cent. of your colleagues—the Labour men in the House of Commons—is a Sunday School background." I said: "I have the same background, and I wish we could get back to some of the simple truths for ourselves, and then try to spread them a little more abroad." But that, again, is a task which we shall have to leave to another generation to accomplish. I found that on my side of the House of Commons the great majority of the Members were lay preachers or something of the sort. I made inquiries on the other side, and I am happy to say that I found as great a measure of spiritual truth in the mass of my political opponents. I would not for a moment suggest that we were more holy than they.

I am greatly interested in this Motion, and I particularly want to hear the answer of Lord Pakenham to the conundrum which is contained in it. Can he give us a solution of this problem here? If he can, then he deserves a monument or, ultimately, a stained-glass window, because as this Motion is drawn he has a tall order to fulfil. The Motion rather suggests that the Government should regiment the nation. We are not going to have that, I am sure, so long as Lord Hawke is in possession of a seat on the Back Benches opposite. And the nation as a whole would not stand for it. I really cannot imagine what Lord Pakenham is going to say; I will therefore resume my seat all the more quickly in order that I may he able to hear it.

4.54 p.m.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords I do not rise to take part in this debate at any considerable length, but since the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, and the noble Lord who has just spoken have both been good enough to refer to me by name, I should like to make three or four observations in order that it may be clear how far I am in agreement with them. First, let me say that I find myself in a very large measure of agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, in his description of the extreme danger in which civilisation stands at the present time. I think it is true that there is this extreme danger and it seems to me that it is a melancholy fact which we have to admit. I agree, also, with the noble Earl that force, by itself, is no remedy. That is not an original observation of my own, as noble Lords know quite well, but I think it is true. I believe that the only use of force is just to prevent complete disaster which might otherwise fall upon this country, and for that reason I am unable to believe that unilateral disarmament by Great Britain would promote peace or promote safety in this country. In my view—I am not going to argue this, but I think it is right to say it, definitely—there is only one remedy for the state of things into which the world has fallen. That is conversion. I am satisfied that the Russian prescription of dialectical materialism is perfectly useless, very dangerous and pernicious. Beyond that I do not think this is the place nor am I the person to proceed.

4.57 p.m.

LORD BLACKFORD

My Lords, during the three years which I have had the honour to be a member of your Lordships' House and, indeed, during the much longer time when I was interested in political affairs in another place, I do not ever remember to have seen on the Order Paper a Motion of such scope as this one. It calls upon the Government to take steps for the reorganisation of the whole of human society. One would have expected that there would be a debate extending over two or three days and that large numbers of your Lordships would be anxious to air your views on this gigantic question. It is not surprising that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has called back from the air, for the moment, one of his brightest lights to wind up this debate. It is a well known practice of the noble Viscount when matters before the House are at all complex to call upon either the Lord Chancellor or Lord Pakenham to deal with them—either the "big bear" or "Brumas."

I have never heard a speech of such gloom as that delivered by my noble friend Lord Darnley. He really takes a most despairing view of humanity, and his words are calculated to move us all to tears. But while, at the same time, we respect the high idealism which impregnated the whole of his speech, it seems to me that all he really preached was Christian pacifism. Indeed, in the able speeches we have heard from all four noble Lords who have already spoken, only one suggestion has been made as to the initial step which the Government might take towards the re-organisation of human society, and that was Lord Darnley's suggestion that the Government should invite Premier Stalin and President Truman to come and stay at Claridge's in London and have a talk over the table with the Cabinet. That was the suggestion which the noble Earl made, but it is a suggestion which has been made time and time again without evoking any response. The noble Earl talked about holding out again the hand of friendship to Russia. But is not our right arm drooping with the fatigue of holding its hand outstretched for so long? Time and again, we have asked Russia to come to the conference table and be friends. Time and again in the United Nations Assembly Russia has said, "No, No, No" to every proposition. This is unfortunately not a practical suggestion, because we know beforehand that the Russians will not play. It only makes us look foolish to carry the policy of appeasement too far.

I am not altogether against the policy of appeasement. All nations use that policy. I have always thought Mr. Neville Chamberlain was dealt with very unfairly for the policy he pursued at Munich. Indeed, all individuals use appeasement when it is of service to them. I myself use it. Whenever I am reported by a police officer for a motoring offence, an occurrence which must from time to time happen to all of us who drive about a great deal, my first action is to write a letter of apology to the superintendent of police, saying how much I regret my stupid carelessness, how right his officer was to apprehend me and how tactfully he handled the matter; and finally, how sad it would be if the purity of my licence were to be sullied by a conviction on this trivial charge. I must say that on three out of four occasions on which this occurred, that worked like a charm. Therefore, I am not entirely against the policy of appeasement. But I submit that we have done our utmost in that direction vis-à-vis Russia. Therefore, if I were to be asked what practical step the Government could take to prevent the collapse of society, I would answer that it is to take care that the portion of society for which the Government are responsible is safeguarded against collapse by all the means which lie in the Government's power.

There are various forms of collapse which may in the end bring about the total collapse of the world. One is economic collapse. That is a subject in which I am particularly interested. I do not think the Government do as much as they might to prevent possible economic collapse. I think they spend a great deal too much money and levy much too high taxation; and I think that that process, carried on sufficiently long, would induce a condition bordering on economic collapse. I made a speech a few weeks ago in the economic debate in your Lordships' House and I do not wish to repeat myself in any way. That speech gave rise to some little correspondence, but I had only one abusive letter, and that was from a Scotsman, a gentleman who prefaced his remarks by saying that he had a family of twelve. He was evidently a man of expansive tastes—unlike his golfing compatriot who picked up a caddy and asked him, "Are you good at finding balls in the rough?" The caddy replied, "Yes," whereupon the golfer instructed him, "Go out and find one, and then we can begin." The method by which I think the Government should avoid economic collapse is by reducing expenditure and taxation.

There is moral collapse. Here I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, who hinted that the Church of England might do more than it is doing. I take this very seriously, because I think the influence of the Church of England has diminished and ought to be very much increased. As Christianity is absolutely the antithesis of Communism, this is obviously extremely important. I remember that during the war my mother had through her hands about twenty-four children, refugees from one of the big seaports. They were all little girls, ranging in age from about seven Jo eleven. Out of these twenty-four little girls, only four had ever gone to church, or had any conception of religion at all. When they were made to put on their best clothes and taken to church and people sat behind them, found their places in the Prayer Book and put a penny in their hands for the collection, all took a great interest in it; and during the months, and even years, which some of them stayed, a great change was made in their dispositions. The point I would make is that when they came only four out of twenty-four had ever been to church or knew anything about it. Surely these conditions are very bad, and for them the Church of England must take some blame. I suggest that the Church ought to do a great deal more than it is now doing to prevent young people growing up in a state of paganism.

Another form of collapse is possibly family collapse. The strength of family life is the whole basis of the nation, and it is a great bulwark against Communism, which the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, fears, and which all of us abhor. I doubt whether family life is as strong to-day as it was thirty or forty years ago. I do not say that any political Party is to blame for that, tout somehow a condition of mind is growing upon us which is epitomised in the phrase, "the Welfare State." I do not know what effect that slogan, which is now becoming so popular, has upon your Lordships' minds, but on my mind it has the effect of saying, "Sit back. The State will look after all of us. There is going to be welfare from the cradle to the grave. No accent on work." I submit that that is the very reverse of the attitude which we ought to adopt in order to safeguard our community from the dangers of collapse which the noble Earl envisages. The qualities we should encourage are self-reliance, enterprise, initiative, and willingness to take responsibility. Somehow I doubt whether the trend of legislation, the fatherly attitude adopted by both Parties—I draw very little distinction between one Party and another in this connection—the present trend of grandmotherly legislation, encourages those qualities which seem to me so necessary in the competitive world of to-day.

These are a few little suggestions I venture to throw out. This is the first speech I have dared to make in your Lordships' House without careful thought beforehand, but I put my name down without having the slightest idea of what I was going to say in order to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, would make of the gigantic question he has raised. I think we should be grateful to him for the high idealism, though total impracticability, of the speech he was good enough to address to us.

5.9 p.m.

LORD MOUNTEVANS

My Lords, it is almost four years since the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, addressed this House on the subject of the recasting of human society with a view to making sure of its survival. He properly thinks the time has come for further agitation on the subject. I certainly agree with him. I wonder whether the United Nations Organisation have justified the millions of pounds, dollars and francs which they have expended. I wondered that particularly when only ten days ago I read of a young captain in the Scots Guards being assassinated in Malaya, and when I read what is going on in China, and even of European economic reconstruction, which today appears to be going further and further towards leaving this Island Kingdom well out of the picture. I consider that we have moved slowly in the United Nations. Incidentally, Professor Fridtjof Nansen, who was President of the League of Nations, was a Norwegian, just as is Trygve Lie. Trygve Lie is a practical and sound philosopher. He ought to be: he has had plenty of variety. Variety is the secret of efficiency, and Trygve Lie has been Minister of Justice, he is now the Secretary General to the United Nations, he has been a good tennis player and all-in wrestler, he has lived in Russia, Canada, the United States and Great Britain, and is a man of many parts. I feel sure that he will welcome this agitation brought about by the noble Earl to have some kind of getting together between Russia, the United States and ourselves, amongst other nations. I do not know that at present, with the restrictions in food and freedom that we are undergoing, the Russians would welcome coming to this country, and they would not agree to go to the United States: but Paris, if you pay for it, is not a bad place.

I agree largely with what the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, and Lord Blackford have said on the subject of religion. But I feel that we might make religion more attractive and have, for example, more snappy prayers. If I were to quote one, I should say: God give me sympathy and sense, And help me hold my courage high; God give me calm and confidence. And, please, a twinkle in my eye. There is a great lack of humour associated with religion. Lord Calverley has endeavoured to foster the helping of youth movements, and religion in youth movements is somewhat neglected. If only we would take less highbrow literature, and fall back on such things as Æsops Fables, we should learn more general philosphy from a tiny volume than from many of the long-winded magazines with which the market is flooded to-day. I wholeheartedly support the noble Earl. I have known him for fifteen years. On his last Motion four years ago I said that there was too much verbiage, and that is true. We have talked a good deal to-day, judging by the clock, so I will sit down.

5.13 p.m.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, I rise to speak for only a few minutes in consequence of something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, who I felt in one passage of his speech attributed some small measure of blame to the Church of England for many of the matters which we all deplore to-day. Lord Blackford's interest in this matter was manifested by what he told us about those twenty-four children, only four of whom had been to church. But I am sure on reflection the noble Lord would wish to modify anything he said in the way of imputing blame to the clergy of the Church of England. I really do not know what more they could do than they do at the present moment. Whether they do it in the right way is a matter of argument into which I shall net enter, but I do not think there can be any doubt that they do their work most devotedly according to their lights. They work to-day in most discouraging circumstances of poverty, difficulties about housing and the upkeep of their church, and, above all, amid difficulties due to lack of encouragement from people who should encourage them in their work but who, unfortunately, all too often fail to do so. Efforts made by the Church include the Mission to London, conducted by the Bishop of London, and the Mission to the holidaymakers at Blackpool, carried out by the Church of England; and, if I may quote a personal instance, when the parson in my church gives out the list of notices of what is to be done during the coming week, I am astonished by the activities which are going on and in which he gives a lead. So, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, whose interest in this matter I fully recognise, I feel that many of your Lordships would agree with me in saying that it would be unfortunate if blame were attached to the Church of England alone in this matter. We recognise the most devoted work which they perform.

5.16 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM)

My Lords, if, as a Roman Catholic, I may do so without impertinence, I should like to join sincerely in the tribute the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has just paid to the Church of England, and in particular to the work that is being done by parsons up and down the country in a thousand different ways. I always remember—if this is still not an impertinence—a rather curious and impressive tribute paid by Professor Joad in one of his books to the average Church of England parson. He described, if I remember rightly—and I hope I do not do him an injustice—with some complacency the kind of intellectual victories he found himself able to win over the average parson (I do not know of what denomination), but he came back to the point that, when all was said and done, he always found that the average parson in this country was a much better man than he was. That has seemed to me a tribute which reflected great credit to Professor Joad for paying it, and to all the clergy concerned. I freely admit that whenever I meet a parson in this country I share the view of Professor Joad—I mean, not merely that the parson is a better fellow than Professor Joad, but that he is better than I am.

We have had a far-reaching debate. I take it seriously, as all the speakers and, I think, those who have listened to the discussion have taken it. There has been some slight preliminary barrage of scepticism, as it were, as to whether we should spend the afternoon profitably in a discussion of this kind. There has been some suggestion in certain quarters of the Press that this would be a field day for cranks, and I feel flattered that I have been selected to round oft the performance in that connection. I do not take that view of things at all. We have heard speakers, each one of whom has delivered himself from the heart, and in some cases we have heard a personal philosophy expressed, sometimes with real pain but always with very deep feeling. The House will perhaps forgive me if I do not attempt to express the considered view of His Majesty's Government on all the issues which have been raised. I will pass on to my noble friend Lord Huntingdon, for the purposes of the next agricultural debate, the interesting observations which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton. I think we all agree with his general sentiments, but I hope he will agree—and I do not think he dissents—with what Lord Huntingdon would say: that it is many, many years since agriculture was flourishing to the extent it is flourishing in this country at the present time.

The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, has left us, after expressing an almost passionate desire to hear me speak, so I suppose he managed to overcome that when the moment arrived. I was going to discuss with him for a moment the question of whether we are or are not a better nation to-day than we were twenty-five years or fifty years ago. I am bound to say, whether as an individual or as a Minister, that I feel that is a question upon which a pronouncement is impossible. I would just offer two views. If we may postpone for a moment the main discussion of the afternoon—the international discussion—and ignore the very real dangers of war which have been stressed so eloquently, I would say that I myself see no danger of collapse in the domestic life of this country. I should still say that if I found myself opposite and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was standing where I am standing at this moment. I myself believe that, whatever Party is in power, it is absolute nonsense to talk as though we were in danger of an ultimate and final collapse in the domestic life of Britain. I should find it hard to accept the view that family life has declined in the last twenty-five years. It is very hard to prove that point one way or another, but I will certainly say that in our public thinking the family is given a much higher position at the present time than it was when I myself grew up. If I may speak personally—and I do not often allude to this curious fact in the House—there was a time twenty-five years ago when it would have been considered a joke to have a large family—a family, shall we say, for the sake of example, of eight children. It is still considered a joke to-day, but the difference is that twenty-five years ago it would have been considered a bad joke and now, I venture to suggest, it is considered a good joke. That is surely a sign of real progress in the attitude of the country towards family life.

I will not say more, although the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, has returned, about the general progress of morals in this country. Speaking for the Government, or even as an amateur sociologist, I cannot accept that there is a general decline of morals. Surely we all agree that there is far less drunkenness than there was many years ago—the sort of drunkenness described by Mr. Winston Churchill in connection with a certain city which I think had better be nameless, but a city in Scotland. I doubt whether any city now would deserve the kind of criticism which Mr. Churchill applied to the famous city he once represented, and to which he referred very frankly in one of his most brilliant essays. I venture to suggest that to-day we are just as resolute, just as hardworking and just as honest as ever we were, and that we are rather more gentle in our manner, a good deal more sober and, on the whole, better educated. I would simply suggest those general conclusions, and perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will dissent if he thinks it necessary to do so.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

On the contrary, I say "Hear, hear."

LORD PAKENHAM

I was anxious to elicit that particular comment for the purpose of Hansard. Let us come to the main theme of this afternoon's debate, this tremendous Motion—I cannot describe it otherwise—of the noble Earl, Lord Darnley. We all respect the noble Earl's motives; we all sympathise very deeply, because we are all just as much involved as he is, with his most earnest desire to avert another world war. We all share his hatred of war, and I venture to add that that hatred of war has been shared throughout our history by all the greatest men who have been Foreign Secretaries or managed our foreign affairs. In my own experience it is a hatred which one finds amongst all the most distinguished soldiers and, indeed, throughout the rank and file of the military profession.

I do not wish to detain the House, but I cannot help reading one very brief passage, suggesting that noble Lords may prefer to read the whole thing for themselves on another occasion. Some of your Lordships will remember Mr. Harold Nicolson's life of his father, Lord Carnock, and this story is to be found on page 422. It is also to be found in Professor Trevelyan's Life of Sir Edward Grey. After Sir Edward Grey's speech—considered, I believe, the most persuasive speech of the century, which he made on August 3, 1914—in Mr. Harold Nicolson's words: An hour later Sit Edward Grey returned to the Foreign Office. Nicolson went upstairs to see him. The Secretary of State was leaning gloomily by the window. Nicolson congratulated him on the success of his speech. Sir Edward did not answer. He moved to the centre of the room and raised his hands with clenched fists above his head. He brought his fists with a crash upon the table. 'I hate war,' he groaned, 'I hate war'. That was the attitude of Sir Edward Grey and, I venture to say, the attitude of those responsible, whatever their Party, for managing our foreign affairs during the many epochs which have passed and, indeed, throughout all the period of our recent history.

The noble Earl, Lord Darnley, urges us, if I understand him aright, to follow the "orders of eternity". Again if I follow him aright—and I know he will believe that I am not trying to make game about expressions of this kind—these orders of eternity are to be found in the minds of the wisest and best among the prophets and religious teachers, as distinct from the speeches of diplomats and statemen who have, in his view, produced so many wars between them. In particular, the noble Earl calls on His Majesty's Government to take a fresh initiative in reconciling the United States and Russia. May I deal first with the second and more mundane part of his argument? We do not consider that the world at the moment is divided by a dispute between Russia and the United States, but between the Communists and the non-Communists, between the materialists and those who follow, however imperfectly, a spiritual ideal. I would suggest that if the outlook and interests of the United States were not only analogous, as they are, to those of this country, but were in fact identical, this tragic gulf between the Russians and their satellites, on the one hand, and the Western community and those who think like them, on the other, would still remain in all its depressing starkness.

Therefore, if I may say so with respect, if a dispute exists let us not begin by climbing on our high horse and pretending that we are outside or above it. Let us face the fact that we are on one side of the gulf which exists between the non-Communist world and the Communist world. No sane person in this country supposes that His Majesty's Government are not regretful at the emergence and persistence of the cold war and the iron curtain. Sometimes we are taunted with having been too optimistic before we came to power about the possibilities of friendship with Russia. It may be so—I am not arguing the point in detail—though in that case we certainly erred in distinguished company; but if it be so I would rather we were blamed for too much faith than for too much suspicion, for joining too slowly rather than too fast in a quarrel that had been forced upon us. Let us agree, however, that the tragic divergence which has occurred was never premeditated, or planned; nor was it desired, by any responsible person in this country. On the contrary, we have made every possible effort—and here there has been no difference between the main Parties—to bridge that tragic gulf.

The House will not expect me to traverse the last five years of the deteriorating relations with Russia. Can anyone accuse the present Government, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, of being unduly quick to wrath or lack of patience with the Soviets? No one, surely, who knows the facts, and very few who have even the dimmest appreciation of them. There are many faults, no doubt, which will be imputed to us as a Government by the historian, but that charge at least, I venture to say, will find no support. But whatever the Communists' motive, whatever the psychological or other explanation for their conduct, it is an ineluctable fact that the Soviet Government have persistently refused to show any real desire for understanding with our Government and our people and, indeed, with any of the Western nations, since the end of the War. If the noble Earl, or indeed anyone, here or elsewhere, can offer the slightest suggestion as to how the mental hostility of the Comnunists—and here I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said about conversion—and their obsessional suspicion can be broken down or modified in any degree, I can assure him that his suggestion will be studied with the deepest sincerity. But I cannot pretend that I have myself detected a practical clue for this purpose in the moving because heartfelt observations of the noble Earl this afternoon. That does not mean that it will not be my duty to place everything he has said before those who are handling our foreign affairs at the present time.

My I turn to the noble Earl's first and widest point. He believes that the religious teachers might help us where the statesmen have failed. My Lords, none of us can afford to decline to listen to an appeal of that kind or to return again and yet again to a study of the New Testament, above all other writings. It would be a profound mistake to ignore the devout Christianity that animated some of the greatest men who have handled our international affairs. There will be no disposition here to talk of them as though they were hard-faced, calculating, inhuman diplomats or self-seeking politicians. I do not think we are likely to look at our Foreign Secretaries of the past in that light. We have only to think of two or three in various Parties—Mr. Arthur Henderson in the Labour Party, Lord Salisbury in the Conservative Party, or Mr. Gladstone in the Liberal Party—to realise that in them you have three great Christians; and I could add innumerable names to that list. I venture to say at this point that I am sorry that Lord Cecil has had to leave us, for I am sure he would have confirmed that. All the greatest men, the greatest Foreign Secretaries of the past, would have been ready to admit that new ages bring new dangers, but that they bring also new opportunities. I believe these statesmen would have been most active, as Lord Grey was so active, in prosecuting the ideal of the League of Nations that emerged after the First World War, or that of the United Nations whose principles we in this country have been so ready to apply since 1945.

Let me repeat that in the League of Nations and in the United Nations some countries at least, including our own among the foremost, have striven to out- law war, and to advance on all previous conceptions—all pre-1914 conceptions—of international statesmanship. It may be said that we did not do enough as a country for the League of Nations between the wars—though we did as much as many, and far more than most. But no one has any right to cast any ston at our fidelity to the United Nations since the last war ended. Everyone knows that one country, and one country alone, has stultified the United Nations at every turn, has destroyed much (though not all) of its usefulness hitherto, has prevented by unilateral action an agreement on atomic energy and, since January of this year, has refused to participate in almost all its committees and activities.

I do not wish to approach my conclusion on that note. In the Sermon on the Mount we are set a standard of infinite virtue. Be ye perfect. we are told, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. Later in the Gospel of St. Matthew we are told to forgive our brother, not seventy times but seventy times seven. No Christian, therefore, no member of a Christian Government, has any right to become impatient at the moral challenge presented by the noble Earl, Lord Darnley. He does well, if I may say so, to insist that our Government and all others who claim to assert public influence make doubly sure on all occasions that no element of rancour or exasperation affects their attitude to the human instruments of this terrible ideology called Communism. I can assure the noble Earl that he need have no fears that we shall fail to make our contribution—and I am speaking solemnly for the Government—if ever and whenever the Communists show any serious desire for relations of normal friendliness or mutual good faith, or show any signs of abandoning their present deliberate purpose of undermining ourselves and our Allies wherever they meet us in the world. That change of heart on their part is not visible at the present time. I am afraid, therefore, that that is not the situation we are discussing at the moment. As things are, it would be dishonest and misleading to give rise to the idea that in the eyes of His Majesty's Government a Christian policy means a policy of absolute pacifism. Pacific, yes; pacifist, no.

The noble Earl did not make completely plain his attitude on the question of disarmament. I think most of us felt that he was in favour of unilateral disarmament—the noble Earl shakes his head, so I understand that that is not his position. He seemed to suggest that if we were to show a completely friendly spirit, hostile nations would have to follow suit. That, I think, was his expression. I am afraid that our experience is that there has been no disposition on the part of these nations to follow suit when we have shown a friendly spirit throughout the last five years. The hand has often been outstretched; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, was absolutely right in what he said on that subject. So it is impossible, holding our responsibilities, to assume that there will be or can be, in the light of recent history, that kind of automatic response postulated by something deep and personal in the heart of the noble Earl.

When vast forces of evil are menacing the world and seeking to intimidate the free nations by the threat of force, we owe it as a duty to our own people, to other free peoples and to the millions who keep alive hope in their heart under the Communist tyranny, to see that the balance of strength lies everywhere (and particularly in the key situations) in the hands of those who loathe war and aggression, as we do, and would never make use of force except for defensive ends. There is much more that I should have liked to add. The Government are entirely at one with all who argue that Communism thrives on starved bodies and stunted minds, and that those who have power and strength and great resources must redouble their efforts to improve the conditions of life in Europe, in Asia, and in Africa. We must do everything we can to remove material obstacles to spiritual progress to win final victory over the materialist creed. That is our duty towards all to whom we have any responsibility, as we clearly recognise. But, alas! a huge portion of the world is to-day outside the control of the free nations. We must pray for all those in bondage; we must pray alike for the victims and for those who are oppressing them. We must be ceaselessly vigilant in seeking to preserve and extend where possible the area of freedom. We must struggle unremittingly towards the even- tual goal—the only goal of any satisfaction to Christians—a single world whose barriers have been torn down, a world where the Communists are ready to cooperate with the Christians and the Christians have corns forward to give them all the help in their power.

I would end by thanking the noble Earl for the candour of his expression and for the deep feeling which he has laid before the House. Frankly, to say more would be misleading and would give rise to the idea that what he has suggested this afternoon is something which the Government consider it practicable to follow. We do not. We think the noble Earl is completely impractical at present, but we do feel that nothing but good can come from the existence in this country of outstanding idealists like the noble Earl who will come to this House and tell us what they think, who are ready to listen to us, to our criticisms and to replies of Ministers and other members of the House. I am very grateful to the noble Earl.

5.43 p.m.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY

My Lords first of all I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood (I omitted referring to him in my speech) for his great kindness in coming to-day, and to express the appreciation which I always feel for all that he has done for this country and for the good of the world. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said so charmingly, politely and kindly to me, I feel that he and I and the other speakers, whom I also thank very much for their support, are slightly at cross-purposes. My speech was taken to be a kind of pacifist condemnation of the people of this country, but it was really intended to be nothing of the sort. It was meant to prove the difference between what we can do with our limited human minds, and what we can do if we trust in minds which are far superior to ours, which I have called Infinity or Eternity. That point of view was brought forward by several speakers.

The noble Lord, Lord Calverley, confined it to this country. I did not attempt to confine it to this country at all. He objected to my calling people miserable. Look at the newspapers and see whether the people are miserable. The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, talked about being tired of offering the right hand to Russia. You have got to go on supporting the right hand with the left until they are both worn out before you give up something like that. The evils from which Russia is suffering, and which she is inflicting upon the world because of that fact, are things that have all been brought about by human action, and therefore by human action ought to be unwound like the spring of a watch. That is an ordinary argument which may be applied to any evil-doer and any evil nation. That is the difficulty between the noble Lord who answered for the Government and myself: he believes in human limitation: I do not. I think that human limitation has brought us into this ghastly mess and we have got to believe in something else to help us out. Until we do, we shall stay in this filthy mess. I thank the noble Lord for the courteous way in which he has received my Motion. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken in favour, and sometimes doubtfully in favour. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.